4 ms·

> Chairman David Calhoun will take over as CEO and president, effective Jan. 13, the company said, adding that a change in leadership was necessary to restore c

> Chairman David Calhoun will take over as CEO and president, effective Jan. 13, the company said, adding that a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the company. If they wanted to restore my confidence, they’d have picked an engineer, not an accountant.

ulfw 7y ago
You mean like the guy they literally just replaced?
- mihaaly 7y ago
  Yes, but a different one (they tend to be different despite of having the same degree). Whatever made this one to deviate from the engineering focus the apparent story is still the suffering of engineering focus against business management focus. For restoring confidence in engineering the act is not to fire engineers but to use good ones....
chrisseaton 7y ago
Someone like Dennis Muilenburg then? If the last one was an engineer, why would another engineer restore your confidence any more?
- Marsymars 7y ago
  I mean, I wasn’t particularly down on Muilenburg, I’m aware of his credentials, but haven’t followed this Boeing story closely enough to have an opinion on his culpability with respect to the 737 MAX. So yes, if they were going to replace the CEO for the optics, “someone like Dennis Muilenburg” would have been the best-case scenario for me, rather than someone with non-engineering background/specialty. For a sports analogy, CEO shuffling is kinda like coach/GM shuffling of pro sports teams - they’re there to take the blame when things go wrong, but picking a CEO without a related background is like picking a new coach from a different sport.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    I think Boeing's problems are related to leadership and having the courage to do the right thing. Good leaders can come from accountancy or engineering or wherever. We shouldn't be snobby about it and insist on an engineer when the issue at that level is not an engineering problem.
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      Yes, I agree! My problem is with the juxtaposition of the new CEO's background and the statement from Boeing that states only that the CEO change is to "restore confidence" rather than something like "ensure a rigorous, confidence-inspiring culture and processes from top to bottom". PR can't have its cake and eat it too.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        Maybe they're leaving it up to him to work out what the real underlying problems are and how to restore confidence? Mission command, and all that.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  An engineering background is the bare-minimum requirement, not all engineers are equal capable (or capable at all).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > An engineering background is the bare-minimum requirement But why? Is their problem an engineering one? Or a culture, leadership and values ones? Everyone's saying that they put profit before safety. That's a financial decision that they need to address not an engineering one!
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      You have to be an engineer to understand safety. We're talking about world-leading aerospace engineering, not producing some SaaS product. You need someone that understand the technology involved better than anyone else in the industry.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        > You have to be an engineer to understand safety. You're just restating the same thing without any actual arguments. Why do you need to be an engineer to understand safety? I don't know what magic training or experience do you think engineers get that nobody else does? And as I've already said, it looks to me that Boeing's chronic problems are leadership not technical. Get a leader in.
        linuxftw 7y ago
        You have to be an engineer to understand safety. It should be abundantly clear what is meant by this. They're building aircraft. What do accountants know about building aircraft? Nothing, nothing at all. How can the buck stop with them? It can't. It has to stop somewhere lower, with an engineer, that understands safety. Unfortunately, a non-engineer won't know if their engineer underlings are A) Qualified or B) Competent.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > If the last one was an engineer, why would another engineer restore your confidence any more? He's probably talking more about mindset than educational and professional background. You can have a leader with the mindset of an ornery engineering-first engineer. You can also have a leader who's an ex-engineer with the mindset of a business executive. There's a big difference between the two. I personally do not know which of those categories Dennis Muilenburg fell into, though.
keiferski 7y ago
The former CEO has bachelors and masters degrees in aerospace engineering and aeronautics.
jonnypotty 7y ago
Priorities!
golergka 7y ago
Good accountants know not only about the bottom line of the yearly budget, but also about how long-term risks work, too. As an software engineer, it's very seductive to bad-mouth other professions, especially the suits (MBAs, accountants and other "dirty money people"), but objectively speaking, there's nothing inherently bad or inferior about them.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  Bean counters don't have any ability to understand if their reports are lying to them. If all their reports are saying "all systems go" and there isn't anyone doing any fact-checking, how can the organization be successful?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- Marsymars 7y ago
  To be clear, I'm not an engineer, software or otherwise.
trimbo 7y ago
As others noted, Dennis Muilenburg is an aeronautical engineer who has been with the company since internship. His predecessor, James McNerney, was a cost-cutting business leader who had no background in aviation. And it was his decision to do this program instead of creating an upgraded model.[1] Which kind of makes this choice even more bizarre. [1] - https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-boeing-bean-counters-courted-the-737-max-disaster/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-boeing-bean-counters-court...

ulfw 7y ago

You mean like the guy they literally just replaced?

mihaaly 7y ago
Yes, but a different one (they tend to be different despite of having the same degree). Whatever made this one to deviate from the engineering focus the apparent story is still the suffering of engineering focus against business management focus. For restoring confidence in engineering the act is not to fire engineers but to use good ones....

chrisseaton 7y ago

Someone like Dennis Muilenburg then? If the last one was an engineer, why would another engineer restore your confidence any more?

Marsymars 7y ago
I mean, I wasn’t particularly down on Muilenburg, I’m aware of his credentials, but haven’t followed this Boeing story closely enough to have an opinion on his culpability with respect to the 737 MAX. So yes, if they were going to replace the CEO for the optics, “someone like Dennis Muilenburg” would have been the best-case scenario for me, rather than someone with non-engineering background/specialty. For a sports analogy, CEO shuffling is kinda like coach/GM shuffling of pro sports teams - they’re there to take the blame when things go wrong, but picking a CEO without a related background is like picking a new coach from a different sport.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  I think Boeing's problems are related to leadership and having the courage to do the right thing. Good leaders can come from accountancy or engineering or wherever. We shouldn't be snobby about it and insist on an engineer when the issue at that level is not an engineering problem.
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    Yes, I agree! My problem is with the juxtaposition of the new CEO's background and the statement from Boeing that states only that the CEO change is to "restore confidence" rather than something like "ensure a rigorous, confidence-inspiring culture and processes from top to bottom". PR can't have its cake and eat it too.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      Maybe they're leaving it up to him to work out what the real underlying problems are and how to restore confidence? Mission command, and all that.
linuxftw 7y ago
An engineering background is the bare-minimum requirement, not all engineers are equal capable (or capable at all).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > An engineering background is the bare-minimum requirement But why? Is their problem an engineering one? Or a culture, leadership and values ones? Everyone's saying that they put profit before safety. That's a financial decision that they need to address not an engineering one!
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    You have to be an engineer to understand safety. We're talking about world-leading aerospace engineering, not producing some SaaS product. You need someone that understand the technology involved better than anyone else in the industry.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > You have to be an engineer to understand safety. You're just restating the same thing without any actual arguments. Why do you need to be an engineer to understand safety? I don't know what magic training or experience do you think engineers get that nobody else does? And as I've already said, it looks to me that Boeing's chronic problems are leadership not technical. Get a leader in.
      - linuxftw 7y ago
        You have to be an engineer to understand safety. It should be abundantly clear what is meant by this. They're building aircraft. What do accountants know about building aircraft? Nothing, nothing at all. How can the buck stop with them? It can't. It has to stop somewhere lower, with an engineer, that understands safety. Unfortunately, a non-engineer won't know if their engineer underlings are A) Qualified or B) Competent.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> If the last one was an engineer, why would another engineer restore your confidence any more? He's probably talking more about mindset than educational and professional background. You can have a leader with the mindset of an ornery engineering-first engineer. You can also have a leader who's an ex-engineer with the mindset of a business executive. There's a big difference between the two. I personally do not know which of those categories Dennis Muilenburg fell into, though.

keiferski 7y ago

The former CEO has bachelors and masters degrees in aerospace engineering and aeronautics.

jonnypotty 7y ago

Priorities!

golergka 7y ago

Good accountants know not only about the bottom line of the yearly budget, but also about how long-term risks work, too. As an software engineer, it's very seductive to bad-mouth other professions, especially the suits (MBAs, accountants and other "dirty money people"), but objectively speaking, there's nothing inherently bad or inferior about them.

linuxftw 7y ago
Bean counters don't have any ability to understand if their reports are lying to them. If all their reports are saying "all systems go" and there isn't anyone doing any fact-checking, how can the organization be successful?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Marsymars 7y ago
To be clear, I'm not an engineer, software or otherwise.

trimbo 7y ago

As others noted, Dennis Muilenburg is an aeronautical engineer who has been with the company since internship. His predecessor, James McNerney, was a cost-cutting business leader who had no background in aviation. And it was his decision to do this program instead of creating an upgraded model.[1] Which kind of makes this choice even more bizarre. [1] - https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-boeing-bean-counters-courted-the-737-max-disaster/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-boeing-bean-counters-court...