W20955

TO BLAST OR NOT TO BLAST: LEANING ON VALUES

Gerard Seijts, Vania Sakelaris, and Emily Moore wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not
intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names
and other identifying information to protect confidentiality.

This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized, or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com. Our goal is to publish
materials of the highest quality; submit any errata to publishcases@ivey.ca. i1v2e5y5pubs

Copyright © 2020, Ivey Business School Foundation Version: 2020-12-07

As Susan Thorn headed toward her office building, she happened to drive by a construction site by a water
utility along the Pollen River. Thorn pulled over and took a closer look at the site. Something did not seem
right to her, so she drove up to the construction trailer and got out of her truck. Thorn was greeted by the
crew’s foreman, a senior member of the construction crew, whom she asked about the heavy rubber blasting
mats she had noticed laid out on the street. She knew that these types of mats were typically used to help
absorb shocks and to prevent flying rocks and debris during underground blasting (see Exhibit 1).

Thorn was a 25-year-old mechanical engineer with a passion for science and technology. She had a solid
understanding of the risks associated with utility installations, particularly on residential streets. In her
position as assistant engineer for the Nelson region, Thorn was responsible for advising on gas line
construction and maintenance, and forming teams that supported the preparation of engineering drawings
and designs. She was well aware of the importance of collaboration with other utilities when planning
underground installation of gas lines in order to help manage safety risks. Typically, the collaborating teams
would alert each other of any intention to dig for a construction project and follow up with corresponding
utility markings on the roads or grounds in question. The markings were red for electrical power lines,
yellow for gas, and blue for water. Thorn was unaware of any request related to the construction site by the
water utility. In fact, she was unaware of any recent communication for work in this neighbourhood that
fell within her assigned region.

The foreman informed her that his construction company was planning to blast for a water utility installation
in the notoriously rocky area. He noted that using a traditional backhoe or trench was not an option in this
case. As the remaining construction crew members joined the conversation, Thorn explained that the site
was far too close to the gas pipeline. She then asked in her professional capacity for them to stop the project
because they could not proceed with the proposed blasting. She cited the potential risk to public safety as
her reason to temporarily shut down the project pending further investigation. Her decision was greeted
with resistance from the construction crew members, who stared at her with bewilderment before strongly
objecting to her reasoning.

The small group of three male crew members, who seemed approximately 50 to 60 years of age, soon
resorted to verbal accusations. They strongly challenged Thorn’s assessment of the situation and
competence as a young female engineer. Despite mounting pressure from the crew, Thorn affirmed her
position and repeated her instruction to cease the proposed blasting until further notice. She stood firm in

This document is authorized for use only in Dr Santosh Basavaraj's Organizational Behavior at Christ University from Sep 2022 to Mar 2023.
Page 2 9B20C051

her belief regarding the risk she had identified. She resisted the temptation to give in to the men’s
intimidating accusations and body language. Thorn also resisted the urge to second-guess her own
assessment, even with strongly worded opposition. Her accountability to her Iron Ring was integrated into
her decision-making.1 She leaned on her training and knowledge for the confidence she required in making
such a judgement call and tried to avoid a shouting match in public. Although visibly dissatisfied, the crew
members reluctantly agreed to hold off blasting pending further investigation.

Thorn got back in her truck and drove to her office. She assumed the crew would call her company to file
a complaint about her decision, which they did. The construction crew questioned her authority and
expressed concerns about the impact of delays on the project. Thorn had anticipated the resulting
consequences of her actions, but she remained confident in her decision. After replaying the details of the
confrontation in her mind, Thorn still maintained that her position was anchored on the safety risks she had
identified and was based on her university training and two years on the job. As an engineer, Thorn took
her responsibility for public safety seriously and acknowledged that there were no grey areas between right
and wrong regarding such decisions. She knew she was obligated by professional practice guidelines to
make sound decisions with respect to the issue of safety. She reflected on the fact that she had no choice
other than to act promptly, albeit autonomously, and rise above the dissension of the construction crew or
risk putting innocent people’s lives at risk.

Thorn realized that her decision could have monetary consequences, with a potential cost in the hundreds
of thousands of dollars to both the utility company and the contractors. This cost included the economic
loss related to delays of other projects scheduled to start immediately after completion of this work. Those
costs could increase significantly if a replacement of the gas line in question was deemed necessary.
However, she felt that she was conducting appropriate due diligence as a professional engineer and could
not justify the potential of lost revenue taking priority over public safety.

Thorn’s decision could be challenged and potentially overruled by her supervisor, the division manager—
a potentially career limiting move. Her decision could result in her being labelled as a risk-averse leader,
and such labels could quickly spread within the company and the industry. She could face other
consequences from her actions, including the loss of her job of two years. However, as a young leader and
professional, Thorn leaned on her judgement and values of integrity, authenticity, resilience, and mutual
respect. The company had hired her upon graduation largely due to the well-rounded qualifications detailed
in her resume; maintaining such high standing on the job was important. The company valued respect for
safety and emphasized that live gas was as serious as live electricity and had to be respected and managed
by always following known safety protocols. This policy was embedded within the corporate culture.

Memories of ethics pop quizzes in university raced through Thorn’s mind. As she recalled, most scenarios
studied in school had typically prompted escalation of ethical issues to a supervisor for resolution. However,
in this situation, time was clearly limited. There was no time for doubt or hesitation to weigh the pros and
cons of her decisions because people’s lives could be at risk. In addition, her own personal and professional
reputation was at risk. The incident had propelled her into rapid application of limited theory, coupled with
a need for sound judgement and instinct.

Thorn was responsible for safety on field projects. Therefore, upon her arrival at the office, she promptly
dispatched an x-ray crew to conduct a review of the quality of the butt welds on the gas lines located near

1
The Iron Ring is worn by Canadian-trained engineers on the baby (or pinky) finger of the dominant hand to symbolize pride
and humility, and serves as a reminder of the engineer’s obligation to live by a high standard of professional conduct; Laura
Neilson Bonikowsky, “Iron Ring,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, January 28, 2014, accessed September 4, 2020,
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/iron-ring.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr Santosh Basavaraj's Organizational Behavior at Christ University from Sep 2022 to Mar 2023.
Page 3 9B20C051

the construction site to assess their compliance with safety standards (see Exhibit 2). She wanted to validate
her actions by taking a fact-based decision-making approach. Therefore, she asked for an investigation of
the status of the V-notches—using x-ray technology to assess any potential flaws incurred from age—and
the ability of the butt welds to withstand an impact. Her aim was to assess if the pipe welds met all
appropriate standards and were solid penetrating welds. Weak non-penetrating welds could be prone to
leaks, especially after the transmission of force from an underground blast. Leaks could follow rock and
end up in unintended places, such as residential basements, in this instance.

After ordering an investigation, Thorn sought the counsel of a senior colleague—the construction and
maintenance manager. Her colleague, a man in his 60s, was responsible for field crews. In fact, he was
responsible for the crew who had laid down the pipe on the street in question 16 years earlier. The construction
and maintenance manager supported Thorn’s decision. However, a subsequent discussion with the senior
technical team in the division was pending. That meeting would also likely include a complaint from the
construction crew, who had openly and aggressively challenged her decision to shut down the project against
their wishes. Thorn wondered whether, in hindsight, she should have done anything differently.

The Ivey Business School and the Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute for Leadership gratefully acknowledge
the generous support of Bill and Kathleen Troost in the development of this case.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr Santosh Basavaraj's Organizational Behavior at Christ University from Sep 2022 to Mar 2023.
Page 4 9B20C051

EXHIBIT 1: BLASTING MATS

Source: Reprinted with permission from “Photos,” Four Star Rubber Blasting Mats, accessed October 8, 2020,
www.blastingmats.com/photos.

EXHIBIT 2: BUTT WELDS

Fusion line
Weld metal

Weld metal

Heat affected zone

Parent material

Butt weld Fillet weld

Source: Company files.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr Santosh Basavaraj's Organizational Behavior at Christ University from Sep 2022 to Mar 2023.