Senior Official’s Resignation as a Result of Favoritism

Favoritism Results in Senior Official’s Resignation

Introduction

It is important to note, from the onset, that officers in the Service look up to their seniors for guidance and direction. Towards this end, the said officers are likely to model their behaviors and approach to issues on the basis of the core values embodied by the said seniors. For this reason, senior enlisted leaders must strive to do the right thing at all times. In so doing, they must not only demonstrate ethical and moral maturity, but also desist from abusing their positions of authority, fraud, and other violations. As this text will demonstrate, for those in positions of leadership, the relevance of adhering to the appropriate standards of conduct, fundamental moral values, and ethical rules cannot be overstated.

Discussion

In one of the ethical failures catalogued by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), a senior official had to tender his resignation as a consequence of favoritism accusations. In this particular case, investigators were told of a number of instances in which employees witnessed a colleague of theirs (serving as component program director) and the official having what could be referred to as inappropriate physical contact. On the basis of their close relations, investigators were told that the official was fond of the program director and often extended favors to her that were not extended to other employees. Such favors included, but they were not limited to, favorable adjustments to her work schedule and approval of her requests for leave during periods deemed critical. Further owing to her closeness to the official, the program director also wielded greater authority than entitled by her position and her opinions and suggestions were often given precedence over those of other employees. Employees also complained of being repeatedly demeaned by the official, whose approach to issues, as well as conduct had also lead to the creation of a hostile work environment. In the final analysis, therefore, the official effectively presided over and sought to implement a culture of unfairness and inequality where one employee was openly favored owing to her relations with the said official. This is despite the fact that in the performance of their duties, officials and leaders in positions of authority must not lose impartiality. In the end, for his transgressions, the official tendered his resignation. The program director, on the other hand, “was separately charged with misusing Government property by taking excessive leave and misrepresenting time and attendance” (The U.S. Department of Defense Standard of Conduct Office, 2016). It would be prudent to highlight how the official’s conduct in this particular case could have affected individual employees, and the Service at large.

In essence, favoritism has got to do with the advancement of preferential treatment to a specified person within a group, or to a smaller group within a larger group (Dubrin, 2009). It is important to note that employees are human beings too and prone to emotions. This effectively means that when their peers are clearly being favored, this could create resentment amongst those who feel left out or ignored. In the case recounted above, the official’s actions could have had the impact of decreasing commitment, lowering job satisfaction, negatively impacting morale, etc. When it comes to job commitment, the move by the official to value the decisions of one particular employee could have incensed the other employees who may have felt that their input is not needed. Their dedication and devotion to tasks could, therefore, have decreased, effectively affecting the unit’s readiness for mission. There is also the impact on job satisfaction and morale, whereby employees felt an injustice was being perpetrated against them. Their contentment with their job could have been negatively affected. As a matter of fact, justice and fairness is more revered in military life (Baker, 2015). This is particularly the case given that in this case, “much more of an individual’s existence is tied into his profession and unfairness potentially bites a lot deeper” (Baker, 2015, p. 112). Favoritism is discriminatory in nature. This is more so given that it denies others progress or recognition on the basis of merit. Further it has deep moral and ethical connotations. Towards this end, favoritism such as the one recounted above tends to be in violation of the basic moral standards that officers in positions of authority ought to adhere to especially when it comes to the promotion of fairness and justice. The Service embraces equality, fairness, and comradeship where aims and objections are common. While in Service, those who share the same duties, roles, and responsibilities are essentially equals. This was the very same ideal promoted by Aristotle, with his affirmation to the effect that “equals should be treated equally…” (Machan, 2013, p. 65). The program director was an equal treated unequally, and offered undue advantage over her peers.