Primary school leadership in Malaysia: The experience of stress among deputy heads

Abstract

Unquestionably, studies focusing on school leaders’ stress while managing schools have received extensive attention. However, there is still a lack of research focusing on deputies’ stress, even though deputies play an essential role in a school’s improvement process. Despite deputies’ dual roles, it is an accepted fact that deputies do experience stress while simultaneously dealing with their ‘superiors’, fulfilling their administrative tasks and helping teachers to work at their fullest capacity. Based on these two noteworthy premises, this mixed-methods study was designed to explore and address whether dealing with educational superiors causes stress to primary deputies. Regarding the sample, 120 deputies from across 45 primary public schools in two urban districts were selected as respondents for the study. Regarding the quantitative data, the non-parametric and descriptive statistics were employed in determining deputies’ views of their superiors. Further, eleven deputies were interviewed, and their anonymity was also protected to sustain the ethical considerations of the study. As expected, truculent attitudes and criticisms from school inspectors and parents were highlighted by deputies as contributing to their experiences of stress, with the levels of stress being classified as ‘moderate’ based on their demographic differences. Surprisingly, primary deputies revealed that they do not face much stress when working with their own head teachers; in fact, primary deputies informally revealed that their heads were quite open and understanding of their viewpoints and lenses.

Keywords

Leadership primary schools administration deputy heads’ stress

Introduction

In school, deputy heads play a critical role in assisting and deputising for school heads, which has implications for the running of the school, since deputies are trusted to execute strategies that are important in realising the school’s visions and objectives (Al-Hazmi, 2010; Brotschul, 2013; Calabrese, 1991; Cheng, 1993; Malika, 2015). However, there remain many aspects of deputyship which have received little scholarly attention (Bukoski et al., 2015; Oplatka and Tamir, 2009; Searby et al., 2017), have attracted few written studies (Jackman, 2009), and are under-researched (Southworth, 1994). Given that the literature focusing on the deputies’ role and capacities is so sparse, despite their roles being deemed essential for school effectiveness (Chagger, 2012; Harvey, 1994a; Oliver, 2013), this topic is deemed worthy of further investigation. As anecdotal examples, studies in deputyship are under-represented in the headship literature (Mujis and Harris, 2003; Oleszewski et al., 2012), which is almost completely centred on the role of heads (Barnett et al., 2012; Gonzales, 2013). This triggers a strong call for more studies on the role of deputies and on how their role enhances a school’s performance. Due to the complexity of school leadership, the role of deputies as part of school leadership is seen as crucial and thus the time has come to explore how deputies divide their time, ideas and energy for the benefit of the school (Al-Hazmi, 2010; Shoho et al., 2012) and in easing the burden of school heads (Grant, 2013). As such, the role of deputies in schools was found to be unclear and difficult to define (Armstrong, 2010; Bush, 1981; Chagger, 2012; Harvey, 1994b; Rintoul and Goulais, 2010), which stemmed from the lack of opportunities given to deputies to practise their leadership roles (Hausman et al., 2002; Oplatka and Tamir, 2009; Reay and Dennison, 1990; Todd and Dennison, 1980; Walker and Kwan, 2009) and a perceived lack of support within their preparations for performing their role as school deputy (Jackman, 2009).

As part of the school leadership team, deputy heads also experience stress which is labelled as ‘disapproving’ (Wynott, 2005). Due to the current school policy, which emphasises the concept of self-management and distributed leadership, deputies have acquired increased work burdens and more roles as leadership partners with the heads (Grant, 2013) – a situation which has resulted in stress, pressure and displeasure (Bolam et al., 1993). Webb and Vulliamy (1995) conducted a study with primary deputies in England and Wales and discovered that – due to their high workloads – some deputies were unable to complete their duties, describing these heavy workloads as ‘ridiculous, mind-boggling, impossible and frustrating’. Unfortunately, little attention in previous research has been paid to deputies’ stress and career experiences (Oliver, 2013). Consequently, in Western countries, such as the UK and the USA, some senior teachers and deputy heads are quite reluctant to become heads (Chagger and Bisschoff, 2015) given the undesirable factors, such as high experience of stress, inadequate compensation, lack of acknowledgement and high demands (Earley and Weindling, 2004; Gajda and Militello, 2008; Hancock and Bird, 2008; Hayes, 2005; James and Whiting, 1998a, 1998b; MacBeath et al., 2012). In Malaysia, through the recent teachers’ career progression policy, senior teachers who are not interested in becoming a school administrator, are given the option of ending their career as a ‘master teacher’ (Abu Bakar, 2011), which definitely provides more choices to Malaysian teachers compared to the previous situation when they had to end their career as a school head.

In debating the issue of the stress experienced by deputies, previous scholars have described such stress as ‘occupational stresses’, a concept which was initially explored by Swent and Gmelch (1977) in the 1970s. By definition, occupational or administrative stress was considered to occur when an individual failed to fulfil or was unable to respond to the demands of the profession’s characteristics and specific requirements, which lead to threatening situations (Nhundu, 1999). Further, previous research into psychological stress (Boyland, 2011; Glass and Franceschini, 2007; Kumar and Pragadeeswaran, 2011) defined occupational stress as pressure within the workplace of a profession or a job which forms part of the employee’s everyday life. Nevertheless, as a school leader, deputies cannot avoid feeling stressed when they continuously face challenging tasks and high demands from their educational stakeholders and superiors as part of their daily administrative routines. Therefore, Brock and Grady (2002) contended that the occupational stress experienced by school leaders also affects their physical and mental capability and gives rise to problems with health and well-being (Queen and Queen, 2005). Moreover, this might have many negative consequences for their capacity to lead the school effectively (Wells, 2013).

Background of the study

Unintentionally, as a second person in the school leadership hierarchy, deputies also experience stress when dealing with their ‘superiors’ and complying with their requests, which can sometimes be taxing and challenging. Regarding fulfilling the demands made on teachers, previous researchers have designated the school leadership position (school heads and their deputies) as the most stressful positions in the school hierarchy due to administrative and leadership workloads, such as students’ academic quality and academic achievement along with taxing requirements from parents and educational authorities (Boyland, 2011; Whitaker and Turner, 2000). The deputyship context has been highlighted empirically by previous studies involving school deputies in Hong Kong (Cheng, 1993), assistant principals in New Jersey (Oliver, 2013) and Malaysian schools (Chang, 1997); these studies showed that most deputies faced stressful experiences when they were assigned to covenant with their educational superiors, such as their school heads, the school inspectors and parents as the school’s stakeholders. Earlier, in 1998, Duke’s (1988) study with four principals revealed that they also primarily complained and highlighted their frustrations when they were asked to deal with central office and bureaucratic rules, and they described how they felt drained by receiving too many demands from their superiors. In addition, Sabina (2014), who conducted a study on the causes and factors that influence stress and autonomy, also discovered that P-12 school administrators encountered some stress when they had to deal with parents, who were described as annoying, while managing student discipline.

Although the issue of deputies’ stress is not a recent discovery, as it was initially explored in the 1980s and 1990s, nevertheless, the stress experienced by deputies and the issue of whether deputies feel tense when dealing with their superiors, remains under-studied and largely unknown, particularly in Malaysian primary schools. In fact, Edwin (2009) postulated that there are few studies that explore the occupational stress experienced by school administrators in developing countries such as Malaysia, especially within the primary school context.

Hence, through this study, we critically examine whether primary deputies experience stress when dealing with their educational superiors. Secondly, we explore the level of stress which deputies experience. Lastly, we seek to identify which educational superiors encountered by deputies produce the most stressful experience. Significantly, this study contributes towards the management journey of deputyship based on three premises: (a) few studies have been conducted that explore the stress experienced by school leadership personnel predominantly in Malaysia; (b) studies that explore the context of primary school administration are considered to have been overlooked; and (c) there is a lack of studies exploring in depth the stress experienced by primary deputies or heads when dealing with their educational superiors and stakeholders. Substantially, through this study, the aim is to provide support mechanisms to assist deputies in coping with their stress when dealing with their superiors (the school head, the school inspectors from the Department of Inspectorate of Schools, and jurisdiction officers from the Ministry of Education (MOE), the State Department of Education (SDE), the District Office of Education (DOE) and parents).

Literature review

The occupational stress theories

Since 1980, the issue of occupational stress has been extensively studied by educational psychologists, and there has been an exponential proliferation of articles determining the causes, responses and consequences of administrative stress in the school context (Gmelch, 1991). Earlier, Selye (1974) had defined stress as the discomfort or strain experienced by any individual as a result of some imbalance, which contributes to anxiety and worriedness. Ivancevich and Matteson (1980) claimed that stress can be viewed from two main perspectives: medical; and social. However, in this paper, stress is viewed from the behavioural or social perspective, which results from disparity issues of human or social relationships, such as in management-related issues of conflict, motivation, group dynamics, problem-solving, decision-making, change and leadership. In debating the stress experienced by deputies, some psychological researchers (Greenglass and Burke, 2003; Spector, 2008; Stranks, 2005) have classified the stress experienced by deputies as ‘role conflict’ and ‘role ambiguity’ types of stress when deputies encounter too much workloads compounded by a lack of supervision and unclear guidelines and directions, and due to little time given to complete the tasks.

According to McGrath (1970), the situations experienced by school deputies are described as occupational stress, which is defined as some feeling of stress resulting from individual encounters within deputies’ daily routines. Further, Gmelch and Gates (1998) suggested four causes of stress: (a) role-based stress, resulting from the school administrator’s role-set interactions and beliefs or attitudes about their roles in the schools; (b) task-based stress, related to a school administrator’s performance of day-to-day administrative activities; (c) boundary-spanning stress, resulting from school and community relations (Gmelch and Swent, 1977); and (d) conflict-mediating stress, which refers to the tensions deputies experienced when handling conflicts within the school, such as resolving parent and school conflicts, and handling student discipline problems.

In addition, another occupational stress theory relevant to this study is the person–environment-fit theory, which also helps to describe the stress experienced by the primary school deputies. In explaining the theory, Hart and Cooper (2001) elaborated that stress can happen in three different contexts: (a) the person; (b) the environment; and (c) the combination of these two variables. According to Sabina (2014), this theory provides a curvilinear relation between workload and strain: any individuals in the position will experience stress when they have too much work to complete which is beyond their capacities and abilities. Later, the theory was conceptualised by French et al. (1974), who postulated that stress would happen when the demands of the environment (E) do not match the needs or abilities of the person (P) (LaRocco et al., 1980).

The routine roles of deputyship

It is a common idiosyncrasy that most educational systems appoint the school heads as a promotional mechanism from their previous position of a school deputy or assistant head, which is described as a ‘stepping stone’ and effective ‘in-house’ training ground for headship (Al-Hazmi, 2010; Clerkin, 1985; Jackman 2009; Malika, 2015; Oleszewski et al., 2012). Nevertheless, currently in Malaysia, through the implementation of the recent Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013–2025, all school deputies have to obtain the National Professional Qualification for Educational Leaders (NPQEL) certificate in order to be promoted to a school headship (Ministry of Education, Malaysia, 2015). Hence, any school deputies who fail to obtain the official NPQEL certificate will not be appointed as a school head even though they are qualified to be a school head based on senior experience. As a second leader, deputies have a multitude of roles as professional teachers since most of them are experienced teachers who are assigned to teach and play their essential roles in managing and directing the school’s operations simultaneously (Harvey, 1994b; Southworth, 1994). Brookes (2006) described the deputy’s specification duties as a hybrid task or ‘dual roles’ where most of them have two major roles: as a teacher; and as a school administrator.

Comparatively, there is not much difference in terms of deputies’ heavy roles and task specifications or position descriptions elsewhere in other school administrative systems. For instance, Cranston et al. (2004) quoted the position description outlines for deputy principals in the Australian State of Queensland as follows: (a) high participation in setting the vision for learning; (b) interacting with parents, community or business; and (c) managing the human, financial, facilities and curriculum resources for school improvement. In the UK context, Muijs and Harris (2003) detailed the articulation of deputy heads’ roles as: (a) dealing with curriculum growth and innovation; (b) promoting and supporting the goals of the school – communicating and developing vision and even promoting shared understanding with staff; (c) acting as an agent of change; (d) acting as an expert, leader and resourceful individual to teachers within their own expertise; (e) coaching and mentoring teachers; and (f) acting as a strong community networks agent. Despite the high demands placed on deputies in implementing administrative duties related to school operational tasks, deputies are required to be skillful in segregating their time into pedagogical and administrative aspects if they intend to avoid neglecting any of the tasks assigned to them (Dunham, 1992). Given the foregoing, deputies face some role-conflict, especially when they have to build an effective relationship with relevant parties – teachers and heads – since both parties request their deputies to be ‘on their side’ (Southworth, 1994). Thus, given the crucial roles deputy heads have to perform, most of them experience stress derived from the heavy administrative workloads which fall upon their ‘shoulders’.

Past studies on deputies’ stress and dissatisfaction

The amount of stress experienced by deputies is not a new topic of research. It dates back to as early as the 1990s, when the stress and qualms experienced by deputies were discussed. Previous researchers (Doring, 1999; Lainas, 2010; Oleszewski et al., 2012; Oliver, 2013) however, have argued that the restricted studies that do focus on professional stress among deputies compared to that of teachers and heads, and their importance remains underappreciated (Cheng, 1993; Cranston et al., 2004; Southworth, 1998). As such, researchers in deputyship (Cranston et al., 2004: Grant, 2014) coined the term ‘forgotten leaders’ for deputies since most of the credit was given to the heads without acknowledging the roles of the deputies even though researchers (Calabrese, 1991; Jackman, 2009; Knutton and Mycroft, 1985) described the school deputy post as ‘demanding’. The resulting stress led some deputies to decline promotion to a school head. In fact, researchers in deputyship studies (Grant, 2014: Oleszewski et al., 2012) claimed that deputies’ roles are considered as vague, under-recognised, and under-discussed within the context of principalship (Beycioglu et al., 2012; Weller and Weller, 2002). As such, Doring (1999) pinpointed several reasons that lead to deputies experiencing stress: (a) they are the middle person between teachers and the school head and have to act in various roles with both parties; (b) they have to face the challenge involved in switching from being a teacher to becoming a school administrator. Thus, deputies face some conflicts of over-demand; (c) some deputies are not prepared to change their personalities from being a teacher to being a school administrator; and (d) deputies’ roles are less acknowledged compared to those of school heads.

In Malaysia, deputies are administratively experienced senior teachers who occupy the senior assistant post and are potential candidates for a headship post (Hussain, 2007). Even though most of the deputies are seniors in terms of tenure and service, Othman and Moidunny (2008) argued that most of them struggle with particular aspects of school administration, such as disciplinary issues and pastoral care, while responsibility for making most of the decisions remains with the head. Thus, the role of deputies is still trivial and lacks decision-making opportunities. This was labelled by Bush (1981) as a ‘position without a role’ except for instructional tasks and duties. Critically, deputyship academics (Hausman et al., 2002; Oplatka and Tamir, 2009) questioned the relationship between heads and their deputies as being one with an unequal distribution of power and authority since most decisions are made by the school heads. As such, other scholars (Hayes, 2005; Southworth, 1994) called for heads and deputies to develop a mutual partnership as ‘critical friends’ who each compensate for the other party’s weaknesses and strengths as a way forward. They believed that heads should work closely with deputies as a ‘professional obligation’ through delegation, sharing responsibilities, and mentoring as part of deputies’ professional career guidance (James and Whiting, 1998a).

In Malaysian schools, studies related to deputies’ leadership journeys, and to their roles and their stress are considered scarce. However, Siow (2008) reported that deputies are relatively frustrated with their low incomes compared to their unrelenting workloads. Ribbins (1997 as cited in Chagger, 2012) provided a strong reason to explain why some deputies felt unhappy and even decided not to apply for a headship since they received little support and appreciation from their heads. In 1997, Chang studied stress experiences among secondary school administrators in Penang, Malaysia, including among the deputies. From the study, it was revealed that preparations and implementations of activities/programmes which were asked for by the District Office of Education (DOE) and SDE for schools at the district, zone, or national level were reflected as pressure on deputies’ emotions. The study also found that female school administrators experienced much higher levels of stress compared to their male counterparts. Based on this finding, it is assumed that dealing with their educational superiors is another stressor for school deputies. Using the qualitative approach, Yaskom (2013) conducted a study among primary deputies within the special education programmes which revealed that they felt worried, tense and uncertain due to their lack of training before being appointed as deputies even though they were senior teachers with many years of service. Thus, they requested more training to enhance their abilities and, at the same time, eliminate their worries. However, some continuous support from the school heads provides them with confidence in leading their programmes. Thus, they also revealed that they have good and positive relationships with their school heads, who strongly understand their role as deputies.

Furthermore, Cheng (1993) noted that deputies in Hong Kong’s aided secondary schools experience high levels of stress in dealing with their superiors’ demands whilst at the same time securing better relationships with teachers. Meanwhile, in the USA, a survey of 1270 assistant principals showed that deputy heads experienced high levels of dissatisfaction with and noted a lack of appreciation of their role, which Glanz (2004) described as a ‘thankless’ post. In addition, Beycioglu et al. (2012) reached the conclusion that deputies who did not plan to be heads face difficulties in coping with stress and balancing the workloads since most of them believed that administrative assignments would increase their stress and work pressure. Interestingly, a survey conducted by Harvey (1991) with deputy heads at Western Australian primary schools reported that one-fifth of Western Australian primary schools’ deputies had a low level of job satisfaction and felt unhappy, which affected their stress levels (Harvey, 1994a; Harvey, 1994b). The low satisfaction and frustrated feelings originated from complex phenomena, such as: (a) lack of control, even though they belonged to the administrative team; (b) lack of monitoring in their duties; (c) insufficient acknowledgement; (d) limited chances for professional development; and (e) unfulfilled career expectations for promotion to school head. Using a qualitative interview, Oliver (2013) conducted a study with second-year assistant principals in New Jersey and found that 83% of deputy principals encountered challenges when dealing with stakeholders and making personal decisions while managing the school’s day-to-day operations. Thus, deputies felt that dealing with stakeholders, especially parents labelled as ‘difficult’ and unreasonable, and handling stakeholders who seem ‘irrational’ made a deputy’s job much more difficult and stressful. Using the auto-ethnographic approach in exploring the first year of deputy heads or assistant principals, Jackman (2009) summarised that novice assistant principals experienced stress due to their minimal preparation programmes within their professional socialisation, which stemmed from their weaknesses in leadership and managing skills. Earlier, Calabrese and Adams (1987) conducted a study involving 2300 secondary school administrators to explore secondary school administrators’ alienation. They revealed that assistant principals/school deputies experienced much higher levels of alienation compared to their school principals due to their heavy workload.

In addition, Hausman et al. (2002) also investigated assistant principals’ working lives (time allocation, roles and activities, and perceptions of success and work–life quality) among the 125 assistant principals in a district of Maine (USA). Findings revealed that female assistant principals dynamically spend significantly more of their time engaging with the professional development activities compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, female assistant principals also engaged with more instructional and personnel management tasks than their male colleagues. Armstrong (2010) surveyed 290 deputies from Ontario; they described their tasks as stressful and challenging as they involved dealing with excessive paperwork, handling crises and coping with conflicting demands by school stakeholders, all of which impeded them from carrying out their role as instructional leaders. Hence, deputies in Ontario also described their high workloads as physically and emotionally stressful when some of the managerial and leadership tasks were mostly fragmentary due to the lack of time and knowledge about procedural and technical skills. Recently, Delgado (2016) conducted a mixed-methods study in investigating 196 deputies who experienced stress and explored their coping mechanisms in schools across Michigan. The study found that female deputies experienced higher levels compared to their male deputies. Based on the numbers of students enrolled in each school, the research also reported that deputies who were working with low number of students’ enrolment had higher levels of stress compared to deputies who were working with schools with a larger number of students. From the study, it was also noted that deputies who had more years of experience in that role were reported to experience higher stress compared to novice deputies.

Deputyship in Malaysian schools

In Malaysia, there are 7772 primary schools with approximately 23,316 deputies; however, they have received little attention in local studies and literature compared to the school heads. In the senior leadership teams of Malaysian schools, the most experienced deputies are known as senior assistants (administration), compared with the other two senior assistants, who are senior assistant (students’ affairs) and senior assistant (extra-curricular activities). All the senior assistants or deputy heads are legitimately appointed by the Ministry of Education and receive their official appointment within the completion phase of their candidature for a deputyship (Jantan, 2004). Most of the senior assistants (administration) are potential candidates for, and in a transition to, a headship post. Thus, most senior assistants/deputy head teachers are knowledgeable and widely experienced teachers in both the aforementioned posts (Hussain, 2007).

Officially, the role of deputy head comprises a long list of tasks, which demonstrates the essential role of deputies in determining the smooth operational implementation within the school campus (Civil Service Department of Malaysia, 2007; Hussain, 2007). Using the list of duties, deputies’ duties can be segregated into two major tasks – administrative tasks and curriculum assignments – which are similar to the roles, accountabilities, and tasks within other educational systems. In the administrative tasks, deputies are required to replace and represent their head teachers when their heads are not available in the office; help head teachers in administrative and leadership tasks, especially for the evening session; help head teachers in the supervision and monitoring of teaching and learning; become highly involved in planning, managing, and executing the school programmes and projects and even outdoor activities; and administering and storing all data related to teachers’ and students’ demographics. Regarding curriculum assignments, deputies need to ensure that each syllabus and curriculum is being taught accorded to the requirements of the Ministry of Education; plan and monitor the operational implementation of teaching and learning at every class; ensure the school resources are maintained effectively in terms of cataloguing, managing and storing; play an active role as the resource person for novice and pre-service teachers; actively engage with any action research context related to school operational and curriculum improvement; assist teachers with student evaluation processes; help school counsellors with remedial classes; represent the school as a curriculum implementer with the state and district departments of education; monitor the school’s non-academic performance; assist head teachers with the schools’ financial planning and resources; and lead the school’s disciplinary board (Civil Service Department of Malaysia, 2007).

Methodology

Research questions and design

This study addresses three significant questions.

Do deputy heads experience stress when dealing with their educational superiors?

Are there any significant differences in deputies’ stress experiences when dealing with their educational superiors based on their demographics (gender, years of experience, deputies’ posts, school types, and their tenure within the current schools)?

How do educational superiors contribute to deputies’ stress experience?

This study employed a sequential mixed-methods design in understanding the prevalent stressors among Malaysian primary deputies which derived from their formal relationship with their educational superiors. According to Punch (2014) and Greene (2008), the sequential mixed-methods design consists of two phases: the numerical data are collected first; and then the qualitative data are collected to provide in-depth experiences in supporting the quantitative data. The rationale of this design is based on an assumption that the quantitative outcome of the study will be further explained by the qualitative data in exploring the stress experiences faced by the deputies in primary schools. Even though this study employs two methods of data collection, the quantitative data are given less weighting compared to the qualitative data, which offer a more in-depth insight into the relevant stressors of deputies as described through interviews.

Participants

The study sampled deputies from 45 primary schools in two small urban districts. A total of 135 deputies were selected to examine whether they experienced stress while dealing with their superiors. Another 10 deputies were selected as a sample for the pilot study in order to attain their feedback on the survey items and the interview protocol items prior to their distribution. Next, 135 questionnaires were distributed to primary deputies; a total of 120 questionnaires were returned giving an 89% response rate, which is considered substantial.

Since this study involved deputies’ feelings on stress when dealing with their ‘superiors and stakeholders’, we purposely selected 11 deputies for interview who reported experiencing stress based on the descriptive analysis of the survey instrument. Initially, 12 deputies were selected for the interviews – four senior deputies (more than 11 years’ experience), another four deputies with between 6 and 10 years’ experience and, lastly, four novice deputies. However, one novice deputy decided to withdraw, which reduced the number of novice deputies to three. The reason for selecting 11 deputies was to obtain more insights, reflections and in-depth explanations based on their reflections on their stress experiences while dealing with their educational superiors.

Prior to data collection, each deputy and school head were contacted in order to secure consent for them to be interviewed by the researchers. Deputies who were willing to be involved were assured that their identities would be kept anonymous. This is because the study involved the deputies’ emotional feelings and perspectives towards their superiors, and so involved any possibly negative aspects of their official relationship.

Instrumentations

Quantitative

Due to the lack of a questionnaire that measures deputy head teachers’ stress, the Phillips et al. (2007) head teachers’ stressors scale, which consists of 11 items, was used and adopted in this study. Philips et al. (2007) conducted their study with head teachers throughout schools in the UK. For measuring the stressors of UK head teachers, all items constructed by Philips et al. (2007) use four major descriptors for stress: ‘causing a lot of stress’ – 4; ‘moderately causing stress’ – 3; ‘slightly causing stress’ – 2; and ‘not causing stress’ – 1. However, a few changes were made to ensure that the scale was suitable for measuring deputies’ stressors rather than those of school heads.

Demographics

The first section contained five items on the deputies’ demographic variables, such as gender, years of service as deputy heads, types of schools, their current administrative post and, lastly, their tenure in working within the existing schools.

Deputies’ stressors with educational superiors

The second part encompassed four items that asked deputies about their stressors while dealing with their superiors and stakeholders. This section contained four items that were positive statements using the Likert interval scale. In this study, all four items were based on the deputy’s level of agreement with the proposed items: 4 – strongly agreed; 3 – agreed; 2 – not agreed; and 1 – strongly disagreed. Since most deputy heads were educated in and were familiar with the Malay language, the items were translated and represented using the Malay language. All items were checked by two deputies who were trained as Malay language teachers and who were experts to resolve any mistakes within the translated items. Once each item’s construction and translation process were deemed satisfactory, and a pilot study was conducted with ten school deputies who were purposely selected as the pilot sample and whose responses were excluded from the final survey results. Further, a reliability test was carried out with a sample of 10 school deputies to determine the precision measurement of the items. However, these 10 deputies were not taken from the research sample of 120 deputies. Results of the pilot data analysis revealed a reliability value of 0.92.

Qualitative

Interviews

Eleven deputies were interviewed to explore their stress experiences. A semi-structured interview protocol was constructed based on the quantitative data. In constructing the items for the interview protocol, items were brainstormed to obtain in-depth explanations of deputies’ stress experiences. To obtain vibrant explanations of deputies’ stress issues, a retired deputy was approached. Through painstaking discussion with the retired deputy head, four items emerged and were employed to probe the stress issues deputies experience while fulfilling their superiors’ orders and communicating with stakeholders, specifically, parents. Further, a pilot interview study was also conducted to ensure the usage of the four items that emerged from the ‘brainstorming session’ with the retired deputy head. For the pilot study, a deputy head was selected and interviewed for about 45 minutes. From the interview, one item was deleted based on problems with the item’s clarity and the length of time taken up by the interview session. In exploring deputies’ stress, we asked deputies the following three pertinent questions during interviews.

Do you experience stress when dealing with your superiors and parents as stakeholders?

Which educational superiors and stakeholders contribute to your stress when dealing with them?

Can you describe the extent to which your educational superiors contribute to your stress as a deputy?

Data analyses

The survey data

In answering the quantitative research question (research question 1), descriptive statistics consisting of mean scores and standard deviations were employed to determine whether the deputies experienced stress when dealing with their educational superiors. In determining the stress experiences of deputies, the interpretation of stress was based on the following descriptors of mean scores: 1.00–1.40 (low stress); 1.41–2.80 (moderate stress); and 2.81–4.00 (high stress). In measuring the significant differences based on deputies’ demographics, which were also implicated in answering research question 2, the non-parametric differential tests such as Mann–Whitney-U and Kruskal–Wallis-H tests were employed.

Interview data

The interview data were recorded and transcribed followed by several re-readings of the data as suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006) to achieve a thematic data analysis. The interview data were treated using a deductive approach based on the assumption that themes would emerge through an understanding of the narrative data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). In analysing the interview data, Braun and Clarke (2006) suggested following a multi-phase process; firstly, the researcher must become familiar with the data through a few rounds of reading in search of the meaning, patterns, and ideas from the deputies’ verbatim transcripts. Secondly, in generating the initial codes, data were coded based on their interesting features related to deputies’ stress experiences, and the coding framework was established to provide much easier access. At the same time, additional codes were also prepared in the process of refining the codes. The coding process involved allocating the sentences with a provisional code, which later helped to distinguish and generate themes (Grant, 2013). The next process was clustering the codes that had similar concepts. Thirdly, researchers also attempted to identify the key themes that emerged from the interview data. Fourthly, in the process of reviewing themes, researchers also carried out the checking and reviewing process of the themes to see whether they were related to the coded extracts to generate an overall analysis of the data tree structure. Next, an on-going analysis was carried out to refine each of the themes and to gain comprehensive viewpoints of the verbatim data. Lastly, a final analysis of the selected extracts was also conducted that related the data to the research questions.

The data were then checked by a number of interview experts to determine whether the data and the coding system were aligned with the research questions. With regard to the reliability measurement, inter-reliability tests were conducted with two evaluators assessing the relevant themes from the transcripts in aligning them with Cohen’s kappa level of agreements. Based on their evaluation process, inter-reliability was coded at 0.71, which is considered acceptable when measuring qualitative data. In securing validity, the researchers used an internal validity approach suggested by Bush (2012), which emphasised the return of transcripts and researcher’s notes to the deputy for confirmation of whether they agree or disagree with the transcripts. This approach provides internal validity by decreasing the bias towards the context of the study. Ethically, the researchers acknowledged the informant’s ownership of the data and so the researchers asked for each informant’s consent in order to publish the data or for the data to appear in any publication (Busher and James, 2012).

Findings

Quantitative

Deputies’ demographics

Table 1 depicts the deputies’ demographics, such as gender, school categories and number of years’ experience as a deputy. Based on gender, males were more prominent with 72 (60%) deputies, while there were 48 female deputies (40%). In terms of school categories, 78 (65%) of the deputies were from Grade A schools, 26 deputies (21.67%) were from Grade B schools and 16 deputies were from schools with a small number of students. Regarding their experience, 59 deputies (49.17%) had five years and below of experience, which typically showed that most of them were neophyte deputies, another 34 (28.33%) deputies had from 6 to 10 years of experience as deputies and 27 deputies (22.50%) were senior deputies. From a total of 120 deputies, 60 deputies (50%) were from administration posts, 20 deputies (16.66%) from student affairs posts and 40 deputies (33.3%) from extra-curricular posts. Regarding deputies’ tenure within their current school, 89 deputies (74.2%) had been with the same schools between 1 and 5 years, 19 deputies (15.80%) had been with their current schools between 6 and 10 years, and 12 deputies had been with their current schools for more than 11 years.

Table 1.

Deputies’ demographics.

Variables	Frequencies	Percentage
Gender
Male	72	60.0
Female	48	40.0
Category of school
Grade A schools	78	65.0
Grade B schools	26	21.6
Schools with least students	16	33.3
Experiences as deputy
0 to 5 years	59	49.1
6 to 10 years	34	28.3
More than 11 years	27	22.5
Positions
Deputy head (administration)	60	50.0
Deputy head (student affairs)	20	16.6
Deputy head (extra-curricular)	40	33.3
Tenure with the current school
1 to 5 years	89	74.2
6 to 10 years	19	15.8
More than 11 years	12	10.0

Note: n = 120 deputies.

Deputies’ stress experiences while dealing with superiors and stakeholders

The pertinent issue of this study is related to deputies’ experiences of stress when dealing with their superiors and stakeholders in answering research question 1. Based on the questionnaires’ feedbacks, deputies’ levels of stress were quantitatively calculated through deputies’ percentage of agrees in determining whether deputies were having stress with their superiors. Further, through the mean score, the levels of stress experienced by deputies were classified whether high, low and moderate. Based on Table 2 which represents deputies’ levels of stress, it was revealed that the deputies were experiencing moderate stress levels when dealing with parents, officers from SDE and DOE, and their own school heads, but their stress was indicated to be at relatively stressful when dealing with the school inspector. Table 2 presents all responses related to deputies’ level of stress.

Table 2.

Frequencies of deputies’ stress.

Are you experiencing stress as a deputy head when dealing with your superiors/stakeholders?	Strongly disagreed	Disagreed	Agreed	Strongly agreed	Deputies that agreed	Mean scores levels of stress	Standard deviation
Dealing with heads?	34 (28.3%)	85 (70.8%)	1 (8.0%)	–	one deputy (8%)	2.11 (moderate)	0.51
Dealing with State Department of Education and District Office of Education officers?	5 (4.2%)	68 (56.7%)	45 (37.5%)	2 (1.7%)	47 deputies (39.2%)	2.73 (moderate)	0.59
Dealing with parents?	8 (6.7%)	80 (66.7%)	29 (24.2%)	3 (2.5%)	31 deputies (26.7%)	2.68 (moderate)	0.60
Dealing with the school inspector?	–	16 (13.3%)	92 (76.7%)	12 (10.0%)	104 deputies (86.7%)	3.03 (Slightly High)	0.68

In Table 2, most deputies pointed out that dealing with the school inspector made them feel stressful while 12 (10%) deputies strongly agreed and another 92 deputies (76.7%) agreed on the item’s statement of stressors with a mean score of 3.03 (standard deviation (SD) = 0.68), which is considered as slightly having high level of stress. The analysis demonstrated that communicating and dealing with the educational jurisdiction officers from DOE and SDE ranked second, with two deputies (1.7%) strongly agreeing that dealing with jurisdiction officers contributed to their stress experiences. This is followed by 45 deputies (37.5%) who agreed that dealing with officers caused stress in their role as deputies, with a mean score of 2.73 (SD = 0.59), which is considered to represent a moderate stress level. Furthermore, deputies pointed out that parents, as stakeholders, also caused them stress when they had to deal with them. A total of 3 deputies (2.5%) strongly agreed and another 45 deputies (37.5%) agreed with the item about whether parents and SDE and DOE contributed to their stress experiences (mean (M) = 2.68; SD = 0.60), which is also at the moderate stress level. Surprisingly, 119 deputies (92%) disagreed with the question of whether their heads’ attitudes and behaviours affected their stress levels, and only one deputy head replied that he/she had experienced stress with heads (M = 2.11; SD = 0.51), which depicts a moderate stress level. Table 2 sets out the details.

Deputies’ differences based on the demographics

In answering research question 2, the significant difference based on deputies’ demographics – deputies’ gender – was inspected, and the results are presented in Table 3. The Mann–Whitney-U tests reveal that there are no significant differences in terms of deputies’ gender when dealing with the school inspector (U =1698; Z = -0.217; p = 0.828; r = 0.01), dealing with parents (U =1521; Z = 1.336; p = -0.182; r = 0.122) and dealing with their heads (U =1566E4; Z = -1.008; p = 0.314; r =0.09). However, dealing with SDE/ DOE officers was noted to have a statistically significant difference based on deputies’ gender (U =1356; Z = -2.223; p = 0.026; r = 0.20). In addition, the findings from Table 3 show that female deputies experienced slightly higher levels of stress when dealing with SDE/ DOE (mean rank = 68.06), their heads (mean rank = 63.88) and parents (mean rank = 64.81) based on their mean scores. However, male deputies (mean rank = 60.92) experienced slightly higher levels of stress compared to female deputies (mean rank = 59.88) when dealing with the school inspector based on the mean scores.

Table 3.

The Mann–Whitney-U results of deputies’ stress based on gender.

Constructs	Mean rank scores		Mann– Whitney-U	Wilcoxon W	Z	p
Constructs	Male (n = 72)	Female (n = 48)	Mann– Whitney-U	Wilcoxon W	Z	p
Dealing with inspector	60.92	59.88	1698.0	2874.0	-0.217	0.828
Dealing with parents	57.62	64.81	1521.0	4149.0	-1.336	0.182
Dealing with State Department of Education/ District Office of Education	55.46	68.06	1365.0	3993.0	-2.223	0.026*
Dealing with heads	58.25	63.88	1.566E4	4.194E3	-1.008	0.314

Notes: n = 120 deputy heads; significance level p < 0.05*; p < 0.01**.

Furthermore, deputies’ tenure within their current school was also inferentially inspected using Kruskal–Wallis-H tests. The findings from Table 4 show that the Kruskal–Wallis-H tests results indicate that deputies’ tenure within their current schools has no significant difference when dealing with the school inspector (H (df = 2) = 0.517; p = 0.772) and dealing with parents (H (df = 2) = 2.064; p = 0.3562). Based on the Kruskal–Wallis-H tests shown in Table 4, the findings also disclose that based on deputies’ tenure within their current schools, only two variables present significant differences, specifically, when dealing with officers from SDE/DOE (H (df = 2) = 6.407; p = 0.041) and when dealing with their own school heads (H (df = 2) = 6.516; p = 0.038).

Table 4.

The Kruskal–Wallis-H test results of deputies’ stress based their tenure with their current school.

Constructs	Mean rank scores			χ ²	p
Constructs	1–5 (n = 89)	6–10 (n = 19)	>11 (n = 12)	χ ²	p
Dealing with inspector	59.94	64.29	58.67	0.517	0.772
Dealing with parents	58.89	61.03	61.62	2.064	0.356
Dealing with State Department of Education/District Office of Education	58.49	61.03	81.50	6.407	0.041*
Dealing with heads	57.58	61.16	81.08	6.516	0.038*

Notes: n = 120 deputy heads; df = 2; significance level p < 0.05*; p < 0.01**.

Additionally, the Kruskal-Wallis-H tests results in Table 5 also revealed that the differences measurements for all four constructs were found to be non-significant based on deputies’ years of experiences and their school’s categories. In addition, deputies who were senior and had more than 11 years of experiences (inspectorate mean rank = 66.56; parents mean rank = 69.31; SDE/ DOE mean rank = 65.98; heads’ mean rank = 64.15) were found to have higher levels of stress when dealing with all four educational superiors compared to their colleagues who had the least amount of experience as deputies. Hypothetically, it is assumed that the senior or veteran deputies who experienced high levels of stress held an administration post which involved much higher pressure and a greater workload. As for the school categories, deputies currently working with schools with the least number of students were discovered to have much higher levels of stress when dealing with the school inspector, parents and their school heads when compared with the stress levels of deputies from larger schools with a higher number of students irrespective of the school grade. However, the findings show that deputies from Grade B schools had much higher levels of stress when dealing with officers from SDE/DOE compared to their colleagues from other types of school.

Table 5.

The Kruskal–Wallis-H test results of deputies’ stress based on demographics (posts, years of experiences and school categories).

Constructs	Deputies’ demographics
	Deputies’ posts Mean rank scores					Years of experience as deputies Mean rank scores					School categories Mean rank scores
	Admin (n = 60)	SA (n = 20)	EC (n = 40)	χ²	p	0–5 (n = 59)	6–10 (n = 34)	More than 11 (n = 27)	χ²	p	Grade A (n = 78)	Grade B (n = 26)	SLS (n = 16)	χ²	p
Dealing with inspector	65.30	56.15	60.05	2.55	0.279	56.97	60.50	66.65	2.96	0.227	60.78	58.73	62.00	0.187	0.911
Dealing with parents	68.15	63.58	49.78	8.77	0.012*	55.27	62.67	69.31	4.62	0.099	60.03	59.62	64.38	0.339	0.844
Dealing with State Department of Education/District Office of Education	76.26	54.99	50.29	16.58	0.000*	58.98	59.31	65.98	1.14	0.566	59.63	64.12	58.84	0.477	0.788
Dealing with heads	74.20	55.20	52.28	12.21	0.002*	57.14	63.44	64.15	1.47	0.479	58.87	61.04	67.56	1.128	0.569

Notes: n = 120 deputy heads; SLS = schools with least students; Admin = administration; SA = students’ affairs; EC = extra-curricular.

In terms of deputies’ posts, overall, deputies with an administration post had much higher levels of stress when dealing with all four educational superiors followed by deputies responsible for student affairs, and lastly, the extra-curricular deputies. When measuring the significant difference, Table 5 indicates deputies who were continuously dealing with the school inspector demonstrated a non-significant difference (H (df = 2) = 2.55; p = 0.279) since all three deputies indicated higher levels of stress compared with when deputies have to deal with the three other educational superiors: parents (H (df = 2) = 8.77; p = 0.012), officers from SDE and DOE (H (df = 2) = 16.58; p = 0.00), and lastly, their school heads (H (df = 2) = 12.21; p = 0.002).

Moreover, in measuring significant differences, the Z-scores were employed to determine the significant difference of deputies’ stress based on deputies’ tenure within their current schools when dealing with their school heads. Based on the Z-score result, a significant difference was indicated between deputies who had been with their current schools from 1 to 5 years and deputies who had been with their schools for more than 11 years (Z = -2.463; p = 0.041).

As a continuation in measuring deputies’ stress based on deputies’ posts in schools, the findings from Table 5 showed that dealing with parents, SDE and DOE officers, and school heads had a significant difference regarding deputies’ level of stress. Thus, we extended our analyses using the Z-score to identify and compare groups which had significance differences. Based on Table 6, a significant difference was indicated between deputies in the administrative post and deputies in the extra-curricular post (Z = -3.051; p = 0.041) when dealing with parents. However, when dealing with SDE and DOE officers, there is a large significant difference between all three groups of deputies, between deputies in the administrative post with deputies in the student affairs post (Z = -3.334; p = 0.001), and between administrative deputies with deputies from the extra-curricular post (Z =3.839; p = 0.000). In matching deputies’ stress experiences when dealing with their school heads, the findings indicate that there are significant differences in terms of deputies’ stress when deputies in the administrative post are compared with deputies from the student affairs post (Z = 3.005; p = 0.003) and the comparison between deputies from the administrative post with their counterparts from the extra-curricular post (Z = 3.282; p = 0.000).

Table 6.

The Z-score test results for comparing between groups based on deputies’ demographics.

Constructs	Deputies’ demographic variables			Z	p
Dealing with State Department of Education (SDE)/District Office of Education (DOE)	Tenure with the current schools			-0.227	0.820
	1–5 years	6–10 years		-0.227	0.820
	More than 11 years			-2.463	0.014*
	Deputies’ posts at school
Dealing with parents	Administrative		Students’ affairs	-0.622	0.534
Dealing with parents			Extra-curricular	-3.051	0.002*
Dealing with SDE and DOE officers	Administrative		Students’ affairs	-3.334	0.001*
Dealing with SDE and DOE officers			Extra-curricular	-3.839	0.000*
Dealing with school heads	Administrative		Students’ affairs	-3.005	0.003*
Dealing with school heads			Extra-curricular	-3.282	0.001*

Notes: n = 120 deputy heads; significance level p < 0.05*; p < 0.01**.

Qualitative

Deputies’ superiors

Lastly, the interview sessions were employed to explore how dealing with educational superiors contributed to deputies’ stress experiences, which answers research question 3. From the interviews, deputies revealed that their sources of stress were as a result of their affiliation to their superiors, the school inspector, DOE and SDE jurisdiction officers, and parents, but not with their school heads. Comparatively, most of the deputies revealed that they felt unhappy, experienced stress and felt pressured when dealing with their superiors. The data revealed that dealing with the school inspector gave deputies’ stressful experiences. Surprisingly, deputies felt that dealing with their own heads provided them with unpressured situations even though previous studies have suggested otherwise.

The school inspector

During an inspector’s visit, deputies, as the resource individuals within the leadership team, are assigned to provide evidence to the school inspector. As a result, most deputies considered the school inspectors to be the ‘superior’ who gave them stressful experiences compared to other ‘superiors’.

In understanding their feelings of stress in dealing with the school inspector, deputies revealed that they were the first person contacted by the inspector instead of the school heads. Most of the deputies felt unhappy and insecure when they were contacted by the inspector, who made recurrent routine visits to, and inspections of, deputies’ schools. From the deputies’ perspectives, most of the inspectors were idealistic individuals, to the point that sometimes it could be hard for the deputies to accept their comments and suggestions.

In confirming and substantiating that deputies were resentful of visits from the school inspector, Deputy 9 said that indeed, dealing with the school inspector was certainly a ‘headache’ and created a stressful environment. According to the same deputy, the school inspectors always visited their school at an inconvenient time, usually when most deputies were busy with programmes or examinations and even during extra-curricular activities. Thus, most of the deputies were busy preparing for those programmes, yet had to devote time and effort to the school inspectors. In showing his frustration, Deputy 9 explained:

As deputies, we are aware of the role of the inspectorate in the school as an official and routine monitoring visit. However, we are sometimes quite unhappy since most of them come to the school during peak hours when some of us are busy with examinations and preparing for extra-curricular events. We are quite stressed since we have to provide them with all evidence which sometimes affects our instructional sessions. (DH9)

During the interviews, most of the deputies were quite exasperated when most of the evidence that was demanded by the inspectors had to be completed by the deputies before their arrival. For the deputies, this definitely puts more pressure on them. One deputy qualified his statement as follows:

There is too much work to be finished and it certainly pressures me. Looking up the items and evidence gives a large workload and usually needs urgent action. Most of the inspectors are meticulous, and we have to prepare all the documents and evidence, which takes most of our time. (DH8)

Conflict and disagreement

Another three deputies who were interviewed were also sceptical about the inspectors’ visit to their school because they had to prepare the evidence and documentation. Some of the deputies were perplexed when they realised that there was disagreement on the evidence requested by the inspectors; they were instructed differently by the officers from the authorised educational sectors. Thus, deputies were disappointed with this complicated situation and they felt pressured and doubtful, which affected their stress level. Deputy 9 again revealed her frustrations:

I noticed some conflicts between the inspector and officers from the educational authority in terms of preparing the evidence and implementing some of the instructional policies. We were confused and stressed since we did not know whom to follow. (DH9)

The SDE and DOE officers

Besides the school inspector, the DOE and SDE also send officers to provide some explanations of some relevant tasks that should be completed by deputies. Hence, their visits to school certainly engendered some feelings of insecurity among the deputy heads. During the interviews, the deputies highlighted two pertinent themes which created stressful situations when dealing with the officers from the DOE and SDE: lack of information related to educational policies’ execution plans; and problems with information and communications technology (ICT) connections.

Lack of information

The deputies also highlighted that they faced some problems when dealing with the officers from the district and state educational offices. For the deputies, officers from the SDE and DOE offices should understand that the deputies require ample time to implement certain changes to the educational policy, since some of them are newly appointed and encounter difficulties understanding the changes. However, the officers always request that new policies be executed effectively and quickly, which becomes another source of stress. From the interviews, Deputy 4 revealed that the officers should give them more time to complete the task. Deputy 4 further elaborated upon the issue as follows:

In implementing changes, they [officers] should provide us with the time and the opportunity to understand before implementing the policy. Thus, the unpremeditated implementation of policy within the school certainly provides teachers with stress since most of the executional tasks were [delegated] to the deputy heads and not to the heads. (DH4)

During the interview sessions, the deputies also stressed the issue of a lack of information by the education officers, which later created some problems. The deputies also revealed that some of them were unclear or vague, and they felt there was a lack of information regarding the educational policies and procedures. This is a result of the inadequate explanations provided by the officers. Thus, most of the deputies felt they lacked information, despite being the individual entrusted with implementing the policy. Furthermore, Deputy 11 revealed his disappointment:

Some of us feel quite stressed when we have a lack of information regarding certain educational policies. Some of the policies lack explanation, and yet, as a school administrator, we are the responsible individual who will be asked by the school inspectors. It certainly adds to our workload as deputy heads. (DH11)

Problem with ICT connection

Furthermore, Deputy 10 expressed her disappointment with the requirements from the SDE and DOE officers, which definitely caused her some stress. In the interview, she explained, with some distaste, that most of the tasks have to be submitted online and have a short dateline, and this places her under much pressure as a school administrator. She also explained that it is difficult for some deputies to complete their tasks due to their lack of competency in ICT. Furthermore, she was infuriated with the situation, as not all schools have good access to an internet connection, especially schools in rural and country areas. She was appalled at the fact that most officers do not understand that most deputies have to take their administrative work home in order to meet timelines. She later expressed her dismay as follows:

Most of the tasks were given for us to complete at very short notice. Yet, most or all of [tasks] have to be submitted online. Thus, we face difficulties since most of us are seniors and are not computer literate. We also face some problems with the internet connection, which is always disconnected. As for me, as a senior, I have problems in submitting my work online due to my weakness in ICT. Thus, it [is] certainly stressful due to the short notice and internet problems. (DH10)

Parents

The deputies also admitted that they had uncomfortable experiences when they were assigned to handle parents, who were the school’s stakeholders. As teachers and administrators, the deputies felt that a few parents provided minimum support towards the schools’ improvement planning even though they demanded high-quality teaching within the school’s instructional practices. Despite the minimum support provided, the deputies were pressured to fulfill the parents’ demands. For instance, Deputy 6 explained the lack of involvement provided by the parents in improving the school’s performance:

We usually lack the support received from the parents, and some of them do not even come to the school when we have programmes that request their participation, and yet some of them [parents] start to question for their children’s academic weaknesses. (DH6)

In further support of this issue, another deputy also expressed her disappointment with the lack of support her school obtained from the parents even though a few parents were contacted regarding their children’s disciplinary problems. As such, Deputy 8 revealed that she faced many difficulties in gaining the a few parents’ support to improve the school’s disciplinary problems. Most of the parents who were contacted did not provide sufficient positive feedback. In the interview, she revealed that she felt infuriated that only 50–60% of the parents were giving their full cooperation. She expressed her frustration as follows:

In my school, I had little support from the parents. It is quite difficult for us who are on the school’s disciplinary board, since most of them [parents] do not give their full support on their own children’s school attendances. (DH8)

The school heads

From the interviews, it was found that the deputies described a positive relationship with their heads, who did not contribute much to their levels of stress. Most of the deputies expressed thankfulness that they were not being pressured by their heads even though some of them were burdened with all the administrative workload. For deputies, the personalities and characters of their heads, specifically, the characteristics of being open-minded to different opinions and willing to share knowledge, were identified as crucial reasons deputies were happy, even though they were overwhelmed with the amount of administrative work. For instance, Deputy 9, a primary school leader, explained during the interview that she felt quite happy with her head, whom she described as helpful and who understood her heavy workload.

Honestly, I do not have any problems with my head. He is an open-minded person, and I feel happy and glad that he is currently my superior. He is not an autocratic leader in our school since most of the school’s decisions are based on our collaborative efforts. (DH9)

Although most of the deputies revealed that they did not have problems with their heads, Deputy 8 said that she previously had a problem with her head since there were huge differences in terms of preferences and work commitment, which later led to conflict with her head. Thus, she felt stressed and pressured when dealing with her former head:

I do not have any problems with my current head. However, I had some bad experiences with my former head. At that time, I experienced stress and pressure, as I did not have a good relationship with my head. It was very stressful when you and your boss have such differences. (DH8)

As a postscript, the deputies believed that visits from the inspectors contributed to their stress. Most of them revealed that inspectors usually arrived at unsuitable times, and most of them appeared to like to criticise the deputies. Moreover, the deputies also realised that there are some disagreements in terms of procedures and documentation between the officers from the SDE and DOE and the inspectors. Additionally, parents also contributed to their stress experiences as a few parents were not giving their full support to the school’s operational tasks. As a result, this had a considerable impact on the deputies’ stress levels and undesirable emotional experiences.

Discussion and conclusion

This study provides new discoveries regarding how deputy heads experience stress and feel vulnerable when dealing with their superiors and stakeholders. In general, the deputies in the study experienced stress when dealing with their ‘superiors’ while performing duties as the school administrator and as teachers. From the interviews, the deputies described that dealing with their superiors was not an easy task since they had to understand their needs and because they were given tasks to be completed at short notice. All of these factors added much pressure on the deputies. Based on the findings, it is assumed that Malaysian primary deputies experience stress when they have to deal with their superiors; the school inspectors, parents and officers from the DOE and SDE. These findings are consistent with the findings of previous research (Beycioglu et al., 2012; Chagger, 2012; Doring, 1999) that deputies are stressed when dealing their superiors.

As expected, the deputies highlighted that they experienced negative emotional situations, such as stress and dismay, when they were contacted by inspectors for seeking evidence. In this situation, the deputies’ revealed their unhappiness about the inspectors’ visits. Indeed, these visits can interfere with the deputies’ efforts to identify and supply the official evidence that had been requested. Given this scenario, the deputies felt tense and worried when dealing with the inspectors.

The deputies also faced some difficulties in dealing with some of the jurisdiction officers from educational authorities, such as the SDE and DOE. The findings revealed that the deputies were agitated and perplexed by the officers’ refusal to understand that their administrative workloads were overwhelming and continuous. The deputies also felt they should be given more time to implement some of the requested changes, as some of them were newly appointed; indeed, neophyte deputies faced complications in understanding and implementing the requested changes. Moreover, the deputies noted that most of the tasks given to them were to be completed as early as possible and then submitted online. Deputies also felt uncomfortable when they have to encounter problems including skills on ICT literacy and problems with internet connections; this was particularly so for the deputies from rural schools which added to their further stress. Briefly, the deputies underlined that some of them were facing problems in understanding the latest changes in educational policies due to the lack of information given by the officers. Furthermore, the deputies explained that they faced problems with parents, which further contributed to their administrative stress. They also commented on their frustrations when they obtained little support from parents in improving their students’ academic achievements. A few parents only asked for improvements and provided minimal support for the school’s programmes, and yet some of them questioned the school for their children's disciplinary issues. This finding is consistent with Oliver (2013), who found that dealing with students’ parents contributes to unhappy and stressful experiences for deputies.

Furthermore, the deputies were also frustrated and unhappy when they had to deal with conflicts which arose between two educational jurisdiction officers. As such, these conflicts and the indecisive situation among the educational authorities had great implications because the deputies complained about the confusing and inconsistent situations vis-a-vis official procedures from the inspectors and officers and felt unsure about which to adhere to. This situation added to the pressure on the deputies when executing a centralised policy within their school context. Thus, the deputies felt tense when they noticed that they were ‘caught’ in relation to administrative disputes occurring between two officers from the educational authorities.

Surprisingly, the deputies felt positive about their good relationships with their heads, since the heads understood their stress and feelings of uncertainty due to the heavy workloads. The deputies described their heads as being open to most of their suggestions in determining the school’s smooth day-to-day operation. However, the deputies said that they experienced stress when they did not have a positive relationship with their heads, especially when they had differences in terms of preferences and commitment. These results are consistent with the qualitative study findings by Yaskom (2013) that some school heads make positive remarks to their deputy heads to calm their concerns and to show that their situation is understood. In contrast, Cheng (1993) found that deputies felt stressed when dealing with their heads’ demands whereas this study finds that deputies of primary schools are happy when dealing with their heads when the heads provide them with support.

Inferentially, even though the deputies experienced stress when dealing with their educational superiors, the levels of stress they encountered were at the moderate level except when they had to deal with the school inspector, to which they attributed a slightly higher level of stress than when dealing with the other three educational superiors (officers from DOE and SDE, parents, and the school head). Therefore, based on the findings, it is assumed that the stress experienced by the deputies was considered as a routine challenge that deputies have to face and encounter as a school leader. Demographically, the female deputies experienced higher levels of stress compared to their male counterparts, who indicated a much lower level of stress when dealing with their educational superiors. Thus, based on a deputy’s gender, the findings revealed that female deputies have much higher levels of stress when they have to deal with their educational superiors. This supports the findings by previous researchers, such as Chang (1997), Hausman et al. (2002) and Delgado (2016), that female senior assistants or deputies have much involvement within their routine tasks which revealed their higher workloads and high commitment to the administrative tasks. Thus, it also indicates that assistant principals/deputies experience stress when completing their administrative tasks as deputies.

In terms of the school categories, deputies from the schools with fewest students indicated a slightly higher level of stress compared to their deputy colleagues at the Grade A and Grade B primary schools. This indicates that deputies working in small size schools with few students receive higher workloads and stress since such schools are equipped with fewer teachers and school personnel. Thus, deputies within that particular type of school have to perform dual or ‘hybrid’ roles as both teacher and as school administrator, which results in their experiencing a higher level of stress due to their role as a teacher with a heavy teaching workload. In this study, the senior deputies experienced much higher levels of stress compared to the neophyte deputies since most of the senior deputies were the administration deputies with much higher workloads in managing their schools, which included representing their school heads during their absences. At the same time, they also received many tasks delegated by their school heads, which added to their heavy workloads and higher levels of stress. From the above, it is noted that both findings are consistent with the findings of Delgado’s (2016) study that senior deputies experience higher levels of stress compared to their novice counterparts due to their high commitment and workloads besides receiving the delegated tasks provided by their heads. In addition, deputies who work with schools which have the smallest student enrolments have higher levels of stress compared to their colleagues who work with larger numbers of students on the school roll.

Practical implications and suggested framework

Predominantly, the deputies in the study experienced stress and uncertainties when dealing with their superiors, that is, school heads, the inspectors, SDE and DOE officers and even students’ parents. Hence, several suggestions for handling the practical implications of deputies adjusting to stressful experiences are based on the positive roles deputies’ superiors can play in helping them cope with stress (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Suggested framework on deputy head’s superiors’ roles and supports for headship.

As the second person in charge, after the school head, deputies should be equipped, mentored, and trained with the knowledge of how to cope with stress within their preparation courses to be school deputies and head teachers as preventative function skills (Nhundu, 1999). This is suggested because stress management skills are barely taught in any leadership courses and workshops offered to deputies and head teachers as part of their induction phase knowledge. Previous researchers (Borg and Riding, 1993; Nhundu, 1999) have indicated an urgent need to incorporate stress management training in school leaders’ preparation and induction programmes. In fact, Nhundu (1999) further postulated that training courses and skills on stress prevention should be taught to district and regional school administrators since most of school deputies were the least supported with certificate programmes and preparation for school leadership (Jackman, 2009). Secondly, as a school administrator, deputies are advised to execute the teamwork element in order to eliminate some of the stress and tense feelings when dealing with parents and with their educational superiors. Through the implementation of collaborative efforts between deputies and teachers, the tense feelings would be reduced since most of workload would be shared between deputies and teachers. Thirdly, deputies also have to practise decentralisation in order to reduce their administrative stress through encouraging teacher and distributed leadership practices as a way of empowering and fostering teachers to interact with the issues and problems within the school leadership tasks and as an initial anticipatory socialisation of teachers to become aspiring school deputies. Moreover, they also should use the social network, such as informal meetings and gatherings, to lessen their stressful experiences; the social network and support from other deputies can also help neophyte deputies in handling their stress and uncomfortable experiences.

The deputies made a number of suggestions with reference to the inspectors. Firstly, they should provide more support for the deputies in fulfilling and completing deputies’ relevant tasks instead of giving negative comments. Secondly, the inspectors should provide deputies with more assistance and facilitation in helping to improve deputies’ overall school performance rather than ‘punishing’ deputies for any incomplete tasks. Accordingly, the inspectors should criticise deputies less, since most of them are neophytes and are still in the process of learning. In fact, it is suggested that the inspectors provide deputies with relevant and effective knowledge and skills on school management tasks, which will later benefit their in-service training and learning process. It is important that the inspectors provide ample time for neophyte deputies to learn and improve their leadership skills. Through a series of knowledge-sharing sessions with the school inspector and senior deputies, neophyte deputies will be able to learn and can receive training to enhance their school management capabilities.

Furthermore, some suggestions were also forwarded to the SDE and DOE officers, given the findings that deputies were confused with the procedures and guidelines that they had to follow because there was a conflicting issue on procedures and guidelines between the inspectors and the officers from DDE/SDE, which affected the deputies’ levels of stress. Therefore, a mature decision needs to be made regarding the guidelines between the inspectors and officers from the DOE and SDE to decrease deputies’ worries about completing their tasks in managing the school effectively. Furthermore, officers from the DOE and SDE should be able to provide much knowledge and instruction to deputies, since many of the officers have accumulated wide knowledge as school administrators before being appointed to a higher-level administration post. As stakeholders, parents should also play an essential role in supporting the schools’ improvement plans instead of searching for weaknesses and criticising deputies. Indeed, a mature partnership, active involvement, and collaborative efforts between the school and parents should be able to improve the school development process along with its academic and extra-curricular achievements.

Lastly, heads also have a major role to play in decreasing deputies’ stress. As school leaders, heads should disseminate knowledge to deputies on how to lead the school more effectively, particularly to neophyte deputies. Thus, these deputies rely very much on the heads’ knowledge and practice in coaching and mentoring them to be an aspiring school leader (Hilliard and Newsome, 2013; Searby et al., 2017). Heads should also treat their deputies as ‘collaborative friends’ and share practical aspects and ground knowledge on school leadership. As school heads, they should also provide guidance to deputies since it is assumed that most of the deputies do not have much experience, especially when it is related to making a decision regarding their school. Therefore, they need more guidance and assistance from heads as their source of reference in leading their schools. As a leader to their deputies, school heads are urged to provide much social instrumental support to their deputies regarding aspects such as task-specific assistance, emotional support (empathy, affect and comfort), informational support (awareness, advice and directives) and appraisal support (feedback, suggestions and encouragement). This is strongly recommended by leadership and psychological scholars for decreasing the stress among middle layer leaders, such as deputies and teachers (Kelloway et al., 2005).

With all the efforts and support provided by all the parties that interact with deputies, it is believed that there will be a reduction in the stress experienced by deputies. Presumably, the deputies will prepare themselves for the headship post since they have had more experience as an effective aspiring school leader. It will certainly prepare the current deputies based on the framework.

Limitations and future research

Succinctly, there are some limitations within this study that should be acknowledged. First, in terms of the sample, only 120 deputies from two urban districts were selected as respondents, which is only a small sample of primary school deputies; thus, the data reported only the selected primary deputies’ insights into their stress experiences when dealing with their educational superiors, which might have some dissimilarities with primary deputies from other locations or even educational systems. Moreover, we are also aware of the difficulty in drawing conclusions from a small sample of primary deputies which cannot represent the whole primary school culture in Malaysia. For future research, it is suggested that a sample that is much bigger and more representative of primary deputies should be used to provide more generalisable findings. Second, this study involved primary deputies whose workloads and stress experiences may differ from those of their colleagues who are secondary deputies and who receive much better preparation in terms of their academic qualifications and courses before being appointed as secondary deputies. In this sense, previous researchers (Bossert et al., 1982; Robinson et al., 2012) have warned about providing generalisations from studies in primary schools for secondary schools due to their significant differences in terms of size, departmental structure and student age and maturity. Regarding comparisons, it is strongly suggested that future studies on deputies’ stress experiences should include secondary deputies to provide a more broadly-based conclusion about whether deputy heads in Malaysia experience stress and uncertainties when dealing with their educational superiors. Third, this study also employed a mixed-methods approach, which encompassed the qualitative and quantitative approaches in investigating primary deputies’ stress experiences. For a future study, the use of a single approach, whether quantitative or qualitative, would enable researchers to explore deputies’ stress experiences, such as their stressors or determinants and their consequences, which have not been examined thoroughly in this initial study.

Fourth, in terms of this study’s items, this study employed limited numbers of items to determine whether deputies experience stress when dealing with their educational superiors. Thus, it would be useful for future researchers to have a more appropriate/extensive range of items in securing the quantitative validity and reliability of the study.

Fifth, in this study, we held only a few interview sessions with deputies who were experiencing stress while dealing with their educational superiors. Thus, it is believed that this method of data collection was limited to the perceptions and viewpoints of the deputies, which would be very subjective in nature. Therefore, it is suggested that other methods can be added to enhance the validity of the data through observations or maybe by obtaining other opinions, viewpoints and perspectives from the relevant educational superiors, such as the parents, school heads, and the school inspector or stakeholders in verifying the relevant and actual data taken from the deputies.

Conclusion

It is disheartening that deputies experience stress and pressure while dealing with their superiors, and presumably their superiors also contribute to deputies’ pressure and workloads. Thus, in coping with deputies’ stressful experiences, it is the duty of all educational personnel to decrease the number of stressful experiences and to provide more initiatives and mechanisms to support deputies and prepare them for the post of head teacher.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors

References

Abu Bakar

(2011) The roles of the educator are continued to be recognised. Berita Harian, 17 May, 16.

Al-Hazmi

(2010) Job satisfaction among female headteachers in Saudi Arabia secondary schools: A qualitative perspectives. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, School of Education, the Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences, the University of Southampton.

Armstrong

(2010) Rites of passage: Coercion, compliance, and complicity in the socialisation of new vice principals. Teachers’ College Record 112(3): 685–722.

Barnett

Shoho

Oleszewski

(2012) The job realities of beginning and experienced assistant principals. Leadership and Policy in Schools 11(1): 92–128.

Beycioglu

Ozer

Ugurlu

(2012) The facets of job satisfaction among vice principals in elementary schools. Journal of Management Development 31(7): 636–647.

Bolam

McMahon

Pocklington

Weindling

. (1993) Effective Management in Schools. London, UK: HMSO.

Borg

Riding

(1993) Occupational stress and job satisfaction among school administrators. Journal of Educational Administration 31(1): 4–21.

Bossert

Dywer

Rowan

Lee

(1982) The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly 18(3): 34–64.

Boyland

(2011) Job stress and coping strategies of elementary principals: A statewide study. Current Issues in Education 14(3): 1–10.

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

11.

Brock

Grady

(2002) Avoiding Burnout: A Principal’s Guide to Keeping the Fire Alive. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

12.

Brookes

(2006) How to Be a Successful Deputy Head. London, UK: Continuum.

13.

Brotschul

(2013) A qualitative examination of factors influencing assistant principal motivation to pursue a principalship in an era of accountability. Unpublished EdD dissertation, College of Education and Human Sciences, Seton Hall University.

14.

Bukoski

Lewis

Carpenter

Berry

Sanders

(2015) The complexities of realizing community: Assistant principals as community leaders in persistently low-achieving schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools 14(4): 411–436.

15.

Bush

(1981) Key Roles in School Management in Policy-making, Organisation and Leadership in School, E323, Block 4, Part 3. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

16.

Bush

(2012) Authenticity in research: Reliability, validity and triangulation. In: Briggs

Coleman

Morrison

(eds) Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management. 3rd edition. London: SAGE, pp.91–105.

17.

Busher

James

(2012) The ethical framework of research practice. In: Briggs

Colemann

Morrison

(eds) Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management. 3rd edition. London: SAGE, pp.106–120.

18.

Calabrese

(1991) Effective assistant principal: What do they do? NASSP Bulletin 75(533): 5–57.

19.

Calabrese

Adams

(1987) A comparative analysis of alienation among secondary school administrators. Planning and Changing 18(2): 90–107.

20.

Chagger

(2012) An investigation into the reasons why deputy headteachers either decide/not decide to take the journey to headship. Unpublished Doctor of Education Thesis, School of Education, the University of Birmingham.

21.

Chagger

Bisschoff

(2015) The barriers that deputy headteachers in secondary schools face on their journey to headship. International Journal of Education and Social Science 2(6): 54–66.

22.

Chang

(1997) Job stress among secondary school administrators in Georgetown, Penang. Unpublished Master of Science (Management) Thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia.

23.

Cheng

(1993) Occupational stress as perceived by assistant principals in Hong Kong aided secondary schools. Dissertation of Master Degree of Education, the University of Hong Kong.

24.

Clerkin

(1985) School-based training for deputy heads and its relationship to the task of primary school management. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 13(1): 17–28.

25.

Cranston

Tromans

Reugebrink

(2004) Forgotten leaders: What do we know about the deputy principalship in secondary schools? International Journal of Leadership in Education 7(3): 225–242.

26.

Delgado

(2016) The impact of occupational stress on high school assistant principals. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy in Education, Educational leadership dissertation, Oakland University.

27.

Doring

(1999) Why Me? Stress and the deputy. British Journal of In-Service Education 19(3): 18–22.

28.

Duke

(1988) Why principals consider quitting. The Phi Delta Kappa 70(4): 308–312.

29.

Dunham

(1992) Stress in Teaching. New York, NY: Routledge Edits.

30.

Earley

Weindling

(2004) Understanding School Leadership. London, UK: SAGE.

31.

Edwin

(2009) The relationship between main stressors and occupational stress among the government primary school administrators in Kuching, Sarawak. Unpublished research paper for Master of Science (Human Resource Development), Faculty of Cognitive Science and Human Development, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.

32.

French

Rogers

Cobb

(1974) Adjustment as a person-environment fit. In: Coelho

Hamburg

Adams

(eds) Coping and Adaptation. New York, NY: Basic Books Publishing, pp.316–333.

33.

Gajda

Militello

(2008) Recruiting and retaining school principals: What we can learn from practicing administrators. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice 2(5): 14–20.

34.

Glanz

(2004) The Assistant Principal’s Handbook: Strategies for Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

35.

Glass

Franceschini

(2007) The State of the American Superintendency: A Mid-Decade Study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

36.

Gmelch

Gates

(1998) The impact of personal, professional and organizational characteristics on administrator burnout. Journal of Educational Administration 36(2): 146–159.

37.

Gmelch

Swent

(1977) Stress at the desk and how the creatively cope. Oregon School Study Council Bulletin 21(4): 1–45.

38.

Gmelch

Swent

(1982) Management team stressors and their impact on administrators’ health. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. 19–23rd March, New York. ERIC ED 218 761.

39.

Gmelch

(1991) A conceptual understanding of administrative stress. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 3–7.

40.

Gonzales

(2013) Exploring principals’ perceptions about potential and readiness for the principalship in assistant principals: a case study. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.

41.

Grant

(2013) Becoming a primary school principal in Ireland: Deputy-principalship as preparation. Unpublished Doctor of Education thesis, Centre for Educational Research and Development, University of Lincoln, UK

42.

Grant

(2014) Becoming a primary school principal in Ireland: deputy principalship as preparation. Irish Teacher Journal 2(1): 85–101.

43.

Greene

(2008) Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2(1): 7–22.

44.

Greenglass

Burke

(2003) Teacher stress. In: Dollard

Winefield

(eds) Occupational Stress in the Service Professions. London, UK: Taylor and Francis, pp.213–236.

45.

Hancock

Bird

(2008) Motivators and inhibitors to becoming a school leader. Paper presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 24–28 March, New York, NY.

46.

Hart

Cooper

(2001) Occupational stress: Toward a more integrated framework. In: Anderson

Ones

Sinangil

Viswesvaran

(eds) Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology. Volume 2. London, UK: SAGE, pp.93–114.

47.

Harvey

. (1991). The primary school deputy principalship: A time for change. A report of the Western Australian Primary Deputy Principals’ Association. Perth: Park Press.

48.

Harvey

(1994a) Empowering the primary school deputy principal. Education Management and Administration 22(1): 26–38.

49.

Harvey

(1994b) The Deputy principalship: retrospect and prospect. International Journal of Educational Management 8(3): 15–25.

50.

Hayes

. (2005) Rising Star and Sitting Tenants: A Picture of Deputy Headship in One London Borough and How Some of Its Schools are Preparing Their Deputies for Headship. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.

51.

Hausman

Nebeker

McCreary

Donaldson

Jr (2002) The work life of the assistant principal. Journal of Educational Administration 40(2): 136–157.

52.

Hilliard

Newsome

(2013) Value added: Best practices for the utilization of assistant principals’ skills and knowledge in schools. Journal of College Teaching & Learning 10(2): 153–157.

53.

Hussain

(2007) Identifying needs of training for headteachers and deputy heads in secondary schools based on their task analysis. Unpublished MEd (Educational Management) project paper, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.

54.

Ivancevich

Matteson

(1980) Optimizing human resources: A case for preventive health and stress management. Organizational Dynamics 9(2): 5–25.

55.

Jackman

(2009) Who Knew? An autoethnography of a first-year assistant principal. Unpublished Doctor of Education dissertation. The Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

56.

James

Whiting

(1998a) Headship? No thanks. Management in Education 12(2): 12–14.

57.

James

Whiting

(1998b) The career perspectives of deputy headteacher. Education Management & Administration. 26(4): 353–362.

58.

Jantan

(2004) The Effective School Head. Bentong, Malaysia: PTS publication.

59.

Kelloway

Sivanathan

Francis

and Barling

(2005) Poor leadership. In: Barling

Kelloway

Frone

(eds) Handbook of Work Stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp.89–112.

60.

Knutton

Mycroft

(1985) Stress and the deputy head. School Organisation 6(1): 49–59.

61.

Kumar

Pragadeeswaran

(2011) Effects of occupational stress on spiritual quotient among executives. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 2(4): 288–292.

62.

Lainas

(2010) Local directors of school education in Greece: Their role and main sources of job stress. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(4): 454–471.

63.

LaRocco

House

French

(1980) Social support, occupational stress and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21(3): 202–218.

64.

MacBeath

O’Brien

Gronn

(2012) Drowning or waving? Coping strategies among Scottish headteachers. School Leadership & Management 32(5): 421–437.

65.

Malika

(2015) Challenges facing deputy headteachers in the performance of their administrative roles in public secondary schools in Bungoma north sub-county, Bungoma county, Kenya. A research report for Master in Educational Administration. University of Kenyatta, Kenya.

66.

McGrath

(1970) Social and Psychological Factors in Stress. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Publishing.

67.

Ministry of Education, Malaysia (2015) Repositioning in filling posts for principals and headmaster for the year 2016 at the Ministry of Education, Malaysia. Putrajaya: Human Resource Management Division, Ministry of Education, Malaysia.

68.

Muijs

Harris

(2003) Assistant and deputy heads: Key leadership issues and challenges. Management in Education 17(1): 6–8.

69.

Nhundu

(1999) Determinants and prevalence of occupational stress among Zimbabwean school administrators. Journal of Educational Administration 37(3): 256–272.

70.

Oleszewski

Shoho

Bennett

(2012) The development of assistant principals: A literature review. Journal of Educational Administration 50(3): 264–286.

71.

Oliver

JDW

(2013) A study of assistant principals’ perceptions of the principalship and their career aspirations. Unpublished Doctor of Education dissertation, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ.

72.

Oplatka

Tamir

(2009) ‘I don’t want to be a school head’: Women deputy heads’ insightful constructions of career advancement and retention. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2): 216–238.

73.

Othman

Moidunny

(2008) Educational leadership and management: Challenges for principals and heads. Journal of Educational Leadership and Management 18(2): 32–42.

74.

Phillips

Sen

McNamee

(2007) Prevalence and causes of self-reported work-related stress in head teachers. Occupational Medicine 57(5): 367–376.

75.

Punch

(2014) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London, UK: SAGE.

76.

Queen

(2005) The Frazzled Principal’s Wellness Plan. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

77.

Reay

Dennison

(1990) Deputy heads in primary schools – is it a real job? Education 3(13): 41–45.

78.

Ribbins

(1997) Heads on deputy headship: impossible roles for the invisible role holders? Educational Management and Administration 25(3): 295–308.

79.

Rintoul

Goulais

(2010) Vice principalship and moral literacy: Developing a moral compass. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(6): 745–757.

80.

Robinson

Bendikson

Hattie

(2012) Leadership and students’ outcomes: Are secondary schools unique? In: Robertson

Timperley

(eds) Leadership and Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.131–142.

81.

Sabina

(2014) Factors influencing elements of stress and autonomy and control among school administrators. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy dissertation in Social and Comparative Analysis of Education. School of Education, The University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

82.

Searby

Browne-Ferrigno

Chih-hsuan

(2017) Assistant principals: Their readiness as instructional Leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools 16(3): 397–430.

83.

Selye

(1974) Stress Without Distress. New York, NY: Penguin Publishing.

84.

Shoho

Barnett

Tooms

(2012) Examining the Assistant Principalship: The New Puzzles and Perennial Challenges in the 21st Century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

85.

Siow Set Fun (2008) Relationship between stress and job satisfaction among deputy heads in Chinese medium primary schools. Unpublished Bachelor of Education (Educational Management) thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.

86.

Southworth

(1994) Headteachers and deputy heads: Partners and cultural leaders. In: Southworth

(ed.) Readings in Primary School Development. London, UK: Falmer Press, pp. 29–47.

87.

Southworth

(1998) Leading Improving Primary Schools: The Work of Headteachers and Deputy Head. London, UK: Falmer Press.

88.

Spector

(2008) Industrial and Organisational Behaviour: Research and Practice. 5th edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

89.

Stranks

(2005) Stress at Work: Management and Prevention. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

90.

The Civil Service Department of Malaysia (2007) Circular No. 11, 2007: Changes in the Service Schemes for Ministry of Education’s Officers with Diploma Qualification. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Civil Service Department of Malaysia.

91.

Todd

Dennison

(1980) The changing role of the deputy headteacher in English secondary schools. In: Bush

Glatter

Goodey

Riches

(eds) Approaches to School Management. London, UK: Harper and Row, pp.304–321.

92.

Walker

Kwan

(2009) Linking professional, school, demographic and motivational factors to desire for principalship. Educational Administration Quarterly 45(4): 590–615.

93.

Webb

Vulliamy

(1995) The changing role of the primary school deputy headteacher. School Organization 15(1): 53–64.

94.

Weller

(2002) The Assistant Principal: Essentials for Effective School Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

95.

Wells

(2013) Principals responding to constant pressure: finding a source of stress management. NASSP Bulletin 97(4): 335–349.

96.

Whitaker

Turner

(2000) What is your priority? NASSP Bulletin 84(617): 16–21.

97.

Wynott

(2005) New principal stress in an inner-city school: A case study. Unpublished Master of Education dissertation, Faculty of Education, Nipissing University, Canada.

98.

Yaskom

(2013) The analysis of training needs for special education deputy heads. Unpublished Master of Education (Educational Administration) project paper. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.