WEEK 1.1 DQ

PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS….READ CAREFULLY

CITE SOURCES CORRECTLY. STRICT APA 7TH EDITION

Consider the word value. Values are core beliefs that guide attitudes and actions (Lee & Hardin,
2014). DeSensi (2015) defines the term as a noun—“something we judge to be worthwhile.”
However, it can be used as a verb—to actively perceive something as being important or
desirable. In both cases, the term values is used positively, but its opposite, disvalues, is
negative.

Consider two team owners who are interested in a pool of recruits. The league has strict rules
about offering bribes to recruits to get them to sign. Team owner A values honesty and fairness
and thus refuses to offer bribes even at the risk of losing the best recruits. Team owner B
values winning over rule following, and thus has a more lax attitude toward providing bribes to
potential recruits. In this scenario, what an individual values or disvalues affects that individual’s
behavior, which drives ethical decision making.

Both of the team owners in this scenario may not be experiencing a dilemma because both are
sure of their values. However, what if an individual values both honesty and winning? This
individual has values that are in conflict with one another. Ethical dilemmas result when two or
more important values are in conflict. What defines “important” to one individual might be very
different to another. Values are not static, however, and it is also important for individuals to
understand how they change over time and are affected by experiences.

Before you begin exploring ethical decision making, it is vital to be able to evaluate your own
and others’ values as foundational to the rest of this course. This discussion will allow you to
practice evaluating values and examining your own values in the context of this evaluation.

Desensi, J. T., & Rosenberg, D. (2010). Ethics and morality in sport management. Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology.

Mullane, S. (2015e). Ethics and ethical decision-making in sport. In J. W. Lee & R. Hardin (Eds.). Policy
and governance in sport: Issues, organizations, and practical application. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic Press.

Instructions
For this Discussion, consider the following:

• What are the values being demonstrated by each character in the scenario described in
the Values Clarification Exercise: Wagner High School Dilemma document?

• How do your own values align with the values being demonstrated by each character?
How might this alignment affect your perceptions of the likability of each character?

Post the following:

Rank the following six characters in this story in order of who you liked the most (1) to the least
(6). To do so, copy and paste this list into the Discussion area with your rankings listed in the
lines to the left of each character.

Tommy Mayor Smith

Coach Johnson Dr. Cameron

Mr. Wallace Vic Sanchez

Explain how these rankings relate to your preferred values. Then, using a personal example,
briefly explain how you would apply your preferred values based on this values assessment.

[removed]

Chapter 2

Ethics and Ethical Decision
Ma]png in Sport

Susan P. Mullane, University of Miam

i

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 con­
duct and decisions, morality considers society, social values and attitudes, and
motives. Morality considers good and bad within the context of social cus­
toms 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 per­
sonally 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 behav­
ior, both in everyday conduct and in desired goals. Rokeach ( 1973) referred to
these distinct types of values as “instrumental” and “terminal” values, respec­
tively. He suggested that a relationship between terminal and instrumental val­
ues 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 be­
have, 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 ex­
periences. Recognizing these changes and understanding how they affect one’s
actions and behaviors is the goal of the values clarification process. Values clar­
ification 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 di­
vided 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 thought­
ful 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 num­
ber, integrity might be considered a holistic approach to values or a “whole­
ness 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 Pos­
ner (2007) identified honestly as the number one characteristic most identified
by leaders.

Rudd, Mullane, and Stoll (2010) also note that for many years, unethical de­
cision 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 Mor­
gan Stanley. Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty to the biggest investor scheme in
history, defrauding investors of billions of dollars. The sport industry has cer­
tainly 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 environ­
ments 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 be­
tween moral values, a moral value and a nonmoral value, or moral values
against social values. Furthermore, Osland et al. (2001), distinguished be­
tween ethical and nonethical values. “Ethical values are those values that di­
rectly 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 gener­
ally 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 ver­
sus right (Kidder, 2005).

Other characteristics of ethical dilemmas include uncertainty of the out­
come, the possibility of numerous stakeholders or those affected by the deci­
sion, and a need to maximize and minimize important values. Kidder (2005)
identifies four’paradigms of dilemmas. In the first category of truth versus loy­
alty, 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 individ­
ual 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 frame­
work 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 conse­
quences 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 dis­
advantages, and (b) benefit the largest number of people” (Johnson, 2001, p.
130). Leaders use this type of decision making when dealing with many con­
stituencies 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 “util­
ity.” This approach is used to determine bureaucratic and governmental poli­
cies 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 de­
termined that the benefits of ending the war outweighed the costs of destroy­
ing 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;’ measur­
ing these concepts, and choosing between short term and long term happi­
ness. 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 the­
ory 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 pop­
ular 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 de­
scribed 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 conse­
quences. 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 an­
swer is no, the decision is wrong. Based on this reasoning, certain be­
haviors 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 situa­
tion. 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 hon­
esty. 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 phi­
losophy 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 arbi­
trary. 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 pro­
duce, 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 au­
tomatic 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 some­
one 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 de­
cide 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 com­
munity 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 pun­
ishment (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 con­
cerned 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 soci­
ety 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 up­
hold 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 fash­
ion; 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 crit­
icism, 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). Gilli­
gan’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 fair­
ness 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 (free­
dom 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 ver­
bally 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 indi­
cation 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 stud­
ies (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 Im­
perative, 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 conse­
quences, such as telling the truth and respecting others. In sport, helping an
injured opponent, equal participation, and being honest with officials or ref­
erees 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 num­
ber 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 par­
ticipation 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 obliga­
tions. 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 achiev­
ing the greatest amount of good over evil. Right decisions are based on an ap­
peal 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 prin­
ciples. 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 predi­
cated 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 con­
tract 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 em­
bedded in five major segments of the sport industry: professional sport, in­
tercollegiate athletics, recreational sport, health and fitness, and facility
management.

Principles of Sport

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

• Trustworthiness-(honesty, integrity, reliability, loyalty, keeping prom­
ises 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, mak­
ing 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 op­
erating 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 con­
sidered: ( 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 be­
havior and the spirit of the rules. And finally, in the view that “winning is a mu­
tual 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 (Joseph­
son, 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 cer­
tainly in the media. Previously and recently the steroids in baseball contro­
versy 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 iden­
tify the values involved or those in conflict. Additionally, as Kidder (2005) sug­
gested, 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 so­
cially (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 perspec­
tives. 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 Cat­
egorical Imperative to the use of steroids in baseball. Would steroid use be ac­
ceptable 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 considera­
tion of all reasonable, lawful, and ethical alternatives, and a close examina­
tion 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 hard­
ship. 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 con­
veyed 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 non­
trivial 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 Pa­
pers, Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal, and the coverage of the tobacco
industry depicted in the movie The Insider. Although examples of whistle­
blowers in sports are difficult to come by, Jan Kemp, a University of Georgia
professor, gained notoriety after being fired for publicly criticizing the uni­
versity for allowing student-athletes to continue playing sports after failing re­
medial classes. As a result of her lawsuit against the University, reforms were
made at the University of Georgia and nationwide to raise academic stan­
dards for college athletes (Associated Press, 2009). Perhaps baseball’s steroid
dilemma would not have reached its current level if there were more whistle­
blowers 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 tomor­
row 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 com­
ponents in sequential order:

1. The person must be able to interpret whether or not there is an ethi­
cal 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 mis­
sion statement of the organization (Hitt, 1990). They require the commitment
of the higher levels of management, and should address the needs of the var­
ious constituencies and stakeholders in the organization. For example, in a
college athletic department, the athletic director and associate/assistant ath­
letic 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 pro­
vides 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 stan­
dards, 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 envi­
ronment and an increased level of public confidence and trust among impor­
tant constituencies and stakeholders (Driscoll & Hoffman, 2000).

Conflict

In trying to develop a moral solution to a dilemma, conflict is inevitable, par­
tially 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 man­
agement and owners are charged with the integrity of the product, the play­
ers 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” (sports­
manship) 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 pho­
tograph depicting marijuana usage. Some, but not all of Phelps’ sponsors, can­
celed 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 “win­
win” solutions when possible. They suggest various strategies including for­
mal 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 nec­
essary 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 col­
laborative problem solving

3. The manager must determine whether she is the best person to inter­
vene. 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 win­
ning 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 re­
alize 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 gain­
ing 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.). Que­
bec, 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 in­
terventions 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. Colum­
bus, 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 Man­
agement, 24(1), 59-83.

Slack, T., & Parent, M. M. (2006). Understanding sport organizations: The ap­
plication 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 ethi­
cally: A framework for moral decision making. Issues in ethics, 7(1), 1-3.

Instructor Name: Point Value: 30

Student Name:

CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points

Content Quality

40% of total Discussion

grade

Student participated in the

Discussion about the presented

topic with detailed, relevant,

supported initial posts and

responses. Student enhanced

points with examples and

questions that helped further

discussion. Discussion is well

organized, uses scholarly tone,

follows APA style, uses original

writing and proper paraphrasing,

contains very few or no writing

and/or spelling errors, and is fully

consistent with graduate-level

writing style. Discussion contains

multiple, appropriate and

exemplary sources

expected/required for the

assignment.

Student participated in the

Discussion about the presented

topic with detailed, relevant,

supported initial posts and

responses. Discussion is mostly

consistent with graduate level

writing style. Discussion may have

some small or infrequent

organization, scholarly tone, or

APA style issues, and/or may

contain a few writing and spelling

errors, and/or somewhat less than

the expected number of or type of

sources.

Student participated in the

Discussion about the presented

topic with adequate content but

the content lacked either detail,

relevancy, or support. Discussion

is somewhat below graduate level

writing style, with multiple smaller

or a few major problems.

Discussion may be lacking in

organization, scholarly tone, APA

style, and/or contain many writing

and/or spelling errors, or shows

moderate reliance on quoting vs.

original writing and paraphrasing.

Discussion may contain inferior

resources (number or quality).

Content of student’s post and

responses was not clear, relevant,

or supported. Discussion is well

below graduate level writing style

expectations for organization,

scholarly tone, APA style, and

writing, or relies excessively on

quoting. Discussion may contain

few or no quality resources.

Student did not submit a post or

response.

CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points

Engagement

40% of total Discussion

grade

Student participated actively as

evidenced by strong reflective

thought in both the initial post and

in responses to classmates’ posts.

Student response participation

exceeded the stated minimum

requirements.

Student participated actively as

evidenced by strong reflective

thought in both the initial post and

in responses to classmates’

posts.Student responses

contributed to classmates’

experience.

Student participated somewhat

actively as evidenced by posts

and responses that were adequate

but lacking strong reflective

thought.

Student did not participate actively

as evidenced by little reflective

thought in initial posts and

responses.

Student did not submit a post or

response.

CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points

Timeliness

20% of total Discussion

grade

All postings were made in time for

others to read and

respond.

Almost all postings were made in

time for others to read and

respond.

Most postings were made in time

for others to read and respond.

Few postings were made in time

for others to read and respond.

Student did not submit a post or

response.

Final Point Total: 0

Feedback

KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7