Two things come to mind: first, I'll echo ChipsChap's sentiment about the manager's job. I'll add that sometimes there just needs to be someone who can make an informed decision and move forward. In many cases - in spite of what individual contributors may think - there isn't a clear-cut or definitive "better" way/solution/approach. A good manager makes decisions in the face of ambiguity, on behalf of the individual contributors, in spite of the fact that some will be pissed off.
The second thing is the unfortunate cycle I see embodied in many comments here: individual contributors have a bad boss, and declare all management stupid and decide to forge their own path as much as possible. Managers have bad individual contributors, and declare them all ineffective and in need of more management. The sports team analogy is nice because it is fairly obvious to most people that forging your own path and deciding your individuals are ineffective doesn't work.
I'll add to that, many people also misunderstand the purpose of a manager or individual contributor. Too often, ICs look expect management to be some kind of "super" version of themselves. If you're an engineer and you expect your boss to be a smarter/faster version of you, you don't understand their role (note: this is not the same as having zero understanding of a position). If you're a manager and you expect your IC to understand (or care about) the big picture or things that aren't directly in line with their day-to-day (even others' day-to-day), you don't understand their value. Case in point: I am far from the best or smartest software engineer in my company (thank goodness), but I damned well wouldn't go to one of my leads and ask them to devise a market/strategy-based feature pipeline that includes allowances for where we expect *global* legislation differences to lead the industry I'm in (and please code them up lickity-split, if you don't mind).