I keep Buddha's 3-D pictures (bought in Penang,Malaysia) at my office for inspiration.

Criticisms and angry outbursts in public must be avoided at workplaces.

On the other hand, feedback mechanism is always healthy, and that too - how we convey it is often more important than the actual feedback.

Working environment may become like a battlefield when the subordinates engage in angry quarrels or outbursts with the superiors or vice versa in public. Quiet and calm working environment where everyone  is keen on performing the delegated roles with time management and work goals will be ideal. As I wrote in earlier threads, 360 degree performance appraisal and 720 degree performance appraisal are very healthy and it is best to detect problematic employees and team managers early on and then HR may do the needful.

With best wishes, Sundar

A superior may criticize her/his subordinate in private or in public. The problem is when a subordinate criticizes her/his manager in public to embrace the manager. This is not accepted since subordinates should respect their managers.

The sanction, whether a reprimand or verbal warning or else, depends on the nature of criticism done by the subordinate. 

In the working environment there is a hierarchical relationship among employees. Employees at the upper level can criticize their lower level employees but not vice versa. Still they should respect each other to keep working environment more productive.    

I  believe If a boss  thinks he/she can criticize their junior staff then they should  also learn to admire their junior staff whenever necessary to maintain their reputation. 

I think that criticism should be avoided from all; work place should have its well-established traditions that are fully followed and respected.

Actually In Industries, we avoid criticisms. We agree to disagree and ponder over the difference or GAP areas. We welcome differences, but not at all times. We have different approaches to different people, groups, situations etc., Classification as Operational Member or Management Staff would also invite a varied approach and rapprochement process.

I keep Buddha's 3-D pictures (bought in Penang,Malaysia) at my office for inspiration.

Criticisms and angry outbursts in public must be avoided at workplaces.

On the other hand, feedback mechanism is always healthy, and that too - how we convey it is often more important than the actual feedback.

Working environment may become like a battlefield when the subordinates engage in angry quarrels or outbursts with the superiors or vice versa in public. Quiet and calm working environment where everyone  is keen on performing the delegated roles with time management and work goals will be ideal. As I wrote in earlier threads, 360 degree performance appraisal and 720 degree performance appraisal are very healthy and it is best to detect problematic employees and team managers early on and then HR may do the needful.

With best wishes, Sundar

What about free expression? In Europe you have strikes. Strikes represent public open-access opinions against actions or decisions of leaders, or not? In European/Occidental politics, the president(s) is/are openly judged, or not? Some people might call this democracy?

The critique, not criticism, there is a great difference between these two categories, right!? Please, read attached!

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/critique.html

Constructive criticism is well accepted by anyone who is keen in his/her growth. But criticizing a manager in front of all others depends upon the nature and character of the manager.  If he is not the right person for the position then he/she will be bombarded in so many ways by their employees. According to me it depends on the attitude and character (exploiting attitude, biased, selfish nature etc) of a manager and if he or she deserves it then it should be done. In general case it is not a healthy approach -criticism by a manager or criticism by a employee viceversa in public. 

Dear Roland:

In some Conferences, I've seen certain Session Chairs who start criticizing the speaker before he or she begins the talk even.. "What is new in your work?", "What is the relevance of using this old method X? Why did not you use the method Y?" etc. I've found it very annoying to watch it as an audience member. When I organize Conferences, I assign 'session chairing' work only to very reliable friends and not those who call for "mano a mano" (or face-to-face duel).. In oral presentations, it is always ideal to let the speaker complete the talk to entirety and then ask relevant and meaningful questions. If the work presented is ordinary or already done, then there are ways of saying such views. It may turn out that the presentation was a survey work.

WIth best wishes, Sundar

There should be a mechanism e.g. a committee, which collects all criticism and decides which are rightful and which are not. Constructive criticism is valuable and should be used to resolve problems.  

Criticism is a common phenomenon. However, constructive criticism is considered healthy. But criticism of managers by subordinates publicly is not acceptable, rather humiliating. It should be curbed. Further, such subordinates should be counseled for good behavior.

Critics are always constructive, but this should be in organized environment or committee. If we consider a professional milieu as a conglomerate of people with several  professional skills, knowledge and or practices, and those people are common adults and conscious individuals, so employees could criticize their managers if those are not skilled, or not good examples or take bad or biased decisions, there is no disrespect there!! as well as managers could criticize their subordinates after having listen to their thoughts, problems or inquiries. Critics should be objective and based on facts,  ideas, behaviors and general merits. Professional milieu should be wise and open mind with spaces of debate, it is not a dictatorial shape or robots machines!!

One of the basic human behavior lies in to criticize others in one's own way. In this process both fruitful and detrimental effects can be observed to result in future. The first and foremost thing that is to be kept in mind of criticizer is to criticize in a constructive way so that the criticized person(s) can take the positive points from that.Otherwise the whole process of criticism may ruin even a career or a blooming mind!!! Hence, the criticizers should let their brains to come into the game rather to speak according to their paltry instincts.

Dear all, I would like to express my deep thanks for your valuable answers.

In some respected and serious professional milieu, managers organize themselves a courier box "boite aux lettres" where employees could post their recommendations, their desires, their disagreeing, their ideas etc...those serious managers are conscious of the behavior of their subordinates and need to listen to them so as they could organize a smart and healthy environment for the benefit of the institution and prevent public or angry criticizing. Well if presidents could be criticized publicly as mentioned by @Marcel, why not simple managers couldn't be criticized, those should be aware of their ethics and competencies

Actual behavior is not necessary for the press of moral emotions to have effect. People can anticipate their likely emotional reactions (e.g., guilt versus pride/self-approval) as they consider behavioral alternatives. Thus, the self-conscious moral emotions can exert a strong influence on moral choice and behavior by providing critical feedback regarding both anticipated behavior (feedback in the form of anticipatory shame, guilt, or pride) and actual behavior (feedback in the form of consequential shame, guilt, or pride). In our view, people’s anticipatory emotional reactions are typically inferred based on history—that is, based on their past consequential emotions in reaction to similar actual behaviors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2213483/