Well, I'd say everyone tries to overstate their case a bit, don't we? But if we care about the state of everyday debate and judgment then we should also accept improvements. And it could be considered improvement if a politician / manager / director gets their knowledge of science and psychology from Gladwell than from CSI or ESPN Live respectively (which they would otherwise).
Actually, this is a specific case of the bad is worse than the none (as opposed to the bad being better than none. I.e., half a loaf of bread is better than no bread if you're hungry, but a half-finished boat hull won't float, if you take it out it'll sink under you).
In this case, your friendly PHB looks at Gladwell or other pop sci author, decides its true (a falsehood), and then makes policy based on the illusion of correctness. Now you, in your quest for truth, have to defeat Gladwell as well as spread truth. See how it gets worse than your PHB just derping it up on his own?
