If a manager is not technical enough to delve into an issue within their team, should they even be leading that team ? They may choose not to do so, but if a problem is not getting solved and they can't act in such a time of need, their existence is totally questionable.
1. They use useless meetings as shields for their time. That is, I can put myself on a meeting that I never attend so that I am less likely to be booked for that time. I will often have time blocks on my calendar because I work in functional workplaces for me, but this can be useful in toxic environments.
2. They have additional project/product management responsibilities. This is common for platform teams that they don't have PM support and have to wrangle people themselves.
3. They're really working 50+ hours a week and do their real work afterwards or before. This is common in places that oversubscribe managers. (I've hat 15 and even 25 reports before. I've even seen 50.)
4. They don't know how to say no and guard their time. This is common with younger managers.
From my experience, this type of manager is more like that of a producer, merely called manager. Their job leans more on the lead to understand the technical planning, while they themselves coordinate between leads. In addition, they are also the direct contact for (often non-technical) stakeholders, so their strengths may lay more on securing deals/clients as opposed to developing/maintaining the product.
Lots of hats being worn in such a role between "kinda tech", PR, sales, and producing, so these happen semi-often in smaller companies, and almost never in a sufficiently large company.
You'll see this approach to running a business everywhere other than the tech industry.