"It" was referring to being publicly berated from your reply. Berating is angry criticism so I think it's fairly specific.
Ultimately it depends on what you're trying to achieve when you're talking to someone. There might be occasions when being shamed in front of the team is the best thing for the person but I'd suggest that they're few and far between.
As a manager if I act angrily towards you then regardless of what you've done I'd suggest that I've both failed - yes you might have done something which has annoyed me but I've then responded by handling it badly. The best I can say at the end is that I didn't start it. The twice I've lost my temper publicly at a member of my team my overriding sense afterwards was that I should have handled the situation better. Certainly in neither case do I think what I did got the best from the person in question (one I think viewed the whole thing with complete indifference, the other was demotivated by it).
In terms of the specifics of the research, it's been a while since I looked at it (back in my days studying). I recall that public was generally a greater demotivator than private but I'm not aware of anything that's been done on different skill levels - would certainly be interested in that. My gut feel is that while there might be differences constructive engagement in private would still be the most productive way of handling it - I don't think programmers and other skilled workers are that different to the rest of the world. If anything I'd suggest they'd be more inclined to dislike anything involving anger directed at them - after all, they generally have the option to go elsewhere so why should they put up with it?
The comments you make about everything being out in the open are interesting. I can see if the manager or other berater is untrustworthy that this could be a thing, but if there are overall issues of trust of that type I think that how this sort of thing is handled is largely irrelevant in the face of that much larger problem.
I trust no one to be unbiased and fair at all times. I trust no one to be conscious of their own prejudices. I trust no one to be omniscient or infallible or to have even a reasonably accurate memory of past events. And I particularly distrust them in these matters when they are angry. These individual failings cannot be wholly eradicated from anyone, but they can be compensated for by the involvement of the team.
You can't even trust yourself. You've "lost your temper" twice. Why won't you do it a third time? A fourth? A fifth?
Does it not occur to you that this is all just part of being human?
I don't believe anyone to be infallible (including myself) but I find that my broadly trusting people who've shown themselves to be trustworthy I gain a lot (not having to cover my arse, gratitude from those who I trust - which I've had them comment positively on, the friendships it creates). On the occasions it's let me down it's not come close to outweighing the benefits I had up to that point.
And yes, I've lost my temper twice and will probably do so again but as with those times when it has happened in the past I'll apologise, attempt to repair the damage and move on.
No-one needs to be perfect and unbiased, for the most part your flawed best with good intentions is plenty. If you find yourself working with people who don't have good intentions then maybe the level of suspicion is fair enough but personally I'd get the hell out of there rather than work in somewhere that poisonous - 20 years working has taught me that it's simply not necessary to put up with places like that and that there are plenty of alternatives.
Ultimately it depends on what you're trying to achieve when you're talking to someone. There might be occasions when being shamed in front of the team is the best thing for the person but I'd suggest that they're few and far between.
As a manager if I act angrily towards you then regardless of what you've done I'd suggest that I've both failed - yes you might have done something which has annoyed me but I've then responded by handling it badly. The best I can say at the end is that I didn't start it. The twice I've lost my temper publicly at a member of my team my overriding sense afterwards was that I should have handled the situation better. Certainly in neither case do I think what I did got the best from the person in question (one I think viewed the whole thing with complete indifference, the other was demotivated by it).
In terms of the specifics of the research, it's been a while since I looked at it (back in my days studying). I recall that public was generally a greater demotivator than private but I'm not aware of anything that's been done on different skill levels - would certainly be interested in that. My gut feel is that while there might be differences constructive engagement in private would still be the most productive way of handling it - I don't think programmers and other skilled workers are that different to the rest of the world. If anything I'd suggest they'd be more inclined to dislike anything involving anger directed at them - after all, they generally have the option to go elsewhere so why should they put up with it?
The comments you make about everything being out in the open are interesting. I can see if the manager or other berater is untrustworthy that this could be a thing, but if there are overall issues of trust of that type I think that how this sort of thing is handled is largely irrelevant in the face of that much larger problem.