I can't speak for oldtaku, but having studied the Humanities myself and been in extensive contact with academics of many stripes, I'd say yes, that'd be very surprising.
It's one thing to discern someone who lacks actual knowledge of things like literature, history, philosophy, and art, because you can just start a conversation with them about things they ought to know in those fields. You can't just fake that kind of knowledge - you have to know your history, you have to know your literary authors, you have to know the schools of philosophical thought, and you have to know the artists.
But "management"? Many companies don't fill those positions based on hard numbers and proof of an applicant's ability pertaining worker and resource efficiency - they base it on things like how good an applicant's appearance is, how well they sell themselves, and how closely they adhere to the corporate culture already in place.
Most managerial positions don't require proof of competance. They don't ask for portfolios of your prior work, and they don't test your aptitude or skills in actually managing people. They simply look to see if you walk the walk, talk the talk, wear the suit, and lick the boot.
They want the bold and brash shyster who can talk their way into the position without any clue what they're actually doing, not the humdrum boring thinker who crunches actual numbers to find ways to increase efficiency and who understands human motivation and psychology beyond making people miserable via passive aggression and petty schoolyard manipulations.