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.
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
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.