Tiger Woods, Essay Example

Abstract

The paper discusses the recent scandal involving Tiger Woods. The question of whether companies should renew their sponsorship contracts with Woods is discussed. The issues of Tiger Woods’ obligations to the company and the public are evaluated. Several theories of normative ethics are used to evaluate the implications of business and individual decisions regarding Tiger Woods and his role in business.

Tiger Woods

That public figures are regularly or constantly involved into one or several scandals is difficult to deny. For many of them, scandals turn into the way of life. Publicity requires that celebrities deal with numerous challenges in an ethical manner, to serve a good example for thousands to follow. However, not always do public figures choose the best ethical solution to their personal problems. After the recent scandal with Tiger Woods, several companies terminated their sponsorship contracts with the famous golf player. The image of a public man who violates the rules of fairness and honesty in his family relations hardly improved the social corporate image of the companies, for which Woods worked. Tiger Woods went on TV and apologized for his conduct, but whether he is sincere and is ready to change is still a matter of a hot debate. The companies that dropped Tiger Woods during his scandal should avoid reinstating him, to prove their commitment to the basic principles of ethical conduct, and to avoid the negative influence of Woods’ personality on their corporate image.

Sex scandals are a part of the celebrities’ daily routine. Stars and public figures, voluntarily or against their will, become the participants of the serious scandals. The latter can be equally beneficial or detrimental to their professional career. The scandal involving Tiger Woods hit seriously his professional career and his long-lasting cooperation with companies. AT&T and Accenture were the first to end their relationship with Woods (CNN, 2010). Pepsi and Nike continue sponsoring him (CNN, 2010). Gillette said it would temporarily refrain from airing commercials with the golfer (CNN, 2010). The question is in whether companies that used to sponsor Tiger Woods should reinstate him the way he used to be before the scandal.

It should be noted, that as a public figure, Tiger Woods carries the burden of responsibility for his actions and decisions. Due to his publicity and popularity, the public anticipates Woods to be an example for thousands to follow. Not only does Woods influence his own public image and career, but he also produces serious effects on the corporate reputation of companies that choose to sponsor him. Publicity does not necessarily imply that public figures cannot make mistakes. However, it is within each public figure’s power and ability to minimize the negative consequences of such mistakes and to improve the ethical and social image of the businesses for which this person works. Tiger Woods chose an easy way of a public apology. The latter became the object of the sound criticism: CNN (2010) writes that Woods’ appearance on TV was carefully managed. Orlando Sentinel (2010) cites David Johnson, the founder of Atlanta’s Strategic Vision: “it was a start, but he’s far from where he needs to be and he has a long way to recovery”. However, the lack of sincerity and trust in Woods’ words are not the only reasons why companies should not bring him back as sponsor. Normative ethics provides reliable answers to the most controversial aspects of Woods’ case.

Utilitarianism is the philosophy that treats consequences as the basic criterion for making ethical decisions. “According to utilitarianism, an action is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people affected by the action” (Crane & Matten, 2007). In case the companies decide to renew their sponsorship contracts with Tiger Woods, the celebrity will be the only one who benefits from such cooperation. The companies will suffer the lack of corporate commitment to ethics and will, most probably, be judged by society for promoting and even encouraging unethical conduct. The companies should not renew their cooperation with Tiger Woods, to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. By rejecting Tiger Woods and choosing other, more ethical celebrities to feature their commercials, companies will (a) create a precedent that extramarital affairs are unethical and can become a serious obstacle on one’s way to becoming popular and (b) will protect themselves from the negative influence of Woods’ unethical personality on their corporate responsibility and brand image.

The ethics of duties and Kant’s categorical imperative, in particular, prove the need for the companies and businesses to avoid dealing with Tiger Woods in the nearest future. Kant’s categorical imperative rules that individuals must “act according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Crane & Matten 2007, p. 98). In other words, companies must choose the action they would want to turn into a universal ethical rule. Will companies seek to turn their cooperation with an unethical person into a universal rule? Certainly, they will not. On the contrary, they will try to promote ethical conduct as the basic feature of their corporate image. The companies’ refusal to renew their cooperation with Tiger Woods will also reflect the basic premises of the golden rule, which requires that businesses and individuals treat others as they would like to be treated in the same situation (Gensler, 1998). Companies that want to avoid corporate failures and problems with their reputation will not to deal with people, who act unethically. Companies that do not want to be judged for their choice of sponsors and endorsement celebrities will refrain themselves from making contracts with people like Tiger Woods. Whether Woods’ apology was sincere and justified is a rhetorical question, but the termination of the sponsorship contracts will become the most serious price Tiger Woods pays for his ethical misconduct and the lack of ethical responsibility for his actions.

Conclusion

As any celebrity, Tiger Woods is not protected from the risks of scandals and ethical mistakes. As a public figure, however, Woods also assumes the responsibility for his actions and decisions. The public anticipates that Woods will become an example for thousands to follow. The recent apology does not relieve the burden of Woods’ ethical mistakes. Companies that used to cooperate with Woods should avoid further cooperation with the famous golf player, to protect their corporate image and to turn cooperation with ethical people into a universal business maxim. The termination of the sponsorship contracts will become the best way for Woods to pay for his ethical misconduct and to learn the lesson of the public responsibility for his unethical actions.

References

CNN. (2010). Tiger Woods says, ‘I’m so sorry’ in public apology. CNN. Retrieved July 24, 2010 from http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/02/19/tiger.woods/index.html

Crane, A. & Matten, D. (2007). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.

Gensler, H.J. (1998). Ethics: a contemporary introduction. Routledge.

Orlando Sentinel. (2010). Tiger Woods scandal: Reviews mixed on apology. Orlando

Sentinel. Retrieved July 24, 2010 from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-02-20/sports/os-tiger-woods-apology-0221-20100220_1_tiger-woods-apology-xm-radio