After reading the HBR case, I’ve been reminded of a thought I sometimes have here in the Bay Area, where there is usually an attitude of “more, more, more”. This HBR case made me really think about how just because you can move fast does not mean you should. There is always this tension between looking competent and actually doing something aligned with the kind of ethical bar you want to set and what surprised me about the intern in this case is how casually her boss treated something that, to her, carried very real personal and moral weight. It reminded me of how in team settings, we usually divide tasks by workload, but we never think about dividing the ethical load evenly.
If I imagine myself in her situation (and I think it’s a situation that many of us at Stanford have been in – whether in internships, projects etc), both options, speaking up or complying, come with risks. Speaking up risks being labeled difficult, risking the return offer, or being remembered for the wrong reasons. Complying risks something that feels heavier: losing trust in yourself. Once you cross that line, you teach yourself that your boundaries are flexible in ways you do not actually want them to be.
The HBR “How to Speak Up When It Matters” framework fits this situation well. The first step, acknowledging how psychologically hard it is to speak up, matters because the fear is not irrational, but rather it is structural. The second step, reducing the social threat, could look like reframing the conversation as wanting to protect the company, not oppose it. For example, “I am worried this could backfire legally.” The third step, making a plan, is crucial. It means choosing the right moment, wording, and escalation path so it does not feel like an emotional reaction but a thoughtful concern.
If anything, the case makes you realize that early in your career, you are not just learning skills but you are also learning the habits of who you are becoming which then define who you are.
