[ivojp]

Because most companies are private enterprises started by some entrepreneur that had some vision for the good/service that is being produced.

Presumably, you and your employer entered into some contract in which you are compensated for your labor. If you find the terms unconscionable, perhaps you should petition your legislators to change the labor laws (this is where democracy is appropriate).

As an aside, I do not understand where the notion that <something> + democracy is always going to be better than <something>. I never would have thought back in college that banding together with my fellow physics majors and demanding what we're taught and how we're graded would produce better outcomes; I choose my school/department because of the reputation resulting from the faculty's decisions. I imagine the same goes with most employees at most companies - a lot of engineers want to work at FAANG because of what <ceo> is doing. Democracy works well for things you can't opt out of, like society. I doubt Apple products would be as good if Steve Jobs let every engineer into the boardroom.

[Apocryphon]

Because management isn't always what it's cracked up to be, and it would be a nice recourse for workers to have some leverage to push back against questionable business decisions. Have you ever worked somewhere where mgmt. overruled engineering concerns with disastrous consequences? [0] Perhaps workplace democracy is too radical, perhaps a workers' union won't make the right business decisions that management can- or sometimes they do [1]- but it'd be nice to have some way to voice dissatisfaction with the direction a company is going besides some easily-ignored questions at all-hands. Maybe a channel directly to the board? Well, turns out there used to be something called an ombudsman. [2]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23535292

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13986889

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22367243

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13718336

[ivojp]

I won't contest that history is not replete with examples of management failing to listen to warnings from their employees, but the leadership model most places employ is effective because history is also replete with management staying the course even when under doubt and achieving some measure of success.

Also, if the consequences to decisions were always attainable a priori, I doubt management would make bad decisions. It's easy to look at Microsoft and say Ballmer dropped the ball on mobile, but then again they still don't have a competitive product to iOS or Android and are doing well. Was Ballmer wrong/right? Is Nadella wrong/right? It was hard to say in 2007 and it's still difficult to say in 2020.

The Audi example is only a good example in that management is listening to a group of employees who are advocating for a position in which the market is already trending (which also happens to have substantial environmental benefits). We wouldn't applaud BP if they opted to do more drilling at the request of their oil rig workers.

For whatever reason, who ever was responsible for putting your manager in place trusts that person; you can appeal to your manager if you think they are making a bad decision or you can appeal to their manager that you think they are ill suited to their position. After that, you've exhausted your options at that company and aren't owed anything further. I would strongly suggest to any job seekers that if having a seat at the table is important to you, assess that when you are interviewing. Find or start a company in which that is the culture.

Now I do have to caveat all this with that I am 30, no kids, and live in decently sized market for tech. I may be more cavalier with my "if you don't like it, then leave" attitude. I find the ombudsman position interesting and was unaware of the history around it and HR. I will have to look into that more, thank you for the knowledge.

[Apocryphon]

The way I see it, tech as exemplified by Silicon Valley has an unique culture that portrays itself as cutting-edge, on the side of progress (not politically, though there is that too), open to experimentation, and empowering. At least, that's how the rhetoric is shaped.

And yet, despite startups' attempts to introduce concepts such as transparency, "radical candor", "employee wellness", even radical experiments like holacracy, etc., at the end of the day the core of these businesses are the same old corporate structures.

And amidst the high-paced, high-stakes froth of move fast and fueled by the promise of dumb money, many firms end up having mgmt. that shall we say, are more susceptible to mistakes, and persist in them despite discontent from the rank and file. And despite performative attempts to promote open discourse and welcome questions, they often don't listen to that discontent. So those truly unhappy just jump ship. Which is fine to some extent, but it just feels like it's contributing to an unsustainable throwaway culture.

> After that, you've exhausted your options at that company and aren't owed anything further.

> I may be more cavalier with my "if you don't like it, then leave" attitude.

But what about the end user? The customers who will be failed if the company does? And what about the product itself? If someone who works on it feels like company leadership isn't making the right choices, and if their concerns are echoed by a good amount of the workforce, shouldn't they at least be given the chance to appeal to the board?

It just feels highly hypocritical that an industry that sees itself as so forward-looking and enlightened, so flexible and boundaries breaking, just ends up conforming to the same corporate fiat structure at the end. It really belies the messaging of being able to "make a difference."