Bruce Tulgan's "It's OK to Be the Boss" is one of the toughest books I've ever read/reviewed. His premise, like most of his previous work, is dead on accurate. When I saw somebody willing to say there's a crisis of "undermanagement," I was thrilled. So I'd give the book a five on promise - and some of that is fulfilled. But unfortunately, the execution is a -4 so the rating ends up as only one star. I think he could have made most of his good points without the pieces that ultimately will only confuse managers - and in many cases give them excuses for not doing the very things Tulgan's arguing must be done.
It starts early with Tulgan's criticism of the work from Blanchard, Buckingham, and even a backhand compliment of Adler's hiring formula. What's particularly misleading, no matter how much Tulgan might deny it, is that it is obvious he has never read the works he criticizing. Blanchard has been making it very clear for decades that the "One Minute Manager" takes more than a minute; Buckingham makes it even clearer that the steps in "First, Break All the Rules" are not just empowerment and require the very detailed regular attention to the very detail that Tulgan calls for. Buckingham's most recent works on a "strengths-based" approach is backed by solid research - not just anecdotal evidence Tulgan cites. He even misinterprets the classic Theory X - Theory Y, not knowing that McGregor clearly stated that a Theory Y Manager recognized the existence of Theory X assumptions about some employees (in 1960 estimated at 35% of the workforce). He then praises Lou Adler's hiring methods, but backhandedly points out that this approach is also flawed by assuming a company can hire all peak performers - something that is not Adler's position and again proves that he hasn't read the things he criticizing. Tulgan misunderstands Adler's position in which he clearly states that the performance-based hiring process is really the first step of what can become a much better performance-management process.
Tulgan also falls prey to the classic problem of blaming the system for the failure, ending up criticizing a new management-by-objectives, pay-for-performance, and forced-ranking as yielding only mixed results. Personally I'm not a fan of forced-ranking for a variety of other reasons, but when MBO or Pay-for-Performance fails, it is rarely the concept that fails - it is usually poor execution by the managers doing it.
As I delved deeper and deeper in this book, I realized how a good concept was destroyed by an overall argument that wasn't necessary.