This case, which concludes the scenario set up in "Matteo Hill at Drawn, Inc. (A)" (UVA-OB-1293) and "Matteo Hill at Drawn, Inc. (B)" (UVA-OB-1459), reveals the outcome of the heated discussion about recently acquired start-up Drawn, Inc., sharing the raw data from internal pulse surveys.

This case uses the context of a recently acquired computer animation start-up, Drawn, Inc., to surface the tension around the differences between team members' backgrounds and their experiences within an organization. When the raw data from a weekly internal pulse survey reveals a response accusing an unnamed colleague of being a gossip, sharing negative feedback, and embellishing details to make for more riveting stories, a group of employees took to Slack to discuss the response and whether to share raw survey data in the future. Some argued that transparency was the most important thing and that anything less would be censorship, and others considered the raw survey data an unchecked potential avenue for public shaming, hate speech, and general potential to do harm to or exclude others. The employees' debate offers an opportunity for students to discuss team performance, diversity, transparency, and ways to cultivate a psychologically safe environment. It allows for unfolding a framework such as Henrik Bresman and Amy C. Edmondson's work on psychological safety so students can unpack the issues and discuss difference. It works well in a module on teams and organizations.