3 ms·

Curious to know if they'll go with another Jack Welch-lineage executive for the replacement (possible from the MD side of the family), or get a more 'technical'

Curious to know if they'll go with another Jack Welch-lineage executive for the replacement (possible from the MD side of the family), or get a more 'technical' person. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#Legacy * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization

ImJamal 3y ago
Jack Welch was a 'technical' type. He had a PhD in chemical engineering. Just because somebody isn't a bean counter doesn't mean they won't run the company that way.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Indeed, yet an engineer trained in that industry should also have a better sense of when short-term financial concerns are putting the long term mission at risk. Welch was a chemical engineer when he joined GE, so I'm not sure it's a strong counterpoint.
- galleywest200 3y ago
  How about we get an aerospace engineer as opposed to someone in an entirely different field?
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    GE has (had) their hands in everything so a chemical engineer is fine for them. I'm not suggesting a chemical engineer would be the most appropriate for Boeing.
- tivert 3y ago
  > Jack Welch was a 'technical' type. He had a PhD in chemical engineering. Just because somebody isn't a bean counter doesn't mean they won't run the company that way. He had that background, but was he really a "technical type."? I've met plenty of trained software engineers who were gunning for management from day one, and they weren't great engineers. I think what people are saying when they need an engineer at the top is they need someone who understands and will prioritize engineering. You can definitely have an ex-engineer who prioritizes MBA stuff over engineering once they got into management. You're very unlikely to find an accountant who will prioritize engineering.
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    >He had that background, but was he really a "technical type."? I think when people talk about technical types they don't mean a programmer or something like that. They mean somebody who is in the actual field, not an accounting/MBA type. GE had a petrochemical division so Welch was technical in that sense. >I've met plenty of trained software engineers who were gunning for management from day one, and they weren't great engineers. I don't know enough about Welch to know if this is the case. Are you just hypothesising he could have been like this or are you stating a fact? >I think what people are saying when they need an engineer at the top is they need someone who understands and will prioritize engineering. You can definitely have an ex-engineer who prioritizes MBA stuff over engineering once they got into management. You're very unlikely to find an accountant who will prioritize engineering. I'm not sure if it is unlikely to find an accountant who prioritizes engineering. Just because they don't necessarily understand the technical details doesn't mean they can't understand the long term benefits to having quality products and innovation. Do you have any stats on MBA vs engineering types and their prioritizations?
    - tivert 3y ago
      > I don't know enough about Welch to know if this is the case. Are you just hypothesising he could have been like this or are you stating a fact? I'm talking about "types" not Welch. Specifically I'm clarifying what I think people are asking for when they want an engineer leading Boeing, and amplifying the point about how one's degree or starting role doesn't capture what they're asking for. > I'm not sure if it is unlikely to find an accountant who prioritizes engineering. Just because they don't necessarily understand the technical details doesn't mean they can't understand the long term benefits to having quality products and innovation. Then you don't get my point, though some of that may be my fault. I meant something a little stronger than "prioritizes. " Maybe "identifies with engineering" is closer to what I was trying to communicate. I don't think the problem with an accountant is "understand[ing] the long term benefits to having quality products and innovation," it's making the short term decisions about engineering vs. cost to get there. At a minimum, I'd think an accountant would likely require onerous and repeated explanations and business justifications that would discourage that kind of thing.

ImJamal 3y ago

Jack Welch was a 'technical' type. He had a PhD in chemical engineering. Just because somebody isn't a bean counter doesn't mean they won't run the company that way.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
Indeed, yet an engineer trained in that industry should also have a better sense of when short-term financial concerns are putting the long term mission at risk. Welch was a chemical engineer when he joined GE, so I'm not sure it's a strong counterpoint.
galleywest200 3y ago
How about we get an aerospace engineer as opposed to someone in an entirely different field?
- ImJamal 3y ago
  GE has (had) their hands in everything so a chemical engineer is fine for them. I'm not suggesting a chemical engineer would be the most appropriate for Boeing.
tivert 3y ago
> Jack Welch was a 'technical' type. He had a PhD in chemical engineering. Just because somebody isn't a bean counter doesn't mean they won't run the company that way. He had that background, but was he really a "technical type."? I've met plenty of trained software engineers who were gunning for management from day one, and they weren't great engineers. I think what people are saying when they need an engineer at the top is they need someone who understands and will prioritize engineering. You can definitely have an ex-engineer who prioritizes MBA stuff over engineering once they got into management. You're very unlikely to find an accountant who will prioritize engineering.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  >He had that background, but was he really a "technical type."? I think when people talk about technical types they don't mean a programmer or something like that. They mean somebody who is in the actual field, not an accounting/MBA type. GE had a petrochemical division so Welch was technical in that sense. >I've met plenty of trained software engineers who were gunning for management from day one, and they weren't great engineers. I don't know enough about Welch to know if this is the case. Are you just hypothesising he could have been like this or are you stating a fact? >I think what people are saying when they need an engineer at the top is they need someone who understands and will prioritize engineering. You can definitely have an ex-engineer who prioritizes MBA stuff over engineering once they got into management. You're very unlikely to find an accountant who will prioritize engineering. I'm not sure if it is unlikely to find an accountant who prioritizes engineering. Just because they don't necessarily understand the technical details doesn't mean they can't understand the long term benefits to having quality products and innovation. Do you have any stats on MBA vs engineering types and their prioritizations?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > I don't know enough about Welch to know if this is the case. Are you just hypothesising he could have been like this or are you stating a fact? I'm talking about "types" not Welch. Specifically I'm clarifying what I think people are asking for when they want an engineer leading Boeing, and amplifying the point about how one's degree or starting role doesn't capture what they're asking for. > I'm not sure if it is unlikely to find an accountant who prioritizes engineering. Just because they don't necessarily understand the technical details doesn't mean they can't understand the long term benefits to having quality products and innovation. Then you don't get my point, though some of that may be my fault. I meant something a little stronger than "prioritizes. " Maybe "identifies with engineering" is closer to what I was trying to communicate. I don't think the problem with an accountant is "understand[ing] the long term benefits to having quality products and innovation," it's making the short term decisions about engineering vs. cost to get there. At a minimum, I'd think an accountant would likely require onerous and repeated explanations and business justifications that would discourage that kind of thing.