That is not really related to my point unless you want to say that engineer CEOs are intrinsically better/not susceptible to bad culture etc.
I have worked with great, bad, and middling CEOs and I would not say that it comes down to their degree background where they place in the spectrum of quality. Not having experience in managing other people but only some sort of trench experience will likely fail at a place of the size and complexity.
A lot what you describe is more like poor management.
And, yes, there is a big role for the board to play.
How many have law degrees? The majority of CEOs in the top 100 were not engineers it seems.
And performance is stock performance/TSR, if I understand correctly.
Edit: How is it sea lioning if your link is not establishing what you claim? An intrinsic link between being an engineer and being a high performance CEO would, for example, be that proportionate more engineers than MBAs, etc. are good CEOs.
That just compares MBAs and engineers (not sure what happens if someone has both), not the many other non-engineer educations CEOs can have (law, mathematics, physics, ...). MBA is quite US centric.
I have worked with great, bad, and middling CEOs and I would not say that it comes down to their degree background where they place in the spectrum of quality. Not having experience in managing other people but only some sort of trench experience will likely fail at a place of the size and complexity.
A lot what you describe is more like poor management.
And, yes, there is a big role for the board to play.