GSA Management — Where’s Obstruction in the Discussion? — MIA
And yet this is what happens repeatedly — consider this scenario and the latest example:So, you’re the new CEO*. You have a department*, which handles building leases/maintenance etc. where morale is low due to prior leadership*. You recommend a new chief* of the department to your “Board”*. The person is qualified, but it takes NINE months to get her approved and in place. The CEO has to deal with these types of delays over and over again. The department is then accused of, shall we say, overzealous team-building which is nothing short of dumb in the context of the company’s deficit and overcommitments in ill-advised foreign ventures and other questionable actions from a previous CEO*. One faction of the “Board” then turns around and says how this is an example of how, you, the present CEO can’t lead and how your whole approach is flawed. Further, Communications* makes no mention of the previous administration’s history, the delaying tactics of the Board, and focuses exclusively on the credibility of the current CEO.
The “real” story:
“On April 3, 2009, President Obama announced his intention to nominate Martha Johnson to be the next Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA). Johnson was finally confirmed 9 months later after a lengthy Senate hold-up. She resigned on April 2, 2012, after an inspector general’s report found “excessive expenditures and employee misconduct” relating to a conference in Nevada.