If you haven't seen it, I suggest a watch. For those that don't know, Jocko is a former Navy Seal. Here he tells a story about something that went wrong in combat. The basic idea is to take responsibility for the outcomes of your life, but not just typical responsibility. He suggests taking on FULL responsibility, particularly in leadership positions. You could discuss whether you should do that or not because it may or may not be true, but I'm more interested in the psychological usefulness of such a tactic.
The thing about ownership, is that it implies fault. It's your fault is something goes wrong. It's also your fault if something goes right. It seems that people enjoy taking credit when things go right, but shirk responsibility when things go wrong. This "out" disappears if you follow the guide of extreme ownership.
One potentially useful thing to come out of this is a more honest self-appraisal. People are essentially wired to have bias towards seeing themselves as good or better. Being unable to escape your faults may help lower these kinds of overconfidence biases. Underconfidence can be useful, because it might mean that you prepare more and end up performing better.
I could write more on this, but I'll let you guys chime in.
Thoughts?
FYI: I'm going to be posting more psychologically relevant topics in the coming months.