A few years ago, a sales executive I worked with found himself in a difficult position. His company was under review for a potential buyout, and his director asked him to present a version of the company’s story that, while technically true, left out critical details. The omission would make the company look healthier than it was, protecting its valuation and the leadership team’s positions post-acquisition. He knew this wasn’t an outright lie, but it didn’t feel honest either. Was this just strategic messaging or something more ethically concerning? And how could he navigate this without jeopardizing his reputation or future at the company? A third path He chose a third path. Instead of outright refusal, which might have been career-limiting, he started by asking clarifying questions. What was the real outcome that the leadership team wanted? Was there a way to tell a fuller, more balanced story that acknowledged challenges while highlighting future opportunities? In the end, he was able to get leadership buy-in to reframe the story to focus on how the company had learned from its struggles and was taking steps to improve. It wasn’t a spin. It was honest, forward-looking, and hopeful. The CEO praised the approach, and the executive maintained his integrity without derailing his career. The Institute of Business Ethics found in a study that one in three employees felt pressured to compromise the business’s ethical standards. Many comply out of fear—worried they’ll face retaliation, be labeled “difficult,” or lose opportunities. But there are ways to push back without risking your career. UNDERSTAND BEFORE OBJECTING When confronted with a questionable request, most people respond in one of two ways: They comply out of fear or they push back immediately, putting their job security at risk. There’s a better first step: Push to understand. Not all uncomfortable requests are unethical. Some are simply poorly communicated or misaligned with your values.  Clarify: Start by seeking to fully understand the request. You may find the issue is one of discomfort rather than unethical intent. Question: Explore the outcomes they want and whether the request achieves those goals in the best way. Asking thoughtful questions often makes leaders rethink their approach on their own. Redirect: If appropriate, propose a solution that meets the same business objectives without compromising integrity. For example, rather than omitting challenges, highlight how those challenges spurred innovation or improved future outcomes. These conversations can reveal that the person making the request is open to alternatives, they just hadn’t thought of them yet. UNETHICAL VERSUS ILLEGAL If you’ve clarified, questioned, and still feel uncomfortable, it’s important to assess whether the request is merely unethical or actually illegal. That distinction determines your next move. If the request is illegal, you will want to tread carefully. If you feel psychologically safe, it can be helpful to start communicating via email to keep a digital trail (although it is possible that your manager will cover their trail by refusing to engage on email). Further, if your company has an HR department, you can share the request with them along with expressing your discomfort. One friend who works in compliance found himself in this exact situation. His manager asked him to manipulate data, a clear violation of regulations. He responded by email, explicitly stating why the request was illegal and citing the relevant regulatory code. He was never asked to do it again. Sometimes, simply stating the facts is the most powerful shield you have. However, if the request is unethical but not necessarily illegal, your next move should be a personal decision that minimizes future regret. REGRET MINIMIZATION FRAMEWORK If you’re facing this kind of dilemma, it’s already a bad situation. There’s no playbook that guarantees success or protection. Sometimes, doing everything “right” still results in backlash or career limitations.  This is why I recommend applying what’s called the “regret minimization framework. Ask yourself: If I look back on this 10 years from now, will I regret how I handled it? This is the core of the regret minimization framework, a decision-making tool made famous by Jeff Bezos. It doesn’t promise a perfect outcome. But it helps you act in a way that minimizes long-term regret, even if it leads to short-term discomfort. When you apply this framework, you’re not just considering whether you’ll keep your job next month. You’re asking which version of yourself—today’s self or your future self—you want to protect more. Do you want to be someone who went along to keep the peace? Or someone who held the line when it mattered? This doesn’t mean you have to become a whistleblower or burn bridges. It simply means choosing the actions that leave you at peace with yourself, knowing you did what you could with the power and information you had at the time.

TSMC is signaling to the Trump administration that any plan to tariff foreign-made chips risks derailing the company’s $165 billion investment in Arizona semiconductor factories.The warning comes after the Commerce Department solicited public comment on the US potentially tariffing foreign-made semiconductors to help encourage domestic chip manufacturing. In its letter to the agency, TSMC said such tariffs could threaten demand for electronics and reduce the company’s revenue.  “Diminished demand could create uncertainty around the timeline for the construction and operation of our Arizona fabs. It could also undermine TSMC’s financial capacity to timely execute its ambitious Arizona project,” the company said. TSMC—which manufactures chips for Apple, AMD, Nvidia, and even Intel—added that: “Lower market demand for our leading US customers’ products may consequently reduce demand for TSMC’s manufacturing capacity and service onshore.”In March, TSMC announced an additional $100 billion investment in three new fabs in Arizona, for a total of six. But so far, only one of the fabs has started producing processors, forcing TSMC to rely on its factories in Taiwan for most chip manufacturing. As a result, the letter from TSMC urges the Trump administration to exclude the company from any semiconductor-related tariffs. “To allow investments such as TSMC Arizona to proceed expeditiously, the administration should exempt TSMC Arizona and other companies that have already committed to semiconductor manufacturing projects in the United States from tariffs or other import restrictions,” it said. The letter notes that the company’s Arizona site “will ultimately comprise around 30% of TSMC’s total worldwide capacity for 2nm and more advanced technology nodes,” which should also be enough to meet US demands. In addition, TSMC has already started construction on its third fab in Arizona, “which will initially use 2nm and later A16 process technology, featuring Super Power Rail, TSMC’s best-in-class backside power delivery solution.”Recommended by Our EditorsNumerous other companies and industry groups have also responding to the agency's request. In its letter, PC maker Dell said the effort to manufacture more chips in the US is “nascent and lacks the requisite infrastructure to supply these products at scale to meet current and increasing demand.” Meanwhile, Hewlett Packard Enterprise told the department: "HPE has no alternative but to import semiconductors for its US manufacturing operations. Imposing tariffs on those imported semiconductors would harm HPE's ability to maintain and expand its domestic manufacturing activities and retard US R&D and innovation ultimately to the detriment of national security and economic growth."But Intel, which manufactures chips in the US, took a slightly different view, noting the need to “Protect American Manufactured Semiconductor Wafers and Derivative Products.” “To sustain the US semiconductor industry and support global customers, policies must address structural disparities and incentivize US-based semiconductor manufacturing,” Intel said. “As foreign buyers increasingly design out US chips due to tariff-related costs, exempting goods with US-made semiconductors from these financial burdens is crucial.”The same letter calls for the Trump administration to exempt semiconductor wafers either made in the US “as well as wafers manufactured based on US-based process technologies and US-owned IP.” In addition, Intel wants exemptions for its supply chain, which includes chip-making equipment developed overseas. “While Intel is committed to building semiconductors in the US, fully localizing every element of the supply chain is economically unfeasible without significant cost increases and production delays,” the company added.

This session explores primary cyber resilience challenges and solutions.