Perhaps he understands that humans are not purely rational beings, that to make a point stick you need more than just facts.

This is why I always hit my wife when I don't think she will understand something.

Reductio ad absurdum and you know it.

Emotions have no bearing on correctness, but they do have tremendous bearing on actions. Mastery of the former begets knowledge, whilst mastery of the latter begets results.

Well yes, I am being silly of course and deliberately taking things to the extreme. I suppose what I am trying to establish is a data point we can all agree is wrong so that those supporting the actions of the CEO have to separate themselves from this point somehow. The clear similarities are that the CEO is in a position of power over his employee and there is no attempt at rational engagement before the verbal attack.

The CEO has in effect told his managers that they should use threats as a normal management technique and that reasoned discourse is an inferior business tool. For a high-tech business this seems unlikely to be correct. I can't imagine this approach being routine at say Google.

>What if he'd thrown a chair, destroyed a phone, or punched a wall? Where do you paint the line between what is and is not an acceptable amount of 'drama' to make a point?

All of those have associated economic costs which screaming does not. What exactly is the disadvantage of screaming?

Very valid point.

I suppose as the boss you need to know how to act and when. Some people will react in different ways and you need to be aware of that. Based on my reading I interpreted that Steve thought the CEO's tactic was useful.