How Elon Musk’s archaic management style puts profit before people

Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter has been bumpy, to say the least. Since acquiring the company on Oct. 28, Musk has made a number of changes to the platform, causing widespread chaos and turmoil at the company.

Within days of taking over Twitter operations musk fired top executives and half of the company’s 7,500 employees, ignored advice not to disproportionately fire employees who stand for diversity and inclusion, and likely violated labor laws and employee contracts.

Then, on November 16, Musk emailed the remaining workers with an ultimatum: Commit to being “extremely hardcore” or leave the company. The letter continued: “This means working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance constitutes a passing grade.” Some workers were reportedly asleep in their offices.

None of this is new to Musk. He had fired executives on a whim and carried out mass layoffs in the past Tesla.

Musk’s cold, impersonal approach to management and leadership contrasts with what we’ve learned about kinder, more humanistic approaches to work. Management approaches like Musk’s threaten current corporate governance practices that promote healthy, happy, and engaged workplaces.

Gears in a machine

Musk adheres to a mechanistic leadership style that treats employees like cogs in a machine rather than people. It’s a well-intentioned but naïve indulgence that sacrifices employee well-being for profit.

The idea that workers are 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 seminal text The Principles of Scientific Management in 1910. In it, Taylor wrote: “In the past, man was first. In the future, the system must come first… In our system, we do not demand the initiative of our men. We don’t want initiative. All we want from them is to obey the orders we give them, to do as we say, and to do it quickly.”

To Taylor’s credit, the practical application of mechanistic management led to significant increases in the productivity and economic efficiency of firms. However, the “humans are only machines” approach has a number of shortcomings.

The spread of mechanistic ideas led to employee exploitation, increased staff turnover, conflicts between management and workers and – in contrast to the supporters of the mechanistic approach – did not lead to the desired harmony and cooperation in companies.

This is mainly due to the fact that the human factor plays a subordinate role compared to machines and systems. This meant that the means of production were valued more highly than the emotional state of the employees. As it turns out, workers are indeed emotional, sentient beings with minds of their own. They’re better at their jobs when they’re treated that way.

However, this approach did not go unchallenged at the time. The rise of mechanistic management prompted a violent backlash from the widespread North American labor movement.

Human-centered work

The humanistic management approach emerged as a response to the pitfalls of mechanistic management. A humanistic approach prioritizes emotionally healthy workplaces, gender equity, respect, anti-harassment, employee engagement, the benefits of intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards (feeling good at work versus making lots of money), and conflict management.

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

The concept of a more humanistic workplace that is less linear, more organic and more evolving than a mechanistic one has grown exponentially since the pandemic began. Workplace dissatisfaction has led to employees demanding more people-centric workplaces and standing up for their rights in the workplace.

As business journalist Tom Gibby said in Forbes, “employees are clear about their needs and wants. If their current employer doesn’t meet those requirements, they find someone else who does.” Rewriting Labor Relationships It’s clear that Musk’s work culture is far from healthy. The Canadian government’s Health Human Resource Strategy defines a healthy work environment as follows: “A work environment that takes a strategic and comprehensive approach to providing the physical, cultural, psychological, and work conditions that maximize the health and well-being of providers will improve quality of care and optimizes organizational performance.” Musk is setting a dangerous precedent for other companies to follow. When his management approach proves successful Twitterthis could lead other business leaders to follow suit.

While it may be tempting to follow in Musk’s footsteps, such a decision would contradict years of workplace research showing the positive association between how employees feel at work, their emotional and physical well-being, and a company’s success.

Following in his muddy and unpredictable footsteps would also lead to a revival of archaic tenets of Taylorism that treat employees like inanimate objects. When this happens we will surely see an increase in worker-led organizing efforts. The latest forays into union organizing Amazon and Apple are proof that employees are willing to stand up for their rights when they are not valued.