3 ms·

I assume it’s easier to find an engineer who went to engineering school to learn how to build airplanes that are safe than it is to find an MBA who went to busi

by jsharf 3y ago

I assume it’s easier to find an engineer who went to engineering school to learn how to build airplanes that are safe than it is to find an MBA who went to business school to learn how to build planes that are safe. (It’s not about the knowledge but about the root desire) Similarly, I assume it’s harder to find an engineer who went into the field purely for money. I do think on average engineers will prioritize safety (since they likely understand failure modes and production and long tail statistics better. We literally have to take engineering ethics classes), at the cost of doing a worse job at running the business. But when the business requires this level of safety, that IS doing a good job.

RandomLensman 3y ago
You need to be able to steer a large and complex organisation - being an engineer has nothing to do with that. And, yes, incentives matter, but those can be set.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Kinda does though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/22/more-top-performing-ceos-now-have-engineering-degrees-than-mbas/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/22/more-top-...
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    No. This just says some engineers can (like some MBAs). There is no intrinsic link between being an engineer and being a great CEO. Most engineers are not executives.
    - happytiger 3y ago
      This argument relies on false equivalence and isn’t even rational. Except top executives are engineering degree holders. They are, and that’s a fact. The majority of top performing companies are headed by engineering degree holding CEOs. But you keep making the same wrong points and trying to play devils advocate on positions that you don’t back up.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        You are wrong. A plurality is, but not majority (https://hbr.org/2018/11/the-best-performing-ceos-in-the-world-2018 https://hbr.org/2018/11/the-best-performing-ceos-in-the-worl...). If you want to claim an intrinsic link between being an engineer and being a top performing CEO, you need to show something different anyway. For example, that the proportion of engineers that are great CEOs is higher than the proportion of MBAs or lawyers or chemist or ... that are great CEOs. Maybe that is true, but I haven't seen it. Edit: we could also look at a narrower problem, for example: is the performance of engineer CEOs in "engineering companies" better on average than that of non-engineer CEOs in that sector? I am not saying engineers cannot be good CEOs, just that the link between being an engineer and a good CEO is (probably) not intrinsic.
        happytiger 3y ago
        I never claimed an intrinsic link. I’ve already established higher performance in the many replies I have given to your many comments. Have a great day!
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        You earlier claimed there is an intrinsic link: "If you have a great executive ticking all the boxes - splendid. But there is no intrinsic link between being an engineer and being a good CEO (same holds for other disciplines, btw.). You could have engineers that qualify, lawyers, MBAs, mathematicians, physicists, ... reply happytiger 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] There is. You’re flat out incorrect." You never established higher performance. Have a great day

by jsharf 3y ago

RandomLensman 3y ago

You need to be able to steer a large and complex organisation - being an engineer has nothing to do with that. And, yes, incentives matter, but those can be set.

happytiger 3y ago
Kinda does though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/22/more-top-performing-ceos-now-have-engineering-degrees-than-mbas/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/22/more-top-...
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  No. This just says some engineers can (like some MBAs). There is no intrinsic link between being an engineer and being a great CEO. Most engineers are not executives.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    This argument relies on false equivalence and isn’t even rational. Except top executives are engineering degree holders. They are, and that’s a fact. The majority of top performing companies are headed by engineering degree holding CEOs. But you keep making the same wrong points and trying to play devils advocate on positions that you don’t back up.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      You are wrong. A plurality is, but not majority (https://hbr.org/2018/11/the-best-performing-ceos-in-the-world-2018 https://hbr.org/2018/11/the-best-performing-ceos-in-the-worl...). If you want to claim an intrinsic link between being an engineer and being a top performing CEO, you need to show something different anyway. For example, that the proportion of engineers that are great CEOs is higher than the proportion of MBAs or lawyers or chemist or ... that are great CEOs. Maybe that is true, but I haven't seen it. Edit: we could also look at a narrower problem, for example: is the performance of engineer CEOs in "engineering companies" better on average than that of non-engineer CEOs in that sector? I am not saying engineers cannot be good CEOs, just that the link between being an engineer and a good CEO is (probably) not intrinsic.
      - happytiger 3y ago
        I never claimed an intrinsic link. I’ve already established higher performance in the many replies I have given to your many comments. Have a great day!
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        You earlier claimed there is an intrinsic link: "If you have a great executive ticking all the boxes - splendid. But there is no intrinsic link between being an engineer and being a good CEO (same holds for other disciplines, btw.). You could have engineers that qualify, lawyers, MBAs, mathematicians, physicists, ... reply happytiger 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] There is. You’re flat out incorrect." You never established higher performance. Have a great day