Dignity and Respect Are More Than Just ‘Words'
Dignity and Respect Are More Than Just ‘Words’
By Ivan D. Butts
NAPS National President
When USPS employees witness supervisors being openly harassed or demoralized by higher-level management, the impact can be especially significant given the structured, hierarchical nature of the Postal Service.
First, this disrespect undermines the chain of command. USPS operations rely heavily on clear authority and accountability. When supervisors are publicly disrespected, employees may begin to question their legitimacy, leading to confusion, inconsistent direction and reduced compliance with instructions.
The behavior also damages morale and trust in leadership. Craft employees often look to supervisors for guidance, protection and fairness. If those supervisors appear powerless or mistreated, employees may feel the system as a whole is unfair or unsafe, which can lead to disengagement and frustration.
Other common impacts include:
• Increased workplace tension — Employees may feel caught in the middle or become hesitant to interact with management.
• Reduced productivity and focus — Attention shifts from operations to workplace drama or self-protection.
• Higher grievance and complaint activity — In USPS environments, this can translate into more union grievances, EEO complaints or reports of a hostile work environment.
• Normalization of unprofessional behavior — If upper management models harassment, it can trickle down into supervisor-employee interactions.
• Supervisor burnout and turnover — Demoralized supervisors may disengage, avoid decision-making or leave, which destabilizes operations further.
There also are compliance and legal risks. The Postal Service, as a federal employer, is held to strict standards regarding workplace conduct. Repeated public harassment can contribute to claims of a hostile work environment, especially if it is pervasive or tied to protected characteristics.
In a system such as the USPS — where efficiency, coordination and accountability are critical — this kind of behavior does not stay isolated. It tends to weaken the entire operation from the top down.
The long-term effect of normalizing unprofessional behavior — especially public harassment, disrespect or intimidation — is that it gradually reshapes the entire workplace culture in ways hard to reverse. Over time, what once felt unacceptable starts to feel “just how things are;” that shift has several serious consequences:
1. Culture degradation — Professional standards erode. Respect, accountability and integrity get replaced with fear, favoritism or silence. New employees quickly learn to adapt to that culture rather than challenge it.
2. Toxic behavior spreads — People tend to model what they see from leadership. If higher-level managers behave unprofessionally without consequences, supervisors — even employees — may begin to mirror that behavior, creating a cycle that reinforces itself.
3. Loss of strong leadership — Capable, ethical supervisors often disengage or leave rather than tolerate ongoing disrespect. Over time, this can leave behind leaders who either accept or participate in the dysfunction, lowering the overall quality of leadership.
4. Chronic low morale and disengagement — Employees stop investing in their work. You see more “do the bare minimum” behavior, less initiative and a decline in pride in the organization.
5. Increased turnover and staffing instability — Good employees are more likely to leave, while recruiting and retaining high-quality talent becomes harder. This creates a long-term staffing problem.
6. Breakdown of accountability — When unprofessional behavior is normalized, enforcing rules becomes inconsistent. Discipline may feel arbitrary, which increases grievances, complaints and conflict.
7. Higher legal and organizational risk — A normalized toxic environment increases the likelihood of hostile work environment claims, EEO complaints, union grievances and whistle-blower actions. Over time, these risks compound and can become systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
8. Reduced organizational performance — Ultimately, all these issues impact service quality, efficiency and public trust— especially in an organization like the Postal Service, where reliability and structure are critical.
In the long run, normalization doesn’t just affect behavior — it reshapes expectations. Once that happens, fixing the culture requires significant effort, strong leadership change and consistent accountability.
How to Deal with a Toxic Manager
“Toxic manager” can mean a lot of things: micromanaging, credit-stealing, unpredictable moods, favoritism or outright bullying. There isn’t a single fix; usually, you can’t change toxic managers outright. What you can do is manage your exposure, protect your work and create leverage.
Start by getting specific about the behavior. Vague frustration — “they’re toxic” — won’t help you act. Concrete patterns — “they publicly criticize, but give no private feedback” or “they change priorities daily without documentation” — give you something to which you can respond.
If it’s safe to do so, address the behavior directly, but tactically. Keep it focused on work outcomes, not personality:
• “I’ve noticed priorities shift quickly. Can we align on a weekly plan so I can deliver more consistently?”
• “I do best with clear expectations. Could we agree on what success looks like before I start?”
• Document expectations, decisions and feedback (email summaries after meetings help).
• Clarify priorities in writing when things are ambiguous. • Keep records of problematic incidents if things escalate.
If the behavior is affecting your performance or well-being, don’t try to white-knuckle it alone. Use internal channels — HR, skip-level managers or a trusted senior colleague — but go in with specifics and examples, not general complaints. Most certainly, consult your NAPS representative.
Also be realistic: Some managers don’t change. If you consistently are dealing with disrespect, manipulation or instability, the most effective “fix” often is changing teams or leaving. That’s not failure — it’s choosing a healthier environment.
In solidarity…