Tech

Elon Musk’s classic management style prioritizes profits over people


At the very least, Elon Musk’s Twitter acquisition has been fraught with difficulties. Since taking over the company on October 28, Musk has made a number of changes to the platform, leading to widespread chaos and chaos within the company.

Within days of taking over Twitter operations, musk fired top executives and half of the company’s 7,500 employees, ignoring advice not to disproportionately fire employees who represent diversity and inclusion and are capable has violated the employment law and breached the employee contract.

Then, on November 16, Musk sent an email to the rest of the workers with an ultimatum: pledge to be “extremely hard” or leave the company. The letter continued: “This means long hours of intense work. Only a special achievement is enough to get a pass.” Some workers are said to have slept in their offices.

None of this is new to Musk. He has a history of firing executives on a whim and carrying out mass layoffs at Tesla.

Musk’s cold, dispassionate approach to leadership and management contrasts with what we’ve learned about a kinder, more human approach to work. Management methods like Musk’s threaten current business management practices that favor healthy, happy, and engaged workplaces.

gears in the machine

Musk adheres to a machine management style, treating employees like cogs in a machine, not people. It’s a well-intentioned, but naive indulgence that sacrifices employee happiness for profit.

The idea of ​​the worker as an inert, programmable tool of production has been around for at least a century. One of the earliest proponents of management theory was the American engineer Frederick Taylor, who published the landmark book Principles of Scientific Management in 1910. In it, Taylor writes: “In the process In the past, man was the first. In the future, the system should be a priority…In our plan, we don’t ask our people to take the initiative. We don’t want any initiative. All we want from them is to follow our orders, do what we say and do it quickly.”

To Taylor’s credit, the practical application of mechanical management has led to significant increases in the productivity and economic efficiency of businesses. However, the “man is just a machine” approach has some shortcomings.

The spread of machine ideas leads to employee exploitation, increases employee turnover, conflicts between management and workers, and — in contrast to proponents of the mechanistic approach — does not lead to harmony and cooperation as desired in the enterprise.

This is largely because the human element has been given a secondary role to machines and equipment. This means that the means of production are valued more highly than the emotional state of the employees. As it turns out, workers are actually sentient, emotional beings with minds of their own. They work better when they are treated that way.

However, this approach was not challenged at the time. The rise of machine management led to a backlash from the widespread consolidation movement in North America.

People-centered work

The humanistic approach to management arose in response to the pitfalls of machine management. The humanistic approach prioritizes emotionally healthy workplaces, gender equality, respect, anti-harassment, employee engagement, intrinsic benefits over extrinsic rewards (feeling good about one’s job) you versus making a lot of money) and conflict management.

Emotional intelligence, which includes concepts such as compassion, empathy, respect, and active listening, is also highly valued in people-centred workplaces. Extensive research on emotional intelligence, including my own, shows that it increases morale, productivity, and goal achievement.

The concept of a more humane, less linear, more organic and evolving workplace than a mechanical workplace, has grown exponentially since the pandemic began. Job dissatisfaction has led employees to demand more people-centred workplaces and protection of their rights in the workplace.

As business journalist Tom Gibby put it on Forbes, employees “are understanding their needs and wants. If their current employer doesn’t meet those needs, they’ll find a new company that does.” Rewriting Workplace Relationships It’s clear that Musk’s workplace culture isn’t healthy. The Government of Canada’s Health Human Resources Strategy defines a healthy work environment as follows: “A work environment that adopts a strategic and holistic approach to providing working conditions, culture, psychologically and physically to maximize the health and well-being of providers, improve quality of care, and optimize organizational performance.” Musk is setting a dangerous precedent for other businesses to follow. If his management method proves to be successful for Twitterit can lead to other business leaders following his example.

While it might be tempting to follow in Musk’s footsteps, such a decision would go back to years of workplace research that has shown a positive correlation between how employees feel at work and how they feel. , their mental and physical health with organizational success.

Following in his slick and erratic footsteps will also lead to reviving the ancient lessons of Taylorism that treat employees as inanimate objects. If this happens, we will certainly see an increase in employee-led organization efforts. The latest push for unionization in Amazon and Apple is evidence that employees are willing to defend their interests if they are not taken seriously.


Affiliate links can be automatically generated – see ours Moral standards for details.

news7f

News7F: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button