My answer: it depends.
It depends on whether the critical, high-level work has already been handled.
By “critical,” I mean things that can’t be solved by the level below you. For example:
- Setting clear vision and direction for the team
- Building and reinforcing the right culture
- Improving coordination across teams (e.g., Tech Lead ↔ Product Lead, Head of Tech ↔ Head of Product)
- Solving team performance issues
- Making tough calls like managing out when needed
These are responsibilities that naturally sit at level N+1.
If those are not done yet, then that’s where your focus should be.
But once the high-level work is in good shape, going hands-on can be very valuable.
Why?
Because it keeps you relevant with what’s actually happening on the ground.
The reality is, teams don’t always ask for help.
Sometimes they hesitate because they don’t want to look incompetent.
So as a leader, part of the job is to:
- Identify where help is needed
- Step in to accelerate progress
- Move on to the next area once things are stable
Does that mean micromanaging?
Not necessarily.
For me, micromanagement is not about the manager, but about the person being managed.
- Some team members are highly independent. Too much oversight slows them down.
- Others may need closer support, especially if they’re junior or trying to get back on track.
So the approach should adapt to the situation and the individual.
Personally, I’ve experienced both extremes.
There were times when the team was strong and independent, so I focused purely on high-level work.
More recently, I’ve gone deep into the details:
- Setting up automation as a reference for the team
- Even cleaning up operational data to set a proper standard
So, should leaders be hands-on?
It depends on the situation.
If the critical high-level problems are already solved, keeping your hands dirty can actually make you more effective and more relevant.