3 ms·

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·

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.

lazide 3y ago
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.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > 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.
  - lazide 3y ago
    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.
Bjartr 3y ago
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"
- lazide 3y ago
  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.
  - _puk 3y ago
    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 https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/broken-ownership
tome 3y ago
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 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/ownership https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ownershi...

lazide 3y ago

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.

willcipriano 3y ago
> 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.
- lazide 3y ago
  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.

Bjartr 3y ago

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"

lazide 3y ago
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.
- _puk 3y ago
  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 https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/broken-ownership

tome 3y ago

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