This seems like atrocious advice. Here's the bit that seemed especially misguided: "Ted may tell you that other team members made it difficult for him to meet

This seems like atrocious advice. Here's the bit that seemed especially misguided: "Ted may tell you that other team members made it difficult for him to meet his deadlines, that it's not his fault; at that point, you're likely to become a human ping-pong ball, shuttling back and forth between Ted and other team members trying to understand the problem. The information to solve this problem lies with Ted and the other team members." Note the pejorative way Roger characterizes the effort needed to understand the operations of what is (ostensibly) his own team: "Shuttling back and forth like a ping-pong ball trying to understand the problem." That's one way of looking at in. Another way is "doing your (expletive) job." If the manager doesn't understand what's happening with the way his team is working, that's a serious problem - even in cases where the team isn't failing. "Researching" the issue by herding everyone into a room for a round of mutual recriminations has got to be the worst approach possible. Far better to grasp the problem discreetly through a series of private conversations in which people feel they can be candid, work out possible solutions from there, and get everyone together when you're ready to discuss viable solutions. That way, the team participates in the decision, while the manager retains control of the situation by displaying a vital combination of leadership and situational awareness. At no point should any manager undermine his own authority by running a session like the one described here, in which the clear subtext is "I have no idea what's going on with my team, and I'm too lazy and/or incompetent to figure it out myself, so I'm just going to tell them to lace into each other and observe from the sidelines." Aside from fostering intense distrust among colleagues, the manager undermines the respect and authority that his own job depends on. So no, this isn't a good argument against the normally solid rule about delivering criticism in private. The only exception I can think of to the "criticize in private" rule is when what's called for is actually punishment for abuse of colleagues. For instance, if Ted had no trouble meeting his deadlines, but couldn't talk to women without making sexist remarks, then it's entirely appropriate to shut him down in public - preferably in full view of whoever he demeaned, along with anyone else who witnessed his affront. Concluding by saying that you'll fire him on the spot if you catch him doing it again will not only get through to Ted, it will also light up the grapevine, putting everyone on notice that the No Asshole Rule is in full effect. But again, that has nothing to do with performance, except to the degree that people perform much better when they feel that their managers are looking out for them, and are fearless about protecting anyone on their staff from humiliating attack. This is the stuff that deep loyalty is made of. Roger's advice points in the opposite direction, fostering the "everyone look out for themselves" climate that leads to major losses when the "team" that operates this way goes up against a truly solid team with a strong and respected manager.