> 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 a

> 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.