How do leaders make difficult ethical decisions that anger ...



The Ethical Decision-Making Approachof an Assistant PrincipalJeffrey M. ObergVirginia Commonwealth UniversityThe Ethical Decision-Making Approach of an Assistant PrincipalHow do leaders make difficult ethical decisions that anger some, yet still stay in favor? How does a leader inform someone about an ethical decision that will cause that person distress but still enable the person to come away from the exchange tempered? How does a leader convince people, or a person, that the ethical decision made was the right thing to do? Political savvy or charisma could be one answer, experience and/or education could be another. These questions will be considered as the discipline decision-making process of a high school assistant principal is analyzed.Decision-Making and the Preferred Philosophical FrameworkIn a public high school, the assistant principal is the main disciplinarian. A school division’s Code of Student Conduct gives the assistant principal this authority. The Code of Student Conduct is formed from a Utilitarianism perspective. This philosophy’s motto states, “do the greatest good for the greatest number of people” (Johnson, 2012, p. 154). This philosophy’s strength lies in its ability to clearly state rules of behavior to thousands of students across several schools. This concept is used within a school as well, as an assistant principal must apply the Code to hundreds of students. Additionally, the Utilitarian approach serves this document well due to its frequent use.One could argue that an ethical assistant principal would approach educational leadership from the same Utilitarian philosophy. It would stand to reason that assistant principals follow the lead of the philosophy behind the formation of the Code of Student Conduct because they have to make equitable, firm, fair, and consistent decisions for hundreds of students. This finds the assistant principal vested in this document’s growth. However, sometimes the assistant principal must be creative within the structure of the Code as instances do arise where undesired student conduct does not exactly align with specifications in the Code. Here, the Utilitarian philosophy’s cookie cutter approach becomes a weakness, and the assistant principal must seek alternate philosophies.When an assistant principal faces a situation where creativity within the structure of the Code must be used, one possible approach could be to consider the principles of Justice as Fairness. The philosophy behind this concept involves making the same decision for everyone who falls into this new or different category (Johnson, 2012). Constituents want guaranteed equal rights, and if the assistant principal applies consistency, the perception will be the fairness they seek. Used properly, this can be a strength of this philosophy.However, here again exceptions to the rule become factors in decision-making. Justice as Fairness also includes helping those who have the greatest need. By definition, special education students have a greater need, and assistant principals sometimes alter consequences for these students. Thus, when constituents scrutinize an assistant principal’s decisions, inconsistencies could be noticed. This exposes a weakness of the philosophy where constituents will disagree with the assistant principal about the meaning of justice and fairness (Johnson, 2012).This leads assistant principals to another alternate philosophy of ethical decision-making, Communitarianism. Johnson (2012) defined Communitarianism as shouldering one’s responsibilities and seeking the common good. When assistant principals must be creative and apply exceptions to the rules in the name of justice and fairness, they shoulder their responsibilities. Yet, when there is a need, the assistant principal can play to the strengths of Communitarianism and collaborate with others to come up with a creative and fair student consequence. Likewise, assistant principals seek the common good in respect to the fact that different students can require different consequences. What matters is that the consequence changes the undesired student behavior. However, assistant principals and leadership teams need to remember to keep an open mind in order to avoid a weakness of Communitarianism where an exclusive set of values may form and be promoted (Johnson, 2012).Then, there is the occasion when an assistant principal will use the philosophical framework of Altruism, or love your neighbor (Johnson, 2012). The love of working with children could be a reason a person decides to pursue school administration as a profession. The truest form of Altruism explains helping others whatever the personal cost. This application in relation to the assistant principal position involves making a decision that benefits the student. When students know the assistant principal genuinely cares for them, a powerful bond is created. This is a strength of Altruism (Johnson, 2012).While it is noble of an assistant principal to love students, assistant principals still err. As long as the error favors the student, the assistant principal will still be seen as acting in an ethical manner. However, this could still upset other students, parents, teachers, and staff. This highlights a negative side of Altruism, the inability to meet everybody’s needs (Johnson, 2012). This means a decision might not be popular. Thus, the assistant principal must remain confident in the decision as long as it is made in the best interest of the student.This leads to the final ethical decision-making framework called Kant’s Categorical Imperative which is defined as, “Do what’s right no matter what the cost” (Johnson, 2012, p. 158). This philosophy can be viewed from several angles. If the assistant principal’s decision will cost his or her career, self-preservation will caution the leader from following through with the decision. If the decision is made no matter the cost to the student, the student’s behavior has to have been so egregious that the decision is warranted. This philosophical framework finds its strength in quick, easy, precise, and consistent decision-making.However, even the most severe student behaviors require thorough investigation and serious consideration before a consequence decision is made. When investigation causes debate and posturing over the correct consequence for a student’s behavior, then one or more of the other philosophical frameworks are usually considered. Kant’s Categorical Imperative portrays itself as a “zero tolerance” philosophy. Public Schools do not have “zero tolerance” policies anymore as there are always exceptions to every rule. These weaknesses find this decision-making philosophy used the least.Assistant principals must make difficult student discipline decisions. To come to these decisions, many factors must be considered. Discipline decisions are a delicate balance between rules, regulations, policies, procedures, needs of the student, wants of the parents, sense of right and wrong by teachers and staff, and the values, ethics, and morals of the assistant principal. This is why when assistant principals make discipline decisions they cannot rely on just one philosophical framework. The ethical decision-making approach is multifaceted. If good leadership requires leaders to use different leadership styles to lead people or organizations according to the challenges presented, then likewise, good leadership requires leaders to apply different ethical decision-making philosophies to best fit the situation.Decision-Making and the Four Ethical PerspectivesEven before an assistant principal receives a discipline referral, he or she must be knowledgeable about the laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. When the time comes, knowledge of such items will lead to their proper application and a sound decision. This, as an ethical perspective, is called the ethic of justice (Shapiro & Gross, 2008). When the assistant principal arrives at a decision, this decision must be supported by the laws, rules, regulations, policies, and/or procedures of the county, state, or federal government. Most certainly, the assistant principal will need to justify the decision to constituents and/or a supervisor.When the assistant principal receives a discipline referral, the first consideration involves discerning the accuracy of the written report. Did this incident actually occur, and did it occur as it is written? Is the incident written out of emotion? Is the incident described correctly? Is the incident understood correctly by the assistant principal? These are critical questions that lead the decision maker to the appropriate decision. This is the first level of ethic of critique (Shapiro & Gross, 2008).The next level of ethic of critique involves an analysis of the assistant principal’s decision. Did the assistant principal appear to know the laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures? Did the assistant principal apply them correctly? The checks and balances concept inherent within the ethic of critique is a subtle way constituents can respectfully challenge authority. Some assistant principals might not be comfortable with this scrutiny, but veterans understand it is necessary in order to show constituents the reasoning behind the decision (Shapiro & Gross, 2008).Once an assistant principal’s decision comes from sound law, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures, there are still more questions to consider before the decision is implemented. Will this decision help or hurt the student? What message will this decision send to other students? What will teachers, staff, and constituents imply from this decision? The assistant principal’s discipline decision is made, with these questions in mind, to change the students’ undesired behaviors. When these questions are considered in order to help an assistant principal make a discipline decision, the ethic of care is the ethical perspective being used (Shapiro & Gross, 2008).Finally, one of the responsibilities of an assistant principal is reflecting on the appropriateness of the decisions made. Again, this involves asking a series of questions. Is the decision on par with the standards of the high school educational leader profession? Would someone else holding the same position, given the same information, make the same decision? Can this decision be defended to the supervisor? Even if the answer to all these questions is yes, is it the right decision for the student? Is it the correct decision for the school or community? This last decision-making analysis comes from the ethic of profession (Shapiro & Gross, 2008).Although some assistant principal discipline decisions are standard, none are routine. Arguably, a constituent will not be as upset about a student discipline decision that results in a detention. However, a discipline decision involving an out of school suspension increases the chances that a constituent will debate the decision while also increasing the likelihood of an appeal. This is why it is important that, during the decision-making process, every philosophical framework and ethical perspective be considered. Essentially, when an assistant principal makes a discipline decision, not only must the decision be justified and appropriate, but it must also be considered in relation to the amount of “turbulence” it may cause (Shapiro & Gross, 2008).Decision-Making ModelJohnson (2012) describes four decision-making models. The model that most aligns with the decision-making process a high school assistant principal must employ is Nash’s 12 Questions. In the explanation of Nash’s model, readers will recognize similar questions addressed earlier in this paper. For example, question one: “Have you defined the problem accurately?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256); question two, “How would you define the problem if you stood on the other side of the fence?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256); and question three, “How did this situation occur in the first place?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256) are acknowledged as considerations in the ethic of critique. These questions address accurately assembling facts that could involve alternate points of view and whether or not a student is responsible for the behavior.Nash’s fourth question, “To whom and to what do you give your loyalties as a person or group and as a member of the organization?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256), expresses the sentiment as the assistant principal representing the school and the county in the ethic of profession. The tenth question, “Could you disclose without qualm your decision or action to your boss, your CEO, the board of directors, your family, or society as a whole?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 257), is also from the ethic of profession. An assistant principal must be able to justify a disciplinary decision to supervisors and others in the profession, if need arises.Question five, “What is your intention in making this decision?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256), starts to acknowledge the ethic of care. The intention of the decision is to alter future undesired student behavior but not in a way that is demeaning or excessive. Question six, “How does this intention compare with the likely results?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 256), is also from the ethic of care. Any decision maker must be careful when making decisions, as good intentions do not guarantee the desired results. Nash’s seventh question, “Whom could your decision or action injure?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 257), is the last to acknowledge the ethic of care. As stated, is the decision demeaning or excessive? Does it extend past one student to many students, and if so, is this positive?Nash’s eighth question, “Can you engage the affected parties in a discussion of the problem before you make your decision?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 257), is the only question to come out of the ethic of justice. Interviewing all parties and giving due process, is a policy and procedure that assistant principals must follow. This is a legal requirement. The ninth question, “Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long period of time as it seems now?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 257), returns to the ethic of critique. This involves taking the decision and scrutinizing it against the test of time. Question eleven, “What is the symbolic potential of your action if understood? Misunderstood?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 257), combines both ethic of critique and ethic of profession. It involves analyzing the impact of the assistant principal’s decision, not only in relation to students and behaviors but, as a professional and representative of the school and county.The final question, “Under what conditions would you allow exceptions to your stand?” (Johnson, 2012, p. 257), defines how an assistant principal maneuvers within all the different philosophical frameworks, ethical perspectives, and decision-making models to make the best decision that represents the profession, the school and county, and that lies in the best interest of the student.In considering the four models Johnson (2012) presents in his book, Nash’s 12 Questions is the model that is best for high school assistant principals. This model mirrors most of the questions already addressed when discussing philosophical frameworks and ethical perspectives of this position. It is also important to note that, of Nash’s 12 Questions, the majority emanate from the ethic of critique. This is no mistake, as an assistant principal must always ask questions, consider facts, and re-evaluate a decision to ensure the best possible decision is made.The Quality of Decision-MakingOne would think that with so many angles to consider and so many questions to answer, the final decision would be a quality one. However, it is inherently human to make mistakes. Even the smallest of details can be overlooked, misunderstood, or cause a situation to be considered in a different light. When multiple people evaluate a situation, the odds favor that the decision will be more valid and reliable. This is why it is better to have multiple administrators consider a student discipline consequence.As each assistant principal has different levels of education and experience, so too will the quality of their individual decisions vary. It would stand to reason that an assistant principal with more education and experience would make a better quality decision and vise-versa. However, there are exceptions to every rule and some young assistant principals are beyond their years. Thus, there are some assistant principals, early in their careers, who would be equally as skilled at the job. However, one thing an assistant principal cannot do is make a decision without evidence or based on a hunch.The movie Doubt provides an example. Father Flynn, the parish priest, is confronted by Sister Aloysius, the school principal, about an inappropriate relationship with one of the male students. She does not possess any evidence to support this accusation and the boy denies that anything inappropriate is happening. Yet, she still systematically goes about badgering and lying to Father Flynn until he finally resigns. In the movie, Sister Aloysius admits that she acted from her “gut” (Doubt Rudin & Shanley, 2008).If an assistant principal, or principal, were to take these same actions today, that educational leader would be relieved of his or her duty. In some county and school hierarchies, it would be difficult for the assistant principal to administer a poor decision. Checks, balances, and safeguards are in place to ensure that the assistant principal’s decision is approved before it is acted upon. It is also standard practice in some county and school hierarchies to assume the assistant principal’s decisions are quality as long as no one complains about the decisions. Thus, the quality of any decision is relative to the situation and how thorough each and every fact is scrutinized.ConclusionThis assistant principal thinks he is good at making student disciplinary decisions. He understands student behaviors, teachers, and the communication process. He also understands how they all unfold into an interwoven maze of variables that can make decision making difficult. As a result, the author thoroughly investigates every student referral forming student discipline decisions from sound laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. As an assistant principal of six years, the author also feels he is skilled at giving constituents difficult information with the least amount of anguish. However, his view is that of looking at student discipline as a one-on-one, punitive process.Now that the author is participating in advanced educational leadership classes, he does not see student discipline decisions in this light anymore. Student discipline is actually seen as an integral part of the school culture. Using all the different philosophical frameworks and ethical perspectives to shape student behavior by forming a quality discipline decision, sends messages to students, staff, and the community about how the school, and maybe the county, is going to operate. This new depth of understanding about the complexity and far reaching effects of the decisions the author makes interpreting the Code of Student Conduct, finds him again asking questions as if it is his first day on the job. These questions, now philosophical in nature, drive his participation on Code of Student Conduct revision committees. When the author becomes a principal, these new behaviors will serve him well to understand the culture of the building and thus, lead effectively.ReferencesJohnson, C. E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Rudin, S. (Producer), & Shanley, J. P. (Director). (December 25, 2008). Doubt [Motion picture]. USA: Miramax.Shapiro, J. P., & Gross, S. J. (2008). Ethical educational leadership in turbulent times: (re)solving moral dilemmas. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download