Cutting the head off the snake - does simply forcing the head of an organization to resign resolve the issue?

2014-10-02T06:21:11-04:00

When problems occur in a large organization the VA now the Secret Service or even the NFL, does simply forcing the person at the top to resign really do anything other than give us immediate satisfaction? Those individuals are ultimately responsible for everything that goes on but is this too quick of a response?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2014 6:33 AM

2014-10-02T06:33:54-04:00

We had this exact discussion at work yesterday Sir. I think the only thing it does is make it look like they are trying to fix the problem. We all know, especially in the case of the VA there is more to the issue than the one person overall in charge! While that person is "in charge" they can not be everywhere at once. I was not surprised at all though when I saw the news yesterday.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2014 6:40 AM

2014-10-02T06:40:45-04:00

Firing the top person is more about PR than about solving a problem.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Oct 2 at 2014 6:58 AM

2014-10-02T06:58:27-04:00

It simply gives the perception that the problem(s) are being fixed. While most of us are smart enough to realize that the problems within the organizations you sited are systemic in nature and beyond the scope of any one individual to repair, the public wants to see 'immediate action' on an issue and the replacement of the top person (given that they are ultimately responsible for the organization) is generally the most 'visible' change that can be made quickly and has a tenancy to placate the masses. Politics as usual (without regard to party affiliation).

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Oct 2 at 2014 7:13 AM

2014-10-02T07:13:33-04:00

No. What it does allow for is the new person to come in and correct the mistakes of the old. If they are wise and they learn from their predecessor's mistakes, they will make the right changes. This doesn't always work though.

The current Pontiff is making a lot of changes and fixing the old way of looking the other way when a Priest was accused of molestation. Fortunately, he is cleaning house. I think that is a good example of a new guy coming in and not making the same mistakes as the old.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 2 at 2014 7:20 AM

2014-10-02T07:20:05-04:00

OK, just on the news, they highlighted the incident where that "society" couple crashed the President's function a few years ago as one of the key security breaches. The agent in charge when that incident happened is now the interim head of the secret service, replacing the woman who was overall in charge when that incident happened.

Is it me or does that make ANY sense????

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2014 1:51 PM

2014-10-02T13:51:02-04:00

On one hand I understand. The "buck" has to stop with someone. Obviously, removing the "head of the snake" is more a statement. Personnel see that person loose their job and the effects trickle down. Leadership is ultimately responsible for the actions within their respective organization. In the case of Government Agencies, most of the actions are "knee jerk" and often based on political jockeying.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2014 7:33 PM

2014-10-02T19:33:37-04:00

I don't think forcing the "top dog" to resign solves much of anything, MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca. It's symbolic. The higher leader (often the President) can say that new leadership will bring change, the press reports that things will change, and the public gets that warm, fuzzy feeling. But in reality, I submit, the real problems are likely at lower levels than the leader of the organization. You can't fire them all, so the top leader goes away and takes the blame.

Of course, it's standard in the military that the commander is responsible for everyone and everything that happens under him/her, so we're used to this thinking.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2014 9:32 PM

2014-10-02T21:32:09-04:00

Why not shuffle desks like a certain department did for the Benghazi failure?

So no it needs to change culture wise. Fire everyone who does not contribute and do this before there ever is an issue.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 11 at 2014 8:05 PM

2014-10-11T20:05:53-04:00

General Erik S. did what he always has done. He allowed himself to be the scapegoat to try and allow his Commander in Chief to save face. He was one of the strongest advocates for veterans to ever wear a uniform. His resignation was our loss. It has done absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2014 10:24 PM

2014-10-11T22:24:59-04:00

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca - I think the snake pit is full of vipers like in Indiana Jones! So they learn lessons and become more crafty and creative.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Oct 11 at 2014 10:35 PM

2014-10-11T22:35:33-04:00

That totally depends on the nature of the organization and the problem you are trying to solve. Rarely are governmental organizations run by one person. Governmental organizations are bureaucracies, and by nature, not dependent on a lone leader. Getting rid of the leader without cleaning house in the bureaucracy will change nothing.

Response by SSgt Tim Meuret made Oct 11 at 2014 10:52 PM

2014-10-11T22:52:47-04:00

Well let's see did it fix the VA? I think not.

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Oct 12 at 2014 1:09 AM

2014-10-12T01:09:35-04:00

I think that it has to do with shutting up the critics. Look at the Department of Veterans Affairs, nothing was going to get done until Gen. Shinseki stepped down. It allowed the problem to move forward, even though the “fix” was proposed and blocked by the Senate a few months earlier. In the end the problem is that these heads have become political appointments, they should be appointed, but from within that department to an extent. A lot of these people have no idea about the department they oversee, and while they may make the public excited at first they are not the best to run it, or even offer solutions for it. It is like putting a highly renowned chef in charge of an auto shop, because he has name recognition. All executive politician do this, and it sucks; even legislators do it with committee assignments (I mean Rep. Gohmert should be on the shut up and color committee only, but he is not)

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 1:39 AM

2014-10-12T01:39:11-04:00

Very rarely does it solve or fix the problem of the department in government at least. Case in point is the VA. But sometimes it is obvious the director must go like with the Secret Service.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 6:32 AM

2015-02-25T06:32:22-05:00

Not usually, but often the person at the top is responsible for the problems. Firing them may not solve all the problems, but you cannot possibly solve the problems while that person is still in charge.