Still, seems like it's his responsibility to explain that in the meeting. That message has infinitely more weight if he's the one saying it, otherwise you can just point to his absence and claim its only covering his add
> otherwise you can just point to his absence and claim its only covering his add
… or trying to arrange to save positions at the last minute.
I’ve seen the other side of this before.
If he’s a shit leader, he’s just hiding.
If he’s a good leader, then he is firing off e-mails and banging down doors explaining how letting go of this position or that position (or department or whatever) will create irreparable harm.
And with this administration, he probably has the added task of trying to figure out which aspects of irreparable harm the administration wants and which ones they don’t want — an extreme exercise in doublethink.
Once you’re dealing with government leaders at this level, I would default to a charitable view until proven otherwise. They aren’t perfect for sure, but they trend towards being pretty damn good at their jobs.
