This is a one-weird-trick that management tries to use on underlings: they talk about motivating a sense of ownership to things. But this doesn't jive with the fact that employees are hirelings and thus have no ownership to anything in the company. But it would be convenient for management to push more of the responsibilities of ownership on the underlings, even though they will get none of the benefits.

This of course assumes that the employee has no stocks in the company... but it would have to be more than just a symbolic amount in order to count.

This attitude is the path to hell. If you own nothing (not even your own attitude, or the quality of what you are doing), then you’re a perpetual victim, always at the whims of others, and always unable to change anything that matters for you.

If you take ownership of you and what you do, and how it impacts others and can produce value, you can make choices. To say no. To say yes. To push for recognition, and leave if you don’t get it.

Owning what you’re working on (and refusing to work for someone who won’t let you) is usually a key part of mental health and actual real world success for everyone.

> This attitude is the path to hell.

I disagree the other way around is.

A lot of people suddenly realize they are 50 and they put decades into someone else's dream.

Be realistic, do what you are paid for, but save the heroism for your own efforts.

No one is suggesting killing yourself for someone else’s dream. That is trying to take ownership for something that you have little scope to impact, frankly, and as you note don’t see the benefits for.

I’m saying, having ownership of what you are doing and what you control is essential. Not doing so is a path to hell.

That can be the section of the codebase you’re specializing in, or just the effectiveness and quality of the code you’re producing. Or the product you’re delivering, as delivered.

If you don’t think the pay you’re getting is fair for that, then that is a separate issue - and one solved by not doing it, not by trying to pretend you had no part in the deal.

Wouldn't the word responsibility be more accurate here for what you are trying to describe?

own·er·ship

the act, state, or right of possessing something.

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty

the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.

Part of me that's pushing back here is my manipulative language detector going off.

Possession is control, is it not?

Ownership is responsibility + benefit (or loss) for an outcome IMO, protected by some kind of agreement. Societal or contractual. Title. Employment agreement/laws.

If there is positive benefit received on a good outcome + a responsibility for maintenance and the like, that is a form of ownership IMO. If a negative benefit comes from damage/destruction/bad things happening to that thing, that also tracks.

Anyone who owns real property quickly discovers there isn’t anything like truly unencumbered and unconditional ownership of anything - the first property tax bill will make that clear if nothing else.

That doesn’t mean someone doesn’t take on significant risks and benefits (hopefully) from owning it. It can still be yanked away if they don’t pay certain people or follow certain rules - or via Imminent Domain.

Someone working a job has more constrained ownership, but it still exists. And like buying a property, they need to choose carefully as they’ll still end up with consequences regardless.

> Possession is control, is it not?

Is possession == control then control == possession.

We can have a world like that, if someone worked in some role for a period of time we could have a legal process for them claim their proceeds of the enterprise. That sounds really complicated and it isn't the world we live in today.

I think the reason the word responsibility isn't used is generally you are expected to pay for people who take responsibilities off your hands. A plumber takes responsibility for your toilet problem, if you also have a unrelated faucet problem he can take responsibility for that as well, but not for free. On the other hand, owners aren't expected to be paid like that as they profit off the overall health of the enterprise, without providing that sort of mechanism, I don't see how you have any real ownership.

Not if the deal was that they got a flat pay rate regardless, then anyone would expect they wouldn’t be busting their ass either.

If they get a bonus, then if they did a better job they’d have a right to expect a good bonus. Equity, a higher share valuation (modulo how little control there may actually be there).

I think the thing you’re struggling here is with scope.

For an hourly employee, the ownership extends about as far as ‘what I can do within the hour I’m there, and how can I do it the best I can’.

For the plumber example, it’s owning fixing the toilet. If it breaks because they did a shitty job, it’s also taking care of making sure it’s done right. If the faucet is part of the job, it’s making sure that is done right too (or they say no, I can’t/won’t).

Doing the faucet for free is stepping out of their area.

More ownership, more risk, more scope (all scope sometimes) more upside/downside, less direct payment.

Someone paid a salary is getting a lot of risk reduction (almost all, frankly), and it would be very odd for whoever is paying them to give up all their upside AND take all the risk of it not working.

I feel like the intended colloquial interpretation of "ownership" here is a combination of responsibility and agency. Just because you're responsible for something doesn't mean you actually have power to influence the thing. So "sense of ownership over X" is shorthand for "sense of responsibility for X plus the agency necessary to fulfill the responsibility"

If you have no ability to change the outcome, or no benefit/loss depending on the outcome, it’s pretty hard to say someone owns anything.

It someone will suffer the consequences of an outcome with no ability to change anything (or make decisions), that’s just making someone a scapegoat.

If someone can make decisions/do things but will not benefit from or lose anything from the outcome, then I’m not sure what they are (judge? Arbitrator? Ruler?) - but they don’t own the thing.

This [0] was posted recently and (IMO) really captures the reality of ownership.

Without all 3 of responsibility, mandate, and knowledge there can be no ownership.

0: https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/broken-ownership

It seems to be a fairly common usage. Perhaps "Responsibility" is less ambiguous but it doesn't have the same connotation of "right to control" that "ownership" has, so isn't perfect either.

Wiktionary:

2. (business) Responsibility for something.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ownership

Cambridge English Dictionary:

the fact of taking responsibility for an idea or problem

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ownershi...

> No one is suggesting killing yourself for someone else’s dream.

Nobody makes it that explicit. Managers just ask you (your team) to deliver more story points, go the extra effort to meet a deadline, etc.

And the risk of setting boundaries (saying 'no') to the implicit ask is not being viewed as a "team player", not being promoted or given a raise, or, at worst, being fired.

I am willing to take those risks. Not everyone is.

Most people can’t or won’t take ownership of something, as they don’t want to take the risks - as you note.

It’s much easier (mentally) to be told what to do and hope it eventually works out. And if it doesn’t, blame everyone else.

> And if it doesn’t, blame everyone else.

I never blame anyone. I just move to a competitor who is more adapt at running a business.

> don’t want to take the risks

That legally speaking if they pay off you are entitled to no additional compensation.

I don’t think you’re one of either of those groups btw. You’re taking ownership of a different kind of arrangement entirely.

Created an account to respond here.

I understand where you're coming from, I'm the same way. It's about taking pride in your work and taking responsibility for the success and quality of your own work.

As you noted, it's risky in that others may take issue with your actions, but it's not nearly as risky as the hell that is being forced to work 8 hours/day for things that don't matter to you at all.

I'll speak only for myself here, but:

Not everyone is made like that, but on the flip side it's why I'm typically respected and appreciated. And for environments that don't appreciate that attitude I quickly leave or am pushed out (generally I leave).

perfect example, a few years back I left a position due to power politics. Before I had gotten there a man had been removed as head of the It department but due to the good old boys system had wiggled his way into the CISO position.

I gave it about 8 months but at some point it became clear the CISO was using his position to ensure IT failed overall. And indeed about 3 months after I left, that's exactly what happened and the whole of IT was once again put back under this man.

I could have chosen to simply do the work, take a paycheck, and not care. That's not me. Compromises are always made, but if I fundamentally cannot take pride in my work then I don't stay.

Completely and utterly false. Even a slave owns his own mind and how it reacts to things. (Insert Stoic spiel here.) And it is best to cultivate a mind which is in accordance with the Serenity Prayer.

Another thing entirely is what you formally own. I mean as in by-law, not some aspirational or motivational bullshit. And someone is trying to manipulate you if they try to foist the responsibilities of ownership onto you (even if it is just in your own mind—staying late, fretting about it in the shower, etc.) by encouraging “taking ownership” without actually physically letting you own it.

> Owning what you’re working on (and refusing to work for someone who won’t let you) is usually a key part of mental health and actual real world success for everyone.

Yes sir/madame.

> Completely and utterly false

As far as I can tell you lazide are in agreement. If your comment didn't start with "Completely and utterly false" I'd think you were writing a supporting/reinforcing follow-up!

Hrmph. This is what often happens on the internet:

- Someone makes a cynical comment on some specific topic

- Someone else makes a completely inappropriate extrapolation and concludes—based on nothing—that the first poster is making an argument for being defeatist and negative for its own sake

- The first poster has to then correct this inappropriate extrapolation—which was based on nothing—by stating that, yes, it is good to (say) have a positive attitude in your life

- Onlookers act puzzled as the first poster is contradicting himself (apparently) by hostilely agreeing with the second poster that having a good mind-attitude in life is good!

So yes I suppose I could be agreeing with the second poster...

I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or both. Or neither.

Mind clarifying?

I was making a cynical comment on management. You bust in out of nowhere and claim that I am making a case for being a “victim” in general. I correct your inappropriate extrapolation by stating that I was narrowly talking about what this one-weird-trick by managers is trying to achieve, which has exactly nothing to do with how one decides to govern ones attitude towards life. You then act confused when it turns out that I am not arguing for being a “victim”, a conclusion that you just pulled out of your ass.

And that's about four more sentences of extra clarification that none of your comments have even deserved.

It sounds like you desperately need a vacation. I wish you luck!

Seems rather presumptuous.

It's just some back-handed well-wishing. ;)

Or experience - “And that's about four more sentences of extra clarification that none of your comments have even deserved”

I was wrong. It wasn't back-handed, just directly spiteful.

Oh sweet summer child. If you think this is spite, you might want to stay indoors and keep not making eye contact with strangers.

This is kindness and empathy. Spite… is something you’re unlikely to ever trigger. Ciao!

I agree with your comment, but I think the post above is trying to make another point: That in companies you often are expected to take ownership (or are assigned ownership), although the environment does not allow you to make choices - which you refer to as a consequence of having true ownership, right?

That's the way I generally understand ownership to work in this context.

I should have the authority to make decisions about how to execute a project I'm given (or take) responsibility of.

In the context of "Servant Leadership," how well I execute the task should inform my manager's response. If it is not done correctly/well, I should get the feedback needed to ensure I don't repeat those mistakes. Future work assignments should be adjusted based on how "wrong" my work was. Maybe the project was too complex, and I should be given a more limited scope for the next one, or maybe being shown the corrections is sufficient to trust me with the same level of work next time.

What I noticed decently often is that the safe decisions you can make are fairly constrained. By safe I mean that even if things don't go well you will not be held too responsible in a material way. This might be communicated directly but usually is just a constant background vibe reinforced by the company/social norms. You can step over that line and make un-safe decisions but then the risk is implicitly more directly on you.

Risk/reward. It’s also easy to take a lot of risk with no possible reward, of course.

If you have no actual ability to make choices at all (including what you do, how you do it, what choices you make, etc.), then yes you have no ownership except for your turning the crank and how well you do it.

Which is still a thing. It’s rarely that tightly constrained however.

If it is, then time to bail. It’s burn out city.

By ownership, the OP means "accountable in the micro". Even if you don't own the company or the macro, there is a sense of cultivating your own skills and mental well-being when you make yourself accountable in the micro.

It’s also just as often detrimental and leads to burnout when that “accountability” is a delusion pushed by management because the employee has no real control and the whims of management override any real choices they can make.

When someone really has ownership, management has to come to terms with the fact that the owner may make choices that are suboptimal to the company for the sake of their or their teams’ sanity. The majority of management never make that mental leap.

Good leadership (which servant leadership is intended to facilitate) is all about fixing those problems. Management shouldn't override any real choices on a whim, and management should work to align incentives such that an owner acts in everybody's best interests at once

It's not a binary, you can take ownership of what you can and accept a lack of control where you cannot.

If that line is too far one way or the other it's time to leave.

100% matches my experience. Also, if someone in management is using emotional manipulation techniques (gaslighting, etc.).

100%. It's a cheap motivational "hack" to call it ownership, but it's just responsibility without little power to make necessary changes. A recipe for frustration. In the example with the trash above, can the boy now choose to get a bigger trash can, so that he does not have to carry it outside so often? ;-)

Even better, externalize: throw your trash in the kitchen trash, so the adults have to take it out. Keep the watch. Profit.

Ownership is about mandate and ability to effect change. That doesn’t imply any material benefit other than being paid to do it.

What management roles tend to do is assign ownership without mandate and ability.

I'm confused as to what you think work is. Managers are just hirelings as well. They have different responsibilities, which includes effective delegation. If you think "ownership" of a process is just a trick to get employees to work, what's the alternative here? You're responsible for the outcomes of this process but don't own it and thus can't guide the direction of it? That sounds patently terrible.

The benefit of owning a process is the control you have over it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard engineers bitch about the decisions made over their head that they have to conform to. But now engineers apparently are just going to bitch if given control over the process. There's no winning with some of you.

The alternative is actual ownership.

Are you fine getting $0 salary for the year if your area of ownership doesn't do well that year?

What kind of ownership entails “salaries” based on “areas of ownership”? This just seems confused.

Of course! If you have ownership of something then you also bear the burden in case of loss or mismanagement. Blatantly obvious answer to a useless intended-as-rhetorical question.

> I'm confused as to what you think work is. Managers are just hirelings as well.

So what? People can be hired to be more direct servants of the ownership class.

They often have more pay and power after all.

Some companies literally assign to you ownership of your upstream contributions, whether you did them on your time or theirs.

But maybe that too is to convey a sense of ownership that isn't actually there.

> This of course assumes that the employee has no stocks in the company

I'm grateful that I get to work for a company that encourages growth and promotes heavily from the inside. Not all organizations are like this. But Servant leadership and companies growing quickly go hand in hand.

Managers are underlings in that sense too. They don't own enough stock or have enough influence that they would rationally be thinking of the gains they'd make in their stock.

Managers take ownership because they're looking for their project to succeed, they want to advance their career, etc. and the same applies to "underlings"

You may not have ownership of the company but you can have ownership within the scope of your work. For instance, as a developer there are so many areas which involve decision making from code design, testability, reliability, observability, choice of tooling, non-functional roadmap, documentation and onboarding etc. Of course, working within an organizational framework, you may not have infinite degrees of freedom across these, but if you don't have at least a handful of degrees of freedom in what you do, then you depend on somebody to tell you exactly what needs to be done all the time and your work will not be very interesting.

> He relishes the idea of me not reminding him, and even though it's just taking out the trash—he likes the idea of "owning" it

Kudos to you.

The worst part of owning chores like trash and dishwasher stuff as a teenager was that inevitably it didn’t matter when I had planned to do the thing. My parents would get on my case about not having done the thing yet. Sometimes literally as I emerged from my room to go do the thing, I would get reminded that I need to do the thing. Thanks mom I know I’m on my way.

Always felt like that robbed me of the opportunity to shine.

What I’ve learned since then is that it’s extremely hard to need something done and rely on others to make it happen. The internal stress of “I could do this in 10min but I gotta let the junior team members spend 2 hours fumbling around so they can learn” … oof.

Yup. Actual good management is hard.

＞ How you handle feedback and responsibility with your direct-reports is going (most of the time) how you do/ought to do things with your own children

Your children don't have the option to show you the finger and move to another family. Nor (hopefuly) are you paying them to be your kids.

I think it fundamentally changes what you should expect from one and not the other, especially regarding responsibilities and ownership. And I'm sure you won't address your son not taking out the trash the same you'd deal with a team member that don't release the features on time.

> I think it fundamentally changes what you should expect from one and not the other

Not exactly. I want my kids to become great people. I genuinely care about them and their well-being.

This is the same thing with the people that I work with and for. I care about them and want to them to get better.

> And I'm sure you won't address your son not taking out the trash the same you'd deal with a team member that don't release the features on time.

Maybe, maybe not. Did they "give the finger" or did something just happen that is a learning experience? If it's a communication problem, these are fundamentally easy to address.

> I care about them and want to them to get better.

Those are the same words but pointing to a radically different reality.

I care about my coworkers being healthy, but there are clear boundaries that I won't pass over. If they drink all nights all week stay alive during the day through piles of enerfy drinks, I won't have much to say if it doesn't affect their work.

Same way I can go any length to help my kid succeed at school, including changing school, paying for tuitions, changing their diet and whole life rythm to improve their focus etc. Helping my colleagues succeed goes as much as talking to them and changing their tasks/career path.