Also, I'm 99% sure that Steve Job once said (paraphrasing): "We don't hire talented people to tell them what to do, we hire them to tell us what to do". Which to me sounds like "Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs".
So there is a discrepancy here as Steve Job is also used as an example of a "Founder Mode" CEO.
Not saying there is a contradiction, just a piece missing somewhere in the essays logic.
Letting your employees tell you what you need to do is not the same as giving them room to do what they want.
In the former, you are immediately aware of what they're doing and why, because they're telling you! You can ask questions if their reasoning doesn't sound convincing, intervene early if there's disagreement as to what should be done, and decide whose project takes priority. Steve Jobs was a very active CEO in this regard. Bullshitters will not survive long in such an organization.
The latter, on the other hand, is often taken to imply that you should not intervene unless absolutely necessary -- which often means, until it's too late.
henry ford was also pretty far from this warren buffett mode of letting the upper management of the company do what they want. very deeply involved in every level of the company, much like steve jobs
WRT https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41417363 the story I heard about Ford management vs GM management was that Ford had a "system" which involved looking around at the heights of various stacks of reports in his office and intervening where he felt things were out of whack.
Upon reflection, if each sheet of each report, on average, dealt with about the same dollar value of things as the other sheets in its stack, then his system, far from being madness, would've just been an early, analogue and low-pass-filtered, lo-tech "business intelligence" dashboard.
Not saying there is a contradiction, just a piece missing somewhere in the essays logic.