I get this entirely. And for me, this is driven by broken feedback loops in software.
Some years back, I started a company with an excellent product manager, one very focused on actual user impact. One of the first things we did is build a tiny, cheap usability lab; every Tuesday we'd have 4 users in to try things out. We rigged it so engineers could watch the sessions remotely, and for the sessions we didn't watch, he'd share key bits. It was really satisfying to see stuff getting used, what worked, what didn't.
Later, as we grew, we still kept the user tests, but added on a slick system for experiments. All of us were involved in thinking about what to test next, how we could make things better. My cofounder was definitely the best at that, but we all made contributions. We all were engaged. We all paid attention to what we were doing for users.
And it helped that despite being a startup, we were big on automated testing and pair programming. When my mom got sick, I took two weeks off and everybody was fine without me. They carried on releasing a few times a day, trusting in each other and in the safety net we had built for ourselves.
It seems to me that the average development process, which is generally about building whatever people with organizational power want, is emotionally corrosive. It wears us down, because it isn't satisfying on a human level. Which, IMHO, makes it way less efficient.