Ethics and Leadership in Educational Administration

Ethical Frameworks

This paper explores the relationship between ethics and leadership, forming a set of principles applicable to educational leadership roles. It is organized according to three core areas. The first section discusses the philosophical and historical background of ethics. The second section examines the role of educational leadership and its links to ethics, assessing how the two have evolved over time. The third section presents a personal view of ethics within educational administration.

In the Western tradition, the debate over ethics dates to Plato (427–347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). The origin of the word "ethics" is the Greek word ethos, "which means customs, behaviour, or character" (Northouse, 2010, p. 378). Moral principles articulate a sense of responsibility and commitment to others and are shared collectively by a group of individuals. Values, by contrast, are more distinctive and individual, expressing personal choices (Strike et al., 2005).

Philosophy and principles of what is right and what is wrong therefore offer the basis of debate and consensus within a group about what is considered ethical. For individuals and civilizations alike, moral frameworks collectively describe what is considered good or bad, ethical or unethical, and thereby direct both personal and group actions. Agreements on ethical principles then offer the foundation for a moral structure, which provides "a system of rules or main beliefs that direct us in making choices in a particular situation" (Northouse, 2010, p. 378).

From a teleological viewpoint, the result of an action determines how morally correct it is. The criteria by which results are judged differ. Ethical egoism places heavy emphasis on one's own self-interest and is generally seen as the least attractive basis for a leader's decisions. Utilitarianism and altruism both center on the welfare of others rather than self-interest and are considered more attractive moral approaches for leaders.

A utilitarian viewpoint holds that decisions and actions producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people are the most ethical. Utilitarianism is also known as the principle of benefit maximization (Strike et al., 2005), where the results of a choice or action serve as the decisive test, even though not everyone necessarily gains equal benefits.

An altruistic standpoint views behavior that promotes the greatest interest or well-being of others as the most ethical. Strike et al. (2005) articulated a consequence of altruism called the Principle of Equal Respect, which requires that individuals be treated as ends rather than means, be regarded as "free and rational moral agents," and be recognized as possessing equal worth (pp. 17–18).

Moral actions based on the Principle of Equal Respect would be characterized by respect for the equal, inherent value of each person and regard for each person's freedom of choice. Strike et al. (2005) also articulated two other, sometimes contrasting, corollaries that center on our obligations to others as consequences of our actions. The Principle of Equal Treatment holds that "in any given situation, individuals who are similar in those respects pertinent to how they are dealt with in those situations should receive equal treatment" (p. 55).

The Basis of Educational Leadership as an Ethical Endeavour

Justifying differential treatment while addressing inequities is referred to as the Maximin Principle. Under this standard, inequality is permissible when everyone benefits as a result of improving the well-being of those who generally receive the smallest share of advantages — a perspective that typifies social justice efforts. While a teleological approach to evaluating actions might be seen as approaching the problematic Machiavellian view that the ends justify the means, a deontological standard evaluates the ethics of an action independently of the results it produces. Doing the "right thing" is judged by whether the action fulfilled a duty to others, did not violate the rights of others, helped others, and was righteous in itself (Northouse, 2010). Examples of righteous actions include "being honest, keeping promises, being just, and valuing others" (p. 381).

Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005) identified several paradigms for examining moral behavior: the ethic of justice, the ethic of critique, the ethic of care, and the ethic of the profession. Rooted in liberal democratic tradition, the ethic of justice is defined as a "commitment to human liberty" and standards for making decisions that respect the equal rights of individuals (Strike, 1991, p. 415).

The emphasis placed on the role of the individual versus the broader society varies across philosophical traditions. The work of Hobbes, Kant, Rawls, and Kohlberg places "the person as central and social relationships as a kind of social contract where the individual, using human reason, gives up certain rights for the good of the whole or for social justice" (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005, p. 11). By contrast, the ideas of Aristotle, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, and Dewey view "community, rather than the individual, as essential and seek to help individuals learn how to act throughout their lives within communities" (p. 11). The ethic of justice regularly serves as the foundation for legal ideology and official policy, given its logical and systematic approach to interpreting human actions and interactions.

The ethic of critique is grounded in critical theory and highlights moral behavior as that which addresses equity among individuals and groups, connected to social class and other factors affecting one's power and voice, as well as the resulting access to resources and opportunities. The ethic of critique "asks educators to move beyond inquiry and critical analysis to examine and struggle with those possibilities that could allow all children, regardless of their social class, race, or gender, to have opportunities to grow, learn, and achieve. Such a process should lead to the development of options related to critical concepts such as domination, power, privilege, authority, voice, and empowerment," according to Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005, p. 16).