[RandomLensman]

You are wrong. A plurality is, but not majority (https://hbr.org/2018/11/the-best-performing-ceos-in-the-worl...).

If you want to claim an intrinsic link between being an engineer and being a top performing CEO, you need to show something different anyway. For example, that the proportion of engineers that are great CEOs is higher than the proportion of MBAs or lawyers or chemist or ... that are great CEOs. Maybe that is true, but I haven't seen it. Edit: we could also look at a narrower problem, for example: is the performance of engineer CEOs in "engineering companies" better on average than that of non-engineer CEOs in that sector?

I am not saying engineers cannot be good CEOs, just that the link between being an engineer and a good CEO is (probably) not intrinsic.

[happytiger]

I never claimed an intrinsic link.

I’ve already established higher performance in the many replies I have given to your many comments.

Have a great day!

[RandomLensman]

You earlier claimed there is an intrinsic link:

"If you have a great executive ticking all the boxes - splendid. But there is no intrinsic link between being an engineer and being a good CEO (same holds for other disciplines, btw.). You could have engineers that qualify, lawyers, MBAs, mathematicians, physicists, ...

reply

happytiger 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]

There is. You’re flat out incorrect."

You never established higher performance.

Have a great day