Other insiders simply do not have enough access to working out, considering, formulating, approving and implementing decisions if this is not done through managers. Our explanation is that both types of companies are controlled by managers and, therefore, do not show many differences in performance. Both employees and new directors claimed, that the former managers were dismissed due to the lack of competence, mismanagement, etc. The situation described certainly may reflect the fact, that some general directors are actually dismissed not due to mismanagement in a common sense, but either because of causes being quite beyond their influence, or because of internal conflicts they did not succeed to ward off or overcome. The above mentioned statements do not mean that things are more straightforward than they really are.
Employees certainly have some influence on management.
The variety of precise circumstances force enterprise executives to consider workers' reactions on forthcoming decisions or foreseeable events. Such considerations may be dependent also on the ownership structure, among other factors. Interviews definitely prove that directors prefer to act in order to eliminate or unblock potential or actual conflicts much more than to provoke them. But this kind of indirect influence, which is actually not too strong, differs from that which might be a direct one, predetermined by the active role of holders of a major part of enterprise stock. That would mean real impact of privatization on decision-making and management.