Development process issues in different types of orgs

There's an interesting dichotomy I've observed between companies where the development is run by developers, and those where it's run by managers.

In the former case, problems tend to get fixed, because the people making decisions are also the people impacted by the problems.

In the latter case, problems tend to compound and go unresolved, because the people making decisions are not directly affected, and/or cannot understand why the situation is problematic, and/or have competing priorities (to fixing them). This creates a situation where you really don't want to be doing development, and the best developers tend to move into management, and/or onto different projects.

The latter is also the case where projects tend to die over time, and sometimes companies with them, as they eventually become unmaintainable.

All of the above might be obvious to others, but I don't have a lot of previous experience working on teams where the development methodologies are all being dictated by management (most of my previous roles have been in companies using Agile, or something close to it, and/or smaller companies). In Agile ish organizations, developers were motivated and empowered to fix problems which impeded shipping code, and as such when there are blockers, they tend to be short-lived (sometimes the resolutions are not optimal, but significant issues rarely linger unresolved). This is not the case in large orgs where the methodologies are dictated my managers, though, particularly when those managers are not actively working on code.

This needs to be added to my list of questions and concerns when considering future roles, I think.