Thanks, Mark....so plainly, to me anyway, this shows a very significant disconnect between the CiC and the middle managers with whom, ultimately, responsibility for rectifying this situation rested.
At one point in my career, I might have been 7 steps away from Sandy Weil at Citi, but I can guarantee you he had absolutely no idea who I was, and that was an organization of well over 100,000 people. If you think such a person can realistically be anything but a symbolic figurehead or scapegoat for the transgressions of someone as insignificant (looking top down) but yet powerful (looking bottom-up), you have a very distorted view of effective management heirarchies.
The Army did the right thing; the fired the person responsible for the lapse, and they did so quickly. His boss should probably go (or be severely tally-whacked) - especially if the fired subordinate was given "high marks" for his performance. And that should be where it ends.
Stop heaping every failure of the federal government onto the CiC. I don't want the CiC to have operational responsibility for every facet of the federal government. I want a system in place that identifies and promotes talented individuals, placing them into the positions where they ultimately can do the organization the most good based on their individual attributes and experiences. A good organization is better than a good figurehead...it survives and continues delivering excellence, no matter who is at the helm.
If a single important customer [veteran] had told Sandy Weil that your
servers were keeping him/her from doing business with Citi you can be sure that Weil would "trickle down" to your layer of responsibility faster than you could ping the offending server.
While the Army did the right thing by firing the person responsible, as you say, they DID NOT do it quickly. As with much in this Administration they knew four years ahead of time and did nothing until Senators started holding press conferences in front of the MOLD.
To call "a very significant disconnect" between a Lt. General and the CiC is to show a complete misunderstanding of the Military. That Three Star General reported straight to ComArmy which means that every report he made went straight to SecArmy and SecDef.
Knowing that the Army and Air Force do things very much alike on the bureaucratic level, ANY function that did not meet 95% on annual inspection would have been inspected each quarter until it came up to spec. And reports went straight up the chain for every "non-function". Since this problem is said to have existed from 2002-2007 that means it was on a minimum of 18 and maximum of 23 reports that went to SecDef. That is the man who is the voice of the CiC for ALL things Defense.