There's a reason that call it "directing" and not "creating". A director directs (as in "push in a certain direction") other things -- other people, the project itself, etc.
The best directors therefore make it possible for everyone else to do their best, through encouragement, collaboration, applied pressure, criticism and cheerleading, listening to others, etc. And if everyone else does their best, assuming he hired talented people with a lot of potential, then the director ultimately will reap the reward of a well-done movie. It's in his own best interest to be generous. He even allows some failure in others if they failed trying to achieve greatness; he makes them feel safe and he trusts the talents of others.
A bad director worries only about their status and power on a set, about giving orders and having them followed no matter how bad they are, about getting all the credit immediately for anything that goes right and taking no blame for anything that goes wrong. They push people into playing everything safe, being afraid to fail. And they push people into only thinking about what will please the director's ego, not into thinking about what will best serve the project.
Now there has to be a taskmaster aspect to a director -- in getting the best out of people, he has to make them work hard and not settle for what is easy. He has to be willing to say "no" until better ideas are presented to him. He has to have high standards even while trying to stay on budget and schedule -- after all, he's not shooting a budget and a schedule, he's shooting a movie and he will be judged by that ultimately more than anything else.
And I apologize for using the masculine pronoun "he" when describing a director. I'll switch to "she" for the next part...
And a good director has to exercise good taste, in all things, from her notes to the screenwriter to the locations and wardrobe she approves, to the casting, to the design of the camera movements, to the editing, to the sound mix and color timing -- directing is a series of small choices that add up to the thousands, tens of thousands, before the production is finished. A director with poor taste is a nightmare for a person with taste to deal with.
A good director synthesizes others' ideas into a cohesive whole, like a symphony conductor getting a lot of talented musicians to contribute to a singular vision of the music.
My favorite directors are demanding, but always in a pleasant and professional manner; they naturally gather respect from others by dint of their obvious talents, inspiring you to not fail them, but to impress them with your own abilities. They have a sense of humor, especially when times get tough (and they always get tough). They don't cry over spilled milk, they don't waste emotional effort on things that cannot be fixed, they don't waste the energy on the set over things that have nothing to do with getting the movie made. To some extent, they are a parental figure on the set and they have to set the right example. If they are petty, then the crew and actors get petty, and if not, they at least certainly lose respect for the director, and once the director has lost the respect of the crew, it's over.
My favorite directors are organized, they do their homework, and they keep an eye on what every department is doing. On the other hand, they don't micro-manage because once they start doing that, it's like a director giving an actor a line reading -- all you get is a mediocre copy of what the director is doing. Supposedly the director has hired people who are better at their individual jobs than the director is, so the director better let them do their job.
