Ethical leadership in a time of increasing accountability

Australia, like many other countries, has embraced national testing as part of wider reforms and increased accountability in schooling. Results for standardised testing programs, such as NAPLAN, are widely published yet form only one part of accountability for educators. We argue that accountability also has moral, ethical and professional dimensions. In this paper we offer a discussion of background to our study of ethical leadership in a time of data driven or contractual accountability. Based on Starratt’s (1996) model, we define ethical leadership as a social, relational practice concerned with the moral purpose of education (Angus, 2006). Our central thesis is that given increasing accountabilities, school leaders need to consider approaches to ethical leadership to improve quality and equity in education and achieve equitable outcomes for all students. The paper concludes with key implications for school leaders.

The role of time pressure and different psychological safety climate referents in the prediction of nurses’ hand hygiene compliance

In this study of 638 Australian nurses, compliance to hand hygiene (HH), as defined by the “five moments” recommended by the World Health Organisation (2009), was examined. Hypotheses focused on the extent to which time pressure reduces compliance and safety climate (operationalised in relation to HH using colleagues, manager, and hospital as referents) increases compliance. It also was proposed that HH climate would interact with time pressure, such that the negative effects of time pressure would be less marked when HH climate is high. The extent to which the three HH climate variables would interact among each other, either in the form of boosting or compensatory effects, was tested in an exploratory manner. A prospective research design was used in which time pressure and the HH climate variables were assessed at Time 1 and compliance was assessed by self-report two weeks later. Compliance was high but varied significantly across the 5 HH Moments, suggesting that nurses make distinctions between inherent and elective HH and also seemed to engage in some implicit rationing of HH. Time pressure dominated the utility of HH climate to have its positive impact on compliance. The most conducive workplace for compliance was one low in time pressure and high in HH climate. Colleagues were very influential in determining compliance, more so than the manager and hospital. Manager and hospital support for HH enhanced the positive effects of colleagues on compliance. Providing training and enhancing knowledge was important, not just for compliance, but for safety climate.