I don’t think this is right. Managers can be hands-on or hands-off, task-oriented, or people-oriented.
Very task-oriented + very hands-on = micromanager.
Very hands-off = a disengaged manager.
In my experience, the best managers can find a beneficial spot on those axes for each employee.
Give the technically competent people lacking confidence reassurance (be hands-on and people-oriented), micromanage a bit with people who aren’t doing their work effectively and not as a result of something that can be fixed with empathy or encouragement, and be disengaged when you’re working with competent self-motivated misanthropes.
IMO, saying one extreme is better than another tells you a bit about the author, nothing helpful about management in general.
Regarding the complaint of not moving decisions forward with a disengaged manager, if you plan to be absentee you must delegate, i.e. be laissez-faire. If you’re forcing people to get your approval and you’re not around to give it, you’ve combined the most incompatible bits of micromanager and the disengaged manager.
Very task-oriented + very hands-on = micromanager.
Very hands-off = a disengaged manager.
In my experience, the best managers can find a beneficial spot on those axes for each employee.
Give the technically competent people lacking confidence reassurance (be hands-on and people-oriented), micromanage a bit with people who aren’t doing their work effectively and not as a result of something that can be fixed with empathy or encouragement, and be disengaged when you’re working with competent self-motivated misanthropes.
IMO, saying one extreme is better than another tells you a bit about the author, nothing helpful about management in general.
Regarding the complaint of not moving decisions forward with a disengaged manager, if you plan to be absentee you must delegate, i.e. be laissez-faire. If you’re forcing people to get your approval and you’re not around to give it, you’ve combined the most incompatible bits of micromanager and the disengaged manager.