It’s difficult to navigate the situation where an authoritative figure knowingly passes on ethically questionable tasks. The HBR case outlines that if Susan pushes back, she risks being labeled “difficult,” losing the internship before it even begins. In the end we understand that while pushing back might cost Susan an internship, staying silent can cost Susan her integrity and the trust others place in their judgment.
I want to highlight how accepting an ethically “dubious” task can be substantially more dangerous. In the world of infrastructure and construction, cutting corners and complicit forfeits ethical practices endangers and ultimately ends lives. The engineers involved will be held responsible, as they were complicit during ethically dubious tasks. The lack of voicing thoughts and pushing back results in deep misrepresentation that can poorly reflect on the individual and the larger organization.
Looking at the HBR 3-step plan, I think the intern could’ve achieved their goal of maintaining their career progression while speaking up.
- Susan would start by accepting the fact that she is an intern. Her reputation, integrity, and personality is unclear to the firm, manager and team. This is her ability to accurately represent herself despite creating an uncomfortable scenario. Navigating difficult and uncomfortable conversations early on would help productivity down the line, especially as a full time employee.
- Susan could frame the conversation in a way that doesn’t direct negative energy or sentiment towards Mr. Moon. It’s important for the conversation to not feel confrontational and feel more like a genuine conversation.
- Susan has to begin the process full prepared, having planned out the various scenarios and her actions in response. By doing this Susan can ensure that all of her actions are well-intended and she can have confidence making a game-time decision that might be difficult to do.
