If you're getting paid, you do need to be getting paid because of some responsibility you're discharging, after all.
You can tell it's two different "ownerships" by what happens if you quit. One you retain, the other is simply redistributed to some other developer. They're not the same thing.
This is English. Multiple definitions for a word are common. Cases where only some definitions apply and not others are common. They happen in almost every sentence. Try to avoid letting that pollute your thought. (It is a challenge. No sarcasm.)
Ownership Leaders are owners. They think long term and don’t sacrifice long-term value for short-term results. They act on behalf of the entire company, beyond just their own team. They never say “that’s not my job."
Unfortunately, we no longer live in a society where the employer-employee relationship is one of trust. The definition Amazon.com seems to be using is that owners do shit work and so should you, but maybe I'm misreading.
Of course, it also has a history of association with servants of landed gentry, which might make people uncomfortable (for good reasons, to the extent the analogy holds up).
"Ownership" is a poor way to express the differences in meaning(s) indicated in this article.
It is quite reasonable to ask 'why should I act as if I own think, when actually I do not?'
If you're not being paid enough to care that much, or you don't want to care that much, then it is what it is. From the hiring perspective, we should have negotiated a price that works for me and is enough for you to feel that you are fairly compensated for your ownership of the feature. It's a two-sided relationship where you have the ability to just back out of the deal if it isn't working for you.
'You have the ability to back out of the deal if it isn't working for you' is a cop out for any failing that a corporation may have. It is true but also leads to no new understanding.
Because you get paid to?
If I was just a cog in the machine of the corporate wheel churning through small tasks on a daily basis it would be hard to keep motivated. In fact a lack of ownership for work is what allows large companies to carry so much dead weight for so long. Employees stagnate and start coasting.
I do however take your point to heart and realize taking ownership does not mean I am up til 2am frequently trying to meet unrealistic deadlines.
Reminder: Unless you have an actual stake in the company, you do not own anything you produce for the company. Keep that in mind the next time code you worked on causes a 2am production server crash or is responsible for increasing revenue x10. It is not your code that caused the events but the owner's of the company.