This sounds about right. At least I feel it acutely in my career. And the more experienced I got instead of more autonomy it has decreased. So to me it seems autonomy is decreasing at a rather fast clip.

Even outside projects and general work condition it is worse. 10 years back I could just decide when to work from home, or do a few interesting projects show to managers get approval afterwards. Today I have to explain myself to managers and get proper approvals for same thing. And I have been in same place for quite some time so it is not even the case that I have to prove to my new employers first.

Being not much ambitious I use to think after these many years and multiple successful project my win is to be a kind of made guy in that same mid-level position. Supporting , fixing project which I delivered over years and just take it easy, start day late, leave early until retirement.

Turns out things I assumed, don't exist. And even if they do they are above my level. Not worked in big tech, no massive RSU based compensation and with AI flattening difference (in employer's view ) between 2 vs 20 years of experience, story is not going to end great for people like me.

Without providing too much detail, at my current place of employment I find that to be the case.

In most of my career, especially when in a Staff role, it has been up to me to propose the direction and priority of work within my scope. Usually, this is based on my estimation of the impact to the business (possible new features, security) or operations (devx, efficiency $$$). Obviously I still have to work with product to get things scheduled as they have needs that must be met, but it was as an equal partner. As a very creative person thats usually the space I enjoy the most.

In my experience (35+ years), it is the opposite now. It used to be massively top down, and now it is more and more bottom up, at least with the companies I have experience with.

I agree with this and think that when your company isn't profitable and is running out of runway (due to the end of the zirp) and can't get more, moving toward features that more directly could land sales is a natural top-down move (and totally correct in the abstract).

However I still see a lot of "work theater" where directors couldn't care at all about changing the bottom line but just care that work that sounds plausible enough is executed in a predictable way that makes them look good (in fact they get pretty disappointed if something happens TOO fast [like half the estimate] as it illustrates they are out of touch the work they are claiming to represent). What I'm saying is that "do more top-down-product" in theory makes sense as a direction, but in practice I usually see it as wasted energy.

You can get to be a staff level engineer doing that. However, beware that to really make it up the corporate ladder, you actually have to reject that. Note that I didn't say reject doing the things assigned. I mean reject it as in you figure out the things that they should be assigning and get those done instead.

There are lots of different routes via staff and above level engineer. However, what they do have in common is working on really hard problems that take a lot of other people to work with. You will typically find your staff and higher level engineers rarely are actually writing code themselves. They are all management, but it's a technical management part.

The thing is, it's really hard to be there because management will constantly assign you various product-focused things and you end up being a widget. And so you have to figure out how to break out of that to say, no, this is the wrong widget and you have to show them that, look, I delivered this widget and when they see it, they should realize, wait, this guy was right. I assigned the wrong widget and he did it and so I need to trust this guy and give him more time to do things that give us the right widget.

Remember, the real goal is to make money for the company. As an engineer, you might say your salary is, say, $200,000 a year. But that is only a small part of it. For every dollar they spend on you, they need to spend $10 on other things to make it work. To pay your salary, you need to make not just enough product to bring enough to pay for your salary. You also have to pay for marketing, sales, product support, other managers, HR, and a bunch of other things I can't even think of off the top of my head. So the real question you should be asking is how do I earn, by actions I do, more than $2 million a year for my company. If you're earning your company $2 million a year as an engineer, they're breaking even on you at best, you should do widgets they trust will work. If they are earning $10 million, that's something that you should be putting on your resume and saying, look, this is why you need to give me a promotion. I am earning this $10 million every year. If you want to do even better than that, make it not $10 million that you're personally doing, but things that, because you're assigning other people to do them, are earning hundreds of millions. If you can earn the company hundreds of millions of dollars a year, you can justify a large salary for yourself, and you keep dozens of other engineers busy doing things.

Or you can take the lazy way out and just be a widget producing what they need you to do. That's good enough.

I've certainly seen that shift in some places. 8 years ago I started on a project as a freelance software engineer, to build something they couldn't really envision yet. I had a ton of freedom, built a prototype, chose my own tech stack, designed every part of it. A team was built around it, and I migrated to a leadership role where I decided the direction, addressed issues I saw, redesigned parts that needed improvement. We had an enormous amount of freedom, and used it to build great things fast.

A bit over a year ago, I joined that same company again, as lead of what's technically the same team, this time as an employee, but everything had changed. It was very hierarchical, very top-down, very little freedom, lots of red tape and office politics, and a tedious, slow pace.

Most of my career has been spent in JavaScript and then MuleSoft. I have only ever seen top-down authority in about 20 years of doing this, except for when I was at Travelocity early in my career.

The general perception is that JavaScript work in the corporate world is for young people who have no idea what they are doing and lack the maturity to write original solutions. This perception is common from developers who do other work, management, and developers who primarily perform JavaScript work. If I want to be creative or have autonomy to do anything more ambitious than putting text to screen I have to save it for personal side projects or do unrelated work.

MuleSoft work was just more of the same with all decisions funneled to strict silos of a select few and everybody else was just a keyboard pressing stooge.

Yes, that does sound dreadful, but what's worse is that it amplifies the personalities of people who will throw others under the bus for attention and potential rock stars who perform their most diligent work at hiding from that attention.

I've had about the same level over the years. Early on, before I had a nest egg, I had little real autonomy, despite outward protestations top-down asking for risks and ideas. Afterward, maximizing average outcomes rather than worst-case risk, I've had a ton of career success either proposing and executing good ideas or else just ignoring the product roadmap when necessary to make the company better. I encourage my team to do the same (ideally they have to resort to subterfuge less than I did since I highly value bottom-up input, but either way is fine). It's, again, risky, but if you consistently deliver above expectations then in many environments you'll get more promotions and raises than you know what to do with, despite the lack of predictability.

Lately, product and my boss have been on board, so it's been fantastic to actually have partners to discuss these "risky" ideas with and better fit them into the roadmap rather than guarantee things which would get us all promoted will be shot down instead. I personally have more bottom-up autonomy than I think I've ever had at $WORK.

That's only anecdata. Another aspect of that tech microcosm is that at various points I explicitly did not have permission to do the right thing and had to be careful with the politics. It only worked out because I was right and because I was okay with the consequences if I had been wrong. Maybe that means I had low autonomy in your definition?

All anecdata here too but I agree. I’ve been in the industry long enough to remember when companies weren’t _all_ tech and us tech folks were considered specialists with a niche who charted their own course.

These days tech is indispensable to most businesses so top down control has been asserted.

Its a good thing that the Author pointed out the caveat cause most companies/teams/people do not operate in this mode. Subtle in the details is a fact hidden that the author is able to manage what he wants to do, most people do not get that kind of luxury. This either means that the author has earned enough political reputation based on past work or they are aligned with their management chain.

tldr; this advice is probably impractical for a bigger chunk of industry.

This is my current world, at least. Bit of a shame. But they pay me well enough still and the work is interesting enough that I don’t mind too much.

I think it was correlated with outsourcing and H1B replacements, because you can’t outsource the leadership required for bottom-up methods.

Further, foreign business culture is significantly more too-down than American business culture.

I noticed what you describe 5 years ago.

Since then, not only have we lost autonomy, but there was no top-down direction to begin with. And there is none now.

Nobody knows what the next incentive to chase is, so they're liquidating headcount and engaging in fraud to appear profitable.

(re: fraud, I'm learning the hard way why my own employer's stock price dramatically improved-- ever since they switched to stack ranking, they just make shit up to PIP and deny severance ahead of layoffs.)

I think the autonomy was stripped not that long ago and it's making software products far worse.

It doesnt make sense that this would happen from an economic perspective at first glance - not unless you consider labor (devs), execs and investors to be three competing groups who are vying for power.

It depends on company culture, and there's as many of those as there are kinds of people. I've worked at large, medium, and small companies, in many industries, and there's no common pattern. The people in charge set the tone, and the people are all different.

If there's a pattern in the people, it's that more people in charge are less capable of doing the job, because they've grown up in a culture of ignorance. The past 10 years has been dominated by "StackOverflow Engineers" promoted to management, and people who read HN clickbait blog posts and believe it's good advice (it's not). They never had the time, training, or mentorship to learn from decades of experience. And Dunning-Kruger keeps them confident that they don't need to change.

However, on this point:

"the overall engineering autonomy has decreased over the years as the culture of tech has (in my opinion) shifted away from tech focus to more business, management, product focus with engineers just as the widgets who are tasked with fulfilling the goals of business, management, product"

That's exactly what engineers are supposed to do: listen to and enable the business. A mechanical engineer does not dictate the shape of the car. The designer tells the mechanical engineer what the car will look like. It's up to the engineer to make it work. However, it's also up to the engineer to tell the business that you can't fit a 600hp engine in a Mazda Miata without seriously affecting handling. It's supposed to be a two-way street. Good management/leadership knows this and enables it.

this