If a person is self aware enough to know they need to be micromanaged than maybe they could request more hands on management. I think one of the points of the article is that many managers assume there is a need for micromanagement and over all that type of management is demotivating and hurts productivity and creativity. I’d argue most people want to do good work if their needs are met and they are in the right environment
Some people who don't think they need micromanagement actually do. The problem is they keep diverting and working on something else, and need to be continually reset back on to the critical path. A good manager will adapt to what works best for the particular employee.
It'll take some time, though, for a manager to learn that a particular person can be trusted with a hands-off style. I've tended to default to hands-off as a manager, sometimes with expensive results.
A good manager shouldn't resort to micromanagement even if the employee requires it. You're not supposed to be their secretary or mommy. A good manager would coach or train them to become more organized. A manager is responsible for supporting their employees' growth, but the employees also have a personal responsibility to develop their skills on their own.
In the long run micromanagement sets them up for failure. You're not going to be there for them forever. If they can't improve their organization skills to a point where they can complete work on their own, then they might not be suited for their job.
I've had the same experience as a hands-off manager. In almost all of those cases I should have let the person go instead of trying to improve how I manage them. Hind sight and all and choosing to let someone go can be difficult, but still
I feel like the author is an extraordinary individual, perhaps sharing some traits with someone like Feynman, but is not aware of how far they deviate from the mean. Although this is the recipe for success with high performers, most people have less discipline and will implode.
