Q Assignment is about Deep Water Horizon a tragic incident that has had consequences, which we would be able to witness Home, - Deep water Horizon Introduction The times of facing problems, scandals, disasters or any such untoward event of the sort is greatly indicative about the correct assessment of the entire organization as an entity in and of itself. Such events and the fallout that traditionally accompanies them are two directly connected results that the organization, group or individual might have to answer for. Generally speaking, such instances are an effective way or opportunity to measure the concerned party’s innate “organizational behavior” in conjunction with a detailed analysis of its influencing individual variables, all of which have a seemingly important and strategic contribution towards the outcome (Miner, 2015). 1.1 Case Summary A great and significant study of the aforementioned opportunity is the “disaster at the Deep Water Horizon”, which had been essentially a deep rigging oil station working with an entire roster of accomplished professionals with some definite amount of experience as well as expertise. However, in 2010, the deep water oil station exploded or “blown out” due to a grave accident that not only took the life of 11 working individuals working in the rig, but caused a tremendous amount of damage to the environment all around, putting the lives of as many as thousands of species at risk, both aquatic and terrestrial (See Appendix). The fallout from the event caused a great intensity of scandalous response not only from the media, but also from the general public as well (Assessment, D. H. N. R. D., 2017). The events that followed are an entire study of organizational behavior in and of themselves, and, as a result, shall be discussed and explained in this paper consequently. The proper summarization of the post-event drama cane be divided into two sections: what the company did in the wake of the disaster, and how the authorities, especially key figures in the government, handled the situation (Pinder, 2014). Both of these aspects have rightfully been frowned upon by the general masses that ultimately would result in the direct erosion of trust and faith in both of these institutions. The parties involved in the actual disaster can be effectively be studied in different levels, and in each of these levels there are a number of variables that have been inherently responsible for the occurrence and the later mismanagement of the situation as a result. As such, it has to be stressed that a complete and aggregate study would not be accomplished if this research does not take a close look at the organizational behavior at play with respect to the Deep Water Horizon rig, which might have historical and significant results for the time to come in future. BP, the organization who was primarily considered to be directly responsible for the operations and obtained oil extracted by the Deep Water Horizon, experienced a firing squad of allegations, accusations and over 150 number of lawsuits from various parties who had been, in some way or the other, connected with the events or individuals related to the oil rig (See Appendix). Therefore, it is to be noted that proper statement of facts should be made with the events that has taken place in the incident at Deep Water Horizon. 2. Variables Associated With the Deep Water Horizon Incident In the context of the incident that has, in fact, taken place the organizational behavior of the company in question and its associated partners would be the focus of this particular analysis (Luthans,Luthans&Luthans, 2015). However, such analysis would need to cover various levels with respect to the entire organization that is being majorly held responsible for such a large scale and momentous incident, and, essentially, in order to fully understand the condition and the working environment that had been at place would need a proper definition and consolidation, even with the limited amount of data that has been obtained in regards to a single level. Generally speaking, organizational behavior can be essentially be mapped into three distinct levels, namely individual, group and enterprise, the variables of which can differ according to the ever increasing or decreasing amount of work that would go into a particular level as opposed to another. Additionally, each level would intrinsically derive and try to define the inherent causes that would comprise the whole incident in and of itself. As such, it would be invaluable in discussing the specific variables that were at play with respect to the employees of BP, and also contractually obligated roster members of the partner organizations who had been tasked upon overseeing the welfare and maintenance of the oil rig. 2.1 Individual Level of Analysis Though the researcher (s) in this report had been working with near insufficient data in observing and correctly mapping and posting the variables related to this specific level, it is to be stated that the marked behavior as well as approach of various representative of BP shared a great deal of light in this particular respect. And, it all boils down to the solution that has been derived in the specific case of Deep Water Horizon. Attitude: This factor measures the behavior and cognitive reception of a particular instance of any incident that had been happening over time with respect to the primary party in question (Wagner III & Hollenbeck, 2014). As it has been already noted, that there had been several technical and security issues noticed in the oil rig. However, the powers that be in relation to the entire project had been significantly nonchalant about the dangers, or chose to ignore them altogether. This factor further escalated the deep rooted sense of apathy as well as negative reception amongst the employees working in the oil rig, many of whom were not, in any way, greatly motivated by the attitude of the higher-ups whose some fraction of the lackadaisical as well as nonchalant approach infected the people working on the oil rig in effect. Attribution: This factor also played a deep seated role amongst the employees stationed at the oil rig upon a deep individualistic zone. Attribution is generally referred to, at an individual level, be able to take stock and derive from the information that is being provided by a certain circumstance or situation of interest (Greenberg, 2014). As such, from the reports that have been derived from the survivors of the accident that the situation build up by the company had not been favorable or motivating for the employees at any certain degree. Analyzing the effects of both of these variables at play in this particular case scenario, one might easily witness that proper organizational behavior principles and statutes had been blatantly regarded, and, as a result, there was a significant impact upon the stationed employees even before the actual event had taken place. However, such blatant mismanagement and disregard would become more prominent when one goes unto the higher levels. 2.2 Group Level of Analysis Group based factors are generally derived from sociological as well as socio-psychological point of view, and it essentially pertains to a situation whereby each and every member of the said group are affected by an aggregated by a set of variables that collectively define as well as consolidate their behaviors with respect to the organization as a result (Robbins & Judge, 2014). Leadership: Improper and incorrect approach to leadership qualities are one of the more prominent factors that have been consolidated as the main driving forces behind the tragedy at Deep Water Horizon, and there are a number of reasons in claiming this fact. The mismanagement would often be attributed to the higher-ups at BP who were intrinsically motivated to generate revenue from this particular project, while not focusing upon any of the other management aspects of the people placed at the oil rig even though they had been the primary party to instigate it. It has been noted that only 9 representatives were present at the site, and they generally were not a part of the management roster, which would’ve been extremely beneficial to the company in the long run. Intergroup conflict: Amongst the people and various groups present upon the Deep Water Horizon, each and every one of the members had been assigned to their specific job position, and they hardly got a chance to even properly communicate or work effectively with other groups specializing in some other aspect of the oil rig. This state of affairs were enhanced due to a lack of proper management force upon the site in and of itself, and proper leadership measures were hardly present, which, in turn, gave rise to a greater sense of conflict and mistrust whenever a circumstance would go awry. Group Dynamics: Basically, group dynamics were coming apart in seams when the actual incident happened, and, as a result, in the ensuing confusion, the situation would deteriorate much farther than anybody could expect, and this can be effectively attributed to improper dynamics in the groups, which ultimately led to loss of life. If proper group based activity and philosophy would be appropriated by an individual or a set of group assigned to regulate and see through the entire range of operation with respect to the entire oil rig, the eventual disaster might have still taken place, but all lives could be saved and the “blowing out” would have been controlled at a significantly earlier stage (Gelfand,Aycan, Erez& Leung, 2017). Culture: As it has already been pointed out by various news and research instances, the culture under which the people working for BP, directly or indirectly, was inherently unsupportive and toxic in more ways than one. As such, it resulted in a tragedy that could have been prevented if proper organizational behavior would’ve been maintained to a certain uniform extent. The culture of the company was also reflected in the aftermath when several of its representatives were called upon to be held accountable, and all they could do was damage the reputation of BP to an even greater degree by offering misdirection and, in some cases, fully untrue facts in the place of effective consolation and an effective plan to manage the situation. Inter-organizational co-operation: In this particular respect, it has already been pointed out that despite teaming up with various partners for the proper working of the oil rig in question, there was a serious case of negligent and often non-existent communication between them. It resulted in the situation whereupon properly executing a particular task was rendered uncontrollable and, as a result, many would not be solved for the immediate time being even if such activities needed some form of resolution in one way or other (Miner, 2015). 3. Extent to which the variables contributed to the final outcome While many variables described in each of the three levels of analysis had a direct contribution to the oil spill and the destruction of the Deep Water Horizon, other variables tend to be a direct or indirect cause of another. Leadership is, of course, the one that most prominently comes in mind in relation to a directly contributing variable that led to the sorry state of events, and if it would have been properly maintained, then this particular scenario would not have taken place in the very first place (Joye, 2015). A proper lack of effort from the individuals involved was also attributable to the occurrence of the “blow out” (See Appendix), and mainly the overall downtrodden attitude amongst the employees was something that the company should be held accountable for. Lack of group dynamics and a general miscommunication and eventual among the many groups were also one of the major factors that are needed to be considered as a result, and any or all attempts at proper synchronization between the groups had been reportedly non-existent to begin with (Weick, 2017). As such, one may see that all the variables had been involved in the eventual outcome in some way to the final outcome as a result. 4. Conclusion Deep Water Horizon was a tragic incident that has had consequences, which we would be able to witness the effects of for a long time to come in the future. It effectively portrays how improper oil operations are being overseen by companies who despite having a storied history in the industry, are severely mismanaged and inherently promotes an unhealthy organizational behavior in effect. It is a cautionary incident that effectively portrays that without proper organizational structure, communication and regulation something serious could happen against which the parties directly involved would be susceptible to damage just like in this particular case.