The recent article in the Washington Post describing Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's view on GW's management style are telling. (See article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3315-2004Jan9.html )
The comments in this blog (and everything I've read in the press) regarding Bush's management style reflect a superficial understanding of what it means to have an effective "hands off" management style.
First, the description of Bush's management style is the description of every president's management style and is, in and of itself, not helpful. Every president (or any leader of a large organization) must find experts and delegate. Duh.
The two key elements regarding an effective "hands off" management style are the degree of freedom given the subordinate managers and how the CEO (I use the term here as a generic reference to the seniormost manager ultimately responsible for an organization's performance) ensures that the subordinate manager and organization is performing and is going in the right direction. The last part is crucial.
There is ample evidence that, in this administration, power is concentrated in the White House and that the individual cabinet secretaries are expected to be cheerleaders, not leaders, of policy in their particular areas. Doesn't sound particularly good delegation does it? The corporate analogy is that the CEO (W) has an incredibly powerful corporate staff (the White House, Rove et al) but the individual divisions are led by syncophants (e.g., John Snow). I don't know of very many successful corporations that follow this model.
Second, and just as important, is the management feedback loop. No effective "hands off" management style is without the inevitable "come to Jesus" meeting where the subordinate managers are expected to explain their past performance and plans for the future. Probably one of the most effective "hands off" managers of our time is Jack Welch. And I can tell you (from personal experience having worked at GE at a senior staff level), that Jack gave his divisions lots and lots of rope but when reviewing performance of individual groups, it was a brutal dialogue with Welch asking key questions. The intellectual passivity of Bush runs is at exact opposite of what is necessary. (Note: Welch was not necessarily known inside GE for asking lots of questions but for asking the one or two key questions which could make or break your business case).
In summary, I am not impressed with Bush's so-called management style. IMHO, Bush would only last a few months in any real company before being counseled out.