But the other part depends on what you're trying to do with the company; the answers are also different for a software startup seeking investors than for a consultancy, and different for a consultancy than for a grocery store, etc.
It created a flat org in some ways but also created a separation between old employees and new ones. The real leader was the lawyer trying to get new funding.
When the money never came they folded all first world locations and became an Indian owned/run company and tried to sell in that market. The product tech became outdated after the first iphone so it made sense to go low end
Technically many public companies are partially owned by employees - and corporate as hell at the same time.
Clarify the question, it is very vague.
There's a reason why a union with a presumptive whole crew who could start a competitive business never ever does it. Nobody wants to be the owner.
It really depends on their governance structure, not just financial ownership. If each employee owns some tiny percentage of shares, it doesn't really affect the governance much.
If it's a one member one vote coop though, employees have power to elect the board who can then appoint the kind of managers they like. In theory.
In practice I think most employees don't really care about all that and just want to collect a paycheck and go home and a small core group ends up running the show unless something goes terribly wrong.