The Perils of Favoritism

The Perils of Favoritism
By Ivan D. Butts
NAPS National President

I was speaking with a NAPS advocate who recounted a conversation they had with a local USPS executive concerning a USPS policy being violated. The advocate was surprised when the USPS executive asked where the policy could be found.

Unfortunately, I am not surprised we have numbers of USPS executives at various levels of leadership who fail to meet the basic KSA of “Knowledge of Postal Policies and Procedures.”

There is a causal effect associated with years of institutional corporate favoritism and cronyism that can fundamentally reshape an agency — often slowly at first, then all at once. Whether in government, a public service organization or a large corporation, the long-term effects tend to appear in several predictable ways.

1. Erosion of merit-based leadership.

When promotions and opportunities are driven by loyalty, personal relationships or political alignment instead of competence:

• Experienced and capable employees become overlooked.

• Leadership quality declines over time.

• Decision-making becomes insulated from operational reality.

• Employees stop believing performance matters.

• Eventually, talented employees may disengage or leave altogether.

2. Declining morale and organizational trust.

Employees quickly recognize patterns of favoritism. Over the years, this creates cynicism toward leadership while reducing motivation to look for higher levels of leadership. EAS employees become fearful to speak honestly and develop the “Why bother?” workplace culture. With this, the organization begins operating on survival and optics rather than mission and excellence.

3. Groupthink and poor decision-making. Cronyism discourages dissent. Leaders surround themselves with people who protect positions rather than challenge bad ideas. This leads to:

• repeated strategic mistakes

• resistance to innovation

• failure to recognize operational problems early

• public relations replacing accountability

• agencies become reactive instead of adaptive

4. Institutionalized inefficiency.

Favoritism often protects ineffective structures and individuals from accountability. Over time, this bureaucracy expands; layers of management begin increasing without improving results. Resources are allocated politically rather than operationally. Productivity declines while reporting metrics may appear “successful.” This creates a disconnect between official narratives and frontline reality.

5. Loss of confidence.

Cronyism damages credibility. Employees and stakeholders begin believing that policies are followed on a case-by-case basis. Accountability is selective and rarely applied toward the inappropriate actions of cronies.

Leadership seemingly protects itself first and foremost while transparency is performative. Once public trust erodes, rebuilding it can take decades.

6. Burnout among effective employees. Ironically, high performers often carry dysfunctional systems the longest. They become:

• overworked

• under-recognized

• expected to compensate for weak leadership

• emotionally exhausted from fighting institutional inertia

Many eventually disengage or leave the agency, which accelerates organizational decline.

7. Culture of risk avoidance. Cronyistic institutions punish independent thinking because it threatens existing power structures. Employees learn:

• to avoid controversy

• to protect careers instead of improving outcomes

• to follow narratives rather than facts

• silence is safer than honesty

• This creates stagnation and weak crisis response.

8. Long-term structural decline.

The most damaging effect is cumulative institutional decay. Over the years or decades, standards will weaken, leadership pipelines deteriorate, institutional knowledge disappears and public mission becomes secondary to internal preservation.

At that point, reforms become difficult because the system begins defending dysfunction as normal. Historically, organizations suffering prolonged favoritism often develop a split identity: frontline workers focused on mission survival and executive structures focused on maintaining institutional control and image. That divide becomes especially visible during crises, staffing shortages, financial strain and public scrutiny.

Examples of these dynamics have been studied across government agencies, large corporations, labor organizations and even empires throughout history because institutions tend to reflect the incentives they reward over time.

How can an agency fix this? To be continued.

In solidarity…