[zandl]

One example, the leader of a state shouldn’t be doing anything since this biases their judgment, instead they should always rely on their ministers to be experts, and the fewer decisions one makes the more ideal the leader. It’s not just simple delegation that they’re talking about, it’s that at least on person has to have a clear view of the whole picture to make subtle adjustments, and if the leader is wrapped up in doing the work himself then it’s no longer possible. They have very strong words for leaders who do work themselves as being unfit and bluntly stupid. It certainly resonated for me as being completely correct, and adjusted my management style.

[lostconfused]

Ah that sounds pretty much the same type of management philosophy as espoused in "Clouds Above The Hill" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_no_Ue_no_Kumo

The author attributes the successes of early Imperial Japanese Navy to the men in leadership roles being wise enough to focus on enabling their competent subordinates do their jobs and nothing more. At least a lot early 2nd volume is spent on organization and management structure. Japan spent a lot of time studying Chinese culture so it would make sense that they would addopt similar ideas.

This article https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myt... claims this "loose tight" for of leadership is responsible for collapse of Enron.