6.3 Causes of unethical behaviour among some principals and educators
6.3.2 Lack of consequence management and accountability for unethical behaviour
114
Avrahami (2012) posit that some principals engage in unethical activities only to the extent that allows them to maintain a self-concept of integrity. The latter clearly suggests that there is a particular standard that principals set for themselves and want to maintain at all costs.
Notwithstanding the foregoing assertion, Lašáková and Remišová (2015) opine that, ultimately, unethical leadership harms both employees and organisation.
6.3.2 Lack of consequence management and accountability for unethical behaviour
115 Meanwhile, Mr Mnguni averred that:
The Department of education is very lenient in dealing with corruption, be it selling of posts, embezzling of school funds or teachers having relationship with learners, there are no drastic consequences instituted by Department of Education. Instead the Department redeploys the culprit to another school or cause him/her to pay a fine over a certain stipulated time.
(Mr Mnguni, principal of Intuthuko Secondary School)
The foregoing view was corroborated by Mr Ngobese’s assertion that:
I have read and heard many stories regarding principals having misappropriated or embezzled school funds without being dismissed by the Department of basic Education. Some even have their videos having sexual intercourse with school going children or practising corporal punishment circulated in the social media, but they are still practising as teachers either in the same school or moved to another school. That encourages ethically weak individuals to take chances of engaging in unethical activities.
(Mr Ngobese, principal of Zakhele Primary School)
In the same vein, Ms Grootboom stated that:
When the issue of selling promotional posts was in the news and the report was released, I thought certain people were to be arrested and lose their jobs. Guess what happened! Nothing happened to them to date. That is not the only case, there are many videos on social media depicting male teachers have sex with learners, and there is nothing done to punish them.
(Miss Grootboom, post level one educator from Zakhele Primary)
Similar sentiments were shared by Mr Mhlophe who had this to say:
The Department of Education is like a toothless dog when it comes to dealing with corruption in the system. Corporal punishment was banished in 1996. However, still today some schools do practise corporal punishment and there is an abundance of evidence even on social media where videos of teacher slapping learners on the face or hitting them with sticks are circulating on social media but no consequences thereof.
(Mr Mhlophe, post level one educator from Ikhethelo Primary School)
116
The foregoing assertions suggest that the Department of Basic Education is not acting in response to the reported unethical behaviours in the system. There is a myriad of unethical activities that are taking place in the education sector, with inadequate consequences. The lack of proper punishment or actions instituted against those alleged and those found to be guilty motivate others to engage in the same acts, knowing that there will be no harsh sentence against them should they be caught involved in unethical activities. This then calls for the Department of Basic Education to have strict rules and also to enforce the rules and code of conduct. I am by no means suggesting that there are no codes of conduct and acts governing the behaviour of the employees in the Department of Education. However, there is a need for strict or severe sanction for unethical behaviour, even to the extent where one can be dismissed from employment if there is a strong case against him/her. It is worth noting, though, that, for the Department of Education to act against unethical behaviour, there must be a whistle blower.
Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005) contend that principals have a duty to ensure that there is a code of ethics that underscores justice, equity and respect for liberty in the organisations they serve and that principals need to maintain deep concern for the welfare of the welfare of the school community. The ethic of care acknowledges that school principals encounter complex moral challenges as they execute their daily work, however, it also offers numerous ways to confront those challenges. Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005) state that principals are charged with the responsibility to craft their personal and organisational codes of ethics, which embrace the ethics of justice and that they need to conform to their professional code of ethics. Significantly, acknowledge that there are possible clashes in codes of ethics. As a consequence, the existing clashes that are there in the ethical codes of conduct set by Department of Education and Professional Associations (SACE) fail to respond decisively to unethical behaviours that take place in schools. Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005) further argue that the disjuncture that exists between what is obtaining in schools and what is purported by the policy that advocates high moral standards shows that there is a need for action to eradicate unethical practices through punishment.
Khoza (2011, p. 96) states that leaders engage in unethical practices because they lack ubuntu, which promotes helpfulness, caring, sharing and unselfishness and sense of community.
Further, Khoza (2011) suggests that what is obtaining in organisations where leaders see themselves above the institutions, they are serving symbolises the lack of ubuntu because those
117
leaders who are guided by ubuntu in their practice strive to provide quality service and to realise organisational goals. Khoza (2011) acknowledges that there is evolution in how people respond to such issues as ethics, given the rapid fourth industrial revolution, which has drastically changed the mind set of people. Corruption has become highly sophisticated in this epoch and ubuntu has been craved more than before as a solution to the scourge. Khoza (2011) puts it blatantly, that it is sad that respect and care has evaporated into thin air from the school principals.
Scholars such as Askew, Beisler, and Keel (2015) underscore the rise in reports of unethical practices. However, those who report cases of corrupt practices become victims of retribution.
Further, Askew, Beisler and Keel (2015) aver that it is unacceptable to have rule and regulations that are not enforced, as is the case with South Africa, which is known for having an excellent Constitution and Code of Professional Ethics for educators, which are undermined mainly by those who are supposed to be the custodian of them. Trevino and Brown (2004) opine that there is a great need to comprehend that even when principals make right decisions, they find it difficult to follow and do the right thing as they succumb to the pressures from their work environment. Boes (2015) asserts that education about unethical behaviour only makes principals and educators less naive about unethical behaviours and further exposes them to information about unethical acts. Thus, education about unethical behaviour does not stop unethical behaviour and, though it may help set a moral compass, it does so without stopping unethical behaviour. Further Boes (2015) argues that unethical practices are sometimes unnoticed when they occur after which they build up into a more severe erosive act. Hence the notion becomes used that not all that is unethical is illegal. Notwithstanding the foregoing assertion, Cheteni and Shindika (2017) report that the officials of Department of Education are supposed to deal with the moral decay at workplaces. They further suggest that, through proper ethics education, the awareness filters through and the culture of moral obligation and personal responsibility pervades in the organisation.
Furthermore, Cheteni & Shindika (2017) report that the Department of Basic Education has to create platforms for discussions about ethical conduct and use enforcement to support the ethics messages. Pushpa (2012) avers that leaders don’t wake up one day with strong set of ethics, instead they are taught. Meanwhile, Soma and Shoaf (2007) state that unethical behaviours are pervasive, therefore the Department of Education needs to reinforce the principles and values of right and wrong that guide the behaviour of principals in influencing desired behaviour on
118
followers. Conger and Riggio (2007) posit that employees are affected similarly when they observe sanctions of misconduct and rewards for positive conduct. As a consequence, it is possible for Department of Basic Education to reduce or eradicate the existing lapses of ethics in the sector by sanctioning unethical practices of school principals. Messick and Bazerman (1996) and Werner (2011) argue that principals and teachers need to understand that they are accountable to various stakeholders. Sadly, Hallak and Poison (2005), and Belle and Canterelli (2017) believe that the level of unethical behaviours has connection with the level of accountability, hence principals continue engaging in unethical practices because there is a dearth of punishment for non-compliance.
Moreover, Werner (2011) maintains that there is a myriad of factors that affect the ethical conduct in the organisations as people join organisations with their unique values and beliefs, therefore the Department of Basic Education has a duty to provide support and establish ethical culture in the organisations. Nzimakwe (2014) insist that principals as public leaders have to conform to public accountability and transparency. Eisenbeiss (2012) maintains that principals as leaders have a responsibility towards themselves and the community they serve. Pushpa (2012) offers advice to leaders that they need to go beyond their personal egos and individual goals to recognise that the value is in the success of the organisational goals for the benefit of all the stakeholders. Similarly, Lašáková and Remišová (2015) argue that, when the leader is self-centred, self-protective and self- serving, it tends to compromise the organisational goals as his/her practices are driven by egoism, thus leaders’ interests get prioritised over everything else.