4 ms·

A CEO in these companies is little more than just an hat. Boeing had CEOs with an engineering degree recently and the result was the same or even worse. The p

A CEO in these companies is little more than just an hat. Boeing had CEOs with an engineering degree recently and the result was the same or even worse. The problem is much more deep than the CEO or the people immediately around him, by this point the whole house is rot. But there is an entire generation of managers who made most of their career feasting on Boeing, so not everything was lost... I guess.

yuppiepuppie 3y ago
On the other hand, I can't see a non-engineering type facing up to the cultural conflict after the McDonnell Douglas merger > clash of corporate cultures, where Boeing's engineers and McDonnell Douglas's bean-counters went head-to-head I do believe that leadership plays a role in the top and can have a general negative or positive sway on the culture in an org. Im rooting for Boeing to fix their problems. And appointing a person at the top to lead that change is going to speak louder than any press release/marketing effort to improve their image.
eddieroger 3y ago
The thing that a CEO does that matters is set tone, which is more than just a hat. A CEO with the right background will set the right priorities, and for Boeing right now, that's probably more quality than bottom line. These days it seems that Boeing chasing the bottom line is sacrificing quality, which unironically then hurts the bottom line.
- gamepsys 3y ago
  The CEO is chosen by the board. A CEO is a direct reflection of the board. On the other foot, you have the 144,999 Boeing employees that are not the CEO. Their skills, attitudes, and day to day responsibilities will go largely unchanged. I agree that the right CEO can have a huge impact, but there is so much inertia against change. It's more likely the board is establishing the next fall guy for the next major scandal in 3-7 years.
  - galleywest200 3y ago
    Blaming the lowly workers is not fair. They must follow procedures. A fish rots from the head down. Why not replace the entire board if the CEO is a direct reflection of the board?
    - gamepsys 3y ago
      The board of directors are elected annually by Boeing shareholders[0]. So we'll change the board of directors when wall street stops caring about quarterly profits. [0] https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/company/general_info/pdf/corporate-governance-principles.pdf https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/compa...
    - kevinventullo 3y ago
      That is exactly the type of thing active shareholders try to do.
  - orwin 3y ago
    Not to go full communist, but why not have a third of the board being employees representatives? In Germany its union leaders (which is imho the worst solution, but in Germany, it make sense), and i don't know how northern europe works, but i guess its similar. Its not enough to be a controlling part on its own, but they can still leverage their influence to steer the company a bit, and could represent a block on some decisions, especially controversial ones (the moving of HQ from seattle, and probably other). Also, it limits drama and backstabbing, as representatives should be accountable to other employees, and have to lead general assembly to talk about huge future changes, like a change of CEO. If a third of the board cannot backstab, and have to talk to literally everybody before making huge decisions, it limits drama _a lot_.
    - gamepsys 3y ago
      I've made very similar arguments before and I think it's the correct action. Specifically in Germany's situation this was implemented to appease workers so they wouldn't "go full communist", which was a real concern. I think it's pretty clear that we need more voices in the boardroom than those picked by Wall Street.
juujian 3y ago
A new CEO could revert some of the root causes of the current problems. Put a focus on engineering for new hires. Bring upper management closer to engineering again. It takes a long time to steer a ship as large as Boeing, there is no quick fix. But the decision to find a new CEO could be a step in the right direction.

yuppiepuppie 3y ago

On the other hand, I can't see a non-engineering type facing up to the cultural conflict after the McDonnell Douglas merger > clash of corporate cultures, where Boeing's engineers and McDonnell Douglas's bean-counters went head-to-head I do believe that leadership plays a role in the top and can have a general negative or positive sway on the culture in an org. Im rooting for Boeing to fix their problems. And appointing a person at the top to lead that change is going to speak louder than any press release/marketing effort to improve their image.

eddieroger 3y ago

The thing that a CEO does that matters is set tone, which is more than just a hat. A CEO with the right background will set the right priorities, and for Boeing right now, that's probably more quality than bottom line. These days it seems that Boeing chasing the bottom line is sacrificing quality, which unironically then hurts the bottom line.

gamepsys 3y ago
The CEO is chosen by the board. A CEO is a direct reflection of the board. On the other foot, you have the 144,999 Boeing employees that are not the CEO. Their skills, attitudes, and day to day responsibilities will go largely unchanged. I agree that the right CEO can have a huge impact, but there is so much inertia against change. It's more likely the board is establishing the next fall guy for the next major scandal in 3-7 years.
- galleywest200 3y ago
  Blaming the lowly workers is not fair. They must follow procedures. A fish rots from the head down. Why not replace the entire board if the CEO is a direct reflection of the board?
  - gamepsys 3y ago
    The board of directors are elected annually by Boeing shareholders[0]. So we'll change the board of directors when wall street stops caring about quarterly profits. [0] https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/company/general_info/pdf/corporate-governance-principles.pdf https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/compa...
  - kevinventullo 3y ago
    That is exactly the type of thing active shareholders try to do.
- orwin 3y ago
  Not to go full communist, but why not have a third of the board being employees representatives? In Germany its union leaders (which is imho the worst solution, but in Germany, it make sense), and i don't know how northern europe works, but i guess its similar. Its not enough to be a controlling part on its own, but they can still leverage their influence to steer the company a bit, and could represent a block on some decisions, especially controversial ones (the moving of HQ from seattle, and probably other). Also, it limits drama and backstabbing, as representatives should be accountable to other employees, and have to lead general assembly to talk about huge future changes, like a change of CEO. If a third of the board cannot backstab, and have to talk to literally everybody before making huge decisions, it limits drama _a lot_.
  - gamepsys 3y ago
    I've made very similar arguments before and I think it's the correct action. Specifically in Germany's situation this was implemented to appease workers so they wouldn't "go full communist", which was a real concern. I think it's pretty clear that we need more voices in the boardroom than those picked by Wall Street.

juujian 3y ago

A new CEO could revert some of the root causes of the current problems. Put a focus on engineering for new hires. Bring upper management closer to engineering again. It takes a long time to steer a ship as large as Boeing, there is no quick fix. But the decision to find a new CEO could be a step in the right direction.