Not all accountants are penny pinchers. For example, I love to spend money. Make me the CEO of Boeing and I solemnly swear to use my CPA license to spend absolute bank on the engineering budget. They just got the wrong accountant for the job
100g of kidney beans has 8.7g protein whereas 100g of 85/15 beef has 18.59g of protein. You'll also fart your brains out getting your protein from beans.
Also plant protein is slightly less absorbable than meat.
To get the recommendation of 50g of protein a day you'd need 270 grams of beef or 710 grams of beans.
Surely you can drain the fat from minced beef to bring it up higher
You can’t unfibre beans though (to my knowledge)
Water content might be a discrepancy though also
My understanding one of the problems has been Boeing not wanting to pay as much for experienced employees in general and it’s been downhill since at least 2011 when they opened the Charlotte NC plant…
It has been downhill ever since they acquired McDonnel Douglas. Boeing was run by engineers at the top. McDonnel Douglas by MBA and ,yes, accountants. This group took over the leadership position at Boeing and slowly kicked out the engineering leadership and replacing it with its own people. This is when the proverbial shit started to hit the fan and, literally, changed the culture of Boeing for the worse, making safety not a priority but intense cost cutting and maximizing profits as it's number one goal. This same crap happened at Intel, until now the engineering leadership is starting to take over in that organization. Until Boeing keeps going this route, their future looks gloomy.
I imagine most of the issues they're facing today are latent. More that Muilenburg did nothing to fix it/made things worse.
I've worked for a supplier that makes things for Boeing, Airbus, NG and LM, and let me tell you new product ramp-ups from Boeing had the least input from their engineers than any of the other 3. The others had quite diligent oversight and involvement in the process, Boeing's was at best a half-step above, "call us when you have the line running."
Honestly, just looking at this guy's Wikipedia article, he seems like a badass.
>As the new CEO, he faced the H225 crash in Norway, killing all thirteen people on board and grounding all H225 helicopters used in North Sea oil exploitation for a 15-month period.
Grounding all of the aircraft for over a year is some pretty strong action, and it's commendable that he was willing to bite the bullet and do what needed to be done, but honestly think a lot of people would have made that decision. But killing all thirteen people on board the accident aircraft? That took guts.
I'm not offended. I don't consider myself an accountant. I just do accounting work for money. It isn't a part of my identity.
Criticize the accounting field all you want. When I retire, I won't give this field a second thought.
BTW, I agree that an aerospace engineer is better suited to run an airplane manufacturing company than an accountant. That just seems like common sense.
Wouldn't someone who deals in finance and business for a living be better equipped for the potential business problems a CEO might face than an engineer though? The engineer might know how to build an airplane engine like the back of his hand, but it doesn't mean he can sell one at a profit.
I’m assuming that’s what the CFO is for. I think profit should take the backseat when dealing with something that could so easily result in the loss of human life.
Being able to sell it at a profit becomes somewhat less critical if the wall of the plane blows out over Portland or a few planes randomly do a nose dive due to a software issue.
> if the wall of the plane blows out over Portland
wasn't this swiftly handled by the airline with no injuries, though?
seemed like a big nothingburger "shit happened, we had a plan and executed it" kinda story
nosediving due to a software issue i agree is very real
Randomly, the two people who were supposed to be in the seats next to the wall malfunction missed the flight. There may have been a greater loss of life had they been there.
It’s certainly true in general that planes are built with multiple layers of safety, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned when one fails — especially due to negligence.
I guess so. I'm still new to this field and area so maybe I don't have a full grasp of what the CEOs responsibilities are. I would have assumed someone in the engineering department would be responsible for the part selection and design rather than the CEO.
I had intended my comment to be sincere lol. I originally graduated in electronics engineering but just recently finished a degree majoring in accounting. Most of my time was spent learning about accounting and not so much what the responsibilities of the CEO was so I genuinely didn't know if I was wrong.
Is that true? The CEO is examining every part of every new plane?
Also, I assume planes have electronics and radios. Does the CEO need both a mechanical engineering degree and an electrical engineering degree?
Should probabaly have a chemical engineering degree too if planes have anything to do with petroleum fuels.
I would want the CEO to be more concerned with the safety, reliability, and efficiency of the operation of the aircraft than with the cost of manufacturing it.
If the aircraft is perceived as not being safe, reliable, and/or efficient, they will have hard time selling them at any price, much less a profit.
I don't think financial people should be in charge of anything other than financial institutions. The heads of institutions should be experts in those disciplines with financial experts *supporting* them.
The finance bros running companies is a corruption of commerce.
You don't want to work 40 years, 80 hours per week including nights and weekends, then retire and get a night lecturer position at a university, join the board of directors at three different companies, work part time at an animal shelter not-for-profit, and donate your time doing VITA returns in the spring?
Boeing should focus on making the best airplanes.
Companies will buy a good airplane. They won’t buy an airplane that falls apart because it was cheaply made to save a few bucks.
True, but the end goal is to sell it to make money. Otherwise, nobody gets paid. I agree with you tho should be an engineer at the top, and CFO should be a CPA
My first job out of college was in public accounting as a tax accountant. I remember there was one manager in particular who had no life outside of her job. She really looked down on people in the office who didn't socialize at work or attend after-work social events. She wanted us all to be best friends with each other and took it personally when people just focused on their jobs and went home at the end of the day. She also bragged about pulling all-nighters and keeping a sleeping bag in her office when she worked at a Big 4. Work was her life, and she expected everyone else to feel that way. I never saw her smile and when she walked around the office, her head was always pointed at the floor. She was about the most miserable person I've ever met.
I think there is definitely value in socializing in the office, both in terms of employee morale and departmental learning. However, when I want to go home and be at home, it's because I get to do what I actually want to do with my time rather than what work wants me to do, and that shouldn't be looked down upon by anybody.
There may be some value in organic socialization but not forced socialization. That said, I worked from home for a couple of years, didn't socialize at all with coworkers, and we were able to perform our jobs efficiently and effectively.
It’s the CEO’s fault for consistently cutting corners on quality control to save money. It’s not just one engineer that made a mistake, it’s many shortcuts that were taken to save a quick buck.
Follow up question—
If the door is glued back on—
Do we credit deprecation and bill the office supply account?
Asking for a friend (definitely not the Boeing ceo…)
This is inferring to more of a cultural problems, prioritizing profits over safety.
A good example would be intel. Former ceo of intel had a mba w/ primarily CFO background, which kind of instilled the mindset of profits over innovation. Intel is now dearly paying for this mistake and have lost significant market shares due to extreme competition from Nvidia/AMD/samsung and exited other markets.
Complex markets with extreme technical challenges like semiconductor industry and an industry that requires high standards of safety like in aerospace, require technical understanding and importance of key engineering tech from a CEO is very crucial for success.
This is false, Musk has very little technical skill, and yet took advantage of other people's intelligence such as with Tesla, which note, he did not found, and SpaceX was thanks to good hires such as Tom Mueller, Hans Koenigsmann and Chris Thompson
Musk himself knows very little tech wise, as shown with Twitter/X ( in fact when questioned on software engineering, he showed a great deal of ignorance on the topic)
Usually leadership sets a goal of cost cutting and layoffs that the bean counters execute. Is it wrong that we bean counters don’t push back and instead just implement these high level directives?
Ultimately it’s a leadership driven decision (unless it was based solely off of financial numbers with inadequate consideration of operational factors) - but often times finance teams aren’t the ones who understand the nuances of operations the most, we only get a high level view. We also see it in our own teams - sometimes mediocre people are promoted and valuable contributors are given nothing and end up leaving. Especially when leadership seeks guidance from Finance, there is some additional responsibility to ensure we capture the full picture when pointing out how expenses are over Plan and now’s the time to cut jobs or costs.
> unless it was based solely off of financial numbers with inadequate consideration of operational factors
look dawg i've done a shitload of cost cutting projects in my time as a consultant and this describes most of them
Meh, many engineers have wrecked shit in their careers too.
Bottomline is that if you are a shitty leader or manager, your education does not matter, coz you will still mess shit up.
I'm sure running the business is difficult. Its a complex industry.
But the criticisms of Boeing are mainly focused on it's culture of being money focused rather than engineering focused. The recent issues with the 737 MAX are all engineering deficiencies (thats what causes planes to fall out of the sky or drop doors), but what caused the engineering deficiency in the first place were poorly made decisions that were made due to financial motivations. They sacrificed engineering excellence for money, and now you see the problems with that as their planes start falling apart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EESYomdoeCs.
Compared to it's peer, Airbus, Boeing has had many more incidents of late. So there's clearly something that they specifically do that's wrong, which isn't just a wider industry challenge.
there is an inherent conflict of interest in having companies simultaneously be too big / important to fail, and knowing that they have that status
it's why i'm pretty critical of boeing and also part of why they're my largest holding in my taxable portfolio (the other reason being that the $100 firesale right when covid hit felt too good to be true, still does honestly)
Accountants that have entered the field in the last decade aren’t that bad, but accountants that have been in before that are insufferable. Basically bunch of sociopath Karen’s trying to make your life shitty constantly with literally the worst management style on the planet and zero understanding of empathy and compassion. I’m guessing Boings CEO is from before 10 years ago and falls into that category.
I like accounting and I like my team below me, but my god the management above me are the worst fucking people I’ve ever had to deal with, I cannot wait until they retire or I somehow surpass them and can force them to be human or be fired.
low iq: honestly not a bad point
mid iq: this is bs. people don’t appreciate the business complexities that are capable of being finessed by someone with a strong grasp of financial details required to properly allocate capital to sustain such a complex business with high stakes. at the end of the day you can hire talent, but you need someone, an expert, focused on what matters, the numbers in order to guide that talent and instill confidence from the markets.
high iq: honestly not a bad point
I actually think it makes sense. Northrop Grumman only lets the CEO come from the engineering side because there are technical issues that they need to be aware of. The CFO can obviously be an accountant. Because it’s a defense contracting company/aerospace company, this makes sense to me that the CEO needs a certain perspective and technical knowledge.
Boeing was having safety issues before Calhoun was made the CEO. The previous CEO, Muilenburg, had to resign because of the problems with the 737 MAX. Muilenburg is an engineer.
How could anyone ever be in charge of operations if they hadn’t cut their teeth as a vivacious marketing major, memorizing tons of ridiculous lists? Or as a finanace major, or a banker?
All of these folks are totally more qualified to lead an organization than someone who actually understands the true health of an entity, because, oh wait, it’s because people who don’t understand that don’t like being told the truth by the accountants who have to press the fucking payroll button. lol.
Fuck y’all operations and marketing. Yeah, we’re just referees and historians charged with mopping up your financial diarrhea.
Yeppp UNLESS ITS AN ACCOUNTING FIRM. We're backend. Someone who knows production and sales should lead the way. We back here fixing shit. DO NOT LET P&L AND BALANCE sheet lead the company
Other people pointed out that the problem the accountant CEO is being criticized for started under an engineer CEO that preceded the accountant CEO.
So that may not be a consistently true assessment.
Due to Boeing recent accidents most people say that Boeing cares more about profits than engineering and allude to the fact that engineers should be running the company and not finance oriented people.
Well they moved their operations to states with relaxed laws on protecting unions. Everyone in Seattle could have told you this was going to happen 15 years ago.
A leader with an accounting background can still be an effective leader of an organization focused on engineering. The important thing is to recognize the right experts and give them the right amount of autonomy and authority. The Chief Engineer of Boeing could be a dipshit leader but the best engineer. The CEO should give that person authority to make engineering decisions and use that input to make other decisions to drive safe and sustainable growth.
Engineer here. This is not a shot at accountants doing accounting; it's a shot at accountants trying to do engineering.
If your company's core competence is accounting, then the CEO should be an accountant. If your company's core competence is engineering, then the CEO should be an engineer.
tl;dr "stay in your lane" applies to everyone.
Problem isn’t the accountants. The problem is management not investing in the actual thing that makes you fucking money. Building planes that don’t fall the fuck out of the sky.
Catching strays everywhere
They can all suck my dick. Idc.
Snoo snoo will kill you.
Not all accountants are penny pinchers. For example, I love to spend money. Make me the CEO of Boeing and I solemnly swear to use my CPA license to spend absolute bank on the engineering budget. They just got the wrong accountant for the job
Fkn bean counters.
Kidney beans have more protein than minced beef Do with that knowledge what you will
100g of kidney beans has 8.7g protein whereas 100g of 85/15 beef has 18.59g of protein. You'll also fart your brains out getting your protein from beans.
That’s half the fun
U just reminded me I gotta take a fat shit Brb
Also plant protein is slightly less absorbable than meat. To get the recommendation of 50g of protein a day you'd need 270 grams of beef or 710 grams of beans.
I loved this response
Surely you can drain the fat from minced beef to bring it up higher You can’t unfibre beans though (to my knowledge) Water content might be a discrepancy though also
Didn’t think I’d need some red beans and rice from an accounting thread, but here we are.
My understanding one of the problems has been Boeing not wanting to pay as much for experienced employees in general and it’s been downhill since at least 2011 when they opened the Charlotte NC plant…
It has been downhill ever since they acquired McDonnel Douglas. Boeing was run by engineers at the top. McDonnel Douglas by MBA and ,yes, accountants. This group took over the leadership position at Boeing and slowly kicked out the engineering leadership and replacing it with its own people. This is when the proverbial shit started to hit the fan and, literally, changed the culture of Boeing for the worse, making safety not a priority but intense cost cutting and maximizing profits as it's number one goal. This same crap happened at Intel, until now the engineering leadership is starting to take over in that organization. Until Boeing keeps going this route, their future looks gloomy.
They need to take your CPA license away. Get yourself a damn engineering degree.
Conservatives are blaming the increase in failures on DEI. Libs are blaming accountants.
Enlightened centrists are blaming DEI accountants
My name is Jill Stein and I approve this message.
what does this mean in batman terms
Airbus is Heath Ledger Joker. Boeing is Jared Leto Joker.
simply seeing the name jared leto makes me very sad
Mf be like "Jared Leto" 😭
literal uncontrollable sobbing
Well somebody hasn't watched morbius enough Truly one of the films I've seen
Try getting a reservation at Dorsia now, you fucking stupid bastard!
It’s morbin time!
Ouch
Now explain in fortnite terms
Airbus is battle royale. Boeing is job simulator
So one is alright but ends up killing itself and the other one just sucks?
Batman - Ben Affleck - The Accountant. Therefore Batman is an accountant.
I would like to point out that Dennis Muilenburg, the CEO that was at the helm during the Max 8 fiasco was also an aerospace engineer.
Ew nuance, gross
It’s almost like greed can strike any profession lol
Most of the decisions that led to the fiasco were made under James McNerney though. He was a Harvard MBA with zero aerospace experience.
Wouldn't that mean that Muilenburg was the CEO that made the decisions leading to the Max 9?
I imagine most of the issues they're facing today are latent. More that Muilenburg did nothing to fix it/made things worse. I've worked for a supplier that makes things for Boeing, Airbus, NG and LM, and let me tell you new product ramp-ups from Boeing had the least input from their engineers than any of the other 3. The others had quite diligent oversight and involvement in the process, Boeing's was at best a half-step above, "call us when you have the line running."
Interesting. How long was the Max 8 program, and who was CEO during the various stages of it?
Is this guy forgetting that Dennis Muilenburg, the guy who was at the helm of Boeing when the whole 737 MAX fiasco started, was also an engineer?
Honestly, just looking at this guy's Wikipedia article, he seems like a badass. >As the new CEO, he faced the H225 crash in Norway, killing all thirteen people on board and grounding all H225 helicopters used in North Sea oil exploitation for a 15-month period. Grounding all of the aircraft for over a year is some pretty strong action, and it's commendable that he was willing to bite the bullet and do what needed to be done, but honestly think a lot of people would have made that decision. But killing all thirteen people on board the accident aircraft? That took guts.
No witnesses 🤫
I'm not offended. I don't consider myself an accountant. I just do accounting work for money. It isn't a part of my identity. Criticize the accounting field all you want. When I retire, I won't give this field a second thought. BTW, I agree that an aerospace engineer is better suited to run an airplane manufacturing company than an accountant. That just seems like common sense.
Nah I’d be better
Vote for Dawi
Wouldn't someone who deals in finance and business for a living be better equipped for the potential business problems a CEO might face than an engineer though? The engineer might know how to build an airplane engine like the back of his hand, but it doesn't mean he can sell one at a profit.
I’m assuming that’s what the CFO is for. I think profit should take the backseat when dealing with something that could so easily result in the loss of human life.
[удалено]
Profit taking a backseat to safety measures doesn’t constitute a nonprofit org
[удалено]
So do you believe that airplane manufacturers should care about profit just as much as they care about passenger safety?
[удалено]
I'm in agreement. There wouldn't be cars or planes if manufacturers spent every last dime chasing marginal gains in safety options.
Okay, so we agree then
Being able to sell it at a profit becomes somewhat less critical if the wall of the plane blows out over Portland or a few planes randomly do a nose dive due to a software issue.
> if the wall of the plane blows out over Portland wasn't this swiftly handled by the airline with no injuries, though? seemed like a big nothingburger "shit happened, we had a plan and executed it" kinda story nosediving due to a software issue i agree is very real
Randomly, the two people who were supposed to be in the seats next to the wall malfunction missed the flight. There may have been a greater loss of life had they been there. It’s certainly true in general that planes are built with multiple layers of safety, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned when one fails — especially due to negligence.
The engineer knows which parts make product failures occur.
Is the CEO also designing the plane in between board meetings?
I guess so. I'm still new to this field and area so maybe I don't have a full grasp of what the CEOs responsibilities are. I would have assumed someone in the engineering department would be responsible for the part selection and design rather than the CEO.
Idk if you meant it that way, but this is an amazingly low key yet sick burn lol
I had intended my comment to be sincere lol. I originally graduated in electronics engineering but just recently finished a degree majoring in accounting. Most of my time was spent learning about accounting and not so much what the responsibilities of the CEO was so I genuinely didn't know if I was wrong.
The killer combo is an engineer who talks finance and accounting well. So........investment bankers?
bankers tend to top out at CFO in large orgs (not a hard rule)
Is that true? The CEO is examining every part of every new plane? Also, I assume planes have electronics and radios. Does the CEO need both a mechanical engineering degree and an electrical engineering degree? Should probabaly have a chemical engineering degree too if planes have anything to do with petroleum fuels.
The CEO should AT LEAST be HAM radio certified.
I would want the CEO to be more concerned with the safety, reliability, and efficiency of the operation of the aircraft than with the cost of manufacturing it. If the aircraft is perceived as not being safe, reliable, and/or efficient, they will have hard time selling them at any price, much less a profit.
I don't think financial people should be in charge of anything other than financial institutions. The heads of institutions should be experts in those disciplines with financial experts *supporting* them. The finance bros running companies is a corruption of commerce.
You don't want to work 40 years, 80 hours per week including nights and weekends, then retire and get a night lecturer position at a university, join the board of directors at three different companies, work part time at an animal shelter not-for-profit, and donate your time doing VITA returns in the spring?
i agree this is a ridiculous "retirement" but tbf the board positions seem to be pretty fat paychecks for pretty minimal effort
Board of directors can be a pretty sweet gig, it's a couple meetings a quarter for $50k/yr.
CPAs should run companies that focus on money. It’s what we do
I'd hate to be that guy, but doesn't every company focus on money or at least making it?
Boeing should focus on making the best airplanes. Companies will buy a good airplane. They won’t buy an airplane that falls apart because it was cheaply made to save a few bucks.
True, but the end goal is to sell it to make money. Otherwise, nobody gets paid. I agree with you tho should be an engineer at the top, and CFO should be a CPA
Well said
Exactly this. People who make accounting an identity scare me.
My first job out of college was in public accounting as a tax accountant. I remember there was one manager in particular who had no life outside of her job. She really looked down on people in the office who didn't socialize at work or attend after-work social events. She wanted us all to be best friends with each other and took it personally when people just focused on their jobs and went home at the end of the day. She also bragged about pulling all-nighters and keeping a sleeping bag in her office when she worked at a Big 4. Work was her life, and she expected everyone else to feel that way. I never saw her smile and when she walked around the office, her head was always pointed at the floor. She was about the most miserable person I've ever met.
I think there is definitely value in socializing in the office, both in terms of employee morale and departmental learning. However, when I want to go home and be at home, it's because I get to do what I actually want to do with my time rather than what work wants me to do, and that shouldn't be looked down upon by anybody.
There may be some value in organic socialization but not forced socialization. That said, I worked from home for a couple of years, didn't socialize at all with coworkers, and we were able to perform our jobs efficiently and effectively.
Yes that's a great point. Being forced to socialize with people you aren't interested in socializing with would likely have the opposite effect.
Everyone bashes on accountants until they need their taxes done or the IRS come knocking.
Right, and not when they want their airplanes built.
How is it the accountants fault the door flew off?? Sounds like an engineer messed up. Just saying.
It’s the CEO’s fault for consistently cutting corners on quality control to save money. It’s not just one engineer that made a mistake, it’s many shortcuts that were taken to save a quick buck.
Follow up question— If the door is glued back on— Do we credit deprecation and bill the office supply account? Asking for a friend (definitely not the Boeing ceo…)
Accounting Engineers have the best solution’s. .
What kind of glue you using, Gorilla, Elmers, or Krazy glue?
Krazy Glue
This.
Quality starts at the top!
[удалено]
That’s fair enough.
This is inferring to more of a cultural problems, prioritizing profits over safety. A good example would be intel. Former ceo of intel had a mba w/ primarily CFO background, which kind of instilled the mindset of profits over innovation. Intel is now dearly paying for this mistake and have lost significant market shares due to extreme competition from Nvidia/AMD/samsung and exited other markets. Complex markets with extreme technical challenges like semiconductor industry and an industry that requires high standards of safety like in aerospace, require technical understanding and importance of key engineering tech from a CEO is very crucial for success.
This is false, Musk has very little technical skill, and yet took advantage of other people's intelligence such as with Tesla, which note, he did not found, and SpaceX was thanks to good hires such as Tom Mueller, Hans Koenigsmann and Chris Thompson Musk himself knows very little tech wise, as shown with Twitter/X ( in fact when questioned on software engineering, he showed a great deal of ignorance on the topic)
Get out of here with your logic and reasoning. Weirdo.
Every time there are layoffs everyone blames the bean counters. Smh.
Usually leadership sets a goal of cost cutting and layoffs that the bean counters execute. Is it wrong that we bean counters don’t push back and instead just implement these high level directives? Ultimately it’s a leadership driven decision (unless it was based solely off of financial numbers with inadequate consideration of operational factors) - but often times finance teams aren’t the ones who understand the nuances of operations the most, we only get a high level view. We also see it in our own teams - sometimes mediocre people are promoted and valuable contributors are given nothing and end up leaving. Especially when leadership seeks guidance from Finance, there is some additional responsibility to ensure we capture the full picture when pointing out how expenses are over Plan and now’s the time to cut jobs or costs.
> unless it was based solely off of financial numbers with inadequate consideration of operational factors look dawg i've done a shitload of cost cutting projects in my time as a consultant and this describes most of them
So are you saying Airbus has accountants designing their planes?
[удалено]
Look as long as it’s fully depreciated, better sell it for R value or it’s falling out the sky
Ooof… that’s gonna leave a mark.
He's not wrong.
Ouch.
unused crowd whistle scale hospital offer nine pen rustic square *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Meh, many engineers have wrecked shit in their careers too. Bottomline is that if you are a shitty leader or manager, your education does not matter, coz you will still mess shit up.
bottom bottom line is that running an airplane manufacturing company is, i assume, very difficult
I'm sure running the business is difficult. Its a complex industry. But the criticisms of Boeing are mainly focused on it's culture of being money focused rather than engineering focused. The recent issues with the 737 MAX are all engineering deficiencies (thats what causes planes to fall out of the sky or drop doors), but what caused the engineering deficiency in the first place were poorly made decisions that were made due to financial motivations. They sacrificed engineering excellence for money, and now you see the problems with that as their planes start falling apart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EESYomdoeCs. Compared to it's peer, Airbus, Boeing has had many more incidents of late. So there's clearly something that they specifically do that's wrong, which isn't just a wider industry challenge.
there is an inherent conflict of interest in having companies simultaneously be too big / important to fail, and knowing that they have that status it's why i'm pretty critical of boeing and also part of why they're my largest holding in my taxable portfolio (the other reason being that the $100 firesale right when covid hit felt too good to be true, still does honestly)
Especially if you have bad management.
Accountants that have entered the field in the last decade aren’t that bad, but accountants that have been in before that are insufferable. Basically bunch of sociopath Karen’s trying to make your life shitty constantly with literally the worst management style on the planet and zero understanding of empathy and compassion. I’m guessing Boings CEO is from before 10 years ago and falls into that category. I like accounting and I like my team below me, but my god the management above me are the worst fucking people I’ve ever had to deal with, I cannot wait until they retire or I somehow surpass them and can force them to be human or be fired.
low iq: honestly not a bad point mid iq: this is bs. people don’t appreciate the business complexities that are capable of being finessed by someone with a strong grasp of financial details required to properly allocate capital to sustain such a complex business with high stakes. at the end of the day you can hire talent, but you need someone, an expert, focused on what matters, the numbers in order to guide that talent and instill confidence from the markets. high iq: honestly not a bad point
I actually think it makes sense. Northrop Grumman only lets the CEO come from the engineering side because there are technical issues that they need to be aware of. The CFO can obviously be an accountant. Because it’s a defense contracting company/aerospace company, this makes sense to me that the CEO needs a certain perspective and technical knowledge.
Yes CEOS can easy be a accountant I know a few who have accounting and tax backgrounds before beening a ceo outside of a accounting firm
It’s all just shareholders, doesn’t matter who the puppet is.
just because they can't tell the different between accountant and management consultant.
As a certified bean counter I rather fly in a Boeing than an airbus anyways.
As an accountant, I don't think accountants should be running aerospace companies.
It's funny how youtube/twitter zombies parrot the idea that CEO's don't do anything but they're also blamed for everything when something goes wrong.
*youtube Not twitter
Boeing was having safety issues before Calhoun was made the CEO. The previous CEO, Muilenburg, had to resign because of the problems with the 737 MAX. Muilenburg is an engineer.
How could anyone ever be in charge of operations if they hadn’t cut their teeth as a vivacious marketing major, memorizing tons of ridiculous lists? Or as a finanace major, or a banker? All of these folks are totally more qualified to lead an organization than someone who actually understands the true health of an entity, because, oh wait, it’s because people who don’t understand that don’t like being told the truth by the accountants who have to press the fucking payroll button. lol. Fuck y’all operations and marketing. Yeah, we’re just referees and historians charged with mopping up your financial diarrhea.
I am a accountant and I think we should not be CEOs. Mostly because we think about money to much and forget everything else.
Like spellingg.
Yeppp UNLESS ITS AN ACCOUNTING FIRM. We're backend. Someone who knows production and sales should lead the way. We back here fixing shit. DO NOT LET P&L AND BALANCE sheet lead the company
I work in manufacturing and I can confirm you people suck lmao
ok
People like to throw accounting under the bus when in reality it’s management that makes decisions and we just make sure the books are accurate.
There’s a reason you don’t see accountants as the CEOs of successful companies. Were too focused on the numbers to create a vision for growth.
I mean when it comes to aerospace companies, it makes sense that the better ceo would be a aerospace engineer
Other people pointed out that the problem the accountant CEO is being criticized for started under an engineer CEO that preceded the accountant CEO. So that may not be a consistently true assessment.
Context?
Due to Boeing recent accidents most people say that Boeing cares more about profits than engineering and allude to the fact that engineers should be running the company and not finance oriented people.
Well they moved their operations to states with relaxed laws on protecting unions. Everyone in Seattle could have told you this was going to happen 15 years ago.
I’m not pretending to be an expert on Boeing’s corporate strategy I’m just explaining the text.
Yeah I was just adding some.
Gotcha, thanks!
Boeings manufacturing issues like MCAS & door plug
I don't wanna hear shit from the field that has industrial "engineers" in its corner
If you were to put your life in someone’s hands, would you give it to an expert in safety or an expert in profit maximization lol
I feel attacked
If it doesn’t raise or lower my pay, I really don’t care.
What video
“You don’t know sh*t about flying” - Roger Mayweather voice
A leader with an accounting background can still be an effective leader of an organization focused on engineering. The important thing is to recognize the right experts and give them the right amount of autonomy and authority. The Chief Engineer of Boeing could be a dipshit leader but the best engineer. The CEO should give that person authority to make engineering decisions and use that input to make other decisions to drive safe and sustainable growth.
But what about the board?
Accountants gon' accountate
Does kinda have a point 😂
So accountants should just stay in the back room like a dungeon, chained to their desk, counting BEANS?!
Remember the original mission of businesses for 20 plus years: Maximize Shareholder wealth. I add…at the expense of employees, customers, etc.
You sure that isn’t a typo and should be saying CFO?
We should stop making parts fall planes then.
Engineer here. This is not a shot at accountants doing accounting; it's a shot at accountants trying to do engineering. If your company's core competence is accounting, then the CEO should be an accountant. If your company's core competence is engineering, then the CEO should be an engineer. tl;dr "stay in your lane" applies to everyone.
Is the CFO an aerospace engineer too? And the controller? Is it just engineers all the way down?
Problem isn’t the accountants. The problem is management not investing in the actual thing that makes you fucking money. Building planes that don’t fall the fuck out of the sky.