Are you waiting for permission to care about results?
That question might sting a little. Good. Because if you’re spending your precious time on this earth just completing tasks someone else assigned, you’re living someone else’s life, not your own.
The life you’ll actually remember
I had a realization recently while reflecting on my past: I don’t remember the tedious day-to-day tasks. I remember the interesting events. The moments when I created something meaningful. The times I solved problems that mattered. The decisions that changed outcomes.
These are the personality-forming experiences. When people talk about their life “passing before their eyes” in near-death experiences, they never mention completing tedious tasks. They see the moments when they truly lived, when they broke free from routine and let their creativity flourish.
Yet most people spend their working hours in task-completion mode, waiting for someone else to tell them what to think about and care about. They’re essentially watching their life pass by without living it.
The ownership paradox that kills creativity
Here’s something that confuses many leaders: You cannot give ownership to people. Ownership must be taken.
The moment you try to “empower” someone or “give them ownership,” you’ve already established that you control what they can own. You’ve created a parent-child dynamic where they wait for your permission to care about results.
I’ve seen this play out in countless meetings. A few people contribute ideas while others sit quietly, waiting to be asked what they think. These silent participants aren’t bad people or incompetent workers. They’ve been trained to execute tasks, not to think creatively about problems.
As I discussed in my article about the ownership mindset, actual ownership emerges when people see their work as an expression of their values and capabilities rather than a burden they endure.
This connects directly to what I explored about reality building. The people who create meaningful realities are those who take ownership of their choices rather than waiting for others to choose for them.
Task completion versus creative problem-solving
The difference between task executors and problem owners isn’t about job titles or seniority. It’s about mindset.
Task executors think: “What am I supposed to do?” Problem owners think: “What needs to happen for us to succeed?”
Task executors follow instructions precisely. Problem owners understand the goal and figure out better ways to achieve it.
Task executors ask: “Is this my responsibility?” Problem owners ask: “How can I contribute to the solution?”
The tragedy is that most intelligent people get trained into task-executor mode because organizations accidentally reward compliance over creativity. Following instructions feels safer than suggesting improvements.
But here’s what you lose when you default to task execution: the parts of work that actually matter. The creative problem-solving. The strategic thinking. The innovation that makes work meaningful instead of mundane.
Learning from Toyota and Nokia’s opposite paths
Consider two companies that faced similar challenges but responded differently.
Toyota revolutionized manufacturing by empowering factory workers to halt production if they identified any issues. Instead of just following assembly instructions, workers took ownership of quality outcomes. They became problem owners who cared about the end result, not just their specific tasks.
This ownership mindset didn’t just improve Toyota’s quality - it created the Lean principles that later influenced Agile development methodologies. When workers took ownership of continuous improvement, they developed systematic approaches to eliminating waste, rapid iteration, and customer value focus. These same principles now power the most successful software teams.
Toyota’s approach helped them become one of the world’s most efficient and reliable manufacturers. Workers didn’t wait for management permission to identify and solve problems. They took ownership of continuous improvement, creating frameworks that transformed entire industries.
Nokia, on the other hand, had engineers who understood that smartphones would replace traditional phones. They had the technical capability to lead that transition. However, the corporate culture prioritized following the existing strategy over taking ownership of the future.
Nokia’s engineers stayed in task-executor mode. They waited for executive permission to pursue smartphone development aggressively. By the time leadership decided to pivot, competitors had already seized the market.
The difference wasn’t capability. It was mindset. Nokia’s people waited for direction. Toyota’s people took ownership.
The creativity connection
Here’s why this matters beyond work performance: creativity is what makes us distinctly human. Robots can complete tasks, follow procedures, and execute instructions. But creative problem-solving, strategic thinking, and innovative solutions require human consciousness and care.
When you spend your time in task-execution mode, you’re essentially volunteering to be replaced by automation. You’re underutilizing the very capabilities that make you irreplaceable.
But when you take ownership of problems and outcomes, you engage the creative faculties that no machine can replicate. You become someone who adds unique value rather than just completing assigned work.
This is about more than career advancement. It’s about living fully. Your working hours are a significant portion of your life. Why spend them in a diminished state when you could spend them creating, innovating, and contributing meaningfully?
Breaking free from the daycare mentality
Many workplaces inadvertently foster a daycare-like environment where people rely on authority figures to dictate their thoughts and concerns. Leaders mean well when they try to “give ownership” or “empower people,” but these efforts often reinforce dependency rather than eliminate it.
True ownership development requires recognizing that you’re accountable to yourself for how you spend your time and energy. No one else can make your work meaningful. No one else can decide whether you’ll contribute creatively or just complete tasks.
As I explored in my recent article about scalable onboarding, the goal isn’t to give people ownership but to create conditions where ownership-minded people naturally emerge and thrive.
This connects to the broader themes I’ve discussed about building systems that enhance rather than diminish human agency. The best organizations don’t control people’s thinking. They align people around shared goals and let creativity flourish within that framework.
Asking for growth, not direction
Here’s the key distinction: ownership-minded people ask for specific help with their growth rather than general direction on what to think.
Instead of: “What should I work on?” They ask: “I’m thinking about tackling X problem. What context am I missing?”
Instead of: “Tell me what you want.” They ask: “I see these three options for improving Y. Which trade-offs should I consider?”
Instead of: “Is this good enough?” They ask: “I’ve achieved the goal, but I noticed Z could be optimized. Should I explore that?”
This shift changes everything. You move from being someone who consumes direction to someone who contributes thinking. You become a partner in problem-solving rather than just a resource for task completion.
The balance that actually works
This isn’t about chaos versus order. It’s not about ignoring goals or abandoning coordination. The most effective teams combine clear alignment on objectives with creative freedom in execution.
Think of it like jazz music. Musicians align on the key, tempo, and basic structure. But within that framework, they improvise creatively. The result is coordinated yet innovative, structured yet spontaneous.
Similarly, problem owners align on company goals, core principles, and success metrics. But they take creative ownership of how to achieve those outcomes within the agreed framework.
As I discussed in my article about philosophy’s importance, shared principles provide the foundation for distributed decision-making. When people understand the underlying values and objectives, they can make aligned choices without constant oversight.
A simple self-check
Here’s an easy way to assess your current mindset:
In your last three work conversations, did you:
- Suggest improvements to existing processes?
- Ask questions that reveal new perspectives on problems?
- Propose solutions rather than just identifying issues?
- Take initiative on something that wasn’t explicitly assigned?
When you think about your work, do you:
- Feel energized by challenges and problem-solving opportunities?
- See connections between your tasks and broader outcomes?
- Naturally, think about how things could work better?
- Care about results beyond just completing your assigned work?
If you answered “rarely” or “no” to most of these, you might be operating in task-executor mode. The good news? This is a choice you can change immediately.
Taking ownership starts now
You don’t need permission to care about results. You don’t need formal authority to contribute ideas. You don’t need a title change to start thinking like a problem owner.
You can begin by:
- Asking better questions in your next meeting
- Suggesting one improvement to a process you use regularly
- Connecting your work to broader business outcomes
- Taking initiative on something small but meaningful
The shift from task executor to problem owner isn’t a destination. It’s a daily choice about how to approach your work and, ultimately, how to spend your life.
Your time is the most precious resource you have. It’s irreplaceable and finite. Why spend it in diminished mode when you could spend it creating, contributing, and living fully?
The choice is yours. The permission you’re waiting for doesn’t exist because you don’t need it.
Take ownership. Not because someone empowered you to, but because your life deserves to be lived creatively and meaningfully.
Philosophical Foundations:
The transition from task executor to problem owner connects to several important philosophical concepts:
Existentialism (Sartre, Camus): You are responsible for creating meaning in your work through conscious choices rather than accepting predetermined roles.
Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan): Humans thrive when they experience autonomy, mastery, and purpose in their activities.
Creative Process Philosophy (Bergson, Whitehead): Creativity is the fundamental force that drives innovation and meaningful change in the world.
Virtue Ethics (Aristotle): Excellence emerges through practice and character development, not through following rules or waiting for permission.
These philosophical foundations suggest that taking ownership isn’t just about work performance - it’s about living authentically and using your human capacity for creative contribution rather than mere task completion.
