It's not about being responsible for the company. It's about having the ability to make the decisions to guide your own work without endless bikeshedding, internal politics, red tape, conflicting messages from different layers of management, and constant meetings that go nowhere.
> Being a code monkey is fine if one embraces that position with its economic and ambition consequences.
> endless bikeshedding, internal politics, ... , conflicting messages from different layers of management, and constant meetings that go nowhere.
This sounds more like manager incompetence than being a code monkey. But embracing code monkey-ism could help as I imagine it involves just doing tasks at one's own pace and putting up strong emotional boundaries to mismanagement. Can constant meetings or bikeshedding really hurt someone who's just looking to run out the clock?
P.S. I'm talking about choosing to be a code monkey as a philosophy, a choice. Not as a skill level that I'd call "beginner". Some people call beginners code monkeys, I am not a fan of that.
Or it could be two or more competent managers coming into conflict. Or incompetent ones.
It is not that rare l - if you recognise the situation, you can pick a side, but if you dont know what to do, you could be viewed badly by all participants
> Being a code monkey is fine if one embraces that position with its economic and ambition consequences.
It's perfectly fine. It can also lead to burnout.