The Tesla CEO is making headlines again with management practices that are, to say the least, unusual. Between marathon work weeks and calls for volunteer work from “brilliant people,” the billionaire is pushing the boundaries of professional norms.
Extraordinary Expectations for Teams
The Tesla boss continues to make headlines for his shocking statements and atypical work methods. His most recent media outbursts have surprised many observers in the automotive and technology worlds. Through a message posted on social network X, he clearly displayed his expectations: “DOGE works 120 hours per week,” he declared, comparing this workload to the “40 hours” that his opponents in the administration supposedly work.
To put things in context, DOGE represents the Department of Government Efficiency, a structure created with the aim of reducing public spending in the United States. During its first weeks of activity, this department distinguished itself through massive layoffs and by collecting private information concerning millions of citizens. (One cannot say that subtlety is the trademark of this new entity…)
The Quest for “Brains” Willing to Work for Free
But what really shocked labor law experts was the announcement made in November 2024. The executive launched a call for “brilliant individuals” who would be willing to work more than 80 hours per week without any compensation. This search targeted people with high IQs for “cost-cutting tasks with no particular appeal.”
Faced with questions raised by this announcement, the CEO specified that the work would be “monotonous, create enemies, and offer no financial compensation.” A proposal that raises numerous questions about respect for workers’ fundamental rights and which could, according to some experts, lead to legal proceedings.
A Wave of Resignations in Response
These controversial management methods have provoked a chain reaction within the teams concerned. No fewer than 21 federal employees assigned to DOGE recently submitted their resignations in protest. These professionals, mostly specialized in new technologies, expressed their categorical refusal to participate in actions they consider harmful.
In a letter addressed to management, they clearly explained their position: “We will not use our technological skills to compromise the government’s internal systems, endanger sensitive data, or dismantle essential public services.”
Email Layoffs That Spark Debate
The implemented firing practices have also sparked outrage. According to several testimonies, nearly a third of an agency’s workforce was dismissed via a simple anonymous email. The affected employees denounced these expeditious methods that “contradict the stated mission of modernizing technology and software to maximize efficiency.”
The affair gained media attention when the executive announced the sending of emails to employees of different organizations like NASA or the FBI. These messages, whose subject was simply “What did you do last week?”, apparently aimed to evaluate the usefulness of positions. The absence of a response was interpreted as a sign that the position was “not necessary.”
Faced with this unprecedented approach, several organizations reacted. NASA notably invited its 17,000 employees to “ignore” these messages until further notice, to avoid any disclosure of confidential information. The FBI and Pentagon adopted a similar position.
A Management Style That Divides
These events highlight a disruptive management style that shakes up the traditional codes of the professional world. While some see it as an attempt to modernize organizational structures, others point to the risks related to non-compliance with workers’ rights.
In the automotive universe, Tesla nevertheless remains a major player in electrification, with models that continue to attract with their range and performance. But could these management controversies ultimately affect the brand’s image among American consumers, who are increasingly sensitive to questions of corporate social responsibility? (The question deserves to be asked, as the electric vehicle market is in full transformation.)
And you, what do you think of these work methods? Would they be applicable in the American context? Feel free to share your opinion on this subject that is debated well beyond the automotive world.
