The most obvious way to select a good manager for an organization is to have the workers in the organization elect their managers. Shareholders in the investme

The most obvious way to select a good manager for an organization is to have the workers in the organization elect their managers. Shareholders in the investment capitalist model will not like this, as they want to be the ones selecting the managers (C-suite), even though they have no day-to-day involvement in the corporation's operations, and typically are looking at quarterly returns as their metric for what is 'good'. Unexamined assumption here: define 'good'. Workers in a corporation will instead tend to elect people who ensure decent working conditions, profit-sharing and safety, while also maintaining a positive balance sheet, e.g. in a steel mill. If they live in the local area, they're also unlikely to support dumping industrial waste in their rivers and streams. A shareholder who lives halfway around the world has no such motivation, so they'll hire managers who pollute and cut safety and health standards in the name of higher profits and dividends for shareholders. If their results are terrible they'll call on their pet politicians for a corporate welfare (bailout) to protect their holdings. Silicon Valley Bank is a recent example, but there are dozens. Easy fixes: (1) Only allow the workers in a corporation to be shareholders in that corporation, with one vote per share, with shares based on skill and experience (2) Less radically, give worker unions the same voting rights when it comes to C-suite selection as the shareholder unions (Blackrock/Fidelity/Vanguard/StateStreet etc.). (3) End corporate welfare programs - just let collapsing corporations go into receivership and find new operators for each entity, and stop the 'fail upward' trend.