I've got a kind of hot take that I'd like to talk about: First, is there something similar to a CTO at Boeing? (Like chief engineer?) If so, then I think he/

I've got a kind of hot take that I'd like to talk about: First, is there something similar to a CTO at Boeing? (Like chief engineer?) If so, then I think he/she is ultimately responsible. I've been an executive tech leader for a couple of years now. And when talking about technology, the bucket stops with me. As I was learning to perform those roles, I got "pushed" by sales, finance, and business in general. Of course initially I yielded most of the time, but as I've grown I've learned that I can and MUST push back when executive technical decisions are being taken by policies cutting corners and the like. So, the question in Boeing case is, if the engineering practices where sloppy, why didn't we have a couple of tech VPs resigning? before shit happened? Why didn't we have the CTO equivalent resigning? (Presumably after having pushed back with the executive team to stop the bad practices? For me, that sounds as bad Technical executive leadership. I've resigned from a startup CTO position because I ultimately disagreed with the return to office policy and couldn't find a middle ground with the CEO. And I'm a nobody who had to put ads in LinkedIn to find a new job . Surely engineering executives at Boeing would have no struggle finding a new project.