The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-354X.htm

IJEM
37,2 Teachers’ perceptions of school
principals’ role in tackling the
pandemic crisis
350 Antonios Kafa
Received 1 February 2022
Open University of Cyprus, Latsia, Cyprus
Revised 18 April 2022
6 July 2022
3 October 2022
Abstract
13 December 2022 Purpose – This paper reports the findings of a qualitative study on teachers’ perspective about school
Accepted 13 December 2022 principals’ role during the pandemic in the context of Greece. In particular, information is provided on
school principals’ communication and leadership aspects in tackling the pandemic crisis as well as the
obstacles observed in this particular setting.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected through the focus group interview tool and included
19 teachers from primary and secondary education in Greece. Due to the circumstances of the pandemic crisis,
the interview process was held using the Zoom software environment. The data collection tools included a
common semi-structured interview protocol developed specifically for this study based on the current
theoretical sources of school principals’ role in tackling the pandemic crisis.
Findings – The findings of this study indicated the important aspects of trust, collaboration, and positive
climate, together with school principals’ external dimension that included the outreach of the local
community, parents, private organizations, etc. during the pandemic crisis. Finally, obstacles connected
to the students’ lack of technological equipment were also observed and addressed by school principals.
Research limitations/implications – The findings of this study could not be generalized since the study
proceeded with convenience sampling. Furthermore, the data were collected while the world was in
lockdown during the second pandemic wave.
Originality/value – This piece of research adds to the empirical aspect of school principals’ role during the
pandemic crisis from a different perspective and reports that researching school principals’ role in tackling
crises has grown considerably.
Keywords Teachers, School principals, Crisis, Pandemic crisis
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The crisis of COVID-19 affected education systems around the globe and changed the
traditional teaching and learning process in school organizations. Distance learning and
teaching modes, in particular, were introduced with upheavals and changes in the
educational process. In fact, even if this remote mode was implemented in the teaching
and learning process, when emergency circumstances were presented (US Department of
Education, 1996), it was clearly stated that the introduction of a distance learning mode, in
this particular setting, revealed how unprepared all the education systems were in terms of
infrastructure and staff training. Overall, educational practices were dramatically altered
(Harris, 2020) in more than 200 countries, affecting almost 1.6 billion learners (Pokhler
and Chhetri, 2021). It is generally agreed that during this pandemic crisis, teachers in
school organizations had the most important role to play since they had undertaken the
difficult task of transforming their conventional teaching into a distance or online
environment. Recent research studies indicated that the pandemic crisis placed pressure
on teachers and school

International Journal of © Antonios Kafa. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative
Educational Management
Vol. 37 No. 2, 2023
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create
pp. 350-360 derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
Emerald Publishing Limited
0951-354X
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://
DOI 10.1108/IJEM-02-2022-0056 creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
principals (e.g., Walls and Seashore, 2021), whilst other recent research studies revealed
the teachers’ challenges of adjusting to new circumstances and the complexities of School
meeting students’ needs remotely while maintaining high academic expectations (e.g., principals’ role
Burgin et al., 2021). At the other end of the spectrum, school principals had an important during crisis
role to play concerning the outbreak of the pandemic crisis and emerged as a significant
source of influence on students’ learning outcomes (Harris, 2020; Netolicky, 2020; Kafa and
Pashiardis, 2020; Kafa, 2021). In particular, school principals had to maintain their 351
leadership dynamic
and guidance to navigate through this particular crisis. Although in the scientific field of
educational leadership current studies are moving forward from the conceptualization of
the pandemic crisis to empirical results, by providing information on how school
principals reacted during this pandemic crisis, limited to no existing research data
presented on teachers’ perspective on how their school principals dealt with this particular
crisis and to what extent a support was provided to them. Therefore, the theoretical lens
that guided this study was based on the conceptual approach to the topic, as mentioned
above and as mentioned in the following sections of this paper. In particular, existing
conceptual information and theories argued about the important role of school principals
during crises and times of uncertainty and supported how school principalship was
redefined through the pandemic crisis. Yet, answers to this particular statement through
empirical research studies are limited. Furthermore, answers about this particular topic
must be provided from the multiple perspectives of the various school stakeholders. Based
on the above statements, this study comes to highlight the role of school principals in
tackling the pandemic crisis through the perspective of teachers in various school
organizations in Greece. Yet, is important to mention that the findings of this study could
not be generalized since the study proceeded with convenience sampling. Therefore, based
on what has been presented, this research study provides answers to the following research
questions:
(1) How did school principals communicate with teachers in tackling the pandemic
crisis?
(2) What kind of leadership aspects were promoted in tackling the pandemic crisis
from teachers’ perspective?
(3) What were the main obstacles that school principals had to face during the
pandemic crisis from teachers’ perspective?

School principals’ role in crisis tackling: insights from the literature The pandemic
crisis of this “supernova” force, as characterized by Azor'ın (2020), significantly altered the
education landscape and redefined the role of school principals and teaching staff.
Specifically, teachers took the important role of supporting the teaching and learning
process through unknown paths. Based on that, teachers have experienced significant,
negative impacts on various aspects of their work (Wronowski et al., 2021). Decades ago,
Hamblin (1958) argued in his work that managers and leaders are the most important
aspects during a crisis, and therefore, their followers are more easily influenced by them.
Therefore, crisis is a crucial aspect that enables the organization to be more creative and
even, sometimes, to provide an opportunity to change itself into a better one. Based on
that, leaders have an important duty that includes minimizing the harm to the staff and
ensuring the overall recovery and survival of the organization (Smith and Riley, 2012).
What is more important is the fact that in any particular crisis, a leader has the opportunity
to deviate from the status quo and be innovative in order to address the crisis (Halverson et al.,
2004). Yet, a substantial observation in school organizations in relation to the outbreak of a
crisis is the confusion between actual crises and school problems. Much of the literature
on “crisis” is connected to
IJEM well-known, predictable events and challenges in school organizations and does not fit the
37,2 generally accepted definition of a crisis (Smith and Riley, 2012). In other words, crises in
schools mostly refer to problems occurring in the school organizations, rather than actual
urgent situations, such as the global pandemic of COVID-19. Having said that, the need
for supporting school principals in crisis handling or in “crisis management” is important
(James et al., 2011). Based on the aforementioned, current literature (e.g., Bartsch et al., 2021)
352 supports that there is a research gap concerning effective leadership in crisis
situations. School
principals during a crisis need to understand the necessity of information, collaboration
and immediate response. In other words, school principals are expected to organize an
effective, timely and legitimate response in times of deep uncertainty (Ansell and Boin,
2019). In fact, during a crisis, school principals must promote adequate practices to
address the crisis rather than simply repeating previous leadership practices that is
considered “good leadership,” as these practices may result in a failure to respond
adequately to the crisis (Probert and Turnbull James, 2011). These specific practices and
competencies include important aspects such as emotional stability, external collaboration,
communication and trust building, concrete decision-making process, accountability and
autonomy. More specifically, during a crisis, school principals need to move beyond any
emotional responses that could include fear, denial, anxiety and stress and act in
extraordinary ways (James et al., 2011). Moreover, researchers (e.g., Harris and Jones,
2020; Sutherland, 2017) demonstrated the important aspect of collaboration with external
school stakeholders during a crisis. In particular, referring to the community as a key
resource with capacity, knowledge and additional expertise during this pandemic crisis. In
addition, communication and trust issues support the tackling of any crisis. For Lockwood
(2005), effective communication and building trust determine the success or failure of
crisis management efforts, whilst effective internal communication practices could in fact
provide a supportive work environment during a crisis and can thus increase employees’
intrinsic needs satisfaction (Lee et al., 2020). Also, in another study in school organization by
Twyford and Le Fevre (2019), the researchers indicated that the concept of trust between
teachers and the school principal was necessary for them to share their vulnerability, and
take risks when uncertainty was high. What is more important, however, is the presence of a
concrete decision-making process during a crisis. In fact, Ansell and Boin (2019) refer to this
process as the epitome of all the rest of the actions, since this particular one covers all the
above. A crisis situation influences heavily on the organization’s functioning, and this kind
of situation requires a fast-decision-making process from the leader (Calogero and Yasin,
2011). In particular, the decision-making process refers to the important aspect of strategic
decisions that are legitimate and effective and could in fact address a crisis both in the short
and the long run, whilst Boin and Lagadec (2000) mentioned that during crisis handling, the
decision-making process is considered a fundamental aspect. Therefore, a leader’s ability to
address the crisis effectively based on his/her decision process and system is of paramount
importance. Finally, during times of crisis, school principals could navigate the following:
accountability and autonomy, equity and excellence, the individual and the collective,
well-being and workload (Netolicky, 2020).

The case of Greece during the pandemic crisis Before

proceeding to the main research study, it was considered appropriate to present some
information on how the Greek educational system dealt with the pandemic crisis. This was
deemed appropriate since this research study collected data from school teachers in the
public schools of Greece. The initial closure of educational institutions in Greece was
announced in mid-March, 2020 and affected all levels of public and private institutions. In
fact, Greece was one of the first countries to impose closures on all educational institutions
in an effort to minimize the risk of spreading the virus (Argyropoulou et al., 2021). In
particular, in a matter
of days, the COVID-19 crisis changed the way Greek students are educated in school
organizations. According to Papazoglou and Koutouzis (2020), the Greek Ministry of School
Education, after the school closures, responded to this crisis by developing and effectively principals’ role
implementing a distance learning environment, in an effort to provide a continuation of during crisis
the educational process. In particular, in both primary and secondary schools, e-learning
platforms and tools were offered free to all school organizations. The overall distance learning
program, as it was introduced by the Ministry of Education in Greece, included both 353
synchronous, such as online classroom lessons, and asynchronous learning, such as online
channels without real-time interaction, together with educational TV programs
(Papazoglou and Koutouzis, 2020). In each school organization, this particular learning
program was adapted by the school principals and teachers according to the specific needs
of every case (Papazoglou and Koutouzis, 2020). As in any case, when shifting from the
conventional teaching environment to an online teaching environment, school
organizations in Greece faced a lot of organizational and structural problems
(Argyropoulou et al., 2021). School principals in Greece, were mandated to work in school
organizations during the closure of all educational institutions and be in constant
communication and collaboration with the authorities in order to normalize the situation
(Argyropoulou et al., 2021). In general, Greece has a centralized education system and the
role of the central government has been rather facilitating since the limited time to address
this unprecedented crisis has led school organizations to use their relative autonomy in an
effective and innovative way (Papazoglou and Koutouzis, 2020), together with the
regulations and tools that were offered by the Ministry of Education.

Methods
In order to provide answers to the three main research questions that guided this research
study, the qualitative research example was followed. Specifically, since this study wanted to
highlight the role of the school principal in tackling the pandemic crisis through the
perspective of teachers, the qualitative approach was deemed appropriate. Scholars around
the world have found mechanisms to study crisis topics (James et al., 2011). In fact, James et al.
(2011) argued that the most suitable research method for studying crises is the qualitative
research approach. The qualitative research aspect can provide researchers with the
opportunity to capture significant details and insight into a crisis phenomenon, either as it
is unfolding or even retrospectively. Also, a narrative methodological design was selected since
the intention was to “interpret the stories people tell” (Feldman et al., 2004, p. 148). Therefore,
in this particular study, two different focus group interviews were conducted with
experienced educators who worked during the pandemic crisis in school organizations in
Greece, under the supervision of school principals. The convenient sampling technique
was selected in this study, since the participants consisted of students who participate in
the postgraduate master’s program “MA in Educational Leadership and Administration” in
a private university. The selection and participation of the sample (19 school teachers) was
formed after an invitation to take part in these focus groups on a voluntary basis.
Specifically, the invitation was addressed to all 34 active school teachers who were
studying in the postgraduate master’s program and worked in a school organization during
the pandemic crisis. The first focus group included nine teachers from the primary education
sector, and the second focus group included 10 teachers from the secondary education sector.
A total sample of 19 school teachers participated in the focus groups. Specifically, in the 1st
focus group, nine female teachers from primary education participated (N 5 9), whilst in
the 2nd focus group,
eight female and two male teachers from secondary education participated (N 5 10).
Therefore, all the participants are actively school teachers, both in primary and secondary
education, and volunteer to take part in this study. Also, this study was performed during
the
IJEM lockdown of the 2nd wave and it is connected to the teachers’ views on school leadership
37,2 during the pandemic crisis and is not directly related to school principals, hence the
absence of data from the school principals. According to Gundumogula (2020), focus
groups are considered an extended form or a more specific in-depth group interview of the
traditional interview process of the qualitative paradigm. Furthermore, the participants of
the focus group are chosen individuals, in this case, school teachers, who are
354 knowledgeable and experienced about the subject under consideration and who can
contribute to the indented
topic in order to elicit the necessary data (Gundumogula, 2020). The data collection tools
included a common semi-structured interview protocol developed specifically for this
study based on the current theoretical sources of school principals’ role in tackling the
pandemic crisis. In particular, the interview protocols consisted of 21 open questions about
the way in which school principals communicated with teachers during the crisis, the
leadership aspects that were communicated with teachers in order to tackle the crisis as
well as the main obstacles that school principals faced during the crisis from the teachers’
perspective. In particular, for the 1st research question, seven questions were formed (e.g. Q:
Did your school principal foster the framework of trust and cooperation during this crisis?
Give us some examples; Q: Was there a continuous and an ongoing communication? Give us
some examples). For the 2nd research question, another seven questions were formed (e.g.
Q: What kind of support did it offer you for your professional training and development in this
new context of distance education? Q: In the case of insufficient technological equipment for
students, did the school principal take any steps to obtain resources? (e.g. cooperation with
competent bodies, cooperation with other organizations; Q: Did you feel that your school
principal made clear decisions about issues related to this crisis? Q: Was there a division
of responsibilities and participatory decision-making on school topics related to the
pandemic?). Finally, for the 3rd research question another seven questions were formed (Q:
What were the general difficulties and obstacles your school principal faced in this crisis?; Q:
What kind of difficulties/obstacles arose between the director and the Ministry of Education
during information/communication about pandemic issues?). In March 2021, data were
collected during a two-day online meeting using the Zoom platform. In the next phase of the
study, both focus groups were fully transcribed and coded into themes and patterns based
on the three presented research questions. The collected data were specifically analyzed
using an open coding analysis followed by a detailed coding analysis. In particular, tables
were created by presenting information based on each research question. After the
transcription of the two focus groups, themes emerged from the text, by analyzing the
meaning of words and sentence structure were presented into each created table
representing the three research questions. In particular, an inductive coding process
was followed in which the coding was created from scratch based on the collected
information from the focus groups. A three-fold coding frame (CF), concerning the
response to the pandemic crisis, was created based on the aforementioned three research
questions (CF1: School principals’ communication aspects with teachers, CF2: School
principals’ leadership practices and CF3: School principals’ main obstacles). For each
coding frame, codes were added based on the responses of the participants, and the main
findings are presented.

Main findings
Following are the main findings as formed by the three research questions of this study.

School principals’ communication aspects with teachers in tackling the pandemic crisis
Concerning the first research question, all school teachers (N 5 19) indicated the
uncertainty and anxiety faced by their school principals, as there were no guidelines to
support this sudden change of school closure. According to these school teachers, there
was uncertainty with regard to the number of days for school closures. For instance, School
school principals indicated that the schools would remain closed for 10 days, but they principals’ role
were uncertain since the Ministry of Education did not inform the school principals. In during crisis
particular, 15 participants supported the notion that this particular aspect provided a
disorganized environment in their school organization and the school principals. For
instance, school principals were informed about the school closures with an official e-mail 355
and, in some cases, through a phone call from the Ministry of Education. In some other
cases, the information was coming from media sources rather than from the school
internally, since a lack of information toward school principals led to a lack of information
for school teachers. In addition, school teachers supported that school principals did not
have a clear plan or guidelines on how to transform the conventional teaching and learning
process into a remote one. A particular school principal did not take the initiative to
address the challenges that occurred in his/her school but rather was waiting for the
official guidelines and updates on how to proceed. Yet, all other school principals, as
indicated by the participants of the study, took initiatives such as sending informative e-
mails to students’ parents. In addition, school principals communicated with school
teachers at the very start of the pandemic using social media as well as phone applications
such as Facebook, Viber and WhatsApp. Most school principals, in particular nine school
principals, utilize this aspect in order to communicate with their school teachers and find
solutions to various problems. Also, to a lesser extent, school principals used the Skype
software for initial communication with the teachers. Finally, as derived from the results,
some of the school principals with limited digital capacity were using e-mail and the
phone for communication with their teachers.

School principals’ leadership aspects in tackling the pandemic crisis from teachers’
perspective
With regard to the second research question, most of the teachers, in particular 16
teachers that took part in the study indicated that school principals maintained their
leadership under the legislation of the Ministry of Education. Specifically, teachers
mentioned that school principals informed them to “work and keep everything by the law”.
In other words, school principals were cautious about taking decisions in the students’
interests based on the framework to address the crisis, as it was provided by the Ministry
of Education. Furthermore, an important leadership aspect that emerged had to do with
the aspects of trust and collaboration between the school principal and the teaching staff
during this particular crisis. According to teachers, in particular 13 teachers, the concept
of trust and closed collaboration, even by distance, as it was promoted by school
principals, supported the emotional aspect and provided teachers the opportunity to work
effectively. This climate of collaboration and strong organization by school principals
during this crisis was reflected on students. In some cases, as mentioned by school
teachers, the school principals created smaller groups with the participation of teachers,
and each group was assigned, for example, to address the ongoing problems in school
organizations or to address the pedagogical aspect of the new distance learning
environment, etc. Finally, the findings indicated that school principals promoted an
external leadership dimension that supported the crisis that occurred in their school
organizations. Specifically, the majority of teachers, in particular 17 teachers, supported
the school principals’ external dimension by including the following: 1) contact local
stores and businesses to assist students in their lack of technological equipment
(i.e., tablets, internet access) and 2) close collaboration with local communities to assist
students in their lack of technological equipment.
IJEM School principals’ main obstacles in tackling the pandemic crisis from teachers’ perspective
37,2 Finally, concerning the third research question, all school teachers (N 5 19) indicated that the main
obstacle that school principals had to face was related to students’ access to
technological equipment in order to follow the online teaching environment. In particular,
teachers from primary education mentioned that students faced more problems since most of
them were lacking computers and tablets for their distance lessons. On the contrary, students
356 from secondary education used their mobile phones to take part in the online lessons. Having
said that, primary school principals had to deal with the technological infrastructure barrier
and find solutions. An additional obstacle was the students’ connectivity and technological
issues. Furthermore, all teachers mentioned the lack of training on using the WebEx software
for the online lessons and how school principals, in some cases, designed in-house training for
the teaching staff with teachers or other colleagues with knowledge of educational
technology. Finally, an obstacle that arose was students in specific groups (students with
special needs, etc.) and whether school principals could deal with or handle these
particular students.

Discussion This
particular piece of research adds to the empirical aspect of school principals’ role during
the pandemic crisis from a different perspective. Based on the literature, limited to
nonexisting information is presented for this particular research topic. For instance,
Karakose et al. (2021) studied the school principals’ role, from the teachers’ perspectives, only
concerning the digital/technological aspect. Also, Wronowski et al. (2021) examined the
impact of teacher influence in the decision-making process during the crisis of COVID-19 and
their perspectives on school principals’ support on their self-efficacy and autonomy during
the crisis. Overall, the presented findings support the notion of Papazoglou and Koutouzis
(2020), who mention that this particular change in the educational landscape in Greek schools
has brought much-needed innovation. In particular, the findings revealed that school
principals in the Greek context faced a number of challenges, mostly concerning
communication and informative guidance between the Ministry of Education and school
principals, something that was observed in a similar centralized education system, that of
Cyprus (Kafa and Pashiardis, 2020). A centralized education system provides structure
and guidance. Yet, in this particular context, this did not work very well. This particular
finding is also connected to the centralized education system of Cyprus, in which the large
number of circulars on a daily basis led to confusion (Kafa and Pashiardis, 2020).
Overall, school principals, as supported by the teachers, utilized a number of
communication tools, in particular using social media and other phone applications, in
order to keep in touch and organize their following steps concerning the crisis. This
particular finding is contradicted by a study by Argyropoulou et al. (2021), who stressed
that school principals’ communication between teachers, parents and students was
realized through telephone, email and teleconferences instead of social media and
phone applications. Yet, the communication aspect during a crisis is one important
leadership aspect (e.g. Lee et al., 2020; Ansell and Boin, 2019) and it was revealed, as well,
in this particular study. In addition, the findings indicated that school principals promoted
the aspects of trust, collaboration, emotional support and overall positive climate within
their school organizations. According to literature, the aforementioned competencies
support the leader’s effort to address a crisis, including the COVID-19 crisis (e.g. Fener and
Cevik, 2015; Wooten and James, 2008; Harris and Jones, 2020; Ahlstr€om et al., 2020). This
particular finding is also demonstrated in a study performed in Greece, in which school
principals emphasized the support, trust, and collaboration among the school organization’s
members (Argyropoulou et al., 2021). Also, this particular finding is connected to current
research studies concerning school principals’ roles during the crisis, in
various contexts such as that of Sweden, Cyprus, England, etc. ( A€ rlestig et al., 2021).
Another important finding that emerged from this study was the school principals’ external
School
leadership dimension in order to tackle various aspects of this crisis. This external principals’ role
dimension includes the outreach of the local community, parents, private organizations, during crisis
etc. This particular external leadership dimension in order to address the COVID-19 crisis
was supported in literature, both theoretically and empirically in various contexts (e.g., Harris
and Jones, 2020; Angelico, 2020; Ho and Yong Tray, 2020; Azor'ın, 2020; Kafa, 2021). In 357
addition, beyond the
pandemic crisis, the literature supports the significant dynamic of school principals’
relationships with local communities (Sutherland, 2017) and it is connected to the
entrepreneurial leadership skills (Brauckmann – Sajkiewicz and Pashiardis, 2020;
Brauckmann and Pashiardis, 2011; Pashiardis, 2014) of a school principal who achieves
collaboration with a range of potential school stakeholders and acquires different resources
so that the school organization operates and runs smoothly (Brauckmann – Sajkiewicz and
Pashiardis, 2020). In addition, concerning the main obstacles that school principals faced
during the crisis, the most important finding was connected to the students’ lack of
technological equipment. Based on that, school principals, as mentioned above, promoted the
external dimension to support this obstacle. In a previous study in Greece by
Argyropoulou et al. (2021), technological obstacles, which included students’ lack of
equipment, were faced by the Ministry of Education rather than the promotion of an
external leadership dimension, as revealed in this study. Finally, teachers, from their own
perspective, argued about the lack of training on using the Webex software (online software
for teaching in Greece) and reported that, in some cases, the school principals designed in-
house training for the teaching staff with teachers or other colleagues with knowledge of
educational technology and promoted the professional development leadership style as
presented in the literature (Brauckmann and Pashiardis, 2011; Pashiardis, 2014).

Conclusion and implications

Currently, there is an increasing degree of reference about the school principals’ role
during the pandemic crisis. School principals had an important role to play concerning the
outbreak of the pandemic crisis and emerged as a significant source of influence (Harris,
2020; Netolicky, 2020; Kafa, 2021) in order to maintain their leadership dynamic and
guidance to navigate through this particular crisis. Even if the world is still dealing with
this particular invisible enemy, future steps in school principals’ skills and capacity
building in the post pandemic era must be taken into consideration. In fact, the discussion
of this capacity building could be derived both from the literature through a theoretical and
an empirical perspective of the educational leadership field in the last three years (2020–
2022). Based on the aforementioned, this particular paper presented findings concerning
the empirical aspect of school principals’ role in tackling the pandemic crisis from teachers’
perspectives. Based on the findings presented in this particular study, the following pillars
could act as school principals’ developmental skills in the post-pandemic era in crisis
handling and overall concerning the effective school leadership aspect within school
organizations. The 1st pillar refers to school principals’ digital and technological skills by
promoting them both as “digital coordinators” (fostering strong digital communication with
the various internal and external school stakeholders) and “digital pedagogical school
leaders” (providing support to teachers in integrating digital technologies into their
teaching and promoting the implementation of digital learning communities among
teaching staff). Additionally, the 2nd pillar refers to the entrepreneurial leadership skills
that could assist school principals during crises and times of uncertainty by acquiring
various external recourses that support the effects of the crisis on their school
organizations. Finally, the 3rd pillar refers to the school principals’ development of
holistic leadership skills (e.g., trust, communication system, etc.) that could lead to the
IJEM success of addressing a crisis. At the same time, this holistic leadership skills’ pillar could
37,2 include school principals’ support to assist students in specific groups during crises. These
particular pillars could act as an important training aspect for all the practitioners and
education policy across the contexts in order to support school principals’ developmental
skills in the post-pandemic era in crisis handling. To sum up, in order to enhance school
principals’ capabilities, governments and educational policymakers across the world
358 should rethink the role of school principals in this post-COVID-19 era. In general, these
particular
skills could support school leadership in the following years. This could be implemented
by increasing training, seminars and professional development series with the participation
of governmental and other private bodies (e.g., private companies, government agencies
and universities) specializing in various aspects of supporting the development of school
principals’ skills. For example, in the Italian context, higher education institutes supported
the other educational settings (primary and secondary education) through their own
expertise and provided the necessary professional development to ensure the basics of this
new online learning environment (Girelli et al., 2021). Also, another example derived
from Cyprus, is the Cyprus Pedagogical Institute (whose main activities focus on teachers’
and school principals’ pre-service and in-service training), which collaborated with the Ministry
of Education, together with the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digital Policy to
implement the e-learning process across Cyprus (Kafa and Pashiardis, 2020). Moreover, in the
event of a crisis, societies governments and educational policymakers need to adjust their
budget allocation to all school organizations in order to support school principals in
assisting the school organization’s needs. Also, further research based on this study is
being proposed, both in centralized and decentralized education systems, in order to
proceed with the generalization of the findings, and then further support the implications
sector both for educational policy and school principals. In addition, future research could
incorporate the pillars derived from this study in order to identify common grounds with
other centralized and decentralized education systems in order to support school
principals’ role in tackling a crisis. Finally, based on the collective findings from different
contexts concerning school principals’ role in addressing the pandemic crisis, we can
infuse through technology various simulation activities for future school principals. This
particular aspect includes school principals’ professional training programs that has
already been introduced in the literature by research studies contributing to school
principals’ ethical dilemmas in school organizations (Iftach and Shapira-Lishchinsky,
2021; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2015).

References
Ahlstr€om, B., Leo, U., Norqvist, L. and Isling, P.P. (2020), “School leadership as (Un)usual,
insights from principals in Sweden during a pandemic”, International Studies in Educational
Administration, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 35-41.
Angelico, T. (2020), “Educational inequality and the pandemic in Australia: time to shift the
educational paradigm”, International Studies in Educational Administration, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 46-53.
Ansell, C. and Boin, A. (2019), “Taming deep uncertainty: the potential of pragmatist principles for
understanding and improving strategic crisis management”, Administration and Society,
Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 1079-1112.
Argyropoulou, E., Hentrietta Syka, C. and Papaioannou, M. (2021), “School leadership in dire straits:
fighting the virus or challenging the consequences?”, International Studies in Educational
Administration, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 18-27.
A€rlestig, H., Breslin, T., Johansson, O., Gombe, L. and Pashiardis, P. (2021), “Striving for stability
in the chaos: school principals and COVID-19”, Paper presented at the UCEA Convention,
Columbus, OH, United States, 11-14 November.
Azor'ın, C. (2020), “Beyond COVID-19 supernova. Is another education coming?”, Journal of
Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, pp. 381-390. School
Bartsch, S., Weber, E., Bu€ttgen, M. and Huber, A. (2021), “Leadership matters in crisis-induced principals’ role
digital transformation: how to lead service employees effectively during the COVID-19 during crisis
pandemic”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Boin, A. and Lagadec, P. (2000), “Preparing for the future: critical challenges in crisis management”,
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 8, pp. 185-191.
Burgin, X., Daniel, M. and Wasonga, T. (2021), “Survival: teachers’ perspectives on teaching and 359
learning during the pandemic”, Paper presented at the UCEA Convention, Columbus, OH,
United States, 11-14 November.
Brauckmann, S. and Pashiardis, P. (2011), “A validation study of the leadership styles of a holistic
leadership theoretical framework”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 25 No.
1, pp. 11-32.
Brauckmann – Sajkiewicz, S. and Pashiardis, P. (2020), “Entrepreneurial leadership in schools:
linking creativity with accountability”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol.
25 No. 5, pp. 787-801, doi: 10.1080/13603124.2020.1804624.
Calogero, A. and Yasin, H. (2011), Crisis Leadership: How to Cope with Uncertainty and Chaos –
An Optimistic View, Linaeus University Publications.
Feldman, M.S., Sk€oldberg, K., Brown, R.N. and Horner, D. (2004), “Making sense of stories: a
rhetorical approach to narrative analysis”, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 147-170.
Fener, T. and Cevik, T. (2015), “Leadership in crisis management: separation of leadership and
executive concepts”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 26, pp. 695-701.
Girelli, C., Bevilacqua, A. and Acquaro, D. (2021), “COVID-19: what have we learned from Italy’s education
system lockdown?”, International Studies in Educational Administration, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 51-58.
Gundumogula, M. (2020), “Importance of focus groups in qualitative research”, International Journal
of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 8 No. 11, pp. 299-302.
Halverson, S.K., Elaine Murphy, S. and Riggio, R. (2004), “Charismatic leadership in crisis
situations a laboratory investigation of stress and crisis”, Small Group Research, Vol. 35 No. 5,
pp. 495-514.
Hamblin, R.L. (1958), “Leadership and crisis”, Sociometry, Vol. 21, pp. 322-335.
Harris, A. (2020), “COVID-19 – school leadership in crisis?”, Journal of Professional Capital and
Community, Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, pp. 321-326.
Harris, A. and Jones, M. (2020), “COVID 19 – school leadership in disruptive times”, School Leadership
& Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 243-247.
Ho, J. and Yong Tray, L. (2020), “Ensuring learning continues during a pandemic”, International
Studies in Educational Administration, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 49-55.
Iftach, G. and Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2021), “Ethical dilemmas among mid-level school leaders
through role-play simulations: developing a social-ecological approach”, Educational
Management Administration and Leadership. doi: 10.1177/17411432211002517.
James, E.H., Wooten, L.P. and Dushek, K. (2011), “Crisis management: informing a new leadership
research agenda”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 455-493.
Kafa, A. (2021), “Advancing school leadership in times of uncertainty: the case of the global
pandemic crisis”, Leading and Managing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Kafa, A. and Pashiardis, P. (2020), “Coping with the global pandemic COVID-19 through the lenses
of the Cyprus education system”, International Studies in Educational Administration, Vol.
48 No. 2, pp. 42-48.
Karakose, T., Polat, H. and Papadakis, S. (2021), “Examining teachers’ perspectives on school
principals’ digital leadership roles and technology capabilities during the COVID-19
pandemic”, Sustainability, Vol. 13, pp. 1-20.
IJEM Lee, Y., Tao, W., Queenie Li, J.Y. and Sun, R. (2020), “Enhancing employees’ knowledge sharing
37,2 through diversity-oriented leadership and strategic internal communication during the
COVID-19 outbreak”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1526-1549.
Lockwood, N.R. (2005), “Crisis management in today’s business environment: HR’s strategic role”, SHRM
Research Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-10, available at: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-
magazine/documents/1205rquartpdf.pdf
360 Netolicky, D. (2020), “School leadership during a pandemic: navigating tensions”, Journal of
Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 5 Nos 3/4m, pp. 391-395.
Papazoglou, A. and Koutouzis, M. (2020), “Responding to a crisis: Greek Education renovated”, Digital
Culture and Education, (ISSN 1836- 8301), available at: https://www.digitalcultureandeducation.
com/reflections-on-covid19/greek-education-renovated (accessed 12 December 2021).
Pashiardis, P. (Ed.) (2014), Modeling School Leadership Across Europe: In Search of New Frontiers,
Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London.
Pokhler, S. and Chhetri, R. (2021), “A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on
teaching and learning”, Higher Education for the Future, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 133-141.
Probert, J. and Turnbull James, K. (2011), “Leadership development: crisis, opportunities and the
leadership concept”, Leadership, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 137-150.
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2015), “Simulation-based constructivist approach for education leaders”,
Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 972-988.
Smith, L. and Riley, D. (2012), “School leadership in times of crisis”, School Leadership and
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Sutherland, I.E. (2017), “Learning and growing: trust, leadership, and response to crisis”, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 2-17.
Twyford, K. and Le Fevre, D. (2019), “Leadership, uncertainty and risk: how leaders influence
teachers”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 309-324.
U.S. Department of Education (1996), “Getting America’s students ready for the 21st century:
meeting the technology literacy challenge. A report to the nation on technology and
education”, available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED398899.pdf (accessed 15 December
2021).
Walls, J. and Seashore, K. (2021), “Moral distress amongst district leaders: intensity, dilemmas, and
coping mechanisms”, Paper presented at the UCEA Convention, Columbus, OH, United
States, 11-14 November.
Wooten, L.P. and James, E.H. (2008), “Linking crisis management and leadership competencies:
the role of human resource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 352-379.
Wronowski, M., Olive, J.L., Galfer, E. and Brown, G. (2021), “Views from the pandemic frontlines:
teacher perceptions of classroom autonomy and efficacy during COVID-19”, Paper presented
at the UCEA Convention, Columbus, OH, United States, 11-14 November.

Corresponding author
Antonios Kafa can be contacted at: antonios.kafa@ouc.ac.cy

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com