8:11 pm - February 23, 2025
Inthe realm of leadership, few transitions have sparked as much interest and concern as Elon Musk’s shift from helming Twitter to influencing the US government. When Musk took over Twitter, now rebranded as X, his approach was marked by a stark ultimatum: employees were to commit to “exceptional performance” and a “hardcore” work ethic or leave. This same philosophy is now evident in his role as a top advisor to President Donald Trump, as federal employees received a memo mirroring the same tough choices, signaling a potential overhaul of governmental operations.
Musk’s tenure at Twitter was tumultuous, marked by sweeping layoffs and drastic cost-cutting measures. Within hours of assuming control, he wielded what appeared to be a “hacksaw” approach, cutting a significant portion of the workforce and later even asking some to return—a testament to the chaos ensued. The closure of data centers led to frequent platform glitches, and the dismantling of safety and content moderation teams resulted in a surge of toxic content, alienating users and advertisers alike. The financial repercussions were stark, with Twitter’s value plummeting by approximately 80%.
The replication of this strategy in the federal government has raised eyebrows, prompting concerns about the applicability of corporate tactics to governance. A memo sent to federal employees outlined a similar ultimatum, prompting worries about potential staff slashing and operational efficiency. The freeze on federal spending, akin to Musk’s early actions at Twitter, has drawn anxiety about the impact on public services and the nation’s functionality.
Experts and former employees warn against conflating business and governance. “Government is not business,” emphasizes William Klepper, a Columbia Business School professor, highlighting the differing goals and accountability structures. The government’s role is to serve its constituents, not merely maximize profits. Lara Cohen, a former Twitter executive,expresses fears about the repercussions of such an approach, noting the potential for irreparable harm.
Musk’s influence extends beyond operational changes; it’s deeply intertwined with politics. His support for Trump, including using X to sway public opinion, has catapulted him into a powerful role within the administration, complete with a White House office. This position not only enhances his political leverage but also potentially benefits his corporate empire, as his connection to Trump could open new avenues for his ventures.
The implications of Musk’s approach are profound. While his strategies may bolster his personal power and wealth, the risks to governmental efficacy and public trust are substantial. The nation watches as Musk’s playbook, successful in the corporate world, is applied to governance, wondering if the cost-cutting and efficiency-driven model will yield similar chaos as seen at Twitter. The balance between innovation and stability remains a critical concern, as the government navigates this uncharted territory under Musk’s influence.