I recently became a manager by default, for a small ISP's (15K users) NOC, and one lesson I've learned already is that, often, managers do not have a choice in assigning projects.
Some projects are long term wishlists that are quickly becoming needs, others are immediate problems that need resolution, and still others are past due, often due to other managers delaying things because something more interesting came up.
As to management technique...
Yes, hackers don't react well to micro-management, maybe. There might a subtle difference between micro-management and over-management, IMO.
Micro-management, to me, means checking (either in a simple e-mail or verbal manner) for progress of any sort (detail optional), simply because the hacker is unlikely to tell you boo about their progress unless prompted, or else they get sidetracked by a shiny "new" problem that, while related to the problem at hand, is optional, and all the while forgetting the main goal (I could site examples from my own office, but it would be insulting to those concerned).
Over-management would be demanding detailed written reports daily. While this might look good to the CEOs, both the hacker and the manager end up frustrated in the end. The hacker because (s)he's being pestered for details where there may or may not be any yet, the manager for the apparent lack of closure on the problem, and both because of the lost man-hours.
The big key, I think, in the original post, was that a manager has to be able to pull their techinical share, and if they can't know enough to trust,and support, those that can. Or maybe that's just me daydreaming about how it should be.
... but then again, what do I know?
[ Parent ]