Blazing New Trails - Connexions

Self-Efficacy and Principal Involvement in Character Education 217
and Ornstein (2000) posited, “There is a desperate need for credibility among leaders who
people respect and admire; the result is that individuals feel better and are willing to work
harder” (p. 470). Greenfield (1991) listed some of these dilemmas as good pedagogical
practices, friendships, rules and regulations, efficiency of the organization, and educational
outcomes. There may be many conflicting moral issues at play when considering decisions to
be made. As Greenfield (1991) asserted, “Moral reasoning is a tool the administrator can use
to identify and analyze the moral dimensions of the dilemma and arrive at a conclusion
regarding what action ought to be taken…” (p. 10). Beck and Murphy (1994) asserted, “Ethics
provide principles to guide administrators toward morally sound decisions” (p. 2).
Sergiovanni (1992), who wrote on the moral dimensions of school leadership,
purported that school leaders desiring to provide moral leadership will achieve success when
they are characterized by character and integrity. In terms of school renewal, leadership traits
must include consistency, loyalty, and honest if trust is to be developed and change
implemented (Sergiovanni, 1992). For change and renewal to occur, Fullan (1993) claimed
that moral purpose had to be linked to the change agent concept noting, “Without moral
purpose, aimlessness and fragmentation prevail. Without change agentry, moral purpose
stagnates” (p. 18). According to Covrig (2000), the role of moral leadership in administration
is about administering in such a way that:
one fosters moral sensitivity, develops an ethos of moral judgment, crafts an
environment that promotes the motivation to do good, and finally institutionalizes
behaviors that promote moral actions, and when necessary routinizes organizational
operations around those institutional values. (pp. 55-56)
Consequently, as Covrig (2000) explained, “Moral administration is about keeping the
organization faithful to its central identity and also reinterpreting its central identity in
response to changing pressures and new understandings of morality” (p. 56).
As the administrative leader in a school organization, moral leadership is a dynamic
process with multiple applications to the implementation of a school program such as
character education. Consequently, an administrator’s role in providing administrative moral
leadership is in constant flux as an organization confronts new moral issues as new core
values and moral codes are introduced and existing core values are marginalized. In summary,
Covrig (2000) asserted the positive element of the conflict that results from such organization
moral flux by noting that, “…moral administration is the practice of effective ethical decisionmaking
and leadership which responds to, preserves and clarifies the organization’s core
values. Conflict and conflict resolution suggest a healthy moral administrative process” (p.
57). English (1994), writing on the indispensable role of morality in leadership, stated,
“Leadership without morality is simply bureaucratic technique” (p. 231). School leaders must
be proficient in both managerial and moral leadership.
Servant Leadership
Leadership qualities such as commitment, trust, ethics, and integrity are moral
qualities. Addressed in this leadership section is the relationship between the role of the
educational leader and these leadership qualities required to lead a school organization in a
spiritual or moral context because the servant leader concept “is at the heart of any discussion
of leadership values and integrity” (Drummond et al., 2002., p. 20). Thus, the servant-leader