3 ms·

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 assign

by mkreis 3y ago

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?

lazide 3y ago
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.
marcinzm 3y ago
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.
- lazide 3y ago
  Risk/reward. It’s also easy to take a lot of risk with no possible reward, of course.
dave881 3y ago
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.

by mkreis 3y ago

lazide 3y ago

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.

marcinzm 3y ago

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.

lazide 3y ago
Risk/reward. It’s also easy to take a lot of risk with no possible reward, of course.

dave881 3y ago

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.