Business and politics seldom (and probably shouldn’t) mix, which makes Elon Musk’s foray into the federal bureaucracy of particular interest. By all accounts, Mr. Musk is employing the same really bad management techniques in Washington as he applied at Twitter and his other businesses. Which, as you might suspect, doesn’t bode well for the running of the federal government.
Stories abound of Musk’s bad management style at his various companies. A November 14, 2022 story in the Los Angeles Times recounted numerous incidents from Musk’s current and former employees at Tesla, SpaceX, and other companies. I quote from the article:
If there’s such a thing as a warm and cuddly boss, Musk has long been the opposite to his employees, who now number more than 100,000. He burns through executives with the heat of a battery fire. He takes criticism personally, even when it’s a matter of worker or customer safety. He’s been known to fire people on a whim. Since buying Twitter, his public image is shifting fast, from self-described techno-king to unpredictable court jester and human tornado.
Musk has a legendary fiery temper, and he commonly directs his anger at his employees, often firing workers on the spot for no reason. If he feels someone or some company has crossed him, he gleefully seeks retribution. He has little regard for his workers’ safety or their work-life balance and has engaged in sexual relationships with his employees. Sexism and prejudice run rampant in his companies, encouraged by his own misogynist and racist behavior. He has so much on his plate that he is easily distracted from any one company’s day-to-day operations but then swoops in from out of nowhere to impose his often capricious will on actions already in progress. He combines absentee management with micromanagement in a toxic brew.
Then there’s the very public example of how he mismanaged Twitter after acquiring the company two years ago. Within a week of taking over Twitter, Musk began to fire or lay off approximately 80% of the company’s staff—close to 6,500 employees. He did this seemingly at random, with little to no regard to their position, seniority, or value. The 1,500 remaining employees had to scramble just to keep the platform up and running, often being forced to work well in excess of 40 hours a week. (Not coincidentally, Twitter—now renamed X—has lost close to 80% of its value since Musk took it over.)
All of which brings us to Musk’s attempt to manage the operations of the federal government as leader of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. In the month since the new administration took office, Musk and DOGE have:
- Initiated a federal hiring freeze across multiple agencies
- Sent his non-governmental employees (primarily young acolytes from his other companies) into numerous government agencies, where they demand access to confidential information, freeze all outgoing payments, hastily call after-hours meetings, and order current management to perform specific actions (including laying off staff)
- Sent a “buy out” offer to more than 2 million employees, encouraging them to resign now or be fired later (77,000 employees took the offer)
- Fired more than 200,000 federal workers currently on “probationary” status, without regard to what those workers were doing
- Ordered all federal employees to immediately return to in-office work, regardless of their work status or prior agreements
- Removed all mention of DEI from government agencies, cancelled all governmental DEI-related programs, and fired all employees involved with DEI, in direct opposition to years of DEI-forward policies
- Cancelled 1,100 federal contracts and grants
- Effectively shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAID)
- Tried to access private and confidential records in multiple federal agencies
- Required all federal employees to send him a list of their prior week’s accomplishments or lose their jobs (and this demand was sent not via official email, but rather via a post on his X social network)
Musk did all of this without personally evaluating a single department, program, or employee. He made these cuts seemingly at random, without regard to employee performance or how essential their work.
The dismissals were so random, rushed, and ill-conceived that termination letters often listed wrong positions and dates. Not surprisingly, many of these actions have resulted in lawsuits against the administration for violations of various employment laws.
The loss of so many essential employees is sure to impact a multitude of government operations. For example, thousands of IRS employees were let go in the middle of tax-filing season, which could affect both the processing of tax returns and the pursuit of tax fraud. The loss of more than a thousand employees of the National Park Service is already impacting the regular servicing of park facilities and servicing park guests. Dismissing more than 2,000 employees at the Department of Agriculture will seriously hamper the ability to deal with the burgeoning bird flu epidemic. And the list goes on.
Capriciously firing employees, often by email or tweet, is really bad management. Gutting operations with no regard to their value or how they impact customers (in this instance, taxpaying citizens) is really bad management. Sending in outside staff with little to no knowledge of how an organization operates to “revamp” that organization is really bad management. Issuing ultimatums to staff with the threat of dismissal is really bad management. There’s nothing good about any of this.
Musk is treating his interactions with the federal government much like a large company would treat a smaller one that was recently acquired. It is unfortunately common for the acquiring company to send in a team to tell the smaller company how they should be running their business—even if they were running things just fine, before. Acquiring companies often make sweeping job cuts without knowing who they’re firing or why. It’s common but also commonly fatal, which is why 70% to 90% of all acquisitions fail.
Elon Musk’s style of hubristic and arrogant management seldom generates positive results. There may be a short-term financial benefit to slashing programs and payrolls, but such cuts often hamper the ability of the organization to function effectively over the long term. Again, just look at Twitter/X under Musk vs. what it was before; Musk’s version of the company is a barely functioning shell of what the social network used to be.
There is little doubt that Elon Musk is a really, really bad manager. His slash and burn approach bodes ill for the federal government and the essential functions it provides to U.S. citizens. Musk may think he’s the smartest guy in the room (and he very well might be), but his business acumen is sorely lacking. He’s not a guy who inspires loyalty in his staff or who builds strong teams. He rules by dictate and those dictates are often random and irresponsible. His management style is contrary to all that is good management.
I think Minnesota Senator Tina Smith summed it up best when she said, “This is the ultimate dick boss move from Musk—except he isn’t even the boss, he’s just a dick.”
She went on to say, “I’m on the side of the workers, not the billionaire asshole bosses.”
I agree, as should everyone who strives to be a better manager.
