This is laudable, and you sound like someone who is both competent and works with competent people. In those cases they should not be micromanaged because it will stunt their growth and result in worse outcomes because of the greater knowledge the IC will have for the task at hand than the person not doing the task.
But those preconditions of competence are not always in plentiful supply.
Some team members must be empowered, be given a target to go after, be given a domain of responsibility, and then let loose, with little interference except to assist in politicking or obtaining organizational resources.
There are others, however, where this will be disastrous. Frequent errors, stopping progress without raising a flag, inability to adjust course and learn, inability to be resourceful, lack of agency, inability to map objectives to tasks required. Experienced managers have all had this kind of team member, and recognize after many attempts that "be a better leader" often doesn't fix it.
The easy answer is to say, "well, simply don't hire this latter group of people, or PIP them if you do." But they exist, and they will wind up working somewhere, even if perhaps they are not working at a large, extremely well-paying tech company that typically will have plenty of applicants for their RSU-laden opportunities.
So, yes, those classic leadership qualities are great when the team member will thrive with them. In those cases the leader must provide the target, the support, and 'get out of the way.' But it is the rather ugly reality that this is not always the case. And in those, the leader must adapt their approach.
But those preconditions of competence are not always in plentiful supply.
Some team members must be empowered, be given a target to go after, be given a domain of responsibility, and then let loose, with little interference except to assist in politicking or obtaining organizational resources.
There are others, however, where this will be disastrous. Frequent errors, stopping progress without raising a flag, inability to adjust course and learn, inability to be resourceful, lack of agency, inability to map objectives to tasks required. Experienced managers have all had this kind of team member, and recognize after many attempts that "be a better leader" often doesn't fix it.
The easy answer is to say, "well, simply don't hire this latter group of people, or PIP them if you do." But they exist, and they will wind up working somewhere, even if perhaps they are not working at a large, extremely well-paying tech company that typically will have plenty of applicants for their RSU-laden opportunities.
So, yes, those classic leadership qualities are great when the team member will thrive with them. In those cases the leader must provide the target, the support, and 'get out of the way.' But it is the rather ugly reality that this is not always the case. And in those, the leader must adapt their approach.