Coaching Styles: micromanaging vs. delegating

Yes, I get that there are examples on both sides of this that can be pointed to as successes and failures, but as a whole which one would you rather see?

-Carr, I can't speak to.  I'd like to believe he was a delegator, but the predictable run plays he had at times tells me he micromanaged at times (either that or our OCs were too big into "Michigan-style football" to be creative)

-Rich Rod was a micromanager on both sides, and his bullheadedness about the 3-3-5, even when he had a 4-3 DC, was a big part of his downfall. Instead of allowing Robinson to play a defensive scheme that would have been more conducive to both Robinson and the team, he insisted on "his way or the highway," and as a result had a joke of a defense, and along with other issues (some his fault, some not) we know the rest...

-Hoke seemed to micromanage the defense, but had blind delegation for the offense.  Borges basically reran Rich Rod's spread scheme at first and, coupled with Hoke's detail to defense and a scheme that made more sense, had a successful first year.  But after that, it was as if Hoke delegated TOO much to Borges, who ended up with schemes so complicated that even an NFL player would have had difficulty remembering them all. The result was that Hoke acted quite passive at times in the coaching of the offense (either that or he gave Dave Brandon way too much input) and didn't step in when needed. And again, along with other issues, we know the rest...

-So now we come to Harbaugh.  Harbaugh strikes me as a micromanager, at least on offense.  If what's said is true, Gattis is not being given full control of the playbook.  As for the other side of the ball, I don't know if Browns "Dr. Blitz" playbook is what Harbaugh is actually demanding, or if Harbaugh is simply letting him go do his own thing.   And... we know the rest...

So while each coach is individually different and gets different results, do you lean more toward a micromanager or a delegator?