LITERATURE REVIEW
Marie Mc Leod /Jingping Sun
Based on
Article 1: Campbell, E. (1997, May). Ethical School Leadership: Problems of an Elusive Pole. Journal of
School Leadership, 7, 287-300.
Article 2: Lynn Beck "The Ethical challenge of Educational Administrators: Grappling with the complexity
of Moral Leadership" ----in Cunningham & Cordeiro (2000). Educational Administration: A Problem-Based
Approach (214-219). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Recently, much attention has been drawn to the moral dimension of school leadership. A plethora of
terrifying acts of brutality in schools have inspired, if not demanded, an emergence of educational settings
where such events will not occur. Bombarded by violence, drug use and abuse, adolescent pregnancy,
educational administrators instituted a host of programs------character education, community service,
multicultural education efforts and drug awareness programs------all aimed at fostering culturally accepted
values. However as Beck aptly points out, although the underlying principles of such efforts are good ones,
such activities are limited “ in their ability to encourage deep and lasting changes in the moral fabric of our
schools”. Morality encompasses more than a few principles and commitment to or avoidance of certain
behavior. Rather it involves a continuous assessment of our “practices, norms and policies to see if they, in
fact honor values such as justice, respect and the full dignity of each person”(Beck in Cunningham &
Cordeiro, 2000).
Campbell (1997, May) points out that it is ironic to assert goals of ethical leadership while continuing to
accept ethics as subjectively defined values of opinion and preference Through her literature review and her
personal experience of teaching future school leaders Campbell (1997, May) finds that school leaders either
are unaware of the moral dimension of their role or their considerations are subordinated by instrumental ones
related to policy and strategy and there is no effective solution offered in the administration programs to
prepare future leaders for the role of an ethical leader. In addition, this difficulty was complicated by
pervasive contemporary climate of relativism because it undermines the administrators’ ability to discern
ethical principles beyond their individual subjective feelings if accepted as a variable substitute for traditional
moral and ethical philosophy.
We agree with both authors that the moral dimension of leadership is very important. Hodgkinson claims
that “values constitute the essential problem of leadership … If there are no value conflicts then there is no
need for leadership” (1991, p. 11). A central issue relating to the exploration of moral orientations to
leadership is the nature of the values used by leaders in their decision making and how conflicts among values
can be solved (Leithwood, 1999). Hodgkinson (1991) introduced a value paradigm as the major contributor
to this approach. Hodgkinson (1991) divides values into two categories: right and good. “Good” is preference
while “right” is the duty bound (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2000). Hodgkinson (1991) presents 3 foundations
of values: Type I or transrational, Type II or rational and Type III or subrational moving from
Deontological-Nomothetic-Discipline Dimension to Axioiogial-Idiographic-Indulgence Dimension.
Transrational values are “conative”, grounded in principles, that “take the form of ethical codes, injunctions,
or commandments” (Hodgkinson, 1991, p. 99). Rational values are “cognitive”, grounded in consensus or
consequences, that “engage our reasoning” (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2000, p.206). Subrational values are
affective, rooted in emotional preference, that are characterized by self-interest and self-concern. Of the three,
Hodgkinson (1991) recommends that leaders choose higher over lower level values when confronted with
value conflicts. When faced with an ethical dilemma, it is better to seek the “right” rules from transrational
values first, then from rational values, and from subrational values.
However, Campbell addresses the complexity involved in translating philosophical principles into
practice within a prevailing climate of value relativism. Beck also acknowledges the complexity of moral
leaderships. She points out that the moral demands of educational leadership go well beyond considerations
of specific acts of moral choice. She suggests that leaders and administrators should first experience
themselves as moral agents and then they should support such experiences for others.
We agree with Campbell (1997, May) that it is difficult to apply ethical principles into decision making
when leaders or administrators are unaware of the moral dimension of school leadership and when they
subordinate ethical considerations to policy and strategy. Only focusing on action-guiding principles fails to
take into account the fact that “ in any given situation moral perception comes on the scene prior to moral
judgement; moral perception can lead to moral action outside the operation of judgement entirely; and
perception involves moral capacities not encompassed by moral judgement (Blum, in Beck and
Murphy,1994). Hauerwas and Burrell (in Beck and Murphy,1994) arrive at the similar conclusion. The moral
capacities involved in moral perception means the abilities to recognize morally significant details in
situations. Therefore, the efforts on preparing future moral leaders should focus first on helping them to
pursue an understanding of themselves and others in a moral perception as a foundation to ethical behavior in
their leadership (Greenfield, 1979). And the efforts should also focus on develop “extraordinary value
sensitivity” as Hodgkinson suggests (1991, p.164), rather than on pursuing which principles to commit to.
The much more crucial work according to Starratt is ‘’to create a schoolwide learning environment that
promotes the moral integrity of learning as the pursuit of the truth about oneself and one’s world, however
complex and difficult that task may be”.
Campbell argues that relativism paralyzes school leaders’ abilities to choose and to act upon the “right”
principles among competing values based upon the argument that “If everything is relative then nothing we
do is wrong or right”(Campbell 1997, 291). We acknowledge that exaggerating relativism to the extent that it
substitutes the traditional values and morals is wrong because at this extreme lies the fundamental flaw of
relativism: it becomes absolute since we can never judge what is right and wrong. But this doesn’t mean we
don’t accept relative ideas. On the contrary, we believe that to regard some principles as objectively right
itself is a subjective approach, that the rightness of some principles depends on the situation and that the
ethical reasoning process itself is a subjective approach. Hodgkinson (in Campbell, 1992) identifies there are
some values regarded commonly as right, which he calls as shared values, as a “metavalue” or “objectified
value” that is a result of subjective and deliberate forces. As long as leaders and administrators perceive
themselves as moral agents and develop the capacity to identify moral issues in the situations and engage
themselves in ethical reasoning, they are approaching moral dimensions of their leadership. Although these
approaches are subjective themselves, but they are"moral approaching".
To help leaders and administrators to perceive themselves as moral agents and to create an ethical school,
they must look inwardly as well as outwardly. They must attend to what some have called the state of their
own “souls”. Meeting this challenge is arduous, requiring us to be active and reflective simultaneously. Beck
has identified standards of good practice which involves being conscious, encouraging dialogue, modeling
and being reflective, which when adopted, will aid administrators in providing ethical leadership. Only by
using ethics as informing their understandings of themselves as moral agents and of their schools as moral
agencies can it be possible for administrators and leaders to adopt ethical reasoning into their decision making
process. Only then can it be possible for leaders to choose among competing values and alternatives including
policies and political strategies. Finally, to ensure success moral leaders must do more than clarify their
beliefs and philosophies about education. One must acknowledge the wider political concept in which leaders
breathe. Coupled with an acknowledgement of the uniqueness of their context, the ethical school
administrator has a vision that includes the interrelatedness of all those involved in the school and community
viewing others as beings with respect and dignity. Ethical guidelines may be identified, however the difficulty
lies in how such guidelines are enforced.
Reference
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Beck, L. & Murphy, J. (1994). Ethics in Educational Leadership Programs: An Expanding Role. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Campbell, E. (1992). Personal morals and organizational ethics: How teachers and principles cope with
conflicting values in the context of school cultures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto.
Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Leithwood, K. Jantzi, D. & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Starratt, R. j. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 27 (2), 185-202.
For additional information about moral leadership log on to the following websites:
Hinman, L. M. (2000). “Ethics Updates: Glossary.” [On-line]. Available: http://ethics.acused.edu
/glossary. html.
Klimes, R. (2000, Nov. 14). “Ethics Choices: How to Reason Ethically”. A learnwell CE Course LW-E101
[On-line]. Available: http://www.learnwell.org/eth1.shtml.
Patterson, J. L. & Patterson, J. H. (2000, Winter). “Ethics and Decision-Making in Schools”. The Internet
Source For Schools. 3(2). [On-line]. Available: http://www.emtech.net/source/vo13no2/ethics_and_
Decision -Making_in_Schoo…
Moral Leadership
……the ultimate test of moral leadership is its’ capacity to transcend the claims of multiplicity of everyday
wants and needs and expectations, to respond to the highest levels of moral development, and to relate
leadership behavior-its roles, choices, style, commitments—to a set of reasoned, relatively explicit conscious
values.(p.46)
Educational leaders in this climate face enormous challenges, as many believe it is their duty to encourage
students to embrace accepted social and cultural mores. Burns consciously communicates the theory that
reinserting morality into schools will do much to curb violence and by extension, other social problems.
Block also posits the view that educational leaders are “accountable for the well being……..of those around
us”. Clearly the moral demands of educational leadership go well beyond considerations of specific acts of
moral choice. Similarly, frontal attacks on anti social behaviors and attitudes are not enough to create ethical
schools The much more crucial work according to Starratt is ‘’to create a schoolwide learning environment
that promotes the moral integrity of learning as the pursuit of the truth about oneself and one’s world,
however complex and difficult that task may be”.
Ethical administrators, Greenfield argues, must serve as advocates for students and schools must be
responsive to students’ needs. To achieve this, administrators seeking an ethical school must look inwardly as
well as outwardly. They must attend to what some have called the state of their own “souls”. Meeting this
challenge is arduous, requiring us to be active and reflective simultaneously. Beck has identified standards of
good practice which involves being conscious, encouraging dialogue, modeling and being reflective, which
when adopted, will aid administrators in providing ethical leadership. To ensure success moral leaders must
do more than clarify their beliefs and philosophies about education. One must acknowledge the wider
political concept in which leaders breathe. Coupled with an acknowledgement of the uniqueness of their
context, the ethical school administrator “has a vision that includes the interrelatedness of all those involved
in the school and community……viewing others as beings with respect and dignity”(Craig 94)
ByrneArmstrong, H. (2000, May). “Ethics and the Teaching Profession.” Combined Dinner 2000: The
Dilemma of ethics. [On-line]. Available: http: //hsc.csu.edu.au/pta/pda/ ByrneArm_TALK_
ComDin2000.html.
Boostrom, R. (1998). “What Makes Teaching a Moral Activity?” The Educational Forum, 63, pp. 58-64.
Campbell, E. (1996). “Ethical Implications of Collegial Loyalty as One View of Teacher Professionalism.”
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2(2), 191-208.
Campbell, E. (1997b). “Ethical School Leadership: Problems of an Elusive Role.” Journal of School
Leadership, 7(3), 287-300.
Campbell, E. (2000). “Professional Ethics in Teaching: towards the development of a code of practice.”
Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 203-221.
Campbell, E. (2001, in class). The differences between ethics, morality and values. The sixth lecture of 1041
course. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.
Chapman,W. (1998). Critical Thinking. [On-line]. Available: http://www.metagifted.org/topics/gifted/ criti
calThinking/
Covey, S, R. (1990). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic (1st ed.). New
York; Toronto: Fireside Book.
Cunningham, W. & P. Cordeiro. (2000). “Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Leadership.” Journal of School
Leadership, 7 (3), 287-300.
Duke, D. (2000). Caring Safe Schools for All Children. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hinman, L. M. (2000). “Ethics Updates: Glossary.” [On-line]. Available: http://ethics. acused.edu /glossary.
html.
Jones, T.M. (1991), “Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations and issue-contingent model”.
Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 366-95.
Klimes, R. (2000, Nov. 14). “Ethics Choices: How to Reason Ethically”. A learnwell CE Course LW-E101
[On-line]. Available: http://www.learnwell.org/eth1.shtml.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1998, 4th ed.). Beijing: Foreign Language Education and
Research Press.
Marshall, C. (1992). “School Administrations’ Values: A Focus on Atypicals”. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 28(3): 368-386.
Neufeldt, V. & Guralnik, D. B. (1988). Webster’s New World Dictionary. (3rd college edition), New York:
Webster’s New World.
Patterson, J. L. & Patterson, J. H. (2000, Winter). “Ethics and Decision-Making in Schools”. The Internet
Source For Schools. 3(2). [On-line]. Available: http://www.emtech.net/source/vo13no2/ethics_and_
Decision -Making_in_Schoo…
Rest, J. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. NY: Praeger.
Shafer, W. E., Morris, R. E. & Ketchand, A. A. (2001). “Effects of personal values on auditors’ ethical
decisions”. Accounting, Audition & Accountability Journal, 14 (3), 254—277.
Sockett, H. (1990). “Accountability, trust, and ethical codes of practice.” in: J. Goodlad, R. Soder & K.
Sirotnik (Eds), The Moral Dimensions of Teaching (pp. 225-249). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building on Ethical School: A Practical Response to the Moral Crises in Schools.
London: Falmer.
Wimalasiri, J. S. (2001). “Moral reasoning capacity of management students and practitioners: An empirical
study in Australia”. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 614-634.
References
Organizations can be used to rationalize and
legitimize irrationality by means of institutionalization which
is supported and legitimized by science and technology whereby
science has become an ideology. Indeed, Science can then be seen
as quantified rhetoric; thus, Feyerabend (1975b:6) saw science
as "just one of the many ideologies that propel society and it
should be treated as such", and he did by stating in a later work
that "there is no distinction between logic and rhetoric. The
'subjective' and the 'objective' side of an argument merge into
one ... Notions with clearly defined intensions, Such as
'science', 'myth', 'metaphysics', are incapable of capturing
distinctions between elements (subtraditions) of a historical
tradition" (Feyerabend, 1981b:6).
Furthermore, educational researchers may be divided into two
separate schools of thought: the orthodox who follow the
empirical sciences, and the heterodox who pursue the
phenomenological arguments; while the former is concerned with
empirical research and statistical analysis, the latter regards
organizations as social inventions and as permeated with
ideology. For the heterodox school, it is experience which is the
essence of reality, while the orthodox subordinates experience
to behaviour. Logical positivists who dominate the orthodox
school, try to separate values from facts and ignore morality and
freedom of choice, while the heterodox school and critical
theorists believe this to be the more important part of
educational research.
Yet
Simon cannot tell administrators how values actually can be
removed from administration, simply because there is no solution,
values cannot be removed. Thus the central issues of
administration are philosophical rather than scientific. And this
arguments can also be applied to educational research. Values are
the result of human beliefs and actions and therefore can only
be subjective. Personal values are then reflections of one's own
subjective existence.
The penetration of positivist science ever since Taylor's
scientific management tries to increase the control by a
technical elite, where administrators are thought to be concerned
only with the factual verification of decisions, rather than with
their ethical content. Simon (1957:248) claimed that
administration can be made more scientific by ignoring ethical
content in the decisions-making process. Thus, he stated that:
"in so far as decisions can be said to be 'correct', they can be
translated into factual propositions. Their ethical element must
be eliminated before the terms 'true' and 'false' can be applied
to them". In a later article, Simon (1975) developed such ideas
further and refers to management science as "meta-technology"
designed for the objective application of technological systems.
Such techniques ignore a value system in which broad social and
human interests are reflected. The positivist decision-making
model "rationalizes choice as such by means of calculated
strategies and automatic decision-procedures" (Habermas,
1971:63). Rather than ignoring values, Hodgkinson (1978, 1983)
would use such values as a guide line for research and action in
educational administration.
Researchers who believe that their
research is objective and value-free simply implement such
subjective values as enshrined in the preconceived methodology
http://www.aare.edu.au/98pap/jos98386.htm Feyerabend, P. K. (1975a). Against Method: Outline of an
Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.
The philosophical and sociological foundations of educational research.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------98 Abstracts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Joshua
Faculty of Education
Department of Educational Policy and Management
University of Melbourne
Paper presented at the A.A.R.E. Annual Conference,
Adelaide, 29 November - 3 December 1998.
http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/1,4096,0137879202,00.html
Ethics of Educational Leadership, The, 1/e
Ronald W. Rebore, St. Louis University
Copyright 2001, 290 pp.
Paper format
ISBN 0-13-787920-2
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975b). How to Defend Society Against Science.
Radical Philosophy,II, Summer 1975:3-8.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1978). Science in a free society. London: New
Left Books.
Positivists try to separate facts from values and thereby create
a misrecognition of such social interests which determine what
counts as legitimate knowledge, whereby subjective values are
turned into objective facts. However, educational research is a
matter of choosing between alternatives, thus values cannot be
divided from facts; rather than misrepresent values as facts, or
denying its existence, educational theory must de-code the
ideological mystification which distorts individual perception
of present social conditions and thereby leads the way to a
practical emancipation from domination. Praxis which
deliberately introduces ethics and values into the decisionmaking process of educational theory and management, can then be
regarded as the link between theory and practice, that is, a
philosophy-in-action.