This question is regarding a manager who has been "fired" by their team. They note that they cannot seem to turn to anyone else, because their supervisor and the succeeding supervisor are both away for months, and neither of them has a replacement.
The next person in the chain of command appears to be the CIO, who they don't want to bother.
I don't understand how this is possibly a real situation - assuming an average of 5 direct reports per manager, then
- CIO manages:
- Succeeding Supervisors - 5 at this level, managing:
- Supervisors - 5*5 at this level, managing:
- OP - 5*5*5 at this level, managing:
- OP's Reports - 5*5*5*5 at this level, firing their managers???
This implies a company with 5^4 + 5^3 + 5^2 + 5 + 1 technical staff, for a total of ~ 750ish.
Implying a company with at least 1000 staff (HR, Finance, marketing, sales etc), and possibly much, much more, depending on their industry (eg mining vs IT consulting).
It doesn't make sense that a manager of 125 people would just up and leave for months without a replacement, or that a manger of 25 people would be allowed to leave for months when their supervisor was also leaving.
It's not like the CIO won't be aware of this - this is a direct report just leaving for months.
Factor in the absurdity of the question - that the OP "has been fired" - and it's a situation at peak nonsense.
I'm not asking to close this question - I have no idea on the value of "fake" questions on this site, but I am curious as to other opinions as to how this could be a plausible scenario.