The parable of Sadhu of Bowen McCoy
(1983) is one of the most popular stories that try to unravel the ethical
standards between individuals and corporates. In the parable, McCoy related how
they met a sadhu while climbing the Himalayas. The sadhu suffered from
hypothermia and was in the brink of dying. He needed medical and clinical
support and must be transported out of the snow to be able to survive. In this
conflicting situation, McCoy, his friend, Stephen, and the rest of the
climbers, were put in a crossroad wherein they needed to choose between the
sadhu's life or their own goals. According to Stephen, the situation is an
example of individual and corporate ethics, and they failed to do their part as
Christians or as people of Western ethical standards.
McCoy's problem can be traced to the personal question or on retroflection. Had they done the best for the old holy man? Or had they been selfish and forgot their responsibility to the old man and prioritized their goal of climbing the mountain? In a sense, it is a question of doing enough for those who are in needed. According to McCoy (1983), "Real moral dilemmas are ambiguous, and many of us hike right through them, unaware they exist." This is an absolute fact of life. While many tried to be ethical in some respects, there are instances that we are unaware of the ethical and moral crossroads we face everyday.
According to McCracken, Martin and
Shaw (1998), often times people are focused on business ethics, but they failed
to understand the meaning of virtue ethics. It is a fight between individual
and corporate ethics. If we will sum up the ethical dilemmas faced by McCoy and
Stephen, the foremost would be the action when goal attainment is threatened by
unexpected events. McCoy (1983) proposed that each person or even corporates
have their own goals that should be attained at specific period of time.
However, in the case, there is a clash between goal achievement and the moral
obligation on others as part of the ethical standards and norms of our culture.
McCoy had to make decisions in adverse conditions without jeopardizing goals
and without forgetting moral obligation.
After what happened, Stephen tried
to argue that they had done their part and they could have done more if they
had a leader who would encourage them to do things. Because no one is willing
to assume responsibility, they failed to do what must be done at its potential.
Stephen even pressed on the problem of their actions. Stephen may have right
that their actions could have been different if the sadhu had been dressed in a
different way or had been in a better condition. Stephen argued that while they
did their “bits” or part to help the sadhu, they were just doing the surface
and not the fundamentals.
I agree with Stephen, the ethical
dilemma here lies in the question of personal actions, but I also disagree with
him in terms of corporate ethics and the need of a leader to assume
responsibility. At a personal level, each of them has their own ethical
orientation, but they failed to realize it and just make a choice between
attainment of their goals and the life of the sadhu. I think there is no need
for a leader to act on it, but there is only a need for individuals to put
their moral obligation into play. Corporates are not made of stones, but of
people; and the moral obligation of the corporate stands on the moral
obligation of the people within the corporate. To say that the obligation
should have a corporate one is not right because it detaches the individual
from his or her moral obligation.
From that, let us look at the way
their decision making process was. They had two options: a social and a
personal one. The social one dictates that they backtrack down the mountain to
save the sadhu, but they will not get to their goal of reaching the top. The
personal option ignores the need of the sadhu for them to be able to achieve
their personal desires. However, we need to consider that each action has
consequences. Even if they leave the sadhu and attain their goal, they are left
with the question of guilt as already shown in the case. On the other hand, if
they had brought the sadhu to the monastery, they would have failed their
goals, but be true to their conscience and moral obligation.
In the case parable, McCoy (1983)
stressed the moral fiber of Stephen who was a committed Quaker with sound moral
vision. Here we see a different reaction than the rest (but well, it also
failed to be real in the end due to pressure from others). Even though Stephen
suffered from altitude sickness, he still chose to put his actions in alignment
with his values. While we see Stephen becoming a leader, but he fell down
because of the support failure (Campbell & Dardis, 2004). If Stephen chose
to carry the old man down the mountain, he could have died even before reaching
the nearest village.
In a sense, what we see here is the
need of collective action and support to create the realization of ethics. A
person may have a strong moral fiber, but the adverse conditions demand for
collective realization, the moral fiber of the person may not be of good use.
If we return to Stephen's problem between his moral vision and his condition,
we can see how moral vision of individual members of corporates die because of lack
of support from the corporate. Due to the size or the enormity of the task, a
single person may not be able to do it. Because of that, he or she may feel
inadequate and thus just put his or her moral vision in the backseat.
References
Campbell, D. J.
& Dardis, G. J. (2004). The “Be, Know, Do” Model of Leader Development. Human Resource Planning, 27(2),
26-39
McCoy, B.
(1983). "The Parable of the Sadhu". Harvard Business Review,
September - October 1 983.
McCraken, J.,
Martin, W. & Shaw, B. (1998). "Virtue Ethics and the Parable of the
Sadhu." Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 1.
