It's worth mentioning that Woody Allen has a fairly unique relationship in Hollywood; the studios grant him an unprecedented amount of creative control and allow him to continue making films within the system for very little returns, and Actors also voluntarily take a cut in their usual fee to appear in his films.

I'm not sure what lessons can be drawn, if any, from this stray point away from the normal distribution curve.

1 - find a guy managing stuff and is successful at it

2 - declare all others are like him, without any kind of comparison

3 - post with sensationalistic head line on various sites

4 - profit

This is also the formula behind an entire subgenre of business books, like "Shakespeare on Management" or "Jesus, CEO". I've even seen one like that for Dr. Seuss. I keep wanting to do a business book based on Kafka.

All great managers are great. And if all great managers are the same, then there is nothing to compare!

Woody Allen films are a less stressful way to garner some acting credit for film stars whose bread and butter is big dumb films. Usually one has to take on a small off-broadway role (that's what Kevin Spacey has been doing hee at the Donmar for years - offering stars who will fill houses roles to prove they can "act".

Allen films are just 6 weeks shorter engagements

for me the lesson here is be the manager who has a fixed short term project each year, where everyone involved can claim kudos and respect, and you will be hiring engaged talented and frequently famous people who will lend you some of their charisma in return.

I would add one more thing to that list:

Don't hog all of the credit!

From both sides of the above situation, I know that it will make your workers not suggest new things nor care about their job. In the end that just makes your job harder.

I was sure this was going to be an Anna Karenina riff: "All great managers are alike; every fucked-up manager is fucked up in their own way."

Certainly there are traits that most great managers share. I think it's a stretch to say they're all alike. That said, I generally agree with the given points.

I agree with you in that sensationalist blog post titles are annoying and far too common.

That being said, in this case it's almost certainly intended to be an Anna Karenina reference rather than simple hyperbole ("All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way").

It is pretty obvious that that good managers are mostly alike, because it is true for most good (or useful things). Likewise the variations for bad (or things that are not useful) are going to be much, much higher.

As a consequence the search space for great is much smaller than the overall search space and so most will look the same.