Scribd
Upload
539 views2 pages

To Blast or Not To Blast

Susan Thorn, an assistant engineer, noticed a construction crew preparing to blast near a gas pipeline, which she determined was too close and posed a safety risk. When she asked the crew to stop the project, they challenged her competence. Despite facing resistance, Susan stood firm in her decision to prioritize public safety over monetary concerns or following protocol. She had an x-ray crew review the gas line to ensure it was safe before allowing work to continue.

Uploaded by

M VINEEL RAJ 2228618
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
539 views2 pages

To Blast or Not To Blast

Susan Thorn, an assistant engineer, noticed a construction crew preparing to blast near a gas pipeline, which she determined was too close and posed a safety risk. When she asked the crew to stop the project, they challenged her competence. Despite facing resistance, Susan stood firm in her decision to prioritize public safety over monetary concerns or following protocol. She had an x-ray crew review the gas line to ensure it was safe before allowing work to continue.

Uploaded by

M VINEEL RAJ 2228618
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

To Blast or not to Blast

Case Summary:

Susan Thorn is an assistant engineer in the Nelson region with 2 years of work experience.
One day on her way to work she came across a construction site beside a water utility and on
further inquiry she came to learn that the construction crew associated with the project was
preparing to blast for a water utility installation, she then noticed that the blast site was too
close to a gas pipeline. She then asked the foreman to cease the project citing public safety
reasons. The construction crew were visibly disappointed with her decision and a group of
elderly male crew members challenged her competence and experience. Despite facing
resistance, Susan stood firm in her decision. She also realised that her decision would have
high monetary consequences and would also cause a chain reaction of events and cause a
delay to other planned projects. But Susan prioritised the safety of the public over monetary
implications and dispatched an x-ray crew to conduct a review of the quality of components
on the gas line and asses their standards.

Problem Statement:

The dilemma is about whether to take decisions based on Ethical values or follow the pre-
intended protocol. She needs to consider both factors before taking a decision, Firstly
Leadership skills and secondly Ethical Values. She also faces a conflict about whether to go
against the authority or not.

Criteria for evaluation:

1. Strong Ethical Standards

Her ability to support her decision despite the challenges and resistance she faces shows
her strong moral values.

2. Voicing her values

She explained her decision to the crew and her workmates and also cited the reasons for
taking the decision.

3. Risk-taking

Even though she realised that her decision might potentially cause a hurdle in her job she
prioritised values over losing her job.
Solutions:

Instead of confronting the crew directly, she could have explained the safety risk situation to
the company for which the crew works.

Contingency Plan:

She could have proposed relocation of the blast area to minimize the safety risk and also not
to cause a hindrance to the work.

You might also like