> But if I am told what to do without consulting me, then I don't care. There is a lot less stress on me. If it appears decision was stupid and project will not meet deadline, I make sure everyone knows and rarely ever put in more than 40 hours on such projects.

I envy people who can change into "I just do what I have to do"-mode when they don't have 'skin in the game' ... I always feel as if I have skin in the game and get stressed even on the most ridiculous projects where I knew (and stated) from day 1 that this just won't work the way it has been envisioned by higher ups.

I think you need to learn this ability, otherwise you might suffer a burnout.

You need to remember, whether you put 40, 60 or 80 hours p/w into a death march project, won't be recognised. Everyone will be too busy to tally who's working more. By sacrificing more of your free time, you are just working for free for the people driving the project, who may be doing this purely for political reasons. You will also make it more likely for similar projects in the future.

I maintain it's better to not overstretch yourself and let the project fail. Better for your health, and better for the company, so they manage the next project better and have workers who aren't burnt out.

You say you envy them but I'm not sure you really do. Working without feeling involvement or purpose in what you do is mind-numbing. Of course lots of people have to endure it, and some find solace in hobbies/family. But if you are the type of person who always feel you have skin in the game, I don't think you'd last a month in a position where you don't care :-D

That's an odd viewpoint. Work hands me money, some projects are interesting others less so. But, doing a good job is enjoyable even if you don't care about the end result. Like playing a sport without paying attention to the score.

It's odd only if you have not tasted it. Once you have the experience of work with a sense of purpose, working without it (if you're skilled enough to be in a position to choose) looks like an odd life choice.

I have done work I though was important, as in saving lives etc. But, it's not like I am the only person that can do this stuff. Really when someone else is paying you they could pay thousands or possibly millions of other people to do that job. The fact you happen to be the one doing it is not really important other than a sense you should not mess up.

There's a difference between having A Decider and having your decider make all the important decisions.

Yes, there needs to be a captain of the ship, and when she tells you to do something, you fucking do it because that's what captain means and you can kvetch about it when you're back on land.

But if the captain is making all of the important decisions, something has gone terribly wrong and your boat will not function. The captain is there to

1) make small changes necessary to stay on a long term course

2) push decisions through in moments when speed is critical

3) break conflicts that can't be resolved

They are not the chief achitect or the chief strategist or the chief anything really.

And if you are both the captain and the chief strategist, you need to recognize that you're playing two roles in one body and you need to be very aware at all times of when you're wearing the captain hat and when you're not. You don't get to boss people around when you're doing strategy.

I agree with you, but I'm not arguing for a single "Decider", but rather a small group of what the comment I replied to referred to as "higher-ups" being responsible for making decisions in their areas of responsibility. I think this works in your ship analogy as well, but I don't know enough about sailing to say what those people are called - mates? In any case, you get the drift :-)