As the article suggests, in many cases, the fear of speaking up is exaggerated by the individual. Humans are more fearful by instinct specially why a power differential exist. Regardless, a subordinate might be at the following risks if they speak up:
- Being perceived as difficult to work with
- Being perceived as arrogant or not a team player
- Actually being on the wrong for lacking knowledge about the practice.
- Not be willing to step out of one’s comfort zone for difficult tasks.
- Being perceived as someone who uses ethics as an excuse to skip work.
In a way, this is a framework of principal agent problem but here the agent (the intern) has to act in a contrarian way for the greater good. This is difficult because the benefits are collective and often delayed but the risk is assumed by the individual.
I think the intern should recluse herself from this communicating her ethical reasons. They should communicate that working under such pretense will compromise the quality of this work. Since there is an asymmetry of power, I think they should not be indignant or criticize overtly because they might need a testimonial from their boss. I do not think the onus of reform is necessarily on the lowest rung of the corporate ladder.
I think the only way this can be remedied is if the organization has immunity for dissent. This has to be a culture where dissidence and even ethical whistleblowing can be pardoned if it is done internally. Because the motivation of such acts are progressive reform at an institutional level.
