Principal leadership development: a collective impact approach Open Access

This study examines the CI approach used in the ongoing development and implementation of a state-wide principal leadership academy (PLA) in a state located in the Rocky Mountain region. The academy is comprised of four components: principal pillars, an annual PLA conference, a principal mentor program (PMP), and a variety of professional learning opportunities. The PMP provides training for veteran principals serving as mentors to early career and aspiring building leaders. Through the lens of CI, the study aims to understand the role of the school-university-community partnership in the PLA and PMP’s development, implementation, and anticipated outcomes.

Given the potential of CI approaches and the pressing need for effective principal leadership, the study is guided by the following research questions:

These questions are significant as they address a gap in our understanding of how a CI approach translates into practice in educational leadership development. By examining the PLA initiative, we can gain insights into mechanisms by which CI shapes leadership programs, the challenges encountered, and the potential benefits realized. These findings will not only contribute to the theoretical understanding of CI in education but also provide practical guidance for other states or districts considering similar approaches.

The role of the school principal has become more demanding and complex (Fuller et al., 2018). This evolution has necessitated changes in principal preparation programs and ongoing professional learning to develop school leaders with the skills and knowledge needed to effectively lead PK-12 schools. Collaborative efforts among schools, universities, and other organizations are increasingly being employed to meet such challenges. This section provides a summary of relevant literature related to leadership impact, leadership development, leadership mentoring, and CI.

School leadership plays a critical role in shaping the educational environment. Leithwood et al. (2020) assert that effective leadership has a significant effect on the school organization, which in turn positively impacts the quality of teaching and learning. Building on this, Harris and Jones (2023) identify findings from the leadership evidence base, highlighting positive effects of strong leadership on organizational performance, learning, and learning outcomes. In a more specific exploration of how principal behaviors affect teacher performance, Lambersky (2016) noted that leadership actions have a profound impact on teachers’ emotional and professional well-being, influencing factors such as job satisfaction and morale; burnout, stress and anxiety; self- and collective efficacy; and organizational commitment and engagement. Consequently, the actions of the school leader play a crucial role in influencing overall teacher performance and school effectiveness.

High-quality preparation and ongoing development programs are essential to equip principals with the skills necessary for navigating today’s diverse and challenging educational landscapes. These programs are vital for promoting the leadership knowledge, skills, and practices that positively impact student achievement and school success (Augustine-Shaw & Reilly, 2017; Grissom et al., 2019; Hallinger, 2015 Leithwood et al., 2010). While key features of effective preparation programs have been identified (Orr, 2008; Young et al., 2009), criticism persists regarding the development of current and future school leaders (Young, 2015).

A critical component of effective leadership preparation programs is the inclusion of authentic, field-based learning experiences coupled with individualized coaching (In Fletcher & Mullen, 2012; Jackson & Remur, 2014). Activities such as these play an important role in bridging the gap between theory and practice (Cunningham & Sherman, 2008). Research indicates that full-time internships, where aspiring principals are mentored by effective leaders, provide the most comprehensive preparation for future leadership roles (Shelton, 2011; The Wallace Foundation, 2016). However, the need for leadership development extends beyond the initial preparation phase, with a clear demand for mentoring early career principals (Hayes, 2020). Given the complexity of principal preparation and the evolving demands of school leadership, mentorship can provide important support throughout an educational leader’s career.

Mentoring has emerged as a powerful strategy for career advancement and professional development, with particular significance in education. Recognized as a valuable tool in both K-12 and higher education settings (Searby, 2020), mentoring relationships span a spectrum from formal programs to informal colleague arrangements (Gut et al., 2020). These relationships consistently yield positive outcomes, including enhanced support, idea sharing, and high satisfaction levels (Pariente & Tubin, 2021). Effective mentoring programs focus on delivering high-quality professional development to better equip educators for their roles (Gurley et al., 2016). In educational leadership, mentoring has proven particularly impactful. A decade of research consistently demonstrates the positive influence of leadership mentoring on the professional growth of aspiring and early career school leaders (Goff et al., 2014; Lackritz et al., 2019; Wise & Cavazos, 2017).

CI is a systematic framework for addressing complex problems through a methodical, multi-sector approach (Kania & Kramer, 2011). This approach proposes a centralized coalition strategy that encourages organizations to collaborate towards a common, achievable goal rather than working in isolation (Hanleybrown et al., 2012; Kania & Kramer, 2011). Five key conditions (Figure 1) are implemented within the CI framework: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support organization(s) (Kania & Kramer, 2011, 2013). These conditions ensure that CI members share a vision and approach to the problem, collect consistent data for accountability, coordinate complementary activities, maintain open communication to build trust and motivation, and have at least one dedicated organization to coordinate participating members (Kania & Kramer, 2011).

This study applied CI (Hanleybrown et al., 2012; Kania & Kramer, 2011) to the development and implementation of a state-wide initiative focusing on principal leadership development and support. CI is used as a theoretical framework to explore how the power of collaboration, shared goals, and systemic approaches is used to address complex problems and large-scale change. By examining the PLA and PMP through this lens, the study sought to understand how stakeholder collaboration influences the ongoing development and implementation of the initiative. Applying the theoretical foundations may yield insights into the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the role of shared measurement systems, the importance of continuous communication, the potential for systemic change, and the challenges of aligning diverse stakeholders around a common agenda. These insights can inform future efforts to design, implement, and scale effective leadership development programs, ultimately contributing to improving teacher and leader recruitment and retention.

A qualitative case study design, with elements of participant observation, was employed to examine the development and implementation of a state-wide PLA and PMP as an example of CI in education. The researcher held multiple roles within the initiative including educational leadership faculty, principal mentor, mentor training coordinator/facilitator, and researcher. This insider position offered unique access and insights into the initiative, providing a deep understanding of the processes, challenges, and dynamics of the CI approach. However, it also necessitated careful consideration of potential biases. To address possible conflicts, transparency about the author’s roles was maintained and consistent reflection on how the researcher’s involvement might influence analysis was employed throughout the research process. By acknowledging and actively managing the researcher’s positionality, this study aimed to leverage the benefits of insider knowledge while mitigating potential biases, thereby enhancing the validity and depth of findings.

After conducting a review of relevant literature and identifying CI as the theoretical framework, data was gathered through multiple methods to ensure a broad understanding of the initiative. These methods captured both the formal documentation and the lived experience of the initiative’s development and implementation including:

• (1)

  Documentation: A review was conducted of written documents and records from the PLA and PMP to provide insights into the initiative. Information gathered included the state department of education’s strategic plan along with PLA and PMP documents such as meeting agendas, emails, and program materials.

• (2)

  Participant Observation: The researcher’s direct involvement in initiative activities provided first-hand experience of the development and implementation process.

• (3)

  Reflective Practice: The researcher documented personal reflections on experiences in various roles within the initiative.

The combination of documentation, participant observation, and reflective practice allowed for a rich understanding of the CI process in the context of educational leadership development. This multi-faceted approach enabled the researcher to triangulate data to present a comprehensive examination of the PLA/PMP initiative.

Data analysis consisted of contextual analysis, reflexive analysis, and framework analysis. This combination provided a structured way to understand the initiative and its expected outcomes, while acknowledging the researcher’s role as an active contributor to the research process:

• (1)

  Contextual and Reflexive Analysis: Contextual analysis was used to provide the necessary backdrop for understanding the initiative, to situate the study within the broader educational landscape, and to offer insights into the specific details and circumstances that shaped the development and implementation of the initiative. Additionally, the researcher’s multiple roles were accounted for through ongoing reflection, ensuring transparency and critical examination of potential biases throughout the research. Engaging in this reflexive process (Olmos-Vega et al., 2022) acknowledged the researcher’s positionality to enhance the study’s credibility by allowing readers to better understand how the researcher’s background and perspectives may have influenced data collection, interpretation, and presentation of findings.

• (2)

  Framework Analysis: Findings from the contextual and reflexive analysis were further analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive methods. A deductive approach was employed with the five key conditions of the CI framework as a priori themes (Saldaña, 2021). The use of these predetermined themes was complemented by the identification of emergent themes through inductive analysis using a grounded theory process (Mishra & Dey, 2022). Open coding was first conducted, followed by axial coding to group similar ideas and concepts together into categories, which led to identifying themes. This combination of inductive and deductive methods allowed for a holistic approach, taking advantage of the strengths of each (Yuwono & Rachmawati, 2023; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006).

The specific state context in which this initiative was developed and implemented limits the generalizability of the findings. The use of a single case study approach, which relies on available information and documents, is another limitation of this study and may further limit generalizability. There is also potential for bias due to the author’s direct involvement in the initiative and the challenge of maintaining objectivity while being an active participant. To address this, transparency about the researcher’s roles and potential conflicts of interest were clearly stated, attention was given to balancing the roles of the researcher, and member checking was employed with other key participants in the initiative to verify interpretations. While these measures strengthen the study’s validity, the contextual nature of the findings should be considered when applying them to other educational settings.

The results of this study provide a comprehensive examination of the first fifteen months of the initiative. Two angles were explored to offer a nuanced understanding of the initiative: context of the initiative, and CI conditions in the initiative. By presenting findings from contextual and reflexive analysis followed by theoretical analysis, the study aimed to provide a broad view of the CI process in the development and implementation of the PLA and PMP.

Three categories were used to organize information from the contextual and reflexive analysis of the data: (1) background; (2) timeline and process; and (3) key components of the PLA/PMP. Rather than presenting a separate reflexivity section, the researcher’s reflections are weaved into these findings. This approach is used to demonstrate how the researcher’s positionality shaped interpretations.

The PLA/PMP initiative emerged from a broader state-wide effort to address educational challenges. The state’s strategic plan (2023–2027) for education reform included two key goals related to this initiative:

• (1)

  Establishing a recruitment and retention task force to identify teachers’ needs.

• (2)

  Incorporating a principal leadership training component in the State Department of Education’s Statewide System of Support, specifically designing a principal leadership academy for the state.

In response to these goals, a collaborative approach was adopted to address the challenge of teacher recruitment and retention by focusing on principal leadership. In initial meetings between the university, state department of education, and governor’s office, school leadership was identified as a focus area, particularly principal professional development. This group was then expanded to create a steering committee, bringing together additional stakeholders from across the state’s education sector, with representation from various entities including the university, state department of education, state principal associations, and districts/schools.

I was invited to participate on the steering committee because of my involvement as a university faculty member in an existing principal mentor program being piloted with a group of educational leaders from around the state. The pilot project was funded through multiple sources including a fellowship I was awarded, a college grant, funds from the school-university partnership, and contributions from the participants (or their school/district) to provide a cohort of mentor principals from throughout our state with certification through the National Association of Elementary School Principal’s National Mentor Training and Certification Program (NAESP, n.d.). This highly structured professional online learning program integrated research-based best practices with participants’ knowledge and experiences. It was supplemented with additional cohort-based learning facilitated by college faculty through both in-person and online formats. I served in multiple roles for this project, such as participant in the training/certification, principal mentor, content provider/facilitator, and researcher.

An aggressive timeline was established for the initiative. Meetings with the initial committee were held in the summer of 2023, which resulted in establishing a team of stakeholders to serve on the PLA steering committee. Regular meetings with the steering committee were scheduled twice a month. Throughout the fall of 2023 and the spring of 2024, the steering committee gathered information to develop the academy with the goal of launching the PLA in summer 2024. After providing an overview of the timeline at the first meeting, the group worked to address questions related to leadership academy purposes, participants, approaches, and content. This work was communicated back to the state department of education’s leadership team for building out the academy framework/plan.

By January 2024, draft documents were created focusing on the purpose of the leadership academy, research on why leadership matters, a theory of action, tiers of principal participation (experienced, early career, and aspiring principals), and leadership pillars of focus. Also included were ideas about leadership academy learning approaches, the role of experienced principals in mentoring/coaching early career and aspiring principals, and how the needs of new building leaders would evolve over multiple years. In addition, a PLA/PMP implementation timeline was established for the 2024–2025 year and a general plan was made to continue the PMP being piloted by the college of education. Meanwhile, a sub-group of the steering committee became the PLA design committee. As a member of the design committee, I participated in additional conversations about the continuation of a PMP, and this group worked to further develop the initiative’s timeline.

Next, to focus on the specific details, a small PLA work committee was formed which was comprised of two college of education faculty (including the researcher/author), the school-university partnership director, and two individuals from the state department. This group supported the development of mentor training content, created the training schedule which included both in-person and virtual meetings, and worked to address specific factors and logistics of the PLA and PMP events. We also reported to the design committee, steering committee, the state superintendent of schools, and both college and university administration through electronic communication as well as through discussions, reports, and formal presentations.

As a participant observer in each of the committees, I noticed that power dynamics were evident, especially in the large steering committee. Although the meetings were well facilitated and the group rapport was professional, the principals most affected by the work were less likely to be at the center of conversations. The rapport of the smaller planning committee and work group was warm and friendly with a greater presence of shared power. Despite this, there was some confusion about the roles of the different organizations and individuals in the PLA and PMP. At first, I thought my involvement was primarily to share my experience with the pilot principal mentor project. However, once the PLA work committee was formed, it became clear that my role and the role of other college faculty, along with the school-university partnership, were to support the PLA by facilitating the PMP and evaluating the initiative. One of my goals for serving on these committees was to secure funding to sustain principal mentor training and support throughout the state. In early planning meetings, I recommended continuing the pilot format as I initially assumed that the participants valued the national training component. During participant observation, I learned that some principal mentors felt the supplemental state-level activities were more valuable and advocated that the PMP focus only on specific state-based training provided by the university. This influenced the PMP program design with participation in the national program offered as an optional component. Since many of the participants would not take part in the national training, it led to the development of more thorough and rigorous training content for the PMP.

The PLA and PMP were established to improve educational leadership across the state and increase teacher and leader retention. A tiered participation structure offered ongoing professional learning for experienced, early career, and aspiring educational leaders. The PLA was comprised of four components (Figure 2).

• (1)

  PLA Pillars: Ten pillars of building level leadership were developed by the steering committee of superintendents, principals, and curriculum directors. These research-supported pillars provided a foundation for the knowledge, skills, and practices needed by principals to improve schools and promote the success of each student and adult.

• (2)

  Statewide PLA Conference: This two-day event took place in July of 2024 and supported attendees in learning about the leadership pillars. Experienced principals from throughout the state provided keynote and concurrent sessions with a focus on learning from and with each other about topics from the PLA pillars. Additionally, the conference offered opportunities to share information about the PLA/PMP and connect with principal mentors joining the PMP. The conference received unanimously positive evaluations and has been scheduled to continue as an annual event.

• (3)

  PMP: Matching early career principals with veteran principal mentors from within the state was established as a core feature of the PMP. A goal of the PMP was to continue mentor training and sustain a core of principal mentors with appropriate skills to promote the leadership development of early career and aspiring principals. An additional goal was to create a powerful learning environment benefiting both mentees and mentors while fostering ongoing improvement in educational leadership. Addressing educational issues specific to the state context and strengthening school leadership capacity were crucial components of this mentorship approach. To support this process, comprehensive mentor training over a two-year period was created, combining in-person and virtual sessions. Two main elements comprised the PMP: a mentoring plan and mentor training.

  • •

    Mentoring Plan: An online course shell was created to house mentoring plan items so principal mentors could access, complete, and submit them. The mentoring plan included a collaboratively developed meeting schedule, mentee and mentor baseline surveys, mentee and mentor goals and action plans, a school visit plan and reflection, a principal action research project, mentor surveys (initial, mid-year, and year-end), a mentee feedback survey, and virtual mentee check-in sessions (mid-year and year-end). Due dates for each item were listed but mentors and mentees were assured that there was flexibility and that these deadlines were intended to serve in a guidance capacity. Based on my experience as a principal mentor, I was apprehensive about this prescribed approach to mentorship, but realized these items offered a research-based structure for formalizing the mentorship process to maintain the focus on the specific needs, goals, and action plans of mentees and mentors.

  • •

    Mentor Training: A mentor training schedule was created which combined five virtual meetings and two regional in-person meetings. The training focused on a Mentorship for Learning (MFL) Framework (Hudson et al., 2024) and PMP Mentor Competencies.

    • -

      Mentorship for Learning (MFL) Framework: The MFL framework was selected as a training component for the principal mentors (Figure 3). Research and best practices on mentorship were incorporated into the framework to promote a culture of professional learning.

    • -

      PMP Mentor Competencies: Ten mentor competencies were created to support the development of mentoring skills. These competencies directly connected to the MFL framework and were designed to simultaneously promote the growth of principal mentors and the leadership development of early career and aspiring principals.

• (4)

  Professional Learning Opportunities: One of the PLA objectives was to offer a range of professional learning opportunities tailored to the specific roles and responsibilities of educational leaders. Designed with a focus on principals, the trainings aligned with the professional learning programs of school educators. This alignment was intended to ensure that building leaders gain the knowledge and understanding needed in their leadership role to effectively support and guide their staff’s professional learning. Another objective of the PLA was to compile the many initiatives available within the state and create a menu of options that could be utilized to meet the needs of educational leaders and their schools. However, despite efforts to communicate about these opportunities, when communicating with principals and aspiring principals, I discovered that many were not fully aware of the resource available to them, perhaps due to the amount of communication and/or the overwhelming number of tasks and responsibilities a leadership role entails. Discussion focused on this issue continues among the stakeholder groups.

Findings from the deductive framework analysis are organized around the five key conditions of CI which served as predetermined themes: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support organization(s). Text extracts from the document analysis provided anchor and supporting references for these themes.

A Common Agenda emerged as a critical component in the analysis, emphasizing the importance of a shared vision among stakeholders. Twelve references supported this predetermined theme, including the anchor and supporting references in Table 1. The anchor reference illustrated diverse stakeholders coming together with a common understanding of challenges and a shared vision for addressing them. It underscored the alignment of various educational entities towards a common goal, setting the foundation for the entire initiative. Supporting references further demonstrated the initiative’s collaborative nature, uniting stakeholders to improve principal leadership.

The analysis revealed that this common agenda was fundamental to the CI approach. Through the PLA/PMP initiative, diverse stakeholders collaborated to enhance leadership development as a strategy for improving teacher recruitment. This cross-sector effort aligned with the state’s strategic plan for addressing educational challenges. By leveraging stakeholders’ varied expertise, the resulting principal leadership development program was designed to meet both immediate needs and support sustained educational improvement.

Shared measurement proved to be an important element in the initiative’s framework, establishing the foundation for data-driven decision-making, and aligning efforts across participants. Eight references highlighted the initiative’s commitment to shared measurement, as exemplified by the anchor and supporting references in Table 2. The anchor reference demonstrated the initiative’s commitment to a shared measurement system through standardized tools, ensuring consistency, establishing common language for leadership development, and providing a unified starting point for mentorship relationships. Supporting references illustrated ongoing, structured data collection, including reflection surveys and goal-setting processes. These references collectively showcased the initiative’s dedication to consistent data collection, enabling effective progress tracking and informed decision-making.

The analysis uncovered a comprehensive approach to data collection using standardized tools based on the PLA pillars and mentor competencies. Both mentees and mentors actively participated in the measurement process, completing surveys and action plans throughout the program. This systematic approach maintained consistency, fostered common language for leadership development, and allowed for consistent progress tracking across participants.

Mutually Reinforcing Activities stood out as a crucial principle of the initiative, with fifteen references illustrating how components enhanced one another. Anchor and supporting reference for this theme are displayed in Table 3. The anchor reference highlighted four interconnected components that created a cohesive approach to leadership development. While each component maintained a distinct focus, they worked together as part of an integrated whole, allowing for a multi-layered strategy that addressed both individual and collective needs. Supporting references demonstrated how these components reinforced each other. The PMP provided individualized, practical application of leadership skills, while professional learning opportunities ensured ongoing, differentiated development. The professional opportunities enhanced the mentorship component by furthering the knowledge and skills of both mentors and mentees. Furthermore, the mentorship program helped apply learning from professional development sessions, creating a reciprocal relationship among the components.

Analysis revealed multi-faceted strategies addressing both individual and collective needs in leadership development. Four interconnected elements were incorporated: collaboratively developed leadership pillars, an annual statewide conference, a principal mentor program, and tailored professional learning opportunities. These components did not operate in isolation but instead complemented and enhanced each other to reinforce and amplify the effects of the others. The leadership pillars served as the foundation, providing a common language and framework. The annual conference offered broad engagement and networking opportunities, while the PMP provided personalized support to reinforce professional learning in practical, context-specific ways. Adding to these, the professional learning opportunities ensured continuous development tailored to specific roles and responsibilities. The result was a synergistic effect that amplified the impact of each individual component, creating a comprehensive approach to leadership development.

The analysis uncovered robust, multi-layered communication spanning various levels of the initiative. Ten references highlighted the initiative’s dedication to keeping stakeholders informed and engaged, providing a foundation for collaborative decision-making, timely adjustments, and the maintenance of collective momentum. Anchor and supporting references for this theme are documented in Table 4. The anchor reference highlighted continuous communication through bi-monthly steering committee meetings, ensuring consistent alignment and shared understanding of progress, goals, and program development. Supporting references further illustrated the depth of the communication strategy. One of these references highlighted the emphasis on frequent communication between mentors and mentees, as well as the collaborative development of meeting schedules. This approach promoted buy-in and commitment to ongoing communication at the individual level. The other supporting reference showcased a multi-faceted approach to gathering feedback and encouraging collective discussion by combining individual surveys with group sessions.

This analysis underscored the initiative’s comprehensive approach to communication, operating at multiple levels from mentor-mentee pairs to broader group discussions. Continuous communication played a fundamental role in the initiative’s framework by emphasizing frequent and structured interactions among stakeholders to build trust, ensure mutual objectives, and create common motivation. Recurrent meetings at the committee level ensured consistent information flow and alignment. At the mentor-mentee level, regular interactions were prioritized, with collaboratively developed meeting schedules promoting buy-in and ongoing communication. The initiative also implemented a comprehensive feedback system combining individual surveys with group discussions. The multi-faceted approach ensured communication flowed among all stakeholders, facilitating ongoing learning, reflection, and continuous improvement throughout the initiative.

The analysis revealed a collaborative approach with dedicated organizations providing fundamental support to coordinate the initiative. Seven references showed how multiple organizations provided structure, expertise, and resources. Anchor and supporting references connected to this theme are presented in Table 5. The anchor reference demonstrated the involvement of key university personnel. The inclusion of educational leadership faculty members brought academic expertise and research-based knowledge to the initiative, grounding the program in current leadership theory and best practices. The involvement of the school-university partnership director provided a crucial link between academic institutions and school settings. This partnership approach allocated human resources to facilitate the translation of theoretical knowledge into actionable strategies for leadership development. Supporting references further illustrated the initiative’s commitment to establishing a comprehensive backbone support structure. The first reference highlighted the involvement of the State Department of Education, bringing policy-level support and alignment with state-wide educational goals. The second reference demonstrated the broad-based backing from both state-level associations and district-level leadership. The involvement of State Principal Associations’ executive directors ensured that the initiative was informed by the collective experience and needs of principals across different school levels. The participation of district and school leaders, from superintendents to principals, provided multiple perspectives and facilitated the implementation of the initiative at the local level.

The initiative established a multi-layered, cross-institutional structure to address the complex work of improving educational leadership across the state. University involvement ensured the program was grounded in current leadership theory and best practices. The State Department of Education provided policy-level support and alignment with state-wide educational goals, while state-level associations and district-level leadership ensured diverse perspectives and experiences informed the initiative. This comprehensive backbone support structure reinforced the demanding work of improving educational leadership across the state while maintaining both theoretical rigor and practical relevance.

Three additional themes surfaced through inductive analysis: a structured approach to leadership growth, inclusive and responsive program design, and research-informed program implementation. A description of each of these themes along with supporting text extracts from the document analysis follows.

This theme emerged from data highlighting the initiative’s systematic and organized method for developing educational leaders. Eighteen references from the data established the significance of a well-defined process for leadership growth. Representative references are shown in Table 6. The first reference demonstrated the deliberate creation of a framework (the ten pillars) to guide leadership development, ensuring a comprehensive and systematic approach. The pillars provided a foundation for the knowledge, skills, and practices needed by principals. The second reference illustrated the formal mentorship program, showing how the initiative systematically develops both mentors and mentees, creating a cycle of continuous leadership growth.

The initiative’s commitment to a well-planned, comprehensive strategy for leadership development is underscored in this theme. The structured approach was evident in various aspects of the program, including the development of leadership pillars, the mentorship program, and targeted professional learning opportunities. Analysis revealed a deliberate creation of a structured framework and highlighted how the initiative implemented a structured, multi-faceted approach to leadership growth. This framework provided clear pathways for educational leaders at all career stages, ensuring consistent and continuous leadership development across the state.

Data analysis illustrating the initiative’s commitment to creating a program that was adaptable to diverse needs and responsive to feedback from participants resulted in the emergence of this theme. Approximately 14 references connected to this theme. Representative references are shown in Table 7. The first reference demonstrated the inclusive nature of the program design, showing how different perspectives were incorporated to develop a comprehensive leadership development program. The second example illustrated the responsive aspect of the program design which provided learning opportunities tailored to specific roles and cover a range of relevant topics. These references, along with others, highlighted how the initiative implemented an inclusive and responsive approach to program design, ensuring that the initiative will remain relevant, effective, and adaptable to the distinct needs of educational leaders across the state.

The initiative’s collaborative approach leveraged the expertise and perspectives from stakeholders throughout the state’s educational system. The inclusive and responsive nature of the program design was evident in the development process and the incorporation of regular feedback mechanisms. This design process ensured that the program addressed challenges related to leadership development and teacher retention. Consistent data collection enabled monitoring and informed program decisions. Furthermore, the initiative demonstrated responsiveness by providing a range of professional learning opportunities tailored to specific roles and responsibilities, covering diverse areas relevant to educational leadership.

The initiative’s commitment to grounding its practices in current educational research and evidence-based approaches was a key feature of the program. Approximately 11 references from the data were associated with this theme, revealing its importance within the initiative’s design and execution. Table 8 displays references illustrating this theme. The first reference demonstrated the use of a research-based framework which integrated research and best practices on mentorship to promote a culture of professional learning. The second example illustrated the involvement of academic experts, including faculty members from the educational leadership department and the school-university partnership director, to ensure that the initiative’s practices were based on research.

The analysis highlighted a clear connection between academic research and program implementation. The research-informed nature of the program implementation was evident in the incorporation of established frameworks, the use of evidence-based practices, and the involvement of academic experts in the program’s development and execution. This theme underscored the initiative’s effort to ensure the approach to leadership development was based on solid theoretical foundations and effective practices.

The findings from this study illustrated a collaborative approach to supporting leadership which contributes to the growing body of literature on CI in educational contexts. Analysis of the initiative demonstrated how the CI framework can be applied to complex educational challenges such as principal leadership development with the goal of influencing teacher and leader retention. Two primary research questions guided this investigation: (1) How are the five conditions of CI reflected in the ongoing development and implementation of a statewide PLA and PMP? (2) How does the CI framework influence the progress and potential outcomes of the PLA/PMP initiative?

Addressing the first research question, the five conditions of CI were strongly reflected in the ongoing development and implementation of the initiative:

• (1)

  Common Agenda: The initiative demonstrated a shared vision for addressing teacher recruitment and retention through enhanced principal leadership. This common agenda was evident in the collaborative development of the program and its alignment with the state’s strategic plan. This is consistent with Kania and Kramer’s (2011) emphasis on the importance of a shared vision in successful CI initiatives.

• (2)

  Shared Measurement Systems: The implementation of standardized surveys, goal-setting processes, and reflection tools provided a consistent framework for measuring progress and outcomes across the initiative. This approach aligned with research of Henig et al. (2016) on the importance of shared measurement in educational initiatives.

• (3)

  Mutually Reinforcing Activities: The components of the PLA were designed to complement and enhance each other, creating a synergistic approach to leadership development, mirroring findings of Henig et al. (2016) on the effectiveness of interconnected strategies in educational reform efforts.

• (4)

  Continuous Communication: Regular meetings, frequent interactions, and structured feedback mechanisms ensured ongoing dialog and alignment among stakeholders, reflecting the work of Flood et al. (2015) which emphasized communication in sustaining CI initiatives.

• (5)

  Backbone Support Organizations: The involvement of multiple institutions offered a robust support structure for the initiative. This is supported by Turner et al.’s (2012) research on the critical role of backbone organizations in CI.

Regarding the second research question, the CI framework appears to have significantly influenced the progress and potential outcomes of the initiative. The comprehensive approach aligned with CI research suggesting that multi-faceted, systemic approaches to leadership development are more effective than isolated interventions (The Wallace Foundation, 2016). The broad stakeholder engagement fostered by the CI framework is consistent with Fullan’s (2015) work on the importance of collaborative professionalism in educational change. The emphasis on research-informed program implementation is particularly noteworthy, as it addressed a common critique of leadership development programs, the gap between research and practice (Bailey & Gautam, 2015). By grounding the initiative in current research and involving academic experts, the initiative exemplified the type of research-practice partnership necessary for improving educational outcomes (Farrell et al., 2021). In addition, the continuous communication and shared measurement systems (Kania & Kramer, 2011) allowed for ongoing refinement of the program, potentially increasing its effectiveness over time. Finally, strong backbone support (Kania & Kramer, 2011) and alignment with state-wide goals suggest a higher likelihood of long-term sustainability for the initiative.

This study demonstrated how the CI framework can be applied to complex educational challenges, such as principal leadership development, along with teacher and leader retention. The emergent themes not only complemented the CI approach but also suggested potential areas for enhancing the effectiveness of leadership development initiatives and expanding the CI model in educational settings (Figure 4).

The Structured Approach to Leadership Growth theme resonated with Leithwood et al.’s (2004) findings on the importance of systematic leadership development. This theme also enhanced the Mutually Reinforcing Activities condition of CI by ensuring that these activities were not only interconnected but also systematically implemented and evaluated. The structured approach provided a framework for aligning diverse activities towards the common goal, potentially increasing the overall impact of the initiative.

The Inclusive and Responsive Design theme connected to Darling-Hammond et al.’s (2007) research on the need for contextually responsive leadership preparation programs. This theme expanded on the Common Agenda and Continuous Communication conditions of CI. The inclusive approach offered opportunities for broad stakeholder engagement, while the responsive design allowed for ongoing refinement of the program to maintain focus on the common agenda as the initiative progressed. This adaptability could be crucial for long-term success in diverse educational contexts.

The Research-Informed Program Implementation theme emerged as a potential addition to the CI framework, particularly in educational contexts. By grounding the initiative in current research and involving academic experts, the program exemplified the kind of research-practice partnership that scholars like Farrell et al. (2021) argue is crucial for improving educational outcomes. This theme also contributed to the Shared Measurement Systems condition by providing evidence-based metrics for evaluation.

The study’s findings contribute to the ongoing discussion about the adaptability and effectiveness of CI in various educational contexts (Christens & Inzeo, 2015). By explicitly connecting these emergent themes to the CI framework, this study not only applied CI to educational leadership development but also potentially expanded and refined the CI model for use in educational settings. The integration of structured approaches, inclusive design, and research-informed implementation with the existing CI conditions may provide a more comprehensive framework for addressing complex educational challenges.

Findings from this study offer valuable insights for policymakers and educational leaders considering large-scale leadership development initiatives. The study highlighted the importance of collaborative planning, structured approaches to mentorship, and the integration of research-based practices in program design, echoing recommendations from researchers like Darling-Hammond et al. (2007). The value of creating adaptable, responsive programs to meet diverse needs across a state’s educational landscape is also underscored as the initiative provides a sustainable internal resource for leadership development. Ultimately, the PMP created a cascade effect, with experienced principals enhancing their leadership and mentoring skills, which then supports the development of aspiring and early career principals. Together, the program components produced a robust ecosystem for leadership growth, addressing both individual and collective needs, and working in concert towards the overall goals of improving educational leadership and teacher retention.

While specific state mandates and resources provide a unique context for this initiative, core principles and lessons from the study are valuable for other states and institutions. Developing and supporting high-quality leaders to improve educator recruitment and retention is a widespread challenge across the nation. This study offers a potential road map that can be modified and applied in different state contexts to address the distinctive policy environments and varying levels of resources.

While this study provided a comprehensive view of the initiative’s first 15 months, several areas for future research surfaced. Longitudinal research would be beneficial to assess long-term outcomes and sustainability, as suggested by Hanleybrown et al. (2012) in their work on evaluating CI initiatives. Such studies could track the career trajectories of participants, examining how the program influences their leadership practices and retention rates over time. Additionally, comparative studies with similar initiatives in other states could provide broader insights into the effectiveness of CI approaches in educational leadership development. These comparisons could help identify which elements of the program are most effective across different contexts and which may need to be adapted for local conditions.

To address limitations of the current study, future research should gather data directly from program participants. Qualitative studies, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups with mentors and mentees, could provide rich insights into how the program impacts their daily leadership practices and professional growth. Quantitative studies could assess changes in leadership behaviors, school climate, or student outcomes in schools led by program participants. Additional objectivity and different analytical viewpoints would be provided with complementary research from an external perspective. Furthermore, research examining the impact of the initiative on teacher retention rates in participating schools would be valuable. This could involve longitudinal studies comparing teacher turnover rates before and after principals participate in the program, as well as comparisons with non-participating schools.

Lastly, future studies could explore how the emergent themes identified in this study (Structured Approach to Leadership Growth, Inclusive and Responsive Program Design, and Research-Informed Program Implementation) interact with the traditional CI framework in other educational contexts. This could contribute to the development of a more comprehensive model for applying CI to educational challenges. These various research directions would not only provide a more complete evaluation of the PLA/PMP initiative but also contribute to broader understanding of how CI approaches can drive systemic change in education (Kania et al., 2018).

“At its core, collective impact is about creating and implementing coordinated strategy among aligned stakeholders” (Kania & Kramer, 2013, p. 7). This study demonstrated the potential of CI as a framework for addressing complex educational challenges and contributes to the growing body of literature on CI in educational contexts. Although the PLA/PMP initiative shows promise in creating a comprehensive, collaborative approach to principal leadership development, the findings of this study have broader implications for educational leadership and policy. They suggest that addressing complex challenges in education, such as improving principal leadership and teacher retention, requires a systemic, collaborative approach that goes beyond isolated interventions. Policymakers and educational leaders may need to reconsider traditional approaches to professional development and instead focus on creating interconnected, research-informed initiatives that engage multiple stakeholders and align with broader strategic goals. Furthermore, a similar CI approach may be effective in tackling other persistent challenges in education, such as chronic absenteeism, achievement gaps, curriculum reform, or technology integration. As the PLA/PMP initiative progresses, continued evaluation will be crucial to understand its long-term impact on principal effectiveness, along with teacher and leader retention, contributing to the broader understanding of how CI approaches can drive systemic change in education (Kania et al., 2018). By embracing the principles of CI and the emergent themes identified in this study, educational systems may be better equipped to create sustainable, large-scale improvements that benefit all learners and educators.

This work was supported by funding from the Wyoming Department of Education, the Wyoming School-University Partnership, a College of Education Mary Garland Early Career Fellowship and a College of Education Ellbogen Dean's Fund Innovation and Creativity Imagine Grant. I would like to thank members of the PLA work group and research team: Drs Barbara Hickman & Colby Gull (College of Education), Beth Lougee & Stephanie Benboe (WDE) and Dr Jayne Hellenberg (College of Education) & Christine Harder (Evolve Solutions). I greatly appreciate their collaborative contributions supporting leadership development across the state and their participation in the member checking process for this study. Their experience, involvement and reflections add to the diverse perspectives considered in the development, implementation and evaluation of the PLA/PMP initiative.