The objective of this study is to examine how principals understand and handle professional ethics in school leadership. The research questions explore the characteristics of principals’ understanding of ethical dilemmas and how they navigate these dilemmas as professional practitioners. Additionally, the study investigates the practical dimensions of ethical decision-making in school leadership, highlighting how ethical reasoning is embedded in daily practice and influenced by broader organizational and societal contexts. A key focus is identifying the sources of ethical knowledge that inform principals’ decision-making (Branson, 2010; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005; Skutlaberg, 2023). The study is conducted within a Norwegian context.

While school leadership is well-documented in research, professional ethics in school leadership remains largely unexplored (Aas et al., 2021). There is a need for an analytical framework that integrates theoretical perspectives on school leadership with ethical reasoning. Furthermore, this study contributes to the development of a professional language and framework for assessing principals’ strategies in navigating ethical dilemmas.

The role of school leaders has grown increasingly complex in response to societal changes that place new demands on school practices (Aas et al., 2021). This complexity requires pedagogical and organizational flexibility and a professional community capable of fulfilling the school’s societal mission. Principals are expected to adapt national guidelines to local needs, granting them significant autonomy but also considerable responsibility (Prøitz & Mausethagen, 2022). They depend on trust-based collaboration with their staff and the surrounding community. School leadership is inherently shaped by the local school context in which it operates. How principals perceive their scope of action and the strategies they adopt—both in the short and long term—are of great significance (Møller, 2022). They are expected to guide their schools by making knowledge-based decisions grounded in professional judgment, prioritizing the well-being and learning of students while also considering the interests of teachers, parents, school owners, and other stakeholders.

Against this background, it is important to examine whether and how the professional ethics of school leaders can be characterized as a distinctive role morality with its own modes of ethical reasoning. By examining how leaders reason through cases, we aim to extract some patterns of ethical reflection that can generalize to characterize integrity in school leadership.

Theoretical framework

The study employs a multi-dimensional theoretical framework drawing on professional ethics, school leadership theories, and organizational decision-making. The study engages with theories of professional responsibility, examining how ethical dilemmas require interpretation and integration of values (Eriksen, 2015).

The article expands the theoretical perspective for assessing how principals navigate conflicting expectations from various stakeholders. This expands and refines ideas from Møller (2005), whose perspective highlights the tensions between power and trust in school leadership, demonstrating how principals must align actions with national policies and local school needs. Moreover, the study reinterprets the concept of "hybrid professionalism" (Noordegraaf, 2007), which suggests that school leaders integrate administrative duties with pedagogical leadership.

Cuban’s (1996) concept of "taming perpetual struggles" provides insight into how school leaders develop strategies for managing value conflicts.

The study applies theories of professional judgment to explore the extent to which school leaders exercise autonomy in ethical decision-making. Drawing on theories of professional discretion (Grimen & Molander, 2008), it examines how principals integrate experience, intuition, and formal knowledge in making ethical decisions. In addition, the distinction between perceived versus actual professional agency is employed to shed new light on how external constraints shape ethical choices.

This research project employs a qualitative approach to investigate principals' understanding and handling of professional ethics in their daily practice. The data collection primarily consists of semi-structured interviews with 43 principals from both primary and secondary schools across the country. These interviews were conducted both digitally and in person, ensuring accessibility while maintaining methodological rigor. Each interview followed a semi-structured format, guided by pre-determined yet flexible questions that allowed room for elaboration based on participants’ responses (Silverman, 2011). The questions explored principals’ understanding of professional ethics, experiences with ethical dilemmas, decision-making processes, and interactions with key stakeholders. A key feature of the interviews was the use of vignettes—hypothetical scenarios designed to stimulate reflection and discussion on ethical challenges. These examples of ethical dilemmas provided a structured yet open-ended approach, allowing principals to articulate their reasoning and responses to complex situations they might encounter in practice. By engaging with these vignettes, participants revealed both explicit and implicit ethical considerations that shape their understanding of ethical dilemmas. This method enabled researchers to gain deeper insight into how school leaders interpret and navigate ethical issues in their professional roles. In addition to the qualitative data, reflective teams and a questionnaire were used. The reflective team approach involves a collaborative process aimed at generating new insights and understandings through dialogue (Andersen, 1994). The questionnaire was distributed to school leaders participating in two leadership programs (N=24), providing supplementary data. The analysis follows a thematic approach, grounded in the research questions, analytical framework, and principals’ own understandings. The analytical focus is on how principals describe and articulate ethical dilemmas. The data is categorized into three main dilemmas, five subordinate dilemmas, and four distinct strategies for handling them. In practice, these dilemmas and strategies are interconnected. The study adheres to ethical research principles, including informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity.

The study identifies three main types of ethical dilemmas: value dilemmas, governance dilemmas, and loyalty dilemmas. Principals navigate these challenges using different approaches: a technical mode (rules and procedures), a relational mode (dialogue and collaboration), a complex mode (analyzing underlying issues), and a principled mode (aligned with the school's mission and values). These approaches are often used to address tensions between leadership roles and administrative obligations. The study reveals that while principals have a broad understanding of professional ethics, they struggle to articulate it explicitly. Ethics is deeply embedded in their daily practice, influencing their decision-making rather than being considered separately. They acknowledge the need for a clearer ethical language, yet their current terminology is often metaphorical, relying on concepts such as 'mission,' 'mandate,' 'role,' and 'values' to express ethical considerations. Principals engage with stakeholders such as school owners, union representatives, and parents to gain legitimacy and support. They prioritize collaboration and dialogue to create shared understanding and responsibility. Both formal (e.g., leadership teams, colleagues) and informal (e.g., friends, family) support networks play crucial roles when handling and navigating dilemmas. Principals perceive their ethical scope of action as a negotiated space where professional and administrative considerations intersect. Balancing multiple expectations demands professional integrity and often entails moral challenges. Their ethical judgments are shaped by formal education, experience, and relational competence. Principals highlight the need for ongoing professional development to enhance their ethical reasoning. The study highlights the need for professional ethics to be more explicitly addressed in leadership programs and professional communities. Creating a culture of collective learning within schools can help make ethical knowledge more explicit, fostering a shared understanding, as well as making professional ethical reasoning less tacit and more responsible.

Aas, M., Andersen, F. C., Vennebo, K. F., & Dehlin, E. (2021). Forskning på den nasjonale skolelederutdanningen. Delrapport 1: Kunnskapsoversikt om skoleledelse og skolelederprogram [Research on the national school leadership education program. Interim report 1: Knowledge overview on school leadership and school leadership programs]. OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/rapporter/kunnskapsoversikt-om-skoleledelse-og-skolelederprogram/ Andersen, T. (1994). Reflekterende processer: Samtaler og samtaler om samtalerne [Reflecting processes: Conversations and conversations about the conversations]. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag Branson, C. (2010). Ethical decision making: Is personal moral integrity the missing link? Journal of Authentic Leadership in Education 1(1), 1-8. Cuban, L. (1996). Reforming the practice of educational administration through managing dilemmas. In E. S. Hickcox, S. L. Jacobson, & R. B. Stevenson (Eds.), School administration: Persistent dilemmas in preparation and practice (pp. 3–17). Praeger. Eriksen, A. (2015). What is professional integrity? Etikk i Praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 9(2), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v9i2.1836 Grimen, H., & Molander, A. (2008). Profesjon og skjønn [Profession and discretion]. In A. Molander & L. I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier [Professional Studies] (pp. 179–196). Universitetsforlaget. Møller, J. (2005). Coping with accountability: Tensions between reason and emotion. In C. Sugrue (Ed.), Passionate principalship: Learning from the life histories of school leaders (pp. 89–104). Routledge. Møller, J. (2022). Skoleutvikling i et ledelsesperspektiv: Spenninger, strategier og dilemmaer [School development from a leadership perspective: Tensions, strategies, and dilemmas]. In K. Helstad & S. Mausethagen (Eds.), Skoleutvikling i forskning, politikk og praksis [School development in research, policy, and practice] (pp. 74–90). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From “pure” to “hybrid” professionalism: Present-day professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration & Society, 39(6), 761–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707304434 Prøitz, T. S., & Mausethagen, S. (2022). Mellom administrasjon og faglig-pedagogisk arbeid: Rektorrollen i reformtid i Norge [Between administration and pedagogical work: The principal’s role in times of reform in Norway]. Paideia, 23, 7–20. Shapiro, J., & Stefkovich, J. (2005). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (2nd ed.). Routledge. Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data: A guide to the principles of qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE. Skutlaberg, K. B. (2023). Being a principal in handling long-term cases related to students’ psychosocial school environment (Doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo.