1. Why do you think McCoy and the other travelers made the decision they did regarding the Sadhu? Do you think they acted ethically? What did they gain and what did they lose by this decision?

McCoy and the other travelers encountered an unexpected obstacle during their journey, a dying pilgrim, a stranger in a strange land. The travelers were foreigners, in a deserted region of the county, without access to phones or Internet and hundreds of miles from the nearest medical clinic. Had they been in their homeland, be it the U.S. or Japan, the travelers would have known instantly the best course of action to take to get the man the care he needed. But in the mountains of the Himalayas, the answer as to what to do with the sadhu was confusing at best. No one really wanted to take responsibility for the dying man, mainly because they did not know what to do with him or where to take him, or even how to communicate with him. As the situation played out, each of the men acted as ethically as they knew how, doing what they could for the man before moving on with their own agenda. The man was given comfort, warmth, food and taken farther down the trail and closer to help. The travelers needed to reach the pass before it closed, and had they waited for the dying man they would have lost the opportunity. By leaving him, however, they may have lost some respect for themselves, as they felt guilty at having chosen their own path over the sadhu’s. A choice had to be made, one road or the other, and once one has made the choice it is not possible to go back.

2. What relevance do you think this situation has in relation to leadership and organizational ethics?

The situation of having to choose between one path or the other is very relevant to leadership and organizational ethics. In organizational ethics, it is said that there are two ways of approaching ethics in any situation – from a individualistic approach and a communal approach. In the situation the travelers encountered with the sadhu, ethics were only approached from an individualistic approach. Each individual did what they personally could and moved on. Had a communal approach been taken, the situation would have perhaps been different. With a communal approach to organizational ethics, “individuals are viewed not in isolation, but as members of communities that are partially responsible for the behavior of their members (Brown, 2010).” Had the travelers instead come together as a group and discusses as community what action to take with another member of the human community who needed their help, their approach would have changed because their perception of ethics would not have been individualist, cut instead communal.