3 ms·

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. The

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.
eddieroger 3y ago
The Board is capable (and in this case) is also capable of making choices about priorities and can pick someone who sets a good tone (or not). This doesn’t really change my statement. The workers have their own incentives, but in general, going against the leader’s perspectives is counterproductive. They could all start caring, but it’s in their better interest to care about what the boss cares about.

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.

eddieroger 3y ago

The Board is capable (and in this case) is also capable of making choices about priorities and can pick someone who sets a good tone (or not). This doesn’t really change my statement. The workers have their own incentives, but in general, going against the leader’s perspectives is counterproductive. They could all start caring, but it’s in their better interest to care about what the boss cares about.