Beware, Google: How to Handle Employees’ Dissent When They Protest

Last November, employees at tech giant Google staged a walkoutOpens a new window to protest what they saw as a pervasive culture of leniency towards people accused of sexual assault.

In explaining the reasons for their protest, the organizers, mainly women, said that even when they reported breaches to their superiors their concerns were ignored or dismissed. They wanted to put a stop to the “sexual harassment, discrimination and systemic racism that fuel this destructive culture.”

Tens of thousands of people took part in the walkout, putting Google in an awkward spot, raising the issue: How should a company respond when its employees stage a miniature — or larger — revolt?

It seemed like a nightmare, especially for a company whose business is so intimately intertwined with expression and whose image hinges on being seen as a transparent and profoundly fair workplace. Yet if Google didn’t tread carefully, it would have a public relations disaster on its hands in addition to the human resources quagmire it found itself in.

Managing dissent is never easy. Months later, Google faces the same questions again, with a new protest outside its shareholder meeting.

After the walkout last November, Google chief executive Sundar Pichai responded with a detailed emailOpens a new window to company employees. In it, he apologized and promised to increase transparency and support for individual cases of concern, as well as to bolster equity at the company overall.

He also announced that sexual assault or harassment claims could be taken to court. Previously, it was required to submit them to private arbitration – and expanded Google’s mandatory training for dealing with sexual harassment.

A few other protester demands, including appointing an employee representative to the board of directors and elevating the rank of chief diversity officer, were not met.

But in the intervening months, the frustration has grown rather than diminished. A few key organizers of the walkout said that they have since faced internal retaliationOpens a new window  for being outspoken, and one of them left Google altogether.

In her farewell note, Claire Stapleton wroteOpens a new window that she “made the choice after the heads of my department branded me with a kind of scarlet letter that makes it difficult to do my job or find another one.”

That frustration is expected to come to a head with protests outside of Google parent company Alphabet’s shareholder meeting on Wednesday, June 19.

According to news reportsOpens a new window , the protesters are trying to leverage their momentum to get leadership to eliminate non-disclosure agreements that limit people’s ability to talk about harassment cases or discrimination.

They are also trying, in the wake of a significant payout to a former executive who faced sexual harassment allegations, to tie executive pay to diversity goals.

It’s a tricky situation for the company. Google has been put in the awkward and undesirable position of responding to protester demands rather than getting out ahead of them. Instead of positioning themselves against harassment, members of leadership have been issuing apologies for not doing enough.

It didn’t have to be like this.

As with any company, the best guide for what to in complicated situations is to refer back to the founding principles. Google was founded on the idea of promoting a new kind of order – after all, its legendary motto for corporate conduct for more than a decade was “don’t be evil.”

Critics could argue that’s too vague, but it sent a clear signal that the company intended to represent a break from business-as-usual and usher in an era defined by humble management and transparent action.

In application, that translated into privileging principles over individuals, especially those in upper management. While that doesn’t mean throwing executives under the bus, Google set out to be a different kind of company.

Now the company has an opportunity again to prove it means it. Especially given its massive power, the company should show that executives are held to the same standard of conduct as anyone else.

Beyond that, it makes sense to establish protocols for process, not just for outcomes. Rather than focusing on non-disclosure agreements (which are certainly justified in certain contexts but tend to be exploited), companies like Google can take the lead in determining the process employees can expect from allegations of harassment or discrimination.

If there is a set standard that determines the exact steps taken after every allegation, there can be no exceptions that favors certain categories of staff – which means every employee gets fair and equal consideration.

Google’s parent company Alphabet may have changed its official motto, but the new one is just as apt: “Do the right thing.”