Employees aren't idiots. They'll realize that the business still needs to run, but instead of a top-down approach from someone who thinks they're smarter that the people actually doing the work, the decision making is made by people who really know what they're deciding on.
The issue is that they're not idiots but rational intelligent people that can understand different rewards. They can always get a new job and if the payout if higher from nuking the company along the way then it's rational for them to be biased that way.
Board members often have the same issue, but in a different way. Probably the favorite two step approach:
1. Guide the company to do things that boost the stock price in the short term (1-3 years) but destroy the company's ability to compete on longer time lines
2. Dump your stock position
This doesn't usually happen with founders, but I can personally attest to the fact that this has been done intentionally by board members of billion dollar businesses.
There are also more subtle approaches, e.g. board members pushing for strategies that hurt the company, but boost the board members' other holdings.
Exactly my point except their interests tend to be aligned with the other stockholders of the company since they all make money from the stock. The cases where they don't are well known such as VCs insisting on massive growth (go big or go bankrupt), activist investors and so on.
I'm suggesting NOT being top-down, getting their feedback and letting them make decisions, without formal board seats and votes.
It's possible to not have a top-down approach on a day-to-day basis, but for the founders to still maintain veto power at the end of the day if shit happens.
I guess the question I would ask is the following. Assuming you're already doing a decent job of soliciting feedback from employees, what's the argument for effectively giving one employee a louder voice than everyone one else? Because I don't see how that doesn't happen to at least some degree.
