zlacker

> every corporation is a monarchy

No... Not at all. Not that many large cap corporations(large capital organizations, not Mom and Pop Inc) have one exclusive owner. None of the publicly traded corporations are monarchies at all.

>>JAlexo+(OP)
Sure they are, CEOs are the King/Queens. They have full control on decisions and do as they please more or less. If they don't perform then they are replaced with a new monarch. Monarchs can be challenged and deposed and often were. A monarch that was not doing a good job was often in defense of themselves from rivals.

>>nemo44+Z
Replace the word CEO with President, Prime Minister, Branch Manager, Head of Labor Union - and it'll make as much sense.

As a person making this claim, you are failing miserably to make a case that CEO is a monarch. (Mostly because you don't know what it means to be CEO or a monarch)

>>JAlexo+d4
> Replace the word CEO with President, Prime Minister, Branch Manager, Head of Labor Union - and it'll make as much sense.

They all have massive limits on their powers as compared to a CEO. They work with parliaments, etc. They can be vetoed easily.

I'll grant it isn't a perfect analogy. A CEO doesn't have unlimited power granted by god and has to answer to a board and therefore shareholders. But in essence, the idea of having a singular ultimate decision maker/leader rather than having a small group vote on decisions or have the entire company vote makes it a de-facto monarchy.

>>JAlexo+(OP)
Plenty of publicly traded companies have a single shareholder with 51 or more % of the votes, for various reasons. (this doesn't necessarily means owns 51% of the shares, just that they control 51% of the votes - e.g. special stock classes with more votes per share, or via holding proxies, etc)

>>nemo44+Z
A monarch is the leader of a state. If we remove the "of a state" part from the definition, we just have a fancy sounding synonym for "leader." So in some sense a CEO could be called a monarch if we did that, but so could... whatever, a sports team's coach.

>>bee_ri+8f
Yeah sort of my point in that it’s a common form of organization. Point being we feel like democracy is the best but nearly every other organization is closer to monarchy. Monarchy’s are extremely effective organizational structures when the monarch is extremely competent.

>>nemo44+Ro
And an extremely ineffective organizational structure when the leader is incompetent. This is fine in the lower-stakes scenario of a company. For nations, it isn't surprising that the most successful ones have switched to democracy. Peaceful handover of control, representation of diverse interests, and all that.

>>nemo44+m9
It's a very bad analogy, because CEO's operate within a charter. CEOs isn't even the top position at all companies, typically it's the chairman of the board... that can literally tell the CEO to can it. In fact almost all CEOs can be vetoed by the board of directors and even at certain times - individual shareholders.

Your analogy is, again, rooted in lack of knowledge(aka ignorance) of corporate structures.

The CEO of my startup right now, where she literally owns 51%, still must go to the board for any impactful decision. And any C level exec can call the board.

LLCs are generally autocratic, but that isn't "any corporation".