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