Lucy Kellaway had a funny article in the Financial Times today on "Why academics make an unfit subject for management" She argues that typical academics are by their nature poor team players and troublemakers. Among her criticisms:

Some have spectacularly low levels of emotional intelligence, which is often more important than IQ in getting things done.

They are not team players, to put it mildly. Many are introverted. Moreover, the structure of university life means their colleagues (in most subjects save science) are their rivals.

Criticism is a way of life. The mind of the academic is trained to pull holes in things. So when presented with a new initiative, they question it and deem it a waste of time as a matter of course.

There is no line of authority. In a big company everyone sucks up to their bosses and agrees with them. In a university, there is less to be gained by brown-nosing, so disagreement prevails.
VThey are complacent and have an interest in the status quo that has given them secure jobs and pensions.

Because their status largely depends on their research, which may only be understood by a tiny number of people, insecurity, pettiness and bitchiness often result.