Micromanaged or Given No Guidance.....Your Choice

Both are awful, but no guidance at least allows you room to grow and problem solve.

"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." ~George S. Patton

No guidance. Micromanagement is the number one reason I am unhappy with my "leadership". Give me some "micro-leadership" in lieu of micromanagement, and maybe I would be happy. If I am a doer, then management should trust me to do the tasks that I am signed off to do. If I am a manager, then my manager should trust that I know the processes I need to manage without excessive and duplicative oversight. If I am leader, then I should be free to influence others to accomplish the mission. Micromanagers get in the way at all levels.

Of the options I choose no guidance. I've been in both spots and lack of guidance gives me freedom to figure things out for myself and do things how I see fit. If the product I produce isn't liked well someone should've given me guidance and have no one to blame but themselves.
That said I prefer a happy balance, give me a right and a left to work with, even suggest were I can find some ideas or give me a template and then let me do it. But to try and work and have every move under the microscope drives me insane.

Looks like a trend developing. I too would say that if those are my only two choices, give me the mission and no guidance. If someone is micro-managed, they are irrelevant to the mission at hand.
On a deeper level, both scenarios show a lack of good leadership in their own ways.

I would say No Guidance. You would be amazed at what a 2LT can do. Just give me a compass and I got this.

No Guidance! Then they can't say anything about me doing what I want to do! You can bet that I will still get my job done above standard and on time.

I was micro managed on my last deployment. There's nothing worse than a Major standing over your shoulder all day. I understand the need to know what's going on and be updated, but to me, if someone is doing that, it means they aren't trusting their NCOs. We need to be allowed to figure things out on our own, ask questions as needed, and learn.

No guidance. I had a PSG who was like that with me (he wasn't like that with every soldier in the platoon, only with the ones he trusted and knew they could handle it). He would tell me "I need this done" or "this is what needs to happen", my response was always "roger, I'm on it sarge" and he would leave me alone. After I was done, he always expected me to go give him an update, which was usually "It's done, sarge". I come from a civilian working environment where you worked at your own pace, finding your own way of getting the job done quick and efficiently, figuring stuff out on your own using TM's and stuff like that (I was a mechanic at a dealership before I joined), so when I have someone on my butt telling me how to do my job or any given task without letting me explore my options and finding my own way of getting the job done correctly and as quick as possible, it really bothers me. Makes me feel that you think I'm a dumb, incompetent person that can't take care of himself or accomplish any given task without having someone hold my hand, telling me how to do everything.
You cannot expect people to learn, be experts at they're job or even be leaders if you're always micromanaging, telling them how to do everything. You have to let them explore they're own ways and let them learn from they're mistakes. Experience makes for a better mentor and leader, better than a person that was told how to do everything.

Frankly - neither is a good choice. Both are distinct signs of a lack of faith and trust by leadership. On one hand (micromanagement) leadership is signaling they would rather do the job themselves - which makes you a useless cog. On the other hand (no guidance) leadership is indicating they are too busy or too ignorant of what you do. While some may view no guidance as the preferable choice - how do you then justify your efforts or the hours you put in? How do you show the need for additional equipment, personnel, space, etc if the boss isn't aware? How do you justify excellent marks in your annual evaluations when the boss isn't there to show you where you might have gone too far or not far enough?

Too many times have I observed an individual on a task or in an office being busy as a bee - super productive - but when an auditor shows up or an IG or a command inspection - who then answers for the unguided individual? If all is well after the inspection leadership above you will certainly take all the credit but I can assure you leadership will be the first to say - "uh, that's not what we told him/her to do" if things don't go so well in the inspection.

Leadership has to be involved. Depending on your level of expertise you may signal that you're ready to take off the training wheels as early as day 2 of a new assignment - but never, ever try to indicate you are willing to accept no interface / face time with your boss.

If you're not given any guidance, you can't be wrong.