Ethical Decision-Making in Management: Sports Team Scenario Essay

This essay delves into the complexities of ethical decision-making within a management context, specifically using a scenario involving the manager of an Australian sports team facing a dilemma. The team is scheduled to participate in a major sporting event in a region affected by a virus, leading to athletes requesting to withdraw while the coach opposes this. The essay explores various approaches to ethical decision-making, including the Utilitarian Approach, Rights Approach, and Fairness Approach, to determine the most ethical course of action. Ultimately, the essay argues for the Rights Approach, emphasizing the importance of respecting the athletes' autonomy and their right to make decisions about their own lives, especially considering the health risks involved. The essay highlights the conflict between professional obligations and personal well-being, concluding that prioritizing individual rights is the most ethical resolution in this situation. The essay also provides a detailed analysis of the different ethical approaches and their application to the given scenario.

FUNDAMENTALS OF
MANAGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TASK 1: ESSAY PLAN..................................................................................................................1
TASK 2: FINAL ESSAY ...............................................................................................................2
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

TASK 1: ESSAY PLAN
Management is the manner to utilize the resources effectively and efficiently. One of the
major responsibility of a manager is to take decisions for betterment of the team as well as for
each of the team members. Hence, arises the concept of ethical decision-making, wherein a
manager is often required to choose between two right choices (Lussier, 2011). The instant essay
seeks to elaborate on this subject on the basis of a particular scenario where, I being the manager
of an Australian Team, face the ethical dilemma to choose the request of individual team
members against the decision of fully representing the team in the biggest sporting event.
Ethical decision-making faces the conflict of choosing between two right choices.
Managers often experience this dilemma and hence are required to understand the different
approaches to crack such a situation. The Utilitarian Approach focus on the consequences and on
that basis attempts to maximise the good done and minimize the harm. The Rights Approach
tries to protect the moral rights of the affected ones, and lastly, the Fairness Approach believes in
treating equals equally (Hecker and Lorna L, 2010).
In the present situation I am facing a dilemma between upholding of different set of
“Code of ethics” to be followed by my Sports team or the ones required by the society,
respectively. Being a sports person, the players have the prime duty to participate in the biggest
sporting event of the world, however, it is not untrue that beside being a player they are also a
part of the society and owe some responsibilities to their personal lives. Therefore, in such a
situation I shall adopt the Rights Approach, which says that a human shall have the liberty to
choose his own way (Zsambok, Caroline E., and Gary Klein, 2014). Considering the threat
posed by the deadly virus in South America, the players should have the right to make their own
decision.
Hence, being the manager I have undertaken the complex task of ethical decision-making
and chose the request of the athletes over that of the coach, in compliance with the Rights
Approach. This does not infer that accepting the orders of the coach would have been the wrong
decision, and it was a case of Right v. Right. Therefore, it can be concluded that the persons
being affected by a decision shall not merely be used as an instrument to realize the goal of
others, but shall be given an opportunity to act at free will.
1

TASK 2: FINAL ESSAY
Management is the process of allocation of the resources, for different functions of an
organization, in the best possible way and to enhance the level of efficiency. This task is
undertaken by the manager, who at all times shall be required to make choices, among the
available alternatives and choose the one capable of maximising the effectiveness (Griffin and
Ricky, 2013). However, there may be an event where the managers are required to choose
between two correct choices. One of the choices may be appropriate from one perspective and
the other may be correct from some other perspective. Hence, arises the situation of ethical
decision-making which pushes a manager to make a choice between two right options (Lussier,
2011). This essay is an attempt to analyze the concept of ethical decision-making in context of a
scenario, wherein I am the manager of an Australian Sports Team, participating in the biggest
Sporting event of the world. The event is being conducted in South America which is affected by
a virus. Owing to the same, players have requested to withdraw from the game and the coach is
of the opinion that withdrawal by any player shall be in violation of the contract. In such an
event I am required to make a choice and support either of the opinions. Hence, in such a
scenario different approaches to ethical decision-making shall prove to be useful in opting for
one of the choices.
The approaches to ethical decision-making assists in solving the complex situations, and
enables the manager to make the most appropriate decision (Craft, 2013). The Utilitarian
Approach suggests undertaking of actions which tend to provide the maximum good for
maximum people. The believer of this approach analyze any situation in three steps. At the first
it is required to explore and identify the available options. Second, the affects of each of the
options on various people shall be determined, followed by which the benefits and harms
suffered by each of the person shall be ascertained. And lastly, choice of the best of the options,
which produces the maximum benefits for maximum people and also which leads to minimum
harm to people, shall be made. While undertaking each of the steps the focus shall always be on
the consequences the action in hand has on the persons, directly or indirectly. The affects shall be
reasonably foreseen to be an immediate result of the said action in hand. The underlying
principle is that the most ethical option is the one which produces the greatest balance of benefits
against the harms (Ruedy, Nicole and Maurice, 2010). For instance, in a business scenario,
adopting this approach would mean taking such decisions which tend to produce greatest
2

benefits to the maximum stakeholders such as the customers, competitors, community etc. and
cause minimum harm to all of them.
Another important approach to ethical decision-making is the Rights Approach which
focus only on the rights of an individual to act in a free will. This approach has been derived
from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and few others, who were of the opinion that the fact
that, human beings have dignity on the basis of their capability to choose freely the desires for
their own lives, make them different from other beings or even things. It is further, believed by
them that they have a fundamental right to have their choices respected by other beings in life.
Hecker and Lorna L (2010) have also opined that people cant be treated as objects or instruments
just to fulfil the goals of the society or other individuals. Hence, they cant be manipulated and it
would be considered as violation of their dignity if restricted to act in a manner they want to.
Beside this basic right, many other rights could be enforced by this approach. Some of the other
rights could be Right to truth, not to be injured, privacy etc. In addition expecting an act or
omission of an act as per the agreed terms between individuals shall also constitute to be a right
under this approach. For instance if A and B freely enter into a contract or agreement, both of
them have the right to expect actions, from each other, in accordance with the agreement. There
is just one question this approach asks and that is if any action or omission of action violate any
right of an individual.
Fairness or Justice Approach is another important approach which says that equals shall
be treated equally and unequal shall be treated unequally. The approach finds its genesis in the
teachings of Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher. Zhong Chen-Bo (2011) is of the opinion
that treating unequal individuals equally is an act not in compliance with this approach. In other
words, treating differently mannered people in the same way may not always be fair or may lead
to unequal treatment. For instance, in the society there exists various kind of classes and groups,
each having its own requirements. If the government decided to govern each of the classes with a
single policy it may lead to unequal treatment. A single class may be imposed with a single
policy and that shall amount to equal treatment. The fundamental question asked by this
approach is as to how fair an action is and it is equally treating everyone or there exists any any
discriminatory act. The Act of discrimination or favouritism tends to treat a selected class of
people differently, without any justifiable reason to single out other individuals in the society
(Thiel, Chase and et. al., 2012). Both these acts are completely unjust and wrong, hence, are
3

completely in violation of the rights provided by this approach. It is further believed by the
followers of this Approach that Fairness requires similarity and consistency in the way
individuals are treated. It expects to ascertain the benefits and burdens suffered by the class of
people and this shall be the test of fairness and unfairness of any action.
The present scenario has posed a situation, wherein I am facing a dilemma between the
requests of the athletes and the opinion of the coach. On one side there is this one important
sporting event while on the other side there is health and personal life of the athletes. A different
set of “Code of ethics” is required to be adhered to in the society a person is living ( Zsambok,
Caroline E., and Gary Klein, 2014). Being a sports person, it is expected of them to consider
participating in the such an event as the prime duty but at the same time it is also not untrue that
beside being a player, they are also a part of the society and family to which they owe some
major responsibilities. It cannot be forgotten that each individual has its own personal life and
certain desires to lead his/her own life in a certain manner. Therefore, in pursuance to the above
stated facts and situations I shall adopt the Rights Approach, which liberates a human to choose
his/her own way in life, and decide its priority between personal and professional life.
Considering the threat posed by the deadly virus in South America, the players should have the
right to make their own decision. It is important to consider that if a player is intending to start
his/her own family, participating in the games shall prove to be in detriment due to the impact of
the said mosquito-borne virus. The Rights Approach checks if the decision is violating the moral
rights of any individual (Anderson, David R., and et. al., 2015).
As per the approach, in the given scenario making the athletes liable for the breach of
contract and forcing them to participate in the event shall be considered completely wrong and
would be completely in violation of the beliefs of this approach. It is required to respect the
interest and priorities of the players, especially when it is related to such an important part of
their lives and hence, merits for protection for everyone. Though the players were responsible to
participate in the mega event, they also have a fundamental right to be respected as rational
human capable of determining their own paths in life. With this right emerges the requirement to
protect the other rights of privacy, free consent etc. (Kujala, Anna-Maija and Katriina, 2011). In
the event the team members are forced to participate in the event against their own free will, and
are used merely as an instrument for advancing the goal of the nation or the coach in particular, it
shall be considered as clear violation of the Rights approach. However, if a free consent is given
4

by them to used in such a manner and the consent has been given in full knowledge, it shall not
violate any of the principles.
Hence, the players shall be given the option to make their own decision and choose the
path in their life. As each one of them is capable as well as owns a right of taking a wise decision
for themselves and further ascertaining the direction of their own lives. This does not imply that
the stand of the coach is completely wrong as it is his own perspective. It has been made clear
that each individual may have his/her own perspective and which may vary from others,
however, in accordance to Rights approach the decision should not violate the rights of the
person being affected.
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Anderson, David R., and et. al. An introduction to management science: quantitative approaches
to decision making. Cengage learning, 2015.
Craft, Jana L. "A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–
2011." Journal of Business Ethics 117, no. 2 (2013): 221-259.
Griffin, Ricky W. Fundamentals of management. Cengage Learning, 2013.
Hecker, Lorna L. "Ethical decision making." Ethics and professional issues in couple and family
therapy (2010): 13-28.
Kujala, Johanna, Anna-Maija Lämsä, and Katriina Penttilä. "Managers’ moral decision-making
patterns over time: A multidimensional approach." Journal of Business Ethics 100, no. 2
(2011): 191-207.
Lussier, R.. Management fundamentals: Concepts, applications, skill development. Cengage
Learning 2011.
Ruedy, Nicole E., and Maurice E. Schweitzer. "In the moment: The effect of mindfulness on
ethical decision making." Journal of Business Ethics 95, no. 1 (2010): 73-87.
Thiel, Chase E., and et. al. Mumford. "Leader ethical decision-making in organizations:
Strategies for sensemaking." Journal of Business Ethics 107, no. 1 (2012): 49-64.
Zhong, Chen-Bo. "The ethical dangers of deliberative decision making."Administrative Science
Quarterly 56, no. 1 (2011): 1-25.
Zsambok, Caroline E., and Gary Klein. Naturalistic decision making. Psychology Press, 2014.
6