BP Oil Spill Disaster

Introduction

As Garcia (2011) notes, the seeds of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe were planted well before the BP oil spill disaster actually occurred. They were planted by leadership that failed to be engaged, failed to conduct appropriate oversight, and failed to create a culture of accountability. There was no risk management. There was no situational awareness. There was no clarity regarding roles and processes. There was no quick action once the disaster erupted and mistakes were compounded. This paper will provide the background information on what management did before, during and after the spill, and how the role of leadership and teams, leadership practices and leadership principles can help to improve outcomes for organizations.

Background

Management before the Spill

Prior to the disaster, management had engaged in cost-cutting exercises without conducting adequate risk management of the Deepwater Horizon site. The build-out of the well used cheap cement, which systemically weakened the operation (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 2011). The focus was on doing things as low-cost as possible instead of on doing things efficiently. Management was in a rush and promoted a culture of irresponsibility that was later seen in the attitudes and culture of BPs clean-up crew: the marine operations team of BP, when asked by the US Geological Survey director Marcia McNutt for a design review, answered: You want a design review? Can't we just put this together with tie wraps and duct tape and say done? We want to get it done [and] get back to the dock and have Miller time (Chandler, 2011). There was nonchalance in the management culture that perfectly explained why the Deepwater Horizon explosion occurred.

Management during the Disaster

During the disaster, BP led poorly. CEO Tony Hayward acted the part of the victim in a tragedy that killed 11 (and an additional 2 during the clean-up phase) and injured more (Loftus, 2016). BP lied about the size and scope of the disaster, hoping no one would notice. Chairman Svansberg referred to the people of the Gulf Coast, whose lives and businesses were severely upset by the largest oil spill in industry history as small people who clearly were not worth the trouble of acting as though the disaster were as significant as it was (Loftus, 2016). There was an overall attitude of insincerity in Haywards apologies to the public and an overall lack of authentic leadership at a time when BP should have stepped forward and assumed accountability. Instead, it acted slowly and allowed errors to compound and a bad...

As Corkindale (2010) notes, BP tried to spin its way out of the crisis instead of addressing it directly and with candor. As a result, the company took a lot of flak in the public relations department, and its reputation suffered greatly.

Management after the Disaster

After the disaster, leaders tried to deflect blame away from themselves (Corkindale, 2010). Instead of acting as stewards of the organization, they sought out scapegoats for the disaster. Instead of acting as servants of the organization, the stakeholders and the communities affected by the disaster, they acted aloof and as though the regulations that had been in place to prevent such disasters were just now coming to their attention for the first time (Corkindale, 2010). They essentially denied all blame for the crisis and attempted to wash their hands of the guilt. While locals all along the Gulf Coast banded together to help clean up the spill, BPs management distanced themselves as far as they possibly could from the whole ordeal.

The Role of Leadership and Teams

The leadership practices of the BP organization...

…crop up and if they are not constantly assessing both the horizon and the day to day affairs of the operation, they share a disconnect between vision/mission awareness and practical application of the performance methods. Such disconnect should not exist. Total integration is the key to success.

Finally, accountability is a must. Leaders must be accountable for everything that happensthe good and the bad. Seeking scapegoats or trying to deflect blame is a sign of a poor leader, and leaders who do not take responsibility for outcomes create a bad spirit and can crush morale throughout the organization. Everyone in an organization is expected to play a role and do a job, and it hurts to see it when leaders fail to do their jobs or play their roles all the way. If an organization is going to be as good as it can be, leaders must be willing to put their own reputations on the line everyday for the good of the organization. They must be willing to act as servants to the organization, as stewards to the mission and vision; and if things go bad in spite of everything, they demonstrate greater leadership and stewardship by owning up to itand in the end it can be that kind of owning up to things that helps turn the organization around in due time.

Conclusion

The case of the BP oil spill is one from which many lessons can be learned. BPs leaders did not show effective leadership principles or demonstrate much accountability, oversight or concern for what was happening all along the way. Leaders who fail to engage, who fail to create a culture of accountability, and who fail to make good decisions ultimately come across as people who should not be leaders. To succeed, an organizations leaders must serve the vision and…