See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301771416

Ethical leadership in education and its relation

to ethical decision-making: The case of Arab
school leaders in Israel

Article in Journal of Educational Administration · April 2016

DOI: 10.1108/JEA-11-2015-0101

CITATIONS READS

4 729

4 authors, including:

Khalid Arar Izhar Oplatka

204 PUBLICATIONS 467 CITATIONS Tel Aviv University
190 PUBLICATIONS 2,004 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Choosing the right university: A study of Palestinian Arab students from Israel about their concepts
for choosing the favorite university in Israel View project

‫ מוטיבציה בקרב מורים ערבים‬View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khalid Arar on 26 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Ethical leadership in education Ethical

leadership
and its relation to ethical in education
decision-making
647
The case of Arab school leaders in Israel
Received 5 November 2015
Khalid Arar Revised 1 April 2016
The College for Academic Studies, Or Yehuda, Israel 14 April 2016
Accepted 26 April 2016
Ibrahim Haj
Department of Graduate Studies, Education,
Sakhnin Academic College, Sakhnin, Israel
Ruth Abramovitz
Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel, and
Izhar Oplatka
School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate ethical leadership in the context of the Arab
educational system in Israel. It questions the relations of ethical leadership dimensions with decision
making as well as background characteristics of the educational leaders.
Design/methodology/approach – Arab educational leaders (n ¼ 150) from diverse Arab schools
responded to valid research tool of 40 items constructed of six subscales: three ethical leadership
dimensions (critique, justice and care) and three leadership work aspects (ethical sensitivity, climate
and decision making). Averages were calculated for each subscale.
Findings – Significant relations were found among ethical leadership dimensions and decision
making, the leaders’ school type and their seniority.
Research limitations/implications – This study is based on research in diverse countries, using a
common conceptual frame. Its limitation is the sample’s narrow scope.
Practical implications – The study results may inform the developing ethical qualities in
educational leadership.
Originality/value – The authors recommend widening the scope of the sample examined to further
clarify the concept of ethical leadership and its implications to the practice of educational leadership.
Keywords Gender, Ethics, Educational administration, Middle management, Social justice
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
During the past 30 years there has been a rise in the research into ethical leadership in
education (Cherkowski et al., 2015; Holte, 2014; Lapointe et al., forthcoming). In the late
1970s, Hodgkinson (1978) called for the restoration of a moral foundation of theories on
educational leadership. A few years later, Greenfield (1981) and Foster (1986)
emphasized the need for further study into the ethical and moral aspects of educational
leadership. Starratt (1991) was among the first to propose a conceptual framework for
Journal of Educational
ethical leadership and to suggest that ethical leadership should no longer be defined as Administration
a style but as the basis for moral dimensions and actions. Sergiovanni (1992) pursued Vol. 54 No. 6, 2016
pp. 647-660
this approach in his moral model by integrating the concern for both collective and © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
individual needs and interests. More recently, international research into ethical DOI 10.1108/JEA-11-2015-0101
JEA educational leadership has posed several questions (Cherkowski et al., 2015;
54,6 Kristinsson, 2014; Langlois and Lapointe, 2010; Langlois et al., 2014): does being an
ethical leader have the same meaning everywhere, without any consideration of a
particular history, religion or culture? Finding answers to this question could foster
a better understanding of both national specificities and universal commonalities
associated with ethical leadership, as well as of the cultural and social characteristics
648 that facilitate or hinder the development of ethical leadership.
Our study concentrates on educational management in Israel in the context of the
Arab minority group’s educational system. Its objective is to clarify the conceptual as
well as practical significance of ethical school leadership. In addition to describing how
school leaders see themselves as ethical leaders, the relationships between their ethical
leadership dimensions and their ethical decision making are examined as well as
background characteristics. The study originated from an international collaborative
research study on ethical leadership lead by Claire Lapointe, from Laval University,
Canada. Using a common conceptual framework and research tool, scholars from
Canada, Israel, New Zealand, Sweden and Turkey have investigated how ethical
leadership takes on various shapes according to their different contexts in different
countries, diverse societies, cultures and languages.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 The social and cultural context of this study
This study has been carried out in the context of a socially diverse country, Israel, and
among an ethnic minority group, Arabs, citizens of Israel (hereinafter AI), who
comprise about a fifth of the population (CBS, 2015). Arab society is socially and
culturally distinct from the majority Jewish group. In contrast to the Jewish society, it is
largely a conservative, traditional-patriarchal, male-dominated, less egalitarian culture,
characterized by collectivism stressing the well-being of the group (Abu-Baker, 2008;
Arar and Abu-Asbah, 2013; Sharabi, 2010). Yet the AI society has been undergoing a
process of change by integrating into the Israeli labor market which makes their social
as well as cultural situation a unique case among other Arab societies.
The distinction of AI is by a large part a consequence of circumstances. The AI
population lives mainly in rural areas, in separate communities, apart from a few towns with
mixed ethnic populations. Many of the Arab settlements are situated in the lowest socio-
economic clusters. Geographical separation is one of the factors that isolates this population
from the main work places (Arar, 2015). Furthermore, many occupational opportunities such
as those in large industries that serve the Israel military are closed to AI due to the
requirement for high security grading. Politically underrepresented in government, Arabs
find it problematic to integrate into Israel’s employment market. Consequently, 53 percent of
the Arab population in Israel lives below the poverty line (Ben-David, 2014; Gara, 2013).
The Arab educational system in Israel, although not autonomous, is separated, aside
from a very few mixed schools, from the majority Jewish educational system. It is
distinctive in its characteristics, such as the teaching in the Arabic language and
following different values according to their different culture, religious beliefs and
customs. A very prominent difference is that the Arab educational system suffers from
inequitable resources, allocations and outputs (Ben-David, 2014). Another notable
characteristic of the AI educational system is that decisions concerning school
appointments are usually in the hands of the local male-dominated Arab municipalities
(Arar and Abu-Asbah, 2013). Thus, it is expected that the autonomy of the school
leaders, especially women, is restricted in comparison to other school leaders.
 In this research of the dimensions of ethical leadership in education, we choose to focus Ethical
on Arab school leaders in Israel in the hope of gaining understanding of the significance of leadership
being a minority group as well as belonging to a culture distinct from the majority group.
Theoretically, social separation might lead to social discrimination of minorities and,
in education
therefore, it is very relevant to investigate ethical conceptual as well as behavioral aspects
in the context of the educational arena of a minority group (Arar, 2015).
Our hypothesis, tested in this study, was that ethical dimensions and social justice 649
values are of particular concern for minority group members, who might experience
social exclusion. In addition, we hypothesize that the distinct status of women in the AI
society is important to ethical leadership dimensions. Therefore, the research question
asks if there is a significant difference between male and female AI school leaders with
regards to their ethical values and behaviors.

2.2 The dimensions of ethical leadership in education

Social justice became a major concern of educational research from the beginning of the
twenty-first century because of the demographic shift in Western society and economic
gaps apparent in different populations including the large numbers of refugees,
immigrants and displaced persons (Shields, 2013; Wait, 2016). This has created a
demand for equitable school practice and outcomes of learning in different cultures and
backgrounds (Cribb and Gewirtz, 2013; Wood and Hilton, 2012). Recently, corruption in
business and politics (DePree and Jude, 2010) has put the focus on ethics of social
justice by highlighting the effects of unethical behavior of organizations on achieving
social justice (Hassan et al., 2013). Consequently, an increasing number of researchers
are attempting to understand the ethical dimensions of leadership including in
education (Gerstl-Pepin et al., 2006; Langlois et al., 2014).
Research on the ethical dimension of leadership in education has seen an important
rise in the past years, inspired in part by the work of Kohlberg on moral reasoning
based on justice, and that of Gilligan (1982) and Noddings (1984) on the ethic of care.
Already in 1978, Hodgkinson had suggested restoring a moral foundation to theories
on educational leadership. Starratt’s (1991) paper was the first to offer a cohesive and
clear theoretical model in educational administration.
Thereafter, several scholars have addressed the issue of ethical leadership in
education (e.g. Aksu and Kasalak, 2014; Norberg and Johansson, 2014; Sergiovanni,
1992; Shapiro and Stefkovich, 2016). These studies provide a framework to identify the
characteristics of an ethics-oriented practice of educational leadership, i.e., a way of
leading where one’s conduct, whether making a landmark decision, modeling a
behavior or interacting with people, is firmly rooted in an ethically based, self-regulated
professional judgment (Langlois, 2010; Langlois and Lapointe, 2010).
Recently, scholars have raised the question: How do culturally and socially different
contexts influence the meaning and practice of ethical leadership? Are there universal
core characteristics shared by culturally and linguistically diverse educators around
the world (Gerstl-Pepin et al., 2006)? Finding answers to these questions could foster a
better measurement of universal commonalities associated with ethical leadership, as
well as of the cultural and social characteristics that facilitate or hinder the
development of ethical leadership (Langlois et al., 2014).
In contrast to earlier approaches (Farquards, 1981) that assumed that ethical
dilemmas are to be solved by adopting a single ethical posture, researchers have
adopted multiple ethical paradigms (e.g. Shapiro and Stefkovich, 2016; Starratt,
2004). The multiple ethical approach assumes that school leaders can examine and
JEA utilize different ethical perspectives in their work. These ethical perspectives
54,6 include the ethic of care, the ethic of justice (fairness and utilitarianism), the ethic of
critique and the ethic of profession (Shapiro and Stefkovich, 2016). Additionally,
it was suggested to include an ethic of community into the multiple ethical paradigms
(Furman, 2012). Another suggested aspect is the “professional ethic” aspect (Eyal et al.,
2011), but such an aspect may comply to all aspects. However, in order to give a common
650 conceptual grounding to this study, hereafter we elaborate the explanation of three
dimensions that we investigated in an effort to attain insights into the complexity of ethical
leadership that serves as dependent variables in the present study.
The ethic of care. This dimension is of the relationship between school leader and
student that stems from receptivity, relatedness and engrossment. Those school
leaders who act from the perspective of the “ethic of care” tend to consider human
relations as being of major importance in the proper functioning of the school. It is
based on the well-being of individuals, to respond to their stress and empower them.
An “ethic of care” requires a willingness to acknowledge the individual’s right to be
who he or she is, an openness to encountering others in their authentic individuality, a
loyalty to the relationship (Starratt, 1991).
Starratt’s (1991) description of the ethic of care was based on the work of educational
ethical theorists who come from a feminist approach to ethics and morality in education
(Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984). According to Noddings (1984), caring should be the basis for
the decision making of the educational leader. Accordingly, it is accepted that this dimension
is representative of the feminist approach to ethics and moral education (Flinders, 2001).
The ethic of justice. This dimension stems from a philosophical viewpoint that deals
with the nature of the world and the connection between human beings and their
countries. The ethic of justice can be divided into two perspectives. The first
perspective puts the focus on individual rights and stems from values of fairness or
equity, that every individual has the right to equal treatment (Shapiro and Stefkovich,
2016). The second perspective puts the focus on the rights of the majority although it
has a potential not to benefit specific individuals (McCray and Beachum, 2006).
The ethic of critique. The ethic of critique is “close to the ethic of justice” (Starratt,
1991) as the use of critical lenses sheds light on injustices in order to attain greater
social justice. However, this ethic’s specific perspective is to confront norms and power
structures that are discriminating against weaker societies and offer other norms.
Starratt (1991, p. 189) observed that “their basic stance is ethical for they are dealing
with questions of social justice and human dignity.” Some leaders exhibit an ethical profile
indicating a pronounced ethic of critique, and they are able to resolve their ethical
dilemmas and initiate meaningful changes within their organization (Langlois et al., 2014).
The basic stance of such an ethic is dealing with questions of social justice and
human dignity and to consider the needs of different stakeholders individual rights.
This ethic is often claimed to be needed in cases of a multicultural society or of ethnic
diversity (Norberg and Johansson, 2014).

2.3 Ethical leadership in different contexts, cultures and leaders’ background

characteristics
Ethics can be universal, such as when dealing with human conduct aspiring for
rightness or goodness (Lapointe et al., forthcoming). Yet, no doubt, it has to do with
rules of conduct specific to particular contexts, cultures, or background characteristics
(Hofstede, 2001). Culture forms the foundation for ethical behavior and determines
what is consider ethical. Values and norms are culturally informed and can vary Ethical
significantly among societies (Lapointe et al., forthcoming). In the same manner, moral leadership
priorities can differ from one context to another (Truong and Hallinger, 2015).
Ethical dimensions are social and cultural products of the society in which they are
in education
defined (Hofstede, 2001). People’s perspectives of what is right, wrong or proper
conduct are based on culture that influences individual attitudes and actions (Reybold
et al., 2008). Ethical considerations are also not fixed; they change constantly according 651
to changing trends (Landau and Osmo, 2003). A study of moral values carried out
among university graduates in Jordan indicates the relation between ethical leadership
and culture as well as religious influences ( Jarrar, 2013).
Therefore, in this study we follow the assumption in the literature as to the connections
between cultural background variables such as country and culture (Langlois et al., 2014)
and the respondents’ background characteristics (Brown et al., 2005).

3. The research aims

Our purpose in the research is to understand the role that different ethical dimensions play
in the exercise of ethical leadership. This study aims specifically to describe the various
aspects of ethical leadership among AI school leaders, members of a culturally distinct
minority group within a culturally different majority group. In addition, this study aims to
examine the relationship between AI school leaders’ various ethical dimensions (critique,
justice, care) and ethical decision making and the interrelation with other work aspects of
leadership (ethical sensitivity as well as ethical climate). The study also looks for possible
interventions of the leaders’ background characteristics (such as gender, type of school
they work in and seniority) in the various ethical dimensions of their leadership. Thus the
study’s findings may clarify the validity of the tool to measure ethical leadership.

4. Method
4.1 Population and sample
The study population includes school leaders (principals, vice principals and managerial
staff such as coordinators and counselors) in Arab schools in Israel. The convenient sample
includes 150 of those school staff members who fully completed the study questionnaire,
which was delivered to 189 Arab school leaders. Response rate was 79 percent.
It was assumed that the respondents, as intelligent adults, were capable of giving
their informed consent to take part in this study. To ensure a voluntary and informed
participation and ethical research conduct, an introductory letter was enclosed with the
questionnaire explaining the purpose of the research and promising that the data
would be used for research purposes only and that respondents’ anonymity would be
strictly guaranteed, and assuring the respondents that they were free to refuse to take
part in the research.

4.2 The research tool Ethical Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ)

The research tool is a closed questionnaire based on the ELQ of Lyse Langlois (version
June 10, 2014). This questionnaire examined statements of leaders about various ethical
issues they encounter in their educational work. The questionnaire aims to examine
ethical sensitivity, which is the capacity to identify and confront ethical dilemmas,
creating an ethical climate and ethical decision making.
It measures five aspects of ethical leadership such as: the ability to identifying an
ethical dilemma; the ability to solve it; the types of decisions made when facing an
ethical dilemma; the influence of organizational culture on the process; and the
JEA pressures felt while resolving the ethical dilemma. The items of the questionnaire were
54,6 linked to one of the three ethical dimensions proposed by Starratt (1991) as well as
ethical sensitivity, culture and decision making. The three dimensions of ethical
leadership, according to the questionnaire, are as follows (Langlois et al., 2014):
(1) ethic of care – human relations as being of major importance in the proper
functioning of organizations;
652
(2) ethic of justice – promoting a just social order within the organization as a result
of collaboration between all people involved; and
(3) ethic of critique – sensitize others in order to obtain a better balance in the
distribution of social benefits.
This questionnaire was validated by its original developers (Langlois et al., 2014). In this
study we used a version of it translated into Hebrew and Arabic. The translated versions
were validated by retranslation into English, compared to the original version by the
study authors who fully agreed with its equivalence. The ELQ includes 40 items on a
closed Likert-type scale of six grades from 1 to 6. Reliability tests performed on subscales
with Israeli data confirmed the original construct, as shown in the following results.

4.3 Data analyses

Data analyses included both descriptive and inferential statistics. The descriptive
statistics describe the values of the different study variables, their distribution, as well
as central and dispersion indices – the average, standard deviation, minimum and
maximum range. The inferential statistics tested the hypotheses concerning the
relationship between the different independent and dependent research variables. The
following analyses were used: Pearson’s correlation coefficient, t-test of independent
samples test, one-way variance test (ANOVA) and multiple regression analysis.

5. Results
5.1 The sample background characteristics
The personal characteristics show that our sample is gender diverse as the proportion of
men (52.7 percent) to women among respondents is quite similar. There is diversity in their
age groups while nearly half of them are in the age group between 41 and 50. More than
half of the respondents have a master’s degree (56.8 percent). With regard to the work
characteristics of the sample, about a third of the sample works full time, more than 40 hours
a week, and over half of them work between 34 and 36 hours per week. With regard to
teaching experience, a minority (8 percent) reported less than ten years’ experience, half of
the principals (51 percent) have 11-20 years’ experience in school, around third (32 percent)
have 21-30 years’ experience and the rest (9 percent) are more senior. The sample is diverse
with regard to the level of school (40 percent are high school principals, 32 percent work in
middle intermediate schools, while 28 percent work in elementary schools). Most (89 percent)
of the schools where the leaders are employed are medium-sized schools, of 200-500 students.

5.2 The subscales of the questionnaire

We re-examined the construct validity of the study questionnaire by testing Cronbach’s
α reliability coefficients for each of the subscales based on the factors defined by the
original developers of the questionnaire.
The construct of six factors was confirmed: three factors of three different
dimensions of ethical leadership of the school leaders and three factors regarding their
work aspects (ethical sensitivity, culture and decision making in their schools). The six Ethical
factors are divided into three ethical leadership dimensions and three factors of leadership
outcomes of ethical leadership behavior.
Ethical leadership dimensions. Ethic of care: consists of 12 items. Those items
in education
examine the school leaders’ receptivity toward others and relationships. An example of
an item from this subscale is the frequency of acting: “I establish trust in my
relationships with others.” The reliability coefficient of this subscale based on those 653
items is found to be sufficient (α ¼ 0.783).
Ethic of justice: consists of nine items which examine attitudes toward issues of
fairness, justice and law. An example of an item is: “I try to be fair.” The reliability
coefficient found in this study is α ¼ 0.775.
Ethic of critique: consists of 12 questions and examines attitudes toward various
phenomena of the critical behavior they encounter. An example of an item in this subscale is:
“I try to make people aware that some situations privilege certain people disproportionately.”
The reliability coefficient found in our data are α ¼ 0.847, which is very good.
As for the factors of work aspects of ethical leadership, the following three subscales
immerged.
Ethical sensitivity: consists of three items and examines leaders’ awareness of
ethical dilemmas in their professional lives, either situations that run counter to
established rules, involve a display of power or are hurtful to people. The reliability
coefficient is α ¼ 0.864.
Ethical culture: consists of two items and examines to what extent the school leader
creates a work environment which considers ethical issues. An example of this item is:
“My actions aim at transforming my work environment to obtain more ethical
behavior.” The reliability coefficient is α ¼ 0.733.
Ethical decision making: consists of two items and examines on what school leaders
base their decision making when confronting ethical issues, either what the rules
dictate or the particulars of the situation. The reliability coefficient is α ¼ 0.526.

5.3 Statistical description of the study variables

We based our variables in this study on these subscales and calculated an average for
each of the above subscales: the ethical dimensions as well as ethical sensitivity, culture
and decision making.
All of the variables examined received high average scores, ranging from 4.8 to 5.3
(Table I). It should be noted that these rankings are heavily influenced by relatively
high minimum values of all the dimensions examined, ranging from 1.7 to 3.6,
indicating that the respondents rarely gave low ratings in the questionnaire.

The variables Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Ethic of care 3.6 6.0 5.2 0.49

Ethic of justice 3.1 6.0 4.8 0.60
Ethic of critique 3.4 6.0 4.9 0.62
Ethical sensitivity 1.7 6.0 4.9 1.02 Table I.
Ethical culture 3.0 6.0 5.3 0.69 Mean scores (from 1
Ethical decision making 2.5 6.0 4.8 0.77 to 6) and distribution
Note: n ¼ 150 of research variables
JEA 5.4 The connections between ethical leadership dimensions and ethical decision making
54,6 This study examined the relationship between school leaders’ various dimensions of ethical
leadership (care, justice, critique) and the applications of ethical leadership such as ethical
decision making, when controlling variables of ethical sensitivity and ethical culture.
As seen in Table II, there are significant positive correlations among all the study
variables. Correlations’ coefficients range from 0.30 to 0.68, at a significance level po0.01.
654 The findings reveal an existence of positive relationships between the variables “ethic of
care” (r range from 0.47 to 0.53; po0.01), “ethic of justice” (r range from 0.35 to 0.54;
po0.01) and “ethic of critique” (r range from 0.43 to 0.57; po0.01) and the variables of
ethical applications (“ethical sensitivity,” “ethical culture” and “ethical decision making”).
Additionally, a linear regression analysis was performed on the variable “ethical
decision making” in order to examine which of the three dimensions of ethics, “ethics of
care,” “ethics of justice” or “ethics of critique,” is responsible for explaining the variance
of “decision making.” The first step model introduced three independent variables –
ethic of care, ethic of justice, ethic of critique – while the second step introduced to the
model the mediator dependent variable “ethical culture” (Table III).
The first step, which included three variables, revealed a significant model
F(3, 146) ¼ 27.2; p o 0.01, explaining 60 percent of the variance of “ethical decision
making.” Two variables explain most of the variance of “ethical decision making”:
“ethic of justice” β ¼ 0.36; p o 0.01 and “ethic of care” β ¼ 0.33; p o 0.01, while the third
variable, “ethic of critique,” did not further contribute significantly to this diversity.

Ethic of Ethic of Ethic of Ethical Ethical Ethical decision

care justice critique sensitivity culture making

Ethic of care 1
Ethic of justice 0.58* 1
Ethic of critique 0.68* 0.63* 1
Table II. Ethical sensitivity 0.52* 0.35* 0.57* 1
Pearson correlation Ethical culture 0.47* 0.35* 0.48* 0.38* 1
coefficients among Ethical decision making 0.53* 0.54* 0.43* 0.30* 0.31* 1
the study variables Notes: n ¼ 150. *p o0.01

Model β t Sig. R2

Step 1
(Constant) 0.174 0.862 0.60
Ethic of care 0.329* 3.530 0.001
Ethic of justice 0.363* 4.081 0.000
Ethic of critique −0.021 −0.219 0.827
Step 2
Table III. (Constant) −0.007 0.995 0.60
Stepwise Ethic of care 0.316* 3.307 0.001
regression model Ethic of justice 0.362* 4.064 0.000
on the dependent Ethic of critique −0.037 −0.365 0.716
variable: ethical Ethical culture 0.052 0.665 0.507
decision making Notes: n ¼ 150. *p o0.01
The second step, which adds to the model the mediator variable, revealed a significant Ethical
model F(4, 145) ¼ 20.5; p o 0.01, also explaining 60 percent of the variance of “ethical leadership
decision making.” Thus, adding the mediator variable “ethical culture” has not added
significantly to explaining the variance of “ethical decision making.” The β-values
in education
confirm this – the model is still explained by the “ethic of justice” β ¼ 0.36; p o 0.01 and
“ethic of care” β ¼ 0.32; p o 0.01.
655
5.5 The relation between ethical leadership aspects and the leaders’ background
characteristics
To investigate whether leaders’ background variables influence their ethical leadership
styles the following tests were applied: an independent sample t-test and a one-way
ANOVA. First, we checked for interrelation between the background variables and
found no significant relations.
For testing the relation between gender and the research variables, we used an
independent sample t-test for difference in average between the two groups: male and
female. A significant difference between men and women was found only in the ratings of
“ethic of care” t(148) ¼ 2.04; po0.05: male ratings (5.23) were significantly higher than
female ratings on average (5.07). With regard to the other aspects of ethical leadership, no
significant differences between men and women were found.
We also found a borderline significant difference using one-way ANOVA, in the
rankings of the “ethic of critique” when tested by four groups according to years of
teaching experience F(3, 146) ¼ 2.51; p ¼ 0.061. As leaders were higher in “teaching
experience,” their average ratings for “ethic of critique” were lower, as shown in the
averages of “ethic of critique” displayed in ascending order for the four groups according to
“teaching experience” from low to high number of years of experience: 5.29, 4.95, 4.82, 4.70.
The relationship of ethical leadership dimensions and the level of school in which
the respondents work was also tested using one-way ANOVA. A significant difference
was found in the rankings of the “ethic of critique” by the level of school
F(2, 146) ¼ 3.05; p o 0.05: elementary school leaders (5.1) and intermediate school
leaders (5.0) gave themselves significantly higher ratings in “ethic of critique”
compared to that variable ranking among high school leaders (4.8).
In addition, a significant difference was found in the rankings of “ethical culture”
according to level of school F(2, 146) ¼ 3.21; p o 0.05: elementary school leaders
reported the highest level of “ethical culture” (5.5), followed by intermediate school
leaders (5.3) and the ethical culture lowest rated by respondents in high school (5.2).
Relative to the other background variables such as age and level of education, no
significant relationship with ethical leadership dimensions and aspects was found.

6. Discussion and conclusions

Overall, the findings of this study support the construct of the ELQ based on three
dimensions (care, justice and critique), which are linked to the various aspects of leadership
work: the ability to identifying an ethical dilemma, to solve it and to make decisions when
confronting an ethical dilemma. Each of these dimensions as well as the aspects of
leadership work were found in our study to be a distinctive factor within the questionnaire,
yet all of factors positively correlate to one another. Such connections have been found in
previous studies (Dempster et al., 2004; Langlois et al., 2014).
The results of the study in the context of Arabs in Israel (AI), a minority group with
distinct cultural as well as socio-demographic characteristics within the Israeli society
(Arar, 2015; Arar and Abramovitz, 2013), indicate the importance of social and cultural
JEA background in the research on ethical leadership for social justice. The findings of such
54,6 samples revealed that some of the respondents’ background variables seem to have a
connection with their ethical leadership conduct (Langlois et al., 2014). This may support
our hypothesis that culture and social circumstances are related to ethical leadership
aspects (Truong and Hallinger, 2015). Nevertheless, social identity in traditional societies,
such as AI, is solidly connected to their community and extended family and influences
656 their leaders’ behaviors. Our findings may show the distinction of AI with regard to
leadership traits ( Jarrar, 2013; Oplatka and Arar, 2015; Wood and Hilton, 2012).
Interestingly, according to the findings in this study, male leaders reported a greater
tendency for the “ethic of care.” This result is contrary to the expectation (Wood and
Hilton, 2012) that female school leaders would manifest a greater tendency toward the care
dimension of ethical leadership (Flinders, 2001). Previous research pointed out the
tendency of women leaders toward the care dimension (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984).
Thus, the development of the care dimension of ethical leadership as a synonym for
“relatedness” or “sympathy” (Noddings, 2005) was connected by many researchers with
feminist culture and leadership style (Noddings, 2005). It was stated by the questionnaire
designers (Langlois et al., 2014) that the ELQ items have the same meaning for both men
and women. The conclusion is that the gender differences observed when using ELQ in
our study are not due to a faulty instrument but rather to existing differences between
women and men within the special context of AI society that is distinctive with relation to
the status of women (Arar et al., 2013). Given the present debate on the issue of gender-
related distinctions between the leadership of women and men, more reliable results will be
available through the use of ELQ in diverse research settings (Brown et al., 2005; Langlois
et al., 2014). Thus, it may be concluded that the difference between men and women in our
study cannot be attributed to differences in grasping the terms connected with the aspect
of “caring” in leadership work. Due to the self-reported nature of the questionnaire, it may
be claimed that AI women leaders who make higher demands of themselves judge
themselves as not highly sympathetic and receptive as much as they think is needed.
Furthermore, it was found in early studies that Arab women leaders feel more pressure to
follow organizational rules than men as their appointments to leadership positions is
uncertain and they have to prove themselves (Arar and Abu-Asbah, 2013). At the same
time, this is an indication that different societies or countries would provide
varied results, and further clarification of the concept of ethical leadership is required
(Cribb and Gewirtz, 2013; Langlois et al., 2014).
Of special interest for us in our findings is that the least experienced leaders report the
highest level of “ethic of critique,” significantly higher than the more experienced leaders.
This indicates that less experienced leaders put greater emphasis to the “ethic of critique,”
a dimension of ethical leadership that may be related to transformative leadership style
(Arar, 2015; Dempster et al., 2004; Landau and Osmo, 2003). It is interesting to further
examine the influence of teaching experience on the “ethic of critique” as it might indicate
that more experienced school principals are less aware of the emerging importance of this
aspect of ethic in leadership and therefore try less to act in a way to involve others to
achieve social justice, as claimed by previous research (DePree and Jude, 2010; Hassan
et al., 2013). If teaching experience is negatively related to ethical behavior, it may also
indicate growing frustration and feelings of “burned” among the school leaders about
changing the system and achieving autonomy when the educational system is too
centralized (Leithwood et al., 2008; Waite, 2016). The growing tendency in Israel and
elsewhere toward decentralization of education may improve school leaders’ autonomy to
act according to their values (Arar and Abo-Rome, 2016).
 Furthermore, with regard to the level of school, we found that elementary school Ethical
leaders rated themselves higher in the ethic of critique than high school leaders. It may leadership
be that leaders of high schools are too preoccupied with their students achieving high
grades in the matriculation exams, and this affects their attention to ethical critical
in education
behaviors. It also affects the ethical culture in school, which is the highest in elementary
schools and lowest in high schools.
It is notable that high schools are often more regulated and controlled than 657
elementary and middle school (Arar and Massry-Herzallah, 2016). A further study to
establish these relations is required.
The strength of this study lies in that it relies on a sound theoretical background,
dealing with an issue that is much discussed in current research (Langlois et al., 2014). In
addition, it uses a pre-tested research tool that is a basis of other research elsewhere.

6.1 Limitations
One potential weakness of this study is the limited number of respondents in the sample,
which prevented us from performing more statistical analyses to understand the
interconnections among background characteristics of the respondents. All our
conclusions are restricted to AI, a minority group in Israel with distinct cultural
characteristics, which are constantly changing because of its special social and cultural
circumstances. Furthermore, findings could not be compared to other kinds of school
leaders in other societies such as the Jewish school leaders in Israel. Also, we suspect that
basing our data on a self-reported survey design is a limitation when employed in our
context. The high ratings given by the respondents to the questionnaire to each of the
ethical leadership aspects might indicated that they tended to overrate their ethical
behaviors when answering closed self-reported items; more in-depth questions and
interviews are needed. The study may also indicate a need to triangulate self-reported data
of leaders to data from their followers (Brown and Trevino, 2006).

6.2 Theoretical and practical implications

The contribution of the study is that it sheds light on the aspects of ethical qualifications of
Arab school leaders in Israel. Thus, it helps to understand the cultural and social
characteristics that help or hinder the development of ethical leadership. The findings of the
study facilitate in the construction of an internationally valid tool to measure and educate
school leaders. It is claimed that in order to help school leaders become more successful in
educational leadership roles leadership preparation programs should promote issues of
ethics, inclusion, democratic schooling and social justice. Possible practical implications of
this study may be to inform the school system’s stakeholders and school leaders’
preparation programs in face of the pressing need for educational leaders to acquire ethical
skills, regarding the nomination, qualification and developing ethical qualities in
educational leadership and thus promote social justice in schools (Langlois et al., 2014).
The study’s results should be seen in the context of ongoing school reforms and the
arguments for or against school-based decentralization. Decentralization of education is
relevant as it enables more autonomy for school leaders and thus enables them to act
according to their values.
Overall, research into ethical leadership faces many challenges, and there are still many
unclear issues regarding ethical leadership for social justice. Therefore, we recommend
paying attention to ethical aspects in the educational arena from all possible angles.
We suggest more studies dealing with school leaders in Israel using closed
questionnaires as well as open interviews. A comparison between Arab school leaders
JEA and school leaders from the Jewish majority group will help to highlight the distinction
54,6 of those belonging to a minority group. Another interesting way to look at the issue of
ethical leadership is to compare educational leaders to leaders in other areas, including
using qualitative methodologies in order to triangulate findings and identify multiple
manifestations of leadership practices, and in particular reveal the “ethic of care” on the
part of men and women principals.
658
References
Abu-Baker, K. (2008), “Welfare, modernity and tradition: palestinian women in Israel cope with
changes in their life settings”, in Manaa, A. and Gara, R. (Eds), The Arab Society Book 2,
Van Leer Institute and Kibbutz Meuhad Publications, Jerusalem, pp. 359-384 (Hebrew).
Aksu, M. and Kasalak, G. (2014), “The ethical perspectives of Turkish school leaders”, in
Branson, C.M. and Gross, S.J. (Eds), The Handbook of Ethical Educational Leadership,
Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 370-385.
Arar, K. (2015), “Leadership for equity and social justice in Arab and Jewish schools in Israel:
leadership trajectories and pedagogical praxis”, International Journal of Multicultural
Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 162-187.
Arar, K. and Abo-Rome, A. (2016), “School-based management: Arab education system in Israel”,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 191-208.
Arar, K. and Abramovitz, R. (2013), “Teachers’ attitudes toward the appointment of women as
school leaders: the case of the Arab education system in Israel”, Management in Education,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 29-35.
Arar, K. and Abu-Asbah, K. (2013), “Not just location: attitudes and functioning of Arab local
education administrators in Israel”, International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 54-73.
Arar, K. and Massry-Herzallah, A. (2016), “Motivation to teach: the case of Arab teachers in
Israel”, Educational Studies, doi: 10.1080/03055698.2015.1127136.
Arar, K., Shapira, T., Azaize, F. and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2013), Arab Women into Leadership and
Management, Palgrave Mcmilan, New York, NY.
Ben-David, D. (2014), “A status picture of the state – flowcharts on the subject of society and
economy in Israel”, Taub Center, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Brown, M.E. and Trevino, L.K. (2006), “Ethical leadership: a review and future directions”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 595-616.
Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K. and Harisson, D. (2005), “Ethical leadership: a social learning
perspective for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, Vol. 97, pp. 117-134.
CBS (2015), “Media release to the press on the eve of the Jewish New Year: 8,412 million residents
in the State of Israel”, Jerusalem, available at: www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/newhodaot/hodaa_
template_eng.html?hodaa¼201501235 (accessed July 21, 2016).
Cherkowski, S., Walker, K.D. and Kutsyuruba, B. (2015), “Principals’ moral agency and ethical
decision-making: towards a transformational ethics”, International Journal of Educational
Policy and Leadership, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 1-17.
Cribb, A. and Gewirtz, S. (2013), “The hollowed-out university? A critical analysis of changing
institutional and academic norms in UK higher education”, Studies of the Cultural Politics of
Education, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 338-350.
Dempster, N., Carter, L., Freakley, M. and Parry, L. (2004), “Conflicts, confusions and
contradictions in principals’ ethical decision making”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 450-461.
DePree, C.H. Jr and Jude, R.K. (2010), “Daily practice: ethics in leadership”, Contemporary Issues in Ethical
Educational Research, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 19-23.
leadership
Eyal, O., Berkovich, I. and Schwartz, T. (2011), “Making right choices: ethical judgments among in education
educational leaders”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 396-413.
Farquard, P. (1981), “Preparing educational administrators for ethical practice”, Alberta Journal
of Educational Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 192-204.
Flinders, D.J. (2001), “Nel Noddings”, in Palmer, J.A. (Ed.), Fifty Modern Thinkers in Education: 659
From Piaget to the Present, Routledge, London.
Foster, W. (1986), Paradigms and Promises: New Approaches to Educational Administration,
Prometheus, Buffalo, NY.
Furman, G. (2012), “Social justice leadership as praxis: developing capacities through preparation
programs”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 191-229.
Gara, R. (2013), Arab Society in Israel, 6th Book, Van Leer Institute, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Gerstl-Pepin, C., Killeen, K. and Hasazi, S. (2006), “Utilizing an ‘ethic of care’ in leadership
preparation”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 250-263.
Gilligan, C. (1982), In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Greenfield, T.B. (1981), “Can science guide the administrator’s hand”, in Aoki, T.T. (Ed.), Rethinking
Education Modes of Inquiry in the Human Sciences, University of Alberta Press, Edmonton.
Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukil, G. and Prussia, G.E. (2013), “Ethical and empowering leadership
and leader effectiveness”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 133-146.
Hodgkinson, C. (1978), The Philosophy of Leadership, Blackwell, Oxford.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Holte, K. (2014), “The prevalence of silence”, in Branson, C.M. and Gross, S.J. (Eds), The Handbook
of Ethical Educational Leadership, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 139-150.
Jarrar, A. (2013), “Moral values education in terms of graduate university students’ perspectives:
a Jordanian sample”, International Education Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 136-147.
Kristinsson, S. (2014), “The essence of professionalism”, in Branson, C.M. and Gross, S.J. (Eds),
The Handbook of Ethical Educational Leadership, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 337-351.
Landau, R. and Osmo, R. (2003), “Professional and personal hierarchies of ethical principles”,
International Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 42-49.
Langlois, L. (2010), The Anatomy of Ethical Leadership: To Lead Our Organizations in a
Conscientious and Authentic Manner, Arthabaska University Press, Edmonton.
Langlois, L. and Lapointe, C. (2010), “Can ethics be learned? Results from a three-year action
research project”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-163.
Langlois, L., Lapointe, C., Valois, P. and Deleeuw, A. (2014), “Development and validity of the
Ethical Leadership Questionnaire”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 52 No. 3,
pp. 310-331.
Lapointe, C., Langlois, L., Valois, P., Asku, M., Arar, K., Bezzina, C., Johansson, O., Norberg, K. and
Oplatka, I. (forthcoming), An International Cross-Cultural Validation of the Ethical
Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ).
Leithwood, K., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2008), “Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 27-42.
McCray, C. and Beachum, F.D. (2006), “A critique of zero tolerance policies: an issue of justice and
caring”, Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
JEA Noddings, N. (1984), Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
54,6
Noddings, N. (2005), The Challenge to Care in Schools, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
Norberg, K. and Johansson, O. (2014), “The ethical demands of multiculturalism”, in Branson, C.M.
and Gross, S.J. (Eds), Handbook of Ethical Educational Leadership, Routledge,
New York, NY, pp. 426-438.
660 Oplatka, I. and Arar, K. (2015), “Leadership for social justice and the characteristics of traditional
societies: ponderings on the application of western-grounded models”, The International
Journal of Leadership in Education, doi: 10.1080/13603124.2015.1028464.
Reybold, L.E., Halx, M.D. and Jimenez, A.L. (2008), “Professional integrity in higher education: a
study of administrative staff ethics in students’ affairs”, Journal of College Student
Development, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 110-124.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992), Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement,
Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Shapiro, J.P. and Stefkovich, J.A. (2016), Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education:
Applying Theoretical Perspectives to Complex Dilemmas, 4th ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Sharabi, M. (2010), “Ethnicity, ethnic conflict and work values: the case of Jews and Arabs in
Israel”, Journal of Peace, Conflict and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 60-73.
Shields, C.M. (2013), Transformative Leadership in Education: Equitable Change in Uncertain and
Complex World, Routledge, New York, NY.
Starratt, R.J. (1991), “Building an ethical school: a theory for practice in educational leadership”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-202.
Starratt, R.J. (2004), Ethical Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Truong, T.D. and Hallinger, P. (2015), “Exploring cultural context and school leadership:
conceptualizing an indigenous model of school leadership in Vietnam”, International Journal
of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice.
Waite, D. (2016), “The where and what of education today: a leadership perspective”,
International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 101-109.
Wood, L. and Hilton, A.A. (2012), “Five ethical paradigms for community college leaders: towards
constructing alternative courses of actions in ethical decision-making”, Community College
Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 196-214.

Further reading
Arar, K., Beycioglu, K. and Oplatka, I. (2016), “A cross-cultural of educational leadership for social
justice in Israel and Turkey: meanings, actions and contexts”, Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education.
Branson, C.M. and Gross, S.J. (2014), Handbook of Ethical Educational Leadership, Routledge,
New York, NY and London.
Stefkovich, J.A. and Gutierrez, K.J. (2014), “Ethical decision making”, in Branson, C.M. and Gross, J.
(Eds), Handbook of Ethical Educational Leadership, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 426-438.

Corresponding author
Khalid Arar can be contacted at: khalidarr@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats