President Trump wants to run the US government more like a business. So one has to ask: Why in the world does he still employ Scott Pruitt?

Pruitt is the embattled head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and his tenure is turning into a daily reminder of Trump’s worst hiring instincts. Pruitt is on the hot seat for an ever-growing list of infractions and overindulgences at the EPA, which so far include:

• Exorbitant first-class travel at taxpayer expense, for “security” reasons

• Elaborate expenditures on a soundproof phone booth in his office and other weird perks no other Cabinet officials have

• A sweetheart deal to rent a Washington condo from an energy lobbyist who has business before the EPA

• Deals with cronies that look like classic back-room tit-for-tats

• And much, much more

Pruitt is a journalist’s dream, because every inquiry into past or present behavior seems to turn up some sort of self-dealing. There are fishy real-estate deals involving front companies when Pruitt was Oklahoma attorney general several years ago. A banker friend barred from the industry for life ended up on the EPA payroll. If a reporter tracked down Pruitt’s nanny or dog walker, they’d probably learn he paid them from some slush fund or demanded they work for free.

Pruitt is a goner. He seems to be the only one who doesn’t realize this. Trump is probably just dragging out his departure to create a little space between Pruitt and his last hiring flameout, Veterans Affairs Secretary nominee-withdrawer Ronny Jackson. But it’s too bad Trump isn’t really running the government like a CEO, because if he were, Pruitt – who’s been in the job since February 2017 – would have been gone long ago.

Corporate America isn’t exactly a bastion of propriety. The Harvey Weinstein and Steve Wynn scandals prove that powerful honchos can get away with abuses for years before getting caught. Some probably never get caught.

Assessing the damage

But there’s also a red line in business that even the CEO can’t cross: When CEO behavior damages a company’s brand, the boss has to go. There’s typically a period of hesitation in the aftermath of a scandal, as the board of directors weighs shareholder discomfort and tries to assess the damage. Is the controversy a mere blip? Or something likely to persist? Every scandal is different, and the board has to first determine where the red line is. But once they know that, there’s little choice but to act.

Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick had to go when it became apparent his brash management style was hurting the company. Richard Smith left Equifax after presiding over a giant hack of consumers’ financial data, which infuriated the public. Ford fired Mark Fields simply because he wasn’t transforming the company fast enough into something more futurey.