4 ms·

Responsibility for Boeing's Poor Performance

63 points by carabiner 3y ago

blacksqr 3y ago
[flagged]
jinushaun 3y ago
I’m from Seattle. I’ve worked at Boeing before and so have many people I know. It’s not just suits. The company is rotten to the core—from the factory floor to the CEO office. It’s a toxic company culture that pushes out high performers because the high performers makes everyone else look bad. As a result, it only retains low performers. The job can be done in one hour, but the company requires you to be in the office/factory for a full 8 hours. There are a lot of over employed people with second jobs.
- jvans 3y ago
  Wouldn't low performers hurt production output and piss off upper management? What's the "ideal" employee who succeeds in that environment look like in their day to day work?
  - candiodari 3y ago
    Management that focuses on financial metrics only wants employees that don't rock the boat and aren't a risk of calling them out on their decisions. It is management's job to fix it. Regardless of the actual problem.
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  A player hire A players. B players hire C players.
  - forbiddenvoid 3y ago
    Then who hires the B players, I wonder?
    - 1letterunixname 3y ago
      The B players are the autocratic strongmen who threaten the world with nuclear war, brag about violating women, seek emoluments, build personal mansions with government money, pal around with dictators, and browbeat C players into shipping unsafe airplanes faster to increase profits. It's turtles all the way down.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  While I'm sure there's other toxic factors this 1 hour job requiring you to spend 8 hours is kinda an aviation thing... chances are that guy was on a DoD contract.
mo_42 3y ago
Boeing is like most big companies part of the capitalist system where shareholders expect an annual rate of return of 5 to 8%. Every company that does not deliver this rate will fall out of the game. Some of the shareholders are completely innocent people like some family who's saving for retirement via an ETF. It means that if Boeing is not growing at the rate of other companies, it will fall out of some stock market index and hence the ETF. Before that, it will probably be removed from many other portfolios that are managed by people directly. Both sides of the game are people trying to do the best. If the managers decided to invest heavily in the next years and make losses, they'd be kicked out of that position and replaced by some who continue running this game. I think politics is the only way out of this. It won't change until people can convince politics to regulate some areas more strictly or putting higher penalties on some mistakes.
- renegade-otter 3y ago
  Many of these vultures would be heavily cuffed if stock buybacks were curtailed, as they were a long time ago. Once you get a vulture in who is there for the quick returns rather than for what the job should be - growing the business - it's all over.
- whiterknight 3y ago
  Counter example: there are companies in the S&P that are not disasters and have good careers.
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  Businesses exist to make money. Stock buybacks and dividends are the only reason the company was ever funded.
  - thedoctor79 3y ago
    I don't know if this comment is satire or not, but I thought the company existed to provide a fast and (relatively) safe means of travel over long distances to people. I guess the old engineering adage applies here too: fast, cheap, safe, pick any two.
renegade-otter 3y ago
They don't know, do they...
ooterness 3y ago
OP has apparently never heard of Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law Quality metrics are easy to fudge. Too few defects? Find some or make some. Too many? Cover them up. If you need honesty, don't link it to executive pay.
- mjevans 3y ago
  An aircraft is a life critical system. For such systems 'formal verification' (verify 100% quality / correctness) is the metric, not 'lack of failure'.
drstewart 3y ago
Reads like the standard reddit regurgitation of a complex issue based on getting all their facts from headlines. Doubt they even work at Boeing.
jimnotgym 3y ago
>Many of the parts that make up our planes are built by suppliers from all over the world and we just assemble the final product. This part sounds very naive. Where does this stop? Are they going to build the instruments, the sensors, the rivets, the aluminium, the carpets, the entertainment machine, the coffee machine... A coffee machine once caused a depressurization of a cabin after all.
- renegade-otter 3y ago
  Boeing used to control much more of its production, until factories were sold off and outsourced. Long-term damage to quality, but a quarter looks black on paper because there is an influx in revenue.
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  Suppliers have been doing this to Boeing for a long time, and intentionally so as it forces Boeing to give them more money or buy them out. Al Jazeera did an expose on this practice with whistleblowers from Boeing around 10 years ago. It’s basic math, make quality products and make average returns on investments or skimp on quality and make above average returns then get bought out and make even more money. There is already talk of Beoing being forced to buy Spirit AeroSystem rewarding them for their mistakes.
hayst4ck 3y ago
Ah the exuberance of youth, I do not envy this person's impending descent into pure cynicism. That being said, these problems are not new. These specific things don't really matter. What matters is culture. Admiral Rickover, responsible for the nuclear navy, wrote a speech called "Doing a Job". It is worth reading in it's entirety and it speaks almost directly and presciently to what is happening at Boeing right now: https://govleaders.org/rickover.htm https://govleaders.org/rickover.htm > Human experience shows that people, not organizations or management systems, get things done. For this reason, subordinates must be given authority and responsibility early in their careers. > When doing a job—any job—one must feel that he owns it, and act as though he will remain in the job forever. ... If he feels he is only a temporary custodian, or that the job is just a stepping stone to a higher position, his actions will not take into account the long-term interests of the organization. > In accepting responsibility for a job, a person must get directly involved. Every manager has a personal responsibility not only to find problems but to correct them. This responsibility comes before all other obligations, before personal ambition or comfort. > The man in charge must concern himself with details. If he does not consider them important, neither will his subordinates. Yet “the devil is in the details.” It is hard and monotonous to pay attention to seemingly minor matters. In my work, I probably spend about ninety-nine percent of my time on what others may call petty details. Most managers would rather focus on lofty policy matters. But when the details are ignored, the project fails. No infusion of policy or lofty ideals can then correct the situation. > It is a human inclination to hope things will work out, despite evidence or doubt to the contrary. A successful manager must resist this temptation.
- ramblerman 3y ago
  You've given the typical MBA answer - that link included - and dismissed OP as being "youtfully naive". And perhaps he is, but more naive is you notion of we just need to change our beliefs with an article about what "real" leadership looks like. Incentives drive everything! And our financial short term focus squeezing every last drop out of every quarter does not produce long term good quality.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
sherburt3 3y ago
[flagged]
black_13 3y ago
[dead]
1letterunixname 3y ago
Rewind to 1996. In lieu of "do all of the shit Boeing did in 1996 before the MBA bros from MD 'The trouble with mergers' ungulate copulation magazine awards ruined everything", how about having some damn integrity, pride, and excellence rather than shipping shit. It requires effort, time, and expense to do things right the first time, while getting safety-critical processes, designs, and manufacturing wrong is immoral, unethical, probably illegal, and likely costlier in the long run.

63 points by carabiner 3y ago

[flagged]

I’m from Seattle. I’ve worked at Boeing before and so have many people I know. It’s not just suits. The company is rotten to the core—from the factory floor to the CEO office. It’s a toxic company culture that pushes out high performers because the high performers makes everyone else look bad. As a result, it only retains low performers. The job can be done in one hour, but the company requires you to be in the office/factory for a full 8 hours. There are a lot of over employed people with second jobs.

jvans 3y ago
Wouldn't low performers hurt production output and piss off upper management? What's the "ideal" employee who succeeds in that environment look like in their day to day work?
- candiodari 3y ago
  Management that focuses on financial metrics only wants employees that don't rock the boat and aren't a risk of calling them out on their decisions. It is management's job to fix it. Regardless of the actual problem.
jnsaff2 3y ago
A player hire A players. B players hire C players.
- forbiddenvoid 3y ago
  Then who hires the B players, I wonder?
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    The B players are the autocratic strongmen who threaten the world with nuclear war, brag about violating women, seek emoluments, build personal mansions with government money, pal around with dictators, and browbeat C players into shipping unsafe airplanes faster to increase profits. It's turtles all the way down.
P_I_Staker 3y ago
While I'm sure there's other toxic factors this 1 hour job requiring you to spend 8 hours is kinda an aviation thing... chances are that guy was on a DoD contract.

mo_42 3y ago

Boeing is like most big companies part of the capitalist system where shareholders expect an annual rate of return of 5 to 8%. Every company that does not deliver this rate will fall out of the game. Some of the shareholders are completely innocent people like some family who's saving for retirement via an ETF. It means that if Boeing is not growing at the rate of other companies, it will fall out of some stock market index and hence the ETF. Before that, it will probably be removed from many other portfolios that are managed by people directly. Both sides of the game are people trying to do the best. If the managers decided to invest heavily in the next years and make losses, they'd be kicked out of that position and replaced by some who continue running this game. I think politics is the only way out of this. It won't change until people can convince politics to regulate some areas more strictly or putting higher penalties on some mistakes.

renegade-otter 3y ago
Many of these vultures would be heavily cuffed if stock buybacks were curtailed, as they were a long time ago. Once you get a vulture in who is there for the quick returns rather than for what the job should be - growing the business - it's all over.
whiterknight 3y ago
Counter example: there are companies in the S&P that are not disasters and have good careers.
NotYourLawyer 3y ago
Businesses exist to make money. Stock buybacks and dividends are the only reason the company was ever funded.
- thedoctor79 3y ago
  I don't know if this comment is satire or not, but I thought the company existed to provide a fast and (relatively) safe means of travel over long distances to people. I guess the old engineering adage applies here too: fast, cheap, safe, pick any two.

renegade-otter 3y ago

They don't know, do they...

ooterness 3y ago

OP has apparently never heard of Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law Quality metrics are easy to fudge. Too few defects? Find some or make some. Too many? Cover them up. If you need honesty, don't link it to executive pay.

mjevans 3y ago
An aircraft is a life critical system. For such systems 'formal verification' (verify 100% quality / correctness) is the metric, not 'lack of failure'.

drstewart 3y ago

Reads like the standard reddit regurgitation of a complex issue based on getting all their facts from headlines. Doubt they even work at Boeing.

jimnotgym 3y ago

>Many of the parts that make up our planes are built by suppliers from all over the world and we just assemble the final product. This part sounds very naive. Where does this stop? Are they going to build the instruments, the sensors, the rivets, the aluminium, the carpets, the entertainment machine, the coffee machine... A coffee machine once caused a depressurization of a cabin after all.

renegade-otter 3y ago
Boeing used to control much more of its production, until factories were sold off and outsourced. Long-term damage to quality, but a quarter looks black on paper because there is an influx in revenue.
cjbgkagh 3y ago
Suppliers have been doing this to Boeing for a long time, and intentionally so as it forces Boeing to give them more money or buy them out. Al Jazeera did an expose on this practice with whistleblowers from Boeing around 10 years ago. It’s basic math, make quality products and make average returns on investments or skimp on quality and make above average returns then get bought out and make even more money. There is already talk of Beoing being forced to buy Spirit AeroSystem rewarding them for their mistakes.

hayst4ck 3y ago

Ah the exuberance of youth, I do not envy this person's impending descent into pure cynicism. That being said, these problems are not new. These specific things don't really matter. What matters is culture. Admiral Rickover, responsible for the nuclear navy, wrote a speech called "Doing a Job". It is worth reading in it's entirety and it speaks almost directly and presciently to what is happening at Boeing right now: https://govleaders.org/rickover.htm https://govleaders.org/rickover.htm > Human experience shows that people, not organizations or management systems, get things done. For this reason, subordinates must be given authority and responsibility early in their careers. > When doing a job—any job—one must feel that he owns it, and act as though he will remain in the job forever. ... If he feels he is only a temporary custodian, or that the job is just a stepping stone to a higher position, his actions will not take into account the long-term interests of the organization. > In accepting responsibility for a job, a person must get directly involved. Every manager has a personal responsibility not only to find problems but to correct them. This responsibility comes before all other obligations, before personal ambition or comfort. > The man in charge must concern himself with details. If he does not consider them important, neither will his subordinates. Yet “the devil is in the details.” It is hard and monotonous to pay attention to seemingly minor matters. In my work, I probably spend about ninety-nine percent of my time on what others may call petty details. Most managers would rather focus on lofty policy matters. But when the details are ignored, the project fails. No infusion of policy or lofty ideals can then correct the situation. > It is a human inclination to hope things will work out, despite evidence or doubt to the contrary. A successful manager must resist this temptation.

ramblerman 3y ago
You've given the typical MBA answer - that link included - and dismissed OP as being "youtfully naive". And perhaps he is, but more naive is you notion of we just need to change our beliefs with an article about what "real" leadership looks like. Incentives drive everything! And our financial short term focus squeezing every last drop out of every quarter does not produce long term good quality.
- hayst4ck 3y ago

sherburt3 3y ago

[flagged]

black_13 3y ago

[dead]

1letterunixname 3y ago

Rewind to 1996. In lieu of "do all of the shit Boeing did in 1996 before the MBA bros from MD 'The trouble with mergers' ungulate copulation magazine awards ruined everything", how about having some damn integrity, pride, and excellence rather than shipping shit. It requires effort, time, and expense to do things right the first time, while getting safety-critical processes, designs, and manufacturing wrong is immoral, unethical, probably illegal, and likely costlier in the long run.