The question comes down to "founders". Historically, people who were part of an organization's founding or substantial growth will tend to listen better; people who came in later with no founder experience will tend to mislabel many concerns as "paranoid".
You might not be able to.
- Google Manifesto
- GM Executives: Sloan vs Smith
- UK Prime Ministers: Chamberlain vs Churchill
- Star Wars' controversial directors
- John Sculley
- Marie Antoinette
I wrote a book about this called Monkeys in the Jungle which includes the "Steele Theorem of Decline".
A comfortable world with high quality of living is built by people who tear up and knock down big things. Roads are first laid out by trailblazers who don't travel on roads. Founders build a building they see in their minds only, but work outdoors when that building doesn't even exist.
A manager, "great successor" (as I often call it), heir, peace-and-prosperity-time executive, and any other kind of non-founding steward genuinely does not believe that the problems founders face are real because the founder made sure to deal with all those problems in advance.
If you are raising concerns about stability for the future of the company, you are doing so with people who did not found the company. So, the very reason they are making decisions that you express concern over is the very reason that they put you on the psychoanalysis "couch" and mislabel you as "paranoid"—because they cannot see the problem that you do. They genuinely believe that you are hallucinating or something of the sort. Moreover, they will believe that any problems that follow were a self-fulfilling prophecy caused by YOU.
This is not mere opinion, but my consistent experience and also the experience of history.
Marie Antoinette was collecting fake flowers among fake shepherds in her "Garden of Eden", paid for with debt, while the French Revolution was at her doorstep. She really didn't know what was happening because she didn't build the luxury she enjoyed. She was only there because she married Louis XVI, who borrowed money to prop up the country he didn't understand, build by his wise and shrewd grandfather, Louis XIV.
John Sculley genuinely believed that Steve Job's abrasive (propelling) leadership style was what was wrong with Apple, not even considering that it was the driving force that pushed everything forward. The stock market figured out before Sculley did that good computers aren't made of "getting along", but of technology so perfect that no one knows one is using it. In literary terms, Apple's "Here's to the rebels" ad was a nose-thumb at Sculley and a historical vindication of Job's himself, which came shortly after Job's return.
I'll let the Star Wars fan videos speak for themselves; you can start with Alex Becker. The last two directors followed their own ideas, not the ideas of Lucas, the original cast who helped shape Star Wars from their understanding of Lucas, nor the fans who understood Lucas and his original cast. They thought they could go their own way on top of a foundation built by others, but without feeling indebted to that foundation.
Chamberlain got Hitler to write a promise not to attack any more countries; the newspapers read "Peace in Our Time", then Hitler broke that promise, WWII started, and the king asked that Winston Churchill be made prime minister because Churchill saw the looming war that Chamberlain did not. Churchill saw that violating the demilitarized zone was a rehearsal for war; building tanks was preparation for it. Chamberlain could not see those things for what they were because he did not have real life experience enough to understand that tanks are not made for parades and armies do not march with them as a show of weakness.
Alfred Sloan was an EE major from MIT, had a background as president of a roller bearing company, which eventually got merged into GM. He led GM through decades of growth in the mid 1900s because he knew the "mojo" that "drove" the car company. Roger Smith was an MBA who started at GM as an accountant during Sloan's leadership, then led the company in the '80s. His decisions led GM in the direction that eventually earned it's nickname "Government Motors" after the bailouts. As one GM employee told me (I'm from Michigan), "They can count [beans], but they can't do math. They don't recognize who buys their cars and they can't figure out what will happen when they downsize 1/3 of their customers."
With all that in mind, I'll let the Google Manifesto speak for itself. Suffice it to say, the Google Manifesto seems like it could have been written by someone who shares many of the affections as expressed in the Question here.
Can the problem be stopped? Historically, no; only cycled through all phases of my Steele Theorem of Decline and allowed to run its course like a common cold or whatever virus it is that invades too many companies.
My advice is that you journal these times; your memoirs might have the greatest financial value of any of this once it's all over, historically speaking.