In communicating with a subordinate, it will be optimal to follow the rule of the golden mean. On the one hand, familiarity should not be allowed. In any business relationship, there is a hierarchy, subordination, and at work there is a range of responsibilities, which you are obliged to demand from your subordinates. On the other hand, humiliating your employee is unacceptable, even if he is fundamentally wrong.
It is necessary
compliance with the standards of business etiquette and generally accepted norms of politeness
The first thing that any manager should understand well: the rule "I am the boss - you are a fool" is vicious. Every demand, claim, etc. must be reasoned.
At the same time, “it is your responsibility” or “does not meet corporate requirements” serves as sufficient reasoning, but on the condition that it really is included and does not correspond.
If the employee has proven that you are wrong in something, it is not a shame to admit it. It is shameful to appeal to the subordination, realizing that you are wrong.
The fundamental question for many is how to address each other: “you” or “you”. Here you need to understand that the tradition of addressing subordinates using "you" and by name when demanding a response "you" and name and patronymic is inherited from the party-Soviet apparatus (and it is accepted by current officials as well), but it does not belong to the best.
If the company has adopted an appeal to "you", then you should talk to subordinates, but the transition to "you" is only permissible mutual. So, it is customary, in particular, in the Russian subdivisions of Western companies: they turn to their bosses using the “you” name, but they do not know their patronymic names as they are unnecessary. An exception is only if the employee himself is not comfortable with this.
It is unacceptable to raise your voice to a subordinate. The same goes for insults.
Even relatively harmless comparisons in the spirit of “student-to-student quality of work” should be refrained from.
If the work needs to be redone, the employee himself will draw the appropriate conclusions, it is enough to point out to him what is objectively wrong.