---

“They set an example for the institution by showing respect for others, serving others, being just and honest, and building community.” — Smith & Fox (2019, p. 77)

---

Definition

The ethic of the profession offers a decision-making strategy for educational leaders and can be used as an analytic tool for reflection. Leaders who follow an ethic of the profession adopt a multi-dimensional approach to decision-making and consider multiple ethical frames (i.e., justice, care, critique) and codes of ethics: both professional and personal. The professional ethic is characterized as deontological, which refers to the moral obligation of leaders (i.e., whether actions are right or wrong) and axiological (the values or ideals that guide ethical behaviour), meaning that the established codes and values of the profession act as a standard for ethical behaviour (Wood & Hilton, 2012).

Ward (2020) defined the ethic of the profession as “Dynamically located in the professional decision-making context to encourage the educator to contemplate multiple perspectives when arriving at a professional decision about an ethical dilemma” (p. 44). Through ethical pluralism, leaders recognize that there are multiple ways to view and approach an ethical dilemma and that these differing viewpoints may conflict with one another. Leaders who follow this paradigm acknowledge that there is more than one way to resolve a problem. Leaders who apply an ethic of the profession to their practice “evaluate situations and alternative choices from several ethical viewpoints, weighing costs and benefits of alternatives before making a decision and taking action” (Smith & Fox, 2019, p. 76).

While guided by a set of professional standards, this ethic is highly personalized, requiring leaders to develop and reflect upon their own personal and professional codes. One who follows this ethic assumes that standardized professional ethical codes are limited in their value (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2022); therefore, educational leaders need to establish their own ethical codes “based on life stories and critical incidents” (p. 24).

First and foremost, the ethic of the profession places the best interests of the student at the centre of all ethical decision-making. From this perspective, educational leaders are called to provide a safe, respectful learning environment, and promote quality teaching (Gurley et al., 2023). This ethical paradigm further calls leaders to consider community values — both institutional as well as the community within which the institution is situated — and to be cognizant of the needs of the local community (Wood & Hilton, 2012), whether they be economic or social.

The summary table below highlights key aspects of this ethic including complementary leadership styles, the primary objective and core principles, and benefits of adopting this frame of reference for decision-making.

Summary Table: Ethic of the Profession

Primary leadership style	Servant leadership; Stewardship
Frame of reference	Multi-dimensional / multi-ethic (justice, critique, care) Professional norms and standards; personal code of ethics; community values
Objective	Best interests of the student
Core principles	Responsible stewardship of resources. Providing an environment suitable for learning. Strong commitment to providing equitable opportunities for education. Avoidance of abuse of positional power and personal gain or advancement.
Benefits	Personalized, iterative process. Informed by an established set of professional standards. Strengthened relationships with community. Prioritizes the safety and happiness of students.

Historical Origins

Robert J. Starratt

The ethic of the profession emerged from the work of Robert J. Starratt (1994), who proposed a multi-dimensional ethical framework that included the ethics of justice, critique, and care. Starratt argued that this pluralistic approach to ethical decision-making must consider moral considerations, practical applications, and contextual factors; he emphasized the need for educational leaders to cultivate a deep moral awareness and a sense of responsibility for their actions.

Additionally, Starratt highlighted the role of dialogue and reflection in ethical decision-making, suggesting that educators should engage in ongoing conversations about ethics and morality to develop their ethical reasoning skills. Therefore, according to Starratt, ethical educational leadership is a collaborative, self-reflective, and lifelong learning process. However,, Starratt (2017) cautioned that the ethical behaviour of the leader of an organization has a considerable effect on the ethical behaviour of others within the organization; therefore, the moral conduct and values of the leader should be carefully assessed prior to placing them within a position of power.

Best Interests of the Student

Shapiro and Gross (2013) expanded upon Starratt’s multi-dimensional framework by articulating the ethic of the profession. Their model emerged from case study investigations of ethical dilemmas in schools. Shapiro and Gross argued that a professional ethic must centre the best interests of the student at the heart of all decision-making. Specifically, they prioritized the three R’s: each students’ rights, responsibilities, and respect. Frick et al. (2013) posited that the best interest of the student means “safety, happiness, an opportunity to have an education, providing an environment suitable for learning, learning per se, achievement in particular forms of knowledge deemed important by a wider society, and being equipped to live a good life” (p. 222).

From this perspective, “the educational leader makes the education and well-being of students the fundamental value of all decision-making” (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2022, p. 27). Expanding upon this idea, Smith and Fox (2019), argued that the best interest of the student comes first, then is followed by the best interest of the educational institution, and then the best interest of employees.

Frick et al. (2013) challenged Shapiro and Stefkovich’s framing of ‘the best interest of the student.’ They called for a clear distinction between the best interests of one student and the best interests of the community of students.

Situation-Based Ethics

Smith and Fox (2019) acknowledged that the primary influences on ethical decision-making are the personal experiences of educational leaders. As such, decisions are often based on prior experience and personal knowledge, views, and values rather than ethical or philosophical theories or frameworks. They described this as “ethics as situation-based” (p. 82). In Perry’s study of Massachusetts superintendents in the USA, leaders most cited their respective experience, education, upbringing, values, and beliefs as the guiding rules that informed their decision-making.

Ward (2020) offered that there is potential to extend this ethical frame by adding Bullough’s (2011) ethic of probability which “opens for consideration the teacher’s calculation of consequences [and] the cost/benefit analysis of teacher actions” (p. 41).

While this ethical perspective demands that leaders consider multiple viewpoints when making decisions and values democracy, equity, and social responsibility as part of the decision-making process, it ultimately assumes that the educational leader will have the final authority. Perry (2018) found that the application of rules, principles, and theories is deeply influenced by educational leaders’ stories and personal experiences, as well as the traditions and virtues inherent within the institutional culture and local community. In other words, this ethical perspective does not follow a consensus-based model nor distributed form of leadership, and therefore, positional authority is prioritized.

Situated within Educational Leadership

Educational leaders working within the public domain are expected to behave ethically and follow professional norms of integrity, fairness, transparency, trust, collaboration, and continuous improvement. Moreover, they are expected to be good stewards of educational resources. Smith and Fox (2019) added that leaders “help one another to make the college stronger… being honest… being true to the cause of the college” (p. 83). These ethical behaviours and values are strongly influenced by cultural norms and, therefore, contextually dependent.

Historic vs. Contemporary Professional Ethic

For post-secondary leaders, codes of ethics can originate from the local level (e.g., institutional mission, values, and goals), the system level (e.g., legislative mandates and government priorities), and the societal level (e.g., social, cultural, and economic factors). Historically, professional ethics have been grounded within the justice paradigm, which is equated with standardized codes, rules, and principles and often enacted through professional standards. Additionally, they have been associated with a utilitarian perspective of “doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people (i.e., students)” (Smith & Fox, 2019, p. 81).

However, more contemporary views of the professional ethic require leaders to adopt a critical and care-based approach to leadership and consider the unique circumstances surrounding a problem, which may require that leaders ‘bend the rules’ or question who the rules are intended to serve. Lashley (2007) argued that educational leaders need to move beyond strict compliance with established rules and instead strive to balance students’ individual rights and freedoms while aiming for the common good.

Successful educational leaders are cognizant of the institutional culture in which they practice and the communities in which the institution is located. Tensions can arise when a leader’s personal and professional codes of ethics clash, among educational leaders who follow different ethical codes, or when an individual’s codes are incongruent with those of the local community (Shapiro & Stefkovic, 2022).

Complex Decision-Making

Perry (2018) argued that educational leaders must ask what the profession would expect of them and consider the best interests of the students, with particular attention to the needs of highly diverse populations. Scholars have argued that educational leadership often involves “decision-making in the gray” (Smith & Fox, 2019, p. 81); therefore, theory and practice should co-inform decision-making. As Wood and Hilton (2012) noted, “ethical issues are multi-faceted, meaning that each stage in the model is fluid, dynamic, and multidimensional” (p. 197). Therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely sought from this ethical viewpoint. Consequently, this ethic follows a dynamic decision-making process that must consider questions of equity and the evolving needs of students.

To assist leaders with complex decision-making, Perry (2018) advised that leaders develop a set of core values and that organizational supports support educational leaders with reflecting upon and examining ethical frameworks and core values guided by principles of “safety, security, and protection” (p. 63). This sentiment is shared by Shapiro and Stefkovich, who suggested that educational leaders articulate a ‘statement of role morality’ (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994) and reflect on “what they perceive to be right or wrong and good or bad, who they are as professionals and as human beings, how they make decisions, and why they make decisions” (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2022, p. 25).

Servant Leadership

Leadership styles that complement an ethic of profession include servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970), whereby leaders prioritize serving the needs of others over personal gain or advancement. As Wood and Hilton (2012) noted, educational leaders have a “duty to their institutional personnel… [and] responsibilities to the students that they serve” (p. 205).

Servant leadership involves putting the needs of others first. The ethic of the profession reinforces this idea by emphasizing the best interest of the student in all decision-making processes. Additionally, servant leaders lead by example, embodying the values and principles of the educational institution in which they serve; “they set an example for the institution by showing respect for others, serving others, being just and honest, and building community” (Smith & Fox, 2019, p. 77).

Stewardship

Stewardship is another primary leadership style often associated with the ethic of the profession. Leaders see themselves as stewards of their profession, responsible for upholding its values and ensuring its long-term sustainability and student success. It requires “responsible stewardship over resources, personnel, and students” (p. 197), as well as promoting “collective and individual student accomplishment” (Frick et al., 2013, p. 221).

Stewardship leadership emphasizes taking a long-term perspective and considering the impact of decisions on future generations. Educational leaders must consider the long-term implications of their actions and act in ways that promote the sustainability and well-being of their organization and profession.

Benefits of Ethic

It has been argued that a multi-dimensional approach to ethics offers leaders the opportunity to explore complex ideas and philosophies through multiple epistemic lenses by engaging them with theoretical and practical aspects of ethical leadership and governance (Stefanovic, 2023). Moreover, an intersectional viewpoint can enhance leaders’ ability to untangle major problems and issues that confront us all. This perspective includes the ethics of justice, care, and critique and involves consideration of community standards and norms and the standards, professional norms, and indicators of professional leadership.

While ethical decision-making is complex, the ethic of the profession provides a toolbox for moral leaders. Educational theorists consider the educator’s role as not only a transmitter of knowledge but also a moral agent responsible for the ethical and moral development of students. Through activities like “rule referencing; maximizing benefit; assessing one’s character, motivation, and disposition; responding with empathy and personal investment; being reflective; and maintaining an open posture” (Frick et al., 2013, p. 208), leaders are better prepared to find a solution in the best interest of the student. Following the ethic of the profession contributes to leaders’ professional development and continuous improvement by encouraging individuals to continually reflect on their leadership practice and seek ways to improve (ideally in conversation with others).

This dynamic, fluid process allows leaders a significant degree of autonomy while balancing obligations to the educational community. As Wood and Hilton (2012) noted, leaders have a duty to their board members, institutional personnel, and the students they serve to foster a collegial environment. Importantly, following ethical standards and codes of conduct can help to reduce the risk of legal issues and conflicts of interest, particularly when a leader carefully documents their decision-making processes and can provide a strong rationale for their conclusions.

Drawbacks of Ethic

Educational leaders have a wide range of responsibilities concerning student safety and security, budget and facilities, quality curriculum, and community impact; however, decisions that have an effect on people are often the most difficult to make (Perry, 2018). Leaders must simultaneously act in the individual interests of students while considering the collective best interests of all students.

Competing notions of individual freedoms and rights — prominent values within a liberal democracy, such as Canada — often create challenges for educational leaders. As Ward (2020) noted, there exists “a lack of consensus, consistency, and global standardization of what is ethical” (p. 39). As previously noted in this textbook, much of the existing literature on ethical educational leadership ignores the contributions of Indigenous scholars and global contexts. The authors argue that educational leaders must reflect upon their positionality and identify the ethical paradigm(s) from which they approach the ethical decision-making process: educators should become more familiar with the paradigms that most often influence their own ethical decisions. The ethic of the profession is a starting point for ethical leaders to consider multiple perspectives when making decisions, but it is not the endpoint.

Tensions between diverse ethical perspectives related to education (i.e., its purpose, who it should be for, how it should be delivered, and what should be delivered) converge with personal moral values and professional and/or community standards and expectations for professional practice. This can often result in a “moral dissonance, or a classing of codes” (Frick et al., 2013, p. 215).

Recommended Reading

• “Responding to the Collective and Individual “Best Interests of Students”: Revisiting the Tension Between Administrative Practice and Ethical Imperatives in Special Education Leadership” by William C. Frick, Susan C. Faircloth, and Karen S. Little (2013), Educational Administration Quarterly
• “Ethical Decision-Making Needs for Emerging Community College Leaders” by Douglas A. Smith and Emily C. Fox (2019), New Directions for Community Colleges
• “Reconceptualizing the Teaching of Ethics in a Global Classroom” by Shakoor Ward (2020), International Journal of Ethics Education

References

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2011). Ethical and moral matters in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.007

Gurley, D. K., Fifolt, M., & White, D. (2023). Multidimensional ethical analysis of the Magic City Acceptance Academy: Giving voice to student perspectives. Journal of Ethical Educational Leadership, 7(1), 1–35. https://jecel.scholasticahq.com/article/75432-multidimensional-ethical-analysis-of-the-magic-city-acceptance-academy-giving-voice-to-student-perspectives

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Frick, W. C., Faircloth, S. C., & Little, K. S. (2013). Responding to the collective and individual “best interests of students”: Revisiting the tension between administrative practice and ethical imperatives in special education leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 207–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12463230

Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical framework. Exceptionality, 15(3), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830701503511

Perry, M. (2018). Decision-making and ethics: A study of Massachusetts superintendents [Doctoral dissertation, University of New England]. DUNE: DigitalUNE. https://dune.une.edu/theses/189/

Shapiro, J. P. & Gross, S. J. (2013). Chapter 2: The multiple ethical paradigms: Developing the model. In J. P. Shapiro & S. J. Gross (Eds). Ethical educational leadership in turbulent times: (Re)solving moral dilemmas (2nd ed.) (pp. 20–36). Taylor & Francis Group.

Shapiro, J. P. & Stefkovich, J. A. (2022). Ethical leadership and decision making in education (5th ed.). Routledge.

Smith, D. A., & Fox, E. C. (2019). Ethical decision-making needs for emerging community college leaders. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2019(185), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20340

Starratt R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in schools. Falmer Press.

Starratt, R. J. (2017). Leading learning/learning leading: A retrospective on a life’s work. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315178196

Stefanovic, I. L. (Ed.). (2023). Conversations on ethical leadership: Lessons learned from university governance. University of Toronto Press.

Ward, S. (2020). Reconceptualizing the teaching of ethics in a global classroom. International Journal of Ethics Education, 5, 39–50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40889-020-00087-y

Wood, J. L., & Hilton, A. A. (2012). Five ethical paradigms for community college leaders: Toward constructing and considering alternative courses of action in ethical decision making. Community College Review, 40(3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552112448818