Dual-class share structures, also known as multiple-class share structures, are arrangements in which a company issues different classes of shares, each with varying voting rights. Typically, there are two classes: Class A shares with lower voting rights and Class B shares with higher voting rights. Class B shares are usually held by company founders, executives, or insiders and come with significantly more votes per share than Class A shares.
The key characteristic of dual-class share structures is that they create a situation where a minority of shareholders, often the founders or a select group, can exert significant control over corporate decision-making, even if they own a relatively small percentage of the company’s total shares.
Dual-class share structures hold significant implications for both companies and their shareholders:
1. Founder Control: Dual-class structures are often implemented to allow company founders to maintain control over the strategic direction of the company, even as it goes public. This control can help protect the company’s long-term vision from short-term pressures.
2. Stability: By concentrating voting power in the hands of a select few, dual-class structures can provide stability and shield the company from hostile takeovers or activist investors seeking quick profits.
3. Innovation and Risk-Taking: Some argue that founders and insiders, with their long-term perspective, are more willing to take risks and invest in innovation that may not yield immediate returns, benefiting the company’s long-term growth.
4. Alignment with Mission: Dual-class structures can align voting control with the company’s mission and values, ensuring that the founders’ vision is preserved.
5. Protection from Short-Termism: Critics of short-termism in financial markets believe that dual-class structures can help insulate companies from excessive focus on quarterly results at the expense of long-term sustainability.
6. Reduced Pressure on Earnings: Dual-class structures can alleviate the pressure on companies to meet short-term earnings expectations, allowing them to focus on broader strategic goals.
7. Resilience during Crises: Companies with dual-class structures may be better positioned to weather economic downturns or crises by avoiding knee-jerk reactions to market volatility.
Key Concerns and Criticisms
Despite their potential benefits, dual-class share structures have faced criticism and raised several concerns:
1. Lack of Accountability: Critics argue that dual-class structures can lead to a lack of accountability, as insiders with disproportionate voting power may not be effectively held responsible for their actions.
2. Shareholder Democracy: Dual-class structures can undermine the principles of shareholder democracy, as they dilute the voting influence of common shareholders.
3. Entrenchment: Insiders with enhanced voting rights may become entrenched and resistant to change, potentially stifling innovation and impeding corporate governance reforms.
4. Conflict of Interest: Dual-class structures can create conflicts of interest between insiders and common shareholders, as insiders may prioritize their interests over those of other stakeholders.
5. Valuation Discrepancies: Shares with lower voting rights (e.g., Class A shares) may trade at a discount compared to shares with higher voting rights (e.g., Class B shares), potentially harming investors in the former.
6. Risk of Abuse: There is a risk that founders or insiders could abuse their control by pursuing self-serving agendas or making decisions that do not align with the best interests of the company or its shareholders.
7. Index Exclusion: Some stock market indices and institutional investors exclude companies with dual-class structures, limiting their access to certain segments of the investment community.
Regulatory Responses to Dual-Class Structures
Regulators and stock exchanges have responded to the challenges posed by dual-class share structures in various ways:
1. Sunset Provisions: Some regulators have introduced sunset provisions that limit the duration of dual-class structures, requiring them to convert to a single-class structure after a specified period.
2. Enhanced Disclosure: In an effort to improve transparency, regulators may require companies with dual-class structures to provide additional disclosures, ensuring that investors are aware of the governance arrangements.
3. Voting Caps: Certain exchanges and listing requirements impose voting caps, limiting the number of votes that can be associated with each share, regardless of share class.
4. Shareholder Approval: Some jurisdictions require shareholder approval for the establishment or extension of dual-class structures, allowing common shareholders to have a say in the matter.
5. Exclusion from Indices: Stock market indices, such as those compiled by major index providers, may exclude companies with dual-class structures, influencing their attractiveness to institutional investors.
6. Investor Activism: Institutional investors and activist shareholders may engage with companies to advocate for changes to dual-class structures or enhanced corporate governance.
Examples of Dual-Class Share Structures
Several high-profile companies have employed dual-class share structures:
1. Google (Alphabet Inc.): Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., has a dual-class structure with Class A and Class C shares. Class A shares come with one vote per share, while Class C shares, held by company insiders, have no voting rights. This structure has been the subject of scrutiny and legal challenges.
2. Facebook (Meta Platforms, Inc.): Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) has a dual-class structure with Class A and Class B shares. Class B shares, held by company founder Mark Zuckerberg and a small group of insiders, have 10 votes per share, while Class A shares have one vote per share.
3. Snap Inc.: Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat, has a dual-class structure with Class A and Class C shares. Class C shares, held by company co-founders Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy, come with ten votes per share, while Class A shares have one vote per share.
4. Alibaba Group Holding Limited: Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba has a unique partnership-based governance structure, which grants the company’s founders and key management team significant influence over board nominations. While not a traditional dual-class structure, it highlights the concentration of power in certain individuals.
The Debate Continues
The debate over dual-class share structures continues to evolve, with proponents and opponents presenting compelling arguments. Advocates emphasize the protection of long-term strategic vision, while critics stress the importance of accountability and shareholder democracy.
As the corporate governance landscape evolves, the future of dual-class share structures remains uncertain. Regulatory responses, shareholder activism, and evolving investor preferences will shape the direction companies choose to take regarding their governance structures. Balancing the interests of founders, insiders, and common shareholders will continue to be a challenge for companies seeking to find the right equilibrium between control and accountability.
In the end, the effectiveness and appropriateness of dual-class share structures may depend on the specific circumstances of each company, its industry, and the values it upholds. It is a nuanced issue that requires careful consideration and an ongoing dialogue among stakeholders, including founders, investors, regulators, and the broader public, to strike the right balance between power and accountability in corporate governance.
In a functional organizational structure, groups and teams are organized based on function. Therefore, this organization follows a top-down structure, where most decision flows from top management to bottom. Thus, the bottom of the organization mostly follows the strategy detailed by the top of the organization.
In a flat organizational structure, there is little to no middle management between employees and executives. Therefore it reduces the space between employees and executives to enable an effective communication flow within the organization, thus being faster and leaner.
Project portfolio management (PPM) is a systematic approach to selecting and managing a collection of projects aligned with organizational objectives. That is a business process of managing multiple projects which can be identified, prioritized, and managed within the organization. PPM helps organizations optimize their investments by allocating resources efficiently across all initiatives.
Harvard Business School professor Dr. John Kotter has been a thought-leader on organizational change, and he developed Kotter’s 8-step change model, which helps business managers deal with organizational change. Kotter created the 8-step model to drive organizational transformation.
The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model was created by David Nadler and Michael Tushman at Columbia University. The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model is a diagnostic tool that identifies problem areas within a company. In the context of business, congruence occurs when the goals of different people or interest groups coincide.
McKinsey’s Seven Degrees of Freedom for Growth is a strategy tool. Developed by partners at McKinsey and Company, the tool helps businesses understand which opportunities will contribute to expansion, and therefore it helps to prioritize those initiatives.
Mintzberg’s 5Ps of Strategy is a strategy development model that examines five different perspectives (plan, ploy, pattern, position, perspective) to develop a successful business strategy. A sixth perspective has been developed over the years, called Practice, which was created to help businesses execute their strategies.
The COSO framework is a means of designing, implementing, and evaluating control within an organization. The COSO framework’s five components are control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring activities. As a fraud risk management tool, businesses can design, implement, and evaluate internal control procedures.
The TOWS Matrix is an acronym for Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Strengths. The matrix is a variation on the SWOT Analysis, and it seeks to address criticisms of the SWOT Analysis regarding its inability to show relationships between the various categories.
Lewin’s change management model helps businesses manage the uncertainty and resistance associated with change. Kurt Lewin, one of the first academics to focus his research on group dynamics, developed a three-stage model. He proposed that the behavior of individuals happened as a function of group behavior.
OpenAI is an artificial intelligence research laboratory that transitioned into a for-profit organization in 2019. The corporate structure is organized around two entities: OpenAI, Inc., which is a single-member Delaware LLC controlled by OpenAI non-profit, And OpenAI LP, which is a capped, for-profit organization. The OpenAI LP is governed by the board of OpenAI, Inc (the foundation), which acts as a General Partner. At the same time, Limited Partners comprise employees of the LP, some of the board members, and other investors like Reid Hoffman’s charitable foundation, Khosla Ventures, and Microsoft, the leading investor in the LP.
Airbnb follows a holacracy model, or a sort of flat organizational structure, where teams are organized for projects, to move quickly and iterate fast, thus keeping a lean and flexible approach. Airbnb also moved to a hybrid model where employees can work from anywhere and meet on a quarterly basis to plan ahead, and connect to each other.
The Amazon organizational structure is predominantly hierarchical with elements of function-based structure and geographic divisions. While Amazon started as a lean, flat organization in its early years, it transitioned into a hierarchical organization with its jobs and functions clearly defined as it scaled.
The Coca-Cola Company has a somewhat complex matrix organizational structure with geographic divisions, product divisions, business-type units, and functional groups.
Costco has a matrix organizational structure, which can simply be defined as any structure that combines two or more different types. In this case, a predominant functional structure exists with a more secondary divisional structure.
Costco’s geographic divisions reflect its strong presence in the United States combined with its expanding global presence. There are six divisions in the country alone to reflect its standing as the source of most company revenue.
Compared to competitor Walmart, for example, Costco takes more a decentralized approach to management, decision-making, and autonomy. This allows the company’s stores and divisions to more flexibly respond to local market conditions.
Dell has a functional organizational structure with some degree of decentralization. This means functional departments share information, contribute ideas to the success of the organization and have some degree of decision-making power.
eBay was until recently a multi-divisional (M-form) organization with semi-autonomous units grouped according to the services they provided. Today, eBay has a single division called Marketplace, which includes eBay and its international iterations.
Facebook is characterized by a multi-faceted matrix organizational structure. The company utilizes a flat organizational structure in combination with corporate function-based teams and product-based or geographic divisions. The flat organization structure is organized around the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, and the key executives around him. On the other hand, the function-based teams are based on the main corporate functions (like HR, product management, investor relations, and so on).
Goldman Sachs has a hierarchical structure with a clear chain of command and defined career advancement process. The structure is also underpinned by business-type divisions and function-based groups.
Google (Alphabet) has a cross-functional (team-based) organizational structure known as a matrix structure with some degree of flatness. Over the years, as the company scaled and it became a tech giant, its organizational structure is morphing more into a centralized organization.
IBM has an organizational structure characterized by product-based divisions, enabling its strategy to develop innovative and competitive products in multiple markets. IBM is also characterized by function-based segments that support product development and innovation for each product-based division, which include Global Markets, Integrated Supply Chain, Research, Development, and Intellectual Property.
McDonald’s has a divisional organizational structure where each division – based on geographical location – is assigned operational responsibilities and strategic objectives. The main geographical divisions are the US, internationally operated markets, and international developmental licensed markets. And on the other hand, the hierarchical leadership structure is organized around regional and functional divisions.
McKinsey & Company has a decentralized organizational structure with mostly self-managing offices, committees, and employees. There are also functional groups and geographic divisions with proprietary names.
Microsoft has a product-type divisional organizational structure based on functions and engineering groups. As the company scaled over time it also became more hierarchical, however still keeping its hybrid approach between functions, engineering groups, and management.
Nestlé has a geographical divisional structure with operations segmented into five key regions. For many years, Swiss multinational food and drink company Nestlé had a complex and decentralized matrix organizational structure where its numerous brands and subsidiaries were free to operate autonomously.
Nike has a matrix organizational structure incorporating geographic divisions. Nike’s matrix structure is also present at the regional and sub-regional levels. Managerial responsibility is segmented according to business unit (apparel, footwear, and equipment) and function (human resources, finance, marketing, sales, and operations).
Patagonia has a particular organizational structure, where its founder, Chouinard, disposed of the company’s ownership in the hands of two non-profits. The Patagonia Purpose Trust, holding 100% of the voting stocks, is in charge of defining the company’s strategic direction. And the Holdfast Collective, a non-profit, holds 100% of non-voting stocks, aiming to re-invest the brand’s dividends into environmental causes.
Samsung has a product-type divisional organizational structure where products determine how resources and business operations are categorized. The main resources around which Samsung’s corporate structure is organized are consumer electronics, IT, and device solutions. In addition, Samsung leadership functions are organized around a few career levels grades, based on experience (assistant, professional, senior professional, and principal professional).
Sony has a matrix organizational structure primarily based on function-based groups and product/business divisions. The structure also incorporates geographical divisions. In 2021, Sony announced the overhauling of its organizational structure, changing its name from Sony Corporation to Sony Group Corporation to better identify itself as the headquarters of the Sony group of companies skewing the company toward product divisions.
Starbucks follows a matrix organizational structure with a combination of vertical and horizontal structures. It is characterized by multiple, overlapping chains of command and divisions.
Tesla is characterized by a functional organizational structure with aspects of a hierarchical structure. Tesla does employ functional centers that cover all business activities, including finance, sales, marketing, technology, engineering, design, and the offices of the CEO and chairperson. Tesla’s headquarters in Austin, Texas, decide the strategic direction of the company, with international operations given little autonomy.
Toyota has a divisional organizational structure where business operations are centered around the market, product, and geographic groups. Therefore, Toyota organizes its corporate structure around global hierarchies (most strategic decisions come from Japan’s headquarter), product-based divisions (where the organization is broken down, based on each product line), and geographical divisions (according to the geographical areas under management).
Walmart has a hybrid hierarchical-functional organizational structure, otherwise referred to as a matrix structure that combines multiple approaches. On the one hand, Walmart follows a hierarchical structure, where the current CEO Doug McMillon is the only employee without a direct superior, and directives are sent from top-level management. On the other hand, the function-based structure of Walmart is used to categorize employees according to their particular skills and experience.
Gennaro is the creator of FourWeekMBA, which reached about four million business people, comprising C-level executives, investors, analysts, product managers, and aspiring digital entrepreneurs in 2022 alone | He is also Director of Sales for a high-tech scaleup in the AI Industry | In 2012, Gennaro earned an International MBA with emphasis on Corporate Finance and Business Strategy.
