Organisational Leadership and Service Management of Educational Organisations—Motivational Factors for the Participation of Primary Education Teachers in European Educational Programmes: The Case of Imathia Prefecture and Two Greek Urban Centres ^†

Abstract

The European educational policy contributes to the teachers’ professional development through their participation in European educational programmes. The present research investigates the motives for the participation of Primary Education teachers in European educational programmes, and for their better promotion and implementation by the educational management services. The sample consists of Primary Public School Education teachers from the prefecture of Imathia and two Greek urban centres. Differences are observed in the push–pull factors that motivate the teachers to participate in European educational programmes, whereas a lot of similarities are found as far as the personal motivation and hygiene factors according to Herzberg are concerned.

1. Introduction

The improvement of service management gives the opportunity to regulate the service elements among the participants and the organisations so as to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, similar to the guidelines for the development of various sectors such as management, marketing, operations, organisational theory, and human resource management, along with service quality management and Total Quality Management [1].

Moreover, service management is a comprehensive organisational approach [2]. It can be distinguished in five main aspects: the overall management perspective, the focus on the user of services, the holistic approach, the focus on quality and internal development, and the strengthening of the organisation [1].

The school students or the university students are the users of services in educational institutions [3]. Thus, the school or university students are treated ideally as the main customers/users of education because they are the direct recipients of this specific service [4].

The European educational policy is the result of socio-economic factors and forms the basis for the satisfaction of equality and justice demands of a society aiming at progress [5].

The European Union tries to achieve social unity among its citizens through its educational policy and reinforces European integration by supporting European educational mobility. In this aspect, it implements educational policies that are related to community, unemployment, research, environment, and technological advancements [6].

The European educational policy has been strengthened through the years by the establishment of various educational programmes from the 1980s onwards [7].

The present Erasmus+ 2021–2027 programme consists, along with its predecessors, of three Key Actions relating to education, training, and youth. These Key Actions are the following:

• Key Action 1—Learning mobility of individuals;
• Key Action 2—Cooperation among organisations and institutions;
• Key Action 3—Support for policy development and cooperation [8].

Key Action 1 is about mobility projects that give the beneficiaries the opportunity to travel to another country that participates in the programme in order to study, work, teach, train, and develop professional skills and abilities [9].

Key Action 2 is about the development of cooperation plans among the participating organisations so as to be able to face important issues together, to collaborate with one another, and to share innovative practices [10].

Key Action 3 supports the public policy reforms of the member states of the European Union and promotes the cooperation with non-European Union countries and the exchange of good practices among them [11].

Thus, the European Union, through its educational policy and the management of programmes and services, aims to improve the intellectual and economic development of its citizens.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Herzberg and his associates published the two-factor model that explained work motivation in 1959. The main hypothesis of Herzberg’s theory was that particular factors lead to the creation of positive and negative attitudes to work [12]. The main point of the theory is that it identifies the difference between motivation factors and hygiene or maintenance factors. The development of the theory of motivation and hygiene factors is known as the “Two-factor theory” [13].

Herzberg initially thought that people’s attitude towards work is affected by the categorisation of the above two factors, that is, of motivation and hygiene factors. After a lot or research, he came to the main hypothesis of his theory, that some factors have a positive effect on work and others have a negative effect. In other words, some factors, mostly motivational ones, cause work satisfaction, and hygiene factors cause dissatisfaction [14].

Herzberg’s theory of motivation has been researched the most compared to other theories of motivation in the working field, making it applicable to many different sectors in this way [15,16].

2.2. Push–Pull Theory

The push–pull factors refer to the psychological and social motives that push people to travel, whereas the special characteristics of the destination attract people to move towards it [17,18,19]. The factors that affect people’s movement from the place where they primarily lived to another area were explained through the creation of the push–pull model. In that model, the push factors motivate people to move to another destination and the pull factors attract people to choose a destination [20].

The push factors usually refer to difficult conditions that people have to face in their homes, like the low quality of education and educational structures, difficulties in professional development, and the ineffective utilisation of political or cultural rights. On the other hand, the pull factors refer to better living conditions in the host country, which include the very good quality of education and the possibility of permanent settlement [21].

2.3. European Programmes and Professional Development of Teachers

In recent years, the European educational policy has closely monitored the changes that occur in the operation of school units in relation to the global character of education [22,23]. The management of knowledge and its quality becomes of the utmost importance when the goal of an organisation is to face the facts using a certain strategy [24]. In this manner, the public sector organisations, like educational institutions, that have this responsibility create and manage the knowledge and at the same time offer substantial services management [25].

The educational organisations develop administrative services such as the strategic management of knowledge [26,27] that focus on their intellectual/human capital [28,29]. The human capital of a school consists of its teachers, its head teacher, and the rest of its employees. Their abilities, experience, ingenuity, innovation, and adaptability constitute the essence of teaching, social interaction, collaboration, problem solving, and decision making [30,31]. Thus, school management should prioritise the incorporation of various forms of knowledge, practices, and skills [32].

Moreover, the professional development of teachers plays an important role in the students’ learning results [33,34,35]. The teacher, by participating in formal or informal learning activities, improves his/her scientific knowledge and at the same time develops new skills or updates existing ones, and also practices and develops his/her abilities [23,36,37].

3. Materials and Methods

According to the Greek National Agency, which is responsible for the approval of Erasmus+ projects, the largest percentage of approved projects in the Athens region, which only includes the prefecture of Athens, can be found mostly in the city of Athens, where Secondary Education approved projects are more than those of Primary Education [38].

The same results are found for the region of Central Macedonia, where the majority of the approved Erasmus+ projects for the years 2014–2018 came from the prefecture of Thessaloniki. In this case also, the approved projects of Secondary Education were more than the approved projects of Primary Education [38].

Moreover, it was noted that, in the Imathia prefecture, which belongs to the region of Central Macedonia, only two schools from Secondary Education participated in the Key Action 1—learning mobility of individuals in 2014. In 2015, five Secondary Education schools from the prefecture of Imathia participated in the Key Action 1 of the Erasmus+ programme. In 2016, two Secondary Education schools participated; in 2017, one school from Primary Education; and, in 2018, one Primary Education school and one Secondary Education school participated in the Key Action 1 of the Erasmus+ programme [38].

Furthermore, a difference is observed in the participation of teachers from Primary Education between the two largest urban centres of Greece, Athens and Thessaloniki, and the prefecture of Imathia. It can be noted that this prefecture is a provincial prefecture that belongs to the Central Macedonia region and is close to Thessaloniki, which is the second largest urban centre of Greece. The participation rates of Primary Education teachers who serve in public education in the Key Action 1 of the Erasmus+ programme between the years 2014 and 2018 is minimal when it is compared to the participation of Primary Education teachers in the Key Action 1 of the Erasmus+ programme of the nearby urban centre of Thessaloniki and of the biggest urban centre of Greece, Athens [38].

Thus, it was considered that the factors that push and pull(motivate or do not motivate) Primary Education teachers from Greece for their participation in European educational programmes should be investigated. More particularly, it was considered that a provincial prefecture like the prefecture of Imathia should be compared to the two largest urban centres of Greece, Athens and Thessaloniki, so as to determine whether there are similarities or/and differences between the teachers for their participation in a European educational programme.

According to the above reasoning, the following research questions are formulated:

4.

To what degree are the teachers informed about their active participation in the management and collaboration of a European educational programme?

5.

Which are the most important push–pull factors and which are the personal motivation factors, according to Herzberg, of the teachers who participate in European educational programmes?

6.

Do the gender and the level of education of the participating teachers differentiate their position in the five key dimensions of the motivational factors?

7.

Is there a correlation between the age of the participating teachers and the five key dimensions of the motivational factors?

3.1. Population Description

The present research focused on Public Primary Education teachers: 209 of the Primary Education teachers were from the prefecture of Imathia and 72 were from the two largest urban centres of Greece, Athens and Thessaloniki.

3.2. Procedure

Quantitative research was conducted with the use of a structured questionnaire which was distributed through the “snowball” method. The questionnaire was based on previous research about the push–pull factors and the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg.

The questionnaire that was used for the push–pull factors was the one that was developed by Arredondo et al. [39] and the questionnaire that was developed by McMillan, McConnell, and O’Sullivan [40] was used for the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg.

The data analysis of the survey was conducted with the use of descriptive and inductive methods. An extensive pilot study was also implemented.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Data

As can be seen from the data in

Table 1. Demographic data of Imathia prefecture.

Variable	Groups	Percentage
Gender	Male	26.80
	Female	73.20
Level of education	Bachelor’s degree	69.90
	Second Bachelor’s degree	3.80
	Master’s degree	23.00
	PhD	1.40
	Other	1.90
Type of school	Kindergarten	18.70
	Primary school	72.20
	Other	9.10
	M	SD
Age	48.82	9.296
Years of service	21.18	9.605

, the average age of the participating Primary Education teachers of the Imathia prefecture is approximately 48 years of age and the average number of years of service is approximately 21 years.

The data from

Table 2. Demographic data of the urban centres (Athens and Thessaloniki).

Variable	Groups	Percentage
Gender	Male	12.50
	Female	87.50
Level of education	Bachelor’s degree	51.40
	Second Bachelor’s degree	2.80
	Master’s degree	40.30
	PhD	4.20
	Other	1.40
Type of school	Kindergarten	29.20
	Primary school	55.60
	Other	15.30
	M	SD
Age	44.55	11.702
Years of service	18.04	10.193

also show that the average age of the participating Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece, Athens and Thessaloniki, is 44.55 years of age and the average number of years of service is 18 years.

4.2. First Research Question

Table 3. Briefing, participation, management, collaboration of teachers.

Imathia			Urban Centres (Athens and Thessaloniki)
	M	SD		M	SD
Briefing from the school headteacher about participation in European educational programmes (e.g., Erasmus+)	2.34	1.382	Briefing from the school headteacher about participation in European educational programmes (e.g., Erasmus+)	2.86	1.456
Self-briefing about the European educational programmes through the Internet (e.g., Erasmus+)	2.41	1.249	Self-briefing about the European educational programmes through the Internet (e.g., Erasmus+)	2.72	1.258
Participation in the process management of a European educational programme (e.g., Erasmus+)	3.13	1.202	Participation in the process management of a European educational programme (e.g., Erasmus+)	3.11	1.250
Collaboration with colleagues in a European programme (e.g., Erasmus+)	3.22	0.996	Collaboration with colleagues in a European programme (e.g., Erasmus+)	3.30	1.194

shows the results of the Primary Education teachers of the Imathia prefecture in comparison to the Primary Education teachers who serve in the two largest urban centres of Greece, Athens and Thessaloniki, for their being informed about European educational programmes (e.g., Erasmus+) by the school headteacher or personally through the Internet, and about their participation in the management of and collaboration with their colleagues in European educational programmes.

Their answers were evaluated by a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale (1 = not important, 5 = very important), where the increase in the average corresponds to the increase in the agreement of the respondents regarding the importance of each factor for being informed, for participating and managing, and for the collaboration of Primary Education teachers in European educational programmes.

As far as being informed by the headteacher of the school for their participation in European educational programmes, the Primary Education teachers of the Imathia prefecture responded that there was little information coming from the headteacher of the school (M = 2.34), whereas the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece, Athens and Thessaloniki, responded that there was an average amount of information from the school headteacher (M = 2.86).

Moreover, the Primary Education teachers of Imathia showed little interest in informing by themselves from the Internet about European educational programmes (M = 2.41), whereas the Primary Education teachers from the two largest centres of Greece showed slightly more interest (M = 2.72).

The willingness of Primary Education teachers from both from Imathia (M = 3.13) and the two largest urban centres of Greece (M = 3.11) to participate in the management of the procedures required for the running of a European educational programme can be characterised as neutral because both groups declared that they are neither less nor more interested in participating in the management procedures of a European educational programme.

Finally, as can be seen in the table above, both Primary Education teachers from the Imathia prefecture (M = 3.22) and Primary Education teachers from the two largest urban centres of Greece (M = 3.30) are indifferent to the prospect of collaborating with their colleagues in a European educational programme, since they are neither less nor more interested in doing so.

4.3. Second Research Question

Table 4. Push factors for participation in European educational programmes (e.g., Erasmus+).

Imathia			Urban Centres (Athens and Thessaloniki)
	M	SD		M	SD
Desire to travel	4.43	0.770	Live new experiences	4.52	0.804
Learn and experience the host culture	4.42	0.647	Learn and experience the host culture	4.48	0.888
Educational experience of studying in a different country	4.31	0.711	Educational experience of studying in a different country	4.47	0.855
Live new experiences	4.30	0.754	Desire to travel	4.30	0.958
Meet new people	4.19	0.844	Meet new people	4.40	1.002
Leisure and entertainment opportunities	3.99	1.002	Face challenges	4.19	0.987
Learn or improve the language	3.92	0.980	Learn or improve the language	3.98	1.068
Face challenges	3.78	0.978	Improve employment opportunities	3.90	1.076
Increase the number of relationships	3.67	0.935	Increase the number of relationships	3.41	1.286
Improve employment opportunities	3.49	1.290	Leisure and entertainment opportunities	3.72	1.280
Be independent	2.92	1.367	Be independent	3.41	1.286
My friends also participate in a mobility programme	2.46	1.232	My friends also participate in a mobility programme	2.88	1.284

presents the comparison between the answers given by the Primary Education teachers of the Imathia prefecture and those of the two largest urban centres of Greece, Athens and Thessaloniki, concerning the motives that push them to take part in a European educational programme.

It can be seen that the first factor that can mostly push the Primary Education teachers of Imathia to participate in a European educational programme is their “Desire to travel” (M = 4.43), whereas their desire to “Live new experiences” is in fourth place (M = 4.30).

On the other hand, the desire to “Live new experiences” is in first place (M = 4.52) for the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece, and their “Desire to travel” is in fifth place (M = 4.30).

It is interesting that both the Primary Education teachers of Imathia and the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece put in second and third place exactly the same push factors, that is, to “Learn and experience the host culture” (M = 4.42 and M = 4.48, accordingly), which they put in second place, and to gain “Educational experience of studying in a different country”(M = 4.31 and M = 4.47, accordingly), which they put in third place.

Finally, as can be seen in the above table, it is very interesting that both Primary Education teachers of Imathia and Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece put the same push factors in the two last places, that is, they put the factor “Be independent” in eleventh place (M = 2.92 and M = 3.41, accordingly) and the factor “My friends also participate in a mobility programme” in last place (M = 2.46 and M = 2.88, accordingly).

Table 5. Pull factors for participation in European educational programmes (e.g., Erasmus+).

Imathia			Urban Centres (Athens and Thessaloniki)
	M	SD		M	SD
Ease of accommodation	4.39	0.802	Ease of accommodation	4.04	1.131
Leisure and cultural attractions	4.29	0.852	Language of instruction	4.01	1.192
Geographic location	4.19	0.866	Geographical location	3.90	1.176
Language of instruction	4.13	0.829	Leisure and cultural attractions	3.88	1.169
Communication network	4.11	0.988	Lifestyle	3.84	1.070
Lifestyle	4.07	0.854	Entry requirements-programme	3.84	1.146
Geographical proximity	3.90	0.968	Academic offer	3.86	1.166
Climate	3.85	0.996	Socio-economic level	3.70	1.026
Academic offer	3.86	0.760	Climate	3.70	1.271
Entry requirements-programme	3.83	0.841	Communication network	3.68	1.148
Size of the city	3.73	0.941	Academic difficulty level	3.37	1.093
Cosmopolitan city	3.66	1.000	Geographical proximity	3.45	1.137
Socio-economic level	3.53	0.746	Cosmopolitan city	3.31	1.276
Academic difficulty level	3.36	0.761	Size of the city	3.15	1.252

depicts the comparison of the pull factors between the Primary Education teachers of Imathia and those of the two largest urban centres of Greece that pull them to participate in European educational programmes.

More particularly, “Ease of accommodation” is the first important pull factor for the participation of Primary Education teachers in European educational programmes for both groups Imathia (M = 4.39) and the two largest urban centres of Greece (M = 4.04).

Moreover, the Primary Education teachers of Imathia put the “Leisure and cultural attractions” in second place (M = 4.29) and the “Language of instruction” in fourth place (M = 4.13). The Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece put “Leisure and cultural attractions” in fourth place (M = 3.88).

According to the above table, the “Geographical location” is in third place for all the Primary Education teachers who participated in the present research (M = 4.19 and M = 3.90, accordingly). A dissimilarity can be observed in the last two places, where, for the Primary Education teachers of Imathia, the pull factors that play a lesser role for their participation in European educational programmes are the “Socio-economic level” (M = 3.53) and the “Academic difficulty level” (M = 3.36). On the other hand, the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece show less interest for the “Cosmopolitan city” factor (M = 3.31) as well as for the “Size of the city” factor (M = 3.15) in order to participate in a European educational programme.

The comparison of the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg between the Primary Education teachers of Imathia and those of the two largest urban centres of Greece is presented in

Table 6. Personal motivation factors (Herzberg) for participation in European educational programmes (e.g., Erasmus+).

Imathia			Urban Centres (Athens and Thessaloniki)
	M	SD		M	SD
Personal choice to improve one’s teaching	4.20	0.740	Personal choice to improve one’s teaching	4.16	0.903
Personal choice out of interest in the area	4.17	0.771	Personal choice out of interest in the area	4.05	0.991
Good time in life to do so	4.02	0.932	Desire to read widely around area of interest	3.94	1.019
Desire to read widely around area of interest	3.96	0.816	Good time in life to do so	3.88	1.081
Personal choice for career advancement	3.95	0.905	Personal choice for career advancement	3.79	0.992
Summer life-long-learning courses	3.71	1.015	Related to post of responsibility	3.44	1.124
Felt need in relation to teaching responsibility	3.66	0.930	Felt need in relation to teaching responsibility	3.45	1.186
Related to post of responsibility	2.97	1.280	Summer life-long-learning courses	3.19	1.158

.

As it can be seen, both the Primary Education teachers of Imathia and those of the two largest urban centres of Greece put in first place the factor of “Personal choice to improve one’s teaching” (M = 4.20 and M = 4.16, accordingly), which corresponds to the factor of “Achievement” according to Herzberg. Following this, all the Primary Education teachers who participated in the research put in second place the factor of “Personal choice out of interest in the area” (M = 4.17 and M = 4.05, accordingly), which corresponds to the factor of “Possibility of growth” according to Herzberg.

The Primary Education teachers of Imathia put the factor of “Good time in life to do so” in third place (M = 4.02), which corresponds to the factor of “Advancement” according to Herzberg, whereas the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece put the factor of “Good time in life to do so” in the fourth place (M = 3.88). Furthermore, the Primary Education teachers of Imathia put the “Desire to read widely around area of interest” in fourth place (M = 3.96), which corresponds to the factor of “Possibility of growth” according to Herzberg, whereas the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece put the factor “Desire to read widely around area of interest” in third place (M = 3.94).

The above table also shows that the factor “Personal choice for career advancement”, which corresponds to the factor “Advancement” according to Herzberg, is put in fifth place (M = 3.95 and M = 3.79, accordingly) by all the Primary Education teachers who took part in the present research.

The Primary Education teachers of Imathia put in last place the factor “Related to post of responsibility” (M = 2.97), which corresponds to the factor “Responsibility” according to Herzberg. On the other hand, the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece put in last place the factor “Summer life-long learning courses” (M = 3.19), which corresponds to the factor “Responsibility” according to Herzberg.

4.4. Third Research Question

Table 7. Differentiations between “gender” and “level of education” and group of variables.

Imathia			Urban Centres (Athens & Thessaloniki)
	Gender	Level of Education		Gender	Level of Education
Briefing, participation, and collaboration in European educational programmes	0.014	0.002	Briefing, participation, and collaboration in European educational programmes	0.452	0.879
Push factors	0.013	0.011	Push factors	0.638	0.501
Pull factors	0.465	0.222	Pull factors	0.244	0.351
Personal motivation factors (Herzberg)	0.092	0.007	Personal motivation factors (Herzberg)	0.932	0.341

shows that the gender and the level of education of the Primary Education teachers of Imathia did not play an important role in their being informed, in their participation and collaboration with their colleagues in European educational programmes, or in the push–pull factors. But, the gender and the level of education played an important role for their personal motivation factors according to Herzberg in their participation in European educational programmes.

On the other hand, as it can be seen in the above table that, for the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece, the gender and the level of education did not play an important role in their being informed or in their participation and collaboration with their colleagues in European educational programmes, and it also did not seem to play an important role in their push–pull factors and their personal motivation factors according to Herzberg.

4.5. Fourth Research Question

Table 8. Age–Imathia prefecture.

Spearman Correlation	Age	Briefing, Participation, and Collaboration in European Educational Programmes	Push Factors	Pull Factors	Personal Motivation Factors (Herzberg)
Age	1.000	−0.307 **	−0.296 **	0.025	−0.243 **
Briefing, participation, and collaboration in European educational programmes	−0.307 **	1.000	0.536 **	−0.026	0.306 **
Push factors	−0.296 **	0.536 **	1.000	0.223 **	0.690 **
Pull factors	0.025	−0.026	0.223 **	1.000	0.497 **
Personal motivation factors (Herzberg)	−0.243 **	0.306 **	0.690 **	0.497 **	1.000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

shows that, in the Imathia prefecture, age plays a negative role if it is correlated with the briefing, participation, and collaboration of Primary Education teachers in European educational programmes (r = −0.307), with the push factors (r = −0.296) and with the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg (r = −0.243).

It also seems apparent that, in the Imathia prefecture, age plays a larger role when the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg are correlated with the push factors (r = 0.690) and a lesser role when the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg are correlated with the pull factors (r = 0.497). Age plays very small role when the push factors are correlated with the pull factors (r = 0.223).

In the two largest urban centres of Greece, it seems that age plays the same important role when the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg are correlated with the push (r = 0.565) and pull factors (r = 0.503), and also when the push and pull factors are correlated between them (r = 0.547) (

Table 9. Age–urban centres (Athens and Thessaloniki).

Spearman Correlation	Age	Briefing, Participation, and Collaboration in European Educational Programmes	Push Factors	Pull Factors	Personal Motivation Factors (Herzberg)
Age	1.000	0.132	0.118	−0.165	−0.185
Briefing, participation, and collaboration in European educational programmes	0.132	1.000	0.271 **	−0.039	0.203
Push factors	0.118	0.271 **	1.000	0.547 **	0.565 **
Pull factors	−0.165	−0.039	0.547 **	1.000	0.503 **
Personal motivation factors (Herzberg)	−0.185	0.203	0.565**	0.503 **	1.000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

A total of 281 Public Primary Education teachers, mostly from the prefecture of Imathia, but also from the two largest urban centres of Greece, Athens and Thessaloniki, participated in the present research. The majority of the participants were women and university graduates. The average age of the participants for the Imathia prefecture was 48 years and for the two largest urban centres it was 44 years. The number of years of service for the Primary Education teachers of Imathia was 21 years and for the two largest urban centres of Greece it was 18 years.

As far as the first research question is concerned, it seems that there is little or average briefing of the Primary Education teachers from their school headteachers about European educational programmes. The teachers themselves show little or enough interest to be informed about these programmes from the Internet. Both the Primary Education teachers of Imathia and those from the two largest urban centres of Greece express neutral willingness to participate in the management of the procedures and in collaborating with their colleagues in a European educational programme.

Moreover, differentiations are observed in the second research question between the Primary Education teachers of Imathia and those from the two largest urban areas of Greece concerning the push–pull factors. The major push factor for the Primary Education teachers of Imathia is their “Desire to travel”, whereas, for the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece, it is to “Live new experiences”.

It is interesting that both the Primary Education teachers of Imathia and of the two largest urban centres of Greece put the same push factors in second and third place, but also in the last two places. On the other hand, quite a large differentiation is observed in the placement of the pull factors between the Primary Education teachers of Imathia and those of the two largest urban centres of Greece.

Furthermore, the comparison of the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg between the Primary Education teachers of Imathia and those of the two largest urban centres of Greece shows that the motives of “Personal choice to improve one’s teaching” and “Personal choice out of interest in the area” are the most important for all of them.

In the third research question, the age and the level of education of the Primary Education teachers of Imathia plays an important role in their briefing, participation, and collaboration in European educational programmes, as well as in the factors that push them to participate in those programmes. Also, the level of education in Imathia plays an important role in the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg for their participation in European educational programmes.

On the other hand, age plays a certain role for the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece in the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg, whereas their level of education plays a more important role in the pull factors.

Finally, for the fourth research question, age has a negative effect in the briefing, participation, and collaboration of Primary Education teachers in European educational programmes, in the push and pull factors, and in the personal motivation factors according to Herzberg, whereas, for the Primary Education teachers of the two largest urban centres of Greece, age does not seem to have a negative effect in any particular variable.

5.1. Managerial Implications

The present research could help the organisational and managerial services of education to create a policy tool so as to promote the participation of teachers in European educational programmes and in other good educational practices.

5.2. Policy Implications

Moreover, the role that motivation plays for the participation of the Primary Education teachers from Greece in European educational programmes could be better researched and understood with the creation of an estimation tool for this purpose. In this way, the role of the European Union in service management organisations and those of its member states in continuing professional development issues of the teachers aiming at their larger participation in European educational programmes could be facilitated.

5.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The results of the present research derive mostly from the prefecture of Imathia and, to a lesser degree, from the two largest urban centres of Greece, Athens and Thessaloniki. It would be better if the research could extent to other areas of Greece because a larger research sample would further help us conduct parametric tests and provide greater validity to the conclusions.

Finally, future research could be implemented in all three levels of education in Greece, that is, in Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary education.