An Exploratory Study of Simulations for Leadership Development in the Principal Pipeline

Abstract

This article examines the integration of digital simulations as a tool for strengthening leadership development across the four phases of the principal pipeline—recruitment, preparation, induction, and in-service professional development. Set in the context of a partnership between a preparation program and district-based leadership development, the study investigated to what extent simulations could bridge gaps along the pipeline to create a more coherent and continuous approach to principal development. The findings suggest that sims help prospective leaders develop a more nuanced understanding of school leadership, enhance decision-making skills for candidates in preparation programs, and provide targeted support for new and experienced administrators.

1. Introduction

The link between school leadership and school effectiveness has been well documented. Effective school principals, for example, positively influence teacher recruitment and retention as well as student achievement (Grissom et al., 2021; Leithwood et al., 2004). This link underscores the importance of recruiting highly qualified candidates into the role and providing comprehensive, sequenced preparation to support them in fulfilling their complex responsibilities. However, a number of issues challenge the supply to and the integrity of the principal pipeline. For example, the demand for well-qualified school leadership candidates remains unmet, particularly among candidates from diverse backgrounds—a critical gap given the need for inclusive leadership that reflects and supports the increasingly diverse student populations they serve (Fuller & Young, 2022). In addition, the average tenure for principals in a school is 3–5 years and in the field is only 6–7 years (Bartanen et al., 2024), highlighting the need to strengthen leadership preparedness and ongoing support.

Higher education and school district systems share the responsibility for recruitment and initial preparation, and then ongoing professional learning. This paper explores how interactive digital simulations (sims) might be used strategically to strengthen the principal pipeline. It presents the preliminary findings from an exploratory study on their use and also proposes actionable recommendations for educational leadership preparation programs (ELPPs) and local education agencies (LEAs) to collaboratively identify and integrate sims that reinforce enduring commitments to socially just schools throughout a leader’s career.

2. Review of Related Literature

Principal preparation programs have struggled to respond to the evolving demands placed on school leaders to enhance student achievement and drive educational reform initiatives (Acton, 2021; Ariratana et al., 2015; Clifford & Coggshall, 2021; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Davis & Nixon, 2024; Fullan, 2016; Mthanti & Msiza, 2023; Mullen & Hall, 2024). Critiques of preparation programs argue that they do not adequately address “soft” skills, such as collaboration, that are particularly important for effective instructional leadership (Ariratana et al., 2015; Baptiste, 2019; Durnalli et al., 2020; Evangelista, 2022; Justice, 2018; Mehmood et al., 2023; Riggio & Tan, 2014). As a result, leaders may enter the field underprepared and lacking the appropriate knowledge and skills to do their jobs effectively (Acton, 2021; Fullan, 2016; Tintoré et al., 2022). Compounding this issue is the lack of structured principal induction and ongoing professional development once they are in the role, needed to navigate new complexities of school leadership (Rogers & VanGronigen, 2023; Westberry & Zhao, 2021). These systemic gaps contribute to high principal turnover rates, with the most instability occurring in high-needs schools (Grissom et al., 2019; Grissom et al., 2021).

The principal “pipeline” metaphor has been widely used in educational leadership discourse to describe the structured process by which teachers transition into school administration, and whether they stay in the role. The concept originated from broader workforce pipeline models used in various professional fields to outline systematic pathways for career progression (Augustine et al., 2008). In the context of education, the principal pipeline has been framed as a way to ensure a steady supply of well-prepared school leaders, particularly as districts face ongoing challenges in recruitment, preparation, and retention (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Gates et al., 2019).

The usefulness of the principal pipeline concept lies in its ability to identify key phases of leadership development and highlight areas where targeted interventions can strengthen leadership preparation and support. By conceptualizing leadership development as a sequential process, districts and universities can design coherent, aligned policies that address systemic weaknesses, such as inconsistent preparation, limited access to professional learning opportunities, and the inequitable distribution of leadership talent across schools. Research has demonstrated that well-structured principal pipelines contribute to improved school outcomes, particularly in terms of teacher retention, instructional leadership, and student achievement (Grissom et al., 2021). However, the pipeline metaphor has limitations. Scholars have critiqued it for implying a linear and automatic progression, overlooking the complexities and barriers that aspiring principals face (Clement & Young, 2022). Unlike an industrial pipeline, leadership preparation does not function as a mechanistic system with guaranteed outcomes. Instead, aspiring principals navigate multiple challenges, including inconsistent mentorship, inequitable access to leadership opportunities, and varied district policies on principal induction and support (Turnbull et al., 2016). Yet, as a metaphor, the principal pipeline effectively conveys how any system must gain and maintain access to its most critical resources to carry out its work.

The research literature suggests that sims have the potential to address several of the challenges associated with the principal pipeline. For example, sims provide a realistic and detailed preview of the principal’s job. An interactive case might explore the decision-making options during complex and risky situations (Tucker & Dexter, 2011). Additionally, sims have the potential to foster critical thinking about the school as a dynamic and interconnected system, encouraging candidates to analyze how decisions impact various stakeholders and organizational processes. Prior research suggests that sims can enhance systems thinking by immersing participants in complex, scenario-based learning experiences that mirror real-world challenges (Green et al., 2022; Young, 2018). These kinds of role previews can help candidates better understand the challenges they will face, allowing for more informed decisions about whether to pursue a leadership position. One study found that sims can attract candidates to challenging positions in low-performing schools by showcasing the dynamic and impactful nature of educational leadership roles (Stark-Price et al., 2006). Potentially, by previewing the requirements and realities of the job, candidates who are well suited to a particular context may be more likely to select it given their greater awareness of its demands.

Sims have been shown to provide an interactive environment that can bridge theoretical knowledge and practical application, thus adding value to principal preparation. Research has found that sims benefit learners in several ways, including growing their internal capacities and leader identities (Piro & O’Callaghan, 2019), promoting procedural knowledge (Knezek & Vandersall, 2008), developing self-efficacy (DeJong & Grundmeyer, 2018; Gilbert, 2017; Gilbert et al., 2018), and improving decision-making skills (Tucker & Dexter, 2011). Additionally, sims can provide instructors with the means to pose sensitive topics (DeJong & Grundmeyer, 2018) or allow trial and error with challenging situations that could quickly escalate in real life (Dotger, 2011). Sims allow for decision-making practice, which makes learner thinking visible and allows for the collection and analysis of these artifacts to improve instruction (DeJong & Grundmeyer, 2018; Dexter et al., 2020).

Once ready to enter the leader’s role, sims can be used to help identify and select candidates who are most likely to succeed in leadership roles by testing their skills and responses in simulated scenarios (Azukas et al., 2024). Engaging in realistic scenarios and receiving feedback from experts and peers may have a long-term impact on retention, as has been reported by classroom teachers and special education experts (Tyler-Wood et al., 2015).

Sims can also be beneficial to in-service school leaders. During the induction phase, sims can offer safe opportunities for new principals to navigate contentious issues and develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills, which are vital for their professional growth and long-term retention in their roles (Bravender & Staub, 2018; Mann et al., 2011; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2015; Wright et al., 2009).

As implied by the points from this research literature, sims are often promoted for their ability to offer a facsimile of experience and create a shared context to ground learning. Experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) is the most often referenced conceptual framing for sims (Hallinger & Wang, 2020). There are four successive phases in the experiential learning model: experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting (Kolb, 1984). Applying this model to facilitated learning with sims, instructors position the sim as a shared hypothetical yet realistic experience. The subsequent phases are then facilitated, asking learners to consider the meaning and events of that experience (reflecting) and then abstracting those experiences to relate them to prior knowledge and experiences (thinking). Learners can then be prompted to consider how they would apply what they take away when faced with similar situations in the future (doing).

Recognizing the limitations of the pipeline metaphor, this study conceptualizes the principal pipeline not as a rigid structure but as a framework that captures the key antecedents and in-service supports required for a teacher to transition into school leadership and successfully remain in the role. The conceptualization integrates experiential learning to provide experience and reflection upon it to learners initially considering leadership and their developing understanding and for learners further along the pipeline opportunities to operationalize and compare how theory and practice come together. By framing the principal pipeline as both structured and adaptive, this study explores how technology-enhanced sims can strengthen leadership preparation by providing experiential learning in equitable, contextually relevant ways extending across and even connecting all phases of professional growth. The research question addressed is as follows: how are faculty, and pre-service and in-service leaders’ perceptions of leadership and leadership development impacted by sims in different stages of the principal pipeline?

3. Background

This study was conducted as part of a state-funded initiative referred to here by the pseudonym “Pipeline Project”. The project, a collaboration between a university in the northeastern United States and a local urban school district, aimed to strengthen principal preparation through the integration of digital simulations and other structured, practice-based learning opportunities.

The digital branching simulations (SchoolSims, n.d.) were selected for their intent to support experiential learning in leadership preparation and professional development contexts. In the sims, participants are assigned a role, e.g., principal or superintendent, and presented with a scenario that unfolds through multiple forms of embedded data, such as video segments, email exchanges, voicemails, and written documents. At key decision points, the users select from multiple-choice options, each of which leads to a different outcome and prompts a subsequent set of choices. The participants are asked to consider context, competing priorities, and the potential implications of their actions. The simulations conclude with feedback and structured opportunities for reflection, prompting users to review their decision-making processes and the outcomes that emerged. Rather than focusing on right or wrong answers, the simulations emphasize the trade-offs inherent in leadership decision-making.

The Pipeline Project purposefully integrated simulation use into four phases: the university’s (1) recruitment, (2) licensure program work (including coursework and internship), (3) the partner district’s leader induction program, and (4) in-service administrative development. Project leaders selected specific simulations to support progression across the preparation continuum. Figure 1 illustrates this structured approach. Each phase is described in the sections that follow.

3.1. Phase One: Expanding the Leadership Pipeline Through Targeted Recruitment

The first phase of the project focused on expanding the principal pipeline by recruiting aspiring school leaders, particularly from historically underrepresented populations. To achieve this, the project team developed and implemented a professional development program, “Dynamic Decision-Making”, designed to introduce teachers to leadership and decision-making processes.

The recruitment efforts targeted multiple avenues. Local school principals were encouraged to identify and recommend teacher leaders, particularly those from underrepresented populations, to participate. The team also partnered with local diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) organizations to support outreach, recruited from teacher preparation program graduates, and advertised to regional school districts. The grant covered all costs, allowing educators and local education agencies to participate at no expense, and participants earned continuing education credits.

We advertised the recruitment night for over a month, and the event itself took place on a single afternoon/evening. Participants arrived after school for a three-hour session. The session began with an introduction to models for decision-making, followed by the participants selecting from a set of simulation topics. They then engaged in the simulations synchronously, with each group participating in extended discussions and debriefings. Afterward, the whole group reconvened to share their experiences and reflections. The evening concluded with an introduction to the university’s leadership programs and the completion of post-surveys.

The professional development incorporated three technology-enhanced sims, each presenting a leadership challenge grounded in DEI themes. One scenario placed the participants in the role of a principal addressing a teacher dress code issue, requiring them to balance professional expectations with cultural expression. Another positioned them as principals navigating cultural competency concerns among educators. The third simulation focused on managing cultural clashes in the classroom from the perspective of a teacher leader.

The program was designed to engage the participants in realistic leadership dilemmas while providing insight into the principalship. The use of DEI-focused sims was intentional, ensuring that the participants from minoritized populations saw themselves reflected in leadership challenges and recognized the role they could play in advancing equity in schools.

3.2. Phase Two: Standards-Aligned Principal Preparation

The second phase of the project focused on embedding technology-enhanced sims into six required courses within the university’s principal preparation program, creating a structured sequence that systematically integrated theoretical learning with authentic, practice-based decision-making. These sims provided opportunities for candidates to apply leadership concepts in dynamic, scenario-based exercises, bridging the gap between coursework and the realities of school leadership.

To ensure meaningful integration, the program coordinator collaborated with faculty to align sims with course objectives and key competencies. Faculty selected sims that complemented course content, reinforcing essential leadership skills while offering realistic problem-solving experiences. The implementation model included both synchronous and asynchronous delivery, allowing candidates to engage with the sims in real time during class discussions or independently as part of their coursework.

Each of the six courses incorporated sims tailored to the core responsibilities of school leaders, aligning with major themes in leadership preparation. To further support alignment between preparation and practice, school leaders from the partner district participated in synchronous debriefing sessions after select sims. These leaders provided perspectives from their own experiences, discussed the complexities of decision-making in school leadership, and responded to candidates’ reflections. Their participation aimed to connect course-based learning with the realities of leadership in schools and provided an opportunity for candidates to hear how experienced practitioners navigate similar challenges.

Table 1. Simulation title and description by course.

Course	Simulation Title	Simulation Scenario Description
Leadership Theory	Equity: Exploring Beneath the Surface	A principal must ensure equitable learning opportunities for students of color while recognizing bias and framing a message about equity.
School Law	Teacher Blog	A principal must manage issues related to teacher communication, balancing free speech and student privacy.
Supervision of Instruction	New Teacher Evaluation	A principal must coach a teacher on a new evaluation rubric, providing feedback and supporting professional growth.
School Finance	Middle School Budget Challenge	A middle school principal must respond to a district mandate for a 15% budget cut within two weeks.
Curriculum Leadership	Academic Goal Setting	A principal must guide a veteran teacher whose goals are misaligned with a standards-based curriculum.
Educational Data	Data-Driven Counseling	A principal must lead a student performance initiative in a high school resistant to data-driven change.

provides the titles and descriptions of the sims integrated into each course.

The structured integration of sims across courses allowed candidates to engage in experiential learning cycles, reinforcing their ability to reflect, analyze, and then strategize how to respond to complex leadership challenges. By embedding sims throughout the program, candidates encountered multiple, iterative opportunities to apply their knowledge, better preparing them for the unpredictable realities of school leadership. Partner district school leaders’ participation in debriefing discussions was intended to provide additional connections between coursework and professional practice.

The second phase of the project also addressed integrating technology-enhanced sims into the state-mandated, three-semester principal internship, supplementing these traditional field-based experiences with virtual practicum experiences. This approach provided structured, practice-based learning opportunities aligned with the experiential nature of leadership development while offering all interns structured opportunities to engage in critical leadership tasks. Because interns are placed in different schools with varying mentors and contexts, ensuring consistency across experiences is difficult. By allowing for a consistent foundation for learning, the sims addressed this typical variation in field placements, and created a shared set of experiences that internship supervisors could use to guide discussions and enhance professional growth.

Interns often face limitations in their field experiences due to licensing restrictions, as they are not yet fully credentialed to perform all administrative duties. Additionally, privacy and confidentiality concerns can prevent them from directly engaging in sensitive leadership tasks. The integration of sims helped mitigate these challenges by allowing interns to engage with complex leadership scenarios in a safe, controlled environment. The sims provided access to sensitive experiences in a manner that enabled internship supervisors to facilitate discussion, reflection, and deeper learning.

The principal internships structured field experiences into three categories: educational leadership; school organization and management; and curriculum and student achievement. To align the sims with these focus areas, the university program coordinator collaborated with internship supervisors to identify the scenarios that addressed key leadership competencies.

Table 2. Simulation and internship alignment.

Internship Section	Simulations	Descriptions
Educational Leadership	Student in Crisis	Navigate the aftermath of a student suicide, making critical decisions on communication and support.
	Stakeholder Management	As principal at a struggling school, collaborate with stakeholders to improve achievement.
	Values-Based Leadership	Apply your leadership values to address concerns about athletes disrupting the classroom.
Curriculum, Instruction and Student Achievement	End of School Year	Navigate demographic shifts, balancing diverse community needs while ensuring equitable, high-quality learning experiences for all students.
	Cultural Competency	Develop a plan to improve academic achievement while balancing stakeholder needs.
	Building Inclusive Classrooms: Defending Challenged Books	Navigate a parent’s concern about a student’s book choice for a classroom reading activity, balancing inclusivity and educational priorities.
School Operations and Management	School Safety	Respond to a potential student threat while balancing conflicting factors.
	Playground Mishap	Navigate challenging parent interactions and teacher decisions affecting student safety.
	Cyberbullying	Address cyberbullying’s impact on students, staff, and the community while applying legal frameworks and First Amendment rights.

provides examples of the sims aligned with each semester of internship.

The sims were implemented both synchronously and asynchronously, allowing interns to engage with them individually or as part of structured internship seminars. A school leader from the partner district facilitated connections with in-service leaders who participated in select debriefing discussions. These leaders provided perspectives on the complexities of school leadership and shared insights into how decisions made in simulated scenarios correspond to real-world challenges.

3.3. Phase Three: New Leader Induction

The third phase extended the use of sims beyond preparation, incorporating them into the district partner’s principal induction. Before this project, the partner district did not have a formal induction program for new principals or assistant principals. By integrating sims into the onboarding process, the district aimed to provide structured leadership development opportunities that would support new administrators in navigating the complexities of their roles.

In the year of the project, the district had one new assistant principal (AP). The project team provided the district with a list of sims for review, allowing district leaders to select those most relevant to the AP’s initial responsibilities. The assistant superintendent overseeing the induction process, in collaboration with the new AP, selected sims that focused on school safety and student support. These topics were identified as critical to the AP’s role in the district and were aligned with the immediate challenges of school leadership.

The AP completed the selected sims independently and then debriefed on them during meetings with the assistant superintendent. These discussions provided an opportunity to reflect on leadership decision-making processes, explore alternative approaches, and connect the simulated scenarios to real-world school leadership challenges. This structured use of sims was designed to supplement the district’s informal induction process, offering a more intentional approach to leadership development during the AP’s transition into administration.

3.4. Phase Four: Professional Development for In-Service Leaders

The final phase of the project extended the use of sims to professional development for in-service school leaders. This phase aimed to provide structured opportunities for ongoing learning, allowing district administrators to refine their skills in decision-making, equity-driven leadership, and crisis management. Additionally, the project sought to foster a community of practice that would bring together university faculty, principal preparation instructors, and district leaders, creating a collaborative space for leadership development.

The district partner’s superintendent played a central role in implementing this phase by selecting sims to be used during district-wide leadership meetings. Planning meetings included not only school principals but also district administrators from various departments, such as special education, counseling, school safety, transportation, and food services. The superintendent led the sims synchronously, guiding discussions on decision-making processes and prompting school leaders to reflect on the choices they would make in different scenarios.

Following each simulation, the superintendent facilitated a debriefing discussion in which participants examined their decision-making processes, considered alternative approaches, and discussed the implications of their choices. The superintendent also provided feedback, incorporating insights from district policies, ongoing initiatives, and state laws. Many of the selected sims focused on school safety, student support, and teacher development, aligning with district priorities. Some of these sims overlapped with those used in the new leader induction program, reinforcing key leadership competencies across multiple levels of experience.

While these phases usually follow a chronological sequence handled by two unrelated systems, in this study a partnership between a university and the school district allowed for their concurrent implementation, fostering deeper interactions among them. This approach enabled a more cohesive and mutually reinforcing larger system. The intention of the collaboration was to bridge the preparation-to-practice gap so that leaders experience a more seamless transition between the initial and ongoing learning and application, thereby strengthening the alignment between preparation and the practical demands of school leadership. The following section outlines the methods used to examine participants’ experiences in each phase.

4. Methods

To address the research question—how are faculty, and pre-service and in-service leaders perceptions of leadership and leadership development impacted by sims in different stages of the principal pipeline?—we employed a multi-phase mixed-methods design combining quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interviews, focus groups, and written reflections) data. Data were collected from multiple stakeholder groups, including teachers, principal candidates, university faculty, district administrators, and in-service school leaders. This structured approach to analysis encouraged phase-specific findings. The integration of qualitative and quantitative data facilitated a more in-depth view of how sims contributed to leadership development across different stages of the principal pipeline.

Table 3. Summary of study phases, participants, data sources, and analysis methods.

Phase	Participants	Data Sources	Analysis Methods
Phase One: Recruitment	38 teachers	Semantic differential survey (pre- and post-sim)	Score conversion, descriptive statistics, and graphical analysis
Phase Two: (a) Curriculum Integration	3 university faculty	Structured interviews	AI-assisted summarization, manual review, and thematic analysis
Phase Two: (b) Principal Internships	27 principal interns	Written reflections (15 sims) and 3 focus groups (7, 6, and 8 participants)	Thematic analysis, coding, and synthesis of responses
Phase Three: Principal Induction	1 assistant principal and 1 assistant superintendent	Structured interviews and written reflections	AI-assisted summarization, manual review, and thematic analysis
Phase Four: Professional Development	1 superintendent, 1 principal, and 30 school leaders	Structured interviews, 4 PD sessions, and focus group/debriefing	Thematic analysis, coding, and synthesis of discussion

presents the participants, data sources, and data analysis organized by the phase of the study.

4.1. Participants

The study engaged a diverse group of stakeholders from both university principal preparation programs and school district systems, participating across four distinct phases. In the initial recruitment phase, 38 out of 48 teachers attending a leadership recruitment event completed a semantic differential survey before and after the event. During the curriculum integration phase, three university faculty members who incorporated simulations into their leadership courses participated in structured interviews. Concurrently, in the principal internships phase, 27 principal interns submitted reflections on 15 simulations completed over the course of their one-year internship. Additionally, a total of 21 principal candidates participated in focus groups at the end of each semester: 7 in summer, 6 in fall, and 8 in spring. The principal induction phase involved structured interviews with a new assistant principal and an assistant superintendent, with the former also providing a written reflection. Finally, the professional development phase included individual interviews with a superintendent and a principal, who led four professional development sessions attended by 20 school leaders. One session was observed and followed by a focus group and debriefing session.

4.2. Data Collection

Data were collected using multiple qualitative and quantitative methods, each designed to capture the experiences and perceptions of the participants concerning simulation-based learning. All the instruments were designed explicitly for this exploratory study and were refined through expert feedback. The following section describes the instruments used to collect data and the participants, noting any differences by phase.

Surveys: A semantic differential survey was administered to 38 teachers before and after a leadership recruitment event. A semantic differential survey measures attitudes and perceptions by having respondents rate concepts using opposing adjective pairs (e.g., “boring–interesting”) on a numerical scale (Osgood et al., 1967). The method has strong construct validity and correlates well with other attitude measurement techniques, making it a reliable research tool. The approach typically measures up to three dimensions—evaluation, potency, and activity—allowing researchers to capture both the direction and intensity of attitudes while remaining simple for participants to complete. The survey in this study assessed five constructs, each with five items: career envisioning, decision-making, stakeholder consultation, relationship-building, and mission development. For example, in the construct of career envisioning the prompt was “To me, a career in leadership is…” and the participants responded to five-word pairs: means nothing and means a lot; boring and interesting; unexciting and exciting; ordinary and fascinating; and unappealing and appealing. For each pairing, one word was at the left and one at the right of a 7-point Likert scale, and the participants selected a number to indicate their relative level of agreement with either end of that scale.

Interviews: Structured interviews were conducted with the participants in each phase, as described above in the project setting section. In phase two, faculty were interviewed; the protocol included six questions focusing on their perceptions of leadership and leadership development, implementation strategies, and any barriers faced during implementation. Example questions from the faculty interview include the following: “What did you want students to get out of using the simulation?”; “How did you select the simulations?”; “What considerations were given in this choice?”; “What were your overall experiences implementing simulation(s)?”: “What lessons were learned?”; and “What would you do differently next time?”

During phase three, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a new assistant principal (AP) and an assistant superintendent (AS), focusing on their experiences using sims as an induction tool. The interview protocols explored several key areas, including sim implementation, personal experiences with the sims, and their perceptions of how the sims impacted the induction and professional growth of the new leader. Sample questions for the AP included the following: “Could you describe how you incorporated sims into the induction process for new administrators?”; and “How do simulations compare to traditional induction methods in terms of engaging new administrators and promoting active learning?” The interview questions for the AP focused on their firsthand experiences engaging with the simulations. Sample questions included the following: “What was your experience participating in these simulations?”; “How did you approach the scenarios presented?”; and “How do the simulations compare to other professional development activities you have participated in during your induction?”

During phase four, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with a superintendent and a principal to evaluate the application of sims in administrative meetings as a professional development tool. The superintendent’s interview concentrated on their experiences facilitating the sims during these meetings, covering aspects such as implementation strategies, observed participant responses, and the perceived challenges and benefits of integrating sims into leadership development. Complementing the superintendent’s perspective as the group leader, the principal’s interview focused on their experiences as a participant, discussing their engagement with the sims, personal perceptions of their effectiveness as a professional development resource, and reflections on how participation in the sims influenced their leadership practices. While these leaders were involved in both the selection and implementation of the sims, the decision to pilot the sims and the sim selections were grounded in specific district priorities, and the interview protocol was designed to elicit both the perceived benefits and challenges.

Focus Groups: Related to phase two, focus groups were conducted at the conclusion of each semester to explore the principal interns’ experiences with sims during their internships. The groups comprised seven participants in the summer, six in the fall, and eight in the spring. The discussions aimed to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of using sims to explore leadership issues, assess the interns’ ability to apply insights from the simulations to real-world scenarios, and examine how debriefing sessions influenced their understanding of the concepts addressed in the sims. The facilitators framed the sessions as a critical exploration of the role of simulations, specifically noting that the university did not design the tools and encouraging both positive and negative feedback. Some researchers were unaffiliated with the course, which we believe helped create additional openness to a range of perspectives. While it is possible that social desirability or peer influence shaped some responses, the participants were generally forthcoming and nuanced in their feedback. Sample questions included the following: “How would you describe your experience using simulations to explore leadership challenges?” and “In what ways, if any, did the debriefing sessions affect your understanding of the issues presented in the simulations?”

As a part of phase four, following the implementation of a simulation during an administrative meeting, a focus group was conducted with district leaders to evaluate their experiences and perceptions of using sims as a tool for the ongoing professional development of leaders. The discussion aimed to gather insights into the leaders’ firsthand experiences with the sims, their observations of team interactions during the simulations, and their assessments of the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating sims into professional development sessions. For example, the participants were asked questions such as, “How did the simulation influence team dynamics during the session?” and “What benefits or challenges did you encounter while using the simulation as part of your professional development?”

Written Reflections: Related to phase two, all 27 principal interns submitted reflections on each of the 15 sims they completed, resulting in a total of 405 intern reflections. These reflections focused on analyzing simulation experiences by detailing the scenarios encountered, the decisions made, the rationale behind those decisions, and the resulting outcomes. They also evaluated the effectiveness of their choices, identified areas for improvement, and considered alternative strategies for future application. As a part of phase three, the assistant principal submitted a written reflection on the induction experience. An example of a question answered by the assistant principal is as follows: “What was your perception of the use of simulations as a form of principal induction?”

4.3. Data Analysis

Quantitative survey data were analyzed using standard descriptive methods. The participant responses were recorded on a 1–7 Likert-type scale. For each of the five leadership constructs, composite scores were created by averaging the relevant themes. Pre-simulation means were subtracted from post-simulation means to calculate the individual change scores, representing gains or losses. The participants were then ordered by the magnitude of their change across constructs to explore variability in impact.

Qualitative data from interviews and focus groups were transcribed using AI-assisted tools, with human review to ensure verbatim accuracy. The transcripts were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Two researchers independently conducted initial coding, generated preliminary codes, and then met to compare and refine themes through a consensus process. Emergent themes were synthesized into narrative findings that captured the participants’ perceptions and experiences. In addition, written reflections from pre-service and the in-service assistant principal were thematically coded for recurring patterns related to simulation effectiveness, leadership competency development, and professional growth.

5. Findings

The findings examining the impact of digital sims are presented by the principal pipeline phase and key data themes are discussed to provide insight into how the sims influenced leadership perceptions, preparation, induction, and professional development. Across these phases, the results indicate that the sims engaged the participants and provided the facilitators with a structured approach to raise leadership considerations.

5.1. Phase One: Simulations Inform Prospective Candidates About School Leadership

The findings from the semantic analysis of the teachers participating in the leader recruitment night indicated that nearly every participant experienced shifts in their perceptions of leadership. Overall, 20 participants (53%) reported a net positive shift, meaning they rated the semantic pairings more favorably on their post-session survey as compared to their initial perceptions. In contrast, 14 participants (37%) experienced net negative shifts mixed with a few positives, while 3 participants (8%) showed no change (see Figure 2). Further, the data revealed that the majority of the respondents experienced positive changes in four or five of the leadership constructs measured, while also reporting negative changes in one or two constructs. This pattern suggests that while the simulation-based professional development reinforced leadership as an engaging and attainable career path, it also exposed the participants to the complexities of school leadership that they may not have previously considered. Importantly, only one participant reported a negative change across all five constructs, indicating that while some respondents became more cautious or uncertain about pursuing leadership, the majority still found appeal in a leadership position, suggesting potential benefits from the sim experience.

The presence of both positive and negative shifts aligns with previous research on simulation-based learning. Knezek et al. (2015) found that negative shifts in perception do not necessarily indicate disengagement or failure but rather an increased awareness of the challenges and demands of the role portrayed in the sim (Knezek et al., 2015). The participants may have entered this experience with an idealized or simplified view of school leadership, only to recalibrate their understanding after engaging in a simulation of leadership decision-making. Overall, these findings suggest that digital sims may be useful in enhancing leadership recruitment efforts.

In this project, the sim was used to allow aspiring leaders to experience administrative decision-making as a means to explore their interest in formal training. It was used within an interactive facilitated learning experience to portray the complexities and tradeoffs in school leadership with the aim of enriching the participants’ imaginations regarding principals’ work and providing a basis for self-assessment in relation to those demands. While some participants experienced a positive reinforcement of their leadership aspirations, others gained a greater appreciation for the complexity of the role, which may lead to more intentional and better-prepared candidates entering leadership preparation programs.

5.2. Phase Two: Faculty Consider Sims Effective Tools for Developing Candidates School Leadership Capacities

Analysis of the interviews with three of the four university faculty members teaching the courses into which the sims were integrated (see Table 1) revealed that they perceived the sims as actively engaging students, bringing course materials to life, and creating opportunities for practical application. The instructors defined powerful learning experiences as those that connect theory and background to real-life experiences, foster deep understanding, and encourage cognitive engagement and risk-taking. They reported that the sims did indeed provide these kinds of learning experiences and importantly, formed a common set of learning experiences for reflection and class discussion. The instructors had several intentions for the sims, which they reported were fulfilled. One wanted to deepen their students’ understanding of course concepts and standards by connecting them to real-life scenarios. Another emphasized the intention to provide practice exercises for decision-making in complex, nuanced situations with no easy answers. A third felt that the sims allowed her to foster discussion and reflection on the impact of different decision choices, with emphasis on the importance of considering multiple perspectives. All three instructors indicated how the sims would provide exposure to leadership challenges, without risk to their students.

The instructors reported selecting sims for their course(s) with several criteria in mind. The sims needed to be aligned with their course objectives and standards, provide opportunities for students to practice decision-making in complex and nuanced situations, and be authentic, reflecting real-life scenarios where decisions have consequences. The three instructors varied in their implementation, illustrating the flexibility of the sims as a teaching tool. One instructor used the sims as a follow-up to the course text, giving students two weeks to complete at least one sim and write a reflection that summarized and connected the sim to the standards and demonstrated that the leadership candidates could view a problem from multiple perspectives. Another instructor used the sims as a whole-group activity with partner talk and class discussion to foster conversation around decision-making, stakeholder perspectives, and unintended consequences. The third instructor used the sims in three different courses, sometimes collaboratively and sometimes independently, supported by reflective writing and group discussion.

The instructors reported they felt the sims helped the participants recognize multiple perspectives inherent in dilemmas. They indicated that their students recognized the dilemmas in the sims as representative of real-world situations. One instructor felt that the sims helped him increase the range and depth of student responses. He said “The diversity of the responses during the student-facilitated discussion went beyond my normal relationship of the ‘grader of the whole experience’ to be open about their choices and reflective of the results of their choices”.

While these faculty did not use any single assessment techniques to document it, they expressed confidence that during class discussion, students indicated deep understanding and higher levels of engagement and enthusiasm. In their opinions, the sims allowed productive failure, and positively contributed to students’ self-efficacy.

The instructors saw the sims as a learning experience sitting somewhere between readings or typical in-class activities and internships. They expressed that the sims allowed students to bridge the gap between theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills in a risk-free environment. As the sims required the students to make decisions, it made the students’ thinking more visible. The sims then showed the implications of those decisions, prompting students to reflect on their choices. These instructors did not use the sims for assessment purposes but recognized that they could do so with further instructional adjustments to their instruction. In these initial semesters of use, they put faith in the fact that the practice in decision-making and the post-sim reflections they led was developing self-efficacy and leadership habits of mind.

In sum, the experienced leadership preparation instructors valued how the sims created a way for them to create an engaging shared group experience that allowed for a variety of analytic points to be raised in post-sim discussion, for example, the cost-benefits of decisions, considering the perspectives of others, and illustrating the gray areas leaders face when making decisions. All the instructors agreed they would use the sims again as experiences that foster discussion and reflection, raise ethical considerations, and illustrate the influence of context on leaders’ work.

The sims used during the extension of coursework into internship provided the instructors a chance to expose students to leadership challenges and ethical dilemmas that are pertinent to leadership preparation, but may not be encountered at that intern’s school or might be inaccessible due to confidentiality restrictions. The interns appreciated the opportunity to engage in difficult conversations and sensitive topics and practice handling complex personnel issues in an authentic risk-free environment. For example, the Disruptive Teacher Simulation required them to address a teacher’s inappropriate behavior, and the New Teacher Evaluation Simulation involved providing observation-based feedback and support to a struggling teacher. One intern reported, “I wouldn’t normally get to handle personnel issues as an intern, but the simulations gave me a chance to practice dealing with difficult staff situations in a way that felt real”.

The sims also prompted principal candidates to repeat scenarios multiple times to explore different decision-making outcomes. Many engaged with the additional sims voluntarily, without any requirement to do so, as they were eager to experiment with alternative decision-making to observe how different choices influenced the outcomes. One intern shared, “I ran the same scenario at least five times because I wanted to see how things would play out if I changed my responses. I liked that I could practice making difficult decisions without any real consequences”.

Additionally, the principal candidates highly valued the debriefing process in the seminar setting of the internship course, as it provided a structured opportunity to compare their perspectives about a situation with other interns. This highlights how sims can create a common learning experience even when interns’ unique placements may create varied opportunities. It appeared that the sims created a sort of neutral practice context that encouraged critical analysis of decision-making approaches and the consideration of alternative strategies.

Finally, many principal candidates extended their learning beyond the classroom by sharing the sim with their internship mentors. They sought to understand whether the choices they made aligned with district-specific expectations or how their mentors might have handled similar situations. One student explained, “I showed one of the sims to my principal and asked what they would have done in that situation. Their response gave me a whole new perspective on how leadership decisions have to balance policy, relationships, and real-world constraints”. The exchange with the mentors allowed the interns to contextualize their learning within the parameters of school leadership in their districts.

Overall, the sims provided the principal candidates with authentic, engaging, and risk-free opportunities to engage in challenging leadership scenarios that may have otherwise been inaccessible in their internships. They practiced handling personnel issues, revisited the sims voluntarily to explore decision-making outcomes, and benefited from the seminar debriefings that fostered multiple perspectives. Many also shared the sims with their mentors, using mentor insights to further bridge the gap between preparation and real-world leadership practice. These experiences highlight the impact of the sims in enhancing leadership development through the principal internship.

5.3. Phase Three: Simulations Provide a Basis for Coaching During Leader Induction

The district partner’s assistant superintendent (AS) for personnel and professional development and a first-year assistant principal (AP) reported several benefits of sims as a learning tool during induction. As part of their professional development, the AP completed two simulations designed to enhance decision-making in high-pressure leadership scenarios. The first, Playground Mishaps, required handling a complex parent–teacher conflict involving student safety, emphasizing the importance of diplomacy, policy adherence, and student well-being. The second, School Safety, placed the participants in a potential threat scenario, requiring them to assess risk, collaborate with stakeholders, and make decisive choices. Both sims aimed to strengthen strategic leadership and crisis management skills.

During an interview, the AP described the sims as highly realistic and valuable, particularly in preparing for unforeseen challenges that might otherwise be overshadowed by daily operational demands. Engaging with simulated emergencies provided an opportunity to refine leadership approaches and strengthen crisis preparedness. The AS reinforced the utility of sims in refining decision-making in high-stakes environments and noted the advantage they offered in customizing professional support based on leadership needs, “I like the fact that I could go into the catalog and look at all of the different topics, and then if an assistant principal was struggling in a particular area, I could assign them a simulation related to that topic”. Both the AS and the AP stressed the value of collaboration in the use of the sim, followed by debriefing. The AP noted that this method allows for a broad-based dialog about improving leadership approaches, and elicits perspectives that can then inform changes or revisions to policies and procedures. This iterative process not only enhances individual leadership competencies but may also contribute to systemic improvements in crisis response and decision-making frameworks within the district.

5.4. Phase Four: Simulations Ground System-Wide Discussions Among In-Service Leaders

In focus groups, the administrators who together completed four different sims during districtwide administrative meetings emphasized the authenticity and complexity of the sims, noting that the scenarios closely mirrored real-world challenges, and how that relevance enhanced their engagement. Several administrators agreed that completing them in a group felt collaborative, and fostered discussion and reflection. The middle school principal shared that he found it beneficial to compare his decision-making approaches with those of elementary and high school administrators to inform his leadership in an environment that overlaps with both. He also noted that because the scenarios were hypothetical, the participants were more open to constructive feedback without taking it personally. Their positive reactions suggest the sims were a worthwhile professional development activity.

The superintendent and assistant superintendent who facilitated those sessions reported that completing and debriefing the sims led to reflective discussions in the group, providing opportunities to discuss effective decision-making and prioritizing. They described how at some decision points in the sims, the participants expressed frustration when they were unable to select multiple responses simultaneously, which led to conversations about real-world constraints and the necessity of focus during crisis management. They reported that when the participants suggested action choices not included in the simulation, it allowed them to broach alternative strategies and leadership approaches, and reinforce the value of adaptive decision-making. The facilitators explained how when the group did not agree about the decision choice to take, they encouraged the participants to explain their reasoning. This exposed different leadership perspectives, which allowed them a chance to coach their district leaders and raise pertinent board policies, state laws, legal precedents, insurance considerations, and student handbooks. The assistant superintendent observed that while some new assistant principals had completed sims independently, the greatest learning occurred during group discussions. These conversations encouraged deep questioning, critical thinking, and collective problem-solving, reinforcing that decision-making should not occur in isolation.

The superintendent observed that the realism of the sims created opportunities for teachable moments. For example, in one sim, the participants debated how to handle a parent dissatisfied with a teacher assignment. This provided an opportunity to discuss stakeholder engagement in general and relationship repair strategies, allowing him to emphasize how leaders must consider long-term community engagement beyond immediate problem resolution. The superintendent was pleased with the overall enthusiasm his administrators had for the sims, which he appreciated as well for their potential to shape leadership mindsets.

Unlike traditional professional development, which often does not include a practice component, these sims allowed the administrators to demonstrate their thought processes in action, offering a realistic window into their decision-making approaches. The superintendent summed up the sims and their debriefing as an opportunity to be a “partner in their thinking”, gaining valuable insight into how administrators might navigate real-world leadership challenges.

5.5. Limitations of Simulation-Based Learning

While the participants across all the phases generally responded positively to the use of digital simulations, several limitations emerged that warrant consideration. First, both pre-service and in-service leaders occasionally expressed frustration with the fixed-choice structure of the simulations. In particular, the participants noted that they were sometimes forced to select from among a limited set of options that did not fully reflect how they would respond in practice. Others expressed a desire to select multiple responses simultaneously, especially in crisis scenarios that demand parallel action steps. These limitations may reflect the inherent constraints of branching simulations, which require pre-programmed decision paths. However, the participants and facilitators reported that these moments of dissonance often prompted rich discussion and surfaced valuable insights about real-world constraints, competing priorities, and the importance of sequencing in decision-making. Some facilitators addressed these limitations by encouraging the participants to articulate what they wished they could have done and to examine the trade-offs associated with alternative courses of action.

A second limitation was that the simulations were not customized to reflect district-specific policies, procedures, or state laws. As one in-service principal noted, the simulations did not always align with local expectations. However, the facilitators described how the simulations served as conversation stimulators, providing a shared context for surfacing policy implications and clarifying local procedures. These scenarios created opportunities for participants to examine how leadership decisions intersect with district-specific expectations, helping ensure that all the stakeholders were aligned in their understanding of relevant policies and practices. Rather than viewing occasional mismatches between simulation content and local context as a limitation, the facilitators saw them as productive entry points for contextualized discussions. These moments helped bridge theory and practice and reinforced the importance of interpreting decisions through the lens of district policy, legal considerations, and school-specific norms.

Finally, several pre-service candidates noted that while the branching simulations helped them recognize the types of challenging conversations school leaders must navigate, the format did not allow for extended practice in dialog or interpersonal communication. Some expressed a desire for more sustained role-play or dynamic feedback to strengthen these skills. These reflections suggest that branching simulations may be most effective as one component of a broader leadership development toolkit—ideally complemented by live coaching, peer interaction, structured role-play, or potentially emerging tools such as AI-driven conversational agents to support the development of communication competencies in more interactive and responsive ways.

6. Discussion

This exploratory study examined how, within a university–district partnership, sims might be integrated across the four phases of the principal pipeline—recruitment, preparation, induction, and in-service professional development—to learn how faculty and pre-service and in-service leaders perceive the impact of sims on their ideas about leadership and leadership development. Across the stakeholder groups, the sims impacted people’s ideas and reflections concerning leadership. How the sims made those impacts has several answers: they offered a shared experiential platform, helped bridge the gap between theory and practice, prompted structured discussion, and supported decision-making across stages of leadership development.

This study builds on the existing research that positions sims as tools for developing procedural knowledge and reflective practice (Knezek & Vandersall, 2008; Turnbull et al., 2016), and extends that work by examining how sims can operate as a common pedagogical thread across the full principal pipeline—from recruitment through ongoing professional development. This comprehensive use across multiple developmental stages represents a meaningful contribution, suggesting that sims may not need to be confined to a single phase or function, but rather can be adapted flexibly to support leader learning at various career points.

The experiential learning theory offers guidance into just how to adapt sims to the leadership development represented by the pipeline. As illustrated in this exploratory study, considering the participants’ needs for types and extent of experiences may clarify to facilitators the intended purpose(s) of the sim, and how to promote the subsequent steps of learners’ reflection, thinking about connections to other knowledge, and internalizing implications for future action. For example, it appears that the interns’ progression towards field-based responsibilities influenced their voluntary repeated use of sims and discussions with mentors. Perhaps their need for deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993) drove their need for repeated, complex, authentic tasks to build connections in their knowledge and internalize how context influences its application. These findings suggest that the sims themselves, their facilitation, and the learners’ context all may influence who benefits from sims and how. Differences in application and emphasis, by sim participants and facilitators alike, highlight situated cognition theories (Brown et al., 1989), as the participants made meaning from the sims through context-specific scenarios, peer dialog, and guided reflection. The debriefing discussions, in particular, appeared to create space for meaning-making through the social negotiation of perspectives—a key aspect of adult learning and leadership development.

The alignment between perceptions of simulations’ practical significance and theory suggests they warrant further study at all points of the leadership pipeline. While this study suggests that sims may be uniquely positioned to support more coherent leadership learning systems by offering practice-based tools that bridge preparation and professional development, more research is needed. Future research should continue to explore how sims are implemented across varied institutional partnerships and investigate how they might be intentionally designed and sequenced to support leadership development over time. Longitudinal studies would be especially valuable in assessing whether sims contribute across the pipeline to leader preparedness, persistence, and effectiveness in the field. Rigorous designs are also needed to support causal inferences about leadership development in general, and of specific competencies.

7. Conclusions

The findings suggest several possibilities for strengthening leadership development systems. Sims show promise as a tool for reimagining the structure and coherence of the principal pipeline—offering realistic previews of leadership work during recruitment, providing safe opportunities to practice decision-making in preparation programs, supporting individualized coaching during induction, and fostering collaborative problem-solving in in-service professional development. By offering a consistent and contextually responsive approach to engaging with complex leadership scenarios, sims may help address longstanding challenges in both the supply to and integrity of the principal pipeline. It suggests that additional development of sims (i.e., more topics and types of tools) might offer yet additional benefits. As the demands of educational leadership evolve, sims may serve as a flexible, scalable, and practice-rich strategy to enhance leader development across the continuum of professional growth.