[beachy]

There is no right answer- it depends on how the company was set up, which in turn reflects the type of company it's founders wanted it to be.

We changed our company constitution for this exact reason. We felt that it was important that the majority owner could present an empowered, decision making face to the outside world, rather than having to start any discussion with"I'm here to talk, but I need to run anything past all the other owners".

This does impact on the rights of the minority owners - a 2% owner can't hold up or influence an acquisition for example - but the upside is that their shares are worth more than if the company was controlled by a squabbling rabble.

Having gone from a majority owner to a minority one, I still feel this was the right move for us.