The board of directors in companies
Boards of Directors are required for corporations by nearly all jurisdictions.  Some jurisdictions have almost self-defeating requirements however, such as in tax havens. Boards of Directors are compensated by the company for which they sit.  Historically, they have set their own compensation almost always with tight qualitative legal bounds, but in the US, that has now changed, so investors now set Director compensation.  Directors are typically not given wages or salary for work but compensation for expenses.  For larger companies, this is semantics since compensation averages around one quarter of a million of USD. Regulations almost always proscribe agencies such as other corporations from sitting on boards and individuals convicted of serious crimes as well.  Some jurisdictions will even restrict directories to other qualities such as solvency. While directors are elected by shareholders, their obligations are normally to the company, and each jurisdiction has its own set of rules for this.  Almost always, directors are forbidden from selling access to their votes. Directors are almost always elected by holders of voting stock after a well-publicized announcement and extended time period. Investors are almost never restricted from sitting on a board so long as they meet the requirements described above.
Converting the comment from @MD-Tech into answer How or where could I find info about publicly traded companies about how stock owner friendly their compensation schemes are for their board and officers? This should be available in the annual report, probably in a directors' remunerations section for most companies Except: it's a material concern at every company.  If the senior executives all quit at the same time, this is going to be problematic no matter what company we're discussing.  I wouldn't be surprised if most 10-Ks have similar generic language. Shareholders have voting rights, and directors have fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Sure, shareholders have rights to the dividends, but stock confers decisionmaking powers. I'm not really sure what your answer to this is, or how you are differentiating the concept of ownership from this. Also keep note - some companies have a combined CEO/Chairman of the board role. While he/she would not be allowed to negotiate contracts or stock plans, some corporate governance analysts advocate for the separation of the roles to remove any opportunity for the CEO to unduly influence the board.  This could be the case for dysfunctional boards. However, the alternate camps will say that the combined role has no negative effect on shareholder returns.   SEC regulations require companies to disclose negotiations between the board and CEO (as well as other named executives) for contracts, employee stock plans, and related information. Sometimes reading the proxy statement to find out, for example, how many times the board meets a year, how many other boards a director serves on, and if the CEO sits on any other board (usually discouraged to serve on more than 2) will provide some insight into a well-run (or not well-run) board. She was there for 5 years.  Someone brought in to sell the company is going to do it in 12-18 months, 24 max.  She is probably a good #2 but not CEO material.  There are many people like that who need some direction from the person above them but aren't good actually being the top person.  I'd blame the board for not realizing this as much as I'd blame her. "Owning more than 50%  of a company's stock normally gives you the right to elect a majority, or even all of a company's (board of) directors. Once you have your directors in place, you can tell them who to hire and fire among managers. There are some things that may stand in the way of your doing this. First, there may be a company bylaw that says that the directors can be replaced only one ""class"" at a time, with three or four ""classes."" Then it could take you two or three years to get control of the company. Second, there may be different classes of shares with different voting rights, so if e.g. ""A"" shares controlled by the founding family gives them ten votes, and ""B"" shares owned by the other shareholders, you may have a majority of total shares and be outvoted by the ""A"" shares." Oh the company I work for now.  Victim of a poor CEO that has turned into poor leadership across the board. There are directors I'd love to meet, act very interested in why they do things the way they do. The interest wouldn't even be faked. I'm genuinely curious how someone could have so many stupid ideas. Then tell them they suck and they're fired. "The usual pattern is that shareholders don't run companies in a practical sense, so ""if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company"" doesn't change anything. In large companies, the involvement of shareholders is limited to a few votes on key issues such as allocating profit (how much to keep in company vs pay in dividends) and choosing board members. And board members also don't run the company - they oversee how the company is being run, and choose executives who will actually run the company. If a rich person simply buys 50% and doesn't desire to get personally involved, then they just vote for whatever board members seem apropriate and forget about it." your request was fine. Business is multi-disciplinary and requires seeing things from many aspects, changing your perspective regularly. Our CEO changes which dimensions to evaluate his business every six months - at the top is porfitable growth, then every aspect of the business that influences that outcome is flipped and re-examined.   He's been remarkably successful his entire career First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here. "You own a fractional share of the company, maybe you should care enough to at least read the proxy statements which explain the pro and con position for each of the issues you are voting on. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. On the other hand, if you are saying that the people who get paid to be knowledgeable about that stuff should just go make the decisions without troubling you with the details, then choose the option to go with their recommendations, which are always clearly indicated on the voting form. However, if you do this, it might make sense to at least do some investigation of who you are voting onto that board. I guess, as mpenrow said, you could just abstain, but I'm not sure how that is any different than just trashing the form. As for the idea that proxy votes are tainted somehow, the one missing piece of that conspiracy is what those people have to gain. Are you implying that your broker who has an interest in you making money off your investments and liking them would fraudulently cast proxy votes for you in a way that would harm the company and your return? Why exactly would they do this? I find your stance on the whole thing a bit confusing though. You seem to have some strong opinions on corporate Governance, but at the same time aren't willing to invest any effort in the one place you have any control over the situation. I'm just sayin.... Update Per the following information from the SEC Website, it looks like the meaning of a proxy vote can vary depending on the mechanics of the specific issue you are voting on. My emphasis added. What do ""for,"" ""against,"" ""abstain""and ""withhold"" mean on the proxy card or voter instruction form?   Depending on what you are voting on,   the proxy card or voting instruction   form gives you a choice of voting   ""for,"" ""against,"" or ""abstain,"" or   ""for"" or ""withhold."" Here is an   explanation of the differences: Election of directors: Generally,   company bylaws or other corporate   documents establish how directors are   elected. There are two main types of   ways to elect directors: plurality   vote and majority vote. A ""plurality vote"" means that the   winning candidate only needs to get   more votes than a competing candidate.   If a director runs unopposed, he or   she only needs one vote to be elected,   so an ""against"" vote is meaningless.   Because of this, shareholders have the   option to express dissatisfaction with   a candidate by indicating that they   wish to ""withhold"" authority to vote   their shares in favor of the   candidate. A substantial number of   ""withhold"" votes will not prevent a   candidate from getting elected, but it   can sometimes influence future   decisions by the board of directors   concerning director nominees. A ""majority vote"" means that directors   are elected only if they receive a   majority of the shares voting or   present at the meeting. In this case,   you have the choice of voting ""for""   each nominee, ""against"" each nominee,   or you can ""abstain"" from voting your   shares. An ""abstain"" vote may or may   not affect a director's election. Each   company must disclose how ""abstain"" or   ""withhold"" votes affect an election in   its proxy statement. This information   is often found toward the beginning of   the proxy statement under a heading   such as ""Votes Required to Adopt a   Proposal"" or ""How Your Votes Are   Counted."" Proposals other than an election of   directors: Matters other than voting   on the election of directors, like   voting on shareholder proposals, are   typically approved by a vote of a   majority of the shares voting or   present at the meeting. In this   situation, you are usually given the   choice to vote your shares ""for"" or   ""against"" a proposal, or to ""abstain""   from voting on it. Again, the effect   of an ""abstain"" vote may depend on the   specific voting rule that applies. The   company's proxy statement should again   disclose the effect of an abstain   vote." "The list of the public companies is available on the regulatory agencies' sites usually (for example, in the US, you can look at SEC filings). Otherwise, you can check the stock exchange listings, which show all the public companies traded on that exchange. The shareholders, on the other hand, are normally not listed and not published. You'll have to ask the company, and it probably won't tell you (and won't even know them all as many shares are held in the ""street name"" of the broker)." In reality, shareholders have very few rights other than the right to profits and the right to vote on a board.  In general, a proxy fight to replace the board is complicated and expensive, so unless the interested parties buy close to 50% of the shares it's unlikely to be successful.  Furthermore, a lot of the shares are held by insiders and institutions.    I suppose if a large group of shareholders got together and demanded this, the existing directors may listen and give in to avoid unhappy shareholders being a general annoyance.  That seems pretty unlikely unless the stake gets large.  There's a great episode of NPR Planet Money [board games](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/07/19/538141248/episode-594-board-games) which talks about one man's struggle to get the company to take some action. That's not what is entirely happening. It's two separate situations.   They don't have equal voting and some are able to vote more than once. The two investors want to keep it that way while the rest want to implement an even voting system.   The two investors have been asked to drop their lawsuit against the old CEO since he's no longer with the company but it's implied that they will continue to sue him because he still has influence and the ability to elect new board members which he recently added two.   Also it's disengrnous to say just the two investors. They are being asked to do this by the shareholders. I'm really unsure what you are trying to tell me. I don't see how knowing CEOs would aid me in forming an opinion on this issue.  Your second statement is simply foolish, shares of a company, represent ownership. Therefore shareholders are the owners.  These shareholders elect a board, this board acts like a proxy between the managers (CEO's) and the owners (shareholders).  This is how every public company operates.   The problem that arises is that managers have an incentive to act in their own best interests, not in the interests of shareholders.  So to solve this manager compensation is aligned with company performance so that if the shareholders are better off the managers are better off.