[terminalbraid]

As someone who has worked in and with large orgs, the better question is "why does this always happen?". In large organizations "ownership" of a product becomes more nebulous from a product and code standpoint due to churn and a focus on short-sighted goals.

If you put a lot of momentum behind a product with that mentality you get features piled on tech debt, no one gets enthusiastic about paying that down because it was done by some prior team you have no understanding of and it gets in the way of what management wants, which is more features so they can get bonuses.

Speaking up about it gets you shouted down and thrown on a performance improvement plan because you aren't aligned with your capitalist masters.

[whstl]

At this point "ownership" is just a buzzword thrown around by management types that has no meaning.

If a developer has to put up a fight in order to push back against the irresponsibility of a non-technical person, they by definition don't have ownership.

[cratermoon]

I've seen shops where ownership is used as a cudgel to punish unruly developers. If the task isn't done as specified and on time, the developer is faulted for not taking ownership, but that "ownership" is meaningless, as you note, because it does not extend to pushing back against irresponsible or unreasonable demands.