7 ms·

After both The Economist[1] and The New York Times [2] publicly undermined faith in Dennis Muilenberg. No question at this point that he needed to be replaced.

After both The Economist[1] and The New York Times [2] publicly undermined faith in Dennis Muilenberg. No question at this point that he needed to be replaced. The question is - why didn't the board act sooner? [1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/18/boeings-misplaced-strategy-on-the-737-max https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/18/boeings-misplac... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/22/business/boeing-dennis-muilenburg-737-max.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/22/business/boeing-dennis-mu...

v77 7y ago
The Times article was the last straw, you know the board members all read that. Plus the space launch failure.
- mihaaly 7y ago
  I 'love' when board acts lightning fast on publicity rather than on the long lasting problems. They sure look being a 'reliable' and 'competent' gang now.
- the_duke 7y ago
  That's rarely how these things work. Most likely some PR firm working for Boeing fed some hints to the the Times. Boeing then waited until it was released to have a coordinated PR push and put as much blame as possible on Muilenburg.
  - panarky 7y ago
    The NYT article relies mostly on named sources, not anonymous sources. So it doesn't seem to be intentionally leaked information. And the board looks horrible, slow to act, behind the curve, reacting to external pressure instead of leading. So it would not be in the board's interest to do a "coordinated PR push" and fire Muilenburg after the stories were published.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I seriously doubt that the space launch failure had anything to do with the CEO being fired.
panarky 7y ago
The NYT story in particular was hard-hitting and well sourced. Gotta wonder if these stories influenced the board to act now. It's a bad look, because Boeing is consistently way too late to recognize what is obvious to those of us watching from home. I continue to be astounded that our most senior leaders will not act in the long-term best interest of the organizations they lead. It's been 37 years since the Tylenol crisis, where seven people in Chicago died after someone tampered with the pain reliever and contaminated it with potassium cyanide. Way back then, Johnson & Johnson did far more than they were required to do. They pulled all Tylenol from all store shelves everywhere, and kept it off the market until they completely redesigned the packaging. They took complete responsibility. They over-communicated with regulators and with the public. Their market share plunged from 35% to 8% and they took a huge financial hit. But what was bad for J&J in the short term was fantastically positive in the long term. Their brand recovered, stronger than ever, and they regained their dominant market share. But today, leaders across the public and private sectors rarely act with this kind of understanding and foresight. Muilenburg downplayed the catastrophes, blamed the pilots, pressured regulators, tried to find cheap shortcuts to fix the problem, and made promises to suppliers and customers he couldn't keep. So often what's best in the immediate term is worst for the long term. Why can't today's leaders think a little bigger, and optimize for the long term even if that has an immediate cost?
- fny 7y ago
  How do you know the brand wouldn't have recovered from the 27% loss anyway?
  - panarky 7y ago
    How do you make any judgment about historical events when you can't run concurrent A/B tests? If America stayed home in World War 2, how do you know the Allies wouldn't have won anyway?
    - nickserv 7y ago
      The writing was already on the wall in Europe when the US arrived. There is little chance the allies would have lost, just that all of Europe save probably for the UK, would have come under Soviet rule/influence.
hos234 7y ago
They did act. Muilenburg was Chairman & CEO and they removed him as Chairman in October. It probably took the new Chairman a month or two to work out what shit Muilenburg was feeding the board prior to that.
- panarky 7y ago
  And yet working from the outside, the NYT can figure out this shit even faster.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    The NYT didn’t have to be right, they only had to sell newspapers and clicks. The burden of evidence for publishing a hit piece is much lower than that for making an actual business decision. I’m no fan of Boeing but the truth is, betting your entire business requires a much higher burden of proof than journalism does.
    - hooloovoo_zoo 7y ago
      "The NYT didn’t have to be right, they only had to sell newspapers and clicks." This is totally wrong. The New York Times depends on its reputation for accuracy.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - adrianmonk 7y ago
        If they are wrong, their reputation won't suffer that much. They can just say, "We based our story on the best information available to us as outsiders." Which, to me at least, is a perfectly legitimate thing for a newspaper to do. Yes, they should check facts and vet sources, but their primary responsibility is to do the best they can and get the information out there for the public.
        7y ago
coliveira 7y ago
For the same reason the board of GE let the company spiral into near-bankruptcy before changing the CEO. The board and the CEO are part of the same clique, with one supporting another. They will only oust the CEO if they feel it is needed for their own survival.

v77 7y ago

The Times article was the last straw, you know the board members all read that. Plus the space launch failure.

mihaaly 7y ago
I 'love' when board acts lightning fast on publicity rather than on the long lasting problems. They sure look being a 'reliable' and 'competent' gang now.
the_duke 7y ago
That's rarely how these things work. Most likely some PR firm working for Boeing fed some hints to the the Times. Boeing then waited until it was released to have a coordinated PR push and put as much blame as possible on Muilenburg.
- panarky 7y ago
  The NYT article relies mostly on named sources, not anonymous sources. So it doesn't seem to be intentionally leaked information. And the board looks horrible, slow to act, behind the curve, reacting to external pressure instead of leading. So it would not be in the board's interest to do a "coordinated PR push" and fire Muilenburg after the stories were published.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I seriously doubt that the space launch failure had anything to do with the CEO being fired.

panarky 7y ago

The NYT story in particular was hard-hitting and well sourced. Gotta wonder if these stories influenced the board to act now. It's a bad look, because Boeing is consistently way too late to recognize what is obvious to those of us watching from home. I continue to be astounded that our most senior leaders will not act in the long-term best interest of the organizations they lead. It's been 37 years since the Tylenol crisis, where seven people in Chicago died after someone tampered with the pain reliever and contaminated it with potassium cyanide. Way back then, Johnson & Johnson did far more than they were required to do. They pulled all Tylenol from all store shelves everywhere, and kept it off the market until they completely redesigned the packaging. They took complete responsibility. They over-communicated with regulators and with the public. Their market share plunged from 35% to 8% and they took a huge financial hit. But what was bad for J&J in the short term was fantastically positive in the long term. Their brand recovered, stronger than ever, and they regained their dominant market share. But today, leaders across the public and private sectors rarely act with this kind of understanding and foresight. Muilenburg downplayed the catastrophes, blamed the pilots, pressured regulators, tried to find cheap shortcuts to fix the problem, and made promises to suppliers and customers he couldn't keep. So often what's best in the immediate term is worst for the long term. Why can't today's leaders think a little bigger, and optimize for the long term even if that has an immediate cost?

fny 7y ago
How do you know the brand wouldn't have recovered from the 27% loss anyway?
- panarky 7y ago
  How do you make any judgment about historical events when you can't run concurrent A/B tests? If America stayed home in World War 2, how do you know the Allies wouldn't have won anyway?
  - nickserv 7y ago
    The writing was already on the wall in Europe when the US arrived. There is little chance the allies would have lost, just that all of Europe save probably for the UK, would have come under Soviet rule/influence.

hos234 7y ago

They did act. Muilenburg was Chairman & CEO and they removed him as Chairman in October. It probably took the new Chairman a month or two to work out what shit Muilenburg was feeding the board prior to that.

panarky 7y ago
And yet working from the outside, the NYT can figure out this shit even faster.
- philwelch 7y ago
  The NYT didn’t have to be right, they only had to sell newspapers and clicks. The burden of evidence for publishing a hit piece is much lower than that for making an actual business decision. I’m no fan of Boeing but the truth is, betting your entire business requires a much higher burden of proof than journalism does.
  - hooloovoo_zoo 7y ago
    "The NYT didn’t have to be right, they only had to sell newspapers and clicks." This is totally wrong. The New York Times depends on its reputation for accuracy.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - adrianmonk 7y ago
      If they are wrong, their reputation won't suffer that much. They can just say, "We based our story on the best information available to us as outsiders." Which, to me at least, is a perfectly legitimate thing for a newspaper to do. Yes, they should check facts and vet sources, but their primary responsibility is to do the best they can and get the information out there for the public.
      - 7y ago

coliveira 7y ago

For the same reason the board of GE let the company spiral into near-bankruptcy before changing the CEO. The board and the CEO are part of the same clique, with one supporting another. They will only oust the CEO if they feel it is needed for their own survival.