Hitler was a "lazy dictator" per authoritative bio(s)

...Kershaw has argued that in Nazi Germany officials of both the German state and Party bureaucracy usually took the initiative in initiating policy to meet Hitler's perceived wishes, or alternatively attempted to turn into policy Hitler's often loosely and indistinctly phrased wishes.^[57] Though Kershaw does agree that Hitler possessed the powers that the "Master of the Third Reich" thesis championed by Norman Rich and Karl Dietrich Bracher would suggest, he has argued that Hitler was a "lazy dictator", an indifferent dictator who was really not interested in involving himself much in the daily running of Nazi Germany.^[59] The only exceptions were the areas of foreign policy and military decisions, both areas that Hitler increasingly involved himself in from the late 1930s.^[59]

In a 1993 essay "Working Towards the Führer", Kershaw argued that the German and Soviet dictatorships had more differences than similarities.^[24] Kershaw argued that Hitler was a very unbureaucratic leader who was highly averse to paperwork, in marked contrast to Joseph Stalin.^[24] Likewise, Kershaw argued that Stalin was highly involved in the running of the Soviet Union, in contrast to Hitler whose involvement in day-to-day decision making was limited, infrequent and capricious.^[60] Kershaw argued that the Soviet regime, despite all of its extreme brutality and utter ruthlessness, was basically rational in its goal of seeking to modernise a backward country and had no equivalent of the "cumulative radicalization" towards increasingly irrational goals that Kershaw sees as characteristic of Nazi Germany.^[61] In Kershaw's opinion, Stalin's power corresponded to Weber's category of bureaucratic authority, whereas Hitler's power corresponded to Weber's category of charismatic authority.^[62]

In Kershaw's view, what happened in Germany after 1933 was the imposition of Hitler's charismatic authority on top of the "legal-rational" authority system that had existed prior to 1933, leading to a gradual breakdown of any system of ordered authority in Germany.^[63] Kershaw argues that by 1938 the German state had been reduced to a hopeless, polycratic shambles of rival agencies all competing with each other to win Hitler's favour, which by that time had become the only source of political legitimacy.^[64] Kershaw sees this rivalry as causing the "cumulative radicalization" of Germany, and argues that though Hitler always favoured the most radical solution to any problem, it was German officials themselves who for the most part, in attempting to win the Führer's approval, carried out on their own initiative increasingly "radical" solutions to perceived problems like the "Jewish Question", as opposed to being ordered to do so by Hitler.^[65] In this, Kershaw largely agrees with Mommsen's portrait of Hitler as a distant and remote leader standing in many ways above his own system, whose charisma and ideas served to set the general tone of politics.^[65]

As an example of how Hitler's power functioned in practice, Kershaw used Hitler's directive to the Gauleiters Albert Forster and Arthur Greiser to "Germanize" the part of north-western Poland annexed to Germany in 1939 within the next 10 years with his promise that "no questions would be asked" about how this would be done.^[66][67] As Kershaw notes, the completely different ways Forster and Greiser sought to "Germanize" their Gaue – with Forster simply having the local Polish population in his Gau signing forms saying they had "German blood", and Greiser carrying out a program of brutal ethnic cleansing of Poles in his Gau – showed both how Hitler set events in motion, and how his Gauleiters could carry out totally different policies in pursuit of what they believed to be Hitler's wishes.^[66][67] In Kershaw's opinion, Hitler's vision of a racially cleansed Volksgemeinschaft provided the impetus for German officials to carry out increasingly extreme measures to win his approval, which ended with the Holocaust.^[68]...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw#%22Working_Towards_the_F%C3%BChrer%22_concept

...There are a few, but not many, new sources of information that have become available since Kershaw was writing in the late 1990s. But in the end the idea that Hitler was more intellectually sophisticated and somehow deeper than he previously has been depicted — and therefore (and here’s the rub) was an even more formidable seducer of the German people — becomes difficult to sustain.

He was a man of violent shallowness, who (this is not in the book) thought, among many other prejudices, that a second-rate 19th-century German painter called Eduard von Grutzner would one day be seen as a second Rembrandt. As his lifelong emotional and political commitment to Wagner suggests, he could do a lot with very little.

Hitler was stunningly lazy, though this em­erges almost accidentally through the pages of this book. He couldn’t drive, he couldn’t swim and, despite spending so much time in the Bavarian Alps, he couldn’t ski. He played no sports and took no exercise. He and his entourage would take a 10-minute stroll down the hill from his Alpine villa at the Berghof and he then got a lift back while everyone else walked.

After the mid-20s he didn’t pay for anything or look after his finances, which were largely kept aloft by royalties from the book he wrote from his comfortable Bavarian prison cell, Mein Kampf. Both before and after the Great War (where he was a dutiful soldier) he never seems to have worked for any length of time at any trade that required application. He read only works that confirmed his already firm beliefs....

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/hitler-biography-by-volker-ullrich--reveals-lazy-violent-and-hateful-man/news-story/ff12f1d890695606b6a79743a7d97cba