Live data from Hacker News

Why engineers make great CEOs

thehindu.com

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Why engineers make great CEOs

#51
post #21

Perhaps this is not indicative of a rise of engineers who become interested in management, but individuals already interested in management (or are of that mindset) choosing to get a degree in engineering instead of Business. Given the tremendous value of an engineering degree, especially as a guaranteed high level of income, it makes sense practically minded managers would prefer such a safety net.

> Given the tremendous value of an engineering degree, especially as a guaranteed high level of income, it makes sense practically minded managers would prefer such a safety net. Practical experience (of a practicing engineer) shows that the value of an engineering degree outweighs that of one's work only in the first couple of months, or even weeks, on a job. The skills of incompetent engineers are in significantly…

How is an MBA any more than just paper if you are clueless??

Re: Why engineers make great CEOs

#52
Engineer-turned-CEO here.

Engineering teaches you a lot of the analytical / architecture skills you need to build and run organizations, but you won't be ready to lead until you learn a decent amount of the other business functions that make up just about every company.

You need to learn how marketing works, but not just the basics - learn what type of people are good at each role, what are the types of roles you need for different types of marketing strategies, some of the tactics for each strategy, etc...

Rinse and repeat for sales, operations, finance, product (different from, but aligned with engineering), and general strategic stuff like legal, recruiting, release strategy, fund raising, investor management, and so on.

Here's the good news: you don't need to be an expert in all of these areas when you get started. You just need to know enough to know which questions to ask and then surround yourself with advisors who can help answer them.

If you've ever built a new product (doesn't literally need to be a commercial product) from scratch and actually gotten people to use it, then you're probably already capable of thinking strategically - that's the first core ingredient for dealing with the market / product / economic challenges tasked to CEOs.

The second ingredient is the empathy and people-management part... This means being able to internalize concepts like e every employee is different, values different things, and therefore might need / expect different things from you - some employees might deeply care about working on interesting projects; others might care about being able to work in a specific time / location so they can maximize the time they spend with their family; some might care about money; but in my experience overwhelmingly most employees just care about feeling like their work is meaningful and appreciated.

Learning how to build an organization out of people who all have different personal priorities, levels of experience, backgrounds, and personalities is not trivial. You basically need to develop a high degree of self-awareness about your own needs and values as an employee first. And once you're able to do that, it gets a lot easier to recognize and understand what others need.

TL;DR; - there's a big menagerie of different things you have to learn to be a CEO, and engineering can help you structure the process of learning them but it's not enough unto itself. Develop a strong sense of self-awareness, a good advisory board, and the humility to ask for help when you need it.

Re: Why engineers make great CEOs

#53
post #12
post #7

A high-profile counterpoint is RIM engineer and (former) CEO Mike Lazaridis. Even after seeing the Steve Jobs iPhone demo in 2007, his engineering and logical mindset was convinced that businesses would not adopt a device without a physical keyboard and that push email was more important than an apps ecosystem. He didn't see that the consumer engagement with iPhone was so compelling that the user would do an end run…

I personally would prefer the physical keyboard option, but we seem to have touch screens forced upon us. (I know there are a few models out there, but none were offered on the contract I asked for). I am unable to answer the phone around 40% of the time (before the caller hangs up), due to the stupid swipe gesture I need to do. A physical green button was orders of magnitude more usable and reliable.

I can't upvote you enough. The only smartphones I've gotten have been in the Motorola Droid family because of their fullsize slideout keyboards, and like you I still miss the physical buttons for basic phone functions.

Re: Why engineers make great CEOs

#54

A lot of engineers would make terrible CEOs because they don't understand the basic tenants of business. Most software engineers don't like charging appropriately or spending appropriately on things that make the company money. There is a huge aversion to sales, marketing, and advertising. If the CEO doesn't make sure the company makes money, the company will fail. I see this a lot in smaller companies. Larger compan…

[deleted]

Re: Why engineers make great CEOs

#55
post #36

I've found that many organizations tend to have a 'dominant function', and CEOs tend to come from that function. So if engineering calls the shots in your company, or is the main driver of success, the CEO tends to come from engineering. If the company is driven by sales, the CEO tends to come from sales. That's why you see so many oil company CEOs who are geologists or engineers, tech company CEOs who are developers…

It doesn't dissuade from your point at all, but as a geologist in the oil industry, it's rare to see a geologist in upper management.

(One big exception: Tony Hayward, who's was also one of the few energy-industry CEOs to have a STEM PhD. (CEO of BP during the Macando/Deepwater Horizon blowout.) Other exceptions are mostly very small, exploration-only companies.)

The truth is, though, that the oil industry hires very few geologists in proportion to the number of engineers. (This is true even if you disregard the entire "downstream" refining and marketing half and just stick to exploration and production.)

The most common job function for most oil and gas companies is building or maintaining physical infrastructure of some sort. (e.g. wells, production facilites, pipelines, refineries, etc) Therefore, oil companies hire mostly engineers, and most oil company CEOs are engineers. (Once again proving your point.)

Re: Why engineers make great CEOs

#56

"They’re detail-oriented, analytical and trained in systematic problem-solving. Engineers’ basic qualities make them good candidates for the top." There's a significant element missing in this line of thought and it involves emotions/people. By this reasoning, a robot might also make a damn good CEO.

I'd argue that being too detail-oriented may be a bad quality for the average CEO. The CEO's job is first and foremost to see the big picture, develop the grand vision and general roadmap and then hire the right people to delegate implementing the details to. There are people who can do both and those are the truly great CEOs. But unless your name is Jobs or Bezos, you probably shouldn't try to do it.

I was with you until the last sentence. Great CEOs may not be found on every street corner, but there are a lot more of them in the world than two.

Re: Why engineers make great CEOs

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an engineer with an MBA, I can tell you that an engineer breezes through the hard sciences part of management. It's all about modelling, and that's the core training of an engineer. The social sciences aspect of management is not so easy, but if there is underlying aptitude/informal training present, the jump from engineering to management is not that hard.

"...not that hard." For a business major to do the vice versa would be virtually impossible (programmer is possible, but not 'engineer' in the traditional sense).

I don't think so. Remember that if you are talking about someone with a good formal management degree, you may assume there is a solid mathematical foundation. You can't be good at university level math without good analytical reasoning. Going from good math reasoning to programming isn't any more foreign than what engineers do when learning the social aspects of management.

You don't see to many people doing that switch, but I'd attribute it to factors other than any kind of ability chasm. What we do isn't rocket science[1].

[1] Unless you are a Kerbal Space Program developer. Then it is rocket science. Of the fun kind.

Re: Why engineers make great CEOs

#58
post #55
post #36

I've found that many organizations tend to have a 'dominant function', and CEOs tend to come from that function. So if engineering calls the shots in your company, or is the main driver of success, the CEO tends to come from engineering. If the company is driven by sales, the CEO tends to come from sales. That's why you see so many oil company CEOs who are geologists or engineers, tech company CEOs who are developers…

It doesn't dissuade from your point at all, but as a geologist in the oil industry, it's rare to see a geologist in upper management. (One big exception: Tony Hayward, who's was also one of the few energy-industry CEOs to have a STEM PhD. (CEO of BP during the Macando/Deepwater Horizon blowout.) Other exceptions are mostly very small, exploration-only companies.) The truth is, though, that the oil industry hires very…

My sister's a petroleum geologist. She's said that there's a big supply/demand imbalance for geologists in the oil industry - universities will graduate only about 1/3 as many geologists as the industry needs over the next 10 years. Geology's one of the least popular of the STEM majors, and among geology college students, the oil & mining industries are often seen as "selling out to the man", since many geologists also tend to be environmentalists and the oil industry is...well, not.

She's perpetually overworked as well, which squares with a supply/demand imbalance. You'd think that this'd just lead to higher salaries - and by her accounts, her employer basically does throw money at her - but the fact that petroleum geologists are paid pretty well hasn't yet filtered down to university students choosing their majors.

Re: Why engineers make great CEOs

#59
post #10

"the life of an engineer, it seems, is not as rosy as originally anticipated". Ok this affects me at the moment. Why? Because I have two incompetent bosses. Basically I have junior / intermediate level programmers telling me what to do (and getting paid more than me for it). They took the promotion for the money. I do the "smart" work and make the technical decisions (when they make technical decisions they are often…

> I do the "smart" work and make the technical decisions (when they make technical decisions they are often poor choices, basically from lack of experience). I believe everyone thinks they're the only one smart, special snowflake.

My team leaders suggest options and they are usually either very poor design decisions (like I would have made in my first couple of years of coding). Or they just don't know.

Maybe I sound arrogant, but when you have to override 75% of their decisions for something better, then I think I am more experienced than them.

Then there was having to dig onto code written and commented by them.

   # open file 
   file.open(filename)
It honestly looked like one of the blog articles about how not to write comments.

Re: Why engineers make great CEOs

#60
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't dissuade from your point at all, but as a geologist in the oil industry, it's rare to see a geologist in upper management. (One big exception: Tony Hayward, who's was also one of the few energy-industry CEOs to have a STEM PhD. (CEO of BP during the Macando/Deepwater Horizon blowout.) Other exceptions are mostly very small, exploration-only companies.) The truth is, though, that the oil industry hires very…

My sister's a petroleum geologist. She's said that there's a big supply/demand imbalance for geologists in the oil industry - universities will graduate only about 1/3 as many geologists as the industry needs over the next 10 years. Geology's one of the least popular of the STEM majors, and among geology college students, the oil & mining industries are often seen as "selling out to the man", since many geologists al…

There certainly is a big supply/demand imbalance, but undergrad geology enrollments are actually way up. All geoscience departments I know have have dramatically increased in size in the past 10 years or so. (e.g. where I went to undergrad has gone from 5 geo majors to ~60, and I've seen the same at the two places I went to grad school)

A lot of it is that a geoscience job at an oil company requires an M.S. or a Ph.D., and geology degrees typically take longer than most other fields. There's a minimum of a 6-year lag between starting undergrad and being eligible for a job. Typically it's more like 7-8 years total for an M.S. and 8-12 years for a Ph.D.

Therefore, it's a long pipeline. I just started in industry, and when I switched to geology in undergrad (early 00's), oil companies were not hiring geologists and hadn't been for 15 years.

The stigma associated with going into the oil industry depends a lot on where you are geographically. If you go to an "oil patch" school, then it's the opposite effect. It is a factor, but I'd argue the field vs. desk job part has a larger influence.

Geologists tend to become geologists because they _really_ like the outdoors. With a few exceptions, as a petroleum geologist, you're behind a desk 100% of the time. Compare that to fields like environmental consulting or state government work where you can start right out of undergrad and are in the field a significant portion of the time. (Both of those pay less and tend to involve less actual geology, though.)

Finally, there's a risk/reward trade-off. Geologists tend to be among the first to go when layoffs start. We're concentrated in exploration and development (note: field development, not software), and exploration is viewed as an expense, not a profit center. Exploration budgets get slashed the second things look like they're going to take a downturn, and smaller companies lay off most of their exploration geologists whenever oil prices drop. Development is the second thing to cut back on after exploration. A lot of the folks that I got my M.S. with started jobs in '06 or '07 and were laid off in '08 or '09. They've all since found jobs again, but the cycle will repeat itself.

Post reply on HN