The problem is that the "lazy" workers sour employers on the notion. So unless your team is filled with motivated, grown-up individuals that won't just use the opportunity to slack-off and do the bare-minimum necessary, then it makes no sense for the employer to try anything but the "butt-in-seat" approach.

I manage people a group of about 20, and I'd love to have a hands-off approach. I.e. Letting them be creative and do their own thing at their own pace. But after a week or two of that with me trying to encourage them to experiment, and absolutely nothing happening, it's pretty obvious that they're not inclined. They want to just be butt-in-seat for 9-5, like a factory-worker, then go home. Maybe they're broken already. Or maybe they don't care enough to apply their creativity or motivation during those 9-5 hours to show me that they can do that.

I don't know anything about you, so don't take me too seriously.

If you tried to change something, and zero out of twenty people respond well to it at all, have you considered the possibility that it might be you, not them, that should do something differently? A hands-off approach requires a clear mission, motivation, and most of all trust. I don't think "a week or two" of you trying to change something will magically make things different.

To me it sounds like the difference between managing and leading. If you want to be a leader, you might need to invest a bit more time to learn how to do that. Blaming your coworkers for your own shortcomings is the best way never to learn anything. [Again, see disclaimer above.]