I talk about ownership mentality a lot and this mentality expects a lot from followers. However, there is the question of unrequited loyalty from leaders who are the representatives of institutions. Leaders should not and must never push followers to the point where all they do is the barest minimum, unwilling to go above and beyond for the greater good.
Ownership mentality is not a slogan, it is a contract. It asks people to think long term, take initiative, absorb pressure, and sometimes carry burdens that are not in their job description. That level of commitment requires something equally strong in return, protection, fairness, acknowledgement, and a clear sense that loyalty will not be punished or taken for granted.
When leaders collect sacrifice but offer silence, distance, or selective concern in return, people do not revolt. They retreat. Not out of bitterness, but out of wisdom. They recalibrate their input to match the reality of the system. Do your job. Guard your energy. Stop caring more than the institution cares about you. That shift is not laziness, it is self-preservation.
Traditionally, leadership was stewardship. Leaders stood between the institution and the people, absorbing pressure, advocating upward, and shielding their teams from unnecessary harm. Once that responsibility is abandoned, ownership dies. What replaces it is compliance, clock-in behavior, and transactional engagement. The work gets done, but the soul leaves the room.
Organizations are not built on bare minimum effort. They are built on trust, goodwill, and discretionary energy, people choosing to give more because they feel safe, valued, and respected. Ownership mentality only thrives where leaders understand that loyalty must be reciprocated, effort must be seen, and people must never be pushed to the edge of indifference.
If leaders want owners, they must act like custodians worth committing to. Otherwise, they should not be surprised when people give exactly what is required and nothing more or even go where they are valued. That outcome is not a character flaw in followers, it is a leadership signal ignored for too long.
You can’t demand ownership and offer Indifference.