This paper aims to develop a conceptual understanding of the professional learning needs of novice school principals, positioning these needs as a key prerequisite for quality development of both individuals and their schools. The transition into the principalship represents a critical phase in leadership development, with substantial implications for school quality, organizational stability, and educational outcomes. Research across education systems underscores the pivotal role of school leadership in shaping institutional effectiveness and learning quality (Leksy et al., 2024). In decentralized education systems, including the Czech Republic, principals hold primary responsibility for school governance and educational provision (Act No. 561/2004 Coll.). Principals participate in approximately 70% of decisions influencing school quality (MEYS, 2025, p. 6). At the same time, they face a substantial administrative burden and rank among the most overloaded actors in the education system. This accumulation of responsibility and workload constrains principals’ capacity not only for instructional and strategic leadership, but also for their own professional learning, which remains essential for sustained quality of schools and continuous improvement.  

In practice, principals´ professional learning does not unfold as a linear or pre-planned process, instead it emerges from context-specific learning needs shaped by everyday leadership challenges. These include the development of their professional, managerial, and legal competencies, as well as psychosocial and emotional capacities linked to role transition and leadership identity formation (Johnson et al., 2020). While some needs are identified early, others surface through engagement with concrete leadership dilemmas and high-stakes decisions (Evans, 2019). Their fulfillment is achieved not only through formal professional development, but also through experiential learning, professional dialogue, informal networks, and supportive relationships (Eraut, 2004). 

The initial phase of headship is particularly demanding. Pol et al. (2009) define a novice principal as an individual serving within the first two years of their appointment, a period referred to as the entry into the principalship. During this phase, principals experience the sudden assumption of full institutional responsibility, described by Spillane and Lee (2014) as a “responsibility shock.” Concurrently, novice principals are required to navigate a highly complex leadership role that encompasses instructional leadership, human resource management, administration, finance, and legal accountability (Czech School Inspectorate, 2024). This period is frequently associated with high levels of stress, uncertainty, and emotional strain, particularly in contexts of limited systemic support and insufficient prior leadership experience (Spillane and Lee, 2014). 

Within this context, professional learning emerges as a central mechanism through which novice principals build leadership capacity, respond to role demands, and actively maintain and enhance school quality. The literature conceptualizes professional learning as a multidimensional, active, and reflective process embedded in everyday practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Evans, 2019; Keay et al., 2019; Salo et al., 2024). Mockler (2020, 2022) emphasizes individual agency, highlighting how professionals shape learning in interaction with organizational, relational, institutional, and systemic conditions. For principals, learning occurs not only through formal preparation and induction, but also through daily leadership practice, professional interaction, informal networks, and peer support. Prior research shows that high-quality principal professional learning enhances leadership competence, teacher development, and student learning, strengthening overall school effectiveness (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Leithwood et al., 2020). Adopting qualitative research design, the study examines how early-career principals interpret their emerging learning priorities. 

The study employed a qualitative interpretivist research design drawing on three-round repeated semi-structured interviews, all conducted with participants’ informed consent and audio-recorded. Data were collected in autumn 2025, and after each interview round, verbatim transcripts were returned to participants for member checking and authorization, enhancing both credibility and ethical rigor. The research focused on novice school principals, and participant selection criteria reflected the study’s conceptual and methodological framework (Creswell, 2018). The sample included principals from schools providing compulsory education who had assumed the principal role for the first time and had served no longer than two years at the start of data collection. Of the eight principals invited, three agreed to participate. The participants were novice female principals who entered headship in 2024 and 2025. To ensure confidentiality, pseudonyms Anna, Klara, and Maria were assigned. Anna assumed the principalship in 2024, taking over a school marked by limited organizational discontinuity and the absence of systematic handover of documentation and key processes. Klara entered the principal role in September 2025. Although she had prior teaching experience, she had no previous leadership experience and assumed responsibility for a school facing staffing and organizational instability. At the time of data collection, she was at the very beginning of her headship. Maria became principal in 2024, entering headship with prior teaching experience and administrative exposure from her former role as deputy principal. At the time of the interviews, she had already accumulated several months of leadership practice and was managing everyday operational demands. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke (2006). The analytical process included repeated transcript reading, open coding of meaning units, theme development, and interpretation in relation to the research question (Braun & Clarke, 2006). An audit trail documented analytic decisions and theme refinement. Trustworthiness was supported through triangulation across interview rounds, member checking, and reflexive memo-writing addressing researcher positionality. Several limitations of the study should be acknowledged. In particular, the study examines principals’ interpreted learning needs rather than objectively assessed leadership performance, and reflect participants’ sense-making within a specific induction phase. As a qualitative study, the analysis is shaped by the researchers’ interpretive framework and the policy and organizational context in which participants are situated. The analysis resulted in three overarching themes capturing novice principals’ professional learning needs, providing insight into leadership learning within the principal pipeline and induction phase.

The findings indicate that novice principals’ learning needs cluster into three interrelated leadership domains: self-regulation, strategic leadership, personnel leadership, and administrative management. Professional learning emerges as a situated, reactive, and practice embedded process, shaped by responsibility shock and organizational pressure. In the domain of self-regulation, novice principals describe the need to cope with the sudden burden of taking over a school, often without leadership continuity and in the context of unmet expectations. They report learning to regulate their emotions and manage stress, loneliness, and uncertainty, in order to remain accountable for their own work and the functioning of the school as a whole. This experience reflects the responsibility shock identified by Spillane and Lee (2014) as a critical moment in novice principals’ professional learning. In the domain of strategic and personnel leadership, principals highlight learning needs related to strategic budget management, resource planning, financial stability, conflict resolution, staff development, and navigating legal frameworks, particularly labor and administrative regulations. The third domain concerns administrative management. Principals emphasize the need to familiarize themselves with complex school documentation, reporting requirements, and administrative procedures, particularly when documentation has not adequately been handed over from previous leadership. These needs are closely linked to legal and financial accountability. In line with Evans (2019), learning needs are often activated by concrete operational and organizational demands embedded in everyday leadership practice. The findings underscore the demanding nature of entry into headship as a prerequisite for quality development. This aligns with Crow’s (2006) characterization of early principalship as a critical phase of professional socialization requiring intensive learning and adaptation. Principals’ accounts further highlight the importance of targeted induction and professional support (Hargreaves, 2025).

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. Crow, G. M. (2006). Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: perspectives on socialization. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 310–325. Czech School Inspectorate. (2024). Annual Report of the Czech School Inspectorate for the 2023/2024 School Year. Prague: Czech School Inspectorate. Darling-Hammond, L., Sutcher, L., Podolsky, A., & Espinoza, D. (2022). Developing effective principals: What kind of learning matters? Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/media/3698/download Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273. Evans, L. (2019). Professional learning in the education profession. Springer. Hargreaves, A. (2025). The dark side of networks: And the implications for school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 45(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2024.2436308 Johnson, A. D., Clegorne, N., Croft, S. J., & Ford, A. Y. (2020). The Professional Learning Needs of School Principals. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 16(4), 305-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775120933933 Keay, J., Carse, N., & Jess, M. (2019). Understanding teachers as complex professional learners. Professional Development in Education, 45(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1529613 Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Pollock, K. (2020). How school leaders contribute to student success: The four paths framework. Springer. Leksy, K., Gawron, G., Rosário, R., Sormunen, M., Velasco, V., Sandmeier, A., Simovska, V., Wojtasik, T., & Dadaczynski, K. (2024). The importance of school leaders in school health promotion: A European call for systematic integration of health in professional development. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1297970. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1297970 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. (2025). System of Support and Leadership for School Principals: Priorities for the Period 2025–2027. MŠMT. https://www.edu.gov.cz Mockler, N. (2020). Teacher professional learning under audit: Reconfiguring practice. Professional Development in Education, 46(4), 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1634624 Pol, M., Hloušková, L., Novotný, P., & Sedláček, M. (2009). The initial phase of the professional career of primary school principals. Studia Paedagogica, 14(1), 109–126. Salo, P., Nylund, J., & Stjernstrøm, E. (2024). Contextualised professional learning of school leaders: External impulses and internal practices. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231170938 Spillane, J. P., & Lee, L. C. (2014). Novice school principals’ sense of ultimate responsibility: Problems of practice in transitioning to the principal’s office. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 431–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13505290