Both followers and leaders have the same sense of duty. Followers typically sanction their leaders as high-status individuals. And in return, ethical leaders must allow their followers to have autonomy, and direction. Unfortunately, all leaders are not created equal. A common phase often spoken throughout the ranks within the military is “rank has its privileges”. Sadly enough, what this often translates into are personnel entrusted with a leadership position pushing their tasks down to lower ranking personnel for completion. The cause of this is simply, “as a leader’s sphere of influence increases, they may feel that certain benefits and perks are due to them”(Rainer, 2012).

In the military you quickly learn that this way of life closely resembles a dictatorship not a democracy. Leaders should, and do, influence organizational ethics. What’s unfortunate about the underlining social culture of the military is its unnecessary and excessive use of formal power to influence personnel. For an effective leader this is frustrating because people are not held accountable for meeting the criteria of excellence that the public holds the military to. At the tip of this unethical sphere are the use of coercive and reward power over employees. There is a plethora of reason which contributes to this type of behavior. A leaders’ power to influence is particularly effective because leaders are delegate with the power to decisions about the rewards and punishments that are imposed on employees.

To keep some form of perspective within this topic, a leader’s role within an organization can be complex and stressful. This can directly impact a leader’s cognitive ability to decipher their unethical use of power. “For leaders, having emotional intelligence is essential for success. After all, who is more likely to succeed a leader who shouts at his team when he's