PPIT Case Study Notes

P1-Google: America’s Happiest Workplace?

Summary:
Google Employee Activism and Terminations (November 2019):
- Google fired four employees engaged in internal activism.
- Activism included opposition to security-related contracts with the U.S. government and
monitoring colleagues for anti-union conversations.
- Google claimed breaches of data security policies and code of conduct.
- Employees believed Google illegally retaliated against their efforts to organize.
- Employees argued their actions aligned with Google’s corporate values.
Employee-Relations Challenges at Google:
- Google faced various employee-relations issues since around 2017.
- Issues included sexual harassment accusations, restrictions on speech, discriminatory
hiring practices, and retaliation against protests.
- Similar issues were faced by other tech companies like Uber, Netflix, and Facebook.
Leadership Change at Google (December 2019):
- Sundar Pichai became CEO of Alphabet Inc. (Google’s parent company) and faced the
challenge of rebuilding employee trust while preserving Google’s culture of innovation.
Google’s Founding and Culture:
- Google was founded in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, emphasizing minimal
management, creativity, individuality, and creating products for the greater good.
Workplace Culture:
- Workplace culture encompasses shared values, beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions.
- Positive workplace cultures have been linked to employee satisfaction, retention, and
financial performance.
Google’s Unique Culture:
- Google’s early culture included principles like “Democracy on the web works” and “You
can make money without doing evil.”
- The company fostered a fun, open, and inclusive environment with scooters, free bikes,
and colorful spaces.
- Google was consistently ranked among the best workplaces, with perks like free
gourmet food and generous parental leave.
 - “Don’t Be Evil” was a central part of Google’s original code of conduct.
- Employees felt a strong sense of moral responsibility in their work.
- The company promoted a cultural obligation to dissent and encouraged lively debate
and idea exchange.
- Google aimed to hire candidates aligned with its mission and values.
- The concept of “Googleyness” included traits like enjoying fun, intellectual humility,
conscientiousness, comfort with ambiguity, and taking courageous paths in life.
- Google’s senior leadership held weekly “Thank God It’s Friday” (TGIF) meetings to keep
employees informed of company developments.
- These meetings allowed employees to question and challenge leadership on various
topics, including ethical ones.
- By 2019, Google had expanded into various tech sectors, including search, advertising,
email, music sharing (YouTube), digital entertainment (Google Play), and cloud-based
storage (Google Drive).
- Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, reported substantial revenues and net income,
with Google accounting for the majority of it.
- Alphabet employed a substantial workforce, with Google having the majority of full-time
employees.
- Google was known for being a sought-after employer, receiving millions of applications
yearly.
- The median salary for Google employees in 2018 was significantly higher than the
median household income in the United States.
- Google was considered one of the happiest companies in America in 2019, attributed to
high pay, competitive benefits, and a friendly workplace culture.

Criticism:
Google Employee Activism and Terminations (November 2019):
- Google’s decision to terminate employees engaged in internal activism raises concerns
about freedom of expression within the company.
- The claim that these actions breached data security policies and the code of conduct
appears convenient, as it could be seen as a way to suppress dissenting voices.
- Google’s response to employee activism might be interpreted as an attempt to
discourage critical thinking and employee engagement.
Employee-Relations Challenges at Google:
- The fact that Google faced a series of employee-relations challenges since 2017 suggests
deeper systemic issues within the company’s culture and management.
- The presence of accusations of sexual harassment, restrictions on speech, and
discriminatory hiring practices questions the effectiveness of Google’s HR and ethics
policies.
Leadership Change at Google (December 2019):
- The change in leadership at Google might be viewed as a reaction to the internal
turmoil, potentially indicating a lack of accountability among previous leadership.
Google’s Founding and Culture:
- Google’s founding principles, while idealistic, may have evolved over time, and it’s
essential to assess whether the company still adheres to these values or if they have
been compromised in pursuit of profits.
Workplace Culture:
- The link between workplace culture and employee satisfaction is acknowledged, but the
effectiveness of Google’s workplace culture in light of recent issues should be
scrutinized.
- Not all employees may have experienced Google’s touted positive culture in the same
way, and this should be considered in any analysis.
Google’s Unique Culture:
- The perks and amenities provided by Google, such as gourmet food and scooters, could
be seen as distractions or ways to keep employees on campus for longer hours,
potentially affecting work-life balance.
- The consistent ranking among the best workplaces does not necessarily reflect the
experiences of all employees, and it’s important to consider diversity and inclusivity
issues.
- While “Don’t Be Evil” was a central feature of Google’s code of conduct, critics argue
that over time, Google may have strayed from this principle, especially in cases like data
privacy concerns, censorship in certain markets, and allegations of monopolistic
behavior.
- The concept of “Googleyness” could be seen as vague and subjective, potentially leading
to bias in the hiring process.
- It might discourage diversity of thought if candidates are primarily selected based on
predefined traits, potentially stifling innovation.
- Despite the idea of open debate, some critics argue that Google’s leadership meetings
might not truly encourage dissent if employees fear repercussions for speaking out
against management.
- Transparency can be challenging to achieve in large organizations, and some might argue
that the company’s practices do not always align with its values.
- Google’s rapid expansion into various sectors raised concerns about its market
dominance and potential antitrust issues, especially when it comes to online advertising
and search.
 - Critics argue that such expansion may have led to a focus on profit over ethical
considerations.
- The exceptionally high median salary for Google employees may contribute to income
inequality concerns, given that it far exceeds the average household income in the
United States.
- While Google may be a happy workplace for many, there have been reports of
workplace culture issues, such as allegations of discrimination and harassment, which
question the inclusivity of its culture.

P3-Organizational Disaster
Summary
Research on Organizational Disaster:
- Growing interest in studying organizational disasters.
- Aims to uncover factors leading to breakdown and mechanisms for recovery.
Research Streams on Disasters:
- Multiple research streams focusing on different levels of analysis.
- One stream examines how individuals and teams contribute to organizational problems,
including groupthink and consensus-seeking behaviors.
- Another stream looks at systemic factors, like the degree of system interconnectedness
(coupling), and how minor incidents can lead to major disasters.
- A third emerging stream integrates multiple levels of analysis to understand how
cognitive, systemic, and institutional factors together contribute to disasters.
Integrated Approach to Disaster Studies:
- Focuses on how cognitive, systemic, and institutional factors interact to create disasters.
- Examples include the interplay of individual narcissism and structural changes in the
mountain-climbing industry or the accidental shooting-down of a civilian aircraft by the
U.S. military.
Interdisciplinary Research:
- Research on organizational disasters draws from various fields such as psychology,
sociology, and engineering.
- Analyzes factors at individual, team, organization, and industry levels.
- Emphasizes the role of learning in detecting, preventing, and responding to
organizational disasters.
Learning and Organizational Disaster:
 - Recent research explores how organizations learn from mistakes, adapt to technology
changes, and prevent errors from escalating into disasters.
Individual and Team Learning:
- Zsambok and Klein (1997) studied how individuals in teams learn from experience to
make decisions in changing environments.
- Kiesler and Sproull (1982) explained how limitations in individual cognitive capacity can
lead to failure in sensing impending problems.
- Edmondson (1996, 1999) emphasized the importance of team psychological safety for
surfacing and discussing errors to facilitate learning.
Learning in the Context of Organizational Accidents:
- Rasmussen (1990) examined the role of human error in large-scale organizational
accidents.
- He viewed human error as an interaction between individual access to resources and
task constraints.
Proposed Enhancement of Understanding:
- The article aims to improve our understanding of organizational disasters by focusing on
the breakdown of learning within teams.
- It addresses a gap in research by exploring the processes behind learning breakdowns.
- It highlights Mills’s proposition that team learning is crucial for effective teams,
especially in complex tasks with many contingencies.
- When learning breaks down, teams become ineffective.
Qualitative Analysis:
- The article uses a qualitative analysis of the 1996 Mt Everest disaster as a basis to
explore learning in teams.

Criticism:
Research on Organizational Disaster:
- While there’s growing interest in studying organizational disasters, critics might argue
that the field lacks a unified framework or standardized terminology. This can lead to
inconsistency in research findings and difficulty in comparing studies.
Research Streams on Disasters:
- The focus on how individuals and teams contribute to organizational problems might be
seen as overlooking systemic and structural issues within organizations. Critics could
argue that this approach places too much emphasis on individual behavior.
 - The systemic factors discussed in the second stream may not always adequately consider
the complexity and nuances of real-world organizations. Real-life disasters often result
from a combination of factors that may not fit neatly into a systemic framework.
- The third integrated approach, while promising, may face challenges in practical
application due to the complexity of analyzing and addressing multiple levels of factors
simultaneously.
Interdisciplinary Research:
- Critics might argue that interdisciplinary research, while valuable, can lead to a lack of
depth in understanding specific aspects of organizational disasters. It may be necessary
to balance interdisciplinary perspectives with in-depth domain knowledge.
- The role of learning in preventing and responding to disasters is highlighted, but some
critics may contend that learning alone is insufficient. A more comprehensive approach
involving proactive measures and systemic changes may be needed.
Individual and Team Learning:
- Critics may argue that the focus on individual and team learning, while important, may
not address systemic issues within organizations that can contribute to disasters.
Learning alone may not prevent large-scale organizational failures.
Psychological Safety:
- While psychological safety is acknowledged as a key factor in learning from errors, critics
might point out that fostering such an environment is challenging in many organizations.
Hierarchical structures, fear of retaliation, and organizational cultures that punish
mistakes can hinder psychological safety.
Learning in the Context of Organizational Accidents:
- Rasmussen’s approach, which considers human error as an interaction between
individual access to resources and task constraints, may oversimplify the complex nature
of accidents in large organizations. Real-world disasters often involve multiple
contributing factors beyond individual and task-related aspects.
Proposed Enhancement of Understanding:
- Critics may argue that the focus on learning breakdowns, while valuable, should not
overshadow the importance of proactive risk management and disaster prevention
strategies. Waiting for learning to occur after a disaster may not be sufficient to prevent
them in the first place.
Qualitative Analysis:
- Relying on a single qualitative analysis of the 1996 Mt Everest disaster might be seen as
limiting the generalizability of findings. Critics might call for a broader range of case
 studies or quantitative research to support the proposed enhancement of
understanding.

P4- Company Background

Summary:
Intuit India’s “Great Place to Work” Achievement (July 2017):
- Intuit India ranked first in the “Great Place to Work” rankings among 600 competing
companies.
- Vijay Anand, Senior Vice-President, congratulated employees for this achievement.
About Intuit and Intuit India:
- Intuit Inc. Is a US multinational company founded in 1983 with over 8,000 employees
worldwide.
- Intuit India, established in 2005, develops financial software for small businesses,
accountants, and individuals.
- In 2017, Intuit India had 1,050 employees.
The Journey to First Place:
- Intuit India had ranked 10th the year before but climbed to the top spot, surpassing
companies like Google and American Express.
- Employees were surprised with decorated workstations and a special edition of The
Economic Times celebrating their achievement.
- The India leadership team canceled an offsite event to celebrate with employees on all
10 floors of their office.
Participation in “Great Place to Work” (GPTW):
- Intuit India started participating in GPTW in 2008.
- Vijay Anand emphasized the importance of highly engaged employees, delighted
customers, and shareholder satisfaction.
- The CEO, Brad Smith, emphasized the critical role of employees, comparing them to
“air” in the organization’s survival.
Sustaining Excellence and Future Challenges:
- With the achievement of first place, questions arose about whether Intuit India could
sustain its excellence and maintain a top-five position in future GPTW rankings.
- The company aimed to have a more predictable outcome on the Great Place to Work
scale.
Company Background:
 - Intuit Inc. Was founded in 1983 by Scott Cook and Tom Proulx in Palo Alto, California.
- The idea for Intuit came when Scott Cook’s wife complained about the tedious task of
bill payment, inspiring him to create a solution.
- Intuit developed financial software for small businesses, accountants, and individuals,
focusing on customer satisfaction.
- In 2017, Intuit Inc. Had $5 billion in revenues and approximately 8,500 employees
worldwide, with 95% of its revenue coming from the U.S.
Global Presence:
- Intuit operated in nine countries, including the U.S., the UK, Australia, France, Singapore,
India, Brazil, Canada, and Israel.
- Intuit India was the company’s first venture in the Asia-Pacific region, launched in 2005.
- Intuit India had its headquarters in Bengaluru, serving as a regional hub for various
operations.
Intuit India’s Workforce:
- In 2017, Intuit India had 1,050 employees, with around 400 working on a contingent or
contract basis.
- The organization emphasized a boundaryless team approach where employees from
different businesses worked together.
- The workforce primarily consisted of top tech talent hired from India’s premier colleges.
- The organization was young and diverse, with 60% of the workforce being millennials or
early career talent, and 27% were women.
- Many employees had Intuit as their first or second employer.

Criticism:
Intuit India's "Great Place to Work" Achievement:
- While ranking first in the "Great Place to Work" rankings is commendable, some critics
might argue that such rankings can be influenced by various factors, including the timing
of the survey, specific survey questions, and cultural differences in how employees
perceive workplace satisfaction.
- The text doesn't provide specific details about the criteria or methodology used in the
rankings, leaving room for skepticism about the validity of the results.
About Intuit and Intuit India:
- Critics might question the significance of Intuit India's achievement within the context of
a multinational corporation like Intuit Inc. Without specific data on how the India
subsidiary's performance contributes to the overall company's success, it's challenging
to assess the true impact.
The Journey to First Place:
- Some might argue that moving from the 10th to the 1st position in one year could be
due to various factors, including changes in the employee base or survey methodology,
and may not necessarily reflect a fundamental transformation in the workplace culture.
Participation in "Great Place to Work" (GPTW):
- Critics might point out that while participation in GPTW is commendable, it doesn't
guarantee a holistic understanding of workplace culture or employee satisfaction. Other
methods of internal feedback and evaluation should also be considered.
Sustaining Excellence and Future Challenges:
- The text raises the question of whether Intuit India can sustain its excellence, but it
doesn't provide concrete strategies or plans for doing so. Critics might argue that
sustaining a top position in workplace rankings requires ongoing efforts and continuous
improvement, which should be outlined more explicitly.
Company Background:
- Some critics might argue that Intuit’s founding story, while inspiring, is a simplified
narrative. It’s rare for a company’s inception to be solely based on one person’s
frustration with a personal task. There are likely more complex factors involved in
founding a successful tech company.
Global Presence:
- Critics could question the distribution of Intuit’s revenue, with 95% coming from the U.S.
This might indicate a heavy dependence on the U.S. market, potentially posing risks if
the domestic market faces challenges or competition.
- Expanding into multiple countries can be challenging due to differences in regulations,
market dynamics, and cultural nuances. The text doesn’t delve into the specific
challenges Intuit faced in these countries.
Intuit India’s Workforce:
- While having a diverse and young workforce is generally positive, critics might question
whether a high percentage of early career talent could potentially lead to a lack of
experience and depth in the organization.
- The fact that many employees had Intuit as their first or second employer could be seen
as both an advantage and a disadvantage. New employees bring fresh perspectives, but
they may also lack industry-specific experience.

P4-Indian IT Industry: Hiring Challenges

Summary:
Indian IT Industry Hiring Challenges (2014-2016):
- India experienced strong economic growth during this period.
- Despite training 1.5 million engineers annually, a study revealed that 85% of Indian IT
companies faced a significant skills gap.
- The challenge included an abundance of certain skills but a shortage of vital new-age
skills, such as cloud, automation, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning.
Competition for Talent:
- Technology companies in India had to compete intensely to attract and retain talent,
especially in high-demand skill areas.
- Companies that were recognized as "great places to work" (GPTW) gained a competitive
advantage in this competitive hiring environment.
Employee Experience and Financial Performance:
- Research showed a strong correlation between employee experience and a company's
financial performance.
- Great workplaces consistently outperformed major stock indices in India by a factor of
two, indicating the positive impact on shareholder value.

Criticism:
Indian IT Industry Hiring Challenges:
- Critics might argue that the high number of engineers trained annually (1.5 million)
should have ideally addressed the skills gap. The fact that a significant mismatch still
existed suggests potential inefficiencies in the education and training system.
- The text mentions a shortage of new-age skills like cloud, automation, AI, and machine
learning, but it doesn’t delve into why these skills weren’t more widely available or
developed during this period. It could be due to gaps in educational curricula or
industry-specific challenges.
Competition for Talent:
- While being a “talent magnet” and a “great place to work” are important, critics might
question whether this approach alone is sustainable in addressing the skills shortage.
Long-term strategies for skill development and retention might be needed.
- The text doesn’t provide specific examples or strategies that companies adopted to
become “great places to work,” leaving readers without actionable insights.
Employee Experience and Financial Performance:
- Critics might argue that while there’s a correlation between employee experience and
financial performance, causation might not be straightforward. Many other factors, both
internal and external, can influence financial outcomes.
- The text doesn’t provide details on the methodology of the research or the specific
metrics used to measure employee experience and financial performance, which could
raise questions about the validity of the findings.