Professional uncertainty in the managerial activity of school principals: content, sources, and coping strategies

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

Abstract: Problem. Traditional administrative algorithms demonstrate institutional inefficiency, requiring school principals to exercise cognitive flexibility, high managerial resilience, and the ability to shift planning paradigms. There is an acute scientific and practical need for a comprehensive study of objective situations that determine the sustainability of educational systems and for developing new models of scientific-methodological and psychological support for the principal corps. Aim. To identify and systematize the main sources of professional uncertainty in the managerial activity of school principals, as well as to describe typical coping strategies based on empirical data obtained from a Russian sample. Methods. The empirical basis of the study consisted of the results of a survey of educational organization leaders conducted using the standardized methodology “School Management under Conditions of Uncertainty.” The study sample (N = 91) represents predominantly experienced principals of large urban and rural schools with managerial tenure ranging from 1 to 30 years. The authors applied frequency analysis of closed-ended questions and thematic coding of open-ended responses, as well as qualitative content analysis of answers to open-ended survey questions. Results. Based on the empirical study, the phenomena of “autonomy diffusion”, management decentral-ization, and distortion of planning time horizons were verified. Four situations determining school sustainability were identified and substantively described: institutional stress, personnel-psychological deficit, leader’s managerial resilience, and the social-communicative context of interaction with stakeholders. The sociological dichotomy of adaptation strategies in urban and rural schools was revealed. The necessity of transitioning the system of continuing professional development for principals from clas-sical managerial models to institutional models of comprehensive support was substantiated. Conclusions. The shift in the man-agement paradigm of a school principal under conditions of uncertainty is an objectively driven process of transition to distribut-ed leadership and scenario-based micro-planning. Ensuring the managerial resilience of a modern school cannot be achieved solely through the internal resources of the principal. Modernization of the continuing professional development system is re-quired through the creation of a comprehensive support ecosystem (legal, methodological, and supervisory) that minimizes insti-tutional noise and preserves the human potential of educational organization leaders.

About the authors

Irina V. Grishina

Gymnasium No. 114, Vyborg District, St. Petersburg

Author for correspondence.
Email: giv0201@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3050-4018

Doctor of Sciences (Pedagogy), Professor, Vice Principal

Russian Federation, 194358, Russia, St. Petersburg, Yesenina Street, 34, Bldg. 2.

Irina G. Baykova

Secondary General Education School No. 619, Kalininsky District, St. Petersburg

Email: baykova_i_g@school619.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0000-4834-605X

Vice Principal

Russian Federation, 195265, Russia, St. Petersburg, Cherkasova Street, 7, Bldg. 2

References

  1. Knight F.H. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York, Dover Publications Publ., 2006. 416 p.
  2. Dequech D. Uncertainty: A Typology and Refinements of Existing Concepts. Journal of Economic Issues, 2011, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 621–640. doi: 10.2753/JEI0021-3624450306.
  3. Simon H.A. Rational Decision-Making in Business Organizations. The American Economic Review, 1979, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 493–513.
  4. Schön D.A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, Basic Books Publ., 1983. 374 p.
  5. Kornilova T.V., Chumakova M.A., Kornilov S.A., Novikova M.A. Psikhologiya neopredelennosti: edinstvo intellektualno-lichnostnogo potentsiala cheloveka [The psychology of ambiguity: the unity of the intellectual and personal potential of man]. Moscow, Smysl Publ., 2010. 334 p.
  6. Kornilova T.V. The dynamic functioning of cognitive and personality potential of a man in psychological regulation of decision and choice. Lomonosov Psychology Journal, 2011, no. 1, pp. 66–78.
  7. Alishev B.S. Mind and Overcoming of Uncertainty. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2009, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 3–26. EDN: PBGPAR.
  8. Leonov I.N. Tolerance for ambiguity as a psychological phenomenon: the history of a construct. Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2014, no. 4, pp. 43–52. EDN: TMYTVT.
  9. Frenkel-Brunswik E. Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 1949, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 108–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01236.x.
  10. Budner S. Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 1962, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 29–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x.
  11. Markina N.V., Pervukhina E.S., Gumnitskiy M.E., Lange S.N., Gumnitskaya A.S. Tolerance to uncertainty and self-regulation of leaders of schools with low and high educational results. Herald SUrSHPU The Herald of South-Ural state Humanities-Pedagogical University, 2020, no. 6, pp. 241–265. doi: 10.25588/CSPU.2020.159.6.015.
  12. Fullan M. The New Meaning of Educational Change. 5th ed. New York, Teachers College Press Publ., 2016. 298 p.
  13. Hallinger P. Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 2011, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 125–142. doi: 10.1108/09578231111116699.
  14. Leithwood K., Harris A., Hopkins D. Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 2020, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 5–22. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077.
  15. Wilson E.J., Abbott M.J., Norton A.R. The impact of psychological treatment on intolerance of uncertainty in generalized anxiety disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2023, vol. 97, article number 102729. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102729.
  16. Makhnovets S.N., Shmeleva E.V. Tolerance to uncertainty in the management activities of the head of an educational institution. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pedagogika i psikhologiya, 2023, no. 2, pp. 57–64. doi: 10.26456/vtpsyped/2023.2.057.
  17. Borracci R.A., Ciambrone G., Arribalzaga E.B. Tolerance for Uncertainty, Personality Traits and Specialty Choice Among Medical Students. Journal of Surgical Education, 2021, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 1885–1895. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.03.018.
  18. Grishina I.V., Volkov V.N. The main directions of changes in the system of additional professional education of school heads. Scientific support of the professional development system, 2023, no. 2, pp. 39-46. EDN: RUSXYE.
  19. Grishina I.V., Volkov V.N. Methodology change study in intra-school management. Lifelong Education: The 21st Century, 2025, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 32–46. doi: 10.15393/j5.art.2025.10306.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2026 Grishina I.V., Baykova I.G.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.