Values based theories

In recent years, values-informed or values-based approaches have been gaining more attention. These concepts of leadership are not directly related to school effectiveness research and academic achievement of students (cf. however Day et al., 2011), and therefore different from transformational and instructional leadership. Given that these value-based approaches are relatively recent, the lack of a substantial empirical knowledge-base is not surprising (Kruger, Witzier & Sleegers, 2007; Langlois et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2008; cf. Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Value-based approaches come under various terms, as moral, ethical, authentic, or spiritual leadership (Begley & Johansson, 2003; Branson & Gross, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Duignan, 2014; Ford & Harding, 2011; Johansson, 2003; Kruger, Witziers & Sleeger, 2007; Stefkovich & Begley, 2007). The relationships between those terms is vague (cf. Kruger, Witzier & Sleegers, 2007, p. 116; see also 2.2.1) and clear definitions of ethical leadership (Langlois et al., 2014, p. 312) and authentic leadership (Duignan, 2014, p. 52; Smith et al., 2008, p. 6), the most common denominators, have proved to be elusive. Authenticity, for example, to Hodgkinson ‘is the submission to the discipline of ‘whatever morality exists within’’ (1991, p. 130). To Bishop it ‘is comprised of much more than being true to oneself. Authenticity involves integrity, ethics, morals, values, self, relationships, and learning’ (2013, p. 5; cf. Avolio & Gardner, 2005;

Walumbwa et al., 2008). Begley asserts that ‘authentic leadership may be thought of as a metaphor for professionally effective, ethically sound, and consciously reflective practices in educational administration. This is

leadership that is knowledge-based, values informed, and skilfully executed’ (2003, p. 1). It ‘is the outcome of self-knowledge, sensitivity to the

orientations of others, and a technical sophistication that leads to a synergy of leadership action’ (Begley & Stefkovich, 2007, p. 403; cf. Hodgkinson, 1991, p. 133). Clearly, rather different definitions are given under the one heading of authentic leadership.

The strong point of value-based approaches is the fact that they recognise the profound influence values have in leadership and the decisions that are made. As such they draw attention to a much needed and thus far less developed element in leadership theory. There are, however, some problematic aspects.

The first of these bears on the terms itself: if authenticity means so many different things to different people and is so broad in scope as to encompass almost anything, is it still a useful concept? Additionally, authenticity has positive moral overtones, at least in Dutch. It could therefore be argued that the term has been hijacked because of its intuitive appeal as a ‘non- objectionable’ (borrowing a term from Biesta, 2015, p. 58). In other words, who would not want to be authentic?

A second problematic aspect is that within values-based approaches various options have been proffered to guide the decision-making processes

involved in leadership. These include proposing ethical frameworks of justice, care and critique (Starrat, 1994). A fourth ethic of the profession was added by Stefkovich and Shapiro (2003, p. 92; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005, p. 27) to which Branson added a fifth and, judging from the visual representation, overarching ethics of personal moral integrity (2010, p. 2). Apparently finding ‘established ethical standards’ (Bishop, 2013, p. 3) which are both convincing and encompassing is difficult.

A third aspect, which seems to have been given hardly any attention, is that ‘not all individuals encountered in organisational settings act in ethical ways’ (Begley, 2010, p. 36). The very fact however, that that ‘hardly needs to be said’ (Begley, 2010, p. 36), suggests that it is not warranted to only

leadership. It seems as if authentic leadership ‘refuses to acknowledge the rounded subject as someone full of contradictions’ (Ford & Harding, 2011, p. 467). Effectively, ‘there is no room, in this model, for self-knowledge to reveal anything that is not positive. The individual is not allowed a dark side’ (Ford & Harding, 2011, p. 476). Although this dark side of leaders does neither need to be as evil as Hitler’s or Stalin’s conceptions, nor positively toxic (Pelletier, 2010), this seems to be unrealistic.

The fourth and final problematic aspect in values-based or values-informed approaches is the justification of values. Values mentioned in ethical and authentic leadership, include honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, respect, integrity, care (e.g. Brown, 2007 in Kruger, Witzier & Sleegers, 2007, p. 116; Bush & Glover, 2014, p.7; Rintoul & Goulais, 2010, p. 1). Values in these theories are essentially based on considerations of individuals, as it is often said or implied that they should ‘either be individually or socially constructed’ (Richmon, 2003, p. 43). They are a matter of ‘philosophical’ consideration (Hodgkinson, 1991, p. 116), involving ‘socially justifiable applications of ethics to situations’ (Begley, 2010, p. 47). This, however, presents some serious problems.

First, social construction, let alone individual construction, ultimately lacks compelling reasons for others to finally adopt the values of others, or the majority of others, if an individual persists in having a different opinion. Second, social construction of values on its own cannot justify why e.g. Hitler was wrong. Within a constructivist paradigm, in which Hitler cum suis socially constructed their (in mine eyes absolutely perverted) values, it is hard to see why they are wrong. While this is, of course, an extreme

example, the point as such is also valid for education, where certain values, e.g. neoliberal values, might be socially agreed on in certain circles, which as such does not make them right or wrong. Put in a different way, values cannot be justified or determined to be right or wrong just because of a majority vote. Thirdly, a related problem is that the premise why some values are apparently or purportedly better than others is hardly discussed, let alone resolved (cf. Haydon, 2007, p. 16), fundamentally for lack of ‘an external yardstick’ (Notman, 2014, p. 181). Therefore, a more radical approach seems necessary, by taking recourse to values which are

independent of individual esteem. This has been advocated throughout the ages, belief systems and civilisations, and more recently such an approach was offered by C.S. Lewis. ‘Lewis has recourse to Natural Law’ (Pike, 2013, p. 18), which he calls the Tao. This Chinese and purposely non-Christian term indicates positive values that are almost universally recognised - recognised as opposed to constructed. Lewis illustrates it by drawing examples from many civilisations, but does not want to prove this, as ‘its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it’ (Lewis, 2001, p. 83). If these positive values are universal, admittedly this evokes the question how to account for the existence of evil value systems, but discussing this is

beyond the scope of this thesis. Notwithstanding this, Lewis’ approach does to some extent liberate widely recognised positive values from the

constraints of founding them in social construction. As such, it would enrich ethical and authentic leadership theories.