Organizational Decision Making

Westminster Studies in Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, October 2003

The ‘Right’ Decision? Towards an Understanding of Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders

NEIL CRANSTON, LISA EHRICH & MEGAN KIMBER, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

ABSTRACT Over the last two decades or so, organisations everywhere have been subjected to considerable restructuring and reform. Schools have been no exception to this trend. Devolution has been prominent amongst the managerial reforms which have affected primarily the work practices of managers (James, 2003). In the context of schooling, devolution or school based management has increased the decision-making powers of schools and their communities. It has also brought with it the requirement that schools meet a wider range of accountability measures (Whitty et al., 1998). In such a climate, school leaders are likely to find themselves juggling a ‘multitude of competing obligations and interests’ (Cooper, 1998, p. 244). This complex operational milieu requires school leaders to confront and resolve conflicting interests as they endeavour to balance a variety of values and expectations in their decision-making. Not surpris- ingly, the result is often ethical dilemmas for leaders.

In this paper we argue that an understanding of ethics and ethical dilemmas is crucial for educational leaders due to the value-laden nature of their work. We put forward a tentative generic model that endeavours to assist our understanding of the forces impacting upon and processes characterising the decision-making dynamics emerging from an ethical dilemma. A scenario is posed and tested against the model.

Introduction

Over the last two decades public sector organisations including State and Common- wealth public service departments in Australia and other countries have undergone considerable restructuring (O’Faircheallaigh et al., 1999). Among these changes has been the predominance of managerialist thinking and practices in public sector organisa- tions which has seen the application of private sector management practices into the public sector (James, 2003). These and other reforms have had a direct impact also upon the management of schools and school systems throughout many western countries including Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America (Whitty et al., 1998).

Devolution or decentralisation has been prominent among these managerial practices and has impacted significantly on the work of public sector managers and educational leaders. While decentralisation of authority means that organisations have greater control

ISSN 0140-6728 print; 1470-1359 online/03/020135-13  2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/0140672032000147599

136 N. Cranston et al.

over resources and budgets and greater autonomy to make operational decisions, it also means adherence to tighter accountability measures in terms of specific outputs and outcomes (Bradley & Parker, 2001). In the context of schooling, devolution or school based management has increased the decision-making powers of schools and their communities (Williams et al., 1997; Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Cranston, 2002). It has also brought with it the requirement for schools to meet a wider range of accountability measures such as the implementation of mandated curricula, state-wide testing and more systematic forms of teacher appraisal (Whitty et al., 1998). In such a context, there are direct implications for school leaders regarding potentially competing accountabilities between the centre’s (or government’s) demands, the demands from the profession, and the demands from the community (Eraut, 1993). Because school leaders are caught at the interface between the system and the school and are accountable to both bodies (Nadebaum, 1991) they are likely to find themselves juggling a ‘multitude of competing obligations and interests’ (Cooper, 1998, p. 244). This complex and more autonomous operational milieu requires school leaders to confront and resolve conflicting interests as they endeavour to balance a variety of values and expectations in their decision-making. Not surprisingly, the result is often ethical dilemmas for the school leader, arising, for example, where conflict and tension may arise as the leader struggles to decide between alternative decisions, one reflecting the immediate oper- ational context of the school and the other, a more systemically oriented choice reflecting a political imperative.

In this article, we argue that an understanding of ethics and ethical dilemmas is crucial for educators due to the value-laden nature of their work. We begin by discussing the emergence of ethics in education, and then explore the meaning of ethics and ethical dilemmas before identifying four prominent theories of ethics. We put forward a tentative generic model that endeavours to assist our understanding of the forces impacting upon and processes characterising the decision-making dynamics emerging from an ethical dilemma. A scenario is posed and tested against the model. Some consideration is given to the implications and repercussions of ethical dilemmas for leaders and schools.

Ethics In and For Education

In recent literature, the moral and ethical dimensions of leadership have received emphasis and attention (e.g., Campbell, 1997; Cooper, 1998; Starratt, 1996). In part, this attention has been driven by the belief that ‘values, morals and ethics are the very stuff of leadership and administrative life’ (Hodgkinson, 1991, p. 11). Thus, there is an expectation that those who hold leadership positions will act justly, rightly and promote good rather than evil (Evers, 1992). This entails leaders demonstrating both moral and professional accountability to those they serve (Eraut, 1993). Moral accountability is concerned with wanting the best for learners (whether they are students or staff) while professional accountability is concerned with upholding the standards of ethics of one’s profession (Eraut, 1993). Both accountabilities reinforce the notion that education leadership fundamentally has a moral purpose (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991).

Another reason for heightened interest in ethics within education in recent years is due to the more complex operational milieu (Grace, in Campbell, 1997, p. 223) in which leaders are now working. The advent of school-based management has generated new forms of, and competing, accountabilities (Burke, 1997; Ehrich, 2000). Several writers (Burke, 1997; Dempster, 2000; Dempster et al., 2001) argue that the values underpinning

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 137

managerialism and school-based management are opposed to the traditional understand- ing of education as a public good. These writers maintain that the focus on management arising from economic rationalism is inconsistent with the professional and personal values of school leaders and can contradict important ethics of care and justice. When contractual accountability, that is accountability to the government or system, is a strong and competing force against other accountabilities (such as moral and professional accountabilities), there is much potential for ethical dilemmas. In this situation, a skilful administrator needs to optimise his or her most valued beliefs, responsibilities and obligations in ways that minimise adverse consequences.

It is important to note that for the purpose of clarity in this article, we focus our attention on issues, characteristics and theories of ethics, rather than undertake an extended discussion on the possible similarities and differences between ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’.

Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas

The meaning of ethics is subject to much contestation. In some instances it is defined in terms of what it is not, referring to matters such as misconduct, corruption, fraud and other types of illegal behaviour, while in others, notions of integrity, honesty, personal values and professional codes are raised. There appears to be general agreement that ethics is about relationships—whether relationships with people, relationships with animals and/or relationships with the environment (Freakley & Burgh, 2000). Further, it can encompass what people see as good and bad or right and wrong. Several writers (see for example, Singer, 1994, 1995; Preston & Samford, 2002) argue that ethics can be divorced from religion and to some extent from morality but most refer to its religious and philosophical bases (see for example, Burke, 1997; Preston, 1999a & 1999b; Ehrich, 2000). Freakley and Burgh (2000) put it simply when they say that ethics ‘is about what we ought to do’ (p. 97). Therefore, ethics requires a judgement be made about a given problem or situation.

If ethics is viewed in this light it indicates that people are faced with choices that require them to make decisions that enable them to lead an ethical life within the context of their relationships with others. This suggests that people can be placed in ethical dilemmas. An ethical dilemma, then, arises from a situation that necessitates a choice between competing sets of principles. For example, a principal may be faced with a decision to award an academic prize to a student who has just missed being placed first in her year, but whose parents have made large and regular donations to the school building fund. Does the principal award two prizes, alter the order of merit, or abide by the given situation with the student missing out on a prize? Thus, an ethical dilemma can be described as a circumstance that requires a choice between competing sets of principles in a given, usually undesirable or perplexing, situation. Conflicts of interest as in the above mentioned example are possibly the most obvious situations that could place school leaders in an ethical dilemma.

Theoretical Approaches to Understanding Ethics

Leaders resolve dilemmas everyday in the natural course of their work. In most cases, however, leaders make decisions with little or no knowledge of the theoretical ap- proaches to ethics. As Freakley and Burgh (2000, pp. 95–96) remind us, theoretical approaches cannot be applied entirely to solving problems or dilemmas due to the

138 N. Cranston et al.

abstract nature of theory and the complexity of practice. Yet, the advantage that knowledge of theory holds is that it helps leaders organise their beliefs and perspectives in a more coherent and systematic way (Freakley & Burgh, 2000, p. 96). Understanding theoretical approaches ‘may assist in accuracy, clarity, and consistency in ethical practice and decision-making’ (Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 22). Thus, theory has the potential to enable leaders to reflect critically on their values and the values guiding theoretical approaches. In this section, we consider briefly four theoretical approaches to ethics that appeal as useful ways of endeavouring to understand the complexities of the ethical issues associated with decision-making in schools. What needs to be emphasised here is that, in practice, they are not independent of each other; rather, they are likely to be interdependent and may be in evidence to varying degrees depending on the circum- stances and nature surrounding the decision to be made. Importantly, given that there is no theorised framework available for describing and “mapping” ethical dilemmas in schools (Campbell, 1997), they provided a useful starting point and ways of conceptual- ising the development of the model discussed later in this article. The four theoretical approaches are consequentialism, non-consequentialism, virtue ethics and institutional ethics.

Consequentialism

Consequentialism can be defined as ‘any position in ethics which claims that the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on their consequences’ (Hinman, http://eth- ics.acusd.edu/Glossary.html, p. 1). Consequentialists adopt the perspective that actions can only be justified with reference to the end or outcomes they achieve (Freakley & Burgh, 2000, p. 120). A person who follows this perspective would make a decision after weighing up the foreseeable consequences and choosing the alternative that produces the better result (p. 121). Utilitarianism is an example of the consequentialist approach (Preston & Samford, 2002; Singer, 1995). Utilitarians are individualists who aim to promote the greatest good for the greatest number (Dinwindy, 1989), i.e., it is the outcomes in terms of benefits for the most people that is of concern.

Non-consequentialism

By contrast, those who adopt a non-consequentialist approach to ethics live ‘by an uncompromising, moral legalism which requires adherence to duty, principle or absolute truth, etc as more important than consequences … in determining what is good, just, right and fair’ (Burke, 1997, p. 15). Thus, non-consequentialists make judgements based on duty, rights, laws, motive, intuition, or reason. The golden rule of doing unto others what we would want them to do to us, illustrates non-consequentialism since it values that all humans are worthwhile and should be treated with equal respect. Other examples include ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ (from Christianity) and Kant’s natural law based on reason (see Singer, 1993, p. 11)

Critics of consequentialism and non-consequentialism note that an ‘ethic of care’ is missing from both approaches. This ethic ‘emphasises the quality of [interpersonal] relationships and contextual factors in an ethical life’ (Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 24). An ethic of care emerged from the feminist writings of Noddings (1984) and Gilligan (1982). Gilligan, for example ‘emphasises relationships over principles of justice, and focuses on caring as the central ethical concept’ (Freakley & Burgh, 2000, p. 128). Values such as these illustrate the third approach to ethics—virtue ethics.

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 139

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is based on the assumption that morality is best understood in terms of peoples’ inner traits (Freakley & Burgh, 2000, p. 124). Virtue ethicists ‘argue in favour of a connection between character and reasoning for without good character I may reason about what is right but still choose not to do so’ (Freakley & Burgh, 2000, p. 125). The virtue approach is critical to professional ethics as ‘… a just society depends more upon the moral trustworthiness of its citizens and it[s] leaders than upon structures designed to transform ignoble actions in socially useful results’ (Hart, quoted in Preston & Samford, 2002, pp. 25–26). Virtue ethics is important not only to individuals but also to institutions since it is people who create and work within them.

Institutional Ethics

Institutional ethics, then, focuses on individuals within institutions and requires them to justify their institutions to the community (Preston & Samford, 2002). It is concerned with building ethics ‘into the operations and decision making of the institution’ (Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 50) making it part of rather than periphery to, decision making. For this reason, it requires that the values and functions of an institution be determined by ongoing discussion and debate because these values are multiple, complex, competing and changeable. Knowledge of the four theories can assist our understanding of ethical decision-making.

The next part of this article explores a tentative model of ethical dilemmas. While we are aware that no model is able to provide a full explanation of the decision-making process or is applicable to every context (Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 94), theoretical and empirical research suggests that models, like theories, can provide a basis for discussion between ‘engaged academics’ and ‘reflective practitioners’ (Preston & Sam- ford, 2002, pp. 163–164). These theoretical approaches offer a useful framework to better understand ethics and its complexities. However, it must be emphasised that in practice, ethical dilemmas faced by educational leaders, for example, are likely to be highly complex and not simply framed by one particular theoretical approach or the other. Rather, it is more likely that some or all of these approaches may be at play to some degree or other. Importantly, however, the framework they provide is useful in considering the model of ethical dilemmas discussed below. What also needs to be understood is that the model we propose is a dynamic one, and one in which the forces as we identify them are acting at various degrees of intensity (or perhaps not in evidence at all) not only directly on the individual as they make their decision, but potentially also on and with each other.

A Model of Ethical Dilemmas

The model in Figure I represents diagrammatically the context, forces, and decision- making process that individuals facing ethical dilemmas are like to experience. It extends Preston and Samford’s (2002, p. 14) model of ethical decision-making in the public sector by identifying and describing a range of competing forces that are likely to provide a perspective or perspectives on the problem or situation. Furthermore, unlike Preston and Samford’s model, our model acknowledges that decisions can have implica- tions and effects on the individual, the organisation and the community either directly or indirectly. An attempt to understand the relationship among individuals, institutions and

140 N. Cranston et al.

FI G

. 1.

A m

od el

of et

hi ca

l di

le m

m as

.

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 141

the community influenced the development of the model. Clearly, this is a highly complex challenge and emphasises the essentially dynamic nature of the model and its components. Thus, while we describe the various components of the model separately, we are acutely aware of the interdependence of the components and often at times non-linear nature of the dilemma we are attempting to capture.

The model consists of five main parts. The first is the critical incident or problem that is the trigger for the ethical dilemma, i.e., what ‘sets off’ the dilemma. The second is a set of forces, each of which has the capacity to illuminate the critical incident from its own particular bias or basis. Clearly, there may be competing tensions across these. Illustrated here are nine competing forces—professional ethics; legal issues, policies; organisational culture; institutional context; public interest; society and community; global context; political framework; economic and financial contexts; and? The untitled force (?) was included to signify that a significant force not identified at this time could emerge in the future.

Each of these forces is now considered briefly. What needs to be again emphasised is the potentially dynamic interdependence of each of these, some surfacing more domi- nantly than others depending on the context and nature of the decision to be made. More practice-orientated illustrations of these are provided in the scenario commentary discussion later.

• The public interest is a key factor in ethical decision-making and refers to the ‘expectations’, needs and wants, and ultimately the well being of the community as a whole (Edwards, 2001, pp. 11–13). The public interest can be expressed through the ballot box, interest groups and on-going debate and discussion.

• Professional ethics refers to the standards, or norms, values and principles members of a person’s trade or profession hold. These standards may be formal or informal, written or unwritten. Highlighted here are the ethical obligations generated by being accepted into a profession or trade (Edwards, 2001, p. 15; Campbell, 1997, p. 221).

• Society and community refers to the influence that community members or stakehold- ers can exert on institutional decision-making. School leaders are often required to reconcile these competing interests as best they can in making decisions that further the community well being (Campbell, 1997).

• The political framework is detailed in the political science and public administration literature (see, for example, Singleton et al., 1996) and here refers to potential implications of a particular ideological view of the government of the day that may translate into a significant force at the institutional level.

• By legal issues, policies we mean legislation impacting on public institutions such as anti-discrimination legislation requirements (Ehrich, 2000) as well as rulings made by courts, especially when they set a precedent.

• The economic and financial contexts might emerge from say economic rationalist thrusts applied to the public sector whereby private sector practices are introduced into the public sector (James, 2003) such that concepts of the free market, for example, are brought to bear on schools.

• The global context relate to the wider global, social, political and economic context impacting on institutions.

• The institutional context may, for the principal, manifest as the need to seek to reconcile multiple and competing accountabilities to students, teachers and the wider school community (Campbell, 1997, p. 225).

• Finally, the customs or ‘ethos’ of an institution inform its organisational culture

142 N. Cranston et al.

(Edwards, 2001). Organisational culture centres on relationships amongst people, and on building and maintaining trust in those relationships. An organisational culture can be strong or weak. ‘A strong culture … is characterised by the organisation’s core values being intensely held, clearly ordered and widely shared’ (Robbins & Barnwell, quoted in Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 57).

The third component of the model is at the core of the ethical dilemma. This is the individual who is faced with the challenge of resolving the ethical issue at hand. The individual is in no way neutral but brings to the dilemma his/her own values, beliefs, ethical orientations and personal attributes that have been shaped over time by a variety of sources such as religion, socialisation and conscience (Edwards, 2001; Singer, 1993).

The fourth component of the model is the choice which is made among the competing alternatives. It is in the consideration of the alternatives that the ethical dilemma emerges. The decision might lead to either ignoring the dilemma or acting in one or more ways in order to resolve it. Those actions can be formal or informal or external or internal. Finally, the action (or non-action) is most likely to create particular types of implications for the individual concerned, for the employing organisation and for the community as a whole. Also illustrated in the diagram is that the implications of the decision could continue beyond the individual, organisation and community and could generate new critical incidents, dilemmas and/or contribute to new ways of thinking about the forces involved. Each of the five components will be explained more fully in the next section that presents a scenario of an ethical dilemma and provides a commentary regarding each part of the model.

Scenario

Hilltop Senior School has a strict policy on drugs for students—immediate exclusion for any such offence. The teachers and parents are very supportive of the policy and two students have been excluded this year. Daniel, a seventeen year-old Y12 student, is caught at the school dance two weeks before his final examinations with a small amount of marijuana. Daniel has not always been an easy student for the school although in the past year he has worked hard, not been in trouble with teachers and seems likely to achieve his ambition of achieving well enough to attend a Polytechnic and become an electrician. Harriet, the School Head, knows that he works 15 hours part-time to support his ill mother and younger brother, who also attends the school. Exclusion means he might miss his final exams and his place at a Polytechnic and potentially lose his part-time job if his employer finds out.

Commentary

The following commentary makes three important assumptions. These are that:

• The School Head is ultimately the final decision-maker in such cases in this school—this is likely to be consistent with current practice in most schools where the Head is the accountable officer for decisions taken in the school. Of course, in practice, it may be that other members of the school administration team and potentially the school council or governing board might be involved to some degree through consultation, sharing of information, and so on; and

• The School Head, in this position of decision-maker, actually finds this particular situation problematic; that is, that there is the potential for an ethical dilemma to arise

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 143

in such circumstances. The following commentary assumes that there will be an ethical dilemma of some order for the Head.

• There is a range of options in terms of the decisions that the Head might take.

The critical incident in this scenario centres around the student, Daniel, being caught with a small amount of marijuana at the Hilltop Senior School dance. Subsequent events are triggered when this is reported to the Head, Harriet.

The milieu of forces at play for the Head with respect to this critical incident is discussed below. It is important to note that the forces may be evident to varying degrees and intensity at different times. There are also obviously overlaps across the various forces. As such, the following comments are indicative only of the various impacts on the individual, Harriet, the Head, as she responds to the reporting of the drug incident with Daniel.

• Professional ethics: Educators (Heads, teachers) are expected to operate according to certain established codes of behaviour and/or within particular ethical frameworks (these are often formally documented); other, less formal, aspects here might include the desire to do the best for all students (i.e., moral accountability) and general expectations placed on teachers by the community to act in certain ways.

• Legal issues, policies: Given the particular misdemeanour of interest here, viz. possession of a prohibited substance, there may be certain legal obligations that the Head must respond to, eg., reporting such incidents to the police; duty of care, from a legal perspective, is also likely to impact here as the safety and welfare of students (both Daniel as an individual and the school student population more generally) now feature as key responsibilities of educators with failure to do so adequately likely to lead to potentially litigious situations.

• Organisational culture: The school culture (eg., is it supportive, inclusive or other- wise?) will play an important role in the Head’s and the school’s response; the actions by the school in similar incidents previously will also contribute to overall impact of the culture on the decision response.

• Public interest: There may be a broad public interest in this incident involving ‘tough on drugs’ community expectations related to a desire to reduce drug-taking among young people; alternatively, or possibly concurrently, there may be strong community support for the socio-economically disadvantaged; the notion of education as a public good and, hence, the implication that drugs should be strongly discouraged by punitive action may also be evident here.

• Society and community contexts: The school community, for example through the school council or parent and friends’ association, may play a key role in this incident (eg., parents may have collaboratively developed, with school staff, a school drug policy requiring a particular response in this case).

• Institutional context: Most schools will have established behaviour management policies and practices which, one might expect, would address issues of drugs in school, expectations on students regarding these and penalties for failing to conform to these expectations.

• Global context: Wider societal developments and influences (eg., postmodern changes that have seen a collapse in some measure of the influence of church and the state) may present challenges to schools’ expectations in such incidents (eg., as drug taking among some young people persists as a challenge for schools as well as the broader society, resulting in a clash of social norms and behaviours across the various individuals and groups involved, such as students, parents, teachers).

144 N. Cranston et al.

• Political framework: The capacity for schools to exercise any discretion in such incidents may be seriously limited by external systemic constraints, such as binding responses imposed by education departments or systems in such incidents—these constraints may well reflect a particular (and potentially powerful) ideological stance of the government of the day.

• Economic and financial contexts: The financial situation of the student may have a key influence here, as might less tangible influences such as a negative impact on the school reputation as a result of a particular decision resulting in parental decisions about enrolments in the future; at a broader level, it might be argued that broader economic policies, such as economic rationalist trends, may have led to the situation whereby Daniel and his family are financially challenged, particularly in terms of Daniel’s longer term educational goals.

• The question mark (?) acknowledges the point that a critical force not identified at this time could be evident in a different dilemma.

All of these forces will interact to varying degrees on the individual as she responds to the incident. It is more than likely that Harriet’s personal attributes and her values and beliefs will play a major role in determining the type of decision she will make. As a result, a number of choices emerge. The decision taken creates, and is part of, the ethical dilemma for the Head as she struggles to rationalise a clear ‘acceptable’ response, to the student, school (staff), school community and parents, wider community and to herself.

The actions taken subsequently or as part of the decision itself by the Head may be either formal or informal, external or internal. Ignoring the situation, an action in itself, is most likely not an option in this case as there will be expectations of some response by the Head, for example, from those catching the student with the drugs. Hence, actions might include some or all of the following (note these are examples only and the possibilities are many, complex and interrelated).

Formal action might mean following the processes and procedures (i.e., school policy; legislative requirements) developed in the school, but possibly also required by the law, regarding the handling of students who are caught with drugs leading to suspension or exclusion from school. An informal action, which is probably unlikely in this case, may be to warn the student verbally with no formal recording of the incident in any way.

External action might incorporate actions taken outside the school such as if the Head contacts the police and the police then take action. An internal action might include some ‘internal school’ penalty of a lesser degree than say a suspension, such as a detention. There are many possibilities here.

As a result of the decision, there are certain implications for the:

• individual: the reputation of the school, both within and external to the school, may be affected impacting on perceptions on the Head’s reputation as leader of the school; the future career prospects of the Head may also be affected, as might the general health and well being of the Head if stressful consequences result; of course, there are also the effects on Daniel, the student—these could well be major as his future study prospects and financial position may well be altered as a result of particular decisions taken;

• organization: as above, the reputation of the school may be affected in the wider community; in addition, there may be considerable repercussions internally for the school among the teaching staff and parent body; finally, as a result of this ‘case’, there may be a review of the school’s current drug policy;

• community: as above; in addition, the broader community perception of school staff

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 145

generally and their roles and responsibilities in the social development and care of young people may be affected.

Clearly the implications across the individual, the organisation and the community are not independent with considerable overlap and consequential effects occurring. The cyclical nature of the model re-enforces that this ethical dilemma, like others, does not take place in isolation and that the particular decision taken in this case will most likely have an impact on similar subsequent incidents.

Discussion

Using the knowledge gained from our excursion into ethical theory and from the exercise of testing the model against a scenario from practice, we would argue that the situation Harriet finds herself in could be viewed as one of conflicting values or accountabilities— between school policies and personal values, between the best interests of the student and school policies, between the values and beliefs of different sections of the school community and the law. In other words, she is caught in a highly complex dynamic milieu of forces. If the Head were a consequentialist then she would weigh up all the known factors and implications of the alternatives open to her. These would depend not only on the school policy (institutional context) but also on her personal and professional values, the legal ramifications (including past decisions) of adopting a particular decision, the needs of the student and those of the community. A non-consequentialist is likely to be guided by one or more strongly held principles or values. A conflict between these principles such as a religious belief and strict adherence to policy could exacerbate this dilemma as it would challenge her fundamental beliefs. Virtue ethicists may privilege values such as care and integrity in their decision-making. An institutional ethicist might look to the values of the community and the function(s) that it has ascribed to the institution in guiding their thinking. In this case, the Head could also draw on one or more of the other approaches to ethics in deciding how to handle the situation. As we noted earlier, characteristics of some or all of these theoretical approaches are likely to be evident in this scenario, whatever the decision Harriet takes. Moreover, it is likely that there will be compromises as some values will be embraced, while others will be silenced in pursuit of a resolution.

What is also clearly illustrated here is the important point made earlier about the dynamic interdependence of each of the forces, some surfacing more dominantly than others depending on the context and nature of the particular decision to be made. Also worth highlighting is the importance of Harriet’s values, beliefs and ethical orientation, and the potential tension developed when that orientation may well differ from that held by others in the Hilltop Senior School Community.

Conclusion

The essence of what we have explored in this paper was not only ambitious but highly challenging. However, we believe that we have made some contribution via the introduction of the ethical dilemma model to better understand the nature of ethical dilemmas particularly as they might be evidenced in practice. Our model conceptualises the particular forces impacting upon and the processes characterising the decision-mak- ing dynamics facing an individual with an ethical dilemma. By use of the scenario, it was shown that the model not only has practical application but also it has the potential to

146 N. Cranston et al.

assist researchers (in education and other discipline fields) to analyse, better understand and categorise particular types of ethical dilemmas.

The exercise of developing a model has reinforced to us the complexity of the field of ethics and underscored the acute challenges of resolving ethical problems. From our review of the literature, however, it seems that arguments by proponents of institutional ethics (see Preston, 1999a, 1999b; Preston & Samford, 2002) are worthy of closer inspection since they maintain that ethics needs to be built ‘into the ethos, policies, and practices of an institution’ (Preston & Samford, 2002, p. 50). Some strategies that work towards ethics building include conducting an ethics audit; subjecting the values and functions of the institution to ongoing debate and discussion within the institution itself and within the community generally; developing and implementing a code of ethics; and ensuring that all members of the institution receive training and education (Preston & Samford, 2002). There is no doubt that if institutions are going to move in the direction of embedding ethical practices into their culture, processes and structure, there is a strong role for leadership in facilitating this process. Better understanding of the dynamic complexities of ethical dilemmas, as we have attempted to do in the model presented here, should contribute in some way to unravelling how leaders might respond.

Acknowledgements

This paper was funded in part by the Centre for Innovation in Education, QUT, and through the Institute of Public Administration Australia/University of Canberra Public Administration Research Trust Fund.

Correspondence: Dr. Neil Cranston, School of Learning and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia; email: [email protected]

REFERENCES

BRADLEY, L. & PARKER, R. (2001) Public sector change in Australia: are managers’ ideals being realized? Public Personnel Management, 30, pp. 349–361.

BURKE, C. (1997) Leading Schools Through the Ethics Thicket in the New Era of Educational Reform (Hawthorne, Victoria, Australian Council for Educational Administration).

CAMPBELL, E. (1997) Administrators’ decisions and teachers’ ethical dilemmas: implications for moral agency, Leading & Managing, 3, pp. 245–257.

COOPER, T. L. (1998) The Responsible Administrator: an approach to ethics for the administrative role (San Francisco, Jossey Bass).

CRANSTON, N. (2002) School-based management, leaders and leadership: change and challenges for principals, International Studies in Educational Administration, 30, pp. 2–12.

DEMPSTER, N. (2000) Guilty or not: the impact of and effects of site-based management on schools, Journal of Educational Administration, 38, pp. 47–63.

DEMPSTER, N., FREAKLEY, M. & PARRY, L. (2001) The ethical climate of public schooling under new public management, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 41, pp. 1–12.

DINWIDDY, J. (1989) Bentham (Oxford, Oxford University Press). EDWARDS, G. (2001) Ethics in practice, Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 102, pp. 11–17. EHRICH, L. (2000) Principals as morally accountable leaders, International Journal of Education Reform, 9,

pp. 120–127. ERAUT, M. (1993) Teacher accountability: why is it central in teacher professional development? in: L.

KREMER-HAYON, H. C. VONK & R. FESSLER (Eds) Teacher Professional Development: a multiple perspective approach (Amsterdam, Swets & Zeitlinger).

Ethical Dilemmas for School Leaders 147

EVERS, C. (1992) Ethics and ethical theory in educational leadership: a pragmatic and holistic approach, in: P. DUIGNAN & R. MACPHERSON (Eds) Educational: a practical theory for new administrators and managers (London, Falmer).

FREAKLEY, M. & BURGH, G. (2000) Engaging with Ethics: ethical inquiry for teachers (Australia, Social Science Press).

FULLAN, M. G. & HARGREAVES, A. (1991) What’s Worth Fighting For? Working Together For Your School (Hawthorn, Victoria, Australian Council for Educational Administration).

GILLIGAN, C. (1982) In a Different Voice: psychological theory and women’s development (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press).

HINMAN, L. (n.d.) Glossary. Available http://ethics.acusd.edu/Glossary.html. HODGKINSON, C. (1991) Educational Leadership: the moral art (Albany, Suny Press). JAMES, C. (2003) Economic rationalism and public sector ethics: conflicts and catalysts, Australian Journal of

Public Administration, 62, pp. 95–108. LEITHWOOD, K. & MENZIES, T. (1998) Forms and effects of school-based management: a review, Educational

Policy, 12, pp. 325–346. NADEBAUM, B. (1991) Noah or Butterfly? The Changing Role for School Principals in the 1990s, Australian

Council for Educational Administration Monograph Series (Hawthorn, Victoria, Australian Council for Educational Administration).

NODDINGS, N. (1984) Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral education (Berkley, University of California Press).

O’FAIRCHEALLAIGH, C., WANNA, J. & WELLER, P. (1999) Public Sector Management in Australia: new challenges, new directions (South Yarra, Macmillian).

PRESTON, N. (1999a) Ethics and government: preliminary considerations, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 58, pp. 16–18.

PRESTON, N. (1999b) Public Sector Ethics in Queensland since Fitzgerald. Australian Society of Archivists, 1999 Conference.

PRESTON, N. & SAMFORD, C. with CONNORS, C. (2002) Encouraging Ethics and Challenging Corruption (Sydney, The Federation Press).

SINGER, P. (1993) Practical Ethics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). SINGER, P. (1995) How are We to Live? Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest (South Melbourne, Mandarin/Reed

Books). SINGLETON, G., AITKIN, D., JINKS, B. & WARHURST, J. (1996) Australian Political Institutions (South

Melbourne, Longman). STARRATT, R. (1996) Transforming Educational Administration: meaning, community and excellence (New

York, McGraw Hill). WHITTY, G., POWER, S. & HALPIN, D. (1998) Devolution and Choice in Education: the school, the state and

the market (Camberwell, Vic, ACER). WILLIAMS, R., HAROLD, B., ROBERSTON, J. & SOUTHWORTH, G. (1997) Sweeping decentralisation of educational

decision-making authority, Phi Delta Kappan, 78, pp. 626–631.