Favoritism and Ethics in Military Leadership
This paper analyzes an ethics case documented by the U.S. Department of Defense in which a senior official resigned following accusations of favoritism toward a subordinate program director. Drawing on the DoD's Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure, the paper discusses how the official's preferential treatment — including schedule adjustments, undue authority, and a hostile work environment — undermined fairness, morale, and mission readiness. The analysis situates the case within broader principles of military ethics, referencing Aristotelian notions of equality and the heightened moral obligations of leaders in uniform. The paper concludes that senior enlisted leaders must model core values, maintain impartiality, and avoid conduct that erodes unit cohesion and trust.
- Introduction: Why ethical conduct matters for senior leaders
- The Case: Favoritism and Resignation: DoD case of official favoritism and resulting resignation
- Effects of Favoritism on Employees and the Service: Impacts on morale, commitment, and mission readiness
- Ethics, Equality, and Military Values: Aristotelian equality and military ethical standards
- Conclusion: Leaders' duty to uphold fairness and impartiality
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds its ethical argument in a concrete, documented DoD case, giving abstract principles real-world weight.
- Connects the specific misconduct to measurable organizational harms — commitment, morale, and mission readiness — showing breadth of impact.
- Anchors the normative argument in a classical philosophical reference (Aristotle on equality), lending scholarly credibility to a practical ethics discussion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models applied ethical analysis: it moves from a factual case description, to identification of the relevant ethical principle (impartiality and equality), to an assessment of consequences for individuals and the institution. This case-to-principle-to-impact structure is a disciplined approach to professional ethics writing and is appropriate for military studies or leadership courses.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a tight five-part structure: an introduction establishing why ethical leadership matters; a case summary drawn from the DoD record; an analysis of favoritism's psychological and organizational effects; a section connecting those effects to core military and philosophical values; and a conclusion restating the leader's moral obligations. At roughly 600 words, it is a focused short-essay appropriate for an undergraduate military ethics or leadership course.
Introduction
It is important to note, from the outset, that officers in the Service look to their seniors for guidance and direction. Accordingly, those officers are likely to model their behaviors and approach to issues on the basis of the core values embodied by those seniors. For this reason, senior enlisted leaders must strive to do the right thing at all times. In doing so, they must not only demonstrate ethical and moral maturity, but also refrain from abusing their positions of authority, committing fraud, or engaging in other violations. As this paper demonstrates, for those in positions of leadership, the importance of adhering to appropriate standards of conduct, fundamental moral values, and ethical rules cannot be overstated.
The Case: Favoritism and Resignation
Among the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) ethical failures on record, one prominent case involved a senior official who was compelled to tender his resignation as a consequence of favoritism accusations. In this case, investigators were told of numerous instances in which employees witnessed a colleague — serving as component program director — and the official engaging in what could be characterized as inappropriate physical contact. On the basis of their close relationship, investigators learned that the official extended favors to the program director that were not extended to other employees. Such favors included, but 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 wielded greater authority than was entitled by her position, and her opinions and suggestions were routinely given precedence over those of other employees. Employees also complained of being repeatedly demeaned by the official, whose conduct contributed to the creation of a hostile work environment. In effect, the official presided over and sought to implement a culture of unfairness and inequality in which one employee was openly favored on the basis of her personal relationship with him. This directly contradicted the obligation of leaders to maintain impartiality in the performance of their duties. Ultimately, the official tendered his resignation. The program director, for her part, "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).
Effects of Favoritism on Employees and the Service
Favoritism concerns the granting of preferential treatment to a specific individual within a group, or to a smaller group within a larger one (Dubrin, 2009). Employees are human beings subject to emotion, and when peers are clearly being favored, resentment among those who feel overlooked or ignored is a natural result. In the case described above, the official's actions could have decreased commitment, lowered job satisfaction, and negatively affected morale across the unit.
With respect to job commitment, the official's pattern of privileging one employee's decisions likely alienated other employees who may have concluded that their input was neither needed nor valued. Their dedication to assigned tasks could, therefore, have diminished — directly affecting the unit's readiness for mission. There is also the impact on job satisfaction and morale: employees who perceived that an injustice was being perpetrated against them would naturally experience reduced contentment in their roles. As Baker (2015) observes, justice and fairness hold particular weight in military life, especially because "much more of an individual's existence is tied into his profession and unfairness potentially bites a lot deeper" (p. 112).
Conclusion
Officers in positions of authority have a moral and professional obligation to promote the Service's core values and serve as role models for those who look to them for guidance and direction. Towards this end, they ought to be custodians of the relevant moral standards — namely, fairness and justice — and must never lose impartiality in the performance of their duties. Additionally, they must remain accountable and demonstrate selfless service by shaping the attitudes of those they lead or command. As this case clearly illustrates, failure to meet these obligations can negatively affect not only the wellbeing of individual employees but also the overall welfare and effectiveness of the Service.
References
Baker, D. (Ed.). (2015). Key Concepts in Military Ethics. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing.
Dubrin, A. J. (2009). Political Behavior in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Machan, T. R. (Ed.). (2013). Liberty and Equality. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
The U.S. Department of Defense Standard of Conduct Office. (2016). Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure. Retrieved from
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.