i don't think they're actually advocating for micromanaging, they've just redefined training/mentorship as "good micromanaging":
> We should micromanage as much as possible without making somebody feel like we are reducing their agency. In my experience, the best way to avoid this is to treat them like an apprentice:
>
> 1. Demarcate the areas where they have agency.
> 2. Give feedback without killing their agency.
> 3. Graduate them out of apprenticeship when they are ready.
Micromanagement has been around for a long time and workers have long fought to undo the entrenched philosophy of it. It isn't just an expression, it's an entire ideology that's well-defined and has been for some time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement
The problem here is that managers are less qualified than the individuals they manage in actually doing work, since the reports are the 'doers'. It would be more appropriate for a higher-level 'doer' to provide the mentoring than the manager. mentorship != managering
Qualifications are not the same as roles. A manager may or may not be qualified to provide IC mentorship. A more senior IC should be, but good mentorship does not automatically flow from being a good engineer, and there can be a fine line between micro-managing a junior engineer and mentoring them towards meeting their full potential. At the end of the day, it's on the manager to understand the dynamics at play and figure out the right way to maximize the team (whether that be development oriented or results oriented).
My general assessment of mentoring and micromanagement is that they originate from different objectives. The first is about developing the IC for their long-term effectiveness. The latter is about meeting deadlines and promises made by the manager, satisfying their manager/vp, and/or general insecurity because they don't fully understand the development process/cadence, technology, etc. A good manager can certainly also be a good mentor. One typically described as a micromanager, not so much.
I don't disagree, but micromanagement is a loaded term with a negative connotation to begin with. The fact is, whether a certain manager or tech lead behavior is considered micromanagement is highly dependent on the IC's experience, skillset and their ability to deliver on higher-level goals. There's a continuum between micromanagement, coaching, and abdication. As a manager you want to stay in the coaching zone, but what that means depends on the project and individuals in play.
> We should micromanage as much as possible without making somebody feel like we are reducing their agency. In my experience, the best way to avoid this is to treat them like an apprentice: > > 1. Demarcate the areas where they have agency. > 2. Give feedback without killing their agency. > 3. Graduate them out of apprenticeship when they are ready.