Management vs. engineers? It's not black and white.
Suggesting that engineers are just a disorganized rabble of nerds without having "the managers" is rather insulting to professional engineers. A fully developed professional engineer IS a manager - and for that matter a pretty good beancounter, too. It's part of the job.
Now then, you can be a scientist at the top of his/her game and have pretty much no managerial ability whatsoever, but the same does not apply to professional engineers. Engineers are employed to get specific practical things done, and that always means "within a budget, operating with a staff, and with the oversight of bosses". A top flight engineer has to be a good manager: has to be good at managing a budget, managing underlings, managing bosses, and so on.
If you look at the Western space disasters, they were often caused by managers without engineering skills making the decisions. When it's gone right, it's because the engineering voices were followed, not those of the managerial class without an engineering background.
(One notable Soviet rocket launch explosion, the Nedelin disaster, was caused by a military man pushing the engineers to do things they knew were unsafe - look it up. It's not just NASA...)
I'd say it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that managers are to blame for all the problems and can take the credit for all the successes, but blame and credit should be correctly apportioned: (non-engineer) managers are mostly to blame for the failures and engineers (as managers) can take most of the credit for the successes.
(actually, it takes the good will and competence of everyone involved in a space launch project to make it work. Without almost all the workers at all levels being competent and taking pride in a job well done - managers and all - no satellite launcher would deliver its payload correctly. SpaceX's recent exploding launcher shows what you get when just one supplier doesn't bother doing the job properly - parts were certified as being a particular strength, but were nothing like what they should have been. Result: boom!)
The recent news from SpaceX shows an outfit which is run according to the principles of good engineering management. Practically speaking, nothing is perfect. And when you've got a machine as complex and finicky as a modern orbital launcher that's still being developed, it's going to be a good deal less than perfect than one would like. Things will be not quite right, and will need tweaking - this is unavoidable. But unlike NASA with the Space Shuttle (RIP two crews), when SpaceX spots an issue, it looks into it and tweaks when needed. This is a sign that prospective astronauts can trust them, not the reverse.