West Point Society of Cincinnati Leadership and Ethics Conference
Faculty Breakout Session Synopsis
1
CASE STUDY: FIRING A TEACHER WITH CANCER
Ms. Samantha Greeve was hired as a special education teacher in 2006. At her interview she presented as nervous but at the close of the interview she set up a computer to show what her students had accomplished in a previous school. This demonstration was impressive and since the open position was in the Structured Learning
Center (the areas set aside for a student identified with a social / emotional disability) we ascertained that she would give those particular students more “out of the box” experiences, which was exactly what they needed to be successful.
The committee was excited about Ms. Greeve’s arrival and welcomed her. Ms. Greeves told us during the second meeting that she was a cancer survivor. She stated that she had breast cancer 5 years prior. I was thrilled that we could welcome more diversity into this sleepy Cape Cod town and was impressed that she was able to openly express her experiences. We became fast friends. I was the assistant principal at that time and we needed one another to assist with challenging students. As time progressed, we had created many strategies to help students behave more appropriately and seemed to have a good handle on the situation. Shortly after her arrival Ms. Greeve indicated that the cancer was back.
Being a first year teacher, the principal decided to do a number of things to help her out. Ms. Greeve could leave early for her treatments, take the time she needed when not feeling well and still maintain her full pay, not dipping too much into her sick time. Throughout the year Ms. Greeve held up well considering the circumstances, however, the following year the cancer had spread to her brain. Not only was her cancer advanced Ms. Greeve’s experienced a divorce. Although difficult, Ms. Greeve maintained her position. The administration continued to support and encourage Ms. Greeve, yet began to notice that this illness was affecting her performance. We met with her several times, hired additional teaching assistants and continued to work with her.
At the beginning of Ms. Greeve’s third year, the principal retired and I was asked to become the interim principal. I accepted the position. In August 2009, the Superintendent asked me to request a letter from Ms. Greeve’s doctor indicating that she was medically stable to continue working as a special education teacher. Although it was difficult to ask for this letter, as I had established a close relationship with Ms. Greeve, and was adamantly against letting her go (ethically), I asked her to meet with me and Ms. Greeve was able to get the letter from her doctor and return to work.
Honestly, it was beyond my own belief system to consider firing someone dying of cancer. I thought, “I will
NEVER fire her and will protect her until the end.” I was unwavering in my conviction. As the school year started, other faculty members identified their deep concerns with Ms. Greeve as they continued to reflect upon situations that had happened the previous year. I was confronted with a value-related conflict. Holding steadfast to the idea that, “I will
NEVER fire her”, had been challenged as a result of Ms. Greeve’s inability to perform her teaching responsibilities.
Soon after the year began it became clear that the job presented too many stressors for Ms. Greeve. The students were not given consistent expectations, the other teachers working with Ms. Greeve’s students were not given clear behavior plans, causing ambiguity in their ability to teach the students and Ms. Greeve was having difficulty remembering what she had implemented from one minute to the next. At first, I felt that my staff was not compassionate enough and defended Ms. Greeve, making justified excuses for her performance. I was hoping that by demonstrating compassion, love, affection, kindness, gentleness, generosity of spirit, and warm-heartedness the example provided would be noticed by the faculty. I was also concerned that a perceived lack of compassion would cause other faculty to feel that I would not support them if, in fact, they ever faced a life changing experience. I spent many hours contemplating the gravity of this situation in my mind, reviewing all aspects, considering the students first, the health and welfare of Ms. Greeve, other staff members and my own ethical responsibility as it related to this

West Point Society of Cincinnati Leadership and Ethics Conference
Faculty Breakout Session Synopsis
2 situation. I could not come to terms with the possibility of firing someone that was riddled with cancer.
How was I going to make an ethical decision with the vast divergence of emotion to consider? How could I stand up for my own beliefs, principles and vision? How would this affect the culture of my school, if I fired a faculty member who was sick?
-
This is not only a personal ethical dilemma but the decision will shape the culture of a school.
-
Conflict with personal belief system, conflict the values of her school (compassion, love, kindness towards people etc.) vs. performance (student learning outcomes).
-
TRUTH: It is often not easy to make the “right” decision. Often we face real conflicts.
-
Our main objective: Discuss and identify ways in which we can shape the culture in our schools so they become places in which ethical leaders can grow and flourish.
-
Assumption: That a healthy culture, where faculty are thriving and flourishing will yield positive results in students.
-
Teacher job satisfaction has plummeted to its lowest level in 25 years, from 62 percent in
2008 to 39 percent in 2012. (Met Life Survey of American Teacher).


-
The collective programming of the mind (collective consciousness) that distinguishes the members of an organization (school) from another.
-
Culture is the character or personality of an organization.
-
Culture is about “the story” in which people in the organization are embedded.
-
Culture is a social control system - promoting and reinforcing “right” thinking and behaving, and sanctioning
“wrong” thinking and behaving.
-
It reflects the mood or health of an organization.
-
It’s what binds us together.
- Consistent, observable patterns of behavior in organizations.
- It is constructed reality.
-
Influenced externally by the broader culture of the societies in which it operates.
-
Culture is a carrier of meaning. Cultures provide not only a shared view of “what is” but also of “why is.”
-
Culture is a social control system - promoting and reinforcing “right” thinking and behaving, and sanctioning
“wrong” thinking and behaving.
- Cultures are dynamic. They shift, incrementally and constantly, in response to external and internal changes
- Its importance: For better or worse, culture influences much of what is thought, said, and done in a
school.
- Thomas Sergiovanni, Rethinking Leadership (2007)
- Culture is important because it generates a commitment to values.

West Point Society of Cincinnati Leadership and Ethics Conference
Faculty Breakout Session Synopsis
3

Visible
1.
2.
3.
o Surface level: visible artifacts--- dress, patterns of behavior, physical symbols, ceremonies, office layout. o Deeper level: expressed values and beliefs----discerned from how people explain and justify what they do. o Members hold these values at a conscious level. o Deepest level: values so deeply embedded that members are not aware of them. o Members are not aware of the assumptions that guide behavior, language, and social interaction.

West Point Society of Cincinnati Leadership and Ethics Conference
Faculty Breakout Session Synopsis
4
Culture strength – The degree of agreement among employees about the importance of specific values and ways of conducting themselves and their work. o Strong – there is a widespread consensus about values in our school. o Weak – there is little agreement on values in our schools.
-
The effect of a strong culture is not always positive. Sometimes a strong culture can encourage wrong values and cause harm to the organization (e.g. highly competitive culture might encourage pushing things to the ethical limits to accomplish goals).
-
COMPETING VALUES FRAMEWORK:
Even within healthy cultures, leaders need to choose values that are a fit and match organizational goals, strategies etc. Some values (even good ones) compete.
-
CULTURAL PREFERENCE INVENTORY. I will bring but it consists of 14 sets of four responses that relate to typical values or situations facing leaders and will demonstrate a

West Point Society of Cincinnati Leadership and Ethics Conference
Faculty Breakout Session Synopsis
5
preference for one of the above cultures. Your personal values are consistent with a type of culture.
 People both shape and interpret the culture of an organization. An organization is not a slice of objective reality; different people may perceive the organization in different ways and relate to it in different ways.
 Leaders formulate a viewpoint about the organization and the values that can help people achieve the organization’s set goals.
 The way leaders influence norms and values is through cultural leadership.
 Cultural leader – defines and uses signals and symbols to influence the culture.
 Setting and communicating values – defines the values and communicates them.
 Oversees day to day activities to reinforce values – work procedures, decision models, reward systems match values.
 Exhibit behavior consistent with organizational values.

West Point Society of Cincinnati Leadership and Ethics Conference
Faculty Breakout Session Synopsis
6
 Manning & Curtis, p. 112 – People will forgive a leader who fails to manage by objectives, or is inefficient in the use of time, or fails to achieve the smoothest human relations; but they find it difficult
to forgive the leaders who is immoral or unprincipled.
 DISCUSSION: What are the signs/traits of an unethical culture? What makes a school culture ethical?
 Manning & Curtis’ Red Flags (p. 106):
-
Members lack clear understanding about how they should behave as they attempt to meet organizational goals.
-
Different individuals and groups have fundamentally different value systems.
-
Top leaders send mix messages about what is important.
-
Day-to-day life is disorganized, with the left hand and the right hand often working at cross-purposes.
- Members complain about the organization to neighbors, friends & family.
-
The organization has stated values but does not practice them.
 The CEBC Integrity QuickCheck is a five-item instrument that provides a high-level snapshot of the organization’s ethical landscape. Five aspects of your culture are measured: o Ethical issues and concerns can be discussed without negative consequences o Senior management support and practice high standards of ethical conduct o The organization is committed to serving the interests of multiple stakeholders o Employee behavior is consistent with the organization’s mission, vision and values o Employee advancement is based on behavior that demonstrates company values
 DISCUSSION: If you could only chose one value or principle to pursue at your school what would it be? What would be the highest value? The first step in leading an ethical culture is for the leader(s) to clarify what they personally value.
 Personal Values Inventory o Theoretical Orientation – Discovery of truth and the meaning of life. o Economic Orientation – Interested in what is useful; practical affairs of business. o Aesthetic Orientation – Finds satisfaction in beauty.

West Point Society of Cincinnati Leadership and Ethics Conference
Faculty Breakout Session Synopsis
7 o Social Orientation – The highest value is love. o Political Orientation – The highest value is power and influence. o Religious Orientation – The highest value is spiritual peace.
 EXAMPLE: As CEO of Zappos.com, Tony Hsieh’s top goal is not selling the most shoes over the Internet. His real priority is making employees and customers happy. Most Zappos employees are hourly call center workers. They get paid less than the industry average (even Hsieh makes only $36,000 a year) and don’t get fancy perks, but they talk about the company with an almost religious zeal. Zappos employees might not have an onsite fitness center, but they do have a nap room and a full-time life coach they can talk to if they need guidance or if they’re just having a bad day. People are encouraged to let their unique personalities come out at work, and they are given the autonomy to do whatever it takes to “wow” customers.
 Aristotelian view of education. This approach views the primary concern of education as the flourishing of students (physically, intellectually, ethically)
 Aristotle’s work is a testament to the belief that our thinking and practice as educators must be infused with a clear philosophy of life. There has to be a deep concern for the ethical and political. We have continually to ask what makes for human flourishing?
 Character is the ability of one to organize his or her life according to virtue.
 What is the role of ethical training in schools?
 Discussion: How do we know when our students are flourishing ethically? How do we measure this? Is ethical development of faculty and students something we have as a goal? Is it the school’s task to develop students ethically?
 Transformational Leadership – focuses on helping followers develop their own leadership potential.
There are 4 components to transformational leadership, sometimes referred to as the 4 I's: o Idealized Influence (II) - the leader serves as an ideal role model for followers; the leader "walks the talk," and is admired for this. o Inspirational Motivation (IM) - Transformational leaders have the ability to inspire and motivate followers. Combined these first two I's are what constitute the transformational leader's charisma.

West Point Society of Cincinnati Leadership and Ethics Conference
Faculty Breakout Session Synopsis
8 o Individualized Consideration (IC) - Transformational leaders demonstrate genuine concern for the needs and feelings of followers. This personal attention to each follower is a key element in bringing out their very best efforts. o Intellectual Stimulation (IS) - the leader challenges followers to be innovative and creative. A common misunderstanding is that transformational leaders are "soft," but the truth is that they constantly challenge followers to higher levels of performance.
Here are some items from our new measure of transformational leadership. See if you have transformational leadership qualities (Agree or Disagree).
1. I would never require a follower to do something that I wouldn't do myself.
2. My followers would say that they know what I stand for.
3. Inspiring others has always come easy to me.
4. My followers have told me that my enthusiasm and positive energy are infectious.
5. My followers would say that I am very attentive to their needs and concerns.
6. Even though I could easily do a task myself, I delegate it to expand my followers' skills.
7. Team creativity and innovation are the keys to success.
8. I encourage my followers to question their most basic way of thinking.
(Items 1 & 2 = II; 3 & 4 = IM; 5 & 6 = IC; 7 & 8 = IS)
 Servant Leadership – Servant leadership entails a deep belief that people are the greatest asset any organization has, and to nurture their individual growth becomes the basis for all organizational development. Service to followers is the primary responsibility of leaders.
 DISCUSSION: What can I do as a teacher/administrator to promote a culture of ethical leadership?
 Gary Yukl, Organizational Leadership (p. 356):
 Set clear standards for ethical conduct.
 Recognize and celebrate exceptional example of ethical conduct.
 Model ethical behavior in your own actions.
 Oppose unethical practices in the organization.