> I don't think it's actually a pending question whether avoiding personal attacks makes people more likely to listen to a message.

That depends on the context. When you're talking about changing ingrained behaviors, emotional shock and awe can definitely be necessary and the shortest, most painless path to resolution.

the underlying incorrect assumption is that everyone will do the right thing, if only nicely and logically talked to. This is not true and obvious to anyone with experience managing large amounts of people, especially so when firing is not an easy option.

> the underlying incorrect assumption is that everyone will do the right thing, if only nicely and logically talked to. This is not true and obvious to anyone with experience managing large amounts of people, especially so when firing is not an easy option.

I've yet to see abusive management tactics work in the long term. It might work in the short term, but people with the means will take it as a signal to jump ship because no adult is going to accept abuse if they don't have to.

I've heard your exact sentiment echoed by people who aspire towards management, and it always comes across as a weird power trip fantasy.

> I've yet to see abusive management tactics work in the long term. It might work in the short term, but people with the means will take it as a signal to jump ship.

Like I said, depends on the context. Being mean has it's place, as does being nice. Those are the extremes and the Lions share in the middle is non-emotional transactionalism.