You mean make existing bad leaders feel good about themselves. Provide a trivial thing to "work on" on a weekly basis, so they can "do something". This article

You mean make existing bad leaders feel good about themselves. Provide a trivial thing to "work on" on a weekly basis, so they can "do something". This article identifies the basic problem again: there is no way to manage like this without at the very least a good working knowledge of the jobs you're managing. If you can't simply take over for an employee, you shouldn't be allowed to manage them. And you can't : you can't tell when you're being bullshitted, and worse, you can't tell when a psychopath is really fucking with the organisation (maybe he's right and these other guys, who just happen to be in competition with him, are really the ones that are bad ?). A good leader needs to engage and provide feedback on the work done. Well, yes. A "manager", an MBA from any business school has no ability to do that. They just can't. That isn't what they trained for, unless you mean keeping cash registers in a store or perhaps basic logistics (advanced logistics requires knowing the math behind things like linear programming, so you can modify it for your exact situation AND being pretty good at writing predictive models). This is also the most common problem, and of course why management theory keeps "believing" that management is a job like others (and therefore doesn't require knowledge of other jobs). There's no money in telling a manager that they need actual, real knowledge, something that would take years to acquire. And you can't change that perception because the people who would have to do that are the ones who would never measure up.