So, they're taking a non-pilot, non-engineer with a background in accounting, finance and asset management and replacing him with a non-pilot electrical engineer whose career has been mostly in management and whose experience is running a chip and consumer electronics company.
I'm not saying the Boeing *has* to be led by an aircraft engineer/pilot to be successful, and I know that a pure engineer in general lacks certain business knowledge that would be required to be the CEO of an aircraft manufacturer.
But, companies the size, scope and breadth of Boeing have to have internal development processes that facilitate paths to leadership by taking long-term, career-track engineers and diversifying their experience portfolios to include business, marketing and economic competence.
These "business-augmented" engineering leaders would exist throughout the company in various management positions such that when a CEO leaves, there are perhaps dozens of internal candidates to chose from who could be transitioned to the CEO position without the company having to go outside to recruit CEO leadership from non-germane backgrounds.
At a minimum, Boeing's CEO should be required to have done a few years on the shop floor as a rank and file production technical team member - be it engineer, mechanic or pilot - even if that experience was 20 years prior.
It is certainly possible that an outside person who is extraordinarily innovative and with an enlightened flair for learning and an ability to adapt to new paradigms could be a good CEO for Boeing. But an internal farm system for top level leaders would be better.
Changing out Kellner with Mollenkopf will do nothing to change Boeing's fortunes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
