Barriers to True Ownership

“Ownership” is one of those buzzwords we keep hearing in recent business slang. Also, in my practice, working with different teams at various stages of their development process, I see there is an ever-increasing concern about it. And it may be rightfully so: everybody seems to have understood by now that ownership facilitates success, both individually and on a collective level (team and even organization).

There are studies that link individual ownership to a greater talent retention, therefore long-term organizational success (such as this one: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/10/6016),?and studies that correlate empowerment style leadership to ownership and greater work satisfaction, therefore an increased organizational efficiency (see https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.888653/full).

Ever since the Agile movement introduced self-organized teams, people everywhere started seeing the value that they bring in small and large organizations. However, for the principle of self-organization to work and teams to become able to make fast decisions on their own, to collaborate efficiently and react to changes, there needs to be enough ownership present.

So how can we ensure that ownership remains more than just a buzzword and stays meaningful amidst a range of both good and bad practices that aim to 'get the job done' at any cost?

Few days ago, a Scrum Master approached me for help. She wanted to present the concept of ownership to her team, and while I applauded her courage to bring up “the elephant in the room” and I offered the help, I also felt somewhat conflicted. It took some time, but I figured it out: I don’t believe we need ownership explained. We know how to do it.

On an individual level, ownership is about taking responsibility of one’s own work and the results it produces. It implies a strong commitment towards individual but also collective objectives. These are the kind of employees that show a healthy amount of initiative in solving problems, they ask for feedback and are willing to learn from it and from their mistakes. On a collective level, teams having a healthy amount of ownership show strong collaboration, they share commitment towards collective success, they take charge, overtake challenges, are open to feedback and willing to learn and improve as a team.

We see, therefore, ownership as essential for creating productive work environments. So how do we develop it?

Well, I think we learn it early on, even as early as childhood: that’s when we start to take ownership of our actions, such as learning to ride the bike when we’re as young as 5, or turning in school assignments at 8 years of age… And it’s true that motivation has its own place: a kid that loves riding their bike would most likely sooner take off their training wheels than others, or would get better grades at school subjects they love … But the bottom line is kids know how to exercise action in their range of control to reach own objectives.

While developing a collective ownership can be trickier in childhood, as it needs more of a supportive environment (school systems that promote teamwork, getting involved in team sports etc.), it can still be done. Some kids get to practice collective ownership where they start considering the wellbeing of their teams.

We also notice a strong link to motivation: we know by now ownership generates results and performance, and this in turn boosts motivation. However, motivation also positively influences ownership; one is more likely to assume responsibility and take charge when they are motivated. Which in turn generates more results, and more motivation, and so on in what can be seen as a virtuous cycle. It might be the case that extrinsic motivation, where people aim for external rewards, generate a lower level of ownership. But this may be simply because extrinsic motivation is not sustainable on the long run.

We know by now how ownership looks like in teams and individuals, but question remains: how does the lack of it look like? What kind of behaviors are there in a team that lacks or has an under-developed ownership?

Well, it’s no fun. There is perceivable passivity and a lack of energy as if people were disengaged. There is silence and insecurity in team meetings; decisions seem to be made unilaterally as facilitators mostly monologue… There is no lively debate, no sharing of different viewpoints, no dialogue, no constructive conflict. People are just detached and keep waiting for instruction. They lack initiative, they avoid taking responsibility and assuming risks. This results in low creativity and shunted innovation, as what else is creativity then being willing to take new paths and sometimes the wrong turns that are needed with free exploration?

There might be low transparency, simply because people don’t feel the need to share important information. There is low productivity or perhaps just below average; people don’t commit, they don’t fully apply themselves or they just do their tasks minimally, enough to stay out of trouble and fly under the radar…

There may be toxic behaviors, such as complaining, shifting blame; this, in turn leads to latent conflicts, passive aggressiveness and, all in all, an environment of insufficient psychological safety…

But how did we get here?

As previously stated, we all know how to take ownership to a certain extent. Yet, if a company employing functional adults - the kind who can successfully navigate complex recruitment processes, show up physically to work, pay their taxes… you get my drift- seems to be lacking ownership, well, I’d start looking for root causes in various places.

This can be surely due to low motivation. And while certain individual variability is to be expected in ownership and motivation, when the lack is endemic, the root cause is environment.

So, what are those environment factors that inhibit individual and collective ownership?

?

1.?????? Authoritarian leadership

?Sometimes there is an imbalance of power in work relationships: some individuals have more power and authority, take more decisions (if not all), and this leaves no further room for others then being reduced to an execution role. Strict authority will diminish team autonomy, limit taking responsibility and proactivity, and negatively affect individual growth. People feel as though their ideas and contributions are undervalued.

?

2.??????Imbalance of ownership

?Sometimes, even in an otherwise positive culture of an empowering leadership style, some roles may overstep their boundaries. And they will do so for the right reasons: they will take more responsibility to support a growing, immature team. It can be a Scrum Master, Product Owner, or even a more experienced team member, perceived by the team as a technical leader.

At first, the help will be welcome. But if the mentor doesn’t let go soon enough, it is bound to create a state of dependency and toxic comfort zone.

People will be slow to develop because they will be shielded and deal with less problems. Some may rebel and ask for more responsibility as they mature, while others may comply and become complacent. What I noticed is that it can lead to passivity in time, resentment, a chronic state of dissatisfaction, and of course, diminished ownership.

?

3.?????? Lack of support and clarity

There is some chaos to be expected with every beginning. Teams and projects in the storming phase may lack important information, vision, structure, processes, job clarity; people may be asking themselves “who am I and what are my responsibilities?”, “where do I end and others begin?”, “what am I to expect from others?” …

But it is especially when answers fail to arrive, when there is a perceived lack of support and direction, when projects and teams fail to get being storming… that people start feeling unheard and unsupported. In other words, they might start thinking: “what is the point, since I am anyway doomed to fail?”.

?

4.?????? Lack of consequences

Nothing creates more responsibility than facing the consequences of one’s actions.

Kids learning to ride their bikes start paying more attention once they fall. Teams will pay more attention to how they estimate and commit, will be more assertive in communicating risk and bottlenecks, if they understand the impact of their failures. There are cultures who excessively shield employees from consequences, to avoid upsetting them or making them feel pressured. And this is when they become disconnected from reality, completely unaware of the impact of their actions. And while this does not totally diminish ownership, and people still take care of their tasks, they settle again into a comfort zone and avoid going the extra mile when the situation demands it.

?

5.?????? Lack of recognition

?When people feel undervalued, when they feel as if their efforts and contributions are not seen, they can again detach from work. They might start wondering “Why should I care, if no one else will?”

?

6.?????? Toxic culture

?An environment of no or little psychological safety, where people fear punishment or mockery if they make mistakes, where there is a habit of finding blame instead of solution, will also discourage ownership. This is when people decide to stay in their lane and avoid taking initiative and extra responsibility to stay away from trouble…

Same is a culture that promotes competition instead of collaboration, separation instead of unity, silos organization, etc.

?These are just a few of the situations I have encountered in my practice to negatively affect employee ownership. They don’t just effect team morale, but also, its ability to deliver. Now, are we doomed or there are still ways to change this dynamic?

Stay close to find out some concrete measures one can take to revitalize ownership and commitment in their team, in Part 2 of "The Ownership Series".

?