I think you're talking about fiduciary responsibility. CEOs can be removed if they're shown to be acting against the interests of the shareholders which is why

I think you're talking about fiduciary responsibility. CEOs can be removed if they're shown to be acting against the interests of the shareholders which is why a lot of them look like ass holes. > This being the case, why not a new type of corporation that was somewhere in the middle? Able to distribute profits (perhaps even with limitations on when they can withhold them, like so many of the big tech companies). Ones where the shareholders still get some (statutorily defined, so that case law can't come in and fuck it up) priority, but that when shareholders are acting only in short term interest, they can be overruled by those in charge of managing it. There are of course alternate ways of structuring companies that prioritize the needs of groups of people besides shareholders like worker co-ops. The issue with these is that it can be difficult to raise capital to start or grow these businesses because there's less incentives for investors to give you their money.