[scottLobster]

The irony is "ownership" is a common management talking point, but when you actually try to take ownership you inevitably run into walls of access, a lack of information, and generally a "why are you here?" mentality.

Granted one person can't know/do everything, but large companies in particular seem allergic to granting you any visibility whatsoever. It's particularly annoying when you're given a deadline, bust your ass working overtime to make it, only to discover that said deadline got extended at a meeting you weren't invited to and nobody thought to tell you about it. Or worse, they were doing some dark management technique of "well he's really hauling ass right now, if he makes the original deadline we'll be ahead of schedule, and if he doesn't we have the spare capacity".

If the expectation is I'm a tool for management to use, then I'll perform my duties to the letter and no further. If the expectation is ownership, then I need to at least sit at the cool kids' table and maybe even occasionally speak when I have something relevant to contribute.

[lazystar]

> Granted one person can't know/do everything,

watch me try, at least.

> but large companies in particular seem allergic to granting you any visibility whatsoever. It's particularly annoying

If the blind spot is directly causing customer pain, find metrics that demonstrate the impact. If it ends up driving away your customers, then your company is securing itself to death.

[robocat]

> customer pain > driving away your customers > company death

You are implying efficient market theory, which is bunk.

Example: Our banks have endless painful papercuts yet most of us don't change banks just because of one pain.

We each respond to our own complex of costs and benefits (or risks versus rewards).

Second example: I use an iPhone because I judge it to be more secure yet I'm constantly fighting the same bugs and misfeatures that seem to never get fixed/improved.

Your chain of reasoning is broken? Or is it your model of the world?

[9rx]

> Our banks have endless painful papercuts yet most of us don't change banks just because of one pain.

Only because they're all painful. If there was a bank that was recognized as perfect, people would switch in short order. Switching to another bank that is also painful is not worth the effort.

> I use an iPhone because I judge it to be more secure yet I'm constantly fighting the same bugs and misfeatures that seem to never get fixed/improved.

Only because nobody else sells an iPhone. People would start switching over to other, less buggy iPhone on the market if there was such a thing.

> You are implying efficient market theory, which is bunk.

The efficient market theory says that, in an active market, prices rapidly reflect all publicly available information. How does that apply here, bunk or not?

[its_magic]

> Example: Our banks have endless painful papercuts yet most of us don't change banks just because of one pain.

One bank pissed me off due to an extremely dishonest thing they did. So I overdrafted the account to the max ($500) and left them the bill.

(Not the first time I've done something like that to someone who deserved it. I've done much, much more in some cases. Endless painful papercuts? Nope, I do not accept that.)

They weren't happy about this. I think they hit "my" "credit" with that for years. I never noticed, as I don't borrow money; the machinations of these "credit reporting" agencies are beneath my concern. They have no credit in my eyes. I don't consort with crooks, I just punish them.

> Second example: I use an iPhone because I judge it to be more secure yet I'm constantly fighting the same bugs and misfeatures that seem to never get fixed/improved.

I haven't had a phone in decades at this point. Don't want one. I refused to be tracked, monitored, or abused by anyone. And no, I sure don't give a single fuck about any of the many people (and there have been MANY) who have tried their best to shame, cajole, insult, ridicule, harass, intimidate, or bully me into getting a phone. Fuck em all.

> Your chain of reasoning is broken? Or is it your model of the world?

Maybe it's you who's broken. Why do you accept slavery? Just to fit in?

Since you're hardly the only one with a similar way of thinking, maybe we could say it's the entire society that's broken.

I simply do not tolerate the things that you tolerate.

[robocat]

> I overdrafted the account to the max ($500) and left them the bill

I think theft is a poor answer - although most society accepts your rationalisation when dealing with government or big business.

Even worse is that you can't know what it may cost you in the future. My friend couldn't open a business account the other day. After many phone calls he was lucky enough to find someone that told him it was because he left that bank with an account $67 overdrawn when he was younger. That's in New Zealand: I strongly suspect he never would have found out the reason he was denied in many countries[1]. His only recourse was to use a more expensive provider (maybe $600 per year).

Please don't assume I am tolerant of abuse. I vindictively avoid some brands (and even all products from some countries).

I just often judge that my changing to a different service has costs I would rather avoid so I stick with a known evil (I'm good at finding workarounds for many niggles).

I also accept annoying papercuts because I believe all services have imperfection and flaws. Too many people count costs without balance.

What is this perfect bank you have discovered without papercuts?

[1] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...

[its_magic]

> I think theft is a poor answer

Theft? HA! Nope, they attempted to rob me, on multiple levels. Categorically refused.

> Even worse is that you can't know what it may cost you in the future. My friend couldn't open a business account the other day. After many phone calls he was lucky enough to find someone that told him it was because he left a bank account $67 overdrawn when he was younger.

Oh no! How will I ever conduct business without the government or bank's permission? I guess the only alternative is slavery to some giant corporation, or death! What should I do?

As an American, I would probably like to consult with Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Smedley Butler, Lysander Spooner, Mark Twain, etc and get their thoughts on this matter.

While looking something up just now, this old saved quote from years back popped right into view. Couldn't have said it better myself:

  "Why work at all? Just live off the system. The aristocrats do it lavishly. The welfare rats do it slovenly. Both know that working for an 'honest dollar' in this empire of lies is for suckers. This is why they set up artificial barriers of entry such as needing a 'college degree' for so many jobs so you have to wade through all that propaganda bullshit they spew these days. It's also why they have to make sure property prices stay high to keep the cheese dangling in front of the mouse. The system is designed to keep you churning the wheel while the others sit back, relax, and enjoy a life of leisure at your expense."

> That's in New Zealand

Ah! Found a serious problem. Not the problem, mind you, but a problem. There's a reason the self-described "elites" like to hole up in that place.

(It would be a shame if they never emerged from those holes. What would the world do without their 'leadership'?)

> I strongly suspect he never would have found out the reason in many countries.

Yes, I agree, there are many shithole countries in the world. I live in one, too. One learns to adapt.

> His only recourse was to use a more expensive provider (maybe $600 per year).

Yes, this corrupt country tried to screw me in a similar type of way, years back. I refused to play ball and just did what I wanted instead, very carefully and quietly. Now that problem is permanently resolved, for a fraction of what it would have otherwise cost.

> Please don't assume I am tolerant of abuse. I vindictively avoid some brands (and even all products from some countries).

One time, I went to the local Wal-Mart a couple days before Christmas. I parked at the back of the lot as the place was packed full. No problem, I don't mind walking. But then imagine my displeasure to observe that some complete asshole in a giant lifted pickup truck has double parked near the front of the lot.

That guy was way more important than anyone, in his own mind, clearly. Someone just had to educate him about how so very wrong he was. The job fell to me, as I was the closest warrior at hand.

So I sent a shopping cart sailing at warp 11 into his truck. ("Engage!") It just so happened to impact right on the corner of the cab, behind the door (the worst spot possible--thanks, God), and fucked it all up. Mission Accomplished. I returned home and celebrated.

I know of another funny incident where a similar type of person was similarly unimpressed by some douchebag in a Maserati (this is hillbilly country, home of Chevys and Fords) who likewise felt entitled to take up two parking spots on a busy main street where parking was limited. In this case the guy dumped a tractor bucket load of wet hay into his open convertible top.

The "victim" of that incident was raging on Facebook, offering a reward for whoever turned the guy in, etc, but everyone was just laughing at the SOB.

You'd be surprised what you can get away with, when everyone around you is quietly wishing somebody would do just that thing.

[ionwake]

Excellent read please tell me more about your novel approaches to deal with daily life by breaking the law with theft and property damage.

[BobbyTables2]

It’s a lot like the “how shit happens tale”.

The product may take 20 minute to boot - a testament to its complexity and greatness (/s). But pointing that out might end badly when it’s the SVP’s pet. They will not entertain alternatives or efforts that distract from their mental plan.

And if a developer finds themselves getting feedback or communication from customers, things are probably on fire - absolutely literally.

[order-matters]

>Or worse, they were doing some dark management technique of "well he's really hauling ass right now, if he makes the original deadline we'll be ahead of schedule, and if he doesn't we have the spare capacity"

As a business analyst who has worked a lot with executive teams at multiple companies, this is almost always the case (ime). Deadlines are only shortened down the chain, never extended. The assumption is that if it cannot be done then they will simply not administer any consequences and classify it as "not realizing the upside".

The only reason it is almost always and not always, is because sometimes a different thing pops up that needs to get prioritized first, so it is communicated that the first thing isnt actually as important as it was yesterday and this other thing is now the most important.

Now obviously I cant speak for everyone at all teams, but as far as boring corporate default behavior goes this is the safe path for executives. If your boss is doing otherwise, they are going out of their way to do it.

The takeaway as a worker is that you should not treat any business goal or deadline ask of you with the same level of care as you would a personal favor. When something really needs that level of care, your boss should pull you aside and break character and make it a personal favor to them, not the business.

As far as "Ownership" goes, it is just a pissing contest as far as I can tell. if you own a task but cant do the task, you just send an email to someone who can do the task so that the task gets done and you can report the task is done and get your ownership credit. the person who did the task was used as a tool in this regard. So high performing managers just try to get ownership of as much as they possibly can, as there's no meaningful difference between who sends that email.

[BobbyTables2]

Taking ownership is hard but fending it off is even harder.

I’ve been dragged into modifying my team’s product to fix deficiencies in others’ designs.

They didn’t want take ownership and freely pushed it onto us!

[toyg]

Ownership doesn't imply FULL ownership. You get handed ownership of a slice, and expected to be responsible for that bit of land; but you'll never own the farm, and will likely never be consulted on whether that land should become a car park from Tuesday. That's just how capitalism work.

[Jtsummers]

> and will likely never be consulted on whether that land should become a car park from Tuesday.

Then you don't have ownership. What you have is responsibility without ownership or authority if this rug pull can be performed.

[scottLobster]

That's called renting. And even renters have rights per whatever lease they signed and local laws.

It's a simple formula. If you want me to be personally invested in my work and go above and beyond, then I need the motivation to do that. So either you grant me a reasonable level of professional input such that my opinion is valued and I'm helping the mission succeed, or pay me for said extra effort (can be opportunities for promotion, direct overtime pay, career advancement, etc). If you want me super-motivated you can even do both!

If we're playing hardball "you're some lowly IC nerd without an MBA or connections and we're here to make money so fuck you" capitalism, well the only serious leverage I have to is to take my talents where they're most appreciated. So you'll get exactly what you pay for until I find something better, and aside from some professional courtesy I'll be looking. Maybe you're fine with that, but if you start preaching "ownership" of the product just be aware that the entire dev team is going to pay you lip service and then laugh as soon as you're out of the room, and we clock out at 5:00, even if we don't on paper. Except for poor Bob who due to life/family commitments has no option to leave and needs to rationalize his situation even though he agrees with us. Sometimes we'll tone it down just so he doesn't feel too bad about being trapped. Regardless, in that environment we take ownership of our careers, not our work.

I've worked both types of jobs. I'd say the former worked the best for all involved, but the latter has its place and is fine so long as everyone acknowledges what game we're playing and expectations are set appropriately.