The Habits That Protect Principals: Building Leadership Wellbeing to Prevent Burnout

Written and Edited by Hitsumei, Everyday Principal.

Leadership is not about how long you can endure exhaustion; it’s about building the conditions where your energy fuels others without extinguishing your own.

The Urgency of Leadership Wellbeing

Every school year begins with a burst of anticipation. Principals and assistant principals walk the hallways before the first bell rings, feeling the promise of possibility: fresh starts, energized staff, eager students. Yet beneath this optimism often lies another reality—the quiet knowledge that the demands of leadership will soon outpace the resources of the leader. By October, many principals report fatigue so profound that it compromises decision-making, relationships, and their sense of purpose.

This tension is not anecdotal; it is systemic. A national report by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP, 2022) revealed that nearly 40 percent of principals experience high levels of stress and burnout, with a substantial portion considering leaving the profession within the first five years. The Learning Policy Institute adds that principal turnover correlates with declines in teacher retention and student achievement, especially in schools serving high-poverty populations (Learning Policy Institute, 2017).

Burnout in school leadership, then, is not simply a matter of individual endurance. It is a structural risk to the educational system. When principals burn out, the ceiling of leadership impact lowers across entire schools, constraining the growth of teachers and students alike. The antidote requires more than platitudes about self-care. It demands a rethinking of wellbeing as central to the practice of leadership, cultivated through research-based habits and reinforced by systemic supports.

Why Habits, Not Heroics, Define Sustainable Leadership

The mythology of school leadership too often celebrates heroics: the principal who stays late into the night, who absorbs every crisis, who sacrifices personal wellbeing for the sake of the school. But research in organizational psychology paints a different picture. Chronic overextension leads not to greater effectiveness but to reduced cognitive capacity, poor emotional regulation, and impaired judgment (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). In other words, leaders who attempt to outwork exhaustion undermine their own ability to lead.

Habits, not heroics, sustain leadership. Neuroscience demonstrates that consistent routines around sleep, exercise, and recovery improve executive function and problem-solving (Ratey, 2008). Psychological studies show that mindfulness practices reduce stress and enhance resilience (Jennings et al., 2017). Leadership research highlights that principals embedded in peer networks and coaching structures experience greater satisfaction and lower attrition (Wallace Foundation, 2021). These are not luxuries. They are the scaffolds that allow principals to sustain presence, clarity, and care.

The Ceiling Principle (Wicks, 2024), a framework for leadership growth, underscores this reality. Leaders can only influence others up to the level of their own capacity. When capacity is diminished by exhaustion, the ceiling of impact lowers, limiting the growth of teachers and students. When leaders cultivate protective habits, that ceiling rises. And when leaders create conditions where growth continues in their absence, the ceiling disappears entirely.

The Anatomy of Protective Habits

Physical Rhythms

The most obvious yet most neglected category of protective habits is physical rhythm. Sleep, nutrition, and exercise form the foundation of cognitive performance. Yet principals frequently sacrifice these first, rationalizing that the urgency of school demands justifies skipped meals, late-night emails, or forgoing exercise. Research demonstrates the opposite: inadequate sleep impairs judgment and decision-making, particularly under stress (Walker, 2017). Exercise, conversely, enhances neuroplasticity and emotional regulation (Ratey, 2008).

For principals, the implication is profound. The decision to guard sleep or commit to morning exercise is not indulgence; it is leadership preparation. When superintendents encourage and normalize these practices, they reframe them from personal choices into professional imperatives.

Mental Practices

Leadership is as much cognitive as it is operational. Principals engage in hundreds of micro-decisions each day, each requiring perspective. Without intentional mental practices, decision fatigue and reactivity dominate. Research on mindfulness indicates that even brief daily practices can reduce stress and enhance clarity (Jennings et al., 2017). Similarly, Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) work on cognitive appraisal shows that leaders who reframe stress as challenge rather than threat experience greater resilience.

For example, a principal who journals each morning to articulate a single priority and a single gratitude reframes the day before it begins. This habit creates an anchor in purpose, preventing the urgent from erasing the important.

Relational Anchors

Isolation is one of the most corrosive forces in school leadership. Principals often describe themselves as alone in their roles, caught between the demands of staff, parents, and district leaders. Research affirms that relational support is one of the strongest protective factors against burnout (Wallace Foundation, 2021). Principals embedded in professional networks, coaching partnerships, or peer accountability circles report greater satisfaction and persistence.

Superintendents have a direct role here. When they design structures such as monthly principal cohorts that prioritize reflection and shared problem-solving, they transform peer connection from accidental to systemic. These relational anchors do more than reduce stress—they cultivate collective efficacy, the belief that leadership is not solitary but shared.

Boundaries and Detachment

Perhaps the most countercultural habit for principals is boundary-setting. The culture of schools often valorizes constant availability: emails answered late at night, meetings added at the last moment, crises addressed instantly. Yet research on recovery shows that psychological detachment from work during non-work hours is essential to wellbeing and performance (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). Without boundaries, leaders erode their ability to return with perspective.

The discipline of setting communication boundaries, designating recovery time, and modeling these choices publicly reshapes staff culture. When principals model balance, they give permission for teachers to pursue it as well. When superintendents reinforce boundaries—by limiting after-hours emails or declaring meeting-free days—they institutionalize protection.

A (not so) Fictional Vignette: Maria’s Turning Point

Maria Alvarez, a principal in a large urban district, entered her fifth year with optimism. Yet by mid-September, she found herself immobilized in her car before school, dreading the day ahead. The convergence of student discipline crises, parent disputes, and district mandates had consumed her. Sleep was scarce, meals were skipped, and she had abandoned the morning runs that once energized her.

Her superintendent noticed the signs and intervened, connecting her with a leadership coach and encouraging her to embed small wellbeing practices. Maria began with a ten-minute mindfulness routine each morning, scheduled two “reset walks” during the day, and joined a peer leadership circle. At first, the changes seemed inconsequential. But by December, staff remarked that she was calmer, more present, and less reactive. She was still busy—perhaps busier than ever—but she was no longer depleted. Her energy was renewed not by doing less, but by reordering her habits.

Maria’s story illustrates the lived reality behind the research. Habits do not erase external pressures, but they recalibrate a leader’s posture toward them. They transform survival into sustainability.

Why This Is the Start-of-Year Article

Early-year choices set norms. If the opening months establish a standard of total availability and last-minute demands, that pattern becomes the school’s story. If the opening months establish a standard of purpose-anchored focus, protected thinking time, visible recovery practices, and steady peer reflection, that story also spreads. The research base does not ask leaders to become wellness influencers; it asks them to do the few things that most protect judgment, presence, and care—and to do those things consistently enough that they become the culture. In the vignette, Maria’s turning point was not a wellness challenge; it was a recalibration of identity. She began acting like a principal whose wellbeing mattered because her influence mattered. And her superintendent acted like a district leader whose responsibility included making that stance possible.

The Superintendent’s Responsibility

While principals can and must cultivate protective habits, superintendents and district leaders carry equal responsibility. Without systemic support, even the strongest personal discipline collapses under unrelenting pressure. Superintendents influence principal wellbeing in at least four essential ways.

First, they normalize wellbeing as leadership work. When superintendents model recovery practices, block reflection time, and speak openly about their own boundaries, they signal permission for principals to do the same. Leadership modeling, as Bandura (1997) demonstrated, is contagious; norms cascade from the top.

Second, they shield principals’ time. This requires structural changes: reducing compliance-driven meetings, providing operational staff to absorb non-instructional tasks, and protecting key moments of the year—such as testing season or school openings—from unnecessary district mandates.

Third, they invest in coaching and networks. The Wallace Foundation’s 2021 synthesis concluded that principal learning and coaching are among the most effective leadership investments districts can make. When superintendents provide access to coaches and create principal cohorts, they establish systemic relational anchors that buffer against burnout.

Finally, they conduct equity audits. Not all principals face equal stress. Leaders in high-poverty schools, or schools with high community trauma, often carry disproportionate burdens. District leaders who examine workload distribution, staffing ratios, and resource allocation through an equity lens prevent silent attrition among those leading in the most demanding contexts (Learning Policy Institute, 2017).

From Habit to System: Institutionalizing Wellbeing

Protective habits begin with individuals but must be reinforced by systems. A principal who practices mindfulness in isolation may sustain for a time, but without district structures that reinforce recovery and relational connection, the habit becomes fragile. The most effective districts embed wellbeing into leadership systems, making it not optional but expected.

One promising model is the Leadership Wellbeing Check-In, a protocol where principals biweekly complete a short self-assessment on stress, energy, and purpose alignment, then review patterns monthly with a superintendent or coach. These check-ins normalize reflection, create accountability, and provide districts with data to adjust supports. Over time, they cultivate a culture where wellbeing is seen not as a private matter but as a dimension of professional practice.

Summary

• Burnout is systemic, not individual weakness, and its consequences ripple across schools.

• Research demonstrates that physical rhythms, mental practices, relational anchors, and boundaries form a system of protective habits.

• Habits recalibrate leaders’ posture toward stress, sustaining presence and capacity.

• Vignettes like Maria’s illustrate how small shifts in habits can transform exhaustion into resilience.

• Superintendents play a pivotal role by normalizing wellbeing, shielding time, investing in coaching, and auditing equity.

• Institutionalizing protocols like the Leadership Wellbeing Check-In embeds these habits into district systems, ensuring sustainability.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman.

Jennings, P. A., Brown, J. L., Frank, J. L., Doyle, S., Oh, Y., Davis, R., Rasheed, D., DeWeese, A., DeMauro, A., Cham, H., & Greenberg, M. T. (2017). Impacts of the CARE for Teachers Program on Teachers’ Social and Emotional Competence and Classroom Interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 1010–1028.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer.

Learning Policy Institute & NASSP. (2017). Understanding and Addressing Principal Turnover.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111.

NASSP. (2022). 2022 Survey of America’s School Leaders and High School Students.

Ratey, J. J. (2008). Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain. Little, Brown.

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor–detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S72–S103.

Wallace Foundation (Grissom, Egalite, & Lindsay). (2021). How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research.

Walker, M. (2017). Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams. Scribner.

Wicks, A. (2025). The Ceiling Principle: Expanding the Limits of Personal and Professional Growth. Everyday Principal.