However, in the general case, having direct experience in that industry's work brings a large amount of perspective on how the industry works. And this perspective can well inform decision makers for decades afterwards.
A stereotypical example: Nokia vs Apple. The Nokia leadership - just before Iphonegeddon hit all the incumbents - really weren't enthusiastic about their technology nor of their products. Where as in Apple the CEO was deeply involved at least in an editorial role and sourced key components himself, like the glass.
I really would love to hear a counterexample where the company with the aloof macroeconomist golfer at the helm beat the company managed by domain afficionados.
I presume it would be in the commodities, but I'm hoping to be surprised.
The context here is a member of the national executive, so demanding detailed micro level experience is required is just silly, at that level nobody can have such broad detailed knowledge. The only practical way is that whoever is in charge learns what they need as they go along.
I think far more important is that whoever is in charge isn't an idiot so they can realize when they have to learn new things. The fact that this guy accepted a position for cyber-security without reading up on computers is plenty of evidence he is an idiot.
Do you suppose that there is really a Japanese minister today that has never used a computer? A smart phone? A microwave? A TV? An MP3 player? A network-connected device?
They probably use a computer to enter their home or office. Their desk phone is probably a computer. Their car radio is a computer.
It would be quite a challenge to find a living person in Japan today who has not used a computer. I suppose nothing is impossible, but some claims are so hyperbolic as to be ignored.
The project manager was in his fifties and had not only never used a website, he had never touched a keyboard or mouse.
That was secretarial (female) work.
The three things he did in his job was to dictate documents, have meetings and cause utter chaos.
Compare the CEO of Verizon who built it into what it is today - Ivan G. Seidenberg against a CEO of Sprint or Global Crossing at the time. Notice that the CEO of GlobalCrossing at the time is the current CEO of T-Mobile. It is well known that he had no clue about products of GlobalCrossing or technology behind it and therefore could not realize its competitive advantages. On the other hand he clearly understands the mobile phones which is how he managed to take a T-Mobile from a pissant company that no one cared about to a company that forces ATT and Verizon to respond.
Not discounting that their positioning in the states has improved in the last couple of years, but they should be to do (and finally are doing) more than just forcing ATT and Verizon to respond.
It took Legere becoming a CEO 11 years later for anyone to start taking TMO seriously. And boy they do.
How do you know what they are thinking?
Did you read a headline written by a source you don't know and assume it was true?
Those with no experience in construction do not run around being managers of construction companies doing construction. Those that do won't account for rain delays or know that at certain wind speed one cannot operate a crane and that wind speed would need to come down before 11am. And that's why the projects end up slipping.
> You shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you have been a personal injury attorney?
You will fail at managing a personal injury lawfirm unless you are someone who is intimately familiar handling ( and therefore laws ) of personal injury cases.
> You shouldn't manage an auto manufacturer unless you have been an accountant?
You will fail at managing an accounting firm if you have no idea about accounting process, deadlines, amounts of paperwork or different filing schedules.
The CEO is an awkward one because they can fill different roles in different companies, but I guess CEOs are usually people managers first and foremost so it makes sense for CEOs to come from the management chain.
1) Cyber security is really hard, and it might normally take someone a full university degree, plus several years of experience before they might understand at a high level what kind of strategies are often employed.
2) This minister has no education or experience.
3) Without any education or experience, the minister will not understand exactly what they are responsible for, fail to make good decisions, or otherwise perform poorly.
There are a few key difference between your assembly line analogy and the argument above.
1) The existence of a reasonable best-alternative. It is possible for one person to obtain domain knowledge on cyber security, as well as the knowledge required to perform ministerial duties. In your auto manufacturer example, it is near impossible for any one person to have experience on an assembly line, engineering, marketing, law, and accounting. Lacking this, it might be more reasonable with auto manufacturers to try and select someone who has reasonable breadth, or maybe depth in a couple domains, but might not have depth across all domains.
2) Certain jobs such as that of an assembly worker, do not require as much education and experience as working in cyber security, and as such, it is easier for a manager to have a conceptual model of what is required from their role, without having performed the job themselves.
So I think if you run a car company you should at least like cars, know how they work to some degree and have worked at a car company for a while. When I came to the US in the 90s and rented a Buick I wondered if the CEO of that company even had tried that car once. It was so bad that I couldn't imagine that anybody who knows a little about cars would have allowed this car to ship.