The basic assumption of adequate performance leadership is that a manager should push just enough to get average results, but not so much as to upset people. Such a manager will yield to employees just enough to avoid any problems of low morale or of hostility. The adequate performance manager is the one who will say, “All we want is a fair day’s work, and you’ll receive a fair day’s pay. Just stay out of trouble. I know that the work isn’t as interesting as the work in Department B, but just do what you can to keep busy. Do what the average employee around you does, no more”. Though the words may not be the same, that’s the manager’s tone. The manager who practices this leadership style lives in a world of never-ending compromise. This manager procrastinates more than directs.
The adequate performance manager could be characterized as one who sacrifices other people to avoid taking responsibility or blame for any problem situations. Because you can’t be sure which way such managers will react in any situation, they’re probably the most dangerous kind.
The minimum effort style of leadership is based on the philosophy: Avoid getting involved in anything. The manager who follows this approach completely avoids getting involved in work or worker problems. No wonder this style of leadership is often referred to as MBR (Management By Retreat).
The basic assumption of democratic leadership is that the social nature and relationships of workers are the most important factors to be considered. The democratic style assumes that if subordinates are happy, they’ll also be efficient and productive. In other words, if you give the workers all they want, they’ll give you all you want.
There are basic assumptions in the authoritarian style of leadership. 
One (the most important functions of executive leadership is setting the direction for the organization by identifying basic goals. Once these goals have been set, it may take a long period of time for the organization to make progress towards them. Leadership can then be measured periodically by its effectiveness in meeting goals. For example, if a goal was set to gain a 30% market share within three years and the market share is 20% at the end of this period, the effectiveness of the effort was 67%.
As we’ve seen in our discussion so far, poor or improper delegation of authority can result in confusion and indecision on the part of subordinates. The end result can be a breakdown in the whole system of management. Therefore, a few words of caution are in order at this point: Delegation has a potential for management failure! However, the risk of failure is also present whenever managers plan, organize, motivate, and control. So, in this sense, delegation is simply one of several high-risk activities in any management system.
My previous manager suits very well to the term “Micromanager” because he is midget and looks like a gremlin (the bad one, not the cute one). But kidding aside, that term applies to managers who uses micromanagement. So when he manages his people he is always a failure because he frequently apply micromanagement.