That's what a "close friend" and colleague of Wolfowitz's says of his management style. Doesn't it describe everything you know about him to a T? It's one of the reasons Iraq is in the state it's in, why the World Bank is in the state its in, even why Wolfowitz's "retirement" is in the state its in:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/may/17/what_happened_to_wolfowitz_the_strategist What Happened to Wolfowitz the Strategist?By Steve Clemons | bio
Paul Wolfowitz has all but conceded that he is leaving his perch as CEO of the World Bank. The only question that remains is what gets scribbled in the last paragraph of the story on whether the "blame" for his departure is shared -- and whether he resigned under his own steam or was actually, formally fired.
What is odd about this entire encounter is that "Wolfowitz the strategist" seems to be missing -- and that may have been the problem all along.
Many officials in the Bank did not like Wolfowitz because of his central role in designing, planning and launching the Iraq War. But had the former Deputy Secretary of Defense come into the Bank with a compelling plan for global economic development that built on the strengths and addressed some of the weaknesses of the Bank's relative skill sets, a relationship of mutual trust and respect, even if grudging, would have taken root.
Even one of Wolfowitz's closest friends and the not-often discussed third political appointee (the other two were the more controversial Kevin Kellems and Robin Cleveland) brought in by Wolfowitz, Karl Jackson, has reportedly told numerous World Bank and diplomatic pals of his that "Paul has no plan. Everything is ad hoc, reactive -- first we go this way, then we go that." If his friends are saying that, imagine what Wolfowitz's enemies think.....