I didn't get that from this piece at all. At what point did the PM in question appear to be micromanaging?
> spec the 'what' very broadly.
That's laughable. No client or internal stakeholder is ever going to spec the "what" broadly for any definition of the term, and if you let them you're setting yourself up for failure (because they're not going to like what you make, and they sign your check).
> Make sure the programmers create a product that the designer can 'skin' afterwards
And what if the programmers leave something critical out of the design? What if the designer was expecting behavior that is different from what was created?
> Have the QA work with the actual product and not a spec - the users will be using the product after all, not the spec.
QA resources use the spec to create a test plan from which they test the final product. If they don't test against the spec, what do they test against? If they're not testing against the spec, they're not exactly doing quality assurance, are they?
Your comment shows a strong lack of understanding of almost everything that was mentioned in the blog post linked to by the OP.