4 ms·

>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 t

>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.

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.