6.3 Causes of unethical behaviour among some principals and educators
6.3.6 Pressure to achieve to the expected standards or levels
127
Chetini and Shindika (2017) opine that the pervasiveness of unethical behaviours by principal and educators in workplaces is due to lack of education and in-service training. Sama and Shoaf (2007) posit that, for in-service training to be significant and relevant there is a need to understand the drivers for ethical lapses in workplaces. The latter corroborates the views of Brown and Trevino (2006) and Fulmer (2004), who state that ethical lapses need to be understood and addressed given the nature of the spread of this behaviour throughout organisations. The scandals obtaining in various organisations indicate that the need for education of principals is becoming imperative (Ciulla, 1995). Scholars including Trevino and Brown (2006), Soma and Shoaf (2007), Mayer, Kuezi, Bardes and Salvador (2009) opine that ethical lapses are ubiquitous and are a concern, as the integrity of principals is brought into question. Messick and Bazerman (1996) and Yukl (2010) posit that principals face numerous dilemmas and potentially explosive situations, in which they have to make decisions that can prove harmful for the organisations or to others, yet they are not properly empowered to face these daily challenges through in-service training. Sadly, owing to their power, principals are regarded as role models and more often than not they are caught napping. Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005) state that, when principals engage in distribution of resources, the process need to be moral and sensitive, which is often not the case as some of them view it as an opportunity to self-enrich.
128
Mr Ndlovu from Iphothwe be allowed to write examination on half of the subjects in a stream of her choice) spoke as follows:
I think pressure. I face the same pressure as the high school principal. As high schools we are judged by Grade 12 results. So, we end up using corporal punishment though we know it was abolished, but because we know when there are no good results, we shall face the music at the end of the year.
(Mr Ndlovu, principal of Iphothwe Secondary school)
Similar sentiments were shared by Mr Mnguni who had this to say:
As a principal at times I let wrong things to happen for the good intentions by pretending as if I don’t know that my teachers are doing it. For example, teachers use corporal punishment. You see, nowadays we are not allowed to hit learners.
However, to get these learners cooperating, mainly grade 12, that put so much pressure on us as principals, we end up using corporal punishment to get our learners on toes. It works for us because all our learners attended extra classes who offer them and for one who fails without reporting they know what to follow.
It helps though it is a wrong thing to do but for their good at the end.
(Mr Mnguni, principal of Intuthuko Secondary School)
Similarly, Mr Pelepele, principal of Ikhethelo Primary School, argued that the policies of the Department of Basic Education indirectly compel them to use any means possible to maintain the dignity of their schools. For an example, the DBE had introduced circular D2 to determine the functionality of schools. Circular D2 determines that primary schools are poor performing schools when Mathematics and English have been achieved below 60%. Thus, the school principals reverted to the use of corporal punishment and any other unethical means to get their schools recognised as academically performing schools. Mr Pelepele had this to say:
I must confess most principals in township schools are compelled to resort into the use of corporal punishment due to apathy shown by learners towards their schoolwork and they know that they fail once in a phase. So, to get learners working, corporal punishment is the solution and does help though we know it was long ago abolished. We have a pressure to achieve above 60 %. Some schools even cook results to rid themselves of this pressure.
(Mr Pelepele, principal of Ikhethelo Primary school)
129
The same sentiments were uttered by Mr Ngobese who had this to say:
As a school principal, I have a responsibility to ensure proper functioning of the school, but it is difficult to control learners without corporal punishment since inviting parents of these learners to school does not work because they don’t show up. Learners don’t finish their classwork, homework, if I can allow that to happen the learners will be destroyed, my teachers do administer corporal punishment, but I don’t reprimand them because that is what works in township schools. Remember I have to account for the results to parents and Department each term end.
(Mr Ngobese, the principal of Zakhele Primary School)
Similar sentiments were echoed by post level one educators as Mrs Thobela said:
Learners in nowadays are no longer showing interest in their schoolwork and as teachers we are left with no proper and immediate solutions to making them do their work except opting for corporal punishment. I do use it at a minimal level to get my learners in action. I explain to them before I hit them the reason. I need to account to my departmental head and principals for the results of each learner under my care. I account even to parents, so I use possible means to get them working.
(Thobela, post level 1 educator from Iphothwe Secondary School)
Ms Thandi shared a similar view that corporal punishment is the only working solution to learner behaviour that township school survive by, despite it being abolished many years ago.
To emphasise her point this is what she had to say:
To be honest with you, I know pretty well that corporal punishment was abolished since 1996. However, as an old teacher I know it helps and has helped me for many years as an old educator teaching grade 12 learners. I still use it and my learners know if my work is not done, I will punish them. That is one of the reasons I don’t get less than 95% in my subject since I started teaching Accounting at grade 12.
(Ms Thandi, post level 1 educator from Intuthuko Secondary School)
The pressure to meet the set minimum requirement is one amongst many that propels school principals and educators to contravene the Department of Basic Education policies. All the school principals and the educators interviewed clearly understood that corporal punishment was long abolished in 1996. However, they are still administering it. The claim is that it is the
130
only working solution to correct the conduct of learners and also to ensure that the learners conform to their educators’ demands, such as class attended and cooperation in doing their schoolwork. The successes most of the school achieve they attribute to the use of corporal punishment. There is a strong feeling among teachers and principals that, should there be no corporal punishment in their schools, the pass rate would drop, because learners will be doing as they please.
School principals have a mandate to ensure that their schools are functional. One of the key performance indicators of a functional school is the results that the school produces. Principals alluded to the fact that circular D 2 was initiated by the DBE to determine the minimum pass requirement of schools and failure of a school to achieve at the minimum and above puts much pressure on the principals particularly in secondary schools. They are compelled to have extra classes even during holidays to ensure that they maximise teaching and learning to realise their targets. The conditions in the township compel principals and teachers to opt for corporal punishment to meet the threshold. That said, principals are aware that their conduct is against the law. However, they view corporal punishment as the best solution to learner absenteeism and are not oblivious to the fact that what they are doing is against the law. That they have been succeeding throughout the years and their success has been acknowledged, they believe that exercising corporal punishment helps them and therefore cannot stop using it.
Further, the dearth of alternative to corporal punishment leaves principals and teachers with the only option that they have known to yield the intended results at all times. In the township schools, parents are quick to advise parents to use the corporal punishment to their children because, even at home, corporal punishment is used. Some teachers and parents believe they can be supported by parents, whenever they are required to account for their actions. Some teachers believe that explaining to the learner why corporal punishment has to be administered against them beforehand renders it less illegal. However, that is absolutely wrong, and the act does not accommodate it as less of an offense. Simply put, the action of administering corporal punishment is illegal and unacceptable.
Messick and Bazerman (2009) and Yukl (2010) state that principals make decisions under highly challenging contexts which are potentially explosive such that can tarnish the image of their organisations or their fellow colleagues. Hence, they need to have clear understanding of their world. Winston (2007) asserts that principals’ leadership and decision making in their
131
schools are a focal point in relation to ethics mainly in the light of high-profile scandals. Further, Messick and Bazerman (2009) and Werner (2011) maintain that principals’ decision-making is more significant as they are accountable to various stakeholders. That pressure drives principals to do things that they would normally not do, and that they find themselves under extreme pressure to succeed, pressure to get ahead of their colleagues, pressure to meet deadlines and expectations from co-workers and Department of Education, when their actions violate the set organisational codes of conduct their actions remain unethical. Lašáková and Remišová (2015) maintain that principals passively allow for immoral wrongdoing to obtain in their organisation, they decide of rules and processes that are unethical to achieve their goals. They further advise that even if the principal does not intend to harm others, however, if her actions are contrary to ethics code of conduct and are intended to serve leader’s wellbeing need to be discouraged.
Leaders foster unethical conduct among their subordinates without engaging in the behaviour themselves and do so by rewarding and condoning non-conformers and ignoring unethical acts (Brown & Mitchell, 2010). Employees engage in unethical acts to boost organisational performance or help organisation in another way. This happens with the intention to protect the leaders from primary blame (Brown & Mitchell, 2010). Belle and Canterelli (2011) opine that principals within their professional roles can be involved in unethical behaviours without seeing anything wrong about their behaviour. Therefore, under moral inversion principals view their evil actions as normal and good. Kaptein (2011) opines that some principals engage in unethical job behaviour and performance practices fully aware that their conduct is unethical. However, their behaviour is motivated by desire to meet the set standards of performance. Singh and Twalo (2015) corroborate the latter assertion that principals carry out some unethical practices fully knowing the rule and regulations and use their knowledge of the rules to sabotage certain rules without being noticed. Boes (2015) states that principals have pressure to reach certain targets hence find themselves embroiled in unethical acts. Simply put, Boes (2015) maintains that principals act unethically with the intention to realise the standards set by the Department of Education for achievement. The latter suggests that the Department of Education exerts pressure on principals so that their focus ends up being on the attainment of results, thus neglecting how the means through which those results are attained. Hence there is fertile ground for various unethical actions to be carried out.
132