If the last one was an engineer, why would another engineer restore your confidence any more?
If the last one was an engineer, why would another engineer restore your confidence any more?
So yes, if they were going to replace the CEO for the optics, “someone like Dennis Muilenburg” would have been the best-case scenario for me, rather than someone with non-engineering background/specialty.
For a sports analogy, CEO shuffling is kinda like coach/GM shuffling of pro sports teams - they’re there to take the blame when things go wrong, but picking a CEO without a related background is like picking a new coach from a different sport.
He's probably talking more about mindset than educational and professional background.
You can have a leader with the mindset of an ornery engineering-first engineer. You can also have a leader who's an ex-engineer with the mindset of a business executive. There's a big difference between the two.
I personally do not know which of those categories Dennis Muilenburg fell into, though.
But why?
Is their problem an engineering one?
Or a culture, leadership and values ones?
Everyone's saying that they put profit before safety. That's a financial decision that they need to address not an engineering one!
You're just restating the same thing without any actual arguments. Why do you need to be an engineer to understand safety? I don't know what magic training or experience do you think engineers get that nobody else does? And as I've already said, it looks to me that Boeing's chronic problems are leadership not technical. Get a leader in.
How do you think for example the President of the United States effectively line manages people as diverse as defence and national parks without simultaneously being a soldier and a geographer? How do you think he judges qualification and competence of these people in globally significant safety jobs and how does he manage the buck stopping with him?