Nigeria: High cost of condescension: Why workplace feedback must come with dignity

By Zuleihat Owuiye, Nigeria

Picture this: A senior manager stands up in a meeting and publicly questions a junior staff member over a minor error in a report. 

“Did you even think before submitting this?” he asks, his voice thick with contempt. Colleagues shift in their seats. “What exactly goes through your mind when you do such sloppy work?” The employee apologizes quietly. For the next three minutes, the manager doesn’t just correct the mistake. He dissects the person’s competence, judgment, and worth. 

By the time it’s over, the error has been fixed. But the damage to morale, confidence, and trust lingers long after.

Scenes like this play out daily in offices, hospitals, schools, factories, and boardrooms across Nigeria. We’ve normalized a culture where “giving feedback” has become code for public humiliation. Where “addressing queries” means interrogating people like suspects. Where authority is used as a weapon instead of a responsibility. 

We call it accountability. We call it maintaining standards. In truth, it’s often a failure of leadership disguised as management.

The problem is widespread. Employees are routinely spoken to in ways they would never accept outside work. Belittled in meetings. Cut down with sarcasm disguised as jokes. Questioned in tones that assume incompetence instead of seeking to understand.

The impact is real and measurable. Psychologically, it breeds stress, anxiety, and low self-esteem. People begin to work in a state of fear, constantly watching what they say and do. Professionally, it kills creativity. Staff become afraid to take initiative, to suggest new ideas, or to admit mistakes. Instead of learning from errors, people focus on covering them up.

Yet most employees endure it. Speaking up can feel like career suicide. Complaining may lead to retaliation. Leaving isn’t always an option because bills must be paid and families depend on the income. So the cycle continues. Workers absorb the treatment, grow numb to it, and some eventually repeat it when they rise to management positions. Cruelty gets mistaken for clarity. Intimidation gets mistaken for leadership.

Emotional intelligence isn’t a “soft skill.” It’s a core leadership competency. It’s the ability to recognize your own emotions, understand how others feel, and manage both in a way that builds people up rather than tears them down.

A manager with emotional intelligence knows that _how_ you deliver feedback determines whether it will be heard. They understand that a mistake is a chance to teach, not an excuse for character assassination.

When leaders resort to condescension, sarcasm, and public shaming, they expose their own limitations. They show they can’t separate frustration from response. They can’t see things from another person’s perspective. They can’t communicate standards without stripping people of dignity. 

That isn’t strength. It’s emotional incompetence. And organizations that tolerate it are demanding excellence from junior staff while excusing mediocrity at the top

Power protects this culture. In most workplaces, accountability only flows downward. Junior employees are punished for every missed deadline or typo. Senior managers can berate, belittle, and demean with few consequences. 

Who will challenge them? Subordinates fear losing their jobs. Peers often behave the same way. HR departments, despite their policies, frequently protect the institution over the individual.

This is reinforced by cultures that equate toughness with effectiveness. The manager who makes people cry is called “demanding.” The one who humiliates publicly is called “thorough.” The one who uses questions to degrade is called “uncompromising.” Until we redefine what good leadership looks like, and hold senior staff accountable for _how_ they treat people, the abuse will continue.

Respectful feedback doesn’t mean lowering standards. It means upholding them without destroying people in the process.

It starts with focus and tone. Address the behavior, not the person’s character.  

“This report has several factual errors that need to be corrected” is clear and actionable.  

“Did you even bother to check your facts?” is condescending and shuts people down.

It also means choosing the right setting. Feedback should be private unless there’s a clear reason to discuss it publicly. It should be timely, specific, and come with guidance on how to improve. 

Most importantly, managers must remember their job is to develop people, not diminish them. Every interaction either builds capability and trust, or erodes it. The words you choose, the tone you use, and the respect you show all matter.

Organizations with psychologically safe environments — where people can speak up, make mistakes, and receive respectful feedback — consistently outperform those ruled by fear. 

Respectful feedback improves retention and cuts the huge cost of turnover. It boosts engagement and productivity. It encourages innovation, because employees are willing to take smart risks when they know failure won’t lead to public embarrassment.

Condescending management does the opposite. It drives talent away. It suppresses creativity. It creates a culture of compliance, not excellence.

Organizations need clear behavioral standards for everyone, especially senior staff, and they must enforce them. Managers who can’t communicate respectfully should be coached. If they refuse to change, they shouldn’t be in leadership.

No level of technical skill or business result justifies treating people as less than human.

Workplace respect isn’t a perk. It’s a basic requirement. Employees deserve to be corrected, questioned, and challenged in ways that preserve their dignity and help them grow.