Why our workplaces aren’t working (Part 6)

Many leaders believe their teams lack ownership. But often, ownership isn’t missing, it’s been designed out of the system.

When projects stall, decisions are delayed, or teams become overly dependent on leadership, the conclusion is often immediate: people need to take more ownership. They need to be more proactive, more accountable and more engaged.

At first glance, that explanation seems reasonable. But it may not be the real issue.

Because ownership is rarely a personality trait that some people have and others do not. More often, ownership is a response to the environment people work in every day. And the environment matters more than most leaders realise.

When decisions are tightly controlled, approvals require multiple layers, leaders step in too quickly and mistakes are not tolerated, people adjust. They wait, check, seek permission and avoid risk. Not because they lack initiative, but because the environment doesn’t support it.

Over time, even highly capable people learn that acting independently creates more risk than reward. The safest option becomes waiting for direction, escalating decisions, or simply complying. What leaders often interpret as a lack of ownership may actually be a rational response to the system they have created.

This is why ownership cannot be separated from organisational design. People pay attention to consequences. If taking initiative leads to criticism, they become cautious. If making decisions leads to second-guessing, they become hesitant. If every action requires approval, they stop acting independently altogether.

The behaviour changes. Not because the people changed, but because the system taught them to. This creates an important leadership challenge.

Many organisations say they want ownership. But their processes communicate something different. They ask people to take responsibility, yet decisions remain centralised. They encourage initiative, yet every mistake is scrutinised. They talk about empowerment, yet authority remains unclear.

The result is predictable. Employees become accountable for outcomes they do not fully control. Responsibility increases. Ownership does not.

Because ownership requires more than accountability. Ownership requires clarity.

People need to know who decides, who acts and who is accountable. Without clarity, people spend more time navigating uncertainty than creating value. When decision rights are ambiguous, work slows down, approvals multiply and accountability becomes difficult because no one is fully sure where responsibility begins and ends.

But clarity alone is not enough. Ownership also requires trust. Not just in principle, but in practice. Trust to decide, trust to act, trust to learn.

This is often where organisations struggle most. Many leaders genuinely want empowered teams. But when pressure increases, they revert to control. They step in, make the decision, solve the problem and provide the answer. The intention is usually positive. The impact is often unintended.

Every time leaders consistently take back ownership, teams learn to give it back.

Over time, dependency becomes normalised. The organisation begins to rely on a small number of decision-makers while capability throughout the rest of the system remains underdeveloped. This creates bottlenecks, slows execution, limits growth and places increasing pressure on leaders themselves.

Ironically, the more leaders feel the need to control outcomes, the more ownership disappears from the organisation.

Because ownership grows through use. Like any capability, it develops through practice. People learn to make good decisions by making decisions. They learn judgement through experience. They learn accountability by owning outcomes.

That means mistakes will occasionally happen. Not because the system is failing, but because learning is taking place.

The organisations that build ownership understand this. They do not confuse control with accountability. They do not treat every mistake as evidence that empowerment was the wrong decision. Instead, they create environments where people can exercise judgement, learn from outcomes and continuously improve.

They create clarity around decision-making. They distribute authority intentionally. They reinforce accountability consistently. And they build trust through action, not slogans.

Because ownership cannot be mandated. It cannot be demanded through performance reviews. It cannot be created through speeches about accountability.

Ownership is a product of the system. The organisations that build ownership don’t demand it. They design for it.

Read previous articles in this series here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Arinya Talerngsri is Senior Vice President, Local Partner and Managing Director at BTS Thailand, part of the BTS Group, a leading global strategy implementation firm. She is passionate about revolutionising education and creating opportunities for Thais and people worldwide. Executives and organisations looking to collaborate or learn more about leadership and talent development, succession planning and organisational transformation can contact her directly at [email protected] or visit her LinkedIn profile.