If workers own the company, they might agree on more vacation, no unpaid overtime, better working conditions, etc. These would be the shared preferences.
If someone else owns the company, they will typically want a CEO who squeezes out of the company as much profit as possible. Everything else is purely instrumental. Yeah, it might happen that giving people more vacation is good for attracting talent that generates more profit, in which case the company might also decide to provide more vacation. Or maybe the CEO decides that vacation is irrelevant, or should only be given to people working at certain selected positions. Basically, from the perspective of a worker it is mostly random, but more often bad news.
If you are one of 1000 workers, and you own 1/1000 of the company… but other workers did not buy shares, so 999/1000 of the company is owned by someone who doesn’t work there, do not expect the company to be any nicer to you than is strictly necessary.
EDIT: After reading your other comment...
I think that people are more likely to empathize with people in a similar role than with people in a different role. As an “individual contributor” myself, I find it natural to empathize with people who have to do overtime and hate it. But who knows, maybe in a parallel world where I am a manager, I empathize with managers who get frustrated with the lazy bastards who prioritize their family and hobbies over getting their boss a well-deserved bonus.
But even if I had zero empathy towards people in a similar role, arguing for the benefits of everyone is a Schelling point. I can get more support for “more vacation for everyone” than for “more vacation for Viliam”.
If workers own the company, they might agree on more vacation, no unpaid overtime, better working conditions, etc. These would be the shared preferences.
If someone else owns the company, they will typically want a CEO who squeezes out of the company as much profit as possible. Everything else is purely instrumental. Yeah, it might happen that giving people more vacation is good for attracting talent that generates more profit, in which case the company might also decide to provide more vacation. Or maybe the CEO decides that vacation is irrelevant, or should only be given to people working at certain selected positions. Basically, from the perspective of a worker it is mostly random, but more often bad news.
If you are one of 1000 workers, and you own 1/1000 of the company… but other workers did not buy shares, so 999/1000 of the company is owned by someone who doesn’t work there, do not expect the company to be any nicer to you than is strictly necessary.
EDIT: After reading your other comment...
I think that people are more likely to empathize with people in a similar role than with people in a different role. As an “individual contributor” myself, I find it natural to empathize with people who have to do overtime and hate it. But who knows, maybe in a parallel world where I am a manager, I empathize with managers who get frustrated with the lazy bastards who prioritize their family and hobbies over getting their boss a well-deserved bonus.
But even if I had zero empathy towards people in a similar role, arguing for the benefits of everyone is a Schelling point. I can get more support for “more vacation for everyone” than for “more vacation for Viliam”.