It always interesting to see the different interpretations of micro-management within different or similar jobs. My observation is that this level of detail is required in the beginning as someone is coming up to speed. I would also utilize this for a few weeks to gain an understanding of how managers are reporting status or problems to me then comparing that with what is submitted via the group or individual doing the work. I don't think it is unusual to have a high degree of skepticism of what is being reported when you first take on a project unless you have previously worked with a group or person before and have that working history. With this however there needs to be an understanding that if this isn't the normal reporting workflow work might be slowed down a bit adjusting to the new process.
Long term this is what project/program managers, ticketing systems, demo and planning, etc are for. You embed the stakeholder in the project and they can directly control the direction and status. If a project isn't going as planned as a manager or owner you should re-evaluate whether you actually understand the problem/solution or if you have not communicated it clearly.
Depending on your organizations size I would question a manager that can't give a fairly up-to-date status on what their people are working on without depending on a daily report to be given to them. Maybe if they just started there would be some leeway but if you aren't getting your own daily process together to make yourself more efficient, what value are you providing your team? You can't anticipate roadblocks if you don't know where you are in the plan, you can't start reaching out to other teams when co-ordination is needed, you can't give mentorship or guidance when things need to pivot because you won't be ahead of things and most importantly you may fail to see where your group aligns with the current objectives/mission which is one step toward irrelevancy.
A boss asking you what you did all week, once a week isn't micro management. Can you think of any job where you don't update your boss at least once a week.
But then most multinational companies haven't been loosing millions of $ every day.
I've worked for two multinational companies (or ones I would consider such). I was on a first name basis with both CEO's. They weren't overbearing, but I knew them as people I could go to if I really needed to.
He's more hands on than most CEO's.
Don't get me wrong, working for Musk sounds like hell for someone who gives a crap about his work/life balance. But, I don't find the idea of emailing a status report weekly, overbearing.
Long term this is what project/program managers, ticketing systems, demo and planning, etc are for. You embed the stakeholder in the project and they can directly control the direction and status. If a project isn't going as planned as a manager or owner you should re-evaluate whether you actually understand the problem/solution or if you have not communicated it clearly.
Depending on your organizations size I would question a manager that can't give a fairly up-to-date status on what their people are working on without depending on a daily report to be given to them. Maybe if they just started there would be some leeway but if you aren't getting your own daily process together to make yourself more efficient, what value are you providing your team? You can't anticipate roadblocks if you don't know where you are in the plan, you can't start reaching out to other teams when co-ordination is needed, you can't give mentorship or guidance when things need to pivot because you won't be ahead of things and most importantly you may fail to see where your group aligns with the current objectives/mission which is one step toward irrelevancy.