There’s nothing you can do because the companies are dictatorships or oligarchies at best, not democracies or meritocracies. If he’s the founder presumably he had enough ownership in the company to force the company to keep him in that position.

Changing that up requires a radical redesign of how companies are legally constrained in the US or a cultural change that causes an expectation of worker ownership so that they get a say. For examples look at Germany requiring a representative of the workers on company boards

Employee-owned companies aren't entirely unheard-of in the US. Legally, they're structured as companies where employees own more than 50% of its shares via an ESOP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_stock_ownership

A fun example along those lines is the Green Bay Packers[1]. They are a public non-profit whose shares are largely owned by members of the Green Bay community. Shareholding is mostly a matter of community pride, as it confers very few rights[2].

It's actually a pretty good model, and I wonder why it isn't used for other municipal assets.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-TOTALB-269

Legally speaking I think that might be in a different category than what I was referring to (nonprofit vs corporation). And there are other legal structures, like co-operatives (and credit unions?), with similar ideas.

I agree it’s a great model! Unfortunately the NFL has banned it (last I heard) - https://web.archive.org/web/20110813051753/http://www.sports...

It's also meh. The money gets tied up in the company until the shares vest (my wife had to wait like 8 years or something). It's performance is tied to the performance of the company and you can't diversify. Lots of times it doesn't end up giving you all that much extra. I'd much rather just get a bonus I could invest elsewhere.

ESOPs were invented as a way for owners to cash out. Not really an altruistic thing that works well imho.

I cannot stress this enough - employee-owned companies are still dictatorships, the employees being shareholders doesn't change that at all. Employees get zero, and I mean ZERO, say over day-to-day operations or even major decisions.

The SOLE difference between a non-employee owned company and an employee owned company is who the shareholders are.

Source: personal experience working at multiple employee owned companies

So what's a viable framework where employees can get an official say?

My mind went to DAOs where employees all allocated governance tokens and anyone can propose a new idea and others can use their tokens to vote.

Check out sociocracy. There is overhead cost to operating this way though.

In your model, what happens when you get outvoted?

Cooperatives

We don’t need to bring crypto into it for some amount of control. The poster above is referencing the same problem with any direct democracy which what you get with employee ownership being just shareholders and what you would get with handing out tokens. The solution is to vote on a representative/s who sit on the board much like the German example I mentioned.

Feudalism lives on beneath a thin veneer of electoral democracy

Non C-levels can try to do something about it if and only if they have strong and safe relationships with other C-levels who would be in a position to influence the CEO on the issue.

That's not necessarily common, especially the larger the company gets.

Otherwise trying to do something about it can quickly turn into a "ok, clearly these two people can't work together, I as CEO don't really know this particular person, I do know this C-level person, I think the easiest thing to do here is to remove the one of them that I haven't been working closely with." And then something would only actually happen if, say, there's a pattern over multiple years of several VP Engs (or similar high-profile people) all having the same issues with the same C-level.

I’ve seen two situations one that sounds a bit like your is poorly managed but isn’t bad, one that is really bad:

1. Co-founder likes to make stuff, build stuff, sell stuff, raise money, etc. but does not like, or care for leading 50+ people. Typically he (always he) keeps the title, a small team of senior or very dedicated people, and do whatever he is actually good at. At the same time, a newly appointed, experienced VP does the actual management of the larger team, while nominally reporting to the CxO. This is a good way to avoid drama while the reality of the situation dawns on the co-founder: his report is doing all the grown-up work. You don’t like that work. It’s CxO type of work… so you shouldn't squat the title any longer. It takes a while, though.

The benefits: the VP has ample time and an incentive to prove they can handle the weirdness of a board, and get promoted to SVP, or CxO when their role gets more obvious. They are easier to replace if they underperform or don’t indulge in the CxO delusion long enough. It’s unfair, but it works and most people end up finding what they need in time.

2. Someone was CyO at the previous company, and was able to coast long enough while that first project crashed and burn. Before it did, that someone was hunted to be a new company to be CyO because… well, they look like they know what they are doing. No one at the new company knows what a good CyO does. So they can continue coasting. And it can hurt so many great people who need support.

I’ve seem both at the same time, and it’s painful to see so many people miss what is the problem.

“But so-and-so it’s really CxO!

— Who cares? VP of x is doing great work

— They fight with CyO all the time

— Yeah, because CyO is incompetent and does nothing…”

Titles don’t really matter: if someone has an inflated one, it shouldn’t make them too dangerous. Lack of feedback does: the CxO gets asked to work on special projects and is happy. The CyO is not told to get his shit together, and everyone suffers.

I really think everyone under any manager/director/VP (directly or indirectly via skip levels) should be able to call a "vote of no confidence" and get them replaced with a majority vote. It's the only way to combat clueless leaders and raise issues like this.

Managing other people can be difficult, especially when you need to make decisions that are in the best interest of the organization (and its owners), but what may not necessarily be a popular choice among the employees you are responsible for. Often times "clueless leaders" actually do have a clue, it's just that their decisions have to consider other factors, not just what is best for you. It can really suck to be the person in that position.

This gets said so often yet it doesn't necessarily align. Personal responsibility is pushed aggressively, too.

More often, ICs don't get all the information. It's not about having a clue as much as information asymmetry. All those meetings should imply as much, anyway.

See any managers response during stand up: "in meetings all day, oh btw Blarg I need to talk to you about a release process". That's it? That's all you want to share?

I have been in that position delivering that update. The kind of work you have to do as VP/Director does not translate well into the task oriented stand up updates that developers give. Often times I would be working across multiple projects/initiatives - some I am responsible stakeholder, some I am an informed stakeholder, some are with external teams or companies - and most of these projects are over long periods of time - as in it is not 2 point or 4 point story item that can be updated in 60 seconds over stand up.

I worked one place where they brought in a new director who wasn't functionally competent. I have theories of why which are all probably partly true. Like he saw actually engaging and managing his division as a distraction from social engineering a lateral move up the ladder.

Eventually everyone under him in mass went to his boss and HR and told them flat out he needed to go. And the company did nothing for 18 months. And then just pruned him and the whole division of 25 experienced RF chip designers.

I have a theory that when the C-suite decides to slay an entire division they assign an incompetent boss. Give them a few months to mess it up. Then go for the kill. The incompetent new boss magically absorbs all the blame.

> whole division of 25 experienced RF chip designers.

This can only be done if workers have actual ownership stake in the company enough to do this.

The idea is for HR to implement a reporting system that allow the team to give that feedback to someone high-up enough to do something about it.

Resulting in the hiring of only people who agree with them

corporations are not democratic institutions

maybe they should be

That's a good question: Why not?

The USA "ideals" taught in school say that democracy and democratic republics are the best forms of government.... yet (almost) all our companies are autocratic dictatorships.

Because it's under the guise of meritocracy, where if you just work hard enough, say 60 hours a week, you too can become CEO someday.

"Meritocracy " isn't a thing, since the "merit deciders" (ala kingmakers) decide whatever they want. (Or the next question in that line: who decides what merit is and who has it?)

And, the gist also has very strong vibes of Ronald Wright's misattributed John Steinbeck's quote:

“John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-john-steinbeck-once-...

60 hours of golf is a lot.

The actual machinery of government is not a democracy either. People who work at Federal agencies have to do what their managers tell them to do.

We elect the head of the executive branch. The rest of it is basically run like a bunch of corporations. We certainly don't elect the people who work at the IRS, for example.

The people to whom the org is responsible are the (Greek) demos[1]. For governments, this is the people. For corporations, this is the shareholders. Corporations are somewhat democratic WRT their demos.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos

Well, they are to quite some extend. But on the level of the owners / shareholders.

In essence, they are. Shareholders elect board members who hire for important roles.

This is similar to democratic governments. In no democracy will voters elect the Minister of Energy or Transport or Defense or Labor or the foreign secretary. This is chosen by the elected officials.

> In essence, they are. Shareholders elect board members who hire for important roles.

shareholders don't have all equal vote. Employees have no vote. Its closer to aristocracy if anything

Employers deserve to get vote as much as parts suppliers should. The company is a customer of employees, buying their labor.

Do you think US Steel should get to vote on what Ford Motor Company does? That just seems totally backwards.

You claimed it's a democracy - obviously that's not the case.

If you think it shouldn't be a democracy, thats fine, but is just an opinion and not a factual claim.

You are, ofcrouse entitled to your opinion. Classically company consists of employees just like your body is made uo of organs. When you damage them by treating them badly, you damage the company.

In neoliberal idea employees are disposable and company is not harmed when you harm them. Company is a separate entity that lives by itself, like a holy spirit, maybe it posseses the stock market on the 'brand value', i don't know.

The current stunt by Elon musk will show who is right, if Twitter does well when he is done destroying the talent pool, then you are right. If the company combusts, then you are wrong.

I am a neoliberal, which is why I think that.

> Is there anything non C-levels can do about it?

Labor unions and strikes.

Can you provide some examples of where a labour union has went on strike to remove a C-Level person?

I eagerly await your examples.

Market Basket employees protested to restore the fired CEO. They weren't union so not really a strike.

A strike wouldn't be to remove a C-level as much as really drill home the consequences of poor decisions. Individuals are still too lenient in letting themselves go through the burnout treadmill for the upper trenches to feel it.

Most strikes tend to be around :

- More money

- Better job security

Like the one taking place here right now

"On October 30, 2022, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), issued a strike notice, after the Government of Ontario refused their demands for an 11.7% salary increase alongside other requests for improved working conditions."

They are not after any "change" to how things are done, just a massive 11.7% pay hike every year for the next 4 years.

Again, any example of a strike which was to force the replacement of a C-Level?

I'm not trying to refute your point. You're allowed to be a little less aggressive.

Point being strikes typically hit C-levels indirectly, not directly. A short term loss and display of collective power which could be avoided with foresight. Individuals are more often targeted through boycotting.

So in the case of CUPE asking for 11.7% increase in pay, who is the C-Level involved, and what is the "point" they are trying to make besides simply demanding more money?

How about this "strike"?

"The 2019 General Motors strike began September 15, 2019, with the walkout of 48,000 United Automobile Workers from some 50 plants in the United States. Demands by workers included increased job security, gateway for temporary workers to become permanent, better pay and retaining healthcare benefits."

what was the impact to the C-level? how did them demanding job security and better pay relate to them at all?

There is pretty much NO case of union action ever attempting to impact directly or indirectly a C-Level person.

They strike for Benefits, money, job security and that is about it.

> He ruins everything he touches but he's also one of the founders.

Statements like this are always so interesting to me online from the "there's two sides to every story" perspective.

Why not devil's advocate it and try to walk through life maybe not thinking in blanket statements? How can somebody who ruins everything be successful at all in life?

Maybe I just have more to learn...

This isn’t even that extreme. Malicious people can be highly successful. The founder doesn’t even sound deliberately malicious necessarily. There is a lot of room to be successful between “brilliant and well meaning” and “unable to deliver value or persuade others you do so”.

He's successful because he's part of a successful team.

Or just completely taking credit from others without sharing it.

And as a corollary, flat out stealing ideas/code/whatever. If it's still just a startup, no one (that matters) may have every done a thorough search yet to be sure that the technology provided by the founders is original. Or course it won't survive scrutiny from the press or due diligence from a potential buyer or anything.

A friend of mine worked with a startup where there were three founders and they were all notorious for taking unearned credit. I think at least one was a pathological liar. As time when on, the true origins of everything they "contributed" came out. Depending on how good they were at bs'ing and raising money at least, a couple were were fired quickly and the last one took years to get rid of (a big enough fraud scandal finally went public).

Here's a more likely explanation: luck + first mover got them to a position, and their current strategy risks a downfall by a competitor in the long run.

Once in power, it is in fact really easy to stay in power.

> Maybe I just have more to learn...

As someone who has been with large multi-nationals for a very long time let me give you some examples.

1) "failing up".

Sometimes you cant deal with your manager or the situation except to make them look good, and eventually they get promoted up and out of your way.

2) "Protected class"

Think "nepotism". Let's say that "B" doesn't do well, but he is very close to the "CxO". who in their right mind would fire "B"? We call this a "CLM" - Career limiting move.

Alternatively, lets say I hired my best friend.. How wiling am I to fire them?

If you are the owner/founder, it is really hard to get rid of them no matter what they do (Go read up on WeWorks).

Best move in (2) cases, I have been thinking, is to move them aside: have them do exploratory work and perhaps not have people under them.

Yes. It is interesting over the years watching people play "hot potato" with the boss' friend or such.

Eventually they land somewhere and it doesn't take long to figure out the deal and then they start working on a strategy on how to move them somewhere else.

Obviously the person i responded to hasn't spent much time with a large org to see this first hand.

Yeah, jump ship to a more competently-ran company.

I think the only thing a non-C-level can do is get another C-level person to take action. Present a well-thought-out and well-documented case, and see if they will take action.

This may sound risky. But:

1. If you succeed, you may dramatically improve your working environment.

2. If you fail in a way that damages your job, you probably should have been looking for a way out of there anyway, because he's going to continue to make that a crummy place to work.

Note well: You probably shouldn't try this until you're ready to leave, both emotionally and financially, because you may get fired on the spot.

I've had a few "well documented cases" shared with me in my time. Generally they are lengthy rants that make it clear that the author doesn't understand the constraints or goals of the business.

Occasionally, there will be some useful insights mixed in, but that is rare. I'd suggest rather than trying to make the case independently, find a trusted party, tell them that you have concerns about X, and let them drive the conversation. You may pique their interest, or give them a chance to validate concerns they already have.

This is why free software is a grift when the real problem is we are slaves to an ownership class and all the control of software can’t save us from their ability to infect companies, markets, governments, cultures and fuck them up. Democracy in all of these structures gives us the same benefits of FOSS with many more added freedoms and a handful new responsibilities.

You work at Meta, too?

It’s Mark Zuckerberg isn’t it?

If he’s a co-founder, he probably has enough stake that no one is able to fire him, or there is no coalition of other owners large enough to do so that is tired enough of the antics to do so.

One of the privileges of ownership is being able to fuck yourself over by destroying your own stuff, after all.

You can resign. You're not a slave. This man is only your master insomuch as you desire.

If anything bad happens in any company, whether incompetence, or something illegal, it is best to just leave. Don't fight it, unless the company is so huge that if you find a tax non-payment issue you get from 15% to 30%, and that would be worth $10 million or something like that.

But it is folly to report wrong-doing to the company. Just leave. The business will almost always close ranks to the superior.

There was a story I read recently, the head of personnel was a woman. A woman employee reported some kind of harassment to her. The company started giving the complaining women bad reviews, whereas before they were good. And they fired her. This was a woman who let another woman know. That woman human resources person took the side of the company.

I myself have been subject to a lot of situations where I was extremely uncomfortable to the point of where I wanted to throw up and leave. I'm a man. All of the people that made me feel this way were women. Talking about porn, their periods, sex life - you name it. And it was so many, not just one woman.

If I complained, they would have to fire 1/2 the female work force at the office. Do you think that there is any way in fluck that they would do this? No is the answer. And I eventually left. Easier to do that than stay there. I don't have the time to be bogged down by crap, I don't want to go to court for 10 years asking for some kind of payout for harassment.