“The Parable of the Sadhu”, where Bowen McCoy narrates a curious encounter with an Indian holy man in the high altitudes of the dangerous Himalayan passes, provides us with much food for thought. The incident makes us realize that humanity in distress should always be lent a supporting hand, no matter what the cost. If every individual is concerned only with his own narrow self-interests, and then there is little hope indeed for humanity in general.
However, there are also cases when the individual might actually want to take some corrective action but is unable to do so because of a lack of support from his group or community. The desertion of the Sadhu by the various mountaineering groups occurred because they had no common consensus; each group was too busy to chart its path to success to look after a half-dead vagrant. My analysis of the text makes me think that McCoy should have acted on the spot and tried to convince his group to help the Sadhu, instead of theorizing about it from a safe distance. Decisions really matter when they are taken in times of extreme stress; these are the decisions, which reveal the true characters of individuals or groups. (McCoy, 104, 13)
It is a classic case where both the group and the individuals who made up the group failed pitiably. Only Stephen was willing to shoulder any responsibility, and he too had to desist in the face of stiff opposition from the other trekkers. The message, which comes across, is that it is more important to achieve feats of success, rather than attend ailing humanity. McCoy describes an efficient manager to be “action-oriented”, and possessing a “strong sense of purpose”. Such a description, however, turns the manager into a mere corporate machine, divesting him of his individual beliefs. In my opinion, an ideal manager must not only function for the benefit of the company; he should also be aware of the sacrifices, which have to be made at times for the greater good of humankind. (McCoy, 106, 10)
Managers who often change their jobs have been termed as “fungible managers” by McCoy, but I wonder why? Do the managers need to be permeated with the value system of a particular organization before they can perform reasonably well? Again, this concept seeks to transcend individual values in favor of unchangeable corporate cultures. In my opinion, every individual should have a right to voice his own perspective and if his opinions were worthy enough, even the corporate house would ultimately stand to gain. On the contrary, if the organization with narrow interests proves to be unsavory to worthy managers, they may feel the need to migrate from one company to another, before they eventually find the right working atmosphere. (McCoy, 106, 14)
McCoy reasons that people are most interested in achieving peaks and preserving selfish goals rather than exploring the lower paths. As such, even in corporate houses, if managers bailout in times of crisis, the organization itself would be at stake. This opinion is reasonable enough and seeks to establish a culture of mutual understanding among the individuals and the group or establishment. However, I feel that, if the individual feels that a certain deed is imperative for the good of humanity, he should have the courage to go against the group. (McCoy, 108, 1)
Perfect managers are individuals who can balance concepts of morality and strategic success. Both the individual and the group should help humanity in distress. In the larger scheme of life, development can come only through the sacrifice of narrow self-interests.
Works Cited
McCoy, Bowen H; Parable of the Sadhu; Harvard Business Review; 1983; Web.