Perceptions of Succession Planning Practices and Their Influence on Work Engagement in K–12 School Districts

Perceptions of Succession Planning Practices and Their Influence on

Work Engagement in K–12 School Districts

Chapter 1: Introduction

Effective leadership development is at the core of successful schools, and

researchers have recognized its significant impact on educational outcomes

(BrowneFerrigno & Muth, 2008; Clayton et al., 2013; Leithwood et al., 2008; Yasmeen &

Tobawal, 2023). Beyond the influences of the classroom teacher, school leadership ranks

as a critical factor in student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al.,

2008; Leithwood et al., 2004; Tan, 2018). Effective administrators impact schools by

setting clear directions, developing staff, and optimizing the use of school and district

resources to bolster student learning (Leithwood et al., 2004). They also enhance the

school’s climate, fostering staff collaboration and promoting effective instructional

practices. Leithwood et al. (2004) estimated that school leadership could account for up to

7% of the variance in student achievement across schools, affirming the importance of

high-quality leaders in educational organizations.

Despite this evidence, districts often struggle with a shortage of skilled leadership

candidates when resignations, retirements, or promotions to higher-level positions leave a

gap in leadership succession (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007). Furthermore, in a study of

principal retention patterns in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, Makkonen and Jaquet (2021)

revealed that fewer than half of the principals in each of these states remained at the same

school over the 4-year period of the study. Findings highlighted the challenges of

maintaining stable leadership and the potential impact of frequent changes in leadership

on school effectiveness and student outcomes.

Moreover, stakeholders’ increasing demands for school improvement have

intensified the pressure on district leaders to hire administrators who can motivate staff in

an ever-changing environment, while simultaneously implementing school improvement

strategies and holding staff accountable for student achievement results (Roza et al., 2003;

Sabina, 2023). Educational institutions rely on both current and aspiring administrators to

possess the necessary skills and competencies for successful school leadership (Browne-

Ferrigno & Muth, 2008; Cieminski, 2018; Clayton et al., 2013; Rhodes et al., 2008; Roza

et al., 2003; Sabina, 2023). Building the capacity of leaders and all school staff is essential

for sustained school improvement (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). Consequently, leadership

and succession planning is essential to enable educational organizations to meet these

challenges effectively (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2008; Cieminski, 2018; Rhodes et al.,

2008; Roza et al., 2003; Sabina, 2023).

Succession planning is a strategic process aimed at recruiting, developing, and

retaining talent (Ali & Mehreen, 2019; Barker, 2006; Bogdány et al., 2014; Chavez, 2011;

Gulzar & Durrani, 2014; Rothwell, 2005, 2015; Sweeney, 2013). Various organizations

utilize succession planning as part of their talent management process, yet research about

and implementation of this planning within the education field have been inconsistent

(Aravena, 2020; Fullan, 2005; Parfitt, 2017). For sustainable school leadership,

customized plans tailored to the organizational culture of K–12 schools districts are

essential (Fullan, 2005; Parfitt, 2017; Sabina, 2023). These plans should be tailored to the

specific cultural context of K–12 school districts, integrating aligned recruitment,

leadership development, and retention practices to facilitate seamless leadership

succession (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007; Chavez, 2011; Cieminski, 2018; Parfitt, 2017; Parfitt

& Romano, 2023).

Previous researchers have primarily focused on various aspects of succession

planning, including the identification, development, and retention of school leaders.

However, leaders’ impact on the successful development and engagement of current and

aspiring school leaders remains uncertain (Bengtson et al., 2012). Specifically, the

relationship between succession planning and the engagement of school leaders–defined

as their active involvement and commitment to their roles–has not been clearly

established. Effective development of future school leaders involves equipping current

leaders with skills and knowledge through proactive recruitment, rigorous learning

experiences, and continuous professional development. Effective development focuses on

instructional innovation, organizational change, promotion of an inclusive culture, and

fostering a supportive and growth-oriented organizational culture (Darling-Hammond et

al., 2022).

Previous research specifically addressing the impact of succession planning on

engagement in the educational setting is limited. Parfitt (2017) conducted a mixed

methods study using surveys to explore perceptions of succession planning, but no

extensive large-scale K–12 quantitative studies exist. Given the significant influence

school administrators have on student achievement, it is imperative for educators to

explore methods for building capacity and fostering engagement among future and current

leaders.

This study focused on examining the effects of succession planning on employee

work engagement, framed within the context of social exchange theory. Social exchange

theory suggests that when organizations invest in their employees–whether through

financial support, training opportunities, or other forms of development–employees are

more likely to reciprocate by increasing their work engagement, demonstrating loyalty to

the organization, and reducing turnover (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Koster et al., 2011). The

more employees feel their employers invest in their growth, the more likely they are to be

engaged in their work (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

Employees who are engaged are more likely to demonstrate dedication to their

work and commitment to the organization (Anitha, 2014; Chandani et al., 2016; Dami et

al., 2022). Ensuring potential leadership candidates are engaged in their work can assist

schools in developing a ready pool of leaders with the necessary skills at every level. This

preparedness is vital not only for when current administrators vacate their positions but

also for when these same administrators advance through the hierarchy as part of the

succession plan.

Background of the Problem

Researchers have identified two issues that contribute to the shortage of qualified

school administrators. First, aspiring leaders often choose not to pursue leadership

positions due to perceived challenges and inadequate preparation (Cintron, 2019; Fink,

2011). Second, those who do acquire a leadership position frequently struggle to perform

effectively, commonly due to insufficient ongoing support and professional development

(Fink, 2011; Parker, 2019; Peters, 2011). Addressing these two dynamics becomes more

complicated because educators must deal with high rates of attrition among school

leaders.

High turnover rates persist in U.S. schools; the School Leaders Network (2014)

and Fuller and Young (2009) reported that 50% of newly appointed principals leave their

positions within 3 years. Eighteen percent of principals exited their positions during the

2015-16 academic year (R. Goldring & Taie, 2018), and more recent data revealed that

about 11.2% of public and 9.7% of private school principals left their positions in a single

year, influenced heavily by low job satisfaction (Taie & Lewis, 2023). These findings

reflect broader difficulties in maintaining stable leadership, as evidenced by findings that

fewer than half of the principals in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah remained at the same

school over a 4-year period (Makkonen & Jaquet, 2021).

Instability and attrition not only hinder the effectiveness of educational institutions

but also exacerbate the difficulty of developing a strong pipeline of capable leaders. A

lack of effective training and leadership development deters many candidates from

entering administrative roles (Cintron, 2019; Darling-Hammond et al., 2022).

Furthermore, perceptions of inadequate support and limited career advancement

opportunities contribute to the reluctance among qualified candidates to apply for these

roles (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Fink, 2011). These findings suggest that in addition

to identifying and recruiting effective candidates, schools need to improve training and

development opportunities for leaders and increase support and advancement

opportunities.

Newly appointed administrators, regardless of their background, encounter a

developmental learning curve. Those who obtained a leadership position immediately

after receiving their administrative license often report doubts that they have the necessary

skills for the job (DeAngelis & O’Connor, 2012; Fink, 2011; Parker, 2019; Peters, 2011;

Sabina, 2023). Indeed, superintendents, central administrators, and human resource

personnel report that credentialed aspiring administrators often lack the necessary skills to

manage the demands of their positions (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007;

DeAngelis & O’Connor, 2012; Mitchell, 2017; Roza et al., 2003; Wallace Foundation,

2013). Long-established practices, such as attending university principal preparation

programs and obtaining a license, appear to be inadequate to sufficiently prepare future

school leaders without the addition of continuous high-quality training and development

(Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Vogel et al., 2014).

These circumstances establish a need for continued improvements in the vetting,

development, retention, and succession process for future school leaders, well beyond the

procedures in current practice in school systems (Bengtson et al., 2012). By comparison,

businesses often strategically plan leadership succession by incorporating structured

training and mentorships through apprenticeships or internships to bridge the gap between

academic learning and practical job skills. Continuous professional development is

essential in many careers to meet evolving job demands, yet formal succession planning

in education remains sporadic. The challenges faced by newly licensed administrators in

education suggest that the sector may benefit from reevaluating and enhancing the current

methods used to prepare school leaders.

Succession Planning

Succession planning encompasses a range of practices organized into three main

categories: identification, development, and retention (Chavez, 2011). At each stage of

succession planning, leaders should consider the organization’s culture and prioritize

transparency and inclusivity when selecting and implementing practices (Abdullahi et al.,

2022). This approach is consistent with the talent pipeline theory, which advocates for

strategically developing a continuous flow of potential leaders to ensure leadership

continuity (Donald, 2021).

The early stage of succession planning involves identifying or recruiting

individuals with the potential to become future leaders (Rothwell, 2005, 2015). The aim

during this step is to recruit and encourage potential successors who can then participate

in development programs. The next stage, development, focuses on nurturing and

enhancing the skills and capabilities of these identified leaders (Darling-Hammond et al.,

2022). Organizations utilize various methods to develop leaders who can meet the

organization’s needs (Cieminski, 2018; Clayton et al., 2013; Parfitt, 2017; Rothwell, 2005,

2015). The final component of succession planning is retention, wherein organizations

employ strategies to retain the talent they have cultivated and promoted (Bano et al.,

2022; Parfitt, 2017; Parfitt & Romano, 2023). The primary goal of succession planning is

to ensure that capable leaders are ready to step into administrative roles at every level of

the organization as vacancies arise (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Chavez,

2011).

Formal succession planning could help build capacity of school districts’ current

and aspiring administrators to ensure leaders have the skills and engagement needed as

they advance through each level of an organization (Chavez, 2011; Parfitt, 2017; Sabina,

2023). Succession planning can be viewed as a continuum. Based on a review of the

research, Chavez (2011) concluded organizations can effectively develop the capacity of

their entire staff through practices involving identification, development, and retention.

In an organization, the individuals who are most important in achieving intended

outcomes are those who hold the most power, and a person in a position of power in the

organization can influence, develop, and prepare future leaders for succession (Cieminski,

2018; Shafritz et al., 2010). In fact, Orr (2011) confirmed that leadership preparation can

influence aspiring leaders’ career intentions and learning. Therefore, current leaders and

managers of organizations are instrumental in developing a pool of aspiring leaders and

creating a successful succession plan (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007; Bryson et al., 2006;

Cieminski, 2018; Groves, 2011).

For administrators to assert their influence effectively and create a quality

succession plan aimed at building the capacity of all staff, they must be well-prepared and

trained to complete the duties that come with formal positions of authority

(Leithwood et al., 2004; Steele, 2015). Leithwood et al. (2004) stressed the point:

Educational leadership, our review also makes clear, comes from many sources, not

just the “usual suspects”–superintendents and principals. But the usual suspects are

likely still the most influential. Efforts to improve their recruitment, training,

evaluation, and ongoing development should be considered highly cost-effective

approaches to successful school improvement. (p. 70)

Researchers in various industries described overall succession planning as a

strategic approach to managing human talent to ensure the preparation of future leaders

(Chavez, 2011; Cieminski, 2018; Fink, 2010; Fink & Brayman, 2006; Gulzar & Durrani,

2014; Parfitt, 2017; Peters, 2011; Rothwell, 2005, 2015; Sabina, 2023). Despite

differences in organizational context and culture, exemplary succession planning practices

share several key characteristics (Chavez, 2011; Cieminski, 2018; Fink, 2010;

Fink & Brayman, 2006; Gulzar & Durrani, 2014; Parfitt, 2017; Peters, 2011; Rothwell,

2005, 2015; Sabina, 2023). Such quality plans include the following practices:

●Recruitment/talent identification

●Ongoing differentiated talent/professional development

●Forecasting

●Selection for placement

●Mentoring

●Socialization/onboarding support

●Evaluation of the plan

●Retention practices

●Collaborative organizational culture

For the purpose of this study, the definition of succession planning was a strategic effort

made by organizations to identify/recruit, develop, retain, and encourage employee

growth to ensure the continuity of leadership (Barker, 2006; Bogdány et al., 2014;

Chavez, 2011; Gulzar & Durrani, 2014; Sweeney, 2013).

Although a small body of research detailed the effects of succession planning

practices and leadership development (Aravena, 2020; Bengtson, 2010; Peters, 2011;

Zepeda et al., 2012), none of these studies related engagement outcomes to specific K–12

district succession planning practices or components. Previous researchers have explored

the outcomes of organizational succession planning, such as leadership sustainability and

organizational growth (Fullan, 2005); the augmentation of knowledge, skills, and abilities

that cultivate and nurture aspiring leaders who can help their students thrive academically

(Hanover Research Council, 2014); and how succession programs can facilitate the

movement of aspiring leaders to the principalship (Bryant et al., 2017; Myung et al.,

2011). In response to the lack of quantitative research, Parfitt (2017) developed and

validated a new instrument, which I administered in this study to assess participants’

perceptions of succession planning practices.

Other scholars have portrayed the relationship between components of succession

planning practices and aspiring leaders’ self-efficacy perceptions. For example, Bryant et

al. (2017) and Clayton et al. (2013) agreed that mentoring can increase an aspiring

leader’s self-efficacy and growth. Bryant et al. (2017) found that authentic administrative

opportunities provided by principals cultivated aspiring leaders in preparation for

principal succession. Although the results illuminated the growth and development of

leaders, no studies included all the succession planning practices and explained how they

affected the engagement of aspiring and current leaders in a K–12 district.

Employee Engagement

In the literature, researchers defined employee work engagement in numerous

ways. Kahn (1990) first defined the term as the harnessing of organization members’

identities to their work roles in the ways they employ and express themselves physically,

cognitively, and emotionally during role performances. Maslach et al. (2001) defined

engagement as an antonym of burnout, which consists of exhaustion, cynicism, and

inefficacy. For this research, the definition of engagement was an individual’s

commitment and involvement at their workplace (Anitha, 2014). Commitment and

involvement can be characterized and measured by an employee’s vigor, dedication, and

absorption in their work (Schaufeli et al., 2002).

Although researchers have completed studies on the nature of the relationship

between succession planning and employee engagement in the private business sector and

at higher education academic institutions, a gap remains in the research regarding the

relationship between succession planning and employee engagement in a K–12

publicschool setting (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Alias et al., 2014; Anitha, 2014; Bakker et al.,

2007; Gulzar & Durrani, 2014). Findings indicated that the implementation of succession

planning and the development of aspiring leaders are critical to engagement and retention

of employees (Anitha, 2014; Bano et al., 2022). Gulzar and Durrani (2014) asserted that

succession planning predicts job engagement; therefore, a focus on succession planning

practices is crucial to increase employee engagement.

This study was an exploration of the perceptions of current and aspiring

administrators on the utilization of succession planning in K–12 schools. The primary

objectives were to provide insights for educational policy and to help school district

personnel comprehend the impact of succession planning on employee work engagement.

This study contributes to existing literature by offering insight into how districts recruit,

develop, and retain top administrators through succession plans. Furthermore, this study

enhances understanding of the influence of succession plans on the engagement of both

aspiring and current administrators.

Statement of the Problem

An apparent shortage of qualified candidates prompted researchers to seek the

reasons for the deficit of principals in U.S. schools. Some researchers concluded that there

were more individuals with administrators’ licenses than there were available positions

(Mitchell, 2017; Papa et al., 2002; White et al., 2016), and high turnover rates complicated

the process of determining how many qualified candidates existed (Kaufman et al., 2022).

The shortage of leaders resulted because many licensed individuals decided that they

either did not want to pursue or felt unprepared for a career as an educational leader

(Brown-Ferrigno & Muth, 2008; Cintron, 2019; Hackmann, 2016). Lee and Mao (2023)

identified another significant gap in research when they noted a lack of systematic, policy-

relevant studies on the career choices of current and aspiring school leaders. This

deficiency in data hampers educators’ ability to make informed policy decisions regarding

administrative license holders.

Employers want to hire leaders who are ready to lead schools, yet there is limited

knowledge about how succession planning practices influence the engagement of aspiring

and current leaders in the field (Young & Crow, 2017). Numerous reserachers have

reported on aspects of leadership development related to succession planning, such as the

effects of mentoring (Clayton et al., 2013; Groves, 2011), professional development

(Cieminski, 2018; Korach & Cosner, 2017; Parylo & Zepeda, 2015), and

principal/leadership preparation programs (Browne-Ferrigno & Allen, 2006; Clayton et

al., 2013; Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; White et al., 2016). Nevertheless, few

quantitative studies reflect the degree to which educational leaders utilize succession

planning and its impact on the engagement of developing and current leaders in schools

beyond a leadership preparation program.

Educational administrators need to understand the range of succession planning

practices currently implemented in K–12 districts and the impact those practices have on

the engagement of developing and current leaders. Succession planning practices are

especially important for districts struggling to find quality leaders because in some cases,

they recruit future leaders from the ranks of current employees. These employees simply

need to go through the process of being identified as aspiring leaders, so they can be

recruited and prepared to lead schools (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007). If educational

organizations do not effectively engage their teacher-leaders and assistant principals, they

will lose potential school leaders (Alias et al., 2014).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of succession planning on

employee engagement within K–12 schools. This examination featured the perceptions of

current and aspiring administrators on the implementation of succession planning and how

their perception of succession planning practices (recruitment, development retention, and

culture) influenced their work engagement. Implementing succession programs can deter

leadership turnover, identify new leaders, and increase a district’s leadership pool (Brant

et al., 2008; Cieminski, 2018; Clayton et al., 2013; Groves, 2011). Previous researchers

have studied the various types of succession, components of succession planning, and

socialization experiences of succession planning in educational contexts. However, a gap

persists in knowledge of the relationship between succession planning and engagement in

K–12 school districts in the United States.

The aim of this study was to provide insights into K–12 districts’ succession

planning in education and to explore the prevalence of various practices employed to

identify, prepare, and retain potential successors for key administrative roles.

Engagement, showcased through enthusiasm, commitment, and motivation, is crucial for

administrators' effectiveness (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Sweeney, 2013). The goal in

this study was to identify factors that contribute to administrator engagement, including

the presence and perception of succession plans in attracting, developing, and retaining

talented professionals. This understanding may enhance the literature on educational

leadership and organizational management, offering strategic insights for districts to

refine their succession planning approaches, develop highly effective administrators, and

drive positive change in the K–12 education system.

Research Questions

This study was an exploration of the following research questions (RQ):

RQ1. To what extent do current and aspiring school administrators perceive the

existence of succession planning practices implemented in their K–12 district?

RQ2. How does their perception of the frequency of succession planning practices

(recruitment, development, retention, and culture) predict their work

engagement?

For this study, current and aspiring leaders in K–12 schools across the United

States completed a survey to share their perceptions of the components of succession

planning implemented in their schools and their current engagement in their jobs.

Succession planning is as a strategic approach to human talent management aimed at

ensuring a pipeline for future leaders (Chavez, 2011; Cieminski, 2018; Fink, 2010; Fink

& Brayman, 2006; Gulzar & Durrani, 2014; Parfitt, 2017; Peters, 2011; Rothwell, 2005,

2015; Sabina, 2023). This planning involves identifying and developing potential leaders

within the organization to prepare them for key roles. Effective succession planning

includes practices such as recruiting and nurturing talent, providing structured

professional development, and creating opportunities for advancement to maintain

organizational stability and achieving long-term goals. Participants in the study identified

succession planning practices their districts used to recruit, develop, and retain aspiring

and current leaders.

Statement of Potential Significance

Organizations whose employees are engaged in their work experience increased

employee performance, employee retention, and a more significant talent pool from which

they can choose their leaders (Alias et al., 2014; Bano et al., 2022; Lockwood, 2007).

Improvements in succession planning in public-school districts could translate into an

increased pool of qualified aspiring leaders to lead schools. Educators may use the results

of this study to modify and strengthen succession planning practices in school districts.

Findings may include support for focusing funding and efforts on succession practices

that affect aspiring and current administrators’ work engagement.

The survey instrument used in this study can assist stakeholders in identifying

aspiring and current K–12 school district administrators’ perceptions of the succession

planning practices utilized in their schools. These practices include strategies to attract

and train aspiring and current leaders and increase their job engagement levels. Analysis

of the survey data, a comparison of stakeholders’ self-reported perceptions of succession

planning practices and level of engagement in K–12 school districts across the country,

provided insights for future succession planning efforts.

Theoretical Foundation

Homans’s (1961) social exchange theory (SET) formed the foundation of this

study. SET proposes that there is an exchange between humans in their interactions with

one another. There are costs and benefits in every social interaction (Ahmad et al., 2023).

Satisfaction with the relationship depends on the costs and benefits of maintaining the

relationship. Homans (1958) cautioned that such a relationship in the business world was

too simplistic, prompting Saks (2006) to extend the theory.

Saks (2006) asserted that the relationship between employers and employees is a

continuous cycle of interdependence and reciprocation, utilizing SET to explain variations

in employee engagement. Saks (2006) observed that although the engagement models

proposed by Kahn (1990) and Maslach et al. (2001) outlined seven psychological

conditions necessary for employee engagement–work environment, leadership dynamics,

team and coworker relationships, training and career development opportunities,

compensation structures, organizational policies, and workplace well-being–they failed to

explain why employees exhibit varying levels of engagement in response to these

conditions.

Integrating the concept of the talent pipeline theory deepened understanding of

how talent management strategies can function as part of these social exchanges,

emphasizing the strategic identification, recruitment, and development phases within

organizations. This integration highlights how the pipeline facilitates continuous

exchanges that align with organizational missions and nurture employee engagement.

Critical examination of various engagement factors, particularly how the work

environment, leadership dynamics, team and coworker relationships, and training and

career development opportunities interplay with the framework of SET, can explain their

impact on relationships between employees and employers (Ahmad et al., 2023; Saks,

2006). SET suggests that engagement derives from positive exchanges that evolve into

mutual, trusting relationships as long as each party adheres to the rules of exchange

(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

This study was an exploration of the extent to which current and aspiring school

administrators perceived the presence of succession planning practices in their K–12

districts and an examination of whether their perception of the frequency of these

practices–including recruitment, development, retention, and culture–predicted their work

engagement. By integrating key elements of Kahn’s theory and SET principles with the

talent pipeline theory, the research could address whether these perceptions influence

employee engagement and evaluate whether these practices foster a culture of

engagement, which is essential for effective leadership transitions and the retention of

critical knowledge and skills.

Conceptual Framework

This study was grounded in Homans’s (1961) theory, which provided the

theoretical background, as shown in Figure 1. The work of Gulzar and Durrani (2014) and

Chavez (2011) further supported the conceptual foundation. Gulzar and Durrani (2014)

suggested that effective succession planning ensures leadership at all levels and provides

career opportunities that contribute to employee growth, satisfaction, and engagement.

They argued that succession planning practices that utilize Kahn’s seven factors for

engagement align with the principles of SET and demonstrate commitment to human

capital, resulting in more engaged employees (Lockwood, 2007).

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework

Additionally, Gulzar and Durrani (2014) emphasized that effective succession

planning not only ensures strong leadership at each level but also boosts job satisfaction

and engagement. High employee engagement, in turn, contributes to talent retention and

improved organizational performance (Gulzar & Durrani, 2014). Succession planning acts

as a form of reward and recognition for employees’ hard work, and these benefits are

known drivers of engagement. When succession planning is aligned with the

organization’s goals, employees gain a better understanding of their roles, feel valued, and

align their personal growth and career advancement with the organization’s strategic

objectives (Gulzar & Durrani, 2014). This alignment creates a positive cycle wherein

succession planning leads to greater employee engagement and organizational success.

Gulzar and Durrani’s (2014) research supported the idea that effective succession

planning can enhance employee engagement. Chavez (2011) proposed three key

principles of succession planning practices: (a) identification of potential leaders, (b)

development of leaders, and (c) retention. Organizational culture and climate influence the

effectiveness of these practices (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Lockwood, 2007; Parfitt, 2017).

For succession planning to foster a culture of engagement, it must align with the

organization’s culture (Lockwood, 2007; Parfitt, 2017). Research indicated that

organizational culture impacts the effectiveness of succession planning and leadership

development. Therefore, the survey included questions aimed at gaining a very high-level

understanding of aspects related to organizational culture and the three principles

proposed by Chavez (2011), using this framework to organize and analyze the data.

In this framework, strategic succession planning acts as a catalyst for improved

leadership, driving districts and individual schools to enhance their succession process.

Despite this study’s nonsignificant results, the findings will contribute to the body of

research on succession planning by offering recommendations and highlighting the need

for further exploration of succession planning strategies. The goal is to enable future

educational leaders to select and implement succession practices that enhance work

engagement for both aspiring and current leaders. Such adjustments could improve

succession planning, transform leadership identification and development, increase

leadership capacity, and positively impact various teacher and school outcomes, ultimately

leading to improved student achievement (Herman et al., 2017).

Summary of the Methodology

This quantitative study employed a multiple linear regression approach to examine

the relationship between district succession planning practices and their impact on

employee engagement. This method supported efforts to determine the variations in

succession planning practices and their impact on employee engagement levels among K–

12 aspiring and current leaders. This approach was appropriate for analyzing existing data

where the effects of the variables have already occurred and where random assignments of

treatments was not feasible (Creswell, 2014).

Design, Population, and Sampling Procedures

The study was a quantitative analysis utilizing multiple linear regression. Data

collection took place through a web-based survey administered to a convenience sample

of aspiring and current K–12 leaders in the United States. To evaluate the impact of

succession planning practices on employee engagement, the participants completed the

Succession Alignment and Educational Leadership Engagement Survey (SAELES), which

incorporated two instruments: the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale 17 (UWES-17) for

measuring employee engagement, and Parfitt’s (2017) Succession Planning

Perception Survey (SPSP) for evaluating perceptions of succession planning practices.

These instruments were the best fit for this study because of their ability to capture data

relevant to the key variables of interest.

The sampling frame for this study consisted of members of a LinkedIn group

called Principals, School Directors, Deans, and Educational Leaders (81,000+ members)

and Facebook groups called PhinisheD/FinishEdD (23,000+ members) and School

Principals, Administrators, & Counselors Networking Group (7,000+ members) (USA).

After the group administrators approved the message, I posted an invitation on the group

site, asking current and aspiring leaders in public K–12 educational organizations to

complete a survey. The invitation to participate in this study could have reached over

100,000 administrators. To ensure anonymity and confidentiality, the web link did not

connect any responses to individuals.

Data Analysis

I tested the survey instrument for validity and reliability before administering it to

participants. This process included piloting the instrument and engaging an expert panel

to gauge its effectiveness and consistency in measuring the intended variables. I used

descriptive statistics to narratively describe the data and calculated frequencies and

percentages for age, gender, educational level, position, and years of experience as an

administrator. Descriptive statistics provided the means to answer RQ1 as well. I figured

the means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients, and Pearson

correlation matrix for the UWES-17 and each of the components of succession planning.

Multiple linear regression, where the dependent variable was the UWES-17 total score

and the independent variables were the components of succession planning, was the

means of answering RQ2.

Limitations and Delimitations

The study’s limitations included the use of self-reported data and potential

variations in participants’ involvement in succession planning within their districts.

Participants’ individual perceptions, which introduce the potential for response bias, may

have influenced responses regarding succession planning practices. This bias could

compromise the accuracy and credibility of the reported succession practices within the

districts. Furthermore, the findings may have been skewed by the possibility that those

who responded to the survey were employees more engaged with their school districts,

potentially leading to a biased representation of succession planning practices. The

differing experiences and engagement levels among nonrespondents might have produced

results that were not fully representative. These limitations potentially affected not only

the generalizability but also the overall credibility of the results.

The participants in this study were a convenience sample from LinkedIn and

Facebook groups, which yielded a national sample of current and aspiring administrators.

Convenience sampling may produce bias because of the willingness of the participants to

take the survey. A convenience sample is not a truly random sample of the population, and

its use may limit the generalizability of the results (Creswell, 2014). However, the first

delimitation considered in this study was that data were collected from an online group of

self-reported current and aspiring administrators at a specific point in their careers. Many

individuals invited to participate may not have been actively employed as administrators

or aspiring administrators at the time. Additionally, self-selection into the group did not

guarantee that participants were actively fulfilling these roles.

Definition of Key Terms

For the purpose of this study, the subsequent terms will be operationally defined:

Administrator. Central office and building level (principal, assistant principal,

deans, etc.) administrators in a K–12 public school district.

Assistant Principal or Vice Principal. The entry-level position and often the first

formal administrative position that individuals without previous administrative experience

hold (Marshall & Hooley, 2006, p. 13).

Development. The second phase of succession planning wherein organizations

train, coach, mentor, and socialize aspiring and current leaders (Cieminski, 2018; Clayton

et al., 2013; Parfitt, 2017; Rothwell, 2005, 2015).

Identification/Recruitment. The initial phase in the succession planning process

wherein organizations systematically identify and assess the current talent at all levels to

determine the potential of individuals for increased responsibilities and advancement

(Rothwell, 2005, 2015).

Retention. The final phase of the succession planning process wherein

organizations implement practices to decrease turnover and retain key talent (Parfitt,

2017).

Succession Planning. A talent management process wherein organizations make

strategic efforts to recruit, retain, develop, and encourage employee growth to ensure

optimal continuity of leadership (Barker, 2006; Bogdány et al., 2014; Gulzar & Durrani,

2014; Sweeney, 2013).

Succession Planning Practices. Practices that aid in recruitment, retention, and

the transition of leadership (Bogdány et al., 2014).

Work Engagement. The commitment and involvement of an individual at their

workplace (Anitha, 2014).

Summary

The role of succession planning is evolving in education. Increasingly, both local

and national scrutiny highlights the importance of recruiting and retaining educational

leaders in U.S. public schools. Empirical research has shown that leadership is vital to

student achievement gains (Yasmeen & Tobawal, 2023). A national focus on leadership is

especially apparent in the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA; Herman et al.,

2017; Young et al., 2017). This research study’s purpose was to determine the relationship

between the presence and quality of succession planning practices and current and

aspiring administrators’ work engagement in K–12 school districts and to identify what

practices may be needed to increase the engagement of current and aspiring administrators

so that educational organizations may retain potential leadership candidates.

Chapter 2 contains a review of the current research available on the succession

planning practices and employee engagement of K–12 administrators. Chapter 3 describes

the methodology, data collection process, and data analysis process applied in this study.

Chapter 4 provides an overview of the data collected and its analysis. Chapter 5 focuses

on the summarization, evaluation, and the connection of the results to previous literature

and provides recommendations for further research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between district

succession planning practices and current and aspiring administrators’ work engagement.

A review of the body of literature on leadership succession in schools revealed the

rationale, components, and current limitations of succession planning. Chapter 2 describes

the methodology used to search for literature. A summary of the relevant literature

features a discussion of succession planning practices, viewed through the lens of the

study’s conceptual framework, which frames those practices into three categories:

recruitment, leadership development, and retention. Next, the chapter contains analysis of

literature related to engagement theories, succession planning, and the theoretical

framework followed by a summary of the literature review.

Methods of Searching

To collect literature for this dissertation, I employed search engines and databases

including Article Plus, EBSCO Host, ProQuest, Google, and Google Scholar. Search

terms included the following:

Leadership development in K–12 schools-GS Leadership succession

Succession planning Leadership succession in schools

Leadership socialization Aspiring educational leaders

Leadership development Leadership > succession

planning

Tapping > Google Scholar Principal turnover

Succession planning > scholarly journal Educator engagement

Tapping leadership > Google Scholar Work engagement + administrators

School administrator engagement Educators + social exchange theory

Teacher engagement UWES validity + reliability

Employee development Social exchange theory

UWES response rates + educators

Employee engagement strategic planning + leadership succession

Assistant principal succession and principal succession planning

Succession planning in education > scholarly journals

Succession planning > scholarly journals > 2010–2017 > leadership >

succession planning

Succession planning K–12 education > scholarly journals > 2010–2017 >

Tapping leadership > education > last 5 years > GW article plus

Principal shortage > education > last 5 years > education and educational research >

Peer–reviewed articles on strategic succession planning

I assembled the articles in the following categories: leadership succession planning,

strategic leadership succession planning, identification of aspiring leaders, development

of leaders, retention of leaders, employee engagement, work and employee engagement

theories, and the effect of succession planning on employee engagement.

The review of literature on leadership succession and work engagement showed

that research primarily focuses on preparing aspiring leaders for principal succession,

strategic planning for succession, and the principles of succession planning. Studies often

included terms such as “succession planning,” “aspiring leaders,” “employee

engagement,” “grow-your-own leadership,” “leadership development,” and “succession

programs.”

The reference pages of other researchers’ peer-reviewed articles and dissertations

also suggested additional resources for this literature review. This literature review

includes the significance of leadership succession, formal strategic planning for

succession, the development of aspiring and current leaders, the retention of aspiring

leaders, informal succession programs, employee engagement, and the impact of

succession planning on aspiring and current administrator’s work engagement.

Literature Review

This review begins with an overview of succession planning in general, and more

specifically, in business and educational applications. The chapter then addresses the

components, benefits, and potential problems with succession planning and offers

examples of the types of leadership succession programs researchers have identified to

date. Finally, the review presents the scholarly knowledge of the other major factors in

this study—retention, and employee engagement—in terms of the theoretical framework

that shaped this investigation.

Strategic Planning for Succession

Strategic planning for school leadership succession is essential for the vitality and

growth of an organization (Burrows-McCabe, 2014; Clayton, 2014). The goal of strategic

planning should be to continuously reinvent the organization, creating the ideal future

version (W. J. Cook, 2000; Kaufman et al., 2002; Rothwell, 2005, 2015). To stay relevant

and meet the ever-changing needs of society, organizations must consistently plan for the

future and revitalize their strategies to fulfill their goals and mission (W. J. Cook, 2000;

Kaufman et al., 2002; Peters, 2011). Strategic planning for succession is especially crucial

in educational realms due to the ever-changing environment and nature of the work of

educating students (Sweeney, 2013). An organization must assess its current needs and

predict its requirements to succeed in the future (W. J. Cook, 2000; Jenlink et al., 1998;

Kaufman et al., 2002). Effective leadership succession planning utilizes data collection

from all organizational managers in planning, implementing, and revising the process of

succession planning decisions (Fusarelli et al., 2018; Groves, 2011). As organizations

develop, so do the needs of their leaders.

Groves (2011) asserted that it is essential for an organization to understand the true

meaning of succession planning. At times, organizations conflate succession planning

with planning for position replacements. Groves (2011) referred to this form of planning

as replacement planning. Replacement planning is when organizations appoint and groom

only certain individuals for specific positions. However, succession planning focuses on

developing many individuals to lead the organization to establish many levels of

leadership throughout the organization (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Beeson, 1998).

Groves (2011) conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 CEOs or senior

human resource executives in 15 U.S. healthcare organizations known for successful

CEO successions. Although a small sample size limited the generalizability of the results,

Groves concluded that when succession planning is used to tap specific leaders for

specific positions, it damaged the organization, led to low morale, and resulted in turnover

among talented employees not considered for those positions. Also, succession planning

done correctly can lead to diverse management. Replacement planning can lead to hiring

successors who identify directly with the current leaders, which may also limit diversity

(Groves, 2011). Certain characteristics identify succession planning and distinguish it

from replacement planning and other forms of organizational development.

One core component of succession planning is professional development. Young et

al. (2017) asserted that the federal government has underlined the importance of

leadership development and interventions through the passage and reauthorization of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The initial law enacted by the

Johnson Administration in 1965 provided federal aid to schools to improve education for

students in poverty. Although the initial legislation had limited mentions of school-based

leadership, it evolved with each reauthorization to include more focus on the importance

and funding of leadership development.

As the latest reauthorization of ESEA, the ESSA (2015) highlights the use of

research-based practices and allows the flexibility to use federal money to support those

practices. The ESSA allows states and school divisions to set aside Title II money for

research-based leadership development. The allowance of more flexibility with federal

funds is an improvement on the previous installation of the ESEA, the No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, which allotted grants and subgrants only for leadership

support. The NCLB also increased the focus on school accountability by mandating that

all schools not meeting their annual benchmark standards establish a school improvement

plan (SIP) or similar strategy to increase academic achievement (Dunaway et al., 2012;

Schumacher, 2011; Strunk et al., 2015).

However, NCLB did not include a mandate for leadership succession in those

plans to accommodate the changes in focus on outcome-based measures (Lunenburg,

2010; Lynch, 2012). Districts and schools continuously focus on student achievement and

teacher quality, but not all have put succession plans in place for developing instructional

leaders to guide teachers in schools (Campbell & Gross, 2012; Hanover Research

Council, 2014; Zepeda et al., 2012). Effective strategic succession planning allows the

organization to operate like a brain, hardly missing a connection and seamlessly evolving

as different leadership takes place (Morgan, 2006). Redman (2006) theorized succession

planning can also offer other advantages to school districts, including reduced turnover

and socialization costs, a more orderly transition of power, and the ongoing development

of employees’ capabilities.

Succession Planning in Business

Leadership succession planning in business has become a key component in an

organization’s success (Redman, 2006). Although the practice has been identified as a

necessity for future success, not all organizations have a process for leadership succession

planning (Brant et al., 2008; Redman, 2006). An analysis of the top 20 medical device

companies revealed 95% of them placed great emphasis on ensuring they had formal

succession planning strategies aimed at identifying and preparing a ready pool of

successors for leadership positions (Brant et al., 2008). As shown by the success of these

companies, a strategically planned succession will result in a successful, wellthought out,

cultivated transition of leadership for the institution and the incoming leader. Such

preparations can ensure that organizations thrive even during the turbulent time of

leadership transition.

Basari and Sabegh (2014) conducted a quantitative study and administered a

survey to analyze the importance of a management approach to succession planning in

public organizations. The primary goal of their research was to study how changes in

organizational factors influenced the succession of managers in Khuzestan Province, Iran.

Organizational factors included senior management support, encouragement from leaders,

and employee retention. The researchers applied random sampling to select 144 of the 550

employees working in Khuzestan as participants in the study.

The 20-item questionnaire used a Likert scale, and the questions addressed

succession planning and organizational factors. The researchers mentioned that experts

verified the validity of the questionnaire but did not explain either the process or which

experts were involved. Cronbach’s alpha was the means of assessing the internal

consistency reliability of the survey, and the value was .85. Because the level was higher

than .70, Basari and Sabegh (2014) concluded that the results of the questionnaire were

reliable. Results of the Pearson correlation (r = .49, p < .001) indicated that organizational

factors have a moderate positive relationship with succession planning. Basari and Sabegh

(2014) determined that any disruption in the organizational factors affected the

organization’s strategic succession planning process. Therefore, organizations need to

ensure that organizational factors necessary for strategic planning are in place to ensure a

smooth transition in leadership succession.

Succession Planning in Public Education

NCLB (2001), a reauthorization of ESEA, was a catalyst for school districts to

become focused on training and recruiting instructional leaders to lead schools to assure

compliance and student success (Dunaway et al., 2012; Schumacher, 2011; Strunk et al.,

2015). Paradoxically, NCLB contained no mandate to include leadership succession in

those plans. In contrast, the latest ESEA reauthorization, the ESSA, renewed the focus on

instructional leadership with stronger focus on developing school leaders to improve

schools, instructional practices, and increase equity in schools (Herman et al., 2017;

Young et al., 2017).

ESSA’s (2015) Title II explicitly targeted and allotted federal funds to develop and

recruit school leaders and principals. The regulation allowed the use of a significant

amount of flexible and targeted federal funding (almost 8% of the state’s allotment) to

develop evidenced-based practices on professional development to guide leadership

improvements. Additionally, the statute promoted strengthening the leadership succession

pipeline by providing grants to states and districts, offering the option to partner with

higher education institutions, and encouraging recruitment, development, and support for

leaders in high-poverty, low-performing schools. Also, the ESSA embodied President

Johnson’s initial goals for implementing the ESEA: supporting equity of education for all

students through leadership and funding, as evidenced by the mandate that 7% of state

funding must be used by school districts to support low-performing schools and efforts to

close the achievement gap (Young et al., 2017).

The positive relationship between effective leaders and student achievement

necessitated strategic planning for leadership succession (Mendels & Mitgang, 2013).

Sweeney (2013) argued that organizations must be proactive in implementing strategic

planning on district and school levels. However, Cieminski (2018), Riddick (2009), and

Mascall et al. (2011) asserted that educational organizations have been hesitant to

formally institute succession planning. In addition, numerous theorists outlined the

process of strategic planning; however, no conclusive research indicated that any one

specific plan yielded successful programs (Orr, 2011; Sweeney, 2013).

Consequently, various models for leadership succession planning have emerged

(Elbanna, 2008; Hambright & Diamantes, 2004; Orr, 2011; Strunk et al., 2015; Zepeda et

al., 2012). Institutions and researchers approach succession planning in various ways

because no set standard for succession planning exists (Cieminski, 2018). Zepeda et al.

(2012) studied four Georgia school systems’ succession plans and found differences in the

sense of urgency in implementing the plans and the types of succession planning

processes districts and schools utilized. The researchers reported that succession plans that

focus on developing aspiring leaders should be an intricate part of strategic planning for

the districts and schools to continue the organization’s mission of increasing student

achievement and creating a learning community.

Researchers cautioned that strategic planning for succession is not a linear process

wherein any one approach works for any organization (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Peters,

2011; Sweeney, 2013). Based on a review of literature, Sweeney (2013) confirmed the

urgency for organizations to be proactive and engaged in strategic succession planning.

However, researchers cautioned that succession planning is different for each organization

depending on its size, needs, and type of education. Educational organizations are often

fluid and unstable, and district educational leaders must understand differences in the

stability and purpose of succession planning within their districts. Consequently, organic

approaches to succession planning are essential

(Abdullahi et al., 2022; Sweeney, 2013).

Sweeney (2013) went on to say that decentralizing succession planning could

allow district schools to adapt their succession plans to meet the needs of the communities

they serve. Educational organizations must realize when creating succession plans that the

educational system, along with the family structure, has evolved tremendously over the

last hundred years and is ever-changing. It is impossible to create systemic change without

recognizing interrelationships and interdependencies within the educational system itself

and the community it serves (W. J. Cook, 2000; Jenlink et al., 1998; Sweeney, 2013).

Hence, strategic planning for succession should also be fluid, and educators must retain

the ability to adjust plans (Sweeney, 2013).

The lack of planning, preparation, and support for leadership succession and new

leaders was one of the major themes in Peters’s (2011) qualitative instrumental case study.

The study was an investigation of the experiences of two early career high school female

principals within the same school in a small urban division. The first principal served 2

years, and her successor was employed for only 1 year. Peters (2011) aimed to understand

the succession experiences of principals who lead school reform and sought to answer two

questions: (a) What district supports are needed to sustain early career leaders in

challenging contexts? and (b) How can districts anticipate and address leadership

transitions systematically and at the school level?

Peters (2011) highlighted that the districts and schools were primarily focused on

replacement planning, a method that Groves (2011) identified as a reactive approach to fill

immediate vacancies rather than a comprehensive succession plan. Although Peters’s

(2011) conclusions regarding the two principals, who experienced replacement planning

rather than a more integrated succession planning approach, might not be broadly

generalizable, they highlighted the inadequacies of the current practices. Peters (2011)

argued for a shift toward dynamic succession planning, which offers a more holistic

approach by incorporating planning, forecasting, and sustaining aspects of leadership

succession simultaneously. Despite the limited scope of the case study, Peters (2011)

integrated their findings with existing literature to advocate for this broader approach to

succession planning.

The planning phase of principal succession presented in the dynamic succession

planning framework was lacking or even nonexistent in districts and schools, according to

the researcher. Peters (2011) pointed to the participants’ experience of filling their

successors’ positions two weeks before school started, even though the principals had

resigned a month and a half earlier. The lack of preparation time left the new principals

and the school at a disadvantage for the school year. According to Peters, succession plans

are necessary and should be a requirement for all districts and schools. The researcher

proposed another step in the planning process, which was to ensure that districts have

development plans specifically for assistant principals who show potential for success at

the principal level. Participants in the study expressed the desire for their districts to have

more comprehensive development and succession plans so that leaders are ready and

waiting even before the time comes to fill a principal vacancy (Peters,

2011).

Components, Benefits, and Drawbacks of Succession Planning

The goal of leadership succession plans is to ensure a clear path for organizations

to follow when a leader in an educational organization expectedly or unexpectedly departs

and prepare developed leaders to step into that position (Groves, 2011; Hanover Research

Council, 2012; Peters, 2011). As leaders depart their positions, according to McCall

(2006), employees already in the organization who have had ample training can fill the

openings. This practice may ensure individuals are adequately prepared for succession and

organizations experience less downtime during transitions (McCall, 2006).

Districts may incorporate various strategies into succession planning to develop

aspiring leader skills. One option is partnering with a university to incorporate coursework

on theory and best practices and to aid in recruitment and job placement (Harchar &

Campbell, 2010; Orr, 2011). School districts may establish an ongoing mentor/mentee

program (Cieminski, 2018; Clayton et al., 2013; Groves, 2011), develop socialization

programs (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007), or provide hands-on opportunities to apply theory

learned in coursework (Browne-Ferrigno & Allen, 2006; Browne-Ferrigno

& Muth, 2008).

Leadership Succession Programs

District Partnerships With Universities. Harchar and Campbell (2010)

concluded that a connection exists between university leadership preparation and

successful school district succession programs. A critical aspect of the success of

partnerships between districts and universities includes establishing clear partner

relationship norms and guidelines for collaboration (Campbell & Gross, 2012; Clayton et

al., 2013; Fowler, 2013). Both institutions must embed the partnership requirements as a

part of their workload, performance evaluations, and resource allotment so that the

partnership is beneficial to both the university and the PK–12 school districts (Harchar &

Campbell, 2010; Parylo, 2013).

Researchers have also identified effective ways for districts to “grow their own”

leadership by partnering with universities in leadership recruitment and training

(BrowneFerrigno & Allen, 2006; Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2008; Clayton et al., 2013). A

productive partnership between universities and schools may include authentic leadership

experiences and internships for aspiring school leaders (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2012;

Clayton et al., 2013). Nevertheless, New Leaders (2013) found that in many cases,

universities and districts continue to operate in silos with no collaboration between the

two entities to develop aspiring leaders.

Grow-Your-Own Leadership Programs. More attention needs to be focused on

ensuring that program participants have real-world experiences in administrative positions

before they step into the role (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2008). Affording aspiring leaders

many practical learning opportunities has the potential to give them the confidence they

need in their decision-making processes (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2008). A leader’s

experiences and knowledge determine—and may limit—the decisionmaking capacity they

possess (Cohen et al., 1972). The role of the district in grow-yourown leadership is to

provide students with internship experiences in schools where candidates learn the

administrative skills necessary to lead successful schools (Browne-

Ferrigno, 2007; Browne-Ferrigno & Allen, 2006; Clayton et al., 2013; Parylo, 2013).

In 2010, Illinois took the university-district partnership concept further by

becoming one of the first states in the nation to require state-wide principal preparation

programs to partner with local districts (White et al., 2016). This emphasis on university

and district partnerships ensures that principal preparation aligns with the needs of Illinois

schools. The Illinois General Assembly passed Public Act 96–0903 in 2010 to restructure

the preparation of school leaders in response to districts plagued with tens of thousands of

educators with administrator licenses who have no intention of leading schools (Mitchell,

2017; White et al., 2016).

Other requirements established by the state legislation included that candidates

must illustrate mastery of critical principal leadership competencies; candidates should

receive training in instructional leadership; and principals must be trained to work with all

students P–12, students with disabilities, and English language learners. The

University of Illinois in Chicago, to comply with state legislation, instituted a competitive

entrance criterion and a year-long internship (Mitchell, 2017). The university also requires

a year-long full-time paid leadership residency. Further, the candidate must then receive

leadership coaching for 3 years after graduating from the program (Mitchell, 2017).

Preliminary results derived from graduation and attendance rates of high schools led by

graduates of the principal preparation program indicated success (Mitchell, 2017;

White et al., 2016).

Also, White et al. (2016) conducted a mixed-methods study to investigate

stakeholders’ perspectives on the goals, implementation, and potential impacts of Illinois’

new principal preparation initiative. The study utilized site visits, syllabus reviews, and an

online survey as instruments to gather data. The researchers collected data in two phases

during the fall of 2014 and the winter of 2015. Participants included program faculty

members, the district partners of 21 out of 28 principal preparation programs in Illinois,

and a project advisory board composed of 24 key decision makers. The key findings of

this study included (a) most programs reported having stronger partnerships when the

district took a more active role in developing leaders, (b) most programs experienced a

drop in enrollment due to a shift in the quality of program applicants, (c) participants

reported that the redesign brought clarity to the focus of the program towards instructional

leadership, (d) competency-based internships exposed candidates to a wealth of

experiences that aided in their quest for the principalship, and (e) more accurate outcome

data on graduates was collected due to the requirement that all program coordinators

collect data.

Although each program acknowledged their challenges and areas for growth, the

consensus of many of the study participants was that they were pleased with the revised

programs and new partnerships with local state universities. One concern that remained,

however, was whether the new strenuous requirements would produce enough candidates

for principalship for the future despite the reduced enrollment in principal preparation

programs (White et al., 2016).

Leadership succession programs not only identify, recruit, prepare, and replace

administrators; they also provide socialization and mentorships. These relationships

provide ongoing professional development for all leaders by allowing leaders to teach

classes, facilitate workshops, and play an active role in leadership development (Fink &

Brayman, 2006; Groves, 2011). Well-structured succession programs with socialization

and leadership training are essential resources for supporting new leadership (Bengtson et

al., 2013; Cieminski, 2018; Darling-Hammond et al., 2022). Unplanned leadership

succession is a prominent factor in struggling schools, and this deficit may hinder

organizational growth (Cocklin & Wilkinson, 2011; Peters, 2011). In the business

industry, leadership academies equate to the grow-your-own leadership

academies/programs in educational organizations.

During leadership academies, identified leaders receive executive-directed in–

services and are assigned to action-learning projects where they work in teams to

complete the assignment. Action-learning projects are identified by top executives to gain

insight on issues current to the organization. The leadership academy allows them to

socialize and gain an audience with their peers, managers, and executive leadership. This

approach helps the executive leaders to identify potential leaders they may not have

noticed (Groves, 2011).

Some educational districts are developing grow-your-own leadership programs to

fill the leadership pipeline. Browne-Ferrigno (2007), Browne-Ferrigno and Allen (2006),

and Clayton et al. (2013) provided exemplars of well-planned grow-your-own leadership

succession programs in rural districts. The goal was to counteract the weak leadership

training many candidates had received and to increase the capacity of all leaders, aspiring

and current, in their districts.

The rural school district in Clayton et al.’s (2013) study and the school district in

Browne-Ferrigno and Allen’s (2006) study had encountered increasing difficulty finding

qualified candidates to fill administrative positions. Acknowledging the deficit of quality

leadership and realizing they would be losing many leaders to retirement, each

administration decided they must commit to cultivating leadership. Browne-Ferrigno and

Allen’s (2006) study focused on the succession planning of Picket County School District

(PCSD) located in a rural area of Kentucky.

In this study, the superintendent and central administration worked with outside

agencies and the University of Kentucky to establish the Principals Excellence Program

(PEP). To qualify for the program, participants had to have a valid administrative license.

The 15 participants chosen for the PEP received university instruction and hands-on

experience in district schools. While working in schools, they had a chance to apply the

theory from coursework to the duties of an administrator. Throughout the PEP,

participants engaged in professional development on leadership, effective communication,

and research-based instructional practices (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007;

Browne-Ferrigno & Allen, 2006).

The PCSD research, a qualitative study with data drawn from interviews, journals,

and questionnaires, determined that PEP was successful in refining instructional leaders

and potential administrative candidates as measured by a self-reported professional

growth questionnaire. Potential administrative candidates expressed gratitude for the

necessary professional development and real-world leadership training they received. In

addition, current administrators reported growth in their personal development in

instructional leadership, distributed leadership, and the need for school leaders to

collaborate with other school leaders as well as school stakeholders to support

instructional programs in their schools (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007; Browne-Ferrigno &

Allen, 2006).

Clayton et al. (2013) focused on a struggling rural school district in a mid-Atlantic

state. Two of the three district’s schools failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP),

as required by NCLB (2001). The school district obtained a grant to fund a leadership

cohort called the Futures Program. Researchers recruited eight aspiring administrators and

eight veteran administrators to participate in the program. Each participant who enrolled

in the educational leadership cohort participated in four key components: an intense

mentoring program, an internship, leadership-focused professional development in–

services, and coursework.

The researchers strategically matched the aspiring leaders with veteran

administrators as their mentors. Study participants expressed satisfaction with their

mentor/mentee assignments. The study conclusions suggested the importance of careful

deliberation when assigning mentor/mentee partnerships, time allotted for authentic

internship experiences, projects with a clear connection to the district’s vision for

improving student learning, and development of instruments for successful mentoring

programs with a positive impact on leadership development (Clayton et al., 2013).

The goals for each of the two aforementioned succession programs were to build

the instructional leadership capacities of current and aspiring school leaders. Both districts

were also able to build their aspiring leaders’ confidence and skill levels while

simultaneously expanding their applicant pool of capable leaders. They were successful in

this endeavor, as indicated by the participants who reported feeling ready to step

immediately into a leadership position and continue the work of improving academic

achievement in schools (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007; Browne-Ferrigno & Allen, 2006;

Clayton et al., 2013).

Both studies were examples of succession programs utilizing school districts and

university partnerships to instruct their potential leaders. The university offered classes in

theory, knowledge, and research-based leadership practices for aspiring leaders to

implement when faced with educational dilemmas, while districts concurrently assisted in

recruiting, socializing, and mentoring aspiring administrators. All participants and

stakeholders interviewed in the Futures Program and PEP reported feeling pleased with

the mentor selections and program outcomes (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007; Browne-Ferrigno

& Allen, 2006; Clayton et al., 2013). Researchers asserted that it might be beneficial for

districts to prepare leaders in grow- your own leadership programs but cautioned that if

districts are not careful, these programs can also lead to unintended consequences of

groupthink and organization stagnation (Clayton, 2014).

Mentoring. Mentoring is linked to job and career success and plays a significant

role in the development of future leaders (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Leithwood et

al., 2004; Redman, 2006). A robust mentoring program is vital for any organization

(Bokeno & Gantt, 2000), and typically involves either informal or formal pairing of

mentors and mentees in reciprocal learning experiences. Mentorship programs are

essential for the socialization of aspiring leaders, helping them integrate into the

organization’s culture and providing a safe space for mentees to discuss challenges

(Cieminski, 2018; Clayton et al., 2013).

One case study examination of the effectiveness of mentorship in administrative

internships revealed that effective mentorship involves three distinct phases: establishing

the partnership, nurturing the mentoring relationship, and enabling learning through

leadership experiences (Thessin et al., 2020). The mentors provided critical support and

feedback, aiding the interns’ ability to lead authentic administrative tasks, which

significantly contributed to their development as leaders. Thessin et al. (2020) emphasized

that a strong mentor-intern relationship, built on trust and reciprocal learning, enhances

the internship experience, thereby promoting the growth of competent educational

administrators.

Similarly, the Futures Program recognized that both aspiring and current leaders

need mentoring and professional development. It began with the purposeful pairing of

mentors with mentees (Clayton et al., 2013). Each pair was required to meet face-to-face

once a month and interact at least three additional times using another form of

communication to foster this relationship. However, mentors and mentees faced

challenges such as outside obligations and limited time, which sometimes forced them to

choose between their sanctioned educational responsibilities and the program. Despite

these challenges, participants in this study reported benefits from participation in the

mentorship program, especially when projects focused on improving the school’s

instructional program, mirroring findings from Thessin et al. (2020) that well-structured

mentorship could lead to meaningful leadership development.

In contrast, a mentoring program similar to the PEP, which designated specific

time in their program for mentorship activities, reported greater success (BrowneFerrigno

& Allen, 2006). The PEP designated one day a week for collaborative learning and

mentorship activities and allotted time within teachers’ working hours to ensure that

mentors and mentees could have frequent, meaningful interactions. As a result,

participants in the PCSD were able to engage in more consistent and impactful

interactions, reinforcing their mission to ensure that schools in their district had more

concentrated leadership development opportunities (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007;

BrowneFerrigno & Allen, 2006).

Furthermore, informal mentoring relationships have a significant impact on

aspiring leaders, as demonstrated in a study by Barnett et al. (2017) involving 69 assistant

principals serving in school districts in the Southwestern United States. These assistant

principals valued the practical knowledge and learning opportunities provided by former

and current administrators, which enhanced their communication skills and relationships

with stakeholders. The study revealed that mentors advised assistant principals on

decision-making, building relationships with teachers and, and maintaining work-life

balance.

Overall, mentoring remains a critical component of leadership development

programs. Effective mentoring not only supports the professional growth of the mentees

but also strengthens the overall leadership within educational organizations. As suggested

by Thessin et al. (2020), structured, trust-based mentoring relationships can enhance the

leadership capabilities of administrative interns, preparing them for future challenges in

educational leadership. The findings from Barnett et al. (2017) reinforced the importance

of both formal and informal mentoring in developing well-rounded educational leaders.

Potential Problems With Succession Planning

Problems may arise when using succession planning as a tool for internal selection

of management positions. According to Hill (2012) in the Encyclopedia of Management,

succession planning can be shallow, focusing only on developing a select few for top

management positions instead of focusing on building all employees’ capacity. Hill (2012)

also referred to other issues with succession planning such as “crowned prince syndrome,”

talent drain, managing human resource information, and the roadblocks to effective

succession planning.

Animosity over management candidate selection may prompt employees who have

been overlooked to leave the company. In these situations, crowned prince syndrome and

talent drain may both lead to employee turnover (Hill, 2012). Crowned prince syndrome

occurs when only those employees who make themselves visible receive consideration for

promotion to management positions. Employees who are just as qualified but perhaps less

visible can be overlooked for promotion. Talent drain occurs as leaders move identified

talent up to higher management positions. The result may be a reduction in talent in the

lower and middle levels of the organization as the employees who are not promoted exit

the organization (Hill, 2012).

Managing human resource information is a daunting task for organizations. The

maintenance of employee performance and evaluation records over several years can be

laborious. Reviewing and comparing those records for various opportunities for

promotion add another layer of difficulty to succession planning (Hill, 2012). Other

roadblocks to succession planning include planning only for the CEO or another

highprofile leadership vacancy and the desire to have a seasoned leader who can make

immediate improvements (Hill, 2012). Identifying, recruiting, and retaining aspiring

leaders is a major component of succession planning (Abdullahi et al., 2022).

Aspiring Leaders

Organizations with strategic succession plans relay the message to current and

potential employees that human resources and investment in human capital are valuable to

the organization; hence, these organizations can recruit individuals who are interested in

opportunities for growth and development (Redman, 2006). All administrators should play

a role in the identification and development of leaders (Cieminski, 2018; Groves, 2011).

Identifying how current leadership competencies within the organization match up with

the organization’s desired competencies is critical to leadership development and the

recruitment of potential leaders among employees (Groves, 2011; Redman, 2006).

Identification. Succession planning begins with the identification and recruitment

of individuals who exhibit the potential to lead (Chavez, 2011, Neefe, 2009). This initial

stage, identification, involves a systematic process whereby an organization assesses the

current talent at all levels to evaluate individuals’ readiness for increased responsibilities

and their potential for advancement (Rothwell, 2005, 2015). The methods used to assess

talent can vary across organizations. Clayton et al. (2013) emphasized the importance of

surveying the needs of school districts and aspiring leaders to make informed, data-driven

decisions about the skills aspiring leaders need to develop to align with district goals.

Parfitt (2017) highlighted the need for educational organizations committed to

strategic succession planning and identifying potential leaders to incorporate multiple

points of evaluation. These evaluations must include consideration of the organizational

culture and the structural framework of the organization. Comprehensive assessment

ensures that the job responsibilities of principals, assistant principals, and other

administrators align with the skills that aspiring leaders need to develop for future

challenges (Russell & Sabina, 2014; Sweeney, 2013).

To achieve this alignment, districts should focus on developing and defining the

specific skills they want their leaders to possess. This approach aligns with

BrownFerrigno and Muth’s (2008) recommendation for districts to engage in

socialization, continuous professional improvement, principal readiness, and succession

planning. These initiatives help identify and train a pool of quality internal candidates for

leadership roles. Effective methods for identifying potential leaders include the use of

regular performance evaluations to provide insights into individuals’ capabilities and

achievements (Leithwood et al., 2004). Leadership competency assessments can help

pinpoint those who excel in critical leadership skills such as strategic thinking, team

management, and decision making (Burch et al., 2015).

Furthermore, comprehensive feedback involves collecting perspectives from

various stakeholders, offering a rounded view of an individual’s leadership abilities

(Chavez, 2011). Developmental assignments that test problem-solving and leadership in

real-world scenarios can also reveal potential leaders (Fletcher, 2019). Additionally,

mentoring and coaching programs allow experienced leaders to observe and develop

potential leaders, providing them with guidance and growth opportunities (Gulzar &

Durrani, 2014).

Professional development workshops and training sessions also serve as a platform

to gauge and enhance leadership potential, identifying those who are committed to their

own growth and the success of their organization (Yasmeen & Tobawal, 2023). By

implementing these strategies, districts can effectively identify individuals who are

capable of fulfilling current leadership roles and those who are potential candidates for

future advancement within the educational sector. This proactive approach in succession

planning ensures that organizations are prepared to meet future challenges with a pipeline

of well-trained and capable leaders.

Development. Educational leadership has a significant impact on learning

(Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Leithwood et al., 2004;

Mendels & Mitgang, 2013; Yasmeen & Tobawal, 2023); therefore, developing aspiring

leaders is vital to improving student performance. Development is the second phase of

succession planning; during this phase, organizations train, coach, mentor, and socialize

aspiring and current leaders (Cieminski, 2018; Clayton et al., 2013; Parfitt, 2017,

Rothwell, 2005, 2015). Leithwood et al. (2004) found that a leader’s formal and informal

learning experiences were an essential part of their development. Orr (2011), Young

(2015), Young and Crow (2017), and Darling-Hammond et al. (2022) agreed that

leadership preparation influences the development of a leader’s skills and aspirations.

However, in many states, after they have acquired a license, it is up to the individual to

stay current with best leadership practices and research (Briggs et al., 2013;

DarlingHammond et al., 2022; Vogel et al., 2014).

The George W. Bush Institute collected data on the policies regarding principal

preparation by sending the Principal Policy State Survey to chief state school officers in

all states and the District of Columbia (Briggs et al., 2013). Results indicated that only six

states (Washington, New Mexico, Tennessee, Georgia, Rhode Island, and Connecticut)

required principals to demonstrate effectiveness as leaders to renew their licenses (Briggs

et al., 2013). Currently, in Virginia, once an aspiring leader completes a principal

preparation program and receives their license, there are no specific leadership

development requirements to renew their administrator license other than to complete

180 hours of professional development (Virginia Code Commission, 2007; Virginia

Department of Education, 2021).

Without formal requirements for succession planning, no data are available

regarding whether administrators are meeting current standards and developing further

skills after receiving their degrees or certifications. Consequently, if they do not acquire a

leadership position upon the completion of their program, there is no assurance they will

remain qualified or confident in applying for future vacancies. Darling-Hammond et al.

(2022), Cieminski (2018), and Mendels and Mitgang (2013) suggested that states and

districts should establish formal policies for leadership succession plans to support the

professional development needs of aspiring and current school leaders.

Darling-Hammond et al. (2022) highlighted disparities in leadership training

across the United States, noting that candidates in states (like California) that have

structured and rigorous licensure and accreditation policies reported better access to

quality training. Federal and state policies that provide support and funding for the

development of leaders can help districts to continually engage current and aspiring

leaders to meet their student achievement goals (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Mendels

& Mitgang, 2013). Effective succession planning also integrates professional development

strategies such as partnerships with universities that offer coursework on theory and best

practices. Bengtson et al. (2013) emphasized the importances of socialization in leader

succession, advocating for mentorship programs that provide practical experience to apply

theoretical learning (see also Browne-Ferrigno, 2007;

Browne-Ferrigno & Allen, 2006; Clayton et al., 2013; Darling-Hammond et al., 2022).

Socialization

Socialization of aspiring and new leaders to organizational culture is essential. Van

Maanen and Schein (1979) described socialization as the method by which individuals

gain the necessary knowledge, skills, and values needed to effectively fulfill a social role

in an organization. Socialization allows employees to acclimate to relationships and to

understand the responsibilities of their new position in the educational organization,

which, by nature, must be continually learning, flexible, and adaptable (Morgan, 2006).

Current school leaders are responsible for socializing aspiring and new school leaders and

staff into the current school culture (Cieminski, 2018; S. D.

Cook & Yanow, 1993).

Socialization is also necessary for aspiring and incoming educational leaders to

understand the overt as well as the hidden culture of the organization they serve to

increase student achievement (Lunenberg, 2010). Increasing newcomers’ familiarity

allows them to understand the shared philosophies of the organization, including the

norms, values, rules, and climate, in their transition from a teaching role to an

administrative or newly acquired position. Various socialization tactics play a crucial role

in retaining new leaders and helping newcomers adjust to their new roles (Allen, 2006;

Bengtson et al., 2013; Cieminski, 2018).

Bengtson et al. (2013) conducted a qualitative, multiple-case study involving 29

administrators across four school districts in Georgia. At each district, key personnel,

including a superintendent, human resources director, a principal, and an assistant

principal, participated. The research focused on the socialization of individuals as they

moved into the principalship. Through in-depth interviews and stories from the

participants, the researchers identified six types of socialization tactics employed during

this transition period: collective-individual, formal-informal, sequential-random,

fixedvariable, serial-disjunctive, and investiture-divestiture (Bengtson et al., 2013).

The researchers described the impact of these socialization tactics on the retention

and success of new school leaders (Bengtson et al., 2013). For instance, collective

socialization involves grouping newcomers together to facilitate shared learning

experiences; this approach is common in the cohort model commonly used in grow-

yourown leadership programs. Formal tactics offer clearly defined socialization processes,

and informal tactics lack a structured approach. In contrast to random tactics, sequential

tactics follow a predetermined order. Fixed tactics have a specific timeline, but variable

tactics do not, and their use may create uncertainty for newcomers. Serial tactics, such as

mentorship programs, are often used in education to foster relationships between new and

experienced employees. Unlike investiture tactics, divestiture tactics lack mentorship

support for newcomers, but investiture tactics provide social support. To optimize

socialization, organizations can combine these tactics in various ways, depending on their

culture and goals for the organization (Allen, 2006; Bengtson et al., 2013).

To maintain or change their culture, educational organizations need effective

methods and tactics for socializing their leaders, starting with candidate selection (S. D.

Cook & Yanow, 1993). An organization’s self-view is influenced by both internal and

external environments, which affect its paradigms (Johnson, 1992). It is important for an

organization to learn, shift, and evolve even when trying to maintain its current cultural

identity (S. D. Cook & Yanow, 1993). Garfinkel (1967) asserted that culture is mainly

based on social norms, but Morgan (2006) argued that understanding the rules is also

necessary for full comprehension. It is challenging to assess an organization's culture from

an outsider's perspective, and leaders must understand the culture to manage or change it

effectively, according to Van Maanen and Schein (1978). As a result, educational leaders

should be aware of the culture of their organization, as failure to develop that knowledge

may be detrimental to the organization (Bengtson et al., 2013). For a new school leader,

socialization is critical for learning the culture and adapting to their position; thus,

socialization is an essential process for both aspiring and current school leaders.

Retention

Retention in succession planning within the public sector presents challenges, and

the process is often ineffectively implemented (Cieminski, 2018; Sweeney, 2013). These

challenges stem from high staff turnover, political dynamics, and issues with transparency

(Sweeney, 2013). Educational organizations in particular face notably high leadership

turnover rates (Cieminski, 2018).

In their study exploring tenure and retention of principals, Fuller and Young

(2009) analyzed data from newly hired principals across Texas public schools between

2006 and 2008 (N = 16,544). The researchers defined “newly hired” as principals who had

not been at the school during the previous academic year. The researchers reported a

concerning statistic: 90% of those who left their positions as principals did not return to

principal roles, indicating a significant exit rate from the profession. However, the

researchers did not reveal the specific percentage of principals who left, making it

difficult to gauge the full extent of turnover. Fuller and Young (2009) called for further

research to understand why principals were leaving and to pinpoint their subsequent

career paths. They also noted that the average tenure for a principal is 3 to 5 years (Fuller

& Young, 2009), a finding which aligned with other research (Hull, 2012; Zepeda et al.,

2012). High turnover rates can negatively impact student achievement, employee

engagement, and the school district budget (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Fuller &

Young, 2009; School Leaders Network, 2014).

Cieminski (2018) emphasized the critical impact of school leadership on student

success, arguing that the goal for strategic succession planning is not only to attract,

select, and develop leaders but also to retain skilled administrators (Cieminski, 2018;

Wood et al., 2013). Cieminski’s (2018) study in five large school districts in Colorado

involved semi-structured interviews with 18 participants, including seven school

district/system administrators and 11 school principals. The aim was to gather diverse

perspectives on succession practices and their impact on retention rates.

The findings identified effective succession planning practices that contributed to

higher retention rates among principals (Cieminski, 2018). These practices included

structured professional development focused on leadership skills, tailored support for new

principals through mentoring, and involving stakeholders in the process, which ensured a

better fit and greater satisfaction among principals. One participating district reported an

increase in principal retention to 93% over 3 years after implementing these practices,

compared to the state average of around 85%. This significant improvement highlighted

the effectiveness of the succession planning measures.

Bano et al. (2022) also provided valuable insights into the retention effects of

effective succession planning practices in Malaysian public higher learning institutions

(HLIs). The researchers emphasized the importance of structured practices despite a low

response rate of 3.08% on their survey. The 300 participants came from a population of

9,750 academic and nonacademic employees at four technical universities. Bano et al.’s

(2022) analysis [partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS SEM)] revealed

that leadership development had a path coefficient of 0.94, which was significant (p

< .0001) and indicated a substantial impact on employee retention. Other key variables

included selection of a successor, top leadership involvement, technology advancement,

and succession planning programs. The results indicated that implementing leadership

development opportunities and involving top leaders strategically created a rich pool of

internal applicants who were well-prepared and ready for promotion when leadership

positions became available.

Cieminski (2018), Bano et al. (2022), and other researchers documented the

importance of integrating effective succession planning practices. Outcomes suggested

that leveraging strategies such as leadership development and involving current leadership

in the succession process can mitigate some of the challenges associated with retention in

the public sector, particularly in educational settings. By creating a culture of development

and engagement, organizations can enhance their capability to retain key leadership

personnel, thereby stabilizing the leadership structure and ultimately improving

organizational outcomes.

Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is an essential determinant of both individual employee and

organizational performance (Anitha, 2014; Kahn, 1990; Kumar et al., 2023). Kahn

(1990) described employee engagement as deeply rooted psychological experiences that

can alter perspectives and behaviors within an individual’s workplace. Engagement,

according to Kahn (1990), is “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s

‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others” (p. 700).

In contrast, disengagement is “the simultaneous withdrawal and defense of a person’s

preferred self in behaviors that promote a lack of complete role performance” (Kahn,

1990, p. 700). Anitha (2014) built on this analysis by defining employee engagement as

the level of commitment and involvement of an individual at their workplace. Anitha’s

definition of employee engagement was the best fit for the purposes of this study.

Kumar et al. (2023) extended this discussion by emphasizing the systematic nature

of engagement across organizational settings. Their systematic literature review

underscored the significant association between employee engagement, organizational

commitment, and overall organizational effectiveness, particularly highlighting the impact

of leadership behaviors and comprehensive HR practices on fostering a highly

engagement workforce. The researchers highlighted the critical role of leadership

behaviors and human resources practices on fostering a highly engaged workforce. Also,

Kumar et al. (2023) stressed the critical roles of transformation leadership in enhancing

engagement, noting that such leadership behaviors not only inspire but also intellectually

stimulate employees, thereby supporting a more engaged organizational atmosphere.

In a causal-comparative study, Anitha (2014) examined determinants of employee

engagement derived from Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement—work environment,

leadership, team and coworker relationships, training and career development,

compensation, organizational policies, and workplace well-being—and confirmed the

statistical significance of all factors. Anitha’s (2014) study, which included data collected

from questionnaires completed by 383 middle and lower managers from small-scale

organizations registered with the Coimbatore District Small Industries Association,

underscored the importance of understanding the factors influencing employee

engagement and its impact on organizational performance.

Moreover, Kumar et al. (2023) expanded on the implications of well-managed

talent practices, building on Anitha’s (2014) findings. Although all factors were significant

to employee engagement (r2 = .672), the working environment was identified as the

strongest predictor of engagement (r2 = .463), followed by team and coworker

relationships (r2 = .316). Training and career development also showed a significant,

though weaker, predictive power (r2 =.002). Kumar et al. (2023) highlighted how strategic

succession planning and tailored professional development, as a part of comprehensive

engagement strategies, enhanced employee commitment and organizational adaptability.

These elements underscored the critical importance of creating a supportive and enriching

environment that fosters not only individual growth but also collective success through

effective succession planning and talent management

(Abdullahi et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2023).

Similarly, Alias et al. (2014) explored the relationships between talent

management practices, employee engagement, and employee retention in an information

and technology organization in Malaysia. The researchers surveyed a convenience sample

of 840 employees classified as executives, with a response rate of 68% (581 participants).

They identified three dimensions of talent management practices:

managerial support, employee career development, and rewards and recognition. The

results indicated that career development (r = .544, p < .01), rewards and recognition (r

= .658, p < .01) and managerial support (r = .445, p < .001) all had significant

relationships with employee engagement. The researchers also identified a positive

relationship between employee engagement and employee retention (r = .691, p < .01).

However, the multiple regression analysis revealed that managerial support did not predict

employee engagement or make a significant contribution to employee retention. In

contrast, career development and rewards and recognition did make a significant

contribution to employee retention. These results indicated that employees who benefit

from talent management practices were more likely to be engaged and retained in their

current positions (Alias et al., 2014).

Gulzar and Durrani (2014) conducted a quantitative causal comparative study on

the impact of succession planning on employee engagement within the

telecommunications sector, involving 250 employees from five companies in Rawalpindi,

Pakistan. Participants completed the Employee Engagement survey from the Gallup

Workplace Audit and the Acumen Leadership Work Styles questionnaire. Findings

indicated that the overall regression model was significant, F (1, 43) = 24.070, p < 0.001,

R2 = .344 and that succession planning explained 34% of employee engagement.

Although the small sample size limited the generalizability of findings, Gulzar and

Durrani (2014) concluded that effective talent management practices can increase

employee engagement, which leads to higher employee retention.

Complementing these findings, Abdullahi et al. (2021) conducted research with

314 academic staff members at private universities in Malaysia. Results confirmed the

impact of succession planning practice on employee engagement. Their results revealed a

path coefficient of β = 0.590 and a t-value of 16.097, indicating statistical significance.

These results suggested that when institutions implemented thoughtful and wellstructured

succession planning, staff engagement increased. Furthermore, the impact of employee

engagement on performance was also statistically significant, with a path coefficient of β

= 0.364 and a t-value of 5.711, illustrating that engaged employees were indeed more

productive. Moreover, the mediation analysis showed that employee engagement

accounted for about 46% of the total effect of succession planning on employee

performance, highlighting its role as a partial mediator in this dynamic.

These studies collectively underscored the critical role of strategic succession

planning. Effective plans not only identified potential leaders but also provided tailored

professional development opportunities, which improved engagement and organizational

performance. This strategic focus fostered a culture of mentorship and support that

strengthened team relationships and influenced the future aspirations, capacities, and

engagement of both current and aspiring administrators (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Gulzar &

Durrani, 2014; Kumar et al., 2023; Orr, 2011; Sweeney, 2013).

Theoretical Framework

Social Exchange Theory

The foundation of this study was Homans’s (1958) SET, which explores the costs

and benefits of relationships within a framework rooted in sociology and psychology.

The origins of SET can be traced back to Homans’s (1958) study “Social Behavior as

Exchange.” In this article, Homans drew upon findings from studies of small group

dynamics, including influence and structure. Additionally, the researcher integrated

various theoretical frameworks, including behavioral psychology and economics, to

establish the foundation for the theory. Homans (1958) asserted that viewing social

behavior as an exchange can enhance understanding of group dynamics, structure, and

equilibrium in experimental and real-world situations.

Blau (1964) made significant contributions to SET by expanding upon the

foundational ideas to develop its conceptual framework. Blau’s (1964) framework consists

of five main constructs. First, social relationships encompass the exchange of material and

nonmaterial goods and services between individuals during interactions. Each exchange

entails dynamics of rewards and/or costs. Second, individuals assess outcomes based on

comparison levels, aiming to maximize the rewards and avoid interactions with minimal

gains, to ensure that the benefits outweigh the costs. Third, individuals consider

comparison levels for alternative interactions, opting for the alternative options that meet

their needs to maximize profit and avoid losses. Fourth, Blau (1964) highlighted the

interdependence of individuals in social relationships, where each participant contributes

something of value. Fifth, the theory of reciprocity underscores how people feel inclined

to reciprocate positive actions from others. Blau (1964) also extended the theory beyond

interpersonal relationships, applying it to organizational dynamics, economic transactions,

and broader social structures.

Saks (2006) further expanded SET by applying this concept to organizations.

Saks’s (2006) suggested employees who perceive that their employers support and

develop them are more likely to reciprocate with greater levels of engagement in their

jobs and loyalty to the organization. Employees who feel that their employer invests in

their growth and development are more likely to be engaged and invested in the company

(Abdullahi et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2023).

Employee Engagement Theories

Engagement is a crucial aspect of maintaining a positive and productive work

environment. When employees are engaged in their work, an organization experiences

significantly enhanced performance (Kumar et al., 2023). In this study, I utilized Anitha’s

(2006) enhancement of Kahn’s seven determinants of employee engagement along with

the job demand and resources theory developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). That theory

informed the construction of the UWES-17 (Schaufeli et al., 2006), a measure of

engagement, which was the survey I used in this study as well.

Kahn’s Theory of Engagement

Kahn (1990) was among the first researchers to explore the concepts of personal

engagement and disengagement at work. Kahn observed that engagement in work

involves physical, cognitive, and emotional energies, which an individual must actively

invest in their work roles. Kahn (1990) proposed seven determinants of employee

engagement: meaningfulness, variety, identity, autonomy, feedback, social support, and

interpersonal interaction.

Job Demands and Resources Theory

Bakker et al. (2023) developed an instrument to measure work engagement, the

UWES-17, within the context of the job demands-resources model by Schaufeli and

Bakker (2004). This model describes the effects of workplace resources and demands on

engagement. The job demands-resources model provides a framework for fostering

employee engagement and managing burnout, key considerations in preparing employees

for advancement into leadership positions (Bakker et al., 2023; Crawford et al., 2010).

Resources such as career development opportunities, personal growth, job control, and

participation in decision-making not only motivate employees but also equip them with

the necessary skills and experience, preparing them for higher responsibilities. According

to Crawford et al. (2010), resources are positively correlated with engagement (β = .36, p

< .05) and burnout (β = .10, p < .05 for burnout; β = .21, p < .05 for engagement). This

result implies that providing resources can significantly enhance engagement and reduce

burnout risks as employees prepare for advanced roles.

Challenge demands, which include increased responsibility and complexity, are

common in higher organizational roles. These demands are positively associated with both

engagement (β = .21, p <.05) and burnout (β = .10, p < .05). When effectively managed,

these demands can enhance an employee’s development by boosting their ability to handle

stress and complex decision-making. In contrast, hinderances—such as constraints

(situational or resource-related), hassles, organizational politics, and role ambiguity,

conflict, or overload—negatively impact engagement (ρ = -.19, p < .05) and are positively

related to burnout (β = .25, p < .05; Crawford et al., 2010). Reducing these hindrances is

crucial to preventing disengagement and ensuring employees can focus on their growth

and readiness for their roles.

In a meta-analytical study of 64 samples, Crawford et al. (2010) found that when

researchers used the job demands-resources model to investigate employee engagement,

they frequently employed the UWES-17 for data collection. This scale has proven

effective in capturing the essence of engagement as influenced by the interplay of job

demands and resources. The findings using the job demands-resources model underscore

the critical role of differentiating between types of job demands and the role of resources

in employee development, which are invaluable for succession planning (Crawford et al.,

2010).

Succession Theory: Talent Pipeline Theory

The talent pipeline theory is a conceptual framework used in human resource

management, organizational behavior, and business strategy. This strategy involves

building a pipeline of talent within the organization through systematic identification,

development, and retention strategies (Donald, 2021). The focus is on having the suitable

talent for the right time throughout the various levels of an organization. This theory does

not trace back to a single developer or seminal work, but it has evolved over time from

various scholars, practitioners, and organizational leaders in the field. The overall

emphasis is the need to align individual career aspirations with organizational goals to

optimize the flow of talent within organizations (Gulzar & Durrani, 2014). The education

sector has embraced components of the talent pipeline theory as they have looked to build

and develop their educational leaders and created programs for aspiring leaders.

The first aspect of the talent management theory is talent identification, wherein

organizations strategically pinpoint and recruit individuals who not only exhibit leadership

qualities but also align with the organizational mission and objectives. This process is

crucial in ensuring that the potential leaders’ skills and values resonate with the

organizational goals, facilitating a smoother transition into leadership roles. To effectively

identify talent, organizations employ a variety of methods, including establishing

partnerships with educational institutions. These partnerships provide a steady pipeline of

candidates who are already aligned with the sector’s needs. Additionally, performance

evaluations and psychological testing are utilized to gain insights into individuals’ current

capabilities and inherent leadership traits.

The second aspect of the theory involves organized development of leaders with

an emphasis on investing in professional growth and learning. This development can take

many forms, such as targeted training, mentorship programs, courses, workshops, and

specialized programs in preparation for quality leadership (Darling-Hammond et al.,

2022). Through these training opportunities, organizations increase the talent mobility so

that employees gain the skills needed to address organizational needs as they arise

(Donald, 2021).

The last aspect of the theory is retention, and the focus is on keeping talented

individuals within the organization long-term. Retention strategies are a crucial part of the

long-term success of an organization (Allen et al., 2010; Bano et al., 2022). Strategies can

include competitive compensation, a positive working environment that supports work-

life balance, and opportunities for advancement. Ensuring retention and contributing to

employee growth not only enhance the individual but also strengthen the organization

(Allen et al., 2010). The three aspects of talent pipeline theory— identification,

development, and retention—are interconnected and contribute to an organization’s

strategic goal by ensuring that a ready pool of talented employees is ready to meet current

and future demands. Utilizing this approach not only helps the individual employees but

also supports ongoing business success and growth.

Summary

Researchers have recognized the value of succession planning in recruiting and

developing strong educational leaders; however, there is a notable lack of research

examining how succession planning influences the engagement of teachers, staff, and

administrators in school districts, the key sources of aspiring leaders. This gap is

significant because without understanding how leadership succession impacts school

organizations, there is no foundation for effectively retaining and engaging current and

potential aspiring leaders. Businesses have invested considerable time and resources into

developing succession plans to enhance employee engagement and cultivate a pool of

qualified leadership candidates, but educational organizations have not kept pace (Béteille

et al., 2012; Bogdány et al., 2014; Lee & Mao, 2023; Redman, 2006).

This study relied on several foundational theories to explore the dynamics of

employee engagement and organizational development. Homans’s (1961) SET served as a

foundation and suggested that social behaviors can be seen as exchanges wherein rewards

must outweigh costs. Other scholars extended this theory. Blau (1964) discussed the

distinctions of social exchanges within organizations, and Saks’s (2006) application of

SET to organizational behavior highlighted how positive perceptions of employer support

can enhance engagement. Additionally, this study incorporated Anitha’s (2014) expansion

of Kahn’s (1990) determinants of engagement, emphasizing the importance of physical,

cognitive, and emotional contributions to work. Finally, the talent pipeline theory

underscored that strategic management of identifying, developing, and retaining talent in

alignment with organizational goals is a way organizations can maintain a steady flow of

capable leaders.

The focus of this study was how the implementation of succession planning by

districts impacts the engagement of aspiring and current school leader engagement. With

increasing vacancies of leadership positions, a systematic approach to succession is

becoming more prevalent and necessary for school districts (Béteille et al., 2012; Fuller &

Young, 2009; Herman et al., 2017; Wood et al., 2013). Although the research on the effect

of succession planning on employee work engagement within education is scarce, such

planning is a well-established success strategy that is widely recognized in the business

sector (Croteau & Wolk, 2010; Lee & Mao, 2023; Rothwell, 2005, 2015). In the next

chapter, I will present a description of the methodology and procedures used to conduct

this study.

Chapter 3: Methodology

Overview

Schools need leaders who are prepared and willing to take on the responsibilities

of the principalship and beyond. For a smooth leadership transition, school districts need

highly engaged leaders who are ready to succeed in new leadership positions. This

quantitative study was an examination of current and aspiring K–12 administrators’ scores

on each component of succession planning practices in the Perceptions of Succession

Planning Survey (PSPS).

The objective was to investigate the potential impact of succession planning

practices on work engagement as measured by the UWES-17. To achieve this goal, I

combined the two assessment tools into a single survey named the Succession Alignment

and Educational Leadership Engagement Survey (SAELES). SAELES not only measured

the participants’ perceptions of succession planning but also evaluates their level of

workplace engagement. A secondary aim of this study was to determine how current and

aspiring K–12 administrators perceived the current level, nature, and quality of the

components of succession planning in K–12 school districts in the United States as

measured by their scores on SAELES.

This methodology was appropriate because of the potential predictive capabilities

inherent in quantitative research, which aligned with the post-positivism paradigm.

Chapter 3 identifies the research questions, describes the research design, participants,

survey instrument, study procedures, data collection and analysis procedures, and

discusses potential ethical dilemmas.

Research Questions

Given the aim of understanding work engagement and succession planning

practices, the following research questions shaped this study:

1. To what extent do current and aspiring school administrators perceive the

existence of succession planning practices are implemented in their K–12

district?

2. How does their perception of the frequency of these succession planning

practices (recruitment, development, retention, and culture) predict their work

engagement?

Research Design

The research design for this study was a nonexperimental, descriptive, quantitative

approach utilizing multiple linear regression. This design was appropriate because the aim

was to examine the relationship between district succession planning practices and

employee engagement without manipulating variables or employing control groups

(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Unlike experimental designs, which involve the

manipulation of independent variables, this study focused on analyzing data to identify

patterns and relationships (Lowhorn, 2007). Survey administration generated numeric

data, facilitating both descriptive and regression analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

The aim was to explore these relationships without experimental intervention, relying on

survey data to inform the analysis.

The primary objective was to observe the patterns of succession planning in K–12

schools across the United States. Descriptive statistics facilitated examination of these

patterns and provided a foundational understanding of the data (Creswell & Creswell,

2018; Yockey, 2017). This approach was appropriate because it represented the initial step

in understanding a new topic; it allows researchers to describe variables within the proper

context (Lowhorn, 2007). Additionally, performance of t-tests determined whether

statistically significant differences existed in perceptions of succession planning among

aspiring and current administrators, providing deeper insights into descriptive data

(Schmider et al., 2010).

Efficient collection of descriptive data on succession planning practices from

multiple participants in K–12 schools was essential for this study. A qualitative design

requiring interviewing or observing succession planning in the various districts would not

have allowed for the timely and widespread data collection necessary. Online survey

research emerged as a cost-efficient and rapid approach, enabling data collection from a

geographically diverse sample via platforms like Facebook and LinkedIn (Creswell &

Creswell, 2018). Survey research facilitated the distribution of the data collection

instrument to various K–12 leadership stakeholders, offering a broad view of the

phenomena that can be generalized to the larger population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;

Lowhorn, 2007).

To address the research questions, I conducted multiple linear regression analysis.

This method facilitated examination of the relationship between scores on succession

planning components and engagement scores for current and aspiring administrators, as

measured by SAELES. Multiple linear regression was useful for its ability to assess the

impact of multiple independent variables on a single dependent variable, providing

insights into how variations in succession planning may influence employee engagement

levels (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Yockey, 2017).

Following data collection, I conducted a comprehensive analysis, including

descriptive statics and t-tests, to explore patterns and differences in succession planning

perceptions. Multiple linear regression allowed assessment of the extent to which

succession planning practices (identification, development, retention, and culture) within

K–12 schools predicted employee engagement. The aim was to determine whether these

practices served as statically significant predictors of engagement.

Research Variables

The dependent variable in this study was work engagement, as measured by the

UWES-17. The independent variables or predictors were the stakeholders’ perceptions of

the four components of quality succession planning: identification, development,

retention, and culture, as measured by a survey designed by Parfitt (2017).

Limitations and Future Implications

Results from this study hold the potential to contribute to the practice of district

succession planning and to determine its relationship to the work engagement of both

aspiring administrators and those already in administrative roles. However, it is crucial to

recognize some limitations that arose during this investigation.

First, it is essential to recognize the inherent limitations of using multiple linear

regression for the data analysis. One primary challenge is the absence of a manipulated

variable, which makes it difficult to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between

district succession planning and work engagement. Multiple linear regression is

correlational in nature, meaning it can identify associations and patterns, but cannot

confirm causation. Another inherent limitation is the possibility that other variables

outside the scope of the research may influence the relationship between succession

planning and work engagement, potentially confounding the results. Furthermore, it is

worth noting that multiple regression analysis reflects only linear relationships between

the variables and may not illuminate more intricate, nonlinear relationships that may exist

(Shaughnessy et al., 2000).

Additionally, this study did not delve into the depth of participants’ knowledge of

succession practices versus the practical implementation of these practices. This gap raises

questions about the degree to which participants’ perceptions aligned with the actual

district succession planning processes in place. A more in-depth examination of this

alignment or potential misalignment could yield valuable insights into the ways

perception and reality intersect in the context of succession planning. Consequently, future

researchers should consider addressing this dynamic to provide a more holistic

perspective on the subject.

Another limitation derived from the use of a web survey as the instrument of data

collection. Applicants may potentially be less transparent on surveys than in interviews

(de Leeuw et al., 2008). However, according to ethical survey standards, I assured

participants that their information would be confidential and private (de Leeuw et al.,

2008) in hope of encouraging complete honesty. Utilizing a web survey also increased

participants’ access to the survey, which increased the response rate as well as the scope of

reach to include potential respondents from all over the United States (de Leeuw et al.,

2008). However, because I used a convenience sampling method, the sample may be

biased and results not generalizable because I could not access a truly random sample of

the population (Creswell, 2014). Also, the participants in this study self-identified as

leaders, a designation which may not have aligned with how they their districts would

have identified them.

Another critical limitation is the measurement of quality succession planning in

this study. The issue revolves around the Perceptions of Succession Planning Survey

created by Parfitt (2017), who developed this instrument in response to a lack of available

tools for assessing succession planning practices in the education sector. Given its limited

use, there is a need for further research to validate its accuracy in assessing succession

planning.

As I was required to use the survey with fidelity and could not make

modifications, any limitations of the instrument directly affected the study’s results.

Consequently, if the survey did not effectively measure the succession planning practices

employed by the district, it may not accurately reflect the actual succession plan

implemented. This limitation highlights a broader gap in research tools for assessing

succession planning, underscoring the need for more comprehensive and validated

instruments in this field.

Participants

The participants for this study were members of Facebook and LinkedIn who

selfidentified as current and aspiring school administrators working in K–12 school

districts in the United States. Using a convenience sampling approach, I posted an

invitation to prospective participants on the social media sites LinkedIn and Facebook. I

also posted the survey on the pages of special interest groups on Facebook called

PhinisheD/FinishEdD (23,000+members) and School Principals, Administrators, and

Counselors Networking Group (7,000+ members) pages and on a LinkedIn group

Principals, School Directors, Deans, and Educational Leaders (81,000+ members).

The Facebook groups had more than 28,400 members. The sampling frame fit the

population because all participating members in the group classified themselves as

educational leaders to meet the criteria for entry into the Facebook group. All members

must request membership approval from the group administrator, agree to follow the rules

of the group, and self-identify as a current or aspiring school leader. This sampling frame

allowed for consideration across many school districts across the United States.

The fit of the sampling frame to the population could have been affected by

several possible differences between individuals who participate in social media and those

who choose not to participate (Lehdonvirta et al., 2020). Orchard et al. (2014) used

opportunity sampling to conduct a study in which college students (N = 244) completed a

Social Networking and Personality Survey to identify several personality traits associated

with frequent social networking usage. While their findings may no longer represent

current trends, Orchard et al. (2014) found that individuals who joined social networking

sites were likely to exhibit extroverted tendencies or a desire to form new connections or

opportunities to socialize. Additionally, individuals who were sociotropic joined social

networking platforms with the intention of increasing their social capital and conforming

to social trends (Orchard et al., 2014). These findings imply that by extension, aspiring

and current administrators who do not use social media sites may be more introverted or

feel less pressure to conform socially.

More specifically, demographic characteristics of people who use LinkedIn may

differ from those who use Facebook. According to Greenwood et al. (2016), only 29% of

online users use LinkedIn, and 78% use Facebook. Of those who use LinkedIn, 45% make

$75,000 or more per year (Greenwood et al., 2016). Professionals who make less money

do not use LinkedIn as often. The advantage of using LinkedIn to survey urban

administrators was that more professionals in urban areas (68%) use social media than

those in rural areas (58%; Smith & Anderson, 2018). Further, no notable differences were

evident between professionals’ races and their use of social media (Perrin, 2015).

However, Lehdonvirta et al. (2020) found that demographic disparities were evident in the

frequency and active participation of people in online services. The researchers also

acknowledged that respondents to their surveys chose to participate on a self-selecting

basis, depending on their interest in the subject matter, and these conditions may have

limited the representation of a national sample.

A power analysis using G*Power 3 determined the target number of participants

for my study (Faul et al., 2007). The power analysis determined that a multiple linear

regression with four predictors (the three components of succession planning:

identification, development, retention, and culture) had a medium effect size (f2 = 0.15), a

power of .80, and a significance level of .05 (Lomax & Hahs-Vaugh, 2012). The results of

the power analysis showed that the target sample size for analysis was 89 participants.

The selection criteria for this study focused on aspiring and current administrators

in K–12 schools. This demographic was ideal to examine the influence of succession

planning on work engagement of leadership stakeholders. Gathering data from educators

who had not participated in succession planning or who did not aspire to become

administrators would not have been relevant in evaluating the impact of the school

district’s current succession planning process on work engagement of current and aspiring

school leaders.

Aspiring and current administrators were especially pertinent to this study because

they were likely to have had current or recent experiences with district succession

planning practices. Their professional journey often involves advancement from teaching

roles to assistant principal positions, and if desired, on to a principalship or even district

leadership positions. Therefore, I specifically invited participants who identified as

aspiring or current administrators to ensure the study captured their relevant and firsthand

experiences with succession planning.

Instrument

Participants completed the Succession Alignment and Educational Leadership

Engagement Survey (SAELES) to investigate the relationship between how leadership

stakeholders perceive their district’s succession planning practices and its effect on their

work engagement scores. Moreover, the study included an analysis of existing succession

planning practices currently implemented in K–12 districts. Therefore, the survey

contained two distinct instruments. Parfitt’s (2017) PSPS gathered data on current and

aspiring leaders’ perceptions of their schools’ succession plan, and the UWES-17

(Schaufeli et al., 2006) measured the engagement levels of both current and aspiring

administrators.

Before the data collection process began, I evaluated the survey questions to

ensure alignment with the two research questions. Then, I combined both surveys

(UWES-17 and Parfitt’s PSPS) into a unified survey, the SAELES, with consent from the

authors, and then input that instrument into the Qualtrics platform. The consolidated

survey had two sections: (a) employee engagement, employing a 7-point rating scale and

(b) succession planning practices, utilizing a 5-point rating scale. The latter section

included subsections addressing demographics, identification of talent, leadership

development, and employee retention.

Both Sections 1 and 2 utilized a rating scale, and I treated the responses as interval

data. This decision aligned with the practice of treating ordinal data from surveys with

five or more response points as interval data, consistent with the research of previous

scholars (Camparo & Camparo, 2013; Norman, 2010; Spector, 1980). Demographic data

in Section 2 included both nominal and ordinal data.The nominal data included gender,

administrative status, and school level, and the ordinal data included age ranges and years

of experience. I administered the survey through a web link hosted on the Qualtrics

platform. This method ensured an efficient and user-friendly approach to data collection.

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-17 (UWES-17)

The first instrument included in the SAELES was the UWES-17, designed to

measure work engagement. The original version of the UWES-17 contains 24 questions; it

also has abridged 9- and 15-question versions (Schaufeli et al., 2006). I used the shortened

17-item survey, UWES-17 with three subscales (vigor, dedication, and absorption) for this

study. The three subscales contained six, five, and six questions, respectively. Previous

researchers have examined work engagement as both a onedimensional and a three-

dimensional construct (Seppala et al., 2009).

In this study, I used the one-dimensional construct and reported participants’

composite scores from the 17 items as a total score. The instrument scores work

engagement on a 7-point frequency scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). Higher

scores on the UWES-17 indicate a greater level of work engagement. The UWES-17 is

available in 13 different languages (Schaufeli et al., 2006) and is available for use by the

public, provided researchers share the data with the primary author.

UWES-17 Reliability

Previous researchers have established the reliability of the UWES-17 using

Cronbach’s alpha. Schaufeli et al. (2006) conducted a study to evaluate the instrument’s

psychometric properties across 10 countries (N = 14,521) including Australia, Belgium,

Canada, Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain.

Participants held various occupations in fields such as social work, blue-collar, health

care, white-collar (profit and not for profit), education, law enforcement, and

management. Although the authors did not report the individual total alpha scores across

the countries, they did report that the total alpha estimates ranged from .85 to .92 across

the international samples, which indicated a high internal consistency for the UWES-17

for the countries in this study.

De Bruin et al. (2013) examined 2,429 employees in a South African information

and communication technology (ICT) company to assess the optimal interpretation of

work engagement measured by UWES-17. Their findings supported a single summative

score interpretation. A strong Cronbach alpha coefficient of .95 for the combined score

supported their conclusions. Similarly, Simbula et al. (2013) conducted a study which

drew data from surveys completed by 488 elementary, lower secondary, and upper

secondary school teachers in Italy (response rate 68%). The objective of the study was to

evaluate the factor validity and reliability of the UWES-17 among schoolteachers. Their

results concurred with those of De Bruin et al. (2013), indicating that the total Cronbach’s

alpha for the UWES-17 of .93 was a better fit than the three-factor structure.

Furthermore, Muilenburg-Trevino (2009) conducted quantitative study in the

United States with employees from nonprofit organizations (N= 227) in Oklahoma. The

study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the UWES-17 scale. The findings

indicated that the total Cronbach alpha for the UWES-17 was .93, which was slightly

lower than the 15-question scale at .94; however, I used the 17–question scale for this

study due to its accessibility. Accordingly, the small sample size and homogenous

respondents require a cautious interpretation of results (Muilenburg-Trevino, 2009).

UWES-17 Validity

Previous researchers have established the validity of the UWES-17 (Nerstad et al.,

2010; Schaufeli et al., 2006; Seppala et al., 2009). Using in-depth analysis of surveys

embedded with UWES-17 questions, Schaufeli et al. (2006) constructed a database of 27

studies to report on UWES-17 validity in 10 different countries (Australia, Belgium,

Canada, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain).

The sample (N = 14,521) included nine different occupations, including teaching and

management occupations, which relate to the current study. The researchers distributed

the surveys at different times of the year and presented the questions in different orders in

the different iterations of administration.

Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Schaufeli et al. (2006) found that the

one-factor model (M1) and the three-factor model (M2) of the UWES-17 met the

acceptable minimum and maximum requirements. For example, the goodness of fit index

(GFI) for the M1 factor was .89, and the M2 was .95. The CFA tests whether the questions

asked and data collected on a study survey are consistent with the construct the researcher

is measuring.

Nerstad et al. (2010) also conducted a study to investigate the validity and

reliability of the UWES-17. This study, however, tested the 17-item form of the UWES

and the short form, which consists of nine of the 17 items. They used 10 different

occupation groups (N = 1,266) in Norway, including 271 professionals in the education

field. Of the 2,284 participants who received the survey, 1,349 returned surveys within a

6-month period for a response rate of 55.4%. The researchers did not include surveys

missing 25% or more of the responses. The results from the CFA indicated that the models

provided a good fit to support the three-dimensional representation of a work engagement

model, reaching .90 on the comparative fit index.

Previously, Seppala et al. (2009) investigated the 17- and 9-item versions of the

UWES with similar results. Utilizing data from five previous studies (N = 9,404) and a

confirmatory factor analysis, researchers found that the UWES does measure work

engagement with the three correlated factors: vigor, dedication, and absorption. The

goodness-of-fit chi square test showed correlations between the factors of engagement

that ranged from .90 to .96. The high correlations between the three factors (from .83

to .97) indicated that work engagement can be considered as a whole, or a three-factor

construct, depending on the purpose of a study. If the purpose is to study work

engagement in general, as in the current study, then one-dimensional variables can be

used. The researchers’ meta-analysis also found greater construct validity of the original

17-question UWES due to Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .82 to .89, which was higher

than the .65 to .84 range of the short 9-question version (Seppala et al., 2009).

Both above-mentioned studies gauged employee engagement using the UWES-17.

Participants in both studies were managers or educators, like the participants in this study.

The original version of the instrument is also economical for researchers because it is free

for noncommercial research and has been translated into 13 languages (Schaufeli et al.,

2006).

Perceptions of Succession Planning Survey (PSPS)

To gauge aspiring and current administrators’ perceptions of succession planning

practices, participants in this study answered survey questions developed by Parfitt

(2017). Participants first responded to questions regarding demographic characteristics.

Data collected included respondents’ administrative status, age, gender, school level, and

years of experience, providing essential information about their roles within their districts.

These data played a crucial role in contextualizing the impact of succession planning on

the employee engagement of aspiring and current administrators. The participants

responded to a 5-point frequency response scale (ranging from never to always) based on

the conceptual framework of succession planning Parfitt developed for his dissertation.

Parfitt (2017) established a framework for quality succession planning that

includes four essential components: identification (12 questions), development (14

questions), retention (4 questions), and organizational culture (7 questions). The survey

specifically measured and reported results for each of these components separately at the

district level, focusing on practices related to recruitment, leadership development,

retention, and organizational culture. This approach allowed for a detailed analysis of the

instrument Parfitt (2017) initially developed for his dissertation, which was later

published in the International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership Review.

Validity

To assess the validity of his survey instrument, Parfitt (2107) engaged an expert

panel of 11 individuals, composed of former and current administrators, leadership

candidates, and members of his dissertation committee. He employed Lawshe’s (1975)

content validity ratio (CVR) to evaluate the validity of each individual survey item.

Rather than calculating the content validity index (CVI) for each scale, Parfitt (2017)

computed the mean of the CVRs for all survey questions to determine the overall CVI,

which was .91. According to Gilbert and Prion (2016), a CVI of .80 or higher

demonstrates an instrument’s validity and reliability.

Reliability

Parfitt (2017) did not report Cronbach’s alpha or any evidence for the reliability of

the survey. Thus, before the survey was distributed, I tested the reliability of the survey.

Reliability and Validity of SAELES

For this study, a pilot study was the means of assessing the functionality of the

online communication and administration method and to verify the reliability of the

SAELES (de Leeuw et al., 2008), which contained the UWES-17, PSPS, and

demographic questions. An expert panel of 48 current school administrators, teachers, and

cohort members from the Graduate School of Education and Human Development

(GSEHD) participated in the pilot study (de Leeuw et al., 2008). Subsequently, a

fourmember expert panel assessed the content validity of the instrument, leading to survey

modifications.

The pilot study took several weeks beyond its initially planned two-week

timeframe to complete. Originally, participants had one week to take the survey, and data

analysis would take place during the second week. However, two setbacks occurred: a

lack of participation from the initial sample population and incomplete survey responses.

The purpose of the pilot study was to modify the descriptive questions and gain a better

understanding of the validity of the questions in the survey. After consulting with Parfitt,

the author of the PSPS, and according to his request, I agreed not to alter questions about

the four components of succession planning practices and not to omit any categories. I

also agreed not to alter the UWES-17, per the author’s request, to ensure the results can be

compared to those from previous researchers who have used the instrument.

The original goal for the pilot sample was 30 participants. Substantial attrition

took place in the pilot survey; of 72 initial respondents, only 48 completed the survey.

Among those who returned the survey, instances of item nonresponse required me to

address the missing data through mean-based data imputation.

The initial sample population were fellow students from GSEHD Cohort 20 (n =

9) and colleagues from a school district, which included the district’s Instructional

Technology Resource Teacher team (n = 25), Elementary School A’s instructional team (n

= 9), and Elementary School B’s instructional team (n = 18), for a total of 61 potential

participants. These teams were appropriate participants because of their experience as

teacher leaders and current roles as school administrators.

I did not expect the lack of interest from those individuals aspiring to become

administrators. Initially, 22 total people participated in the survey within the first week,

resulting in only 10 completed surveys. I issued a reminder to encourage additional

participation. After 14 days, the total number of participants increased; 35 people took the

survey, but only 20 surveys were complete. Subsequently, I sent another email reminder to

solicit more participants. Seeking additional support, I also reached out to my dissertation

chair who offered to share the email with fellow doctoral students in the GSEHD program

for their support. During the following week, these efforts successfully resulted in

collecting enough surveys to meet the participant goal for the pilot study.

The second challenge was that several questions (Questions D2, D3, & D4) had

less than a 30% response rate. Although the participants who chose not to answer previous

questions had marked N/A, they chose not to answer these questions at all. When brought

to the attention of the expert panel, they noticed that these questions specifically asked

about executive leadership and succession planning. Social desirability was one rationale

given; the panel thought that perhaps participants did not want their districts to be

perceived negatively. To address social desirability bias, the researcher explained to the

participants the purpose of the research on succession planning and attempted to assure

participants that their responses to the survey would be anonymous.

Another possible explanation was that the questions specifically mentioned the

succession plan, and if the participant did not have direct knowledge of the succession

plan, they may have not felt compelled to answer. Question C6 alluded to the fact that

they are part of the succession planning process where they can observe the succession

planning and determine if executives had input. C1 was a subjective question, and some

experts thought that people would be hesitant to say how someone else may feel or

perceive an experience.

Overall, however, the panel agreed that the questions measured what they asked.

Although I had agreed to restrictions related to modifying specific questions of the

succession planning and engagement questions, I made post-pilot modifications based on

the feedback from the four-person expert panel. I eliminated question Q4, because the

panel determined that it was not needed. This question inquired about participants’ tenure

as an administrator, which the panel considered redundant with Question A-4, which

asked about their years of experience in the role. I also added the option “Unsure/NA”

after receiving feedback from the panel that some participants found “NA” was not quite

the right answer choice.

Regarding the survey’s online functionality, the panel appreciated the one scroll

feature vs. multiple clicks to complete the survey items. However, they noted the need to

scroll up to view the scale. To address this, I separated the questions by category to ensure

each section fell on a separate page. Adding multiple pages allowed participants to better

view the visual progress/completion bar or indication of completion percentage.

During the review of each question, the panel and I made efforts to ensure that

there were no typos and all questions were clear and formatted correctly. This review led

to minor edits, including the identification and correction of an extra question/item

intended to be the last section header. Following the panel’s suggestions, I added item

numbers. The panel found the survey design was accessible and formatted correctly for

the computer, mobile devices, and browsers. The link was easily accessible and directed

participants straight to the survey when they clicked, as intended.

I assessed the reliability of the SAELES through the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha

test of internal consistency reliability. This test gauged the reliability of the survey using

the components of succession planning–recruitment, leadership development, retention,

and culture–and work engagement as the subscales (Cronbach, 1951). Specifically, the

Cronbach’s alpha for the engagement subscale was .94 for 17 items, for identification was

.95 for 12 items, for development was .96 for 13 items, for retention was .86 for 4 items,

and for culture was .89 for 7 items (Table 1). The means of the individual items ranged

from 2.04 to 5.58, with a mean on the total scale of 193.27 (SD = 31.074). I used

correlations to examine the relationships among employee engagement and succession

planning practice questions. Before launching the survey, I completed a final review of all

elements and changes to ensure that the changes had not introduced new issues.

Table 1

Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for Pilot Study Variables (N = 48)

Variable n Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha

Engagement 48 17 .94

Identification 28 12 .95

Development 25 13 .96

Retention 43 4 .86

Culture 24 7 .89

Note: Need n = or > 30 to get stable values.

Data Collection Procedures

Developing clear, detailed protocols to collect and manage data increased the

reliability of this quantitative research and provided a roadmap for any individual who

may want to replicate this study (Pyrczak, 2017). An examination of how aspiring and

current administrators’ perceptions of K–12 district succession planning programs impact

their work engagement required data from both the PSPS (Parfitt, 2017) and the UWES-

17 (Schaufeli et al., 2006). This compilation collectively covered employee demographics,

employee engagement, and district succession planning efforts. This section provides a

detailed account of the data collection process for this study.

The data collection procedure included gathering primary data from an online

survey using the Qualtrics software. Before data collection began, I obtained permission

to conduct the study from the George Washington University Institutional Review Board

(IRB). The IRB ensures that researchers maintain the ethical treatment of human

participants. The two leading ethical concerns were informed consent and confidentiality,

and the study was ultimately determined to be in exempt status (de Leeuw et al., 2008).

Two components satisfied informed consent. The first component was the letter

inviting administrators to participate in the study and providing information on the

potential benefits and risks of completing the survey. The second component was the

screen that required respondents to acknowledge their informed consent to participate in

the survey by clicking to agree to participate. I delineated how I would protect

participants’ confidentiality by outlining the steps I would take to store data and ensuring

no identifying information would be collected.

The next step in the data collection process involved obtaining permission from

the administrators of the Facebook and LinkedIn groups to post the survey on their

respective group pages. Simultaneously, I communicated a timeline to all group managers

indicating when I would share the invitation and encouraging current and aspiring

educational leaders to participate in the research study (Castelli et al., 2013).

Once I received approval, I posted invitations on the Facebook group pages for School

Principals, Administrators, Counselors, and Networking and Phinished/FinishedED, as

well on the LinkedIn page for Principals, School Directors, Deans & Educational Leaders.

Approximately 107,000 members across these three groups had the ability to opt in and

participate in the survey. The materials included a brief discussion of the study, a

Qualtrics link, and an invitation to aspiring and current administrators in public K–12

schools to participate in a study focused on leadership succession. The invitation also

informed potential participants that their involvement in the study was both voluntary and

anonymous (de Leeuw et al., 2008).

To ensure that school leaders had enough time to participate, I attempted to

distribute the surveys during periods when their workload was less demanding. For this

reason, I posted the first invitation to participate on the LinkedIn group, along with the

two other Facebook groups in October. After carefully monitoring and assessing the

survey activity, I reposted the invitations on the Facebook and LinkedIn pages (Anseel et

al., 2010; Orr, 2011). Additionally, I reposted the survey link on Facebook group sites

once a week until I had issued three reminders to engage those members who had yet to

respond (de Leeuw et al., 2008).

Preliminary Data Handling

Qualtrics was the software used to collect the survey data. Qualtrics includes

programming to secure data and safeguard the privacy and security of confidential data.

To provide security for their users, the inventors of Qualtrics have embedded several

security infrastructure practices such as authentication, individual passwords scrutinized

for security, and data encryption. The URL provided to the participants allowed them to

access the survey; they did not have access to the results. I was the only person who had

access to the results. Data were not identified with any individual participants. The next

step was to import the data to Excel for cleaning. Then, I transferred the cleaned data from

an Excel spread sheet to the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) for

descriptive analysis.

I received the research data from Qualtrics and stored them in an Excel spreadsheet

on a password-protected computer with face recognition safeguards to protect the

participants’ information. I assessed the confidentiality of data to ensure that no data

contained direct identifiers (de Leeuw et al., 2008). At the conclusion of the study, I stored

all survey responses collected throughout the study on a hard drive dedicated for this

study’s research; this hard drive is locked securely in a cabinet away from public access

and will be maintained there for 5 years (de Leeuw et al., 2008).

Data Analysis

Response Rate

Previous researchers reported varying response rates for online data collection.

According to Anseel et al. (2010), their study of managers and top managers achieved

response rates of 47.1% and 37%, respectively. Seppala et al. (2009) reported response

rates of 49% for managers and 52% for educators, occurring in the same study period. In

contrast, a more recent study by Park and Johnson (2019), which focused on the job

satisfaction, work engagement, and turnover intentions of career and technical educators

in the United States, yielded a response rate of only 27.8% (n = 250) using the UWES-17

distributed on Qualtrics.

If I had conducted this study outside of social media, the anticipated response rate

would have been around 35% or somewhere in between the above-mentioned response

rates. Orr (2011) surveyed a similar population of educators and achieved a response rate

of 42%, consistent with Anseel et al.’s (2010) findings. Findings from the studies by

Anseel et al. (2010) and Orr (2011) are somewhat dated and may not reflect the current

population’s response rates.

Nevertheless, because I distributed this survey on Facebook and LinkedIn, it is

crucial to acknowledge that surveys distributed via social media are nonprobability based

(Lehdonvirta et al., 2020; Zindel, 2023). Therefore, the composition of the target group on

social media platforms is unknown. Consequently, there is a lack of information about

those who actively choose not to participate in the survey, and an accurate calculation of

response rate is not feasible (Lehdonvirta et al., 2020; Zindel, 2023).

To increase the response rate for the study’s population, I emphasized my

affiliation with The George Washington University and explained that the work would

benefit the study of aspiring and current administrator engagement in K–12 education.

Following the advice of Castelli et al. (2013), I became a member of the relevant

Facebook and LinkedIn groups to introduce their topics to potential participants. I

concentrated recruitment efforts within the groups and posted multiple follow-up study

invitations to serve as reminders.

I addressed concerns that might decrease the response rate, such as time

constraints and anonymity, with specific measures. I designed the survey to be

straightforward and accessible, and distribution occurred during less busy time periods for

schools. The online survey method ensured that participants could complete the survey at

their convenience and not have to worry about mailing the survey back. Additionally, I

assured participants in writing that no identifying details would be collected, and their

responses would be kept confidential (Lomax & Hahs-Vaugh, 2012).

However, as stated previously, the social media sampling procedure makes it challenging

to determine the precise response rate of the survey.

Analysis

Once data collection for the survey concluded, I analyzed the data using SPSS.

The first step involved verifying data accuracy and checking for missing values.

Computing frequencies and percentages for each variable ensured that all responses fell

within the expected ranges. Following the recommendations of Hair et al. (2018), I

excluded surveys with missing values for more than 50% of the questions from the

analysis; 47 of the 142 total responses had to be excluded. I assessed the reliability of the

UWES-17 and succession planning components in the final sample using Cronbach’s

alpha, allowing comparison with reliability statistics from previous studies.

I calculated total work engagement (UWES-17) scores and scores for each

component of the succession planning instrument (identification, development, retention,

and culture) according to the instrument authors’ guidelines. I computed descriptive

statistics for these scores and each demographic variable. Means and standard deviations

reflected information about continuous variables, and frequencies and percentages were

pertinent for categorical variables.

To address RQ1, “How do school administrators and stakeholders perceive the

extent to which succession planning practices are employed in their K–12 district?”, I

computed descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations for each

component of succession planning (identification, development, retention, and culture).

Next, I conducted an analysis of group comparisons using nondirectional independent

ttests to determine if statistically significant differences existed in perceptions of

succession planning practices and missing responses between aspiring and current

administrators. This process involved defining the null and alterative hypotheses and

assessing the assumptions of independence of observations, normality, and equality of

variances before performing the test.

The study design, which avoided paired or overlapping data between groups,

satisfied the condition of independence. I tested normality via visual examination of the

skewness and kurtosis and evaluated equality of variances by calculating Levene’s test.

After confirming that assumptions had been met, I conducted t-tests by examining the

tvalue, degrees of freedom, and the p-value; p-values less than the .05 lead to the rejection

of the null hypothesis, indicating a statistically significant difference between groups.

For RQ2, “How does their perception of the frequency of these succession

planning practices (recruitment, development, retention, and culture) predict their work

engagement?”, I conducted a multiple linear regression analysis. This analysis is

appropriate for examining relationships between multiple independent variables and a

single continuous dependent variable (Field, 2013). The independent variables included

scores for identification, development, retention, and culture. The dependent variable was

the total UWES-17 score.

I entered all independent variables into the regression model simultaneously. An F-

test assessed whether the components of succession planning collectively predicted work

engagement. R-squared determined the proportion of variance in work engagement

explained by succession planning components. If the F-test indicated significance at

the .05 level, I evaluated the significance of individual regression coefficients to

determine the relationship between each component of succession planning and work

engagement.

Standardized coefficients determined the strength and direction of these relationships.

Before interpreting the regression results, I tested the assumptions of normality,

homoscedasticity, absence of multicollinearity, and absence of outliers. Visual

examination of a Q-Q scatterplot confirmed normality. I tested homoscedasticity using a

scatterplot of residuals and fitted values. Finally, I evaluated multicollinearity by

calculating variance inflation factors and examined outliers by calculating studentized

residuals.

Ethical Guidelines

In compliance with ethical guidelines, before they saw the survey, participants

viewed materials including an implied “Informed Consent” form with a brief description

of the study’s purpose, survey instructions, introduction of the researcher, and contact

information for the George Washington University IRB. Before the survey began,

potential candidates answered three screening questions to access the survey. If the

participant answered “no” to any one of the three items, the participant was thanked and

exited from the survey. The first question required the leadership stakeholder to indicate

informed consent. The second question inquired if they were currently employed in a K–

12 school in the United States. The third question asked potential participants if they were

a current administrator or aspired to become an administrator. Once participants

completed the survey and exited the survey, another survey branch popped up and thanked

them for their completion of the survey.

Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to summarize the methodological approach

employed in this study. At least 107,000 administrators were invited to participate in this

nonexperimental, descriptive, quantitative study utilizing multiple linear regression. Each

participant answered questions pertaining to their current level of work engagement and

their perceptions of succession planning in their districts to assess the relationship

between the two variables. The methodology chosen for this study was appropriate for

determining whether a relationship existed between succession planning and the work

engagement of aspiring and current administrators in K–12 schools.

The following two chapters present the findings of the data analysis. Chapter 4

provides a description of the participants and an examination of the findings that emerged

from the quantitative analysis of the data. Chapter 5 contains discussion of how the results

of data analysis depict the relationship between aspiring and current administrators’

perceptions of succession planning perceptions and their work engagement.

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

Existing research supports the assertion that succession planning in businesses and

higher educational institutions positively affects employee engagement (Abdullahi et al.,

2022; Alias et al., 2014). However, such a relationship has yet to be studied in the context

of the education sector, which must retain highly qualified and engaged leaders. This

nonexperimental, descriptive, and quantitative study employed multiple linear regression

to investigate the relationship between district succession planning practices and work

engagement. This study involved measuring succession planning practices using the PSPS

and assessing work engagement levels among current and aspiring administrators with the

UWES-17.

Higher scores on the PSPS indicate greater frequency of a particular succession

planning practice or in the case of UWES-17, higher levels of engagement. The following

research questions shaped this study: “To what extent do current and aspiring school

administrators perceive the existence of succession planning practices implemented in

their K–12 district?” and “How does their perception of the frequency of these succession

planning practices (recruitment, development, retention, and culture) predict their work

engagement?” The hypothesis for the study was “There is a statistically significant

relationship between K–12 district succession planning practices and their staff’s work

engagement.” The sections of this chapter present descriptions of the population and

sample, descriptive statistics, the findings for each research question, and a summary of

results.

Population and Sample

The population for this study was all current and aspiring administrators working

in K–12 educational institutions in the United States. The educational leadership social

media groups on Facebook and LinkedIn, which consisted of over 107,000 members who

self-identified as current or aspiring administrators, comprised the sampling frame for this

study. A power analysis, performed using the G*Power 3 sample size calculator,

determined a minimum sample size of 89 participants for the four predictors to be

sufficient for statistically valid results (Faul et al., 2007).

Following recruitment through social media invitations, participants returned a

total of 142 Succession Alignment and Educational Leadership Engagement Survey

(SAELES) surveys. Forty-six respondents did not answer any of the questions on the

engagement and succession planning instruments; I excluded these surveys from further

analysis. I examined the remaining responses for missing data on the engagement and

succession planning questions. One respondent was missing data for more than 50% of

the questions; this respondent was excluded from further analysis as recommended by

Hair et al. (2018).

A total of 95 responses with at least 50% of the total questions answered were

included in the analysis. I performed Little’s test on the remaining responses to determine

if data were missing completely at random. The test was not significant, χ2(2674) =

2768.51, p = .099, indicating that the observed pattern of missing values was not

significantly different from a completely random pattern. Because the data could be

considered missing completely at random, missing values were imputed using

regressionbased imputation, according to the recommendations of Hair et al. (2018).

Descriptive Statistics

The demographic information collected from the school leaders who participated

included age, gender, school level, current position, and years of experience. Table 2

displays the frequencies and percentages for the demographic characteristics. For this

sample, the most common age group was 45-54 years (f = 34, 35.8%) and the majority of

participants were women (f = 77, 81.1%). The most frequent school levels served by

participants were elementary (f = 24, 25.3%) and central office/supervisor (f = 24,

25.3%). Additionally, the largest proportion of participants identified as aspiring leaders (f

= 42, 44.2%), with approximately one-third reporting 0-2 years of experience as an

administrator (n = 31, 32.6%).

Research Questions

The two research questions answered by the present study were as follows:

RQ1. To what extent do current and aspiring school administrators perceive the

existence of succession planning practices implemented in their K–12 district?

RQ2. How does their perception of the frequency of these succession planning

practices (recruitment, development, retention, and culture) predict their work

engagement?

Table 2

Sample Demographic Characteristics (N = 95)

Variable Frequency Percentage

Age 25-34

14 14.7

35-44 31 32.6

45-54 34 35.8

55-64 13 13.7

65 or older 2 2.1

Other 1 1.1

Gender

Female

81.1

Male 15 15.8

Other 1 1.1

Missing 2 2.1

School level K-8

6.3

Elementary 24 25.3

Middle 12 12.6

High school 16 16.8

Central Office/Supervisor 24 25.3

Other 13 13.7

Position

Aspiring Leader

44.2

Assistant Principal 9 9.5

Principal 16 16.8

Principal Supervisor 1 1.1

Other 27 28.4

Years of experience as administrator 0-2

32.6

3-5 17 17.9

6-10 13 13.7

11-20 14 14.7

21 or more 3 3.2

Other 1 1.1

Missing or N/A 16 16.8

Preliminary Analysis

Before performing the analyses to answer the research questions, I computed

scores for the study variables and calculated preliminary descriptive and bivariate

statistics. The average of the responses to the UWES-17 items for each participant

resulted in a total score for work engagement. The scores had a possible spread of 0 to 6. I

computed scores for the subscales of succession planning practices (identification,

development, retention, and culture) by figuring the average of the responses to the

respective items for each participant. These scores had a possible spread of 1 to 5.

I also calculated Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients and bivariate Pearson

correlations for the study variables (see Tables 3 and 4). The Cronbach’s alpha values

ranged from .85 to .96, demonstrating acceptable reliability across the sample.

Specifically, the alpha values were .92 for the 17-item engagement subscale, .95 for the

12-item identification subscale, .96 for the 13-item development subscale, .85 for the

4item retention subscale, and .91 for the 7-item culture subscale (Table 3).

Compared to the pilot phase, when the engagement subscale had an alpha of .94

and the culture subscale an alpha of .89, these values showed a slight decrease in

engagement and an increase in cultural reliability. Correlations allowed exploration of the

relationships among employee engagement and succession planning practices. All

subscales of succession planning practices were significantly positively correlated with

each other. Additionally, work engagement was significantly positively correlated with

identification (r = .30, p = .003) and development (r = .26, p = .011).

Table 3

Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for Study Variables (N = 95)

Variable f Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha

Engagement 92 17 .92

Identification 60 12 .95

Development 55 13 .96

Retention 87 4 .85

Culture 50 7 .91

Table 4

Pearson Correlations for Study Variable

s (N = 95)

Variable Engagement Identification

Development

Retention Culture

Engagement -

Identification .30** -

Development .26* .80** -

Retention .17 .72** .67** -

Culture .18 .79** .77** .79** -

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Findings

Research Question 1

Descriptive statistical analyses determined the answer to RQ1, “To what extent do

current and aspiring school administrators perceive the existence of succession planning

practices implemented in their K–12 district?”. To assess if there were any statistically

significant differences between the two groups, I conducted t-tests to compare their mean

scores. Participants responded to survey questions with options ranging from (a) never,

(b) rarely, (c) sometimes, (d) frequently, to (e) always. Each question also included an

option for not applicable, which was scored as a missing value (Hair et al., 2018).

Descriptive statistics, including means, frequencies, standard deviations, and

ranges, supported analysis of the data after imputing missing values. Tables 5 and 6

display the descriptive statistics for the study variables from the succession planning

section of the SAELES survey. The mean scores suggested varying levels of

implementation. On average, participants perceived that identification practices were

integrated either sometimes or frequently, with a mean score of 3.08 (SD = 0.91).

Respondents perceived development practices as being integrated rarely or sometimes,

with a mean development score of 2.81 (SD = 0.96). Retention practices received a mean

score of 3.10 (SD = 0.83), suggesting participants perceived them as being implemented

sometimes or frequently. Last, the mean score for cultural practices was 3.18 (SD = 0.83),

indicating a perception of their implementation as sometimes or frequently. These results

provided insight into how aspiring and current K–12 administrators perceived succession

planning practices.

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Succession Planning Survey Items (N = 95)

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always Missing

Item f % f % f % f % f % f % M SD

I–1: The school district has a formal

succession plan in place.

16 16.8 18 18.9 17 17.9 12 12.6 13 13.7 19 20.0 2.84 1.36

I–2: Resources are devoted to develop

high–quality leadership candidates.

7 7.4 18 18.9 32 33.7 21 22.1 12 12.6 5 5.3 3.14 1.16

I–3: Assessment of candidates is based

on multiple sources, not just a

recommendation from the direct

supervisor.

3 3.2 16 16.8 28 29.5 23 24.2 14 14.7 11 11.6 3.35 1.14

I–4: Potential Candidates are

encouraged to seek leadership

development opportunities early in

their careers.

6 6.3 23 24.2 25 26.3 19 20.0 18 18.9 4 4.2 3.22 1.21

I–5: Future career aspirations are

sought from all faculty and staff

members on a routine basis.

12 12.6 26 27.4 26 27.4 17 17.9 11 11.6 3 3.2 2.88 1.22

I–6: Stellar candidates are considered

to be organization- wide assets.

7 7.4 14 14.7 30 31.6 19 20.0 16 16.8 9 9.5 3.27 1.19

I–7: The organization looks for people

with passion, courage, and integrity.

7 7.4 11 11.6 24 25.3 25 26.3 20 21.1 8 8.4 3.46 1.22

I–8: Individuals are encouraged to

take risks.

13 13.7 15 15.8 30 31.6 18 18.9 16 16.8 3 3.2 3.10 1.27

104

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Succession Planning Survey Items (N = 95) (continued)

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always Missing

Item f % f % f % f % f % f % M SD

I–9: Open–mindedness is

considered to be a desirable trait.

4 4.2 7 7.4 29 30.5 25 26.3 25 26.3 5 5.3 3.67 1.11

I–10: Newly promoted or

transferred administrators are

trustworthy, humble, and authentic.

3 3.2 15 15.8 30 31.6 29 30.5 9 9.5 9 9.5 3.30 1.01

I–11: All aspects of the succession

plan are transparent.

25 26.3 19 20.0 20 21.1 16 16.8 1 1.1 14 14.7 2.37 1.20

I–12: The succession plan is clearly

communicated to all stakeholders.

27 28.4 20 21.1 18 18.9 12 12.6 4 4.2 14 14.7 2.33 1.28

D–1: An established succession plan

is conveyed clearly to all

stakeholders.

24 25.3 26 27.4 15 15.8 13 13.7 3 3.2 14 14.7 2.32 1.19

D–2: Succession plan results are

reviewed regularly.

27 28.4 24 25.3 11 11.6 8 8.4 2 2.1 23 24.2 2.08 1.11

D–3: Constant follow–ups occur to

ensure the success of the succession

plan.

26 27.4 23 24.2 16 16.8 5 5.3 2 2.1 23 24.2 2.08 1.03

D–4: Succession plans are reviewed

based on organizational performance.

24 25.3 18 18.9 12 12.6 14 14.7 3 3.2 24 25.3 2.35 1.29

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always Missing

Item f % f % f % f % f % f % M SD

D–5: Developmental high–leverage

assignments are identified for

candidates to develop needed

20 21.1 26 27.4 14 14.7 15 15.8 5 5.3 15 15.8 2.49 1.22

105

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Succession Planning Survey Items (N = 95) (continued)

knowledge and skills

D–6: Specific assignment to high

leverage opportunities is available.

18 18.9 21 22.1 22 23.2 11 11.6 5 5.3 18 18.9 2.53 1.22

D–7: A specific person or office

coordinates development assignments.

21 22.1 7 7.4 16 16.8 21 22.1 10 10.5 20 21.1 2.89 1.45

D–8: Clear feedback is provided to

leadership candidates.

19 20.0 17 17.9 30 31.6 12 12.6 9 9.5 8 8.4 2.71 1.29

D–9: Specific skills and competencies

are identified for administrative

positions.

10 10.5 6 6.3 28 29.5 20 21.1 22 23.2 9 9.5 3.44 1.26

D–10: Participation in professional

organizations is encouraged.

7 7.4 14 14.7 26 27.4 20 21.1 21 22.1 7 7.4 3.39 1.23

D–11: Formal mentoring opportunities

are arranged.

12 12.6 19 20.0 21 22.1 18 18.9 19 20.0 6 6.3 3.15 1.32

D–12: Informal mentoring

opportunities are available.

6 6.3 12 12.6 27 28.4 23 24.2 22 23.2 5 5.3 3.48 1.21

D–13: A robust, formal leadership

development program is in place.

21 22.1 18 18.9 22 23.2 11 11.6 14 14.7 9 9.5 2.76 1.40

R–1: Rewards and recognition are

clearly given to valuable employees.

10 10.5 25 26.3 34 35.8 19 20.0 4 4.2 3 3.2 2.81 1.05

106

Table 5

(continued)

Descriptive Statistics for Succession Planning Survey Items (N = 95)

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always Missing

Item f % f % f % f % f % f % M SD

R–2: High performing employees are

encouraged to stay in the organization.

8 8.4 18 18.9 31 32.6 21 22.1 14 14.7 3 3.2 3.16 1.16

R–3: There is evidence of high

performing employees staying in the

organization.

3 3.2 17 17.9 38 40.0 25 26.3 10 10.5 2 2.1 3.24 0.98

R–4: Administrative vacancies are

filled by qualified, internal

candidates.

3 3.2 13 13.7 46 48.4 26 27.4 4 4.2 3 3.2 3.18 0.84

C–1: Executive administrators appear

to value succession planning.

16 16.8 16 16.8 24 25.3 12 12.6 3 3.2 24 25.3 2.58 1.17

C–2: Growth and improvement are

clearly high priorities of the

organization and fostered

appropriately.

9 9.5 14 14.7 27 28.4 26 27.4 15 15.8 4 4.2 3.26 1.20

C–3: A person from outside the

organization would be hired for a

position, if he or she had superior

credentials, and was the appropriate

fit.

6 6.3 14 14.7 28 29.5 27 28.4 14 14.7 6 6.3 3.33 1.13

C–4: Succession plans are made with

input of all stakeholders.

1 1.1 1 1.1 27 28.4 28 29.5 33 34.7 5 5.3 4.01 1.02

C–5: Succession plans consider the

unique organizational culture.

8 8.4 21 22.1 20 21.1 12 12.6 9 9.5 25 26.3 2.90 1.27

Descriptive Statistics for Succession Planning Survey Items (N = 95)

107

108

Table 5

(continued)

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always Missing

Item f % f % f % f % f % f % M SD

C–6: Executive administrators have

visible input into the succession-

planning process.

10 10.5 8 8.4 18 18.9 18 18.9 15 15.8 26 27.4 3.29 1.32

C–7: Executive administrators are

open and honest about challenges and

issues.

8 8.4 16 16.8 29 30.5 19 20.0 6 6.3 17 17.9 2.99 1.14

Note: M = Mean; SD=standard deviation.

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (N = 95)

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Engagement 0.00 6.00 3.99 0.71

Identification 1.00 5.00 3.08 0.91

Development 1.00 5.00 2.81 0.96

Retention 1.00 5.00 3.10 0.83

Culture 1.00 5.00 3.18 0.83

Note: The response scale for engagement ranged from 0 to 6. The response scale for

identification, development, retention, and culture ranged from 1 to 5.

Question D-14, Who is involved in selecting leadership candidates? was omitted

from the table because the answer choices were (a) principal, (b) central-office

administrator, (c) colleague, (d) university professor, and (e) other, and the participants

were able to select multiple answers. Notably, 72.7% (f = 72) of respondents listed

central-office administrators and principals as involved in the selection process. In

contrast, respondents scored the remaining categories of individuals at a lower

percentage, with colleagues accounting for 17.2% (f = 17), university faculty at 6.1% (f =

6), and other sources at 13.1% (f = 13).

Participants also reported who was involved in selecting leadership candidates.

Frequencies and percentages of participants’ answers to this question appear in Table 7.

Most participants indicated that the central office (f = 50, 52.6%) and principal (f = 68,

71.6%) were involved in selecting leadership candidates.

Table 7

Answers to Who is Involved in Selecting Leadership Candidates? (N = 95)

Answer Frequency Percentage

Principal 50 52.6

104

Central Office 68 71.6

University Faculty 3 3.2

Colleague 8 8.4

Other 19 20.0

None selected 4 4.2

Note: Percentages do not total 100% because participants could select more than one.

answer.

In an effort to gain deeper insights from the data, I analyzed the differences in

SAELES scores and missing values between aspiring and current K–12 administrators

prior to imputing missing data (Tables 8 & 9). Although these independent t-tests were

not a part of the original research plan and not directly linked to the research questions,

they allowed exploration of potential differences in the mean scores between the two

groups, using an alpha level of .05. These tests assumed independence, normal

distribution of data, and equality of variances for comparing group means. The sampling

procedure met the assumption of independence, and the sample size satisfied the

normality assumption.

To test the hypothesis that aspiring administrators and current administrators

differed statistically in their SAELES mean scores, I performed two-tailed independent

samples t-tests for each category: engagement, identification, development, retention, and

culture (Table 8). Levene’s test indicated unequal variances for most dimensions, except

for engagement, leading to the use of degrees of freedom adjusted for unequal variances

in these cases. The results revealed significant differences in engagement and

identification between the two groups, no significant differences were evident in

development, retention, and culture.

105

To assess the hypothesis that aspiring administrators have higher missing mean

scores than current administrators, I conducted one-tailed independent samples t-tests for

each category: engagement, identification, development, retention, and culture (Table 9).

Levene’s F test revealed significant variance differences in all categories except

identification and retention, prompting the use of degree of freedom adjusted for unequal

variances in these categories. The results indicated that aspiring administrators had

significantly higher missing scores in engagement and culture, but no significant

difference existed in development, identification, and retention.

106

Table 8

Comparative Analysis of SAELES Scores Between Aspiring and Current K–12 Administrators

Variables n M SD t df p Cohen’s d

Engagement -2.29 90 .024* −0.48

Aspiring 39 64.26 15.02

Current

53 70.02

8.97

Identification

-2.32 55.40 .021* −0.61

Aspiring 25 31.44 10.03

Current 35 38.03 11.39

Development

-1.87

.065

−0.5

Aspiring 24 30.75 11.74

Current 31 37.32 14.09

Retention

-1.22

83.24

.225

−0.26

Aspiring 38 11.79 3.17

Current

12.67

3.55

Culture -.827 34.45 .414 −0.25

Aspiring 19 21.11 7.11

Current 31 22.74 6.25

Note: N = 95. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. *p < .05.

112

Table 9

Comparative Analysis of Missing SAELES Scores Between Aspiring and Current K–12 Administrators

Variables n M SD t df p Cohen’s d

Engagement 1.877 41 .032* 0.387

Aspiring 39 0.09 0.37

Current

0.00

Identification

.740 82.79 .231 0.155

Aspiring 1.29 2.35 10.03

Current 0.94 2.09 11.39

Development

1.57

.060

0.324

Aspiring 2.45 3.75 11.74

Current 1.47 2.30 14.09

Retention

-.434

85.29

.333

0.085

Aspiring 0.09 0.29 3.17

Current

0.13

0.52

3.55

Culture 1.85 93 .034* 0.381

Aspiring 1.45 1.66 7.11

Current 0.87 1.43 6.25

Note: N = 95. M = mean; SD=standard deviation. *p < .05.

113

Research Question 2

The second RQ, “How does their perception of the frequency of these succession

planning practices (recruitment, development, retention, and culture) predict their work

engagement?” determined if the independent variables—the scores on the subscales of

succession planning practices—could be used to predict the dependent variable, UWES17

employee engagement scores. A multiple linear regression determined and predicted the

relationships between the independent and dependent variables. The null hypothesis for

this analysis was that no statistically significant relationship exists between an aspiring or

current administrator’s succession planning scores and their engagement score.

Before conducting the multiple linear regression analysis, I tested the assumptions

of normality, homoscedasticity, multicollinearity, and outliers. Normality was assessed by

examining a Q-Q plot of the regression residuals (Figure 2). The residuals generally

followed the normal (diagonal) line, with the exception of three outlying points. An

examination of studentized residuals confirmed these three points were significant

outliers.

Figure 2

Q-Q Plot of Regression Residuals (N = 95)

I tested homoscedasticity by plotting the residuals against the predicted values of

the regression (Figure 3). The scatterplot showed that the points were approximately

randomly distributed around zero, with the exception of the three outlying points identified

previously. I removed the outlying cases from the final regression analysis.

Figure 3

Scatterplot of Regression Residuals Versus Predicated Values (N = 95)

Finally, to test multicollinearity, I calculated variance inflation factors. All

variance inflation factors were below 10 (Max = 4.04), indicating that there was no severe

multicollinearity in the data.

The overall regression model was not significant, F(4, 87) = 1.31, p = .273, R2

= .06, indicating that the collective subscale scores of succession planning practices did

not explain a significant percentage of variance in engagement scores. These results

suggested that identification, development, retention, and culture collectively do not

significantly influence work engagement. Therefore, I did not reject the null hypothesis.

Table 10 displays the results for the individual predictors in the regression.

Table 10

Coefficient Statistics for Regression Predicting Engagement (N = 92)

95% CI B

Variable B Std. Error Beta t p Lower Upper

Identification 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.66 .510 -0.17 0.34

Development 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.40 .688 -0.17 0.26

Retention 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.18 .857 -0.21 0.25

Culture 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.08 .940 -0.28 0.30

Note: N = 92 for the regression after removing three outliers.

Summary

Data from 95 current and aspiring administrators working in K–12 educational

institutions helped answer the research questions. Descriptive statistics on the responses

to the succession planning practices instrument answered RQ1. The results showed that

participants perceived identification, retention, and culture as being integrated sometimes

or frequently on average, whereas they perceived development to be integrated rarely or

sometimes on average. Additionally, most participants indicated that the central office and

principal were involved in selecting leadership candidates.

The results from t-tests on the SAELES revealed significant differences in

engagement and identification, with current administrators more frequently reporting these

succession planning behaviors. No significant differences existed in development,

retention, and culture dimensions. Furthermore, t-tests on the missing data indicated that

aspiring administrators had a higher incidence of missing responses in development and

culture related questions. Conversely, the analysis failed to show a difference in

identification and retention scores, although there was a marginally significant difference

in engagement scores (p =.06) for current administrators.

A multiple linear regression provided the answer to RQ2. The overall regression

model was not significant, failing to show that identification, development, retention, and

culture collectively had a significant influence on work engagement; thus, the null

hypothesis was not rejected. The next chapter will present a discussion of these findings and

suggest possible directions for future research.

Chapter 5: Discussion

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine current and aspiring K–12 administrators’

scores to determine which practices were being used and whether succession planning was

a predictor of employee engagement as measured on the SAELES. Chapter 4 presented the

results of the quantitative analysis. This chapter delves into the implications of the findings

from the previous chapter, which explored the prevalence of succession planning practices

and their relationship with work engagement within K–12 districts.

Results of a literature review suggested that quality school leadership is critical for

increasing student academic achievement; researchers noted leadership as second only to

classroom teaching in its impact on student achievement (Burch et al., 2015; Leithwood et

al., 2004; Yasmeen & Tobawal, 2023). Researchers also emphasized the need for

organizations to implement succession planning that integrates culturally infused

components aimed at identifying, developing, and retaining a pipeline of competent

leaders throughout all levels of an organization (Chavez, 2011; Parfitt, 2017). These

conclusions aligned with the talent pipeline theory, which advocates for systemic talent

management to ensure a steady supply of leaders who are prepared to take on roles as

they become available, thus enhancing organizational stability and continuity (Donald,

2021).

Additionally, a body of research suggested that developing leaders through succession

planning is linked to increased employee engagement (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Anitha, 2014;

Fletcher, 2019; Gulzar & Durrani, 2014; Marzano et al., 2005). However, results from this

study did not reveal a statistically significant relationship between succession planning and

employee engagement, a finding contrary to expectations based on literature from other

sectors, such as the positive correlations identified by Alias et al. (2014) in the business

sector. This chapter draws upon the theoretical underpinnings provided by social exchange

theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958), the job demandsresources model (Schaufeli et al., 2006),

Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement, and the talent pipeline theory (Donald, 2021) to

understand the unexpected results of the study and explore their broader implications. This

inconsistency invites a critical examination of the unique challenges and environment

inherent in K–12 education that may influence the effectiveness of succession planning

practices.

Chapter 5 presents a summary of the study’s findings along with recommendations

for future research. It provides suggestions for researchers interested in further exploring

succession planning and its relationship with employee engagement. Additionally, it offers

insights into effective practices and identifies areas that need further evaluation.

Summary of Results

The current study consisted of a multiple linear regression analysis to assess the

extent to which the predictor, succession planning practices, predicted employee engagement

as measured by SAELES survey. A total of 95 participants completed the SAELES survey,

which consisted of two parts: the UWES-17 by Schaufeli et al. (2006), which measures

engagement on a spread from 0 to 6, and Parfitt’s (2017) Perceptions of Succession Planning

Survey (PSPS), which evaluates demographic information and succession planning practices

on a spread from 1 to 5. The PSPS covers areas such as identification, development and

mentoring, retention of talent, and organizational culture.

Two research questions guided this investigation:

RQ1. To what extent do current and aspiring school administrators perceive the existence

of succession planning practices implemented in their K–12 district?

RQ2. How does their perception of the frequency of these succession planning practices

(recruitment, development, retention, and culture) predict their work engagement?

Data were collected through surveys distributed via selected educational leadership

group pages on Facebook and LinkedIn, using IBM SPSS Version 26 software for

analysis.

Summary of Findings and Interpretation of Results

Results from this study did not reveal a statistically significant relationship

between succession planning and increased employee engagement within K–12 districts,

challenging the prevailing conclusions by previous researchers who identified a positive

link between effective succession planning and improved organizational outcomes

(Abdullahi et al., 2022; Fletcher, 2019). However, despite this unexpected result, the study

identified a correlation between employee engagement and the identification and

development of leaders. This finding underscores the importance of building a robust

pipeline of leaders, as empathized by Chavez (2011) and Rothwell (2005, 2015), who

argued that such efforts are critical for ensuring long-term organizational stability and

reducing risks associated with leadership turnover.

Effective succession planning is crucial not only because schools must maintain

operational continuity but also because leadership significantly influences student

achievement, ranking second only to classroom instruction among all school-related

factors (Leithwood et al., 2020; Leithwood et al., 2004). Succession planning actively

addresses potential leadership gaps, thereby enhancing employee capacity and ensuring

the continuity and stability of school operations (Abdellah, 2021; Abdullahi et al., 2022;

Fletcher, 2019). Previous researchers also indicated that effective succession planning is

linked to stronger leadership development and increased organizational commitment

(Anitha, 2014; Brant et al., 2008; Gulzar & Durrani, 2014). Moreover, well-structured

succession plans contribute to a positive organizational climate and potentially increase

employee engagement by demonstrating a commitment to professional development and

career progression (Ahmad et al., 2023; Okwakpam, 2019; Saks, 2006). This commitment

not only boosts morale but also fosters more effective leadership, leading to better student

outcomes (Alias et al., 2014; Darling-Hammond et al., 2022).

The lack of a significant correlation in this study contrasts with prior evidence of a

positive link between effective succession planning and improved organizational

outcomes (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Fletcher, 2019). The discrepancy raises questions about

stakeholders’ understanding of the succession process. One possible explanation lies in

gaps in stakeholders’ awareness or comprehension, as suggested by the missing data or in

the survey’s potential inability to fully capture the nuances of succession planning

practices, rather than the inherent failure of the succession planning practices themselves.

Although this study of K–12 leaders did not provide direct evidence linking

succession planning to employee engagement, existing business literature consistently

demonstrates that strategic succession planning enhances organizational performance and

stability (Beeson, 1998; Brant et al., 2008; Cieminski, 2018). Educational leaders are thus

encouraged to prioritize and adapt succession planning to fit their district’s unique culture,

supporting organizational goals and preparing for future leadership transitions (Parfitt,

2017). Investing in succession planning not only promotes leadership continuity but also

fosters a supportive environment that contributes to institutional success and ultimately to

student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2008; Rothwell, 2005, 2015; Tan, 2018).

The remainder of this section will present insights from exploring two research

questions that addressed the variability and implementation frequency of succession

planning practices and their relationship to employee engagement within K–12 educational

settings. The analysis will summarize the findings and interpretations derived from

participant responses, providing a clearer view of the current state of succession planning

in K–12 districts across the United States.

Research Question 1: Perception of Succession Planning Implementation

Despite the absence of a significant overall relationship with engagement, the descriptive

statistics provided valuable insights into the variability of formal succession planning across

districts. Specifically, the data for item I-1 indicated that only 13.7% of respondents confirmed

their school districts always had a formal succession plan in place, with a substantial 20% of

responses missing. Furthermore, the distribution of responses— 16.8% never, 18.9% rarely,

17.9% sometimes, and only 12.6% frequently having such plans—further illustrated the

inconsistent implementation of formal succession planning.

This inconsistency likely reflects not only varied commitment levels among

districts but also a potential lack of understanding among participants about their districts’

strategic approaches. This discrepancy highlighted a significant gap between recognition

of the need for and the actual execution of robust leadership development mechanisms, as

suggested by Chavez (2011) and reflected in Parfitt’s (2017) findings that only 26.3%

reported always having a formal plan. Administrators often recognized and integrated

practices districts use for identification and retention. Nevertheless, the comparatively

low implementation scores for development practices highlighted a potential area for

improvement.

According to participants, identification practices among administrators, critical

for effective succession planning, occurred with moderate overall frequency with a mean

score of 3.08 (SD = 0.91; Chavez, 2011; Donald, 2021). These findings aligned with

Parfitt’s (2017) observations that participants similarly perceived identification practices

as being implemented sometimes. These findings underscored the need to enhance and

increase the frequency of identification practices to strengthen succession planning efforts

within districts.

Development practices, which are critical for cultivating leadership skills, were perceived

as being implemented infrequently or occasionally across K–12 districts with a mean score of

2.81 (SD = 0.96; Chavez, 2011; Donald, 2021). Although participants recognized the value of

developmental opportunities, the consistent implementation of these practices—especially high-

leverage assignments critical for skill development— remained sporadic, as indicated by mean

scores of 2.49 (SD = 1.02) and 2.53 (SD = 0.98). The participant data also suggested that formal

and informal mentoring occurred relatively frequently, but the districts’ failure to provide

comprehensive developmental assignments highlighted a missed opportunity to use mentoring

effectively to enhance leadership capabilities within the organization (Clayton et al., 2013;

Darling-Hammond et al., 2022).

The mean score for retention practices (M = 3.10, SD = 0.83) suggested that these

practices were somewhat implemented, consistent with Parfitt’s (2017) focus on retention

within succession planning frameworks. The moderately positive responses (M = 3.0, SD

= 0.85) regarding the encouragement and retention of high performers indicated that some

districts have implemented effective strategies to retain top talent. These results aligned

with theories from Alias et al. (2014) and Kumar et al. (2023), who associated effective

retention strategies with enhanced employee commitment and engagement. However, the

variability in responses highlighted the need for more consistent and robust application of

these strategies to maximize their impact across all districts.

The mean culture score of 3.18 (SD = 0.83) indicated that participants generally

perceived cultural practices related to succession planning as being implemented occasionally.

Furthermore, the mean score for stakeholder involvement was 4.01 (SD =

0.78), reflecting a strong participatory approach in the development of succession plans, which is

pivotal for cultivating an inclusive culture that supports effective succession planning.

Additionally, the mean score of 3.33 (SD = 0.92) for hiring practices and cultural fit implied that

districts were receptive to external candidates, an approach vital for accommodating new

perspectives and maintaining a dynamic leadership pool (Bengtson et al., 2013).

The analysis also included exploration of the differences in scores on the SAELES

and missing responses between aspiring and current K–12 administrators using

independent t-tests. Under the assumptions of independence, normal distribution of data,

and equality of variances, I conducted a comparison of group means to assess variations

in engagement and perceptions of succession planning practices. The analysis revealed

significant differences in engagement and identification and additional insights into

development, retention, and culture dimensions.

The analysis of SAELES scores revealed that current administrators have

significantly higher engagement mean scores (M = 70.02, SD = 8.97) than aspiring

administrators (M = 64.26, SD =15.02) with a medium effect size. These results indicated a

notable difference in engagement levels between the two groups. Additionally, the scores

for identification practices showed a significant difference favoring current (M = 38.03, SD

= 10.03) over aspiring (M = 31.44, SD =15.02) administrators with a moderate to large

effect size. These outcomes suggested a substantial disparity in the understanding of

identification practices between current and aspiring administrators.

However, no significant differences were evident in development, retention, and culture.

The implication is that experience seems to enhance engagement and understanding of

identification practices, yet it has less impact on perceptions of development, retention, and

cultural aspects of succession planning. These results suggested that current administrators have

a clearer understanding of identification practices used in K–12 districts, likely benefitting from

more effective communication and more robust engagement strategies. These findings

underscored the importance of targeted developmental programs that could bridge the gap

between aspiring and current administrators, particularly focusing on improving engagement

and understanding identification practices of future leaders.

In terms of missing responses, aspiring administrators had significantly higher missing

scores in engagement and culture than current administrators, with p-values of

.032 and .034, respectively. Specifically, aspiring administrators had a mean of 0.09 (SD =

0.37) for missing engagement scores, whereas current administrators had no missing

scores. Missing culture scores were also higher among aspiring leaders (M = 1.45, SD =

1.65) than current administrators (M = 0.87, SD = 1.43). The analysis revealed a small to

medium effect size for both categories. These results highlighted the importance of

addressing specific gaps in training programs for aspiring administrators, particularly in

areas crucial to organizational engagement and culture, to better prepare them for their

future roles in educational leadership.

Given the dynamic nature of succession planning, which should be tailored to the

unique culture of the educational organization, the observed variability in the data is

understandable. This variation raised questions about whether the survey sufficiently accounted

for regional differences in the understanding and terminology of succession planning and

whether these differences can significantly influence the perceptions and understandings of the

component facets of succession planning practices. For example, educational districts in urban

areas might experience different challenges and opportunities than those in rural settings,

affecting their approaches to succession planning (Fusarelli et al., 2018).

Additionally, regional educational policies, local cultural norms, and community

expectations may lead to inconsistencies in the language used for succession planning

practices and stakeholder engagement (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). These regional factors

could result in diverse interpretations and terminology surrounding succession planning,

highlighting the need for context-specific strategies that consider local conditions and

cultural influences (Fink & Brayman, 2006). Understanding these regional differences in

terminology is essential for developing effective succession planning practices that align with

the unique needs and challenges of various educational environments.

Research Question 2: Perceptions of Succession Planning Implementation

RQ2 identified that practices related to identification, development, retention, and

cultural adaptation were present, yet their implementation did not significantly influence

engagement levels among aspiring and current administrators. This finding conflicted

with the conclusions from previous researchers, who stressed the importance of strategic

planning for succession to maintain organizational vitality and growth (BurrowsMcCabe,

2014; Clayton, 2014). In business and higher education contexts, strategic succession

planning has been linked to organizational success (Abdullahi et al., 2022;

Anitha, 2014; Brant et al., 2008; Redman, 2006).

The discrepancy between these findings and those in previous literature may

reflect unique organizational dynamics within K–12 education that differ from those in

business and higher education. For instance, educational organizations often face distinct

challenges such as frequent policy changes, varied funding sources, and a broader range

of stakeholder interests, which might affect the implementation and effectiveness of

succession planning practices (Kumar et al., 2023). The results may indicate a gap in the

practical application of these practices in K–12 settings or a potential mismatch between

the theoretical models of succession planning and their real-world execution in

educational environments (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Redman, 2006). Further research is

needed to explore these differences and address how educational dynamics influence the

outcomes of succession planning. Understanding these nuances could help refine

succession planning practices in education, ensuring they are adapted to the specific needs

and challenges of K–12 environments (Anitha, 2014; Fletcher, 2019).

In regard to employee engagement, according to Kumar et al. (2023) and other

scholars, engagement is directly influenced by the perceived investment in employee

development and recognition. Social exchange theory posits that interactions are based on

the benefits and rewards derived from them, meaning that employees should experience

higher engagement when they perceive the organization to practice effective succession

planning (Ahmad et al., 2023; Blau, 1964; Saks, 2006). Theoretically, if succession

planning practices are effectively implemented, they should lead to higher engagement

(Abdullahi et al., 2022). However, the data did not support this relationship, suggesting that

other factors unique to the educational sector, such as external policy pressures or internal

administrative challenges, might be diluting or overshadowing the impact of these

practices.

One of the critical issues highlighted by both the pilot and the main phases of this

study involved the measurement instrument. The study included the SAELES, which

combined the PSPS (Parfitt, 2017) and the UWES-17 (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The PSPS

was specifically designed for the educational sector, aligning closely with the unique

nuances and specific needs of educational leadership succession planning. This specificity

is crucial, as noted by Burch et al. (2015), because of the complexity and variability of

educational leadership roles that often require specially tailored approaches. However,

examples of its use are scarce in broader literature, suggesting a need for more extensive

validation within this field.

Conversely, the UWES-17 was designed for a wider range of industries and lacked

specific adaptations for the educational context. This generality may have rendered the

instrument unable to effectively capture the unique aspects of engagement within the

educational leadership. The potential misalignment could have led to skewed results and

possible misinterpretations of what constitutes effective engagement in educational

settings.

The SAELES demonstrated high internal consistency, and Cronbach’s alpha values

for the study’s variables ranged from .85 to .95. However, challenges concerning

participants’ response rates to specific questions related to executive leadership and

succession planning, which had less than 30% response rate, emerged. Some participants,

who had previously marked N/A on other questions, did not respond to these critical

items in any way. The expert panel speculated that social desirability might have

influenced these omissions, and participants may have been reluctant to cast their districts

in a negative light. Another possible explanation was that participants without firsthand

knowledge of such plans may have avoided answering questions that explicitly mentioned

succession planning.

Requests from the original author to maintain survey fidelity made it difficult to

modify the survey, but these challenges led to post-pilot modifications to improve response

rates. The changes included the addition of an Unsure/NA option to better accommodate

uncertain respondents. The aim of these adjustments was to enhance the survey’s relevance

and accessibility, thereby improving the quality and reliability of the data collected in

future applications within the educational sector.

The study’s findings challenged the expected outcomes suggested by the SET and

job demands-resources model, as well as assumptions within talent management theory.

SET and the job demands-resources model suggested that investments in employee

development–like succession planning, training, and clear career progression paths–

typically boost engagement; however, the results of this study did not align with that

expectation. SET, particularly as expanded by Blau (1964), and the job demandsresources

model suggested that such benefits should enhance employees’ commitment and reduce

burnout, leading to higher engagement levels.

Similarly, talent management theory posits that strategic talent identification and

development practices should continuously cultivate engagement by aligning employee

aspirations with organizational goals. However, results from the current study revealed that

despite the implementation of these theoretically sound practices, employee engagement did not

increase as predicted. This unexpected outcome underscored a potential complexity in the

relationship between succession planning practices and employee engagement, suggesting that

other variables may influence engagement or that the theoretical models might require adjustment

to better capture the dynamics of educational organizational environments.

Implications

The findings of this study offer valuable insights into succession planning within

K–12 schools and that planning’s impact on employee engagement. Although no

significant link existed between succession planning and engagement, the results

highlighted the need for increased use of research-based practices, better communication

of these succession planning practices, improved assessment tools, and further research.

Addressing these areas could enhance the effectiveness of succession planning and provide

a clearer understanding of its impact on employee engagement.

Previous results indicated that many districts lack comprehensive succession

planning but utilize various practices for leadership replacement (Parfitt, 2017). Results

from this study revealed that only 13.7% of participants reported formal succession

planning as consistently implemented. Additionally, the data indicated that some of the

four components of effective succession planning—identification, development, retention,

and organizational culture—were not consistently evident to participants. None of the

succession planning practices were perceived as being widely implemented. These

findings, combined with numerous unanswered survey questions, raise critical questions

for future research: Is succession planning truly absent, poorly communicated,

misunderstood by participants, or inadequately measured by the instrument?

These inconsistencies may have resulted from varying definitions, practices, and poor

communication about succession planning, causing confusion in K–12 environments (Steele,

2015). Such challenges highlight the need for clear frameworks and improved

communication about succession planning processes. By implementing and consistently

applying research-backed strategies, districts can establish a more standardized approach,

enhance employee capacity, and ensure a robust leadership pipeline (Chavez, 2011;

Parfitt, 2017).

Effective communication of succession planning practices is critical. Brant et al.

(2008) stressed that districts must not only implement succession planning processes but

also ensure they clearly communicate these processes and support them with feedback.

Results from this study revealed that while some districts may have succession planning

processes, they do not always effectively communicate or implement them. The analysis

indicated a medium effect size for the difference in engagement scores between current

and aspiring administrators, indicating that current administrators experience significantly

higher engagement levels.

The moderate-to-large effect size for identification practices suggested that current

administrators have a more substantial understanding of these practices than aspiring

administrators. The implication was that current administrators benefitted from more

effective communication and engagement strategies related to succession planning.

Addressing these gaps in communication and implementation could enhance the effectiveness of

succession planning processes and improve engagement and understanding among aspiring

administrators.

According to SET, improving communication and transparency regarding career

opportunities and development boosts employee engagement (Saks, 2006). This result

highlighted the need to refine communication strategies to address gaps in knowledge and

engagement related to succession planning. Improved communication may help close the

information gaps and actively involve current and potential administrators, leading to better

understanding of succession practices and increased effectiveness in current and future

roles.

To achieve this goal of improved communication, districts should adopt a

standardized approach that ensures that all stakeholders understand, communicate, and

execute succession plans consistently. Regular training sessions and clear communication

strategies are essential to enhance transparency and engagement across all levels of the

organization. This perspective aligned with the findings of Abdullahi et al. (2022) and

Bryant et al. (2017), who underscored the importance of robust communication in successful

succession planning.

The study also highlighted a need for improved tools for assessing succession

planning practices. Policymakers, researchers, and educational leaders should consider

developing and validating tools and methodologies that capture the complexities of

educational leadership and the nuances of succession planning. According to Bryant et al.

(2017), policies should include guidelines for transparency, stakeholder involvement, and the

measurement of plan effectiveness. Regular audits of succession plans could also help ensure

that organizations effectively implement these practices and achieve the desired impact on

engagement and leadership development.

Further research is necessary to explore the specific elements of succession

planning that most effectively improve employee engagement. Future researchers could

administer more refined instruments tailored to the educational setting, addressing possible

shortcomings in current tools. Researchers should examine components such as

mentorship programs, leadership development opportunities, and the role of stakeholder

communication and these measures’ effects on engagement. Longitudinal studies could

also provide deeper insights into how succession planning influences educational

leadership over time (Abdullahi et al., 2022; Alias et al., 2014; Fletcher, 2019; Kumar et

al., 2023).

In conclusion, this study highlighted the importance of improving the implementation

of succession planning practices within K–12 districts. Although results revealed no

significant relationships between succession planning and employee engagement, the

findings pointed to the need for increased adoption of evidence-based practices, better

communication, improved assessment tools, and further research. By addressing these areas,

educational institutions can enhance their succession planning processes, better prepare

aspiring and current administrators, and build the capacity of all stakeholders, strengthening

the overall leadership framework within K–12 educational settings. Schaufeli and Bakker

(2004) emphasized that employees are more engaged and likely to persist in their roles when

they feel their development is valued, underscoring the potential benefits of targeted

developmental programs and improved succession planning practices by the organization.

Limitations

Understanding the limitations of this study is criterial for interpreting its findings and

framing future research. While the study offered valuable insights into succession planning

and engagement among K–12 education leaders, several factors may have impacted the

reliability, generalizability, and depth of its conclusions. These limitations include

challenges related to participant recruitment, the design and application of the survey

instruments, and the broader context of the succession planning research in education.

Additionally, key differences between the educational and business sectors, particularly in

organizational culture and expected outcomes, further complicated the study’s implications.

Addressing these limitations highlights areas for methodological improvement and sets the

stage for future exploration of this important topic (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

The study relied on data from an online survey completed by 95 K–12 education

leaders who self-identified through LinkedIn and Facebook groups. Although participants

were assumed to be honest, relying on self-identification could introduce response bias,

as the recruitment strategy may not have reached a representative sample of the intended

population. Nonresponse bias was also an issue, given the use of social media for

recruitment. Eligible participants might not have been interested in participating online.

Additionally, the volume of content in their social media feeds could have caused some to

miss the survey invitation, despite multiple postings.

Another limitation concerns the design of the SAELES survey itself. The first

section of the survey, the UWES-17 engagement survey created by Schaufeli et al. (2006),

had no missing data. However, the section on succession planning practices, created by

Parfitt (2017), experienced a significant number of missed items totaling 403. Unlike the

widely used UWES-17, the PSPS has been used exclusively by Parfitt. The exclusive use

of the PSPS by a single researcher or context may limit its broader application and

reliability, particularly in diverse settings (Hair et al., 2018).

Additionally, the survey lacked clarity in distinguishing between current and aspiring

administrators. There was a noticeable mismatch in reported years of experience between

the two groups, suggesting that participants might have misunderstood the definitions of

these categories. For instance, an assistant principal aspiring to become a principal might

have categorized themselves as “aspiring” despite reporting substantial years of

administrative experience. Clearer definitions in the survey could have improved the

accuracy of the data collected and validity of comparisons between the two groups.

The analysis of the missing data suggested possible weaknesses in the survey’s

design. Considering that the survey was deployed once in a limited study involving four

districts, the high rate of missing responses from aspiring leaders—especially on items

related to the existence of formal succession plans and executive involvement—

suggested that the survey questions may not have been adequately clear, relevant, or

aligned with the common understanding or practices of succession planning recognized

by administrators in different districts or educational settings. Notably, all but one of the

seven questions that had a 20% or higher missing rate contained the term “succession

plan,” suggesting that the wording may have contributed to confusion or uncertainty

among participants. Participants may have answered differently if the term “succession

plan” had been excluded or replaced with a more familiar terminology, potentially

reducing ambiguity and improving response rates. This misalignment may have led

respondents to skip questions they felt were beyond their current understanding or

experience.

Compounding this issue was the fact that the expert panel used to review the

survey instrument for the pilot study was composed entirely of individuals from Virginia.

This lack of geographic diversity may have influenced the validity of the survey, as the

panel’s input may have been shaped by reginal practices and perspectives that did not fully

reflect the broader, more varied practices of districts in other states. Furthermore, some

participants, unfamiliar with succession planning components, selected N/A for several

questions. According to Hair et al. (2018), these responses may be considered a form of

ignorable missing data, especially as there were no specific instructions from the author on

how to handle such responses.

The consistent missing data across both groups for items regarding review and

follow-up practices might suggest that these elements of succession planning are not well-

defined or emphasized within the organizations, indicating a gap in the survey’s ability to

capture critical, actionable information. The high rate of nonresponses could also signal a

potential lack of engagement with the survey, possibly due to its length, complexity, or the

way I distributed and explained it to participants, which may have hindered the overall

effectiveness of the data collection process. Because of this limitation, not all aspiring or

current administrators; scores contained comparable information.

A further limitation involves the broader context of succession planning research.

The differences in organizational culture and expected outcomes between the business

and education sectors may have influenced the study’s findings. In the business sector,

succession planning is often strategic and long-term, whereas educators tend to prioritize

immediate results, reflecting an impatience for actionable outcomes in research and

practice (Cieminiski, 2018). Businesses have extensively examined the influence of

succession planning on employee engagement, often linking it to productivity and

retention (Anitha, 2014). However, engagement may not be as critical in the educational

sector, where succession planning could be more appropriately aligned with goals such as

student achievement, leadership continuity, and district-specific priorities. This distinction

suggests that relying on engagement as a primary measure of success may not fully

capture the impact of succession planning in education.

This dynamic, combined with a relatively limited body of research on succession

planning in education, underscores a gap in the literature and a need for more

comprehensive exploration on this topic (Parfitt, 2017; Sabina, 2023). For example,

businesses often focus on measurable financial outcomes (Redman, 2006), whereas

educational institutions may place greater emphasis on student achievement and leadership

continuity, complicating direct comparisons (Zuckerman, 2020). Additionally, the lack of

established frameworks for succession planning in education contributes to the challenges

of developing clear strategies and instruments for effective measurement.

Addressing these gaps through targeted research could help define the unique goals and metrics

of succession planning in the educational context.

In conclusion, the study provided valuable insights among K–12 educational

leaders; however, it faced substantial limitations. Recruitment through social media and

self-identification may have introduced response bias. The SAELES instrument,

particularly the Parfitt-developed succession planning section, experienced considerable

missing data and indicated possible issues with the clarity and relevance. Furthermore,

differences in organizational culture and expected outcomes between the business and

education sectors highlight the unique challenges of succession planning research in

education. These limitations suggest the need for further methodological improvements and

future research to develop more comprehensive and representative frameworks for

understanding succession planning dynamics in educational administration.

Recommendations

The findings from this study provided valuable insights and raised important

questions regarding the implementation and perceptions of succession planning within K–

12 districts. Various stakeholder groups—parents, universities, school district, personnel,

and state department of educations—could have a vested interest in the succession

planning practices that prepare future school leaders. Despite the failure to show a

statistically significant relationship between succession planning and employee

engagement as measured by the SAELES, correlations between identification and

development of leaders and employee engagement were evident. These results aligned with

the tenets of SET, which posits that mutual investment between organizations and

employees fosters reciprocal benefits, including higher engagement and commitment

(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Homans, 1961). The following recommendations address

key areas for improvement.

Improved Succession Planning

The results identified a lack of robust succession planning practices in K–12

districts, which may hinder employees’ perceptions of reciprocal organizational

investment and as a result, diminish their engagement. This outcome raises the question of

whether the absence of strong succession planning limits employees’ sense of

organizational commitment to their growth and reduces their motivation to engage fully.

To address this possibility, districts should enhance succession planning by implementing

targeted leadership identification and development programs. These programs can

demonstrate a clear organizational investment in employees’ growth, thereby reinforcing

the social exchange dynamic. According to Saks (2006), such organizational investments

are likely to foster greater engagement and loyalty among employees. Improving the

implementation of succession planning could leverage the principles of SET to create a

more engaged and committed workforce, thereby achieving more significant strategic

impacts within K–12 educational leadership.

Communication and Development

The study’s results also revealed that inconsistent communication about succession

planning processes may hinder stakeholders’ understanding, perceptions, and

opportunities to benefit from these efforts. This suggestion raises the question of how

improved communication can enhance perceptions and foster greater inclusion in

succession planning practices. To address this dynamic, districts should standardize and

formalize the communication of their succession planning processes to all stakeholders.

Transparent and consistent communication demonstrates organizational investment,

fosters trust, and promotes inclusion, aligning with SET principles (Saks, 2006). This

approach minimizes variability and ensures a consistent understanding of the district’s

succession plans across all schools. Leaders from each stakeholder group should

collaborate in the development of the plan and the establishment of clear communication

guidelines. Regular updates through meetings, surveys, and newsletters not only

disseminate information but also invite feedback, enabling ongoing refinement and

adaptation of succession plans to meet evolving needs. This bidirectional exchange of

information strengthens the perception of reciprocity and supports employee engagement

(Saks, 2006).

In addition to communication, enhancing and effectively promoting training and

development opportunities for current and aspiring administrators is essential. Previous

research indicated that meaningful professional development positively influences

employee engagement by signaling organizational commitment to employee growth

(Kumar et al., 2023; Marzano et al., 2005). Leadership development programs should

focus on cultivating skills aligned with district goals, reinforcing the alignment between

organizational investment and employee outcomes, as delineated by SET. Districts should

implement comprehensive mentoring and support systems consistently to ensure that all

potential leaders perceive equitable investment in their development.

Survey Instrument

The study revealed significant limitations in the survey instrument (SAELES),

including missing data, response bias, and the absence of demographic variables. These

issues reduced the instrument’s reliability and applicability, raising the question of how

survey instruments can be refined to accurately measure the impact of succession

planning while addressing these limitations. Future researchers should prioritize

validating and refining the PSPS to ensure it effectively captures critical succession

planning elements within the unique context of K–12 education (Creswell & Creswell,

2018). Implementing prompts for essential questions or making key items as mandatory

would address missing data, while emphasizing anonymity and confidentiality may

mitigate social desirability bias, encouraging participants to provide honest responses.

Additionally, adopting neutral phrasing of questions might yield data that more accurately

reflects participants’ true perceptions and experiences.

The persistence of missing values raised concerns about the completeness of data,

particularly in critical areas where participants’ responses were vital for understanding the

impact of succession planning. Future iterations of the PSPS could implement prompts on

essential questions or build-in reminders for survey completion to ensure comprehensive

data collection, leading to more reliable findings. The consistent missing data in questions

containing the term “succession plan” suggests that clearer terminology might improve

participants’ understanding and response accuracy. Additionally, making critical items

mandatory could ensure more comprehensive data collection, ultimately leading to more

robust and reliable findings.

The final data confirmed the expert panel’s feedback and confirmed that the items

with missing data reflected a tendency for participants to respond with a degree of social

desirability bias, which likely skewed their responses to appear favorable to the

researcher or their district. This bias may obscure authentic perceptions, especially if

respondents feared repercussions for expressing criticism about succession planning

practices within their districts. To address this possibility, future research should prioritize

emphasizing anonymity and confidentiality of responses. Moreover, crafting questions in

a neutral manner could encourage participants to provide more honest and accurate

responses, yielding data that better reflects true perceptions and experiences. The

lack of demographic data also raised questions about the equitable implementation of

succession planning. Since the study’s permissions restricted changes to the PSPS, I

could not include questions about demographics such as race, school category (urban vs.

rural), economic status, and district size. Adding these demographics in future research

could provide critical insights into how succession planning impacts diverse groups and

suggest policies that are more equitable and contextually relevant (Glesne, 2011).

Including the demographic characteristic of race could reveal disparities in leadership

advancement, as leaders from minority populations often face barriers like reduced access

to mentorship (Horsford et al., 2011), and addressing these disparities could help

establish pathways that support underrepresented groups (E. Goldring et al., 2023).

School location also impacts leadership needs, as rural schools face limited access to

professional development while urban schools experience higher turnover (Boyce &

Bowers, 2018; Fusarelli et al., 2018), so understanding these contexts could make

succession planning more adaptable (Zuckerman, 2020). Economic status influences

available resources for leadership pipelines (Grissom et al., 2021; Owens & Valesky, 2015),

and including economic factors could highlight the need for equitable resource distribution.

Finally, larger districts may have structured succession plans, while smaller districts lack

these resources (Diliberti et al., 2024; Gates et al., 2019), so studying district size can

inform tailored strategies for both large and small districts. Incorporating these

demographics in future studies would enable more comprehensive understanding of

succession planning’s impact across diverse contexts.

Additional refinements to the survey instrument could include incorporating a

broader range of experience levels, such as zero years and 1-2 years, might help

differentiate between novice and experienced administrators, offering insights into how

succession planning strategies impact new versus seasoned leaders. Removing items

unrelated to succession planning, such as those related to organizational culture, could

further increase the validity of the findings, focusing solely on relevant variables and

reducing survey fatigue (Patton, 2015). These adjustments would enhance the

instrument’s generalizability, ensuring that findings are applicable to districts with similar

policy and legislative contexts (Merriam, 2009).

In summary, by addressing issues of missing data, response bias, and demographic

diversity, future researchers can refine and validate the PSPS to capture a more

comprehensive understanding of succession planning practices in K–12 education. These

adjustments would provide school districts and policymakers with actionable insights to

improve succession planning and promote equity across various educational contexts. The

following section highlights the need to explore district-based comparisons to gain a

deeper insight into succession practices on the assumption that broad national surveys

may overlook the unique challenges and opportunities within specific K–12

districts.

Future Research

Results from this study raised the question of whether national surveys fail to

capture the nuances of succession planning and how a more focused approach could

provide actionable insights. To address the gaps, future researchers should prioritize

district-to-district comparisons, which could reveal effective practices in particular

contexts and offer strategies for adapting these practices to other districts. Additionally,

involving central administrative and human resource departments directly in the

succession planning process would ensure integration of the leadership development

programs into the overall organizational strategy. This integration is essential for student

success and achievement of broader educational outcomes (Zuckerman, 2020).

Moreover, since the initial interest in this study stemmed from observing a neighboring

district with strong leadership planning, future investigators should extend research to

explore comparative studies between districts with formalized succession planning and

those without. This study examined the relationship between succession planning and

employee engagement, but engagement may not be the most relevant metric for

evaluating the effectiveness of succession planning in educational leadership. Districts

could benefit from using succession planning to achieve their unique organizational

goals, such as ensuring leadership continuity, improving student outcomes, or aligning

strategic priorities, so that focusing solely on engagement might exclude other crucial

factors.

To gain a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing

succession planning and its outcomes, one recommendation is to shift from a convenience

sampling procedure to a random sampling method, using a district’s or professional

organization’s list of administrators. This approach would ensure a more representative

sample and reduce bias, enhancing the generalizability of findings. Employing a case

study methodology that integrates both quantitative and qualitative methods could further

provide a holistic view of succession planning practices and their impacts. Such an

approach would allow researchers to examine how succession planning supports district-

specific objectives and delivers value beyond traditional engagement metrics.

The case study approach would involve selecting specific districts as in-depth units

of analysis to compare practices, challenges, and outcomes. Researchers could collect

quantitative data using an updated contextual survey designed to address the limitations

identified in this study; possible revisions are to incorporate clearer terminology and

improve alignment with diverse district practices. Qualitative interviews with district

leaders, administrators, and stakeholders would complement the survey data, capturing

nuanced insights into succession planning practices, organizational culture, and those

efforts’ effects on engagement.

By combining these methods within a case study framework, researchers could

uncover the contextual factors influencing succession planning and district specific

objectives and offer actionable strategies for districts lacking structured succession

planning practices. This approach could ultimately enhance the overall effectiveness of

leadership development in the education sector (Fusarelli et al., 2018). Implementing these

recommendations would allow researchers, school stakeholders, and districts to align

succession planning practices with the dual goals of filling leadership positions and

fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

Conclusion

The ever changing and unstable environment of education in the United States,

marked by heightened accountability standards and the increasing responsibilities of

school leaders, underscores the critical need for effective succession planning within K–

12 districts (Perez, 2015; Sabina, 2023). As educational demands and expectations rise, so

does the necessity for school administrators who can transcend traditional managerial

roles to become instructional leaders capable of fostering environments conducive to

academic success. This shift, highlighted by researchers such as Perez (2015), Sabina

(2023), Gordon (2003), and Vail (2005), indicates a growing pressure on schools to

achieve and sustain student achievement amidst a myriad of internal and external

challenges.

Despite these changing expectations, many school districts report challenges in

finding enough qualified leaders to effectively lead their schools. The current study was an

attempt to discover the extent to which K—12 districts employ succession planning

practices and determine the impact of these practices on the engagement levels of current

and aspiring administrators. The quantitative findings confirmed the persistence of gaps

between the presence of succession planning practices and their influence on employee

engagement, though correlations between the identification, development, and

engagement levels were present.

These insights are crucial as they aligned with the broader research indicating that

effective school leadership is essential for achieving educational success. However, the

gap in formal succession planning practices—as evidenced in the study and highlighted in

the literature by Parfitt (2017)—suggests a critical area of focus for educational

organizations. Schools have a limited window to impact students’ futures, and without

strategic succession planning that includes comprehensive identification, development,

and retention strategies, districts risk falling short of their potential to foster effective

leaders and consequently achieve successful educational outcomes.

As the educational landscape continues to evolve, the importance of strategic and

deliberate succession planning becomes ever clearer. Schools must prioritize the

development of leadership capacities that can meet both current and future educational

challenges. By cultivating a culture that values and develops potential leaders, districts can

ensure that their leaders are not only prepared to meet the demands of their roles but also

motivated and actively engaged in their work. The success of students and the future of

education depend heavily on districts’ ability to effectively prepare and support educators

as they step into leadership roles. This study serves as a call to action for all involved in

education leadership to revisit and strengthen their succession planning efforts to better

serve their communities and fulfill their crucial role in shaping the next generation of

learners.

Perceptions of Succession Planning Practices and Their Influence on Work Engagement in K–12 School Districts

Students also viewed