I think you're using different phrasing to describe the same effect. Autonomy and the org knowing what it wants to do/needs to do go hand in hand. In your long-term speculative research oriented work, you had autonomy because you knew what you were working on - not what it was in terms of tickets per se, but it sounds like you knew your scope and your objectives.
At 10+ person org sizes, most people can't have long-term scope and autonomy if the management don't know what it wants/needs, since they're just going to change their mind in a week or two. Once those decisions are made you can start delegating responsibility for execution.
The easy thing to do is to blame this all on poor management, but I think that's too pat. I think figuring out the best way to use a team of 20, 100, 1000 engineers to accomplish business goals is just an incredibly hard problem... and one that's often an ongoing, Sisyphean task, where high-bandwidth, low-latency communications are incredibly useful.
I agree. Research is ideal for remote work, since you are effectively your own manager and by definition there is no specific vision that needs to be worked toward - you are discovering that vision yourself. It's the literal ivory tower. In my experience if you give non-R&D engineers and small teams total autonomy they will all end up building great solutions to problems that are slightly different than the problem you actually needed solved.
> I think figuring out the best way to use a team of 20, 100, 1000 engineers to accomplish business goals is just an incredibly hard problem...
Agreed, don't mean to downplay how difficult good management is. I think the key thing I've realized is that in a remote environment, bad management is so much more obvious and detrimental to the employee and organization. In office, if your manager doesn't communicate vision/objectives well you can always tap the shoulder of the guy next to you, or discretely pick your skip's brain in the break room. The rest of the organization can pick up the slack. But that's much harder remotely.
At 10+ person org sizes, most people can't have long-term scope and autonomy if the management don't know what it wants/needs, since they're just going to change their mind in a week or two. Once those decisions are made you can start delegating responsibility for execution.
The easy thing to do is to blame this all on poor management, but I think that's too pat. I think figuring out the best way to use a team of 20, 100, 1000 engineers to accomplish business goals is just an incredibly hard problem... and one that's often an ongoing, Sisyphean task, where high-bandwidth, low-latency communications are incredibly useful.