It presents the communication as if it's saving someone time. In practice, it's a communication style that tells the manager that they need to always keep on top of whatever the employee is doing or else that employee might be taking unwanted action(s). The article treats it as a notification, but even with the best intentions and the best understandings, notifications have a habit of getting lost in a noise of signals. A lack of response does not indicate consent. It could, but it could also very well indicate that the message hasn't been received.
It might be fine if the problem was something the employee and manager previously talked about and this is simply moving forward with a solution, but it's a terrible way to introduce a problem that the other party hasn't even considered. It's a selfish take, and the antithesis of teamwork.
Feels like the sort of thing someone might have seen one of the mythical 10x, Rockstar engineers do. The sort of engineer that's always on top of their game, churning out feature after feature, knows what to do, and has enough respect from and mutual understanding with management that they're given the leeway to self-manage. And the someone, seeing this, decided that the same can apply to themselves, without understanding why that rockstar engineer gets that treatment, or how to go about earning it for themselves in the firstplace.