BP fiasco and leadership-strategy lessons
the 2010 British petroleum disaster perhaps is the biggest and most-talked-about catastrophic leadership cases in recent history of corporate world.
on the one hand it shows how a giant gets on its knees for a small operational mistake or mismanagement and on the other hand it underscores the importance of corporate citizenship, environmental protective initiatives and critical significance of global management.
BP has had a long history of global expansion and constant profitability but this crisis not only ruined this record but more importantly caused a shaky situation for all stockholders of the company, on one point even the board was confused about the future of BM as a whole globally expanded system.
strategically, the oil spill in gulf of Mexico has brought for BP billions of tangible and intangible problematic costs not only in terms of recovery strategies, operational and maintenance costs and contractual operations but in terms of intangibles including customer and investors support, reputation, industrial and governmental relations and global image .
having said that, BP's CEO must have improvised an intensive scenario planing for dealing with both short and long term consequences of this operational fiasco but he instead belittled the situation and focused on pursuing other strategic objectives .
he was accused of being unresponsive, selfish and paranoid while spending vacation time with family and enjoying life when hundreds of people were working hard to clean his mess
all of this led to a situation where no one could tolerate his state of crisis management and leadership . two points are here to be highlighted:
should have BP kept CEO in act for steering the vessel in this chaotic water while asking him change his style?
should have BP changed its leader on the spot in order to prevent defaming news from spreading all over the world?
however BP chose the third scenario which was waiting and then changing CEO under increasing tension
the point here is that, is this decision helpful nd will BP get back on his feet ?
i continue this discussion and underline main strategic implications of this act
on the one hand it shows how a giant gets on its knees for a small operational mistake or mismanagement and on the other hand it underscores the importance of corporate citizenship, environmental protective initiatives and critical significance of global management.
BP has had a long history of global expansion and constant profitability but this crisis not only ruined this record but more importantly caused a shaky situation for all stockholders of the company, on one point even the board was confused about the future of BM as a whole globally expanded system.
strategically, the oil spill in gulf of Mexico has brought for BP billions of tangible and intangible problematic costs not only in terms of recovery strategies, operational and maintenance costs and contractual operations but in terms of intangibles including customer and investors support, reputation, industrial and governmental relations and global image .
having said that, BP's CEO must have improvised an intensive scenario planing for dealing with both short and long term consequences of this operational fiasco but he instead belittled the situation and focused on pursuing other strategic objectives .
he was accused of being unresponsive, selfish and paranoid while spending vacation time with family and enjoying life when hundreds of people were working hard to clean his mess
all of this led to a situation where no one could tolerate his state of crisis management and leadership . two points are here to be highlighted:
should have BP kept CEO in act for steering the vessel in this chaotic water while asking him change his style?
should have BP changed its leader on the spot in order to prevent defaming news from spreading all over the world?
however BP chose the third scenario which was waiting and then changing CEO under increasing tension
the point here is that, is this decision helpful nd will BP get back on his feet ?
i continue this discussion and underline main strategic implications of this act
