I have had two separate "best managers" for different reasons, both based on the circumstances. On a small, focused team where all members were highly experien

I have had two separate "best managers" for different reasons, both based on the circumstances. On a small, focused team where all members were highly experienced & competent specialists, the good manager kept the team focused on the actual business goal we were trying to solve, and especially by making decisions in the times when the team didn't have a clear consensus about how to approach something. Sometimes it's more important that a decision be clearly made than that it be exactly correct, and having someone with the authority to do that and the willingness to take responsibility for the consequences is incredible for team morale. But most of the time the team will come to a solution on their own and the manager can be part of that but also be able to step back and let it happen. And then sometimes it's more important that the decision be exactly correct than that it be made quickly, and an individual with practiced discernment between these situations is a treasure. In a bigger company my best manager understood their role as a primarily political one mediating the needs of their team (both as a team and as individuals) with the sometimes contradictory needs of the broader business. They "manage up" by presenting the team's work to leadership in a way where leadership can understand the value of the team's work. And they "manage down" by contextualizing business decisions to get team buy in when possible, and just generally being a buffer between the changing whims of leaders and the daily work of the team. Blocking interruptions, arguing about whether things should be done, taking the heat when things go wrong.