The vast majority of any labor force is of the unskilled variety. The "bourgeois capitalist" are still in full command, even at the largest and most profitable tech firms.
Going by Marx, the "bourgeois capitalist" was an owner, and that owner had a very large say in how the enterprise was run. He had power. Tech companies remain one of the few cases that still adhere to the old formula--probably since they're not old enough to have fully diluted their ownership.
For older companies, the owners tend to be pension funds and retirement accounts. And the ownership is often so diluted that replacing an obviously bad manager rarely happens. The mutual fund just sells the thing at a discount, puts "company X ceased to meet our investment criteria" in the next prospectus, and maybe, if things get bad enough, a hedge fund will pick it up on the cheap and fire the managers--who should have been axed years ago.
With some of the newer companies, there are classes of share that are so restricted that--even if you owned a large percentage of them--you'd still have no say in how the company was run.
It can happen via a takeover bid - essentially, a bet that whoever is making a bid for control of the firm will be able to increase its value enough to profit from that investment.
More often than not, it is done by an organization--like a hedge fund, mutual fund, or pension system--that pools the money of several investors together (the owners) to make the bid. Yet the fund managers are the ones who make the call.
In some cases, like the hedge fund, the compensation structure forces management to have the same priorities as the owners. In other compensation structures--like mutual funds, where they get a positive percentage whether the investments go up or down--not so much.
― Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine