There were many causes of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. Specifically, the key causes of the disaster were decision making biases, the implementation of the wrong decision-making style, and ineffective communication between work groups. These factors together made for the of the worst environmental disasters in the US.
First, the key cause of the disaster was an overconfidence bias. This bias refers to a tendency to assume the certainty of accuracy about estimations and predictions (Davies, 2003). By using judgmental heuristics, or shortcuts, information-process demands are reduced, which increase opportunities for mistakes (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). Employees became comfortable in their routine and fell into complacency. However, the assigning of a simple naysayer may have caused assumptions to be reexamined (Davies, 2003).
Next, leadership’s wrong decision-making style played a part in the disaster. With a high need for safety, an analytical decision-making style would have been very beneficial. In an analytical style of decision making, there is a high focus on the task and technical concerns, a high tolerance for ambiguity or the unknown, decisions are made carefully, and decision makers respond well to new or uncertain situations (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). With 20 anomalies listed in the disaster, the outcome may have been different with a …show more content…
Communication may have been hindered due to low minority dissent. Minority dissent measures the degree to which team members are comfortable disagreeing with others; participation levels in decisions are measured as well (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). In turn, the team could have benefited largely from the Delphi technique when problem-solving. This way, ideas are generated anonymously, conflicts or disagreements that would have hindered communication are avoided, and it allows equal participation (Kreitner & Kinicki,
First, the key cause of the disaster was an overconfidence bias. This bias refers to a tendency to assume the certainty of accuracy about estimations and predictions (Davies, 2003). By using judgmental heuristics, or shortcuts, information-process demands are reduced, which increase opportunities for mistakes (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). Employees became comfortable in their routine and fell into complacency. However, the assigning of a simple naysayer may have caused assumptions to be reexamined (Davies, 2003).
Next, leadership’s wrong decision-making style played a part in the disaster. With a high need for safety, an analytical decision-making style would have been very beneficial. In an analytical style of decision making, there is a high focus on the task and technical concerns, a high tolerance for ambiguity or the unknown, decisions are made carefully, and decision makers respond well to new or uncertain situations (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). With 20 anomalies listed in the disaster, the outcome may have been different with a …show more content…
Communication may have been hindered due to low minority dissent. Minority dissent measures the degree to which team members are comfortable disagreeing with others; participation levels in decisions are measured as well (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). In turn, the team could have benefited largely from the Delphi technique when problem-solving. This way, ideas are generated anonymously, conflicts or disagreements that would have hindered communication are avoided, and it allows equal participation (Kreitner & Kinicki,