Values and ethics enter the real world: a framework for public leadership and governance

Values and ethics enter the real world: a framework for public leadership and governance Indications are that an ethical problem exists regarding the internalisation of norms and values in the public sector. This results in an unacceptable number of public scandals related to malfeasance and it indicates that mechanisms to curb ethical violations are not always effective. All over the world governments experience such ethical violations. This article argues for a paradigm shift in public leadership and governance. What is required is a framework for the internalisation of values, ethics and norms to accentuate accountability. It is argued that answers to malfeasance do not lie in the ordinary process of education and training to conscientise public leaders about their role and compliance to policies, rules and regulations. Instead the solution is contained in the internalisation of values and ethics of public leadership and governance, and ensuring that these are upheld at all times. There should also be sanctions for unaccountability. Negotiating the reasons for not meeting set goals after the fact is a practice that compromises accountability. It is emphasised that accountability can thrive only in situations wherein values and ethics are rendered practical through public leadership and governance. Values & ethics enter the real world: a framework for public leadership & governance 752 Koers 76(4) 2011:751-769 Opsomming Die toetrede van waardes en etiek tot die werklikheid: ’n raamwerk vir openbare leierskap en staatsbestuur Genoegsame bewyse bestaan dat daar ‟n etiese probleem in die openbare sektor is met betrekking tot die internalisering van norme en waardes. Dit het tot gevolg dat ‟n onaanvaarbare hoeveelheid openbare skandale in verband met met ampsoortredings voorkom. Dit toon ook aan dat meganismes om etiese oortredings aan bande te lê, nie altyd doeltreffend is nie. Wêreldwyd ervaar regerings soortgelyke etiese oortredings. Hierdie artikel betoog vir ‟n paradigmaskuif in openbare leierskap en staatsbestuur. ‟n Strategie vir die internalisering van waardes, etiek en norme word benodig om aanspreeklikheid te beklemtoon. Daar word aangevoer dat antwoorde hiervoor nie te vind is in die gewone proses van onderrig en opleiding waar openbare leiers oor hulle rolle en nakoming van beleide, reëls en regulasies attent gemaak word nie. Dit is meer waarskynlik dat die antwoord lê in die internalisering van waardes en etiek van openbare leierskap en staatsbestuur, en die versekering dat dit te alle tye toegepas word. Daar behoort ook meetbare sanksies in plek te wees in gevalle van onverantwoordbaarheid. Om agterna oor die redes vir die nie-bereiking van doelwitte te onderhandel, is ‟n praktyk wat aanspreeklikheid ondermyn. Daar word verder beklemtoon dat aanspreeklikheid slegs kan floreer wanneer waardes en etiek deur openbare leierskap en staatsbestuur prakties uitgeleef word.

This article argues for a paradigm shift in public leadership and governance. What is required is a framework for the internalisation of values, ethics and norms to accentuate accountability. It is argued that answers to malfeasance do not lie in the ordinary process of education and training to conscientise public leaders about their role and compliance to policies, rules and regulations. Instead the solution is contained in the internalisation of values and ethics of public leadership and governance, and ensuring that these are upheld at all times. There should also be sanctions for unaccountability. Negotiating the reasons for not meeting set goals after the fact is a practice that compromises accountability. It is emphasised that accountability can thrive only in situations wherein values and ethics are rendered practical through public leadership and governance.

Introduction
The public sector is vast and complex. It is vast in the sense that members of the public perceive it as a force they imperfectly understand and against which they are relatively powerlessyet its activities affect them directly. On the other hand, it is complex therein that although activities in the public sector are supposed to be publicly accountable, the public has neither the knowledge about objectives nor the latest information on what is going on in the public sector. Knowledge and information are two preconditions for direct control. In addition to mere compliance, values, accountability and ethics may be perceived as control mechanisms for both political office-bearers and appointed officials in their moral pursuit of the general welfare. It is also essential that the public be educated on the concepts and theories underpinning values, accountability and ethics to enable them to hold political representatives and public officials accountable.
The level of scandals in the form of corruption, mismanagement and unaccountability in the public servicewhether it is national, continental or internationalis an indication of the ineffectiveness of the control mechanisms currently utilised. To accept that these violations are international phenomena is to adopt a defeatist stance that contributes little to the solution. All over the world governments are faced with these violations. Politicians and public administrators alike continue to dig deep into the coffers of the public, thereby depriving the public directly and indirectly of valuable resources to address inequality. A regrettable state of affairs is that these incidences are conducted in the name of leadership and governance for the people, and that the perpetrators expect the citizens to trust them even though they act in an untrustworthy manner.
Trust, in particular, should not be assumed just because one is in a leadership position. Trust must be earned and one may therefore ask whether the public trusts its public leaders. In the absence of trust the glue that bonds together the pieces (the public and its public leadership), and the grease that ensures smooth turning of the wheels of public prosperity, are severely impaired. This article argues for a framework for public leadership and governance, and proposes public leaders" internalisation of values and ethics that go beyond mere compliance and blind loyalty. For this purpose an ideal public leader is conceptualised; public leadership and governance are defined; traditional values are contrasted with expansive values; linkages between public leadership and good governance is discussed; democracy and empowerment in public leadership and governance are accentuated; the public leadership challenges are outlined; and a framework for public leadership and governance is proposed.

Conceptualisation
In this section, concepts are defined and explained in the context of public administration, the values and principles of which form guidelines for the public service.

Values and ethics in the public service
Integrity, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, innovation and service are some of the most prominent values that can be cited in public service. However, how are values defined? Values are enduring beliefs that influence peoples" attitudes and actions. One of the most cited definitions of values, among the many that have been coined, is that by Milton Rokeach. The author states (quoted in Kernaghan et al., 2000:45) that values are enduring beliefs that specific modes of conduct or end-states of existence are personally or socially preferable to opposite or converse modes of conducts or end-states of existence. Shared values in a society epitomises this assertion. Therefore, it may be deduced that a society that lacks shared societal values (e.g. divided along racial and ethnic lines) in its public service lacks the glue that holds its public service together. Such a society may have to work harder than a homogeneous society (with shared values) in deriving strength from diversity.
What then is the connection between values and ethics, especially in the public service? Values determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" within a particular society (Waldo quoted in Rosenbloom et al., 1994:525). Doing what is right or what is wrong as a group or as an individual (because values can also be personal) is what is meant by ethics. This explanation of ethics is consistent with Jennings"s explanation quoted in Bowman (1991:80) that ... ethical judgement is the exercise of a capacity to determine among available courses of action on the basis of interpretation of shared values embedded in an ongoing institutional practice and in a broader form of communal life. Lewis (1991:3) explains that most definitions of ethics emphasise right or wrong, good or bad, proper or improper and are judgemental on human behaviour. In the light of the above explanations of ethics, it can be concluded that ethics is by nature reflective and judgemental on human conduct. To behave and act ethically is to behave and act in a manner consistent with what is right or moral.
Chapter 10 (sect. 195) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (South Africa, 1996) prescribes basic values and principles governing public administration, the domain of public leadership, and governance in the public sector. Two of these values are a high standard of professional ethics and accountability. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, Vocino and Rabin (1981:397-413) put great emphasis on accountability and administrative ethics in the public domainmaintaining that administration without ethics is administration without a soul. Three decades later public administration finds itself in a quagmire due to a lack of public leadership that is imbued with values and ethics. Reasons for this may philosophically be explained with reference to the nature of man (cf. Thompson, 2006:55). However, despite all the teaching and training on values and ethics offered to people engaged in the public sphere, ethical violations continue in the public service, and are indicative of the lack of internalisation and practical application of values and ethics.

Public leadership
Although leadership is of fundamental importance in all organisations, in both private and public sectors, its precise definition remains elusive (Ingraham quoted in Raffel et al., 2009:214). Most traditional definitions of leadership are steeped in the "leader-follower" paradigm and at its core the ability to influence followers (Rosenbloom, 1993:149;Bartol & Martin, 1991:480). Accordingly, leaders have influence because they possess power: legitimate, coercive, information, reward, expert and referent (French & Raven quoted in Bartol & Martin, 1991:481). However, the power-based influence in leadership is challenged in current literature (Kernaghan et al., 2000:272, 280;Raffel et al., 2009:163) and the argument is for collaborative networks. Collaborative networks point to voluntary organisations such as churches and society at large (Maxwell, 2004: 145). Brooks"s (2008:2) definition of public leadership is illuminating for voluntary organisations. The author has summarised a seminar series and advances the following as a definition of public leadership: A form of collective leadership in which public bodies and agencies collaborate in achieving a shared vision based on shared aims and values and distribute this through each organisation in a collegiate way that seeks to promote, influence and deliver public value as evidence through sustained social, environmental and economic well-being within a complex and changing context. Explicit in this definition are the following aspects:  Collective (collaborative) leadership that excludes individualised imposition of the leader"s ways and ideas. Public leadership is a distributed process in an unglued entity (cf. Mandell & Keast quoted in Raffel et al., 2009:163, 214;Johnson, 2001:135).
 Shared vision and values, thereby implying consensus on the imposed ends and collective ownership thereof (cf. also Drucker, 1994:105).
 Sustained public value in terms of accountability, efficiency and equity.
 Complex (ambiguous) context, thereby admitting to the complexity of the sphere of engagement socially, culturally, politically and ethically (cf. Johnson, 2001:215).

Governance
Governance is a value-laden concept and is normative by nature. It emphasises the "ought to be" instead of the "is" in the means-ends continuum. The concept rests on processes, values and a network of institutions, and therefore cannot be understood without clarity on the relevant norms and the framework within which it is put into operation. Thus, a variety of descriptions and definitions of governance is provided by different authors and institutions, all purporting to capture the essence of governance. Some people emphasise aspects of control (OEDCE, 1996:587); others highlight aspects of power, transparency, professionalism, accountability and participation (World Bank, 1994a;1994b); while another group describe it as ... the complex mechanisms, processes, relationships and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights and obligations and mediate their differences (Sing, 1999:91).
The focus of this article is the public service, hence the latter definition with its locus in the public, thus differentiating it from corporate governance applicable to the private sector.
Good qualities of governance are founded in a set of formally proclaimed structural attributes, such as a written constitution, the rule of law, judicial review and limited government (Maheshari quoted in Farazmand & Pinkowski, 2007:313). Governance will be good if government attains its goal of "a good life for all" through creating conditions that enable individuals and groups to have good quality of life through collaboration (cf. Policy Manifesto: African National Congress, 2009). According to Gildenhuys and Knipe (2000:93-130) good governance is based on constitutional principles such as human rights, civil obligations, the rule of law, and vertical and horizontal intergovernmental relations. In addition they also include political, social and economic principles that encompass, among other things, direct and representative participation by the citizenry, responsibility and accountability of political representatives, the open systems approach of government, a strong national ethos, civic pride, civic responsibility and civic obedience, economic freedom and deregulation. Adding to the above on good gover-nance, Richardson (2008:4) points to the following as characteristic of good governance:  participation based on freedom of speech and capacity for constructive engagement;  rule of law that is fair and impartially enforced;  transparency that is built on the free flow of accurate information;  responsiveness in which institutions and processes aim at serving all stakeholders;  consensus orientation in which differing interests are mediated;  equity in which all stakeholders have opportunity to improve and maintain their well-being;  efficiency and effectiveness whereby real needs are met making the best use of available resources;  accountability in which government officials, public officials, and civil society organisations report to the public; and  strategic vision in which all stakeholders have a long-term perspective on public affairs.
In the African context it is prudent to mention the ubuntu way of life as accentuating good governance, as ubuntu emphasises values such as sharing, solidarity, compassion, collective personhood and collective morality. All are management values, though it may be valuable to consider in public leadership and governance because of the link between leadership and management (Crainer, 1995:100-104;Heath, 2010:36).
Literature offers the following definitions of ubuntu:  Ubuntu means humanness: the quality of being human reflected in treating all people with respect and human dignity (Bhengu, 1996:5).
 Ubuntu is a philosophy which reflects the African heritage, traditions, culture, customs and belief as well as value systems of the African people (Makhudu quoted in Kamwangamalu, 1999:27).
 In its most fundamental sense ubuntu stands for personhood and morality.
 Ubuntu is about how people relate to each other and is a fountain from which action and attitudes flow (Dandala quoted in Kamwangamalu, 1999:27).
It is evident from the definitions and descriptions above that the concept ubuntu emphasises the quality of relationships in human endeavours. When humans act upon a deeply-felt sense of being connected to others through common humanity when they cherish human dignity, all their relationships and the level of their behaviour and actions are raised to a higher plane (Louw, 1995:159). In this sense, we could therefore argue that ethical behaviour and accountability are enhanced. As a fountain from which right actions and positive attitudes flow, the ubuntu ethic of caring, compassion, honesty, fairness, trust, respect and openness should be embraced and expanded in public leadership and governance.
Evidence (Mbigi, 2000;Kamoche et al., 2004:10, 185) shows that the African continent, and South African businesses in particular, are becoming increasingly involved in human issues to boost productivity. In the pursuit of transformation managers are progressively thinking about giving their organisations a human face. Ubuntu features highly in these endeavours. It is the latest buzz worddreamt up by management theorists to describe what is believed to be a uniquely South African fusion of tribal tradition and modern management techniques (Anon., 1995:68). This echoes Kamwangamalu"s (1999:24) statementmore than a decade agothat ubuntu has lately attracted much attention particularly in the business sector. Literature attests to the emergence of ubuntu as an important concept in the transformation process and ipso facto, in public leadership and governance. Transforming public institutions by giving them a human face through ubuntu strategies may just achieve the desired effect of making the public service accountable and ethicala public service with a soul. The above is born of the fact that ubuntu is opposed to greed, stealing, unfairness, injustice, untrustworthiness, laziness, backbiting, secrecy, looking down on others, and any form of disrespect (Saule, 1998:4). Any strategy that can have a sustained effect on accountability and ethics in the South African public service is worthy of consideration.
In summary, the concept of governance refers to the process of decision making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented) (Partners for Democratic Change, s.a.). It can be regarded as a process that includes elements from within society that has the power and authority to influence public policy and decisions. Thus, governance signifies the existence of stakeholders and cannot be conceived of as the preserve of government alone at the exclusion of the citizens. However, with governanceas with all organisations, institutions and entitiesleadership is paramount. In the context of prevailing "service delivery-related" protests, is it possible to argue that good governance exists at the points of service delivery? The answer to this question lies in examining the characteristics of good governance referred to earlier (Gildenhuys & Knipe, 2000:93-130;Richardson, 2008:4). By examining these characteristics of good governance it appears that good governance is easy to talk about, but a difficult construct to put into practiceespecially through the traditional understanding of leadership, whereby leadership is understood in terms of followership (the leader-follower relationship) and power possessed by leaders (Bartol & Martin, 1991:480).

Expansive values and ethics
Currently, the world (both developed, developing and under-developed) is experiencing a wave of change and expectations (from its citizens) that outstrips planned projections by the leadership. Politics and public administration are rendered ineffective because of their re-activeness. Changes, precipitated by social movements and citizens" expectations, necessitate pro-activeness that is found lacking in public leadership and governance. Jurkierwicz and Giacalone (quoted in Huberts et al., 2008:25) suggest an examination of the values shift in public administration in order to understand these changes and expectations. For this purpose, traditional leadership (bureaucratic) and public administration values (efficiency) (Dahl quoted in Hawley & Weintraub, 1966:24)which emphasise, among others, materialistic and short-term outcomes, are contrasted with the constellation of expansive values that transcend materialism and self-interest, and focus on the generative and community impact of one"s action or inaction. Jurkierwicz and Giacalone (quoted in Huberts et al, 2008:25) believe that expansive values create ethical expectations that may lead to the reassessment of accepted ethical standards. This goes hand in hand with the resultant administrative changes, spearheaded by a collective leadership style that is consistent with public leadership.

Good governance and public leadership
There is a clear link between good governance (a collaborative exercise) and public leadership (a form of collective leadership) in the public domain. The two are inextricably linked. Public leadership evolves as an adaptive response to the non-routine, strategic challenges in a society and government institutions, and is located in the three spheres of public governancethe political, the administrative and the societal (Hart & Uhr, 2008). The absence of a shared vision, passion, direction and focus leads to public leadership and governance floundering and a general moral and ethical decay (cf. also Kwaku, 2007). Accountability is compromised and transparency pushed to the backgroundsomething that is evident in the current state of affairs in the public service. Public leadership needs to breathe life into an entity (society, institution) and empower members of the society and institution through collaborative actions to enhance good governance.

Accentuating democracy in public leadership and governance
Ideally, in a democracy power resides in the people, as epitomised in the dictum the people shall govern. The citizens of a democratic country, as rights holders have the right, the capacity and the power to control institutions of the state for their own purposes, which is paramount to the dictum the rule of the people by the people (Ramphele, 2010:9). Logic dictates that good governance by the people is attainable if, and only if, the people are empowered, share a vision, are passionate, have a clear sense of direction, and are focused. These are also the basic qualities of public leadership. Although pragmatism teaches that in any organisation, be it private or public, there will always be those who assume leadership roles, the demands of public leadership in the public domain transcend the traditionally (bureaucratic) accepted modes of leadership in terms of leader-follower, and focus on the collective nature of leadership (cf. Brookes, 2008:1).

Public leadership challenges
In a full research report on public leadership challenges presented by Brookes (2008), there is consensus that the following four challenges predominate in public leadership:  Public leadership should reflect a collective leadership style in which the responsibility is vested throughout the organisation.
 Public leadership needs to tackle uncertainty.
 Public leadership needs to develop a different set of skills.
 Public leadership often fails to put leadership into practice at grassroots.
Of importance in these challenges is that both the purpose of public leadership and its outcomes should be measured in terms of public value. Moore (1995) defines public value as the equivalent of shareholder value in public administration. Among others, it involves orchestrating coherent conversations in the collective (the public or institutional members) concerning what should be done, as well as attempting to determine how to do it (strategy).

A framework for internalisation of values and ethics
Public leadership and governance does not take place in a vacuum. It takes place in entities and institutions as well as within the broader society, and it is influenced by a variety of factors such as internal and external environments, and political, social, economical and global factors. For the purposes of this article, the internalisation of values and ethics for public leadership and governance in the public service, as a means to combat malfeasance, requires a mental orientation (framework) that befits the public serviceboth as a means of earning a living and as a calling. As a calling, it necessarily implies upholding the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (South Africa, 1996), especially Chapter 10, working according to the principles of Batho Pele (customer or people first; South Africa, 1997), and generally conducting themselves in an ethical manner that promotes professional ethics and accountability .
A framework provides a basis or structure for the internalisation of values and ethics in the public service. Public leadership and governance is undertaken within a political and social milieu that necessitates consensusseeking (collaborative) endeavours as opposed to coercion or suppression of dissenting voices. A framework for the internalisation of values and ethics for public leadership and governance can provide a frame of reference that ensures consistency in decision making and behaviour. In this sense, the framework epitomises the values espoused in the strategic plans of government departments and may enhance the implementation of the Batho Pele principles and resultant pledges of we care, we serve, we belong (see departmental pledges on service delivery: South Africa, 1997; www.dpsa.gov.za/dpsa2g/documents.asp).
A review of literature (Conger, 1989;Pastor, 1998;Johnson, 2001;Maxwell, 2004;Huberts et al., 2008;Raffel et al., 2009) indicates that ethics, leadership and governance have always been subjects of intense intellectual inquiry. However, despite all the knowledge accumulated, and the teaching, learning and training conducted on the topics, the public service is still riddled with unacceptable levels of public scandals. It is therefore imperative that questions be asked about what is going on, what can be done, and how it should be done. The last question of how it should be done is the cardinal issue discussed in this article: public leadership and governance have to internalise values and ethics. However, it is important that a mental picture envisaged of public leadership and governance is framed for better understanding of the internalisation process.

An ideal public leadership and governance
An ideal public leadership and governance may be mentally conceptualised as comprising educated, committed and dedicated men and women collectively, working with citizens and groups within society and public institutions to find sustainable ways that meet their political, social and economic needs and improve the quality of their lives by adding public value. Consensus on the vision of the entity (society, public institution) arrived at through collaboration, is paramount in this regard.
Leader-collaborator, and not leader-follower harmony, which should ensure shared societal ethical values as well as institutional ethical values are paramount in order to prevent values-adherence rejection. Working with, instead of for the community (institution) is the dictum of ideal public leadership and governance, with the internalisation of the societal ethical values (institutional values) as the obiter dictum.

Internalising values and ethics (the framework)
Values and ethics lie at the heart of public institutions (Sindane, 1999:88) and are embedded in religion. In South Africa, the predominant religion is Christianity (Reynolds, 1977:293), and without detracting from other religions, this fact is worth noting in the South African context. De Gruchy and Prozensky (1991:1) have observed that South Africa has a rich diversity of faiths, and the knowledge and understanding of this fact is essential in the public service. Public leadership and governance, practiced in a multicultural society such as the South African society, need to be aware of the various religious inclinations of the members of society.
Figure 1 (adapted from Hess & Cameron, 2006) is an endeavour at depicting the necessary societal values (institutional values) that must be internalised in public leadership and governance. At the centre is humanistic values, depicting a shared vision that is arrived at through collaboration and consensus. Public leadership and governance should breathe life into society (institution) by fostering trust (earning trust) through words and appropriate actions that are in tandem with the societal (institutional) value system (Maxwell, 2004:169). Public leadership and governance must have a positive and creative obligation to society (institution). How else can this be achieved without real participation, engagement and rigorous involvement by both members of the society and institutional members? Public leadership and governance cannot, and must not, be treated like a game, as through its undertaking (public service) human happiness (public value) or human misery is the ultimate consequence. In this regard, political and administrative integrity through distributed power in public leadership and governance is crucial. Because collaboration is by nature relational (Maxwell, 2004:15;Heath, 2010:66), necessitating respect of different views, power will be distributed through societal empowerment (empowerment of institutional members) and dissemination of accurate and timely information to stakeholders (members of society and within an institution). The enterprise must be to make values and ethics into conversational aspects in public leadership and governance so that all involved are aware of them.
It can be assumed that by virtue of being born of humankind, human beings draw close to one another by their common nature (Johnson, 2001:215) and possess the qualities of the values of ubuntu, which distinctly differentiates man from other species. In this regard, people involved in public leadership and governance have to ensure that their personal and group values are congruent with those of society at large, as well as with institutional values. Where the society is homogeneous and shares the same culture, it might be easier to attain congruence. However, in the case of a heterogeneous and multicultural society (diverse institutional members) the challenge might be how to derive strength in diversity. This involves the aspects of reasonableness and fairness (ethical dimensions) in public leadership and governance. Permitting a climate that makes wrongdoing possible must be kept at a minimum, and commensurate sanctions must be imposed where ethical violations occur. Consensus-seeking activities, negotiations, transparency and responsiveness are some of the mechanisms to employ in this regard.
There must be no compromise on accountability. This is the role of the "watchdog" agencies (informed and empowered by institutional members and society as a whole). Empowered members of society (institutional members) are knowledgeable and committed members who engage in constructive participation in the affairs of the public (institution). Strengthening public leadership and governance requires this constructive participation by empowered members of the society and institutional members to ensure that distributed leadership occur (cf. Johnson, 2001:215

Conclusion
In this article, the importance of values and ethics in leadership and governance in the public service was accentuated. It demonstrated that leadership and governance in public service cannot be appropriately derived from experiences in the private sector, due to the differences in the nature and scope of the respective environments and functions. It is the predominance of the political environment within which public services are undertaken that necessitates a reexamination of the type of leadership appropriate for this environment, hence the concept of public leadership as defined in the text.
Values and ethics (personality and character) should form the foundation of public leadership and governance in the public service. Rendering values and ethics practical in public leadership and governance is one way of addressing the current spate of scandals in the public service. It is emphasised that a lack of meaningful participation by society or institutional members deprives public service of the benefits that may be derived from participative activities. The benefits include, but are not limited to, improved self-esteem of participants (members of society and institutions); increased knowledge and awareness of aspects of civil and political life; understanding of political and administrative institutions, how they function, and why they function in the way that they function; and their structures and processes.
To improve the situation in conducting public affairs, a paradigm shift in which values and ethics are internalised and rendered practical through education and training, and making them conversational issues is advocated. In the paradigm shift, the values and ethics of the society and government institutions must form an important foundational component. Ethics and ethical conduct are moral and social norms that require doing more than just complying with laws and regulations, but to do what is right with emphasis on goodness in conduct. Goodness in conduct is in line with what an organised group determines for itself and expects its members to comply with and uphold. Nothing can be further from the truth than to think that values and ethics are the "soft parts" in public leadership and governance. The paradigmatic framework provided above is thus named to emphasise the necessity of a paradigm shift in public leadership and governance that is appropriate for public service. Further exploration of the paradigmatic framework could lead to the reduction of the level of ethical violations in the public service.