More from the Author

• Case | HBS Case Collection | March 2020

  Culture at Google

  Nien-he Hsieh, Amy Klopfenstein and Sarah Mehta

  Beginning in 2017, technology (tech) company Google faced a series of employee-relations issues that threatened its unique culture of innovation and open communication. Issues included protests surrounding Google’s contracts with the U.S. government, restrictions of employee speech, mistreatment of contract and temporary workers, allegations of sexual misconduct and gender inequality, and claims of retaliation against labor organizing. While Google employees felt an obligation to dissent against morally questionable practices, embodying the company’s informal motto “don’t be evil,” the company struggled to respond to employees’ concerns while preserving its unique culture.

  Keywords: Human Resources; Employee Relationship Management; Recruitment; Retention; Resignation and Termination; Labor; Working Conditions; Employment; Labor Unions; Wages; Law; Lawsuits and Litigation; Rights; Ethics; Values and Beliefs; Fairness; Organizations; Organizational Culture; Mission and Purpose; Social Psychology; Attitudes; Behavior; Conflict Management; Trust; Motivation and Incentives; Prejudice and Bias; Power and Influence; Technology; Search Technology; Web; Hardware; Society; Social Issues; Culture; Civil Society or Community; Demographics; Diversity; Ethnicity; Gender; Race; Technology Industry; North and Central America; United States; California;

  Citation:

  Hsieh, Nien-he, Amy Klopfenstein, and Sarah Mehta. "Culture at Google." Harvard Business School Case 320-050, March 2020.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducators

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | April 2019 (Revised March 2020)

  Handy: The Future of Work? (A)

  Nien-hê Hsieh and Kieron Stopforth

  Witnessing numerous lawsuits alleging that online platform companies misclassified workers as contractors when they were actually employees, Handy’s founders faced a series of decisions. Handy was an online platform business that enabled customers to book appointments with cleaners at a convenient time and checked the cleaner’s ratings. Started in 2012 after the founders struggled to find trustworthy, affordable cleaning services while MBA students, Handy enjoyed considerable success by 2015. Handy was one of the emerging platform companies in the gig economy that connected customers to service providers and sought to disrupt everything from transportation to grocery shopping to deliveries. Like many of these companies, Handy classified service providers as 1099 independent contractors, rather than hiring them as W-2 employees. Doing so often meant lower labor costs for companies and greater flexibility for workers. The companies’ reliance on contractors was controversial. Workers, some argued, displayed all the marks of employees—they performed work that was integral to the companies’ business, and companies exercised control by telling them which jobs to accept and where and by using ratings systems to influence behavior. Facing two misclassification lawsuits of their own while still pushing toward profitability, Handy’s founders must decide how to respond.

  Keywords: Employment; Working Conditions; Entrepreneurship; Compensation and Benefits; Internet; Ethics; Fairness; Service Industry; United States;

  Citation:

  Hsieh, Nien-hê, and Kieron Stopforth. "Handy: The Future of Work? (A)." Harvard Business School Case 319-103, April 2019. (Revised March 2020.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related

• Supplement | HBS Case Collection | March 2020

  Handy: The Future of Work? (B)

  Nien-hê Hsieh and Kieron Stopforth

  Supplements the (A) case.

  Citation:

  Hsieh, Nien-hê, and Kieron Stopforth. "Handy: The Future of Work? (B)." Harvard Business School Supplement 320-010, March 2020.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsPurchase

  Related