Sikh Case Study

Warren Grover
Williamson
Sikh Temple
April 10, 2013
Davenport University

Sikh Temple
Case 3

Warren T. Grover, Department of Business. Davenport University, Lettinga Campus.

The case of the Sikh Temple has erupted many concerns both for the Sikh temple supporters and the neighboring citizens. The families who live in Evergreen, San Jose love their neighborhood. This same serenity attracted a man named Bob Singh Dhillon, when he first saw it he was determined he found the ideal site for his congregation’s Sikh temple. As talk of building a beautiful, but large temple in a rural community begins it stirs up many concerns. This temple ahs plans to be 94,000 square feet, a façade of over 316 feet long, and in some places the temple will rise over 60 feet tall. These concerns of this potential temple are as follows: with an estimated 45,000 Sikhs in the bay area, an incline in tourism will result in high traffic concerns and problems and it will degrade the tranquility of the neighborhood lifestyle. Also, the neighborhood doesn’t believe it is suitable for a facility of that size. On the other side the Sikhs are raising a fight for prejudice, a nearby city had the same thing happen to them and the Sikhish people thought they were an “undesirable neighbor”. As a member of the City Council, I will conduct a situation analysis, also known as SWOT to review and conclude this debate. A situation analysis is, an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in an organization’s internal environment and the opportunities and threats in its external environment (Situational Analysis, 2013). I will identify what the strengths and weaknesses this temple will have if being built versus not being built, and if it does get passed to being built, I will look at, and weigh in the opportunities and threats this temple could produce.
While looking over the case from both the neighbors and the Sikhs, some key facts in favor of the neighbors are; the high increase in tourism raises a concern for increase in traffic and with only two-lane roads, the increase in traffic could cause potential problems in the environment, kids, and bicyclist. Also, as a rural area detached from the busyness of the city, they don’t believe a temple of this size is suitable to be placed here. The Sikhs are starting to view this as prejudice, there is no reason they could not build this temple. They are following all the guidelines in order to start the building process, and have not done anything wrong before hand. The organization in this case, the City Council has to review all these concerns and delegate amongst each other the key issue before proceeding.
The obvious key issue is weather or not to build the temple. As a City Council member it is hard to say no to a religious congregation wanting to build a temple, if denied a case of freedom of religion might arise. You need to make a plan, and in order for that plan to be successful you need to make a S.M.A.R.T plan, a specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely plan. You also need to develop commitment, develop action, track progress, and maintain flexibility (How to Make a Plan That Works, 2013). As City Council, I advise to delegate the key issue, and plan on making a decision whether or not to build the temple, and with taking in information and arguments from both parties, come to a conclusion in no more than three weeks.
While looking over this case, there are alternatives that need to be brought up, the first option is the initial option, build a temple in Evergreen. Allowing this temple to be built would supply thousands of Sikhs to have their congregation’s temple. Although in doing so, might cause some environmental damage with the increase of traffic and tourism. A second option is not build the temple in Evergreen, at all. If this were to go through the Sikhs would feel discriminated against, but the neighborhood would be happy. A third option is to make the Sikh temple a restricted size. This may cause controversy with the Sikhs and the limit of members of the congregation to attend being limited to so few. But on the other hand, would put a cap on the amount of tourism and traffic. Still may cause some harm to the environment, and may still upset the neighborhood. Although, this option may seem like the best of both worlds, still allowing the temple to be built but having a limit to the size may make some of the neighbors happier. A fourth option is to make the Sikh congregation find another spot to build the temple, a area that already has high traffic so the neighborhood would not complain about an increase in tourism and harm to the environment.
With all options there are going to be consequences. If we decide to allow the temple to be built it will bring in a lot of traffic and tourism to see such a beautiful temple built from marble. If you look at the neighborhood as a whole, having a higher tourism rate would bring in money to the city, which is never a negative. On the other hand, bringing in this higher rate of tourism and traffic it causes the neighborhood to be unhappy, the two-lane roads would be busier then ever, and the environment would suffer. If the City Council tells the Sikhs that the temple cannot be built it will cause and uproar in the Sikh community. It will raise fights against prejudice, and religious freedoms. It could cause some cases with religious freedoms and be taken further than City Council. But eliminating the temple will make the neighborhood of Evergreen happy by not allowing the elevation in tourism, traffic, and potential harm to the environment. The third option was to decrease the size of the temple. Decreasing the size would create a smaller population allowed in the temple which would have a domino effect of less traffic, less tourism, and less harm to the environment. This seems like the better of the four options, but it still has its issues. The Sikhs could make an argument about the size of the temple and the neighborhood could still complain about an increase in traffic, tourism, and harm to the environment. The forth option of moving the temple to a different location could settle a lot of the disputes. It would still allow the Sikhs to build their temple and have the large number in the congregation. And it would eliminate complaints about the increase traffic and tourism for the Evergreen neighborhood. But, in the case the Sikhs have followed all the required city guidelines and zoning regulations so there is no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to build.
Do morals play a role in what decision you make? I think as a leader, as someone in charge who has the power to influence a lot of people, yes, morals is a huge role in what you should decide. As a leader you are looked at to make an impact, positively and effectively. You are looked at as someone who needs to take every piece of information into consideration and apply those all to your final decision. And as a City Council member, the decision is to request for a smaller temple. A utilitarian is someone who seeks the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And in retrospect to this issue the greatest good would be still building the temple to adhere to the Sikhs congregation, and to respect the neighborhoods concerns about the size of the initial plan. The greatest number would be everyone involved. Allowing the Sikhs to build a smaller temple will benefit everyone, and hopefully in the end, make everyone happy. In doing so, we will still have some tourism, some traffic, but not the substantial amount that was the initial concern.

References
How to Make a Plan That Works. Williams, C. (2013). MGMT (5th ed., pp. 190-121). Cengage Learning.
Situational Analysis. Williams, C. (2013). MGMT (5th ed., pp. 190-121). Cengage Learning.

References: How to Make a Plan That Works. Williams, C. (2013). MGMT (5th ed., pp. 190-121). Cengage Learning. Situational Analysis. Williams, C. (2013). MGMT (5th ed., pp. 190-121). Cengage Learning.