Actually, I think the message is that it's more important to be competent than nice. Most of those laid off would have probably preferred an overpaid, aloof manager who kept the company afloat.

Not saying you have to choose, of course. But being competent at management doesn't require you to be loved by all your employees.

This seems to be a classic example of correlation vs. causation.

Airlines have been having a rough time in recent years. Against a background of people bashing them on environmental grounds and promoting alternative modes of transport, often hypocritically, they have seen major costs such as fuel going way up, their market suffering because a lot of air travel is a luxury that people aren't so willing to pay for in a depressed economy, and in many cases significant staffing problems due partly to the same economic conditions.

We can't say whether Japan Air failed because of its CEO's apparently folksy style of management. For all we know, it would have gone to the wall two years earlier if he'd been claiming millions and not so aware of what was really happening from his customers' and staff's points of view.

I didn't say anything like that. In fact, I'm arguing the same point: we can't say his folksy style had any effect on the bottom line, good or bad. I'm just saying that it's clearly not required for good management.

I'd say that's pretty dependent upon one's definition of "good management". Not running the company in the ground is merely acceptable. Looting the company and distancing yourself from the people that sustain your lofty position while not running the company in the ground still seems pretty crap to me compared to engaging your employees directly and keeping your consumption (read salary) in line with the rest of the company while not running said company in the ground. YMMV