>Musk has extraordinary capability of extracting every bit of potential a person can deliver. Either you work crazy at your 200% or you are worthless and the company is not for you.
You are simply paraphrasing exploitation.
>but if you see most of his businesses, his expertise is dealing with governments, contracts and policies makers
Looks more like brute force and public shaming to me.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately while reading books about leadership
I don't know much about Musk or his companies, but I do know that a single person or a small team can often outperform hundreds of people at a big company. I wonder if he's tapped into that somehow in this case
If you're doing something you love with a great team that takes care of you, you can easily work 2x as hard for no extra money without being exploited or putting in more than 8-10 hours a day. People spend a lot of time chatting online on the toilet, aimlessly surfing the web, etc at work
I'll say that I haven't been impressed at all with Tesla, FWIW. Tons of small annoyances with their cars that you'd never get with a comparably priced luxury vehicle elsewhere.
He's tapped into leveraging his sycophants. IMO, that's not leadership, though it can work for awhile.
The problem with his method is there is no one to tell him no, and a leader should instead value critical feedback. I think we've been seeing the cracks at the edges of this lack of feedback for awhile. This deal being the largest one to date financially.
>>I do know that a single person or a small team can often outperform hundreds of people at a big company. I wonder if he's tapped into that somehow in this case
I think that is because he doesn't outsource management to other people, and just coast around on the ownership of stocks he already has.
To a large extent Steve Jobs was like that as well. May be Henry Ford too. They might not be great at making things themselves. But they are so deeply involved in managing that whole enterprise, they know very deeply how to control and make those processes more effective. While people like Steve Ballmer and Sundar Pichai are themselves great general managers of all time, they are what they are. They are career managers, not mission managers.
Intentions do make hell lot of difference in outcomes.
I could believe it. People on here and TeamBlind who work for him often love him and his style, even though you'd expect them to hate his guts for all the ridiculous BS he's constantly getting up to
"Let's see, what's on the docket this week.. crunch time again, the stock is way down in response to some snarky quip on Twitter, and he says if I take a few meetings from home tomorrow while watching my sick kid I'm 'pretending to work'. Great!"
Anyone capable of doing software engineering for TSLA isn’t being exploited. They can take home an upper class income working for their choice of the cream of the crop of tech companies. It’s like an outside observer complaining that MIT exploits students because it’s expensive and the students have to do hard work. Well, of course. That’s what you agree to when you go there.
You are simply paraphrasing exploitation.
>but if you see most of his businesses, his expertise is dealing with governments, contracts and policies makers
Looks more like brute force and public shaming to me.