Argue? Argue is such a strong word. I'm merely submitting other perspectives for consideration.
Coercive management often (not always, nor necessarily even usually in many types of workplaces) maximizes short term results at the price of long-term morale and cohesion. Billy Martin is 20th all-time in wins over .500, but he did that in NINE separate jobs in only 20 seasons. Martin got the most out of his players. He was fired when the young players stressed out in Texas and when his pitchers' arms fell off in Oakland (A's starters threw 60 complete games in 1981, a season with only 109 games). With the Yankees, he actually became almost the alternating manager, reestablishing standards, getting fired, and continuing the cycle for five iterations.
If Billy Martin hadn't been such a jerk, I don't know if he would have been good at all. We're not talking about a Chuck Tanner-type personality--we're talking about Billy Martin, whom you may remember as a hard-nosed player. Martin was who he was, and he won lots of games.
Girardi is in New York to win games. Hank Steinbrenner is not in the mood to finish anything but first. He's relying upon Girardi to communicate that, emphatically, to the players. If they win enough, Girardi might keep his job.
If not, well, remember 1978? Bob Lemon, on the heels of Girardi, was 28 games over .500 in 68 games. The rest of his 833-game managerial career he was 29 games UNDER .500. Lemon was not that good a manager--the situation in New York in 1978 was perfect for his easygoing style. The standards were known by the Yankees: they just needed to destress a bit.
How do you think Don Mattingly, or any other more laid-back manager, would be welcomed by the Yankees after a few more closed-door meetings with Girardi? Just sayin...