“I” at the Centre of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Educational

Leadership

Cecep Somantri

and Sardin Sardin

School of Education, The University of Nottingham, United Kingdom (UK)

Faculty of Educational Science,Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia

ttxcs57@nottingham.ac.uk, sardin@upi.edu

Keywords: Educational Leadership, Ethics, Ethical Dilemmas.

Abstract: The notion of ethics has been the focus of attention in educational leadership over time. This happens by no

surprise given that values and ethics lie at the heart of leading learning and ethical dilemmas are ‘the bread

and butter’ of educational leaders’ lives. However, what is actually ethics? What makes educational

leadership ethical? What are the ethical dilemmas in it? And how could educational leaders respond to

ethical dilemmas? By reviewing relevant literature and research in educational leadership from the last three

decades, this paper seeks to find answers to these questions. It is found that although ethics is highly

contested, there appears to be an agreement that it is about relationships. In addition, as both a profession

and a moral activity, educational leadership is by itself an essentially ethical activity. The most troublesome

ethical tensions emerge when leaders are faced with ‘right versus right’ dilemmas. By critically examining

the key elements of various models and approaches to confront ethical dilemmas, it is suggested there is a

strong emphasis on the importance of being self-critical for educational leaders to be able to (re)solve

ethical dilemmas.

1 INTRODUCTION

It is widely recognised that effective educational

leadership is an important factor to bring about

positive changes to schools and student outcomes.

Although ‘leadership is second only to classroom

teaching in its impact on student learning’

(Leithwood et al., p.4), Leithwood (2007, p.46)

claims that ‘leadership serves as a catalyst for

unleashing potential capacities of school

organisation,’ including pupil learning (p.46). In line

with it, Leithwood (2007) argues that people with a

leadership role have a great responsibility to ‘get

things right’. However, Notman (2014) believes that

educational leadership is not simply a matter of

technical capabilities and skills (getting things right),

but it also relates to ‘ethics at the heart of its

complexity. In other words, in order to be

responsible and effective, educational leaders must

also be ethical leaders (Tuana, 2014).

The call for ethics to be taken into account as an

important feature in educational leadership,

however, has long been a topic of discussion. Foster

(1989), for example, states that, ‘leadership must be

ethical [because] it carries a responsibility not just to

be personally moral, but to be a cause of “civic

moral education” which leads to both self-

knowledge and community awareness’ (p. 284).

From this perspective, Hightower and Klinker

(2012) state that, ‘Foster himself understood that the

concept of educational leadership was moving

toward doing ethics, not merely talking about

morality…leadership should fall back into the

understanding generated by competing moral

philosophies…’ (p. 110). Why is it moving more

toward doing ethics? According to Branson and

Gross (2014, p.1), it is because leadership is like a

‘double-edged sword’: it can be an opportunity for

doing something good, while at the same time

become a temptation for fulfilling one’s self-interest

and needs. Therefore, ethics in educational

leadership is important as it portrays how a leader is

using the opportunity (s)he has.

Nowadays, ethics in educational leadership is

needed more than ever. Shapiro and Gross (2013)

echo this point of view by arguing that, ‘in the

beginning of the 21st Century, in an era of wars,

432

Somantri, C. and Sardin, S.

“I” at the Centre of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Educational Leadership.

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2017) - Volume 2, pages 432-443

ISBN: 978-989-758-314-8

terrorism, hurricanes, volcanoes, tornados, financial

uncertainty, and high-stakes testing, educational

leaders are faced with even more daunting decision-

making difficulties than in more tranquil period’

(p.3). Similarly, Kristinsson (2014, p.11) argues that,

‘today educational leaders are [not only] responsible

for the effective functioning of an institution or

division, [but also] accountable to a variety of

stakeholders with different interests and priorities,

including staff, students, parents, community, and

government.’ Thus, in order to be effective,

educational leaders have to base their decisions and

practices not only on technical skills (getting things

right), but also on ethical values and principles

(getting right things) (Tuana, 2014).

With increasing responsibilities and challenges

faced by educational leaders, it is safe to say that

educational leaders face challenges not only in

‘getting things right’, but also ‘getting right things.’

When there are issues dealing with ‘what is right’,

Shields (2014, p.25) argues that, ‘educational leaders

are often confronted with questions about how to

ensure that their leadership practice is ethical’.

Therefore, educational leaders today are challenged

with a view stressing that ‘ethics is at the heart of

good leadership’ (Shields, 2014, p.24).

By referring to the assumptions emphasising the

importance of ethics in educational leadership

above, this paper aims to find answers to the

following questions: (i) what is meant by ethics? ;(ii)

what makes educational leadership ethical? (iii)

what are the ethical dilemmas in educational

leadership? and, (iv) what should educational leaders

do to respond to the ethical dilemmas? The paper

will review and draw from relevant literature and

research in educational leadership from the last three

decades. Each part will provide answers to a

question outlined earlier.

2 ETHICS: A CONTESTED

DISCOURSE

The term ‘ethics has been a subject of debate from

time to time. From the linguistic perspective, the

word ‘ethics’ roots from the Greek word ethos,

which means ‘customs’ or ‘usages’ of a particular a

group that is distinctive from another (Shapiro and

Gross, 2013; Cranston, Ehrich, and Kimber, 2014).

By time, it comes to mean as ‘character, customs,

and approved ways of acting’ (Shapiro and Gross,

2013; Cranston, et al, 2014). However, as character

is a ‘slippery’ concept, by no surprise, ethics is also

difficult to define.

The early attempt to define ethics dates back to

some thousands of years ago in the era of Plato

(427-347 B.C.). Plato is attributed to say that ‘ethics

is what we ought to do or how we ought to live our

lives’ (Ehrich et al., 2011; Cranston, et al, 2014).

Similarly, Dewey (1902, cited in Shapiro and

Stefkovich, 2016, p.10) defines ethics as ‘the science

that deals with conduct … considered to be right or

wrong, good or bad.’ In the same way, Hosmer

(1987, p.91) defines ethics as ‘the study of proper

thought and conduct.’ Although these early

definitions provide helpful foundations to

understand what ethics is, they might raise some

critical questions, such as: Approved ways of acting

by whom? Proper according to whose standards? Or,

right or wrong according to whom?

Over time, the term ‘ethics has been further

defined and developed. Some practitioners describe

ethics in terms of what it is not (Singer, 1994; Ehrich

et al., 2011b; Cranston, et al, 2014). For example,

misconduct, corruption, fraud, abuse of power, and

deception are considered to be unethical behaviours

(Ehrich et al., 2004). In contrast, several notions

such as care, honesty, dignity, integrity, justice,

professionalism, and trust are perceived as the

characteristics of ethical behaviour (Francis and

Armstrong, 2003; Kuther, 2003; Ehrich, et al, 2005;

Kristinsson, 2014, Shapiro and Stefkovich, 2016).

However, understanding ethics in terms of what it is

not could cause a potential danger of prescription in

what people ought (not) to do in life as well as

professionally (Ehrich et al, 2011).

Singer (1994) provides a succinct explanation of

the meaning of ethics from the perspective of what it

is not. First, ethics is not a set of prohibitions,

particularly concerned with sex. When an ethical

judgment, such as sex before marriage, does not

work in practice, it must have a theoretical defect as

well. Then, ethics is not an ideal system that is noble

in theory but no good in practice. When an ethical

judgment does not work in practice, it must have a

theoretical defect as well. Finally, ethics is not

something intelligible only in the context of religion,

because religion is only one out of many reasons for

doing what is right and being who is virtuous. This

third point of view is supported by Donlevy and

Walker (2011) who mention that there are a number

of sources for ethical values that guide people to

decide if an action is right or wrong, namely

religion, society, organisations, and family. In line

with Singer’s (1994) argument, Boss (1998, cited in

Donlevy and Walker, 2011, p.1) concludes that,

“I” at the Centre of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Educational Leadership

433

‘ethics is like air, all around but only noticed in its

absence’.

Nonetheless, despite being contested in its

definition by various practitioners, there appears to

be a common agreement that ethics is all about

relationships (Cranston, Ehrich, and Kimber, 2006,

p.107). It is a ‘set of rules, principles or ways of

thinking that guide, or claim authority to guide, the

actions of a particular group’ (Singer, 1994, p.4). It

is also concerned with how people ought to live and

behave in life with others based on some guiding

moral principles (Freakley and Burgh, 2000;

Wellington, 2000). Since it is concerned with ought

and ought not in relation to ways of life and

behaving, Mahony (2009, p. 983) then views ethics

as a ‘philosophy of morality’. Building from these

definitions, Donlevy and Walker (2011) argue that

living ethically means being the kind of person we

want others to think we are when we are at our best.

3 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP:

AN ETHICAL DOMAIN

Educational leadership has recently become an

‘industry’ (Leithwood, 2007). Denig and Quinn

(2001) speak as one voice with the argument by

pointing out that there is a significant increase in the

study of educational leadership encompassing a

number of technical skills, such as supervision,

curriculum development, budgets, negotiations,

school law, and research. However, in practice,

educational leaders are to have more than a strong

foundation of these technical aspects (Denig and

Quinn 2001; Cranston, et al 2006; Notman, 2014;

Starrat, 2014). Since leaders are to base their

decisions and actions on ‘values, beliefs and ethics’

(Bush and Glover, 2003; 2014), leadership covers

moral and ethical dimensions (Campbell, 1997;

Starratt, 1996). Hodgkinson (1991) supports this

viewpoint by stating that, ‘values, morals and ethics

are the very stuff of leadership and administrative

life’ (p.11).

The moral and ethical dimensions of leadership

have actually been at the centre of discussion from

time to time. For instance, Foster (1986, p.33) states

that, ‘each administrative decision carries with it a

restructuring of human life: that is why

administration at its heart is the resolution of moral

dilemmas.’ Sergiovanni (1991, p.329) argues that ‘in

the principalship, the challenge of leadership is to

make peace between … the managerial and the

moral. The two imperatives are unavoidable and the

neglect of either creates problems.’ In a similar

manner, Fullan (2001, p.2) also explains how

educational leaders are constantly confronted with

the demand to provide ‘once-and-for-all answers’ to

problems that are ‘complex, rife with paradoxes and

dilemmas’. In addition, Seldon (2009, p.26) claims

that, ‘as role models, leaders across society must

meet two key criteria of trustworthiness; behave

ethically and be technically proficient.’ Meanwhile,

Day (2012, p.1) explains that school leaders sustain

their success if they have strong moral and ethical

purposes. Therefore, given that there are moral and

ethical dimensions in leadership, it is safe to argue

that educational leaders are expected to make just

and right decisions in which ethics is at its heart

(Ciulla, 2006; Notman, 2014; Shields, 2014).

As ethics is realised to be at the heart of

leadership, Cranston et al (2014) argue that there has

been a wider understanding and appreciation of

leadership complexity, particularly in how leaders

are to make ethical decisions. Ethics has become an

important focus in educational leadership (Ciulla,

2006; Cranston et al., 2006; Cranston, Ehrich,

Kimber & Starr, 2012; Shapiro and Stefkovich,

2016). According to Cranston et al (2014), there are

two main reasons for the emergence of ethics in

educational leadership.

First, the media and public have higher

awareness of corruption and fraud as well as other

unethical behaviours among organisational leaders

(Trevino, 1986). As a result, as explained by

Kimber, Carrington, Mercer and Bland (2011), there

is a stronger demand for accountability and

transparency which is characterised by: (i) the

establishment of applied ethics programmes in

universities; (ii) the use and development of

professional codes of conduct in private and public

sectors; and, (iii) the establishment of anti-

corruption agencies. Second, it turns out that

educational leadership extends beyond daily

managerial affairs. Today, leaders often face ethical

dilemmas in their work as they have to make

decisions that meet the best interests of the people

they lead (Shapiro and Gross, 2013). Furthermore,

just like any other profession, Kristinson (2014)

argues that educational leadership is a professional

activity that is essentially ethical. Therefore,

Kristinson (2014, p.13) concludes that, ‘educational

leadership is an essentially ethical activity’.

Kristinson’s (2014) argument, however, leads to

another a question: What is meant by ‘profession’

and ‘professionalism’? Evans (2008, p.13) provides

a helpful explanation to understand the two concepts

by defining professionalism as:

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

434

“…[work] practice that is consistent with

commonly-held consensual delineations of a specific

profession or occupation and that both contributes to

and reflects perceptions of the profession’s or

occupation’s purpose and status and the specific

nature, range and levels of service provided by, and

expertise prevalent within, the profession or

occupation, as well as the general ethical code

underpinning this practice.”

On the basis of this definition, it could be seen

that ethics exists in the complexity of all kinds of

professions. As a profession, thus, educational

leadership cannot be described or understood

independently of moral purposes and concepts

(Kristinson, 2014), because at the heart of its

complexity lies values and ethics (Duignan and

Collins, 2003, p.2; Bush and Glover, 2014, p.559).

However, for the purpose of this paper, educational

leadership is defined broadly to incorporate not only

school principals but also those in positions and

titles who have decision-making functions through

distributed leadership practice, including teachers,

administrators, psychologists, parents, etc.

4 ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

By borrowing Cranston et al’s (2006) language,

ethical dilemmas are the ‘bread and butter’ of

educational leaders’ lives. Supporting this argument,

Denig and Quinn (2001) claim that, ‘ethical

dilemmas are commonplace in today’s world of

hurried decision making’. However, what is meant

by a dilemma and an ethical dilemma? What is the

difference? Cranston et al (2012) provide a helpful

distinction between the two by explaining that the

former is associated with a choice between two

options, while the latter relates to conflicts that

involve ‘personal values and the values of others in

the organisations’ (Trevino, 1986, p.604) or

‘conflicting moral principles’ (Kirby, Paradise, &

Protti, 1992, p.1). Furthermore, another question is:

when do people, especially educational leaders, face

ethical dilemmas? According to Cranston et al

(2006; 2012), ethical dilemmas emerge ‘when

people find themselves in perplexing situations that

necessitate their choosing among competing sets of

principles, values, beliefs or ideals.’ In addition,

leaders face ethical dilemmas ‘when these

competing sets of principles pull in different

directions’ (Badaracco, 1992, p.66).

Meanwhile, by referring to some definitions of

ethics discussed earlier, it could be argued that

ethical dilemmas might probably be concerned with

the issues of ‘right versus wrong’. However, with

the increasingly broad and complex contexts in

education, the ethical dilemmas faced by educational

leaders are rarely ’right versus wrong ‘issues,

because they are rather easy to manage (Stevenson,

2007). In accordance with it, Kidder (1995, p.16)

argues that, ‘right versus right … is at the heart of

our toughest choices.’ In other words, the options

available for leaders to choose are all ‘right’

(Duignan and Collins, 2003). In this context,

Stevenson (2007, p.380) explains that, ‘right versus

right dilemmas can be characterised as “either/or”

situations where there exists a clear opportunity cost

resulting from whatever action is not pursued.’

Furthermore, there are even ‘wrong versus wrong’

issues that leaders have to cope with and manage,

particularly in making decisions (Hitt, 1990, p.35).

In line with these ethical dilemmas, Day, Harris and

Hadfield (1999, p.15) suggest that, ‘a key part of

being a leader was not only being able to deal with

tensions but also having to make the tough

decisions.’

What are the ethical dilemmas that educational

leaders have to confront and manage? It is beyond

the coverage of this paper to present an extensive

discussion of the kinds of ethical dilemmas faced by

educational leaders. Yet, below are some key

findings of research from different settings,

highlighting ethical dilemmas and tensions in

educational leadership.

Lyons (1990) conducted a study to explore the

dilemmas that 46 teachers in the U.S.A encounter in

their classrooms in a two-year period. One of the

study’s key findings is that, regardless of their

professional subject matter, teachers face ethical

dilemmas when they attempt to respond to and

interpret their students’ needs, which knowledge to

teach, and the ways to deliver it. In line with this,

Lyons (1990, p.162) claims that, ‘any ethical

dilemma is likely to emerge in its particularity

because of who the teacher is’, and has to be

managed to realise effective teaching and learning

process. However, it is unfortunate that Lyons’

(1990) study does not explain how principals as the

leaders with formal authority at school level could

help teachers manage the ethical dilemmas in

teaching and learning practices.

Day et al (1999) carried out a study about the

practice of effective leadership in British schools.

The study revealed that ethical dilemmas emerged

when the principals were confronted with ‘develop

“I” at the Centre of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Educational Leadership

435

or dismiss’ situations. The principals felt an ethical

tension when they had to develop or dismiss failing

staff (Day et al, 1999). However, it is important to

note that the study was conducted in British schools

with a ‘devolved’ education system where the

principals have the authority to dismiss a teacher.

Therefore, similar ethical tensions may not be faced

by principals in other countries with a different

education system.

Ehrich (2000) conducted a case study on how

principals in Australia were increasingly held

accountable due to the ever-changing policy climate,

such as school-based management systems and high-

stakes standardised tests. The study found that there

are competing accountabilities in relation to

administrative, financial, market and political

aspects that urge school principals to be morally

accountable leaders. However, the study fails to

identify that accountability is not only ‘vertical’,

either to the local government or the Ministry, but it

is also ‘horizontal’ to the community and parents

(Gove, 2012, cited in Gilbert, 2012, p.8). Therefore,

to some extent, the study overlooks some other

ethical tensions that school principals might confront

in relation to holding accountability to the

community or parents.

Dempster and Berry (2003) conducted a study on

the ethical decision-making dilemmas faced by 552

government school principals in Queensland,

Australia. The study found that the principals

confronted ethical dilemmas in four different

aspects, namely: students, staff, finance and

resources, and external relations. First, the most

difficult ethical decision-making that involves

students are harassment, bullying, bad language,

conflicts of values (home versus school), negative

behaviour, and suspension. Then, monitoring staff

performance and assigning teachers to classes are

circumstances that cause most ethical tension. Third,

the most difficult ethical issues in relation to finance

are concerned with deciding funding allocations for

senior staff, curriculum, and income generating

activities. Finally, the most troublesome ethical

dilemmas dealing with external relations encompass:

‘dealing with cultural diversity in the school

community, addressing community values different

from those of the school, dealing with policy

directives from central office and managing overly

demanding parents’ (Dempster and Berry, 2003,

p.465). This study provides more comprehensive

examples of ethical dilemmas faced by school

principals compared to the three former studies

above.

Helton and Ray (2006) conducted a qualitative

study on the strategies used by 271 US-American

school practitioners (psychologists and special

education teachers) in resisting pressures to practice

unethically. The study found that the sources for

ethical dilemmas might come from policy,

administrative pressures, students and colleague

actions, and professional codes of ethics. These

findings overlap with what Ehrich (2000) found

earlier. However, Helton and Ray’s (2006) study

provides complementary insights because it is one of

only a few studies scrutinising ethical dilemmas

faced by psychologists and special education

teachers.

In the English context, Stevenson (2007)

undertook a study in five local authorities by

employing a social justice perspective. The study

found that, ‘school principals are faced with the

difficulty of creating caring and inclusive learning

environments in a context of high stakes testing and

the publication of school performance data’

(Stevenson, 2007, p.380). In this context, the ethical

dilemmas faced by school principals are concerned

with a collision between the leaders’ moral

principles and market demands in their multi-ethnic

schools. However, it is necessary to point out that

inclusiveness in Stevenson’s (2007) study is

confined to creating sensitive and inclusive learning

for minority ethnic people. Thus, to some extent,

there are ethical dilemmas faced by school principals

in creating an inclusive learning environment for

those with disability and other learning needs.

Through a study in Scandinavian countries,

Norberg and Johansson (2010) found that

curriculum is an ethical document. Norberg and

Johansson (2010, p.327) argue that, ‘it [curriculum]

mirrors the society’s notion of what is valuable,

useful and necessary from a societal and individual

perspective.’ As a result, the ethical dilemmas

emerge when teachers and principals are confronted

with individual awareness and curriculum content.

Norberg and Johansson (2010) suggest that it is

important for school leaders to have an ‘ethical

perspective’ on decision-making, especially related

to curriculum, although the term ‘ethical

perspective’ is not clarified.

In Asia, educational leaders also inevitably face

ethical tensions. A study by Ho (2006), for example,

found that school leaders in Japan and South Korea

face ethical dilemmas when attempting to be

innovative in their leadership practice, or compliant

to implement the government policies in the

centralised and hierarchical education system. Chen

and Ke’s (2014) study in China found that ethical

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

436

tensions emerged when the school principals were

trying to make visible and durable school changes in

an institutionally and culturally constrained

environment like China (Chen and Ke, 2014).

In Malaysia, a study by Chek, Yahya and

Norwani (2013) found that ethics and corruption in

the country is a national issue. Chek et al (2013)

recommend that ethics education for young people,

teachers, school principals and others working in

education, is necessary to prevent corruption.

However, the suggestion lacks further elaboration on

how ethics education can be carried out, and who is

eligible to deliver it? Meanwhile, three case studies

from Indonesia, by Raihani and Gurr (2006),

Raihani (2007), and Raihani, Gurr and Drysdale

(2013), come to the same conclusion in relation to

the ethical tensions faced by school principals in two

provinces: Yogyakarta and Central Kalimantan. All

these studies conclude that trust is an important

feature of school leadership due to concerns in

Indonesia about corruption. In other words, the

ethical dilemmas that the principals confront relate

to ‘ethical versus unethical’ conduct, particularly

corruption, in the view of Indonesian society.

Unfortunately, since the focus of the studies is on

the effectiveness of the principals in transforming

their school, corruption as an ethical issue in school

leadership is given less explanation.

A study by Arar, Haj, Abramovitz and Oplatka

(2016) explored ethical dilemmas faced by 150

educational leaders in the Arab educational context.

The study found that, in general, there are three

leadership dimensions (care, justice and critique),

and three aspects of leadership: the ability to

identify, to solve and to make decisions, that could

be the sources of ethical dilemmas for educational

leaders. Although the study enriches the findings of

previous studies elaborated in advance, its limitation

lies on the fact that it uses three elements of

leadership dimensions as a lens to discover the

ethical dilemmas in diverse Arabian countries.

Therefore, the study somewhat lacks consideration

on different contexts and settings that might

contribute to the sources of ethical dilemmas.

Donlevy and Walker (2011) categorise ethical

dilemmas into five types. They are: (i) ethical

agnosticism: the ethical conduct is blurred; (ii)

ethical cynicism: there is a question whether or not

doing ethical action and decision would make any

difference; (iii) the doctrine of ‘relative filth’: this

happens when there is a policy or decision that

might be wrong but justified because people do

worse; (iv) the jam of ‘false necessity’: this emerges

when there is no other possible choice to escape

from a dilemma; and, (v) statistical morality: an

action is legitimated because most people are doing

it, although it might be unethical. Indeed, these

categorisations provide a helpful summary of ethical

dilemmas in education. However, when understood

sceptically, it is also highly possible that they would

be used as a formula rather than a lens to identify

and solve existing ethical dilemmas.

5 RESPONDING TO ETHICAL

DILEMMAS IN EDUCATIONAL

LEADERSHIP

There have been several models and approaches

developed over the last three decades to help leaders

cope with, and manage, ethical tensions. Some of

these models are based on literature and practice in

business and management. However, all of them do

provide useful tools for identifying, resolving or

solving ethical dilemmas as well as making ethical

decisions.

A number of early models to solve ethical

dilemmas put the emphasis on internal and external

factors affecting leaders in making an ethical

decision (e.g., Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Trevino,

1986; Bommer, Gratto, Gravander, and Tuttle,

1987). The model proposed by Bommer et al (1987),

for example, focuses on various factors contributing

to ethical decision-making. It categorises six factors

that influence a manager in making decisions,

namely: (i) work environment; (ii)

governmental/legal environment; (iii) social

environment; (iv) professional environment; (v)

family and peer group; and (vi) individual attributes

(Bommer et al, 1987, p.266). Bommer et al (1987)

believe that the model could increase the leaders’

understanding of intervening internal and external

factors that may result in ethical and unethical

decisions. However, the model has a minor

limitation in the sense that it is a conceptual model,

and hence, further evidence based on research is

needed to prove its effectiveness.

Also based on empirical literature, Fritzsche

(1991) developed a model that emphasises various

components affecting ethical decision-making. The

model shows that the decision-maker’s personal

values will be mediated by the organisational values

(e.g., the organisation’s culture and goals) to lead to

an ethical decision. What makes this model different

to the one developed by Bommer et al (1987) is ‘the

inclusion of the leader’s personal values’, and ‘the

discussion of ethical decision-making process’, to

“I” at the Centre of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Educational Leadership

437

yield many alternative decisions to finally come to

the decision considered most ethical (Fritzsche,

1991, p.841). However, there is a tendency that

Fritzsche’s (1991) ethical decision-making model

relies heavily on the selection of alternative

decisions. Thus, there might be a possibility that a

decision will be taken depending on the situation.

In the field of educational leadership, a model

formulated by Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005) is

widely recognised to provide a comprehensive guide

to help educational leaders resolve or solve ethical

dilemmas, especially in the era that Shapiro and

Gross (2013) regard as ‘turbulent times’. This model

is developed on the basis of the earlier work by

Starratt (1994) who brings together three paradigms

of justice, critique, and care in his approach to

schools. To these three ethics, Shapiro and

Stefkovich (2005) add a fourth lens or paradigm, the

ethic of the profession. Taken together, the ethics of

justice, critique, care, and profession are well

recognised under the umbrella of Multiple Ethical

Paradigms. Largely informed by the work of Shapiro

and Gross (2013) and Shapiro and Stefkovich

(2016), these four ethics are described as follows.

The ethic of justice puts emphasis on rights, law,

and policies. This lens deals with concepts that

include fairness, equality, and individual freedom. It

is a perspective that leads to a number of critical

questions, such as: Is there a law, right, or policy

that would be appropriate for resolving a particular

ethical dilemma? Why is this law, right, or policy

the correct one for this particular case? How should

the law, right, or policy be implemented?

The ethic of critique asks people, especially

educational leaders, to rethink and redefine

important concepts such as democracy, privilege,

power, culture, language, and in particular, social

justice. This ethic encourages leaders to reflect on

hard questions in relation to class, race, gender, and

other areas of difference, including: Who makes the

laws, rules, or policies? Who benefits from these

laws, rules, or policies? Who has the power? And

who are the silenced voices?

The ethic of care aims to challenge the dominant

and/or patriarchal ethic of justice in society. It seeks

to make education a ‘human enterprise’ (Starratt,

1991, p.195) – a place that addresses concerns and

needs as expressed by many people (Beck, 1994,

p.3). Central to this ethic is the discussion of

concepts such as loyalty, trust, and empowerment.

This ethic asks individuals to consider the

consequences of their decisions and actions. It asks

them to take into account questions, such as: Who

will benefit from what I decide? Who will be hurt by

my actions? What are the long-term effects of a

decision I make today? And if I am helped by

someone now, what should I do in the future about

giving back to this individual or to society in

general?

The ethic of the profession places the student at

the centre of decision-making process. It also takes

into account not only the standards of the profession,

but also the ethics of the community, the personal

and professional codes of an educational leader, and

the professional codes of a number of educational

organisations (Shapiro and Stefkovich, 2005). This

lens could resolve or solve an ethical dilemma when

educational leaders use it by raising questions such

as: What is in the best interests of the student? What

are the personal and professional codes of an

educational leader? What professional organisations’

codes of ethics should be considered? What does the

local community think about this issue? And what is

the appropriate way for a professional to act in this

particular situation, based on the standards of the

profession?

In addition to these four paradigms, Branson

(2007) adds a fifth perspective based on research,

that is the ethic of personal moral integrity. This

ethic acknowledges the application of the previous

four ethical perspectives in helping leaders resolve

or solve ethical dilemmas, and at the same time

guiding them to come to a number of alternative

actions rather than a single solution to an ethical

dilemma (Branson, 2010). However, Branson (2007;

2010) argues that, in order to ensure that the process

in resolving or solving a certain ethical dilemma

results in an ethical decision, it is important for

leaders to be well informed by their moral integrity.

In this context, moral integrity is defined as leaders’

instinctive and consistent actions in doing what is

right for the good of others even without incentives

or sanctions (Branson, 2007; 2010). From this

perspective, it is safe to argue that moral integrity is

also about making decisions that meet the best

interests of others (e.g. students), rather than self-

interests.

When applied to the educational context,

however, the literature show that the definition of

‘the best interests of the student’ is disputed

(Stefkovich, O’Brien, and Moore, 2002; Stefkovich

and Begley, 2007). Walker (1998), for example,

argues that there is a possibility for school leaders to

claim something as in the student’s best interests,

while it is simply another way to justify adults’

interests. In explaining the contested notion,

Stefkovich (2006), and Stefkovich and Begley

(2007), mention that decisions in relation to a

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

438

student’s best interests are those incorporating

individual rights to teach students about the

importance of three “Rs” – rights, responsibility, and

respect. These three “Rs” are key to solving or

resolving ethical dilemmas, as well as making

ethical decisions that are in a student’s best interests

and, in turn, to fulfilling educational leaders’

professional obligations (Stefkovich, 2006;

Stefkovich and Begley, 2007).

The fifth lens of ethic, as argued by Branson

(2007) (see above), can play a significant role in

ensuring one’s leadership actions that portray moral

integrity. In solving or resolving an ethical dilemma,

Branson (2010, p.3) explains that the lens raises

questions such as: How am I going to be affected by

the possible outcome driven by the multiple ethical

paradigms of justice, critique, care and profession?

What is my driving motivation? What feelings,

beliefs, and biases that I have? What benefits will I

get? Will I be the person most-benefited? What

strengths and weaknesses do I bring? How are my

strengths and weaknesses going to affect the

situation? How have my personal views affected and

influenced my analysis on each of the other ethics?

How are my personal preferences different from the

knowledge learned from the other ethical

paradigms? How do my personal preferences

interfere with the assigning of priority to the

knowledge provided by each of the other ethical

perspectives?

All five paradigms of ethics above provide broad

and comprehensive guidance for educational leaders

in resolving or solving ethical dilemmas. However,

it is important to bear in mind that each of them

functions as a lens (Shapiro and Stefkovich, 2005;

Shapiro and Gross, 2013), rather than a prescriptive

tool. This finding is in line with the fact that

leadership itself is a contested field (Yukl, 2002;

Bush and Glover, 2003), and there is no single

formula in successful educational leadership (Day,

2003; Hargreaves, 2003; Day, Gu, and Sammons,

2016). Drawing from these claims, it is logical to

argue that there is no single prescription to resolve

or solve ethical issues in educational leadership as

well.

Educational leaders also need to consider various

contextual factors when confronting ethical

dilemmas. Socio-cultural context, for example, is

shown to be an important factor in facing ethical

dilemmas. Recent studies by Dimmock and Walker

(2000), Bottery, Ngai, Wong and Wong (2013),

Walker (2015), and Haiyan, Walker and Xiaowei

(2017), found that culture at the organisational level,

politics, economics and religion, including teaching

and learning culture, are significant forces in

realising effective educational leadership in general,

and resolving or solving ethical tensions confronted

by school leaders in particular.

Another important point to highlight is that all

models and approaches to resolve or solve ethical

dilemmas presented above stress the importance of

being self-critical. Many questions raised in each

ethical perspective put “I” at the centre of resolving

or solving ethical dilemmas. Poulson and Wallace

(2003) explain well what being critical is about. For

Poulson and Wallace (2003, p.6), being critical

means: (i) adopting an attitude of scepticism; (ii)

questioning the quality of our own and others’

knowledge; (iii) scrutinising claims; (iv) respecting

others; (v) being open-minded; and, (vi) being

constructive. To a certain extent, these qualities of

being a critical “I” reflect the overall questions

following the five ethical perspectives in resolving

or solving ethical dilemmas, explained earlier. This

finding relates back to a study carried out by

Kohlberg (1981) more than three decades ago. This

longitudinal study found that, from a moral and

ethical point of view, resolving or solving ethical

dilemmas depends on how individuals understand

complex moral and ethical issues regardless of their

age and situation (1981, cited in Ryan, 2011), and

reflecting the issues to themselves. Therefore, in the

context of educational leadership, Begley (2007)

argues that, when being critical, educational leaders

will be ‘authentic leaders’. It is a notion used to

describe ‘professionally effective, ethically sound

and consciously reflective’ educational leaders

(Begley, 2007, p.163).

6 CONCLUSION

Educational leadership is widely believed to

function as a catalytic element for unleashing the

potential of educational organisations, including

pupil learning. It has become an ‘industry’ that

offers a wide range of technical skills, such as

supervision, curriculum development, budget

planning, research, etc. to educational leaders. All of

these skills are aimed at ‘getting things right’

through the role and function that educational

leaders have. However, as the passing of time, it is

proven that educational leadership extends beyond

the boundary of ‘getting things right’. Values and

ethics lie at the heart of leadership, and hence,

leading is also a matter of ‘getting right things’. For

this reason, educational leaders are often confronted

“I” at the Centre of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Educational Leadership

439

with ethical dilemmas in the course of their daily

practice.

The whole field of ‘ethics’ is contested. Defining

it as customs, proper thoughts, right or wrong, and

good or bad conduct, as well as approved ways of

life, is not enough for it invites an array of complex

and critical questions, such as: Who decides what is

proper, right, wrong, good, or bad? To what degree?

And why? Therefore, the term ‘ethics’ is often

understood from what it is not. Corruption, fraud,

and deception are some examples of behaviours

considered to be unethical. In contrast, there are

notions considered to be ethical characteristics, such

as care, honesty, dignity, integrity, justice,

professionalism, and trust. Nonetheless, there

appears to be a general agreement that ethics is all

about relationships. Ethics is concerned with moral

principles which guide, and are held by, a group or a

profession in behaving and leading life.

Educational leaders are expected to be ethical in

order to be successful. The practice of unethical

behaviours, such as corruption and fraud, has

increased media and public awareness on the

importance of ethics in leadership. In accordance

with it, just like any other professions, it is necessary

for educational leadership to be seen as an

essentially ethical activity. Evidence supporting

educational leadership as an ethical domain is found

in literature and research that reveal ethical

dilemmas and tensions faced by educational leaders

in many different settings and times. Research

shows that the most troublesome ethical dilemmas in

educational leadership deal with ‘right versus right’

issues.

A number of models and approaches have been

developed over the last three decades to help leaders

resolve or solve ethical dilemmas. However, some of

them are drawn from the literature and field of

business and management. In education, Shapiro and

Stefkovich (2005) develop a comprehensive guide

that is widely recognised to function as a lens in

helping educational leaders resolve or solve ethical

dilemmas. The model focuses on four paradigms of

ethics, namely: justice, critique, care and profession.

Branson (2007) adds a fifth paradigm, that is the

ethic of personal moral integrity. All these

paradigms emphasise the significance of being self-

critical, since they put “I” at the centre of resolving

or solving ethical dilemmas. Thus, in order to be

able to resolve or solve an ethical dilemma, as well

as achieve an ethical decision, an educational leader

has to be self-critical and adopt an attitude of

scepticism, question the quality of own and others’

knowledge, scrutinise claims, respect others, be

open-minded, and be constructive. The effectiveness

in resolving or solving ethical dilemmas depends on

the leaders as individuals critically learning and

understanding complex moral and ethical issues, and

reflecting on these issues.

REFERENCES

Arar, K., Haj, I., Abramovitz, R., Oplatka, I., 2016. Ethical

leadership in education and its relation to ethical

decision-making: The case of Arab school leaders in

Israel. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(6),

pp. 647-660.

Badaracco, J., 1992. Business ethics: four spheres of

executive responsibility. California Management

Review, 34(2), pp. 237-53.

Beck, L. G., 1994. Reclaiming Educational Administration

as a Caring Profession, Teachers’ College Press. NY.

Begley, P. T., 2007. Cross-cultural Perspectives on

Authentic School Leadership. Educational

Management Administration and Leadership, 35(2),

pp. 163-164.

Bommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravander, J., Tuttle, M., 1987.

A behavioural model of ethical and unethical decision

making. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, pp. 265-281.

Bottery, M., Ngai, G., Wong, P., M., Wong, P. H., 2013.

Values, priorities and responses: comparing English

headteachers' and Hong Kong principals' perceptions

of their work. School Leadership & Management,

33(1), pp. 43-60.

Branson, C. M., 2007. Improving leadership by nurturing

moral consciousness through structured self-reflection.

Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4) pp. 471

– 495.

Branson, C. M., 2010. Ethical Decision Making: Is

Personal Moral Integrity the Missing Link? Journal of

Authentic Leadership in Education, 1(1) pp. 1 – 8.

Branson, C. M., Gross, S. J., 2014. Introduction: Why

Ethical Educational Leadership? In Branson, C., M.

and Gross, S., J. (Eds) Handbook of Ethical

Educational Leadership Routledge (pp.1-7). New

York: Routledge.

Bush, T., Glover, D., 2003. School Leadership: Concepts

and Evidence. [Online] Nottingham: National College

for School Leadership (NCSL).

Bush, T., Glover, D., 2014. School leadership models:

what do we know? School Leadership & Management:

Formerly School Organisation, 34:5, 553-571.

Campbell, E., 1997. Administrators’ decisions and

teachers’ ethical dilemmas: implications for moral

agency. Leading and Managing, 3(2), pp. 245-57.

Chek, I. T., Yahya, R., Normani, N. M., 2013. Ethics and

Corruption in Education: Impact of Corruption and

Formulating New Strategies to Combat Corruption in

Schools. Management Research Journal, 2(1), pp.130-

137.

Chen, S., Ke, Z., 2014. Why the leadership of change is

especially difficult for Chinese principals. Journal of

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

440

Organizational Change Management, 27(3) pp. 486 –

498.

Ciulla, J., 2006. Ethics: The heart of leadership. In T.

Maak and N. M. Press (Eds.), Responsible leadership

(pp. 17–32), Routledge. London.

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., 2006. Ethical

dilemmas: The “bread and butter” of educational

leaders’ lives. Journal of Educational Administration,

44 (2), 106–121.

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., 2006. Ethical

dilemmas: The “bread and butter” of educational

leaders’ lives. Journal of Educational Administration,

44 (2), 106–121.

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Starr, K., 2012.

An exploratory study of ethical dilemmas faced by

academics in three Australian universities. Journal of

Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 27(1),

3–15.

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L., C., Kimber, M., 2014. Managing

Ethical Dilemmas. In Branson, C., M. and Gross, S., J.

(Eds) Handbook of Ethical Educational Leadership

Routledge (pp.229-245), Routledge. New York.

Davis, M., 1991. Thinking Like an Engineer: The Place of

a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession.

Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20(2), 150-167.

Day, C., 2012. Resilient Teachers, Rsilient Schools.

[Online] Nottingham: National College for School

Leadership (NCSL). Available at:

https://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/cm-mc-sml-op-

day.pdf [Accessed 20 January 2017].

Day, C., 2012. Towards a self-improving system: the role

of school accountability. [Online] Nottingham:

National College for School Leadership (NCSL).

Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/14919/1/towards-a-

self-improving-system-school-accountability-

thinkpiece%5B1%5D.pdf. [Accessed 20 January

2017].

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., 1999. Leading schools

in times of change. A paper presented at the European

Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, 22-55.

Dempster, N., Berry, V., 2003. Blindfolded in a minefield:

Ethical decision-making. Cambridge Journal of

Education, 33(3), 457-477.

Denig, S. J., Quinn, T., 2001. Ethical Dilemmas for

School Administrators. In the High School Journal,

84(4), pp.43-49.

Dimmock, C., Walker, A., 2000. Developing Comparative

and International Educational Leadership and

Management: A cross-cultural model, School

Leadership & Management, 20:2, pp. 143-160.

Donlevy, J. K., Walker, K. D., 2011. Working Through

Ethics in Education and Leadership: Theory, Analysis,

Plays, Cases, Poems, Prose, and Speeches, Sense

Publishers. Boston.

Duignan, P., 2003. Formation of Capable, Influential and

Authentic Leaders for Times of Uncertainty. A Paper

for Australian Primary Principals’ Association

National Conference 2003.

Duignan, P., Collins, V., 2003. Leadership challenges and

ethical dilemmas in front-line organisations. In

Bennett, N., Crawford, M. and Cartwright, M. (Eds),

Effective Educational Leadership (pp. 281-94), SAGE.

London.

Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Cranston, N., Starr, K., 2011.

Ethical tensions and academic leaders. Higher

Education Review, 43 (3), 50–69.

Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., Cranston, N.,

2011. Ethical dilemmas: a model to understand teacher

practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and

Practice, 17(2), pp. 173-185.

Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., Cranston, N.,

2011. Ethical dilemmas: a model to understand teacher

practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and

Practice, 17(2), pp.173-185.

Ehrich, L., Cranston, N., Kimber, M., 2005. Academic

managers and ethics: A question of making the “right”

decision. In Higher education in a changing world,

Proceedings of the 28th HERDSA Annual Conference,

Sydney, 3-6 July 2005: pp 133.

Ehrich, L. C., 2000. Principals as morally accountable

leaders. International Journal of Education Reform,

9(2), 120-137.

Ehrich, L. C., Cranston, N., Kimber, M., 2004. Public

sector managers and ethical dilemmas. Journal of

Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management,

10(1), 25-37.

Evans, L., 2008. Professionalism, professionality and the

development of education professionals. British

Journal of Educational Studies, 56 (1). pp. 20-38.

Foster, W., 1986. Paradigms and Promises: New

Approaches to Educational Administration,

Prometheus Books. NY.

Foster, L. A., 1989. Breaking down racial isolation.

Educational Leadership, 47(2), pp. 76–77.

Francis, R., Armstrong, A., 2003. Ethics as a risk

management strategy, The Australian experience.

Journal of Business Ethics, 45 (4), 375–385.

Freakley, M., Burgh, G., 2000. Engaging with Ethics:

Ethical Inquiry for Teachers, Social Science Press.

Australia.

Fritzsche, D., 1991. A model of decision-making

incorporating ethical values. Journal of Business

Ethics, 10(11), pp.841-852.

Fullan, M. G., 2001. Leading in a Culture of Change,

Josey-Bass. San Francisco.

Gilbert, C., 2012. Towards a self-improving system: the

role of school accountability, National College for

School Leadership (NCSL). Nottingham.

Haiyan, Q., Walker, A., Xiaowei, Y., 2017. Building and

leading a learning culture among teachers: a case

study of a Shanghai primary school. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership.

Helton, G. B., Ray, B. A., 2005. Strategies school

practitioners report they would use to resist pressure to

practice unethically. Journal of Applied School

Psychology, 22(1), pp.43-65.

Hightower, B. B., Klinker, J. F., 2012. When Ethics and

Policy Collide.

Hitt, W. D., 1990. Ethics and Leadership: Putting Theory

into Practice. Columbus: Battelle Press.

“I” at the Centre of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Educational Leadership

441

Ho, E. S., 2006. Educational decentralization in three

Asian societies: japan, Korea and Hong Kong. 44(6),

pp. 590-603.

Hodgkinson, C., 1991. Educational Leadership: The

Moral Art, Suny Press. NY.

Hosmer, L. T., 1987. The ethics of management,

Homewood, IL: Irwin.

International Educational Leadership and Management: A

cross-cultural model. School Leadership &

Management, 20(2), pp. 143-160.

Kidder, R. M., 1995. How good people make tough

choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living,

William Morrow. NY.

Kimber, M., Carrington, S., Mercer, K. L., Bland, D.,

2011. Enhancing professional ethics: Service-learning

in teacher education. In J. Millwater, L. C. Ehrich, and

D. Beutel (Eds.), Practical experiences in professional

education: A transdisciplinary approach. Brisbane:

Post Pressed.

Kirby, P. C., Paradise, L. V., Protti, R., 1992. Ethical

reasoning of educational administrators: Structuring

inquiry around the problems of practice. Journal of

Educational Administration, 30(4), 25-32.

Kristinsson, S., 2014. The Essence of Professionalism. In

Branson, C., M. and Gross, S., J. (Eds) Handbook of

Ethical Educational Leadership Routledge (pp.11-23),

Routledge. New York.

Kuther, T. L., 2003. A profile of the ethical professor:

Student views. College Teaching, 51(4), 153-160.

Leithwood, K., 2007. What We Know About Educational

Leadership. In Burger, J.M., Webber, C.F. and

Kleinck, P. (Eds) Intelligent Leadership: Constructs

for Thinking Educational Leaders (pp. 41-66),

Springer. Dordrecht.

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A.,

Hopkins, D., 2006. Seven strong claims about

successful school leadership, National College for

School Leadership (NCSL). Nottingham.

Lyons, N., 1990. Dilemmas of knowing: Ethical and

epistemological dimensions of teachers' work and

development. Harvard Educational Review, 60(2),

159-180.

Mahony, P., 2009. Should ‘ought’ be taught? Teaching

and Teacher Education. An International Journal of

Research and Studies.

Norberg, K., Johansson, O., 2010. The ethical dimensions

of curriculum leadership in Scandinavian countries.

Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3) pp. 327

– 336.

Notman, R., 2014. The Interplay of Values. In Branson,

C., M. and Gross, S., J. (Eds) Handbook of Ethical

Educational Leadership Routledge (pp.176-194),

Routledge. New York.

Poulson, L., Wallace, M., 2003. Learning to read

critically in Educational and Leadership, SAGE

Publications. London.

Raihani, R., Gurr, D., 2006. Value-Driven School

Leadership: An Indonesian Perspective. Leading and

Managing, 12(1), 2006, pp. 121-134.

Raihani, R., 2008. An Indonesian model of successful

school leadership. Journal of Educational

Administration. 46(4) pp. 481-496.

Raihani, G. D., Drysdale, L., 2013. Leading an Islamic

School in a Multicultural Setting in Indonesia. In C.

Day and D. Gurr (Eds.) Leading Successfully: Stories

from the Field, Routlegde. London. pp. 184-193.

Robinson, S., 2010. Leadership ethics. In J. Gold, R.

Thorpe, & A. Mumford (Eds.), Gower handbook of

leadership and management development (5th ed., pp.

175–196). Farnham, UK: Gower.

Ryan, T. G., 2011. Can Ethics be Taught? International

Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(12), pp. 44-

52.

Seldon, A., 2009. Trust: How we lost it and how to get it

back, Biteback Publishing. London.

Sergiovanni, T. J., 1991. The Principalship: A Reflective

Practice Perspective. Needham Heights, MA. Allyn &

Bacon.

Shapiro, J. P., Stefkovich, J. A., 2005. Ethical Leadership

and Decision Making in Education: Applying

Theoretical Perspectives to Complex Dilemmas,

Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. NJ. 2nd

Edition.

Shapiro, J. P., Gross, S. J., 2013. Ethical Educational

Leadership in Turbulent Times: (Re)Solving Moral

Dilemmas, Routledge. New York, 2nd Edition.

Shapiro, J. P., Stefkovich, J. A., 2016. Ethical Leadership

and Decision Making in Education: Applying

Theoretical Perspectives to Complex Dilemmas,

Routledge. NY, 4th Edition.

Shields, C., 2014. Ethical Leadership: A Critical

Transformative Approach. In Branson, C., M. and

Gross, S., J. (Eds) Handbook of Ethical Educational

Leadership Routledge (pp.24-42), Routledge. New

York.

Singer, P., 1994. Practical Ethics, Cambridge University

Press. Cambridge. 2nd Edition.

Starrat, R. J., 2014. The Purpose of Education. In Branson,

C., M. and Gross, S., J. (Eds) Handbook of Ethical

Educational Leadership Routledge (pp.43-61),

Routledge. New York.

Starratt, R., 1996. Transforming Educational

Administration: Meaning, Community and Excellence,

McGraw Hill. NY.

Stefkovich, J. A., 2006. Applying Ethical Constructs to

Legal Causes: The Best Interests of the Student,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ.

Stefkovich, J. A., Begley, P. T., 2007. Ethical School

Leadership: Defining the Best Interests of Students.

Educational Management Administration and

Leadership, 35(2), pp. 205-224.

Stefkovich, J. A., O’Brien, G. M., Moore, J., 2002. School

leaders’ ethical decision making and the ‘best interests

of students’. Paper presented at the 7th Annual Values

and Leadership Conference, Toronto, Canada,

October.

Stevenson, H., 2007. A Case Study in Leading Schools for

Social Justice: When Morals and Markets Collide. In

Bell, B. and Stevenson, H. Eds. Organizing Public

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

442

Education, SAGE Publications Ltd. London. pp.371-

385.

Sumsion, J., 2000. Caring and empowerment: A teacher

educator’s reflection on an ethical dilemma. Teaching

in Higher Education, 5 (2), 167–179.

Trevino, L., 1986. Ethical decision making in

organizations: A person-situation interactionist model.

Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617.

Walker, K., 1998. Jurisprudential and ethical perspectives

on ‘the best interests of children. Interchange, 29(3),

pp. 283-304.

Yukl, G. A., 2002. Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-

Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ. 5th Edition.

“I” at the Centre of Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Educational Leadership

443