In both scenarios, as a team member and as a team leader, I believe that a hands off method is the better management style. However, I do believe that it would be beneficial for the manager to check in with each team member on their progress. For example, if they check in with the members once a week they will be aware of any delays that may occur or any assistance that the members require on their tasks. I believe that this method will promote a level of trust between the members and their leader. This will lead to the members feeling more responsible for their work and make them ensure they do the best work they can. In addition, I believe that this independence will lead to the members being more creative with their problem solving and also have them grow professionally. 

I personally prefer to work with a boss that is more hands-off. Micro managing can cause the members of the team to refrain from personal expression. With a laid back approach to managing, you encourage members of the team to actively communicate their opinions, any issues they may have, and even concerns. For these reasons, as a leader, I would take the hands-off approach in allowing my team to work with me instead of giving the impression that they work for me. Micro-managing can be detrimental to the dynamic of a team. 

I prefer to work with a boss that is more hands off. When a manager gives their team members space to work on their own, it gives them the ability to grow in their field and the ability to approach the project in their own way, thus offering a different lens. Contrastingly, Micro-managing can cause team members to be hesitant about expressing their ideas. If I was a leader of a team, I would use the laid-back approach. I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I am open to ideas from others. 

I agree with @devdesai hands off approach is more preferable but there is a strong necessity to check-in and make sure that project deadlines are being met. Along side a weekly or bi-weekly meeting can help answer question or help another team member who maybe stuck or is busy with other tasks. With micro managing or any management style where there are constant or daily check-ins more of your time taken in making sure everyone is on the same page rather than meeting deadlines. The formality of it makes it more a cumbersome approach to managing team members. 

i would like to work with a hands off boss. this method can create a comfortable working environment. lots of time a boss is a business major, they do not know anything about design but they still want to control every detail of the project. they make lots of unreality demand. in the result, the project will not meet the dead line and group member will be frustrated. 

Whether I am the leader or working with a leader I prefer to work hands-off. One of the biggest things that make most jobs so annoying is the feeling that corporate feeling of "work." There are enough regulations, design controls, rules, and endless principles that can make work seem boring or mundane, and don't help to feel that someone is breathing down your neck. Now if you give someone the flexibility to complete their tasks while following these principles for a more smooth and healthy work environment then everyone is happier aaand it feels like "less work". This also allows for a more personable relationship between bosses and workers which again makes things more comfortable. 

I would also rather have a more hands off manager. I wouldn’t want a manager that checks with me or helps me every step of the way. Even if I am encountering a certain problem, I would like to figure out the solution to the problem by myself through research or I would prefer if I approach them asking for help. I believe that this helps foster creativity and growth in employees. However, there is more risk for errors and performance issues with this method, so the team should have the competency to perform well. As a manager, I would personally have a mix of both styles depending on my team members. It would be more of a hands off management with a bit of micro-managing when necessary. Sometimes it is good to guide and help your team members when needed but not in a way where it stops the members from thinking on their own. 

I prefer to work for bosses/project managers that take a more hands-off approach. Personally, I think this allows project team members more autonomy in their work and reduces pressure. As long as the project team members are able to accomplish their tasks, I don't see many advantages for micro-managers. 

That being said, I think it is important that bosses/project managers aren't too hands-off. I think they should be aware of what is happening at all times and act as a coach/navigator to steer the project in the right direction if it begins to get off track. Striking the balance between Hand-on/Hands-off is difficult to find for a boss/PM but I think it's a big differentiator in successful/unsuccessful bosses/PM's.

Thanks,

Matt

As most responses before me, I also prefer a hands-off approach because it relies on trust and lets the team have a sense of responsibility. This style gives more freedom which allows personal expression to be incorporated into the projects. A micro-manager is like big brother watching your every move. The team could be holding back due to a fear of constant criticism. Performing to the best of their potential likely would not be achieved. If I was a leader, I certainly would have a hands-off style because I like to help build confidence in others by allowing them to be their own boss.

Within teams, I prefer a boss who is more hands off. However, I think it is still dependent on whether this boss is willing to have a regular progress meeting. Based on my academic and professional experience, I have seen the benefits of progress meetings. During a summer internship, my manager typically had a very booked calendar. So, I had more independence in how I worked on my project. However, I still felt supported as I used our one on ones as a way to ask questions. I also reached out to other people in my department for help. I was able to seek help on my terms rather than having every decision I made be scrutinized. So these meetings give the worker more direction and clarity of what is expected. This approach would allow for some guidance during these meetings, but still avoid micromanaging. This set-up would allow for a balance between maintaining personal professional responsibilities and open communication with the manager.

I think hands off is definitely the best way to go. But, obviously, it might not be the best way to go for all employees. Some employees might be really good in a hands-off style but at some point, if they are going through some emotions. They might require more micro-managing. So, it really is case by case. There is no one size fits all, in this situation. 

The preference for a hands-off or micro-managerial leadership style often depends on the team members and  project.  The hands off leadership style requires highly skilled and motivated team members. Also in this style sometimes there might be a lack of direction that may lead to confusion.  I believe the micro managerial style is better when someone has not a lot of experience.  I feel this way because this leadership style lowers the possibility of errors by providing clear guidance and supervision. Moreover, tasks are executed according to a specific plan.

I personally like working under a manager who takes a less hands-on approach. This approach strengthens team members' confidence to take responsibility for their job, fosters independence, and stimulates creativity. A hands-off leadership style enables people to more fully utilize their special talents by establishing an environment of trust and independence.

As a leader, I believe in adopting a more hands-off approach. My objective would be to offer direction, support, and a clear vision to team members while allowing them the freedom to discover their own strengths and make choices within their assigned roles. This method often sparks the development of original ideas, improves team morale, and creates a vibrant work atmosphere.

Although there are benefits to both types of leadership, a more detached style, in my opinion, is usually better at encouraging creativity, assisting in staff growth, and raising job satisfaction. However, a leadership style's effectiveness depends on a number of variables, including the particular project, the dynamics of the team, and the individuals involved. Leadership requires flexibility, and the best outcomes are frequently attained by adjusting one's strategy to fit the particular needs of the group and project.

There are different leadership styles that a PM can implement but it all comes down to whether they want to be loved or feared as a leader. Every good leader will inspire and set clear expectations for their team but how they do it depends on if they want to gain fear from their team members or if they want to be loved. 

While fear can compel obedience from your team members, it often leads to resentment, low morale, and decreased productivity as time goes on. Fear-based leaders may achieve short-term results through coercion or intimidation, they are unlikely to inspire loyalty or foster a positive work environment within that company. 

Loved leaders who prioritize building strong relationships, empowering their team members, and demonstrating genuine care and appreciation tend to cultivate loyalty, engagement, and commitment within their teams. But, team members will take advantage of this and do less work as time goes on. 

So, it requires a balance of both. Effective leadership is not the extreme—being solely loved or feared. Instead, they should strive to balance both with compassion, accountability with encouragement, and decisiveness with collaboration. They set clear expectations, provide guidance and support, and hold themselves and others accountable for their actions.