As part of British Petroleum’s (BP) communicated organizational culture, the concern for people, communities and environment was encrypted in its mission statement, defining its most significant organizational value. The focus on people, communities and environment define ethical considerations, which were, in theory, supported by BP. However, in practice, other aspects prevailed in the decision making process regarding Macondo well drillings. As Elaine M Brown (240) indicates in “The Deepwater Horizon Disaster” article, the investigations on the Gulf of Mexico explosion indicated that in the decision making process for the drilling operations, the organization considered “time, money, productivity, ad risk” as the main criteria. With this focus, the ethical considerations that the company prioritize as most valuable, were not integral to the decision making process, as the consequences of the activities involved in the process that led to the disaster were not assessed (Brown 243). The organization should have considered how its operations in the area might impact the people (workers), the community (in terms of health, economy or sustainability) and the environment (from small sea animals and across the entire ecosystem, or endangering the aquatic or non – aquatic species). All its decision makings should have been tight to the worst case scenario and the feasibility tests should have more drastically evaluated the risk on people, community and environment’s safety.
The Deepwater Horizon Disaster cumulated many responsible actors and some had a greater responsibility than the others. The main responsible actors were British Petroleum and its suppliers Transocean, which handled the drilling operation, respectively Halliburton, which assured the cementing of the well (Brown 236 - 237). Other actors, as the United States government that did not oversight the operations rigorously and the American consumers, heavily dependent on the oil and gas were found responsible, but their culpability is not legally charged. The case study indicated various levels of accountability for the disaster, with Transocean being blamed by BP for improper drilling and Halliburton being suspected of improper cementing both due to inadequate cement type for the region and the negative results of the feasibility tests (Brown 236 - 237). However, the responsibility in this case is a shared one, because the main actors did not properly communicate the information among each other and the decisions were made in the absence of a proper and accurate identification of the general situation. Although the author of the case study mentions that sharing information among actors was difficult due to the speed of the operations, the gravity of the drilling operations required a complex communication flow, which did not occur. All the actors were responsible for communicating with each other, testing and evaluating the results of the test on the ethical considerations (impact on humans, community and environment), from their own ends.
In organizations such as BP, activating in an extremely regulated industry as the oil and gas, bureaucracy is necessary for making sure that the working processes are aligned with the regulations. However, even if communication and decision making processes are also regulated components, they should go beyond the bureaucratic forms consider the moral aspects. Within organizations like BP, bureaucracy can help to regulate decision makings, more precisely, to design a roadmap for making decisions in accordance with the organizational procedures and the legal frameworks. Nevertheless, the quality of the decision making processes are not limited to solely following guidelines and frameworks that lead to making decisions. Bureaucracy within organizations can help make decisions better because they propose a reasoning pattern that could otherwise be omitted, but they do not guarantee the quality of the decision makings, which can be reached through the integration of moral considerations.
The common understanding gained as a result of applying the organizational culture in the decision makings can lead to biased, inaccurate and risky decisions, as it happened in BP’s case. For bettering the decision making process within one’s organization, there should be integrated more complex processes, allowing an exchange of information regarding the course of the decision. Collaboration with partners, colleagues, employees, who can produce diverse and varied approaches to the organizational problems, can be a qualitative factor for improving the decision making. Moreover, the consultation with other actors, involving the community or governmental agents into the decision making process, can also better the decision making process, making sure that multiple angles are considered and risks avoided (Huber 77). Using science, recent research, tests and thinking about the consequences can also lead to improved decision makings.
The bettering of the communication in a complex organization like British Petroleum depends on the integration of accountable, responsible and experienced communications specialists, tight with the governmental authorities and possessing extensive expertise in the field. A communication expert can consider all the levels of the communication process and recommend corrections in the situations wherein communication is/was mishandled. Moreover, a communication expert can collaborate with the decision making agents and stress the important matters that should be considered in the decision making process. Nonetheless, the person responsible for improving the communication should be the connection point between the organization and all its partners and stakeholders, for making sure that all the aspects and approaches on specific matters are considered by all parties involved.
Works Cited
Brown, Elaine, M. The Deepwater Horizon Disaster. Challenges in Ethical Decision Making. Course material.
Huber, Diane. Leadership and Nursing Care Management. Missouri: Elsevier.
