Abstract
Faculty trust in educational leadership is a linchpin of schools’ functionality and efficacy. Teachers’ trust in their school leaders can significantly influence the work environment, teacher retention and student achievement. Our study, which employed a comprehensive mixed-methods approach, including 1320 questionnaires and interviews with 40 teachers and 5 principals, has identified eight practices, behaviours and actions (Fairness, Respect, Consistency-Reliability, Trusting the Teachers, Setting the Example, Competence – Organisation, Confidentiality, Open Door – Support) that foster robust trust in school leaders. These findings are not just insights but practical suggestions that school principals can implement to enhance faculty trust. By applying these insights, school principals can create a more trusting environment, improving teacher retention and student achievement. Furthermore, policymakers can use these insights to develop training initiatives that promote the growth of trustworthy educational leaders locally and internationally.
Introduction
The success of institutions, including educational establishments, hinges primarily on the collaboration and productivity of individuals striving towards shared objectives. To attain this, a robust culture of trust is central (Billington, 2021; Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Edwards-Groves et al., 2016; Harris and Muijs, 2004), as trust forms a fundamental component of healthy interpersonal relationships (Bormann et al., 2021). Trust is considered a vital element in initiating, maintaining, repairing and elevating social relationships in the workplace (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). It is an essential factor that pervades an entire spectrum of workplace relationships, including those between leaders and followers (Dirks and de Jong, 2022). Schools are complex social systems (Dolloff, 2022; Moore et al., 2019; Moye et al., 2005; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015), and as such, they contain unpredictable and sometimes unfamiliar variables (Tchannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). In the context of schools, multiple independent personalities are expected to deal with these unexpected and unfamiliar variables and work together as a group to create the necessary conditions to enhance academic outcomes for all children. Goddard et al. (2009) point out that schools, as social institutions, rely on the quality of interpersonal relationships to improve learning outcomes. Healthy interpersonal relationships include, among others, effective communication, respect for diversity, the presence of a sense of community and enhanced cooperation and cohesion (Carmeli et al., 2009; Day et al., 2014). Rich interpersonal relationships also contribute to principal success despite the challenges of the conditions in any given context (Mincu et al., 2024). A cultivated and nourished environment of trust in schools is a necessary factor that not only positively influences such relationships but also holds the potential to significantly enhance academic outcomes (Mousena and Raptis, 2020; Reina and Reina, 2000; Zhang et al., 2021a).
Cultivating and nourishing a trusting school environment appears to be particularly helpful in heavily centralised educational systems, perhaps because school leaders who engender trust are more prone to demonstrate greater efficiency in their professional endeavour (Pashiardis et al., 2011; Pashiardis et al., 2018; Pashiardis and Savvides, 2013). Studies examining successful school leadership in Cyprus, where this study took place, underline that, despite a very controlled system context (e.g. system-controlled curriculum staff appointments, forced job rotations) and challenging school context (e.g. small schools, rural schools, lack of resources, changing populations) (Emilianides and Hajisoteriou, 2020; Gurr, 2015), school leaders may attain success and effectiveness through inspired leadership (Pashiardis and Kafa, 2022). Such inspired leadership includes people-centred leadership; the development of external relations, including networking with all implicated parties; the collective and shared perception of ownership between the members of the school unit; and the articulation and promotion of a clear vision and an endorsed set of shared values (Kafa and Pashiardis, 2020; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2021; Pashiardis et al., 2011). Inspired leadership is strongly connected with the Transformational Leadership (TL) approach. Empirical evidence links TL with successful principalship and trust both in Cyprus (Pashiardis and Kafa, 2021; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2022; Pashiardis et al., 2011) and internationally (Anderson, 2017; Browning, 2014; Kılınç et al., 2024) especially during periods of crises (Masry-Herzallah and Stavissky, 2021; Menon, 2023).
The importance of maintaining trust during a crisis has been well-documented by several studies (Dückers et al., 2017; Mutch, 2015; Sutherland, 2017). The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on educational systems worldwide (Harris, 2020; Kafa and Eteokleous, 2024), and school principals found themselves in an unprecedented situation where they had to use their leadership skills and resources to adapt and deliver, making all necessary adjustments and modifications (Ramos-Pla et al., 2021). During this hectic and demanding period, it became clear that encouraging and strengthening trust was a critical component of well-functioning schools (Beauchamp et al., 2021; Bush, 2021; McLeod and Dulsky, 2021). Trust received particular attention worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic and was perceived as essential to organisational stability in complex and demanding conditions (Ahlström et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2023; Fernandez and Shaw, 2020). Trust, in times of crisis and uncertainty, has been associated with the maintenance of healthy social relations (Dirks and de Jong, 2022), enhanced social cohesion (Niedlich et al., 2021), organisational commitment (Bush, 2021) and resilience (McLeod and Dulsky, 2021). During periods of pressure, school leaders also emphasise the need for more trust in schools and less emphasis on accountability (Jopling and Harness, 2022). If trust breaks down, accountability turns into a tick-box exercise where information is occasionally falsified to appear in compliance with external demands. Increased accountability may harm trust, as it is frequently perceived as harming professional pride and integrity and altering and distorting the appropriate goals of professional activities (Walker et al., 2011).
Prioritising a trusting school environment represents an opportune trajectory for enhancing educational effectiveness and improvement (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Karacabey et al., 2022; Leithwood, 2021; Louis and Murphy, 2017; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2000; Van Maele and Van Houtte, 2012). School leaders should pay particular attention to their day-to-day interactions, as they play a crucial role in shaping trusting relationships between them and their teachers (Browning, 2014; Bukko et al., 2021; Handford and Leithwood, 2013; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). Trust building is perhaps one of the leader's most important tasks (Kosonen and Ikonen, 2022). A school leader sets the tone in schools (Hoy and Tarter, 2004; Leithwood et al., 2021; Weinstein et al., 2020) and, thus, is mainly responsible for fostering relationships, creating the appropriate climate through specific leadership actions, practices and interpersonal behaviours that build and sustain trust (Boies and Fiset, 2019; Handford and Leithwood, 2013; Howe et al., 2023).
Defining trust
Even though trust has been extensively researched in various contexts, one of the ongoing challenges among researchers is how to conceptualise and best define it. Whilst literature offers numerous definitions to conceptualise the meaning of trust, there is no universally accepted definition, and available definitions are complex and vary by academic discipline and context. The term is defined in so many ways that researchers have ‘marvelled at how confusing the term has become’ (McKnight and Chervany, 2001, p. 28). The confusion between facets of trust, trustworthiness, confidence and vulnerability also contributes to the weakness of the conceptualisation of trust (Shayo et al., 2021). Comprehending the characteristics that trustors consider when making trust assessments can also present a demanding task (Mayer et al., 1995; Tschannen-Moran, 2020), and researchers often use various terms to describe these characteristics.
Literature throughout contexts, however, offers commonly accepted and applicable definitions like the one given by Mayer et al. (1995), where trust is defined as ‘the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party’ (p. 712). Mishra's (1996) definition emphasises the multidimensional nature of trust concerning the qualities the trusted person possesses: ‘Trust is one party's willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the belief that the latter party is competent, reliable, open, and concerned’. Nyhan and Marlowe (1997) developed an organisational trust inventory based on the multidimensional nature of trust. They defined trust as an individual's or group's belief that another individual or group is/are trustworthy, faithful and loyal. One of the most recognisable definitions of trust, adjusted for educational contexts, is the one developed by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1999), deduced from reoccurring themes: ‘Trust is one party's willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that the latter party is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and open’ (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 1998, p. 189).
Faculty trust in the school leader
Within binary relationships marked by power differences and positional distinctions, the cultivation and sustenance of trust hinge predominantly upon the leader's practices, behaviours and actions (Bligh, 2017; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Kosonen and Ikonen, 2022). Trust is dynamic (Bormann et al., 2021); it can be enhanced or diminished depending on the fulfilment or disappointment of expectations (Babaoglan, 2016; Dolloff, 2022; Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2015). Whilst school leaders are primarily held accountable for student achievement and learning outcomes, their influence on these aspects is often exerted indirectly (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2007; Grissom et al., 2021; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2006, 2008). Faculty trust in the school leader is an essential component that elevates the positive impact on student achievement (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Leithwood et al., 2020, 2021; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). It is expected that school leaders should be familiar with, develop, and nourish what strengthens their teachers’ trust in them (Howe et al., 2023; Lasater, 2016; Northfield, 2014; Tschannen-Moran, 2007) because without trust and guidance of the school leader, teachers appear less motivated and may be unwilling or unable to perform to their highest abilities (Gómez-Leal et al., 2022).
The degree of trust leaders enjoy is determined mainly by their trustworthy behaviours, and when high trust in the leader is present, there is an increased likelihood of attaining school objectives (Bligh, 2017; Çoban et al., 2023; Goddard et al., 2009; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). High trust in the school leader has been associated, among others, with encouraging and promoting collective decision-making, enhancing teacher commitment, facilitating school improvement and enabling the diffusion of good teaching and learning practices across schools, thus leading to improved learning outcomes (Bukko et al., 2021; Handford and Leithwood, 2013; Niedlich et al., 2021; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). Bryk and Schneider's (2002) longitudinal research posited that schools with high trust have more than three times higher chance of improving test scores. In general, in high-trust school environments, teachers would take risks, feel more encouraged, are more likely to reach out to colleagues for approaches to teaching and learning (Brown et al., 2016), have enhanced self-efficacy and exhibit citizenship behaviours in their workplace (Choong et al., 2020). High-trust environments are also positively associated with teachers’ job satisfaction (Atik and Celik, 2020) and positive teachers’ learning and professional behaviour (Goddard et al., 2009).
Eliciting faculty trust
For schools to benefit from a trusted working environment, it is the responsibility of the principal to establish and foster relationships of trust. This can be achieved through trustworthy behaviour, such as empowerment, information sharing and support (Atik and Celik, 2020; Hallam and Mathews, 2008). Dirks and Ferrin (2002) suggest that trust is not simply a result of the leader-follower relationship but also depends on the perception of the leader's trustworthiness. Leaders’ practices, behaviours and actions that elicit co-workers trust range from complex variables, such as procedural justice (Bligh, 2017; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002), to leadership styles (Hoy and Tarter, 2004; Jung and Avolio, 2000; Legood et al., 2021) and in more straightforward and everyday practices, such as benevolence, openness, competence, integrity, care, daily concern and respect (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Lleo et al., 2023; Tschannen-Moran, 2007).
Studies have suggested several factors that contribute to building trust in organisations. One of the first and most notable meta-analyses was conducted by Mayer et al. in 1995. They analysed 23 surveys conducted between 1958 and 1995 and identified three main characteristics: competence, benevolence and integrity, which play a significant role in establishing trust. Since then, various meta-analyses conducted in the field of organisations and schools (Bligh, 2017; Burke et al., 2007; Dirks and de Jong, 2022; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Sun et al., 2023) and research (Balyer, 2017; Brown et al., 2016; Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Bukko et al., 2021; Choong et al., 2020; Handford and Leithwood, 2013) have identified a number of trust-building conditions.
For educational contexts, following an extensive review of literature, Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1999, 2003, 2007) produced a trust framework that identified five facets essential in trust relationships: honesty (being truthful, having integrity, delivering promises, accepting responsibility); benevolence (extending genuine goodwill, being supportive to teachers, safeguarding confidential information); openness (engaging in open communication, not withholding vital information and decision making); reliability (being consistent, being dependable); competence (engaging in problem-solving, working hard and setting an example, defending and protecting teachers, being flexible). Research regarding trust in schools has ever since been heavily dependent and influenced by their findings (e.g. Adams and Forsyth, 2013; Bukko et al., 2021; Howe et al., 2023; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015; Van Maele and Van Houtte, 2009; Yavas and Celik, 2010).
A second influential stream on trust in school contexts derives from Bryk and Schneider's (2002) longitudinal study. Their research proposed four trust-building considerations: respect, personal regard, personal integrity and competence in core role responsibilities. To date, their published work has been cited in over 6000 titles, confirming the significance and influence of their work. Bryk and Schneider (2002) elaborated on relational trust, which describes the unique social exchanges of schooling within defined role sets (e.g. teachers with students, teachers with other teachers, teachers with parents and all groups with the school principal). Each party within the relationship is expected to understand their role obligations and maintain expectations about the role obligations of other parties (Kolleck, 2023). They emphasise that the well-functioning of school communities rests on the achieved agreement in each role relationship understandings held about these personal obligations and expectations of others. Despite the formal power held by any given role, all parties in the school community remain dependent on others to attain desired outcomes and feel empowered (Bryk and Schneider, 2002). Such dependencies unavoidably create a sense of mutual vulnerability, and trust is formed when deliberate actions are taken by any party to overcome the sense of vulnerability in others to make them feel safe and secure.
Further research in the field has provided extensive evidence regarding what elicits trust. Butler (1991) has proposed ten trust conditions: integrity, availability, openness, loyalty, promise fulfilment, competence, fairness, discretion, receptivity and reliability. Norman et al. (2010) found that a leader's positive psychological capacity and transparency positively impacted the rate of trust in him/her. To describe the principal's behaviours and actions that elicit trust, Kagy (2010) listed four broad categories: communication, confidentiality, engagement and genuineness. Ghamrawi (2011) suggested that principals implement trust by modelling specific leadership behaviours and securing an understanding environment that encourages teachers to engage in professional dialogue. Five themes or elements of trust that could be linked to specific behaviours were identified by Coleman (2012): altruism and caring for others, respect and fairness, trusting others, professionalism and honesty. Handford and Leithwood (2013) proposed thirteen factors or antecedents of trust: benevolence, caring/concern, competence, fairness, forgiveness, honesty, integrity, loyalty, openness, personal regard, respect and vulnerability. Browning (2014) listed ten critical trust-building practices in the head-staff dyad: admitting mistakes, offering trust to staff members, actively listening, providing affirmation, making informed/consultative decisions, being visible around the school, remaining calm and level-headed, mentoring and coaching staff, care for staff members and keep confidences. Lleo et al. (2023) research proposed that the qualities of benevolence and integrity of principals are fundamental in engendering trust and emotional commitment to schools.
The context of the study
The educational framework in Cyprus is distinguished by a centralised structure of authority, as evidenced by scholarly works (Karageorgos et al., 2021; Pashiardis, 2004; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2022), wherein the Ministry of Education, Sport and Youth (MoESY) holds paramount jurisdiction, mandating adherence to centrally issued directives to all educational institutions. The MoESY is responsible for creating and enforcing legislation related to education and designing and implementing educational policies. A central syllabus and a central national curriculum are present, and school units are expected to implement them according to the central guidelines set (Pashiardis, 2004; Pashiardis and Ribbins, 2003). In public schools, the appointment, placement and relocation of all educators are overseen by the Educational Service Commission (ESC), an autonomous five-member committee selected by the president of the Republic for a 6-year term. The same committee is also responsible for promoting teachers of any rank (deputy headteacher, headteacher, inspector, etc.). The responsibilities for in-service training, advice, teacher supervision and school evaluation are allocated to local inspectors. The government financially supports the public education sector. Public schools are funded mainly by the state through Local School Boards (LSB) through bureaucratic procedures. Financial resources are allocated to LSB responsible for the construction, maintenance and equipment of school buildings in their district (Emilianides and Hajisoteriou, 2020). The government also subsidises the salaries of school personnel, providing for all their wages and pensions.
A notion of decentralisation rests in providing principals with authority to oversee issues that mainly concern students’ and teachers’ behaviour in the schools (Pashiardis and Tsiakiros, 2015). Following a decision implemented in 2017 aiming for a more extensive degree of autonomy, all schools can develop a ‘Comprehensive Improvement Plan’ focusing on three topics aligned with their specific needs and priorities. The plan is based on the diagnosed needs of each school, even though, according to Eurydice (2019), minimal autonomy is still provided at the school level. According to the same source, some decentralised approaches can also be found within the school classrooms because teachers in Cyprus enjoy a degree of autonomy regarding the teaching methods and techniques employed during their teaching process. However, any effort to modernise the Cyprus education system would be difficult due to its centralised character and school units lack the autonomy to formulate educational policy (Karageorgos et al., 2021).
Despite the education system's centralised character, research is encouraged and highly regarded in Cyprus. Cyprus is one of the 27 countries participating in the ISSPP (International Successful School Principalship Project), an international project aiming to identify successful school leadership in schools of different geographical regions, different sizes and students deriving from diverse social and economic backgrounds (Gurr and Moyi, 2022; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2021). Cyprus has three state-funded universities and nine private universities conducting extensive research. To conduct research in public schools in Cyprus, the completion of an online application to the Centre of Educational Research and Evaluation (CERE) is required. Specific guidelines and criteria must be met to ensure the research's ethics, validity and reliability. Final approval to conduct a research project presupposes the researcher's commitment to strictly follow and implement the approved Detailed Research Plan (DRP) and to send the research results to the MoESY through the CERE. The MoESY supervises and confirms that the research process is implemented according to the approved DRP through the administration(s) of the school(s) involved in the research. Submitting a Summary Research Sheet (SRS) electronically is expected within a reasonable period after completing the research.
Purpose of the study
Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1999) acknowledge that trust is a complex concept that requires examination through multiple methods. They also argue that qualitative analyses are necessary, particularly those that explore the dynamics of trusting processes. A literature review conducted by Niedlich et al. (2021) found that, after 20 years, most research on trust in educational settings has been based on quantitative research designs. The authors emphasised the need for a more comprehensive investigation into the role of trust in educational contexts. The current study centres on bridging the gap between quantitative and qualitative research on trust and systematising school leaders’ practices, behaviours and actions, which are portrayed as essential conditions contributing to elevated trust in the school leader.
Trust plays a pivotal role in the development of healthy collegial relationships and the overall effective functioning of schools (Adams and Forsyth, 2013; Baxter and Ehren, 2023; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015); especially in times of crisis and uncertainty (Niedlich et al., 2021; Schwabsky et al., 2020; Thomson et al., 2021; Thornburg, 2021) and as such, needs to be further investigated. As mentioned above, key factors in developing trusting relationships in schools, among others, are the qualities of respect, competence, personal regard for others, integrity, vulnerability, honesty, openness and reliability (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Trust ascends from a complex interaction and interplay of beliefs, expectations, experiences and situational aspects (Bormann et al., 2021). Additionally in a school context, the levels of trust (high or low) primarily depend on the school leader. Identification of recurring practices, actions and behaviours principals can use to create and sustain a high-trust environment is very much needed. The perceptions of teachers with high trust in the school principal may contribute to this knowledge. Teacher insights about trust-building behaviours can provide critical guidance for school leaders, policymakers and researchers seeking to understand how high trust is manifested in educational organisations (Bukko et al., 2021). Understanding how school leaders can cultivate and establish these qualities is vital to developing high-level trusting relationships (Lasater, 2016). Netolicky (2020) claims that leadership is not a title ‘but an action, a behaviour, a practice, a doing and a way of being’ (p. 2). Based on all the above, the study attempts to answer the following research question: ‘Which leadership practices, behaviours, and actions generate high faculty trust in the school leader?’
Methodology
This study employed a mixed-method research design to outline highly trusted school principals’ practices, actions, and behaviours. More specifically, the research design adopted the sequential quantitative to Qualitative procedure (quan to QUAL). The approach is described in the eight two-dimensional mixed-method samplings typology presented by Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007) mixed methods sampling typology (p. 294) and was selected as the most appropriate for this study. They proposed that the overall design could be either concurrent (the qualitative and quantitative parts executed simultaneously) or sequential (the qualitative follows the quantitative or vice versa). Then, according to the priority or weight of each part, a final eight-combination grid is produced. In their notation (p. 294), ‘qual’ stands for qualitative, ‘quan’ stands for quantitative, ‘and (portrayed by the addition symbol +)’ stands for concurrent, ‘to (portrayed by an arrow)’ stands for sequential. Capital letters denote high priority or weight, and lower-case letters denote lower priority or weight. For this study, as mentioned above, a sequential quan to QUAL design was implemented, meaning that the quantitative part had lower weight and was intended mainly to provide the final list of principals for the case studies for the qualitative part that followed.
Population, sample and research instrument
An online application for conducting research in public schools was filled out, and a DRP was submitted. Following the approval to carry out the research by the CERE, a cover letter was sent to elementary schools in Cyprus with ten or more teachers, informing and addressing principals and teachers to participate in the research. Of approximately 180 schools (of the 331 total elementary schools in Cyprus) that fulfilled the abovementioned criterion, 90 responded positively. Teachers were requested to fill out the sub-test, Faculty Trust in the Principal, derived from Hoy and Tschannen-Moran's survey instrument (1999, 2003, 2007), commonly referred to as the Omnibus Trust Scale (Omni TS), which measures the level of faculty trust in the principal. Two English secondary school teachers and the authors independently translated the instrument into Greek. The translated versions were revised until all four translators agreed on a final version. As Ozolins et al. (2020) point out, such processes must be explicit in terms of where translations are involved in research. Translation experts participated in the procedure, providing guidance and advice throughout the research.
The format of the sub-test consists of eight 6-point Likert responses set from strongly agree to disagree. Respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed with the items. The items dwell on the five facets of trust described in the trust model developed by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran: benevolence, reliability, competency, honesty and openness. Out of the 90 schools receiving the research tool, 85 returned at least 75% of their school's questionnaires, which was the second limitation posed. The at least 75% return rate limitation ensured that the genuine opinion of the teachers’ trust towards their principal was represented. In total, 1320 out of 1600 questionnaires sent from 85 schools were filled out.
Quantitative analysis
Descriptive analyses were conducted, including sample return rate, means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis coefficients, instrument standardised score, and finally, ranking results by school, from least trusted to most trusted principals, according to teacher responses of each school. Tables 1 and 2 present the relevant results:
Means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis values of the eight statements of the comprehensive trust scale questionnaire.
School code, standardised scores and rank order results by school.
The initial quantitative analysis was employed mainly to obtain the list of the top highly trusted principals. The results showed that the skewness and kurtosis coefficients were between −2 and +2, indicating the normal distribution of the variables. Regarding the internal consistency reliability of the sub-scale (faculty trust), the Cronbach alpha was relatively high, .84.
Selection of case studies
Following the quantitative procedure's list of principals (schools) produced, the top five (Table 2) were asked to participate in a qualitative multiple-case study research methodology to depict the practices, actions and behaviours of highly trusted primary principals in Cyprus. The selection of the principals and schools included in the research was also validated by a team of two primary education inspectors, confirming the findings of the list produced. Following the quantitative data analysis, a qualitative multiple-case study methodology was carried out involving the top five principals and forty teachers on the list (eight from each school of the top five principals/schools). The researchers directly contacted the principals and teachers, informing them of the procedure, providing all the necessary information and clarifying that participation in the research was strictly voluntary. The teachers were selected randomly from each of the five schools. The participants were also explained the procedure (time and place of interviews, duration, general theme of the interviews, etc.), and they were informed that they could withdraw at any point during the research.
The approach of using multiple case studies was deemed to be the most appropriate method for addressing the research question. This approach allows for an in-depth exploration of one or more individuals’ programs, events, activities and processes, making it a suitable qualitative design (Creswell, 2014). The multiple case study approach is a comprehensive method encompassing planning, data collection and analysis and, as such, is widely favoured (Quintão et al., 2020) when addressing research questions to elicit participants’ opinions and understandings. Though challenging due to its need for extensive resources and time, undertaking a multiple case study provides a better understanding of complex and multidimensional phenomena (Priya, 2021; Stake, 2013; Yin, 2013), and trust is widely considered such a phenomenon. The evidence combined from various case studies is also robust and reliable, and as a result, it contributes to a more convincing theory (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Gustafsson, 2017). Multiple case studies typically facilitate a comprehensive exploration and understanding of the participants’ perspectives on a phenomenon in its natural environment (Halkias et al., 2022). When conducting research through a case study approach, it is essential to consider ethical considerations (Priya, 2021). As such, all necessary precautions were taken to ensure the study was conducted with the utmost care and sensitivity towards participants. This involved addressing ethical concerns by obtaining informed consent from all subjects, protecting them from harm, avoiding deceptive practices and safeguarding their privacy and confidentiality (Harrison et al., 2017).
Qualitative data collection and translation procedures
The qualitative data was derived from both teachers and principals. Regarding teachers, the data were obtained from semi-structured interviews, each lasting approximately 40 to 50 minutes, held in each participant's school. One-to-one interviews are considered the most appropriate approach to obtaining individual attitudes, beliefs and feelings and provide multiple views. Talking to individuals to gather their perspectives and attitudes on investigated topics is a valuable source of data that can provide valuable insights into research questions (Roulston, 2018). Data derived from the principals were also collected through one-to-one interviews and four all-day observations of their everyday work, including at least one staff meeting. The combined (interviews and observations notes) approach produced data utilised for an in-depth examination of the issue.
A semi-structured interview protocol was explicitly developed to elicit in-depth information regarding the high-trusted principals’ practices, actions and behaviours. The interview protocols focused mainly on identifying the reoccurring actions, practices and behaviours perceived by principals and teachers as qualities that elicit trust in the principal. All interviews were then fully transcribed. The multi-perspective data collection provided a wealth of information concerning highly trusted principals’ actions, practices and behaviours. The observational data obtained were utilised to achieve triangulation by combining different qualitative methods (Flick, 2018; Mik-Meyer, 2020; Patton, 1999) since observation data can be integrated as auxiliary or confirmatory research (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006).
A combination of two translation procedures was employed to ensure the credibility and validity of the translated qualitative data. At first, the researchers translated the data from Greek to English. The data were then back-translated into Greek by two independent bi-lingual experts. Back-translation is an essential step in ensuring the validity of a translation (Maneesriwongul and Dixon, 2004), even though sometimes it is criticised as being more focused on closeness or suitability rather than accuracy or truth (Ozolins et al., 2020). After the agreement between the two translations, the final version was given for member checking, where the researchers gave the transcription of the interviews back to the participants, asking for their confirmation (DeCino and Waalkes, 2019). The member-checking technique also improves the credibility of qualitative research (Thomas, 2017).
Qualitative data analysis
When interpreting qualitative data deriving from interviews, the epistemology of social constructivism provides a solid framework. Social constructivism stresses the significance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in the real world and constructing knowledge based on this understanding (Derry, 1999; Gergen, 2022). Kim (2001) asserts that social constructivism is based on assumptions about reality, knowledge and learning. Depending upon their experiences, individuals develop subjective meanings, and it is up to the researcher to look for meaning and interpret the complexity of their views (Priya, 2021). The sampling process for social constructivist studies should include a small number of cases deliberately chosen for specific reasons and the data derived from in-depth interviews with individuals directly involved in the phenomenon under study (Starks and Brown, 2007). Such an approach was preferred for this study. Viewing a phenomenon through the eyes of the social actors (for this study, teachers and principals) that co-construct this phenomenon can also enable multiple perspectives and effects to be examined or re-examined (Mincu et al., 2024) accordingly.
For this study, the data were analysed using the coding procedure proposed by the grounded theory approach. The grounded theory methodology is considered the most appropriate when research is conducted under social constructivism. The grounded theory approach helps interpret data and provide a theory and is widely used in exploratory social constructionism studies (Makri and Neely, 2021; Yin, 2013). Grounded theory ‘is an inductive methodology that provides systematic guidelines for gathering, synthesising, analysing, and conceptualising qualitative data for theory construction’ (Jørgensen, 2001, p. 6396). Grounded theory is also closely associated with data collection, mainly deriving from in-depth interviews and observation (Charmaz, 2014; Charmaz and Belgrave, 2012; Jørgensen, 2001). Coding is an ongoing procedure that entails extracting the critical elements in the data, defining, re-defining and labelling them according to what the data means. The data analysis procedure for this study involved the coding steps of grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Thornberg, 2017; Wolfswinkelet al., 2013), comprising three stages. During the first (open coding) stage, the interviewees’ perceptions, opinions, thoughts, experiences and feelings were identified to group them into initial categories. Then, relationships between the initial categories and their subcategories were established (axial coding). Comparisons enabled the identification of variations and similarities found in the data. At the final stage (selective coding), the categories produced were integrated and refined into a theory. Throughout the procedure, constant comparative analysis of the data aimed at clarifying the categories by examining, re-examining and comparing data and assigning them to categories according to obvious fit. The constant comparative method constitutes the core of qualitative analysis in the grounded theory approach (Boeije, 2002), enabling continuous revisiting and revision of the data until no new codes emerge (Hewitt-Taylor, 2001).
Cross-case presentation of the results
The interviews produced a vast amount of qualitative data. The procedure described above revealed at least eight common practices, actions and behaviours perceived by principals and teachers of the five schools as promoting high levels of trust from teachers in the principal (Table 3). A final limitation set was that the final list would include practices, behaviours and actions addressed by at least 80% of the respondents. Table 4 presents the demographics of the five principals and their schools.
Practices, actions and behaviours of highly trusted principals.
The demographics of the five principals and their schools.
1: low; 2: medium; 3: high. The APA suggests that such ranking should consider education, income, occupation, family size and relationships (APA, 2017). For this study, the ranking was derived from the data provided by the principals regarding the above specifications and validated by each school's inspectors.
The eight practices, behaviours and actions of high-trusted principals
Fairness
Fairness is a quality all participants portray as fundamental to building healthy, trusting relations. The participants describe it as the ability of the leader to be fair to all without discrimination or favouritism. One of the principals also added that to be fair, one must be unbiased and evaluate a teacher's performance based on her/his everyday work: A school leader should instil fairness. He must always be impartial and without prejudice. A teacher’s work and effort every day in the school must be judged fairly. (Principal 2) So, she is, above all, fair. This is very important. When teachers feel that the principal favours colleagues, a climate of disbelief and uncertainty is present. My current principal is different. She always praises her teachers, stands by them, and treats everyone equally and fairly. (Teacher 13)
Respect
Both teachers and principals underlined the importance of respect. One of the principals vehemently claimed that respect is the foundation of trust. School leaders need to respect every member of the school and try to get to know them: A fundamental aspect of trust has to do with respect. Respecting and understanding the teachers is very important. A leader should respect every single member of the staff and must find a way to get to know them. (Principal 1) First, he is friendly and approaches each colleague with calmness and respect. His behaviour is not offensive. On the contrary, he supports and respects every colleague, junior or senior. Even in the case of substitute teachers, he treats them with respect as any other staff member. (Teacher 6)
Consistency-reliability
People tend to trust a person with consistent and reliable behaviour. A principal emphasised that one must be consistent in words and deeds and must exhibit stable and reliable behaviour so that others know what to expect: For me, there must be consistency between words and actions. A leader should be reliable in terms of their behaviour. It is easier for their teachers to know what to expect from them under all circumstances. (Principal 4) Because she is consistent in her behaviour, there is less room for misunderstandings and misinterpretations. It is also crucial that such behaviour is apparent. What she says is what she means, and what she promises is what she delivers. (Teacher 39)
Trusting the teachers
Trusting has a reciprocal nature. Teachers trust someone who trusts them as well. Two of the principals underlined how important it is to trust their teachers both as personalities and professionals and encourage them to take the initiative, try new things and even participate in the decision-making process: As principal, I assume I am dealing with responsible and professional colleagues. I value their effort and trust them as professionals. I also try to underline this at any given opportunity. Often, at staff meetings, I extend my trust to them and encourage them to take the initiative and try new teaching approaches and methodologies. (Principal 1) I trust my teachers, and I put faith in their professionalism. Even though our educational system is centralised and by law, principals are responsible for what happens in a school unit, I try to distribute responsibilities and encourage my teachers to take the initiative. (Principal 5)
We feel that he trusts us. This is important because mutual trust incentivises teachers to work conscientiously and creates a positive atmosphere. (Teacher 2)
She trusts us as professionals, which strengthens our trust in them. She allocates responsibilities to her staff and encourages them to take initiative. (Teacher 21)
…she also encourages teachers to take the initiative to try different teaching approaches and methods without criticising or controlling them. At staff meetings, we discuss the targets we set, and usually, we form work groups with specific agendas to meet them. (Teacher 17)
Setting the example
When the leader sets an example, teachers tend to trust and follow. A principal claimed that leaders cannot convince or inspire if they do not set an example for the teachers. Principals asserted that leading by example enhances trust and team engagement because teachers pay attention to what their principals say and do. By setting the example, principals actively demonstrate what and how things should be done: The school leader must set an example with their behaviour. You cannot expect teachers to listen and follow if you do not set an example for them. Teachers pay attention to what we say or do. If you want something done, you should demonstrate how it is done. By doing so, teachers are more likely to trust you and follow through on what needs to be done. Generally, I never ask my teachers to do something I would not be willing to do myself. (Principal 2) He also leads by his example. For instance, he emphasizes the importance of punctuality. Therefore, he is always the first person coming to school and the last to leave. He is always visible and ready to engage in everyday school activities. (Teacher 10) She always puts herself in front and sets an example. She always explains what needs to be done in detail, but it does not stop there. She will then actively engage herself and show how it is done. She assumes responsibilities and is visible around school, addressing all issues. We feel safe when she is around and know she will find a way to solve problems. That is why her staff listens and appreciates her suggestions and advice. (Teacher 38)
Competence – organisation
According to the participants, being competent and well-organised are two qualities interlinked, increasing trust in one's leader. Competence is deemed a pivotal value, as teachers regard their principals as sources of valuable professional guidance. On the other hand, running a school can become a challenging and hectic procedure, and a leader should perform adequately under any circumstances. A key feature that facilitates principals to cope with the never-ending difficulties in a school is always to be organised and prepared. One of the principals asserted that key practices for trustworthy and successful leadership are being competent and organized. Without prioritising, I would say the first was being competent in your work and organised. Teachers expect their principal to be organised and prepared at any given time to cope with anything that may occur successfully. By doing so, the school will function smoothly under any circumstances. Planning and targeting must also be precise. However, a leader must be competent to react and manage unexpected turnovers. (Principal 1)
He is very organised. Difficult situations are dealt with immediately before they cause problems. We always feel that everything is under control. He is also competent in managing parents; even the inspector and all teachers feel protected. (Teacher 7)
She is well-informed about evidence-based practices and stays current on the latest developments in education. She has also established a culture of continuous improvement. She has also created an effective learning environment aligned with teachers’ and students’ needs. Furthermore, she is very organized and tackles problems swiftly and effectively. (Teacher 21)
Confidentiality
Schools are places where educators spend a great deal of time, and inevitably, personal or delicate matters need to be addressed. Principals felt strongly that trust is fragile, difficult to build and easy to break. Confidentiality enhances trust because teachers will come to their principal with personal problems, and any information they provide is expected to be handled with respect and confidentiality. For me, a teacher's privacy is non-negotiable. If there is a personal issue, I try to understand and empathise. Anything said remains between us, and I do whatever it takes to facilitate my colleagues. (Principal 5) As school principals, we may come across sensitive information daily. This information is mainly personal, academic, medical, or disciplinary. When people come to you with this information, you must handle it with care, respect, and confidentiality. (Principal 4) …whatever we say, I know it will remain confidential. Especially regarding delicate personal issues, one expects the other party to safeguard any shared information. I trust my principal because there were times when I had such problems, and he handled them with respect and confidentiality. (Teacher 30)
Open door – support
Principals must maintain their accessibility and provide both personal and professional support; the assertion is that such an approach significantly bolsters the formation of trust by assuring them that their door is always open for their teachers and actively listening and offering their support when asked. Principals emphasised the importance of being accessible and supportive: …so, I must listen to and support my teachers when facing a problem. My office is accessible to all staff members, and I always encourage them to share their thoughts and concerns. Of course, one cannot solve all problems. What is guaranteed, though, is that I will offer my support and suggest solutions. (Principal 1) His office is always open for us. He actively listens to what we have to say, and because he is very clever and practical, he usually finds a solution to the problem. What is also important is that he will follow up on whether the problem has been solved and if we need further assistance. The truth is that I value this approach because I have been in situations where principals were distant and unapproachable, resulting in an atmosphere of distrust and frustration. (Teacher 2) The most important thing for me is the support she offers to all of us. Even though I am a new teacher at the school, she approached me kindly and offered her assistance if needed. I felt that this was not a formality. Her office door is always open for us, and whenever I have a problem, e.g. misbehaved pupils, parents’ issues, etc., I know she will listen to and support me. (Teacher 29)
Discussion
The findings of the qualitative analysis derived from the multiple case-study data analysis are compatible with Hoy and Tschannen-Moran's findings, namely that teachers tend to trust principals when they exhibit benevolence, honesty, openness, competence and reliability behaviours. Indeed, their definition of trust includes several of the eight qualities listed in our research. For example, in Hoy's and Tschannen-Moran's findings, benevolence relates to being supportive of teachers and safeguarding confidential information, which relates to open-door – support and confidentiality. Reliability is a common factor. Setting an example is also linked with competence. Most of the reviewed studies in educational contexts generally recognise all five common bases (facets) of trustworthiness (benevolence, honesty, reliability, openness and competency) perceived by Hoy's and Tschannen-Moran's work as those collectively constituting trust (Bukko et al., 2021; Shayo et al., 2021). The findings are also compatible with Bryk and Schneider's work. Respect and competence in core role responsibilities are common trust-building considerations, whilst personal regard can be related to confidentiality and personal integrity with fairness. However, the truth remains that there is an ongoing debate concerning the nature and number of practices behaviours, and actions required to compute trust (Cvitanovic et al., 2021) and that more evidence based on a qualitative research approach, including vignette studies and case studies, is needed to gain a deeper understanding (Niedlich et al., 2021; Nienaber et al., 2015). The present study aims to provide updated hands-on suggestions and tangible and applicable guidelines for principals who want to become trustworthy leaders.
The study substantiated that teachers, as all human beings, want to be treated fairly. In complex organisations such as school units, friction and conflicts of interest are created (Tschannen-Moran, 2014). It is primarily up to the school leader to effectively handle these situations and instil a sense of justice and equal treatment for all (Thien et al., 2023). Teachers believe, follow and trust fair principals (Bukko et al., 2021). The degree of staff trust in their leader is greatly influenced by their perception of how fair they are (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). All participants in this study described fair treatment as a key quality that enhances trust. A leader's fairness, transparency and accountability significantly influence people's attitudes and behaviours (Handford and Leithwood, 2013; Mehmet and Inandi, 2018; Smith et al., 2020) and contribute to the development of a trusting and positive organisational climate (Thien et al., 2023; Tian and Nutbrown, 2023; Zacarias and Flores, 2024). Niedlich et al. (2021) assert that fair treatment and performance equity are likely to develop high levels of trust. Hoy and Tarter (2004) point out that fairness in the school workplace should not be taken lightly, as the relationship between trust and justice is particularly strong, adding that the leaders’ behaviours determine the perception of justice in the school workplace. A reciprocal relationship between trust and fairness is also indicated (Hoy and Tarter, 2004; Pranitasari, 2020). Teachers trust their principals if they perceive that they act fairly and justly. The perception of fairness holds paramount significance among the organisational factors that positively influence trust. It is incumbent upon leaders to foster and uphold trust through equitable, just, and transparent behaviour (Beauchamp et al., 2021; Kalshoven and Den Hartog, 2009; Niedlich et al., 2021; Van Knippenberg et al., 2007).
Respect is interlinked with trust. Teachers recognised that their principals treated them respectfully, thus gaining their trust. The study's findings are consistent with previous research arguing that trust and respect are strongly interlinked (Balyer, 2017; Bilginoğlu et al., 2019; Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Clarke, 2011). Daly and Chrispeels (2008) claim that the core trust facet of respect is also strongly connected with school performance and student outcomes. Trust formation is hindered if respect is not present (Ghamrawi, 2011); thus, it is vital to teachers’ trust in the principal. The study's findings are consistent with the literature findings, asserting that respect leads to trust (Griffiths et al., 2021; Khasawneh, 2022; Kutsyuruba et al., 2011; Northfield, 2014). Through emotional intelligence mediated by respectful behaviours, a leader effectively builds trust among all stakeholders (Blaik et al., 2021; Gómez-Leal et al., 2022). When principals demonstrate respect and trust toward their teachers, they are more inclined to interpret principal actions as supportive and in their best interests (Louis and Murphy, 2017).
According to Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2015), scrutinising their past behaviour is one of the most dependable methods for anticipating someone's future conduct. Trust is an evolving process that strengthens over time due to actions, information and individual interactions. Teachers and principals in this study emphasised that trust is built and sustained when both parties are considered reliable and consistent. When school leaders exhibits consistent behaviour and make decisions predictably, they instil a sense of reliability and dependability among their teachers. This sense of predictability fosters a safe and secure environment where individuals can trust and rely on their leader. The foundation of trust is rooted in presumptions derived from prior experiences. These presumptions instil in individuals the belief that their counterparts in the interaction will not cause them harm and that shared principles and customs will honour implicit mutual expectations (Bormann et al., 2021). Teachers will trust a school leader who consistently exhibits credible and reliable behaviour over someone who does not exhibit such behaviour (Handford and Leithwood, 2013; Saleem et al., 2020). Inconsistent and unreliable actions on the part of the leader may lead teachers to exhibit a self-protected and cautious response, hampering a trusting relationship. Such behaviours, resulting from school leaders’ repeated failure to follow through on decisions, obligations and commitments, could also lead to excessive stress and loss of trust on the part of teachers (Day et al., 2020). In contrast, consistent and reliable behaviour elicits trust (Kutsyuruba and Walker, 2015). According to Pashiardis and Savvides (2013), consistency is a crucial behaviour that fosters trust between school leaders and faculty members. The amalgamation of reliability and consistency engenders trust. Consistency links reliability with benevolence because reliability alone may not suffice since someone can be predictably malevolent (Walker et al., 2011).
Trust is a two-way construct (Brower et al., 2000; Louis and Murphy, 2017; Sue-Chan et al., 2012). There is a reciprocal relationship between the school leader and other school members (Kutsyuruba et al., 2024). When principals trust their staff, they are also likelier to trust them (Browning, 2014). For a high-trust culture and climate to flourish, a leader must have the capacity and willingness to trust others (Donaldson, 2001; Kouzes and Posner, 2011; Robinson, 2020). The repeated mutual positive experiences between individuals in an interaction are a precondition of trust (Bormann et al., 2021). The participants emphasised that their principal mainly shows their trust by sharing power, involving them in decision-making and having faith in their core professional abilities. Trust requires action because it is reciprocal (Nienaber et al., 2015). Teachers feel trusted when their principal entrusts them with managerial tasks. By doing so, principals exhibit vulnerability to teachers (Shayo et al., 2021). When teachers are involved and influence organisational decisions that affect them, a bond of mutual trust between teachers and principals is also formed (Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). Principals extend trust through shared decision-making, and, in return, teachers extend greater trust in the principal (Combs et al., 2018; Weinstein et al., 2020). In schools where collective decision-making is present, there is a greater likelihood that reform initiatives will be widespread and improvements in student learning will be demonstrated (Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008). Studies that examine the dynamics of trust, also demonstrated a clear correlation between reciprocity and trust in terms of professionalism. If leaders fail to demonstrate trust in teachers’ competence, it is plausible that teachers will view their principal similarly negatively (Brower et al., 2000).
The study confirmed the importance of leading by example. Leading by example can be defined as the extent to which a leader demonstrates ideal workday behaviours by engaging in staff activities (Eldor, 2021). According to the teachers in this study, leading by example builds trust because such an approach, they emphasised, enables them to observe their principals embodying the values and behaviours they expect from them. Participants also claimed that they are more receptive to constructive criticism, advice, or recommendations for a leader who sets an example and appeared more inclined to trust and follow such a principle. Leaders who lead by example are trusted because they position themselves as role models for all stakeholders, thus receiving acceptance, respect and admiration (Hoy and Tarter, 2004; Smith et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021b). Principals lead by example, not only in terms of everyday behaviours (being on time, being specific in their instructions, actively listening, addressing daily matters, etc.), but also by attaining educational goals, actively participating in school professional development, assuming responsibilities outside the boundaries of a typical principal's job description and by protecting the school's mission (Versland and Erickson, 2017). Literature has also established a strong connection between teacher trust in the principal and TL (Eliophotou-Menon and Ioannou, 2016; Kılınç et al., 2024), where leading by example is a core value. To gain trust and navigate schools through turbulence, principals must step forward, act as trustworthy leaders and be credible voices in their schools (Netolicky, 2020).
Tschannen-Moran (2014) described competence as ‘engaging in problem-solving, setting standards, buffering teachers, pressing for results’ (p. 34) and nominated it as fundamental leadership behaviour that engenders trust. Though welcomed, good intentions may not be enough. Teachers depend on principals, and competence is involved in fulfilling their expectations. Even if principals have the best intentions, they may not be trusted if teachers perceive them as incompetent (Nooteboom, 2021; Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Walker et al., 2011). Organised is perceived someone who can quickly and effectively sort and synthesise information, plan the efficient use of available resources, and thus manage to be prepared and avoid acting on impulses (Isaacs, 2012). School principals who exhibit good organisational skills retain the ability to respond promptly to urgent matters when they arise (Lazaridou and Polymeropoulou, 2024). Both principals and teachers stressed that the competence and ability of the leader to be organised is an essential parameter of trust. Teachers and principals deemed the two qualities combined as a powerful trust antecedent. Schools are working places for principals and teachers, and the person in charge is judged based on her/his ability to deliver the job methodically, effectively and in an organised manner. Bryk and Schneider (2002) state that the competence refers to the ability of individuals to carry out the responsibilities of their position successfully. Trust is accordingly increased or diminished by the perception of this ability. The competence of leaders in assigned roles may either boost or displace the trust in the leader (Byun et al., 2017). To earn the trust of their teachers, principals are expected to possess not only a high level of competence in performing their duties (Bukko et al., 2021; Tschannen-Moran, 2014) but also to be organised and proactive in their planning to prevent being caught off guard. By maintaining a state of readiness, principals are better equipped to respond and deliver under any circumstance (Beauchamp et al., 2021).
One becomes vulnerable to another party when sharing information, especially of a private and sensitive nature (Adams, 2008; Day et al., 2021; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999), and such information must remain strictly between the two parties. According to Walumbwa et al. (2008), confidentiality is a vital characteristic of an authentic leader whilst simultaneously enhancing the levels of trust in the leader. Tschannen-Moran (2014) places secrecy in the general condition of goodwill, in the sense that what is deposited from one person to another is protected through secrecy. Trust may seem challenging to achieve because it involves the notion that a person (trustor) is expected to lower their guard and rest their well-being in another person's (trustee) hands. Such a procedure makes that person vulnerable to the other person and presupposes that they will act with good intentions (Waldman, 2018). The findings of this study revealed an association between vulnerability and confidentiality. Participants described their principals as persons who value confidentiality and are honest, especially when sharing personal and delicate information. Being honest and having strong moral principles, such as confidentiality, is essential for educational leaders to build trust (Kilag et al., 2023; Northfield, 2014).
This study affirmed that teachers trust and follow a leader who exercises an ‘open door’ practice. The term refers to the accessibility and good intentions of the principal toward their teachers. Successful school leaders are available when needed, actively listen to what staff say and are somewhat distant (Mincu et al., 2024). This is achieved by being visible, responsive and accessible when someone needs to get in touch (Browning, 2014). This approach enhances trust and minimises conflicts between school principals and staff (Klein, 2012). Teachers must know they can share their thoughts and concerns personally and professionally. Sun and Leithwood (2015) point out that leaders can gain the trust of their staff by showing goodwill and genuine interest in their well-being through their daily interactions. Unapproachable and distanced leaders are not usually trusted because they provoke negative and self-protected behaviours, whereas leaders who are visible and actively communicate with their teachers instil trust and intellectual deference (Palmer, 2021; Pashiardis et al., 2018; Soderberg and Romney, 2022). When the principal is out of reach, establishing a relationship poses a challenge, let alone establishing a trust bond. One cannot expect a non-visible principal to support teachers in everyday circumstances or meet their professional development needs (Handford and Leithwood, 2013). High-trusted principals are genuinely willing to listen and advise their teachers on issues that affect them in the school context and their personal lives. They also actively offer their support (Atik and Celik, 2020; Tschannen-Moran, 2007). Most participants claimed that their principals were always there for them, willing to genuinely and actively listen and offer support. According to Hoy and Tarter (2004), an authentic ‘open door’ policy enhances trust in the principal. Principals are more prone to be trusted when they are approachable and demonstrate openness to ideas and suggestions (Tschannen-Moran, 2014). There appears to be a vital relationship between supportive leadership practices and trust (Boies and Fiset, 2019; Dolloff, 2022; Podsakoff et al., 1996).
Overall, the list of the eight practices, behaviours and actions presented in the study is consistent with previous research findings. However, this study adds valuable insights and hands-on suggestions to the research since the results were derived from an analysis of case studies of highly trusted leaders perceived through the lenses of both the principals and their teachers.
A final notion. The demographics (Table 4) do not seem to show any pattern or appear to influence teachers’ trust in principals. Even though research is relatively limited, especially in school contexts, the existing tends to argue that both principals’ demographics (e.g. gender, tenure at school and length of administration experience) and schools’ demographics (e.g. size, socioeconomic status, minority population and proportion of female teachers) do not appear to have a significant impact on faculty trust in the principals’ perceived ability, nor perceived effectiveness (Howe et al., 2023; Louis and Murphy, 2017; Tahir et al., 2015). This notion, undoubtedly, needs to be clarified and validated by more evidence. Such validation could provide a promising path for school leaders to be liberated from the feeling that their faculty's trust is tied and dependent on the demographics and, therefore, is within their grasp and control.
Implications
The present study aimed to reveal how teachers and principals perceive how a high-trust environment is formed in the school context. School leaders try to be effective in their complex and demanding role; preparation programs seek to enhance overall educational leaders’ knowledge, ability and effectiveness. Researchers rely on existing research to further investigate, produce more knowledge and provide new evidence on the matter in discussion. Any research contributing to this end, providing applicable and hands-on suggestions, is welcomed and preferred.
School leaders are the catalyst for successful school organisations (Gurr and Drysdale, 2018; Leithwood et al., 2008; Mincu et al., 2024; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2021). Principals should pursue creating the conditions for faculty trust as a critical component for successful and effective schools. High faculty trust is generally associated with improved learning outcomes and increased school effectiveness (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Handford and Leithwood, 2013; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). The findings of the present study could provide school leaders with voluble insights and specific suggestions on how they could obtain high faculty trust, thus ‘reaping the benefits of greater efficiency, adaptability, and quality in their school’ (Tschannen-Moran, 2007, p. 50).
The findings could also be utilised for a national principal training program since overwhelming evidence has indicated that faculty trust is a critical factor in effective and well-functioning schools. Educational leaders’ preparation programs should incorporate theory and practice and be guided by a deeper examination of contextual factors (Brauckmann et al., 2023). The literature presentation and findings of the present study could contribute to this end. Pending further research, the findings could be utilised for training programs in other countries with similar centralised backgrounds.
This mixed-methodology design study provides hands-on suggestions of how school leaders could elicit high teacher trust. Researchers who focus on trust in educational contexts should consider the practices, behaviours and actions that lead to high trust in the leader, as suggested by this study when designing their research. This study's overall design and approach could also form the basis for further research in other areas of the educational leadership domain. We believe that the mixed methodology procedure with the limitations posed could be beneficial for research aiming at eliciting valuable insights from practitioners in a wide range of educational settings.
Limitations
Research should seek an explanation of how trust evolves in different relationships and under other circumstances (Bormann et al., 2021). Hence, this study claims to have successfully presented what elicits high trust in school leaders in primary schools in Cyprus. However, some limitations need to be considered. Firstly, the present study occurred in a highly centralised educational system, and the sample was constituted only from public schools. Additionally, the research was carried out at the primary school level. Although the study was meticulously designed to establish the validity and reliability of the results, research in a less centralised educational context or at a secondary school level may have an impact on the results.
Suggestions for future research
Even though trust in the leader has been extensively researched, new research and documented evidence are always welcome because of trust's complex nature and diversity. Based on this research findings, we recommend adopting a similar research design to examine trust formation in secondary schools. This suggestion is grounded in the potential of such research to yield insightful outcomes that could inform practitioners, educational policymaking and decision-making at this level. Usually, secondary schools are more prominent (larger student population and higher number of teachers) and have different structures and scopes. For example, Bryk and Schneider (2002) indicate that interpersonal trust between teachers appears more fragile in schools with many members.
Research investigating preconditions of high trust in the school leader could also be carried out in more decentralised school contexts. Research needs to be context-sensitive because different results may arise when contextual factors, including national and local areas (Brauckmann et al., 2023; Johnson et al., 2023; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2021), are considered.
Longitudinal research design and implementation could provide more details and insights on the issue. Such endeavour is very demanding since it is time-consuming, requires more effort and recourses and calls for appropriate and meticulous handling of the vast amount of data obtained (White and Arzi, 2005). However, researching a phenomenon in depth and over time can provide valuable and more precise insights and interpretations (Ruspini, 2003).
Despite that trust is thoroughly researched very few research instruments were designed and validated. According to Shayo et al. (2021), in such instruments, it is imperative to address several essential pillars in the conceptualisation of trust, such as the trustor–trustee relationship and the trustee's trustworthiness. One way of addressing these pillars and measuring trust closer to real life is using vignette studies (Bormann et al., 2021). Based on the findings of this real-life research, a design and validation of a research instrument that will measure teachers’ trust in their principals may also be applicable.
Conclusion
Schools with high levels of trust exhibit noteworthy achievement standards (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Goddard et al., 2009; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). Principals and teachers are likelier to collaborate in these environments to establish goals, monitor progress and address students’ needs. Teachers in high-trust schools are more likely to be professionally content, feel efficient and share social capital (Demir, 2015). Such an environment reduces stress and increases professional satisfaction (Collie et al., 2012). In their endevour to improve student learning, school leaders need to engage all effective practices to build and sustain trust in schools, with particular attention to enhanced faculty trust (Sun et al., 2023).
In our current era, rapidly changing situations put significant pressure on school units. Phenomena such as globalisation, the expansion and evolution of technology, population movements and unforeseen circumstances, like the COVID-19 pandemic, demand that schools' remain adaptable and consistently deliver. Schools that foster high-trust environments are more likely to successfully navigate and thrive in an ever-changing, demanding outside world. Schools with a high level of trust leading to a positive school climate ‘have the fundamental building blocks needed for creating a culture that can be resilient in times of crisis’ (Ahlström et al., 2020, p. 39). In times of crisis, it becomes increasingly evident that when unhindered communication, collaboration and positive relationships with internal as well as external stakeholders intertwined with mutual trust are cultivated, stress is minimised, and the likelihood of successful completion of schools' work is increased (Adams and Adigun, 2021; Pashiardis et al., 2024; Roth, 2022; Schechter et al., 2022). Trust is, therefore, a vital factor which relates to effectiveness, resilience, adoption and organisational stability in turbulent times. In general, trust is of capital importance for the orderly and effective operation of school units since it strengthens individual and organisational resilience (Fernandez and Shaw, 2020).
Schools could thrive and succeed in their missions, despite contextual or situational conditions, when teachers trust their principals (Çoban et al., 2023). One must recognise that for highly trusting environments to flourish in school organisations, the need for school principals with the necessary skills to cultivate such environments is paramount. This could be based on a trusting philosophy embedded in school principals through trust-oriented training and experience. School principals could successfully lead units and cope with obstacles by employing this support.
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
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Correction (April 2026):
Article updated online to include the affiliations of both authors.