Chapter 2

Ethics and Ethical Decision Ma]png in Sport

Susan P. Mullane, University of Miami

A discussion of ethics and ethical decision making needs to begin with a clarification of terms. Exactly what is "ethics"? According to Malloy, Ross, and Zakus (2003),

Ethics is concerned with issues of right and wrong in human conduct. It is concerned with what is good and what is bad; what is authentic and not authentic. Ethics is also concerned with the notions of duty, obligation, and moral responsibility. As such, ethics are manifested in behavior and assessed through the application of ethical inquiry and critical moral reasoning (p. 55).

Etymologically "ethics" is derived from the Greek word "ethicke;' which means the science of morals or character (Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller, 2003). Although ethics and morals are sometimes used interchangeably, DeSensi and Rosenberg (2003) offer the distinction that while ethics deals with right and wrong con­duct and decisions, morality considers society, social values and attitudes, and motives. Morality considers good and bad within the context of social cus­toms and provides limits on behavior while ethics involves the application of moral principles in one's decision making. In fact, the word "moral" comes from the Latin "mos" and refers to an individual's actual customs or manners (Lumpkin et al., 2003). In addition, ethics can be considered "standards of conduct that indicate how one should behave based on moral duties and virtues arising from the principles about right and wrong" (Osland, Kolb, & Rubin, 2001, p. 101), and the study of ethics is a prescriptive rather that a descriptive one in that it deals with how people ought to treat each other rather that how they actually do treat one another (Morgan, 2007).

Values, on the other hand, are personal beliefs, and, according to Hitt (1990), are very closely related to ethics. Rokeach (1973) defined a value as "an en-

9

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBIIIBIIIBIIIBIIIIIBIIIIIIJ"''

10 2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT

during belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is per­sonally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence" (p. 5). Given this definition, a value system, then, is a set of these values or an organization of these beliefs. In addition, values are beliefs, not facts, and they are enduring and not transient. They guide behav­ior, both in everyday conduct and in desired goals. Rokeach ( 1973) referred to these distinct types of values as "instrumental" and "terminal" values, respec­tively. He suggested that a relationship between terminal and instrumental val­ues was important for internal consistency and found that all combinations are possible. Hitt (1990) notes that a unified value system is one in which the means (instrumental values) and the ends (terminal values) are consistent and mutually reinforcing. Refer to Exhibit 2.1 for examples of instrumental and terminal values as suggested by Rokeach (1973).

Exhibit 2.1: Examples of Instrumental and Terminal Values

Instrumental Values Ambitious Capable Forgiving Honest Independent Loving Responsible

Terminal Values A Sense of Accomplishment Equality Freedom Happiness Mature Love Self Respect Wisdom

Values are core beliefs or desires that guide or motivate attitudes and actions. Whereas the §tudy of ethics is concerned with how a moral person shquld be­have, values concern the various beliefs and attitudes that determine how a person actually behaves (Osland et al., 2001). It is often a good first step for people identify and articulate their values. This can be done in a number of ways including values analysis and values clarification. Values clarification exercises help to see the relative importance of one's values and, often, how two or more values are compared. Values change over time in response to changing life ex­periences. Recognizing these changes and understanding how they affect one's actions and behaviors is the goal of the values clarification process. Values clar­ification will not tell one what his or her values should be; it simply provides the means to discover what one's values are. Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1966)

2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT 11

identified criteria that must be met if a value is to be considered a full value. They are: choosing freely, choosing from alternatives, considering consequences, prizing and cherishing, publicly affirming, and acting. These criteria can be di­vided into three categories: choosing, prizing and acting. To be a full value, the value must be chosen freely from a list of alternatives, only after thought­ful consideration has been given to the consequences of each alternative. The value must be cherished and made known to other people. The value must also be translated into behaviors that are consistent with the chosen value and integrated into the lifestyle (Raths et al., 1966).

A few other terms need to be defined as well. "Integrity" is often used in ethics~discussions. How is integrity different than honesty? Given the Latin "integritat;' meaning "complete" and the fact that an "integer" is a whole num­ber, integrity might be considered a holistic approach to values or a "whole­ness of character:' What about character, then? Particularly in the school setting, one often hears about "character education:' Character can be considered the moral or ethical qualities or the characteristics of a person. It is often heard that character is what we do when we think no one is looking. Effective managers and leaders must be aware of their values, morals, and system of ethics and ethical decision making. Osland et al. (2001) suggest that, "ethical mistakes are responsible for ending careers more quickly and more definitively than any other errors in judgment or accounting" (p. 102). Good character and integrity are what we look for in our leaders. In fact, in their research, Kouzes and Pos­ner (2007) identified honestly as the number one characteristic most identified by leaders.

Rudd, Mullane, and Stoll (2010) also note that for many years, unethical de­cision making and scandalous behavior have marred corporate America. They cited Ford's defect in the Pinto's gas tank, false advertising by Nutri-System and Jenny Craig, fraud and illegal cash management by E. F. Hutton, Salomon Brothers' Treasury auction scandal, fraudulent accounting schemes by Enron, embezzlement practices from Tyco managers, and mutual fund abuses by Mor­gan Stanley. Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty to the biggest investor scheme in history, defrauding investors of billions of dollars. The sport industry has cer­tainly not escaped scandal and faulty decision making with the endless focus on banned performance-enhancing drug use and inappropriate conduct of high visibility professional athletes.

Osland et al. (2001) indicate that employees choose their work environ­ments based on their ethical preferences and the connection of their values and those of their workplace. There must be a connection between a sound value system and the ability of the leader to use these values in his/her decision making.

12 2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT

When important values come into conflict, an ethical dilemma emerges. Lumpkin et al. (2003) point out that an ethical dilemma occurs when one must choose between conflicting values, and conflicting values can occur be­tween moral values, a moral value and a nonmoral value, or moral values against social values. Furthermore, Osland et al. (2001), distinguished be­tween ethical and nonethical values. "Ethical values are those values that di­rectly relate to beliefs concerning what is right and proper (as opposed to what is simply correct or effective) or that motivate a sense of moral duty" (p. 104). These might include values like responsibility, respect, compassion, and fairness. In contrast, nonethical values simply refer to things people like or find personally important such as money, pleasure, and popularity ( Osland et al., 2001).

Kidder (2005) offers two classifications of ethical dilemmas. In the first type of dilemma, a right versus wrong dilemma, ethical issues emerge when a core moral value has been violated or ignored. When honesty is an important value to a person, and another person is found to be acting dishonestly, it is gener­ally acknowledged that the action was unethical. In this case, ethics is simply the obvious difference between what is right and what is wrong. In the second type of dilemma, a right versus right dilemma, however, ethical issues emerge when two core values come into conflict with each other. When one important value raises powerful moral arguments for one course of action, while another value raises equally powerful arguments for an opposite course, we must make a choice since we can't do both. In such cases, ethics is a matter of right ver­sus right (Kidder, 2005).

Other characteristics of ethical dilemmas include uncertainty of the out­come, the possibility of numerous stakeholders or those affected by the deci­sion, and a need to maximize and minimize important values. Kidder (2005) identifies four'paradigms of dilemmas. In the first category of truth versus loy­alty, honesty or integrity is in conflict with commitment, responsibility, or promise-keeping. In the justice versus mercy dilemma, fairness, equity, and equal application of the law conflict with compassion and care. The individ­ual versus community paradigm is geared toward us versus them, self versus others, or smaller versus larger groups. And finally, the short term versus long term dilemma deals with immediate needs versus future goals (Kidder, 2005).

Ethics Theories and Systems

How does a person or group make the right ethical decisions? The frame­work for this is grounded in philosophical models.

2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT 13

Utilitarianism and Teleological Approaches to Ethics

Utilitarianism suggests that decisions should be based on possible conse­quences or the end-result (Hitt, 1990). Made popular by English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century, they believed that the "best decisions (a) generate the most benefits as compared with their dis­advantages, and (b) benefit the largest number of people" (Johnson, 2001, p. 130). Leaders use this type of decision making when dealing with many con­stituencies on large numbers of stakeholders, those affected by the d~cision. Another aspect of utilitarianism is the promotion of pleasure and the absence of pain (DeSerisi & Rosenberg, 2003; Hitt, 1990). DeSensi and Rosenberg state, "the only moral duty one has is to promote the greatest amount of happiness" (p. 60). Decisions must necessarily be practical and possess usefulness or "util­ity." This approach is used to determine bureaucratic and governmental poli­cies such as issues related to tax and health, to name a few, where one tries to provide the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people (DeSensi &

Rosenberg, 2003). Therefore, in the decision-making process, using the utilitarian approach,

one must first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, one must ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harm will be derived from each action. Thirdly, one chooses the course of action that will produce the greatest benefits and least harm. Thus, the ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1996).

A utilitarian perspective was cited by Johnson (2001) identifying America's nuclear weapons program as a utilitarian decision, where Harry Truman de­termined that the benefits of ending the war outweighed the costs of destroy­ing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, all theories have disadvantages when applied. Among the problems with a utilitarian viewpoint is the uncertainty of an outcome, trying to define "happiness;' "pleasure," and "utility;' measur­ing these concepts, and choosing between short term and long term happi­ness. In addition, what does one do if about 10% of the population is unhappy when the other 90% is fine? An example of this application is that of slavery. More recently, Lee, Whisenant, and Mullane (2008) sought to apply this the­ory to the age-old dilemma of using the Confederate flag in sport settings. Why be concerned with the relatively small part of the population that view it as inflammatory and even racist if most people are not offended and see it as a part of history and their heritage? When one focuses on the likely outcome or results of an action, a system of teleology has been applied. Utilitarianism is only one example of a broad range of ethical theories known as "teleology"

14 2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT

or theories that focus on consequences, the measuring of goodness or badness of an action, rather than focusing on the act itself (Malloy et al., 2003).

Deontological Approaches to Ethics Another prominent view of ethics is known as rule-based ethics (Hitt, 1990),

principle or virtue ethics, or specifically, the Categorical Imperative, made pop­ular by German philosopher Immanuel Kant. This approach to ethics is the best-known example of deontological ethics. Deontological ethicists argue that we ought to make choices based on our duty (dean is the Greek word for duty) to follow universal truths that are imprinted on our consciences (Johnson, 2001 ). Among the tenets of a rule-based approach are that ethics should be de­scribed as the relation between the "is" and the "ought;' and that the "ought" cannot be derived from the "is" (Hitt, 1990). In making ethical decisions, one must practice virtue and principles, rather than be concerned with conse­quences. In addition, deontologists insist that people always be treated as ends in themselves rather than means. In other words, although others can help us reach our goals, they should never be considered solely as tools (Johnson, 2001).

According to Kant, what is right for one is right for all. We need to ask ourselves one question: 'Would I want everyone else to make the decision I did?' If the answer is yes, the choice is justified. If the an­swer is no, the decision is wrong. Based on this reasoning, certain be­haviors like truth telling and helping the poor are always right. Other acts, such as lying, cheating, and murder, are always wrong (Osland et al., 2001, p. 133).

' Obvious problems with this theory include the fact that there are excep-

tions to rules and th8:,t no universal principles can be followed in every situa­tion. What if two universal rules or principles are in conflict with one another? For example, telling your best friend the truth in a matter that might hurt her~ feelings might violate your value of compassion and consideration of another's feelings. However, telling a lie would violate your guiding principle of hon­esty. Both are equally important principles, so it would be difficult to make a choice in such a situation (Hitt, 1990).

A second type of deontological approach to ethics with its roots in the phi­losophy of Kant and others, focused on the individual's right to choose for himself. What makes human beings different from other things is that people have a dignity based on their ability to freely choose what they will do with their lives, and they have a right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use peo-

ple i othe of a1

trea to b et a acti the via

of Ar D, Ju tr; sa Si aJ

a r (

I

2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT 15

ple in ways they do not freely choose (Velasquez et al., 1996). There are many other types of rights besides this basic one. These other rights can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we freely choose to be treated. They include the right to the truth, the right to privacy, the right not to be injured, and the right to what is agreed, or promise keeping (Velasquez et al., 1996). When using this approach, it is important to make sure that the action respects everyone's moral rights. In other words, actions are wrong if they violate a person's rights. Furthermore, the action is more wrongful as the violations get more serious (Velasquez et al., 1996).

A third deontological approach to ethics is one that focuses on the concepts of justice and fairness. It has its roots in the teachings of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. The basic moral question in this approach is how fair is an action? Does it treat everyone the same, or does it show favoritism or discrimination? Justice requires that we treat people in ways that are consistent, and not arbi­trary. Basically, this means that actions are ethical only if they treat people the same, except when there are justifiable reasons for treating them differently. Since both favoritism and discrimination imply not treating people equally and fairly, both actions are wrong and unjust (Velasquez et al., 1996).

These three deontological approaches suggest that once the facts have been ascertained, there are three questions we should ask when trying to resolve a moral issue: ( 1) What benefits and what harms will each course of action pro­duce, and which will produce the greatest benefits or the least harm for the public as a whole? (2) What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects these moral rights? (3) Which course of action treats everyone the same except where there is a justifiable reason not to? Does the course of action show favoritism or discrimination?

Velasquez et al. (1996) emphasized that this method does not provide an au­tomatic solution to moral problems, and it is not meant to. The method merely helps to identify most of the important factors that should be considered when thinking about a moral issue, and the questions that are one should ask. In some situations, the three approaches may conflict. A decision that produces the most benefits for everyone may also violate the rights of some or not be fair to some­one else. Conflicting rights could be involved. When these types of conflicts arise, one needs to look at the values identified by each of the three approaches and de­cide based on those values and their relative importance (Velasquez et al., 1996).

The Ethics of Social Contract

Another system of ethics, made popular by Rousseau, is referred to as the ethics of social contract. The focus is on the general will of the community, and a col-

I i'

16 2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT

lective and moral body produced by the community. The people make the rules and submit to abiding by them (Hitt, 1990). A similar, but more modern type of ethics, "communitarianism;' evolved in the early 1990s, and focuses on com­munity responsibilities rather than individual rights (Johnson, 2001).

Moral Development

Moral development deals with the question of how and when people gather and decide on values and methods of making moral decisions. Lawrence Kohlberg extended Piaget's theory of moral judgment/moral development by studying the moral development of adolescence (IO- to 16-year-old boys). Kohlberg used a similar methodology, posing moral dilemmas to his subjects. Subjects were asked primarily what they thought the protagonist in the story should do and why. For example, one dilemma entitled "Heinz and the Drug" involves a man named Heinz whose sick wife is dying of cancer. The only way to save her is to steal an expensive drug that he cannot afford (Kohlberg, 1984). Kohlberg's interviews suggested that adolescent aged boys advanced through six different moral stages (Kohlberg, 1984; Rest, 1979). Kohlberg later postulated that his six stages could be grouped into three major levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional (Kohlberg, 1984). At the pre-conventional level, moral decisions are made from obedience to rules and avoidance of pun­ishment (stage 1) or by considering the importance of what one might get in return by meeting the needs of others (stage 2). Individuals' reasoning at the conventional level has moved beyond their own self-interests and is more con­cerned with their membership within a group or larger society. For persons at stage 3, what is right is based on approval and meeting the expectations of others. Moral decision making at stage 4 hinges on one's obligation to uphold the law and contribute to the well-being of society. Those reasoning at the post-conventional level are not only committed to their membership of soci­ety but more importantly, believe every individual must be committed to moral principles. Stage 5 moral reasoning is based on one's sense of obligation to up­hold a contract with society. At stage 6, the highest stage, what is right is based on comprehensive moral principles and judgment.

Individuals progress through stages one step at a time in an upward fash­ion; there is no regression or skipping of stages (Kohlberg, 1984; Rest, 1979). Kohlberg also found that stage advancement was highly related to age. Use, of higher, postconventional moral reasoning does not typically occur until adult age (20s), and college students, for the most part advance to stages 3 and 4 (Kohlberg, 1984). Kohlberg's moral judgment theory has been met with crit­icism, however. Most notably, was Carol Gilligan's concern with male gender

2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT 17

bias in what constitutes higher levels of moral judgment (Gilligan, 1982). Gilli­gan's (1992) research with women contemplating abortions led to her theory that women and men make their moral decisions differently, and that women operate from a "care voice" concerned with relationships, compassion, and concern for others, while men reason predominantly from a "justice" or fair­ness voice. Other important moral development theories came from Karen Kitchener (2000), who viewed moral development from a principle approach, and specifically an adherence to five basic principles: beneficence ( doing good, benefiting others), nonmaleficence (not causing harm to others), autonomy (free­dom of actiqn), fidelity (keeping promises), and justice (fairness).

As an alternative, Rest ( 197 4) developed a moral judgment measure that is evaluative rather that production based. Instead of-requiring subjects to ver­bally explain the reasons behind their moral judgment (production oriented), Rest's Defining Issues Test (DIT), asks subjects to rate (evaluative) in written form the importance of a variety of issue statements that relate to one's moral judgments of six different moral scenarios (some of which are from Kohlberg's assessment; e.g., Heinz and the Drug). Each issue statement ( different ways of considering the most important issue in the moral dilemma) is associated with one of Kohlberg's 6 stages of moral development. Subjects are also asked to rank the four most important issue statements that are believed to represent their moral judgment rationale for each moral scenario (Rest, 1974; 1979). A variety of indices have been developed based on both the ratings and rankings (Rest, 1979). The most widely reported index is the P score which is an indi­cation of how much a person's moral reasoning is represented at stages 5 and 6 (Rest, 1979). The DIT is now being used or referenced in hundreds of stud­ies (Rest, 1986).

Ethical Theory Applied to Sport

A number of important concepts drawn from the more general field of ethics have a particular application to sports ethics. These include: deontology, teleology (specifically, utilitarianism), rule, principle and the Categorical Im­perative, situational ethics, and the ethics of social contracts.

Deontology refers to ethical decision making based on moral obligations and responsibilities or actions that are taken for reasons other than conse­quences, such as telling the truth and respecting others. In sport, helping an injured opponent, equal participation, and being honest with officials or ref­erees serve as examples of deontology.

f. '

I , I•

18 2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT

Teleology suggests that ethical behavior is based on ends, consequences or goals, often manifested in sport by the focus on winning. How one wins is not as important as the victory itself. The utilitarian view looks at the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain as a measure of the "rightness" of an action, and when more than one person is involved, what is best for the greatest num­ber of people. In youth sports, for example, when a coach chooses to play only the best players in an effort to win, and thus ignores the notion that equal par­ticipation is important at this level, a teleological approach has been used. If happiness is achieved, especially for the greatest number of people ( e.g., team, coaches, players, and parents), then the fact that a few players sat on the bench is unimportant.

Another aspect of teleology, and perhaps a more practical way of approaching ethical theory, lies with a situational approach, or "letting conscience be your guide." In this theory, an individual views each moral episode as a separate and unique event, and decisions are based on what is right in a given situation without regard to a specific set of rules, likely consequences, or moral obliga­tions. Examples of this type of behavior might be a coach looking at another team's play book or an athlete tampering with the equipment of an opponent.

Teleological ethics maintains that right and wrong is concerned with achiev­ing the greatest amount of good over evil. Right decisions are based on an ap­peal to the amount of nonmoral good ( e.g., money, power, or winning) that can be obtained rather than the upholding of moral values (Frankena, 1973). In other words, achieving good consequences is prioritized over moral prin­ciples. Winning is considered a good consequence and clearly, many ethical dilemmas are born from winning being a priority over principles.

A rule or principle based perspective, based on the work of Kant, is predi­cated on the maxim that an action is acceptable as a universal law. The cheater in sports does not want everyone to violate the rules; otherwise, cheating would offer no rewards. This includes the virtuous aspect of sport, or what it "ought" to be, as opposed to what it is, or winning the "right way" instead of,twinning at all costs:'

The social contract view of ethics maintains that the community or group dictates what is ethical or not. Athletes on a team, for example, agree to the rules and parameters of their participation, and decision making takes the form of give and take. When athletes take steroids, the action violates the social con­tract that athletes have agreed to abide by (i.e., not have an unfair advantage over their opponents).

Lumpkin et al. (.2003) applied four universal values to sport settings: justice, u

honesty, responsibility, and beneficence (see Exhibit 2.2). In addition, they noted that we should place our stated values into principles that give us a per-

2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT 19

spective on how to make right ( or wrong) decisions. From these principles come our everyday rules. The following are examples of sport applications:

Exhibit 2.2: Four Universal Values to Sport Settings

Value

Justice

Honesfy

Responsibility

Beneficence

Principle

Do not be unfair

Do not lie, cheat, or steal

Do not be irresponsible

Do not be unkind

(Lumpkin et al., 2003)

Rules

Do not violate game rules, do not use steroids

Do not cheat in a game; do not lie to opponents or officials

Do not play an injured athlete; do not play an athlete who is not academically eligible

Do not intentionally harm or let other players harm another player

Hums, Barr, and Gullion (1999) proposed managers in the "business of sport" or sport management are also faced with a variety of ethical dilemmas related to professionalism, equity, legal management, personnel issues, team ownership, responsibilities of professional team franchises, and social justice. According to Hums et al. (1999), ethical issues for sport managers are em­bedded in five major segments of the sport industry: professional sport, in­tercollegiate athletics, recreational sport, health and fitness, and facility management.

Principles of Sport

The Josephson Institute's (1999) Six Pillars of Character might easily be ap­plied to sport and sport participation. They are:

• Trustworthiness-(honesty, integrity, reliability, loyalty, keeping prom­ises and not deceiving others). Allegiance to one's teammates might fall into this category.

• Respect-(using the Gold~n Rule or treating others as you wish to be treated, in addition to being courteous, listening to others, and accept-

::t: •I· 1

20 2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT

ing individual differences). Avoidance of name calling, and shaking hands after a sporting contest might serve as examples of this principle.

• Responsibility-(accountability, self-control, the pursuit of excellence, and considering consequences of our actions prior to making them). Attending practices and putting forth maximum effort to improve one's skills are examples of this pillar.

• Fairness-(playing by the rules, not taking advantage of others, mak­ing informed judgments without favoritism or prejudice, and not blam -ing others). This might include not trying to gain an unfair advantage by taking head starts or doctoring equipment.

• Caring-(kindness, compassion, and altruism, acting to minimize hardship and to help others whenever possible). Empathy for one's teammates and opponents falls into this category.

• Citizenship-(working to make one's community better, protecting the environment, making our democratic institutions work, and op­erating within the law). This might include keeping the grounds clean before and after a sporting event, and promoting the positive aspects of sport in the community.

In addition to Josephson's pillars, four ethical sport principles can be con­sidered: ( 1) promise keeping, which refers to knowing the rules and agreeing to abide by them and indirectly agreeing not to cheat; (2) respect for persons, with particular application to Kant's Categorical Imperative as to what acts might violate the respect for another person; (3) responsibility and/or duty, which wmlld include accountability and one's obligations when participating or coaching a sports contest; and (4) balance, or keeping sport participation in its proper perspective (Malloy et al., 2003).

Many of the ethical dilemmas in sport emanate from the various views of winning and the answer to the question, how much emphasis should be placed on winning? Since sports contests are generally designed to produce a winner and a loser at the end of the contest, the manner in which victory is attained can result in unethical behavior. Malloy et al. (2003) offer three "coficeptions" of winning: winning is the only thing, winning is about how you played the game, and winning is a mutual quest for excellence. In the first view, "winning is the only thing;' losing equates to nothing and therefore has no value. Conversely, winning is everything, has all the value and must be the goal no matter how it is achieved. Given the pressure to win, it is obvious that unethical behavior will result. In the second view, "how you played the game;' it is the process and not the product or result that is important. The focus is on appropriate be­havior and the spirit of the rules. And finally, in the view that "winning is a mu­tual quest for excellence," both the process and the outcome are important. Respect for the opponent as well as the challenges of the competition are in-

2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT 21

herent in this view of winning (Malloy et al., 2003). In summary, one's view and perspective on winning has everything to do with ethics in sport.

Sportsmanship versus Gamesmanship

"Sportsmanship" and "gamesmanship" are very different concepts, and an understanding of the difference is essential in a discussion of sport ethics. "Sportsmanship" includes winning the right way, being willing to lose, respect for people and rules, safety, spirit of the rules, integrity of the game, and the way sports o'ught to be played. In contrast, "gamesmanship" includes winning at any costs, it's only cheating if you get caught, rules are meant to be broken, and the way sports are played, as opposed how they ought to be played (Joseph­son, 2001). In the gamesmanship model, the focus is on winning, which would include achieving that goal in any way possible. As previously discussed, such a perspective on winning is an unhealthy one with little or no regard for the process, the opponent, or the rules. Unethical behavior is almost guaranteed.

Exhibit 2.3: Sportsmanship vs. Gamesmanship

Sportsmanship

Commitment to principles

"Ought" versus "Is"

Spirit of the rules and integrity of the game

Winning the right way

Love of competition and honorable pursuit of victory

(Josephson, 2002)

Gamesmanship

No criteria for what is right or wrong

"Is" versus "Ought"

Rules are meant to be broken

Winning any way you can

It's just about the victory

Analyzing Ethical Dilemmas

Ethical dilemmas surround us in our daily lives, if not personally, than cer­tainly in the media. Previously and recently the steroids in baseball contro­versy is but one example of a dilemma with wide visibility and media coverage.

The first step in analyzing moral issues is an obvious one: get all the facts. Some moral issues create controversies simply because people do not bother to check out the facts. This first step of analysis, although obvious, is also the most important one and the one that is most frequently overlooked.

———-·-•':11,1 · 11 /

. ii

. I

22 2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT

However, having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values. It is crucial to iden­tify the values involved or those in conflict. Additionally, as Kidder (2005) sug­gested, it should be determined whether the dilemma is a right/wrong or a right/right type of dilemma. That is, in the dilemma, is a core value, such as honesty, being ignored (right/wrong dilemma), or are two core values, such as honesty and safety or success, in conflict with each other (right/right dilemma)?

Other things to consider when gathering the facts are whether there are legal implications or if there is something wrong personally, interpersonally, or so­cially (Velasquez et al., 1996). Also, who could be injured or damaged in this ethical conflict? Is there missing information, and if so, can this information be obtained? Who are the stakeholders (those whom might be affected by the decision) and which of those needs to be considered the most? Perhaps one has to consider those that might have special needs or those to whom one might have a special obligation.

In analyzing the ethical issues, one must consider the values involved, which ones are in conflict, and what values need to be maximized in the decision making process. This is where one's values clarification skills come in handy. It is important to fully understand the nature of the ethical dilemma in being able to properly resolve it. Malloy et al. (2003) suggests considering the time factor; that is, "the time before the incident, the time of the incident, and the consequences that resulted because of the incident" (p. 66). In other words, it is helpful to understand what led up to an incident, and the intentions and motivation behind it. As Malloy et al. (2003) point out, "At times good motives produce bad results and, conversdy, evil motives produce good results" (p. 56).

Listing and evaluating alternatives comes next in the decision making process. It is prudent to evaluate alternative actions from the various ethical perspec­tives. Malloy et al. (2003) emphasize the need to "identify and enm;iciate the ethical maxim(s) to be used" (p. 64). An example might be to apply the Cat­egorical Imperative to the use of steroids in baseball. Would steroid use be ac­ceptable across the board, if all baseball players did it? Or, using the "greatest good for the greatest number of people" approach to utilitarianism, would cutting a men's sport in a college athletic department because of Title IX be a "good action" since it would help lead to gender equity in the program? In other words, most of the athletes, especially the women, are now happy, so why worry about the 20 or so men who lost their sport entirely?

Josephson (1999) encourages, prior to making a decision, that one clarify what exactly needs to be decided, and in the process, eliminate alternatives

2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT 23

that are impractical, illegal, or otherwise not viable. After careful considera­tion of all reasonable, lawful, and ethical alternatives, and a close examina­tion of the consequences of each, a decision must be made. Once a careful decision is made, it needs to be implemented and evaluated. The flowchart below illustrates the steps in ethical decision making.

Exhibit 2.4: Steps in Ethical Decision Making

implement and

evaluate

Kidder (2005) refers to the need for "moral courage" when making difficult moral decisions. Specifically, he defines moral courage as consisting of three intersecting circles: applying values, recognizing risks, and enduring the hard­ship. The last one, "enduring the hardships;' is the perseverance piece of the moral coµrage model. Kidder's model appears below, and the "moral courage" is represented where the three circles actually intersect.

Exhibit 2.5: Kidder's Moral Courage Model

24 2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT

For example, the act of"whistle blowing" is an example of moral courage. Kidder (2005) defines whistle blowing in four parts: (1) an individual acts with the intention of making information public; (2) the information is con­veyed to parties outside the organization who makes it public and a part of the public record; (3) the information has to do with possible or actual non­trivial wrongdoings in an organization; and ( 4) the person exposing the agency is not a journalist or ordinary citizen but a member of former member of the organization. Famous cases include Enron, WorldCom, the Pentagon Pa­pers, Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal, and the coverage of the tobacco industry depicted in the movie The Insider. Although examples of whistle­blowers in sports are difficult to come by, Jan Kemp, a University of Georgia professor, gained notoriety after being fired for publicly criticizing the uni­versity for allowing student-athletes to continue playing sports after failing re­medial classes. As a result of her lawsuit against the University, reforms were made at the University of Georgia and nationwide to raise academic stan­dards for college athletes (Associated Press, 2009). Perhaps baseball's steroid dilemma would not have reached its current level if there were more whistle­blowers in sports. Whistleblowers certainly must have a great deal of moral courage.

When it comes to evaluation, how does a person know if he made the "right" decision? Obviously, it is advisable to monitor short term and long term effects of any significant decision. However, there are ethics tests that are quicker and easier in some cases. One hopes to pass the "sleep test" ( Can you sleep at night?), the newspaper test (Would I like to see this decision in the headlines tomor­row morning?), the "Mom/Dad [or someone else important to you] test" (Would I feel comfortable telling my mom about this?), and so on. Questions such as "would I do the same thing if I were on the other side of this dilemma;' and "did I treat the other person(s) the way I would want to be treated" are important in dealing with the aftermath of an ethical dilemma.

In working through ethical dilemmas, Rest ( 1986) suggested these four com­ponents in sequential order:

1. The person must be able to interpret whether or not there is an ethi­cal dilemma, and if so, what actions might be possible.

2. The person must be able to make a judgment about what course of action is ethically right.

3. The person must be able give priority to ethical values above other personal values such that a decision is made to intend to do what is ethically right.

4. The person must have sufficient perseverance, ego strength, and im -plementation skills to be able to follow through on his or her intention.

2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT 25

Solutions: A Code of Conduct

When discussing solutions to ethical dilemmas in the workplace, written guidelines in the form of a code of conduct are useful. Driscoll and Hoffman (2000) state:

a code of conduct is intended to be a central guide and reference for users in support of day-to-day decision making. It is meant to clarify an organization's mission, values, and principles, linking them with standards of professional conduct. As a reference, it can be used to locate relevant documents, services and other resources related to ethics within the organization (p. 77).

Codes provide standards of behaviors, and are not merely lists of rules. They are based on organizational values, a philosophy of ethics, and the mis­sion statement of the organization (Hitt, 1990). They require the commitment of the higher levels of management, and should address the needs of the var­ious constituencies and stakeholders in the organization. For example, in a college athletic department, the athletic director and associate/assistant ath­letic directors would be considered, as would the coaches, student-athletes, boosters and fans, trainers, and staff.

A code is an open disclosure for the way an organization operates. It pro­vides visible guidelines for behavior. A well-written and thoughtful code also serves as an important communication vehicle that "reflects the covenant that an or.­ganization has made to uphold its most important values, dealing with such matters as its commitment to employees, its standards for doing business and its relationship with the community" (Driscoll & Hoffinan, 2000, p. 77). A code is also a tool to encourage discussions of ethics and to improve how employees/ members deal with the ethical dilemmas, prejudices, and "grey areas" that are encountered in everyday work. A code is meant to complement relevant stan­dards, policies, and rules, not to substitute for them. Codes of conduct offer an excellent opportunity for organizations to create a positive public identity for themselves, which can lead to a more supportive political and regulatory envi­ronment and an increased level of public confidence and trust among impor­tant constituencies and stakeholders (Driscoll & Hoffman, 2000).

Conflict

In trying to develop a moral solution to a dilemma, conflict is inevitable, par­tially due to conflicting interests of stakeholders, either between or among

i

' I ,! .

I,

26 2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT

them. For example, in the Major League Baseball (MLB) steroid controversy, the players and their union are in conflict with the League. While the man­agement and owners are charged with the integrity of the product, the play­ers have a duty to perform at their best. Further complicating the situation are the advertisers and sponsors who do not want to be associated with a tainted product. While some need to consider the "virtuous" and "good" (sports­manship) side of the dilemma, others look at the consequences and ultimate outcome of winning and success (gamesmanship). Another example of this type of conflict in sports is the case of Michael Phelps in the controversial pho­tograph depicting marijuana usage. Some, but not all of Phelps' sponsors, can­celed their endorsement with the athlete, claiming their need to sever themselves from a tarnished image. After the famous photograph became public, Kellogg (cereals) canceled his contract and long standing relationship with the company, citing the fact that his recent behavior was not consistent with the company (Huffington Post, 2009). Embedded in that controversy is the ethical dilemma of athletes as role models, and the often debated question of whether it is fair to hold athletes to higher standards.

Conflict in Sport and Conflict Management

Regarding conflict in general, Slack and Parent (2006) note that "because conflict has both positive and negative consequences, it has to be managed" (p. 225). It is also important to promote positive conflict, and create "win­win" solutions when possible. They suggest various strategies including for­mal authority of the senior management, confrontation, and negotiation. They point out that negotiation requires maturity and a focus on points of agreement with the example of owners and players. Sometimes, it is also nec­essary to vse a third party if the conflict is particularly drawn out. This can be seen in labor disputes between owners of professional teamSi'and their players in football, basketball, baseball, and hockey. Nugent (2002) suggests four steps for managers to decide the appropriate level of involvement when faced with conflict:

1. Can the protagonists be made to handle conflict themselves or must a third party be involved?

2. If an intervention is required, what is the most appropriate type of intervention-autocratic, arbitration, facilitating, bargaining, or col­laborative problem solving

3. The manager must determine whether she is the best person to inter­vene. Is someone with more power better?

2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT 27

4. If the manager is the best person, does she need assistance from an independent resource person ( and how will that person be used)?

Regardless of the strategy, conflict in organizations is inevitable, and sport organizations are no different. Values may be in conflict, usually involving money and success, and many stakeholders have to be considered. On a more local level conflict exists in athletic contests as well, with the emphasis on win­ning versus sportsmanship. It is incumbent on the successful sport manager to learn to manage and resolve conflict while keeping important values in check and pursuing a moral course of action.

~ondusion Ethics and ethical decision making are a necessary part of any effective or­

ganization, and sport organizations are no exception. As sport managers re­alize the importance of utilizing appropriate values and making sound ethical decisions, the ethical dilemmas facing sport will be reduced, and the term "sport ethics" will regain its relevance. While the focus on winning, and gain­ing a competitive "edge" is prevalent in all areas of our society, we must con-

– tinue to look for ways to win "the right way."

· References Associated Press. (20b9, January 8). Kemp's suit fostered reform. Retrieved

from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/ story?id=3 756812. DeSensi, J. T., & Rosenberg, D. (2003). Ethics and morality in sport manage­

ment. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc. Driscoll, D. M. & Hoffman, W. M. (2000). Ethics matters: How to implement

values-driven management. Waltham, MA: Center for Business Ethics. Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics (2nd. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice­

Hall, Inc. Hitt, W. D. (1990). Ethics and leadership. Columbus, OH: Batelle. Buffington Post. (2009, February 5). Michael Phelps' sponsors sticking with

him after bong photo. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/ 02/michael-phelps-sponsors-s_n_163276.html.

Hums, M.A., Barr, C. A., & Gullion, L. (1999). The ethical issues confronting managers in the sport industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(1), 51-66.

Johnson, C. E. ( 2001). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

28 2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT

Josephson Institute (2009). The six pillars of character. Retrieved from http://charactercounts.org/sixpillars.html.

Josephson, M. (2001). Pursuing victory with honor: A training program for coaches on ethics sports, and character-building in sports. Retrieved from http://charactercounts.org/sports/Olympic/olympic-report-ethicssp01tsman ship2.htm.

Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Kitchener, K. S. (2000). Foundations of ethical practices, research, and teaching

in psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kohlberg, L. ( 1984). Essays on moral development. The psychology of moral de­

velopment (vol. 2). San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers. Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. (2007). The Leadership Challenge. New York: John

Wiley and Sons. Lee, J., Whisenant, W., & Mullane, S. (2008). Confederate Imagery in Sport:

Heritage, Hate, or Hypocrisy. Sport and Recreation Law Association (SRLA). 21st Annual Conference on Sport, Physical Activity, Recreation and Law, Myrtle Beach, SC.

Lumpkin, A., Stoll, S. K. & Beller, J. M. (2003). Sport ethics: Applications for fair play (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Malloy, D. C., Ross, S., & Zakus, D. H. (2003). Sport ethics (2nd ed.). Que­bec, Canada: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc.

Morgan, W. J. (Ed.) (2007). Ethics in sport (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Nugent, P. S. & Broeding, L. A. (2002). Managing conflict: Third-party in­terventions for managers. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 139-155.

Osland, J. S., Kolb, D. A., &Rubin, I. M. (2001). Organizational behavior: An experimental approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Raths, L. E., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. B. (1966). Values and teaching. Colum­bus, OH: C.E. Merrill Books.

Rest, J. (1974). Manual for the Defining Issues Test: An objective test of moral judgment development. Unpublished manuscript, University of~Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

Rokeach, M. (1973. The nature of values. New York, NY: The Free Press. Rudd, A., Mullane, S. P., & Stoll, S. (2010). Development of an instrument to

measure the moral judgment of sport managers. Journal of Sport Man­agement, 24(1), 59-83.

Slack, T., & Parent, M. M. (2006). Understanding sport organizations: The ap­plication of organizational theory. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

2 · ETHICS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN SPORT 29

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (1996). Thinking ethi­cally: A framework for moral decision making. Issues in ethics, 7(1), 1-3.