[gress]

Sort of. The sense that's being used here is a corporatism that means 'act with the level of commitment implied by owning something even though you have none of the rights benefits or responsibilities' - i.e. It is a form of doublethink required by the corporate hierarchy.

It is quite reasonable to ask 'why should I act as if I own think, when actually I do not?'

[munchbunny]

In my experience, people who are emotionally invested in their work tend to do much better work, and are worth proportionally more because of it. So whether this is correlation or causation, you are indirectly being paid to care as much as you do.

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.

[gress]

True, but that generally isn't the stance that employers take when negotiating salaries - that they need to pay enough for people to feel ownership.

'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.

[tbrownaw]

why should I act as if I own think, when actually I do not?

Because you get paid to?

[gress]

Yeah - that is the usual reasoning, but acting as if does not make it so.