1. Who are the stakeholders in this case?

a. I believe the stakeholders in the parable of the Sadhu are Mccoy, Stephen, the
different group of climbers, climbers assistants (Sherpas, etc), the sadhu, and
potentially the companies Mccoy and Stephen work for or will work for in the
future.
2. From a utilitarian perspective, did this solution yield maximum happiness?
a. From a utilitarian perspective I believe the solution did yield the maximum
happiness. Per the textbook: Utilitarians tend to reason as follows: “I strongly
believe that x is the best decision because the consequences benefit the greatest
number of people.” It is clear that the majority of the group made a decision to
carry on completing their goals of reaching the summit. The Sadhu certainly did not
represent the groups best interests and caring for him was not considered in the
best interests of the group.
3. From a rights perspective, whose rights were upheld? Whose rights were violated?
a. The rights of Mccoy, Stephen, and his group were upheld. Mccoy had every right to
continue his journey to complete his goal as did the rest of his team. Stephen’s
rights, similarly, were upheld. His journey was different, but this does not mean his
rights were not upheld. Under his own volition, he decided to stay back and help the
Sadhu.
4. What was Stephen’s role here? Should he have done more? What about Bowen?
a. I believe Stephen played his role as best as possible. He did what he thought was the
best thing to do from a moral perspective. Further, he challenged Mccoy to think
more on an individualistic level rather than an amoral and selfish perspective. I think
the both of them could’ve done more. The right thing to do in my perspective was
to help the Sadhu down the mountain. Later in the passage they recall that the most
meaningful experience of prior travel was not the actual thing they set off to
accomplish but rather side tasks/experiences that resonated with them more. So
what if they didn’t make it to the top? So what if they delayed others from getting
there. They would’ve felt more fulfilled had they stayed behind and help the Sadhu.
There was a lack of group think, established values, and leadership.
b. Interestingly enough, as a complete side note, when my buddies and I travel
together, we always establish a group leader and all agree to follow the teachings of
our religion. In fact, the prophet (peace be upon him) suggested that this is a best
practice to reduce conflict and do have direction when issues arise. This story tied
everything together for me. It now makes way more sense as to why we have
always done this.
5. What relevance does this have for organizational decision-making and
organizational ethics?
a. This story has major relevance when it comes to organizational decision making and
ethics. It is clear that a group or organization that does not have a well centered
train of thought and established ethical scope will struggle when experiencing
conflict. Decisions, even for leaders with extensive experience, are difficult. They
always will be and always have been. As discussed in the article, it’s not a discussion
surrounding the conversation of corporate culture, but rather the notion of shared
values and an agreed-on process for dealing with adversity and change.
b. Another point that resonated with me while reading this article was the point that
manager that are indecisive or a leader that takes time to figure out the perfect
solution will potentially lose the entire enterprise. This is relevant to my work. When
I first became a leader in the pharmacy department, I would be very cautious in
making decisions. I have since learned that staff appreciates quicker and precise
decisions even if they may not be perfect.