Maybe. But sometimes situations come up where inaction could cause problems that look like negligence, and action could be seen as micromanagement. An argument could be made that in these cases, negligence is worse than micromanagement.
But micromanagment is also not good. Just because boiling hot showers burn your skin off doesn't mean you have to shower ice cold all the time.
> action could be seen as micromanagement
Micromanagement is a certain way of doing action — the typical micromanager is someone who wants to control all the details of everything, all the time.
Granted sometimes it is beneficial for a manager to go through something with their subordinates in all the detail, so the subordinates gain some implicit understanding how you would approach the thing on a detailed level. But this should be a one off, not something you do all the time.
Also: every act could be misunderstood as something else, that is in itself the reality of working in a team.
The best teams I have ever worked in intuitively did something similar to Crew Resource Managment (CRM as used in aviation, expeditions, ...) — the point is, the manager is a resource themselves if they micromanage they spread themselves too thin for when a real problem occurs — if they are not present, they waste their resource and have a team that might be used to work without management, so when a problem arises the new focus of the manager might or might not help. A manager is part of a team and a manager is a resource of the team. If your team will work better if you are gone, or collapses if you are gone, you are doing it wrong.
