Who's got the hot potato?

Ownership is a personal commitment beyond dedication and completing a task with excellence.  Ownership means avoiding excuses, accepting absolute responsibility, and owning the results.  It is not for personal gain.  When a person owns the outcome, they are willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause.  It is the relentless pursuit of success. ~Donald Todrin

The hot potato is that "thing" in your organization that no one seems to "own."  Sure, it's included in someone's job description, maybe even several job descriptions.  You might even be able to say that they are completing the task with excellence.  But, at the end of the day, they aren't accepting absolute responsibility and owning the results.  It's a hot potato that is tossed to someone else to "own."

I've come across this challenge of ownership in a number of organizations and I've been asking myself, "why"?  Is it that sometimes we just don't see that we need to be owners, or is there something else that's keeping us from going full-throttle into ownership? 

I stumbled upon a theory in an HBR blog comment.  This blogger said that the Prospect Theory suggests that our willingness to take action depends upon the reference point -- whether or not the person "owns" the decision.  So I searched for several definitions of the Prospect Theory.  Here's what I learned. 

It's a behavioral economic theory.  Prospect Theory says that people make decisions based on the potential value of losses and gains rather than the final outcome.  We base decisions on perceived gains rather than perceived losses.  Thus, if a person were given two equal choices, one expressed in terms of possible gains and the other in possible losses, people would choose the former.  This is also known as the "loss-aversion theory."  The HBR blogger says that if someone "owns" a decision they would consider the pain of giving up.  If someone doesn't "own" it, he considers the pleasure of getting it.

This makes sense to me. You can include any task in someone's job description, but whether or not they "own" it is a decision they have to make themselves.  This is a behavioral theory; we’re really asking someone to behave as an owner.

Todrin also says:

Creativity, decisiveness, leadership, and sensitivity (if required) are all factors that are involved in this ownership quality. Not only this, but the person must also be able to accept responsibility without question and make decisions in the face of changing circumstances. A person who takes ownership will do whatever it takes, and will be whatever is needed to succeed.

Although it is true that many individuals do their jobs, the downfall is that they still wait to be told what to do.  These workers wait to be reviewed and assessed and take few chances.  However, this is not the definition of ownership.  Perhaps these people can make great employees.  But, they are not the employees who will find great resolutions and forge ahead despite the barriers.

Conclusion: Leaders are owners and owners are leaders.  Anything less isn't leadership.