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.