Conference Agenda

Learning and well-being require psychological safety, an experience of fairness and well-functioning everyday structures (Edmondson 2018). Maintaining and developing the well-being of the school community (incl. students and staff) requires leadership (Maidelina 2023). The role of the principal extends to leading well-being, which is both a normatively justified obligation and a prerequisite for promoting pupils´learning and growth in schools. Finnish legislation directs schools to protect and enhance the well-being of pupils. School principals' leadership actions and practices have a significant impact on the well-being of the school community (Cann 2019).

The aim of well-being leadership at school is to improve everyday activities, which can improve peaceful working conditions in classrooms and reduce absences. Further, it strengthens the staff’s (e.g., teachers, assistants) ability to cope in their everyday work, which can be reflected in pupils' learning and motivation (Alves 2025). Thus, well-being leadership is crucial for the school to function and to reach its aims, and it is a skill that can be developed (Leithwood 2019). Further, involvement of the school community, in terms of influencing or engaging, serves as a key mechanism through which well-being is anchored in the everyday life of the school, strengthening both learning and the well-being of the community (Ott 2023).

Involvement can be understood both as a goal (the right to influence matters concerning oneself) and as a means (an operating method producing commitment and shared responsibility) (Booth 2002). When involvement is made part of the school's everyday life, e.g., through clear discussions between student and staff and regular feedback, the rules are perceived as fairer and practices work better (Conner 2025). Participatory structures help reveal hidden issues in daily school life, allowing small, timely changes before the issues grow into major problems (Thomas 2022). In this way, the leadership of well-being is linked to pedagogy, and pedagogy, in turn, is linked to, e.g. the teaching of group skills, communal responsibility and self-regulation.

Well-being leadership and learning are closely linked (Laursen 2025). Well-being is a basic prerequisite for learning, and learning can produce well-being (Seligman 2009). Participation is sometimes perceived to slow down decision-making, but previous research shows that criticism is primarily directed at unorganised and unstructured participation (Vroom 1988). Clearly constructed and lead processes related to participation can support the quality and fluency of decision-making even in complex operating environments, such as schools.

The successful leadership of goals set for increasing the well-being of schools is important for the entire school community (Toom 2018). The principal's task is to translate the goals into functional structures that produce positive effects. The principal has authority and the opportunity to steer the school's structures, such as schedules, resources, rules and feedback practices. These are used to lead both the operating culture and the routines in which pupils and people working in school meet. Naturally, the principal cannot lead well-being alone, which is why well-being leadership requires structures and a way of thinking about leadership from the perspective of well-being. The leadership style and the actions chosen by the principal are important for the well-being of the school community (Sudha 2016).

This paper introduces a study that aims to gain a better understanding of the well-being leadership in Finnish comprehensive schools. The study aims to identify the most important practices and actions for well-being leadership in schools, that Finnish principals report. Based on prior literature, the following research question was set:

What kind of leadership practices and actions do principals use for leading the wellbeing in schools?

School staff health and well-being matter not only for their own functioning at work, but also for the whole school and the education system (OECD, 2020). High principal and teacher job satisfaction is associated with occupational well-being, lower turnover intentions, and higher academic performance of students (Dicke et al., 2020). Principals and teachers work in close and continuous interaction, and emerging literature suggests that principals’ stress and strain can cross over to their teachers directly or through leadership practices (Westman, 2001). Principals’ health shape teachers’ emotional and psychological states and occupational wellbeing (Parent-Lamarche & Fernet, 2020; Sun & Yin, 2026; Westman & Etzion, 1999). Moreover, there is evidence that principal and teacher job satisfaction are highly interrelated (Dicke et al., 2020; Nalipay et al., 2024). However, research on these dynamics in educational contexts remains scarce and has primarily focused on the crossover processes of negative emotions and experiences (e.g. strain, burnout). Considerably less attention has been paid to the crossover mechanisms of positive experiences such as job satisfaction. By examining the positive transmission mechanisms from principals to teachers, this study advances our understanding of the relational processes that shape the occupational wellbeing of teachers. Additionally, the findings may inform the training of leadership skills and interventions that promote wellbeing among both teachers and principals.

Crossover theory (Westman, 2001) provides a useful framework for understanding how job satisfaction may be transmitted from principals to teachers. The theory defines crossover as transmission of stress, emotions, or experiences between people in a close relationship, including workplace relationships (Bakker et al., 2006, Westman, 2024). Crossover theory differentiates between three types of crossover processes: Direct, indirect, and spurious, where shared stressors are misinterpreted as crossover. The crossover process may happen through emotional contagion, where an empathetic reaction evokes similar reactions in another person (direct crossover). In school contexts, Nalipay et al. (2024) provided initial evidence of the crossover of job satisfaction from principals to teachers using TALIS data. Crossover processes may also unfold indirectly through social interaction, such as leadership practices (indirect crossover). To theoretically explain such indirect crossover processes, the present study draws on Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). According to JD–R theory, employees’ wellbeing and performance at the workplace are shaped by the balance between job demands and job resources, with high demands being associated with impaired well-being and abundant resources fostering positive outcomes such as job satisfaction. Accordingly, JD–R theory posits that principal well-being (i.e. job satisfaction) influences their capacity to enact high-quality leadership behaviors representing a job resource for their teachers and therefore, in turn promote the occupational well-being of their teachers (Skakon et al., 2010). Health-oriented leadership—which focuses on fostering supportive and health-promoting working conditions for employees (Franke et al., 2014)—may also represent one potential leadership behavior that serves as an indirect crossover mechanism through which principal job satisfaction is transmitted to teachers.

Drawing on crossover theory (Westman, 2001) and JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), this study sets out to explore two potential crossover mechanisms of job satisfaction: firstly, the direct transmission of principal job satisfaction on teacher job satisfaction; and secondly, the indirect crossover of job satisfaction through health-oriented leadership. Specifically, the contribution explores two research questions:

(1) Is principal job satisfaction associated with teacher job satisfaction (direct crossover)?

(2) Is principal job satisfaction indirectly associated with teacher job satisfaction through health-oriented leadership (indirect crossover)?

Across many high-income countries, the health and wellbeing (HWB) of children and young people has become a common political and educational concern, with wellbeing seen as essential for improved health, life chances, learning, and academic attainment (Spratt, 2017). In Scotland, HWB promotion is a curricular requirement in schools with the national education policy emphasising a coherent and consistent ‘whole school approach’ to supporting HWB and improving educational outcomes for pupils (Scottish Government, 2021). Whole school approaches acknowledge all aspects of the school as fundamental to HWB promotion (e.g., staff, pupils, parents, school ethos and environment), with school leaders considered essential because of their knowledge of the school context, needs, and available resources as well as their influence on school organisation, strategies, and practices (Cann et al., 2020; Day et al., 2016).

In education, two frequently examined leadership models are transformational and pedagogical leadership styles (Day et al., 2020). Transformational leadership involves practices that aim to facilitate organisational change through inspiring alignment and buy-in around a shared vision, culture, and goals. Transformational leadership styles have been described as ones where the prime focus should be on developing relationships, building a collaborative culture, and motivating their organisation to work toward a shared vision (Robinson et al., 2009). Alternatively, pedagogical leadership is often more focused on the practical, environmental, and material conditions that impact teaching and learning (Day et al., 2020), such as creating a disruption-free environment, clarifying goals and expectations, using funding and resources strategically, and building capacity through professional development. Pedagogical leadership styles have been described as ones where the prime focus should be on enhancing the quality of teaching and learning to achieve improved pupil outcomes (Day et al., 2016). While sometimes presented as a dichotomy (Robinson et al., 2009), transformational and pedagogical leadership styles are not mutually exclusive. In fact, research suggests that school leaders use the same practices regardless of leadership style, and that when leaders can integrate different leadership models this may be more effective for school practice (Leithwood et al., 2020).

However, whole school approaches are complex as individual schools will face distinct contextual factors which can enable or constrain action. One context which has been shown to pose unique challenges are schools serving pupils from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, with research suggesting that when school practices are not carefully considered, they could inadvertently reinforce or even amplify existing social, economic, and educational inequities (McNeven et al., 2024; Moore et al., 2017). This implies that pupils from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds could be marginalised in more affluent schools where they are in the minority. This is significant because most pupils in Scotland attend mixed or affluent schools; yet there has been limited research examining school context and socioeconomic composition and how this may influence the actions of educators as they interpret and enact HWB policy. Therefore, this study explored how leaders in an affluent Scottish secondary school thought through their context, approaches to support wellbeing, and attempts to balance different needs when there is more socioeconomic diversity. Furthermore, the study also examined how such approaches influenced the broader culture and practice of promoting whole school HWB. To do so, the study answered the following two research questions:

1. What do school leaders do to support HWB within their context?
2. How are these leadership practices perceived by educators to support whole school HWB promotion in their specific context?