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.

Set in March 2024, this case asks students to take the perspective of Oli cofounder and CEO Sathish Gangichetty as he approaches an impact investor for seed funding. Oli is an app that draws on artificial intelligence (AI) to improve users' mental hygiene through short daily interactions. The case describes Gangichetty's inspiration for creating the app and provides an overview of the app's features. The case promotes a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of AI wellness programs at the individual, organizational, and societal levels. A feature that will be a benefit for some stakeholders may be a weakness for others. There is a tension between AI user privacy and organizational or societal safety. Therefore, individuals involved in AI development, implementation, and use must make tradeoffs about which features-and stakeholders-they will prioritize for a given product. This analysis provides a framework for evaluating an AI tool's impact on different stakeholders, and highlights the factors that business leaders must consider when implementing a new AI product in their organization. At Darden, this case is taught in "Minds and Machines," an elective course for second-year MBA students. The course draws on research from psychology and AI to teach students how to responsibly use AI in their future careers as business leaders. The course assesses AI's impact on individuals, organizations, and society, and highlights both the opportunities and the risks involved in AI development and implementation. This case would also be suitable for MBA and executive education courses on leadership and technology, AI and organizational culture, and ethics and technology.

This case, a follow-up to "Matteo Hill at Drawn, Inc. (A)" (UVA-OB-1293), continues the debate about sharing the raw responses from employee pulse surveys. The decision becomes more complicated after the company releases a new round of raw survey results that contain three wildly different opinions about Drawn, Inc.'s, DEI efforts. The new results highlight the challenge of summarizing or editing the raw survey data, yet also make it clear that the raw survey data will continue to contain divisive and potentially offensive remarks. At the conclusion of the case, Drawn's leadership team remains divided about the best path forward.

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.