Elon Musk $41B offer for Twitter
Discussion
CraigyMc said:
off_again said:
Why does anyone ever trust anything that this man says?
If you've ever driven a tesla, or watched a pair of Falcon 9's landing, that's why.EddieSteadyGo said:
soupdragon1 said:
Not going to disagree with any of that. I don't agree with the underlying sentiment though. It shows a complete lack of leadership qualities.
It would all make logical sense if there 'was no other way'. Musk behavior/leadership is more in line with a 16th century King rather than being a modern day leader. It's actually possible to lead a team without being an asshole. You can be brutally hard while retaining standards, respect and values.
He's simply reconfirmed the view that you challenge him at your peril. That's not a healthy way to lead.
I agree it isn't a healthy way to lead. He could have taken more time to explain to Tinucci the seriousness of the current cash-burn situation. He knew she wasn't used to being one of his direct reports, and I'm sure her motivation was to protect 'her' team because of the value she knows it creates for Tesla. And I'm also sure given a little bit more time, Tinucci would have acquiesced, and a lot of additional, unnecessary disruption could have been avoided.It would all make logical sense if there 'was no other way'. Musk behavior/leadership is more in line with a 16th century King rather than being a modern day leader. It's actually possible to lead a team without being an asshole. You can be brutally hard while retaining standards, respect and values.
He's simply reconfirmed the view that you challenge him at your peril. That's not a healthy way to lead.
A company in which the employees have no avenue to challenge bad decisions for fear of being fired is a catastrophe. The only time that works is on telly, on The Apprentice.
When Ross Brawn took over the Ferrari F1 team in the 90s, that is exactly the culture he blamed for their lack of success. Everyone was terrified of speaking up and it meant they were implementing things that their knowledge and experience told them wouldn't work.
In a culture like that, stupid ideas work their way into production, and Musk clearly has a lot of stupid ideas.
EddieSteadyGo said:
There is a bit more context (which I posted on a different thread a couple of weeks ago, so all this all known information long before Reuters wrote their article).
Musk is putting in huge investment into solving FSD. But the current decline in EV sales, which is affecting many companies, could force Tesla to raise money going into next year if they don't make big cuts to their other areas of spend urgently.
Musk therefore decided he wanted to dramatically increase his number of direct reports in Tesla so he could get more visibility of what was happening. That is when Rebecca Tinucci, who was the head of the supercharging, became a direct report to Musk at that point.
He told Tinucci it was imperative she needed to make further big cuts to her team. Apparently it was 'known' the Supercharging team had the most excess capacity of any department in the company, and with declining sales, there was no need to accelerate as quickly with the build out of new chargers.
However, she pushed back, making all the obvious, logical arguments about the importance of their charging network to EV adoption rates etc etc. But Musk knows all of that - that's the reason they have the supercharging network in the first place.
I suspect she wasn't that used to 'managing upwards' and so didn't read the room. If Musk is telling you, there is a cash burn problem, and you must cut costs urgently, your next task is to start figuring out how to achieve that in the best possible way. You don't start 'pushing back' and resisting it. It's also suggested she threatened to hand in her resignation if Musk insisted on pushing through with his plans (talk about being delusional?). So, in a fit of pique, he sacked her. And said he was sacking the whole of her team, to make the point, on this issue, they don't have time for a debate, it just needs to get done.
I said at the time, I didn't think the whole of the charging team would actually end up being sacked. And that is also proving to be true. And whilst it created lurid headlines, and no doubt was not handled well, I suspect sacrificing Tinucci so brutally will have ensured that other senior managers don't procrastinate when it comes to saving money urgently.
Yeah, none of that context makes Musk look any better, quite the reverse actually. Someone whose response to being challenged is to not just fire the person who challenged them but to annihilate nearly all of their department too is not a good manager, I mean that's almost cartoonish mafia-style villainy . You're probably right in that it will encourage other senior managers to avoid ever pushing back or putting across any counterpoints but that's a rubbish way to run a business, not only does it ensure that any blatant missteps aren't picked up before they can do any damage it also wastes a large amount of cash paying senior management people only to use them as messengers. Musk is putting in huge investment into solving FSD. But the current decline in EV sales, which is affecting many companies, could force Tesla to raise money going into next year if they don't make big cuts to their other areas of spend urgently.
Musk therefore decided he wanted to dramatically increase his number of direct reports in Tesla so he could get more visibility of what was happening. That is when Rebecca Tinucci, who was the head of the supercharging, became a direct report to Musk at that point.
He told Tinucci it was imperative she needed to make further big cuts to her team. Apparently it was 'known' the Supercharging team had the most excess capacity of any department in the company, and with declining sales, there was no need to accelerate as quickly with the build out of new chargers.
However, she pushed back, making all the obvious, logical arguments about the importance of their charging network to EV adoption rates etc etc. But Musk knows all of that - that's the reason they have the supercharging network in the first place.
I suspect she wasn't that used to 'managing upwards' and so didn't read the room. If Musk is telling you, there is a cash burn problem, and you must cut costs urgently, your next task is to start figuring out how to achieve that in the best possible way. You don't start 'pushing back' and resisting it. It's also suggested she threatened to hand in her resignation if Musk insisted on pushing through with his plans (talk about being delusional?). So, in a fit of pique, he sacked her. And said he was sacking the whole of her team, to make the point, on this issue, they don't have time for a debate, it just needs to get done.
I said at the time, I didn't think the whole of the charging team would actually end up being sacked. And that is also proving to be true. And whilst it created lurid headlines, and no doubt was not handled well, I suspect sacrificing Tinucci so brutally will have ensured that other senior managers don't procrastinate when it comes to saving money urgently.
I've worked for companies where top-level management manged by fear in this way - it was always, without exception, a s
t show. Good people only stayed as long as it took to find something better and while they were there for the most part they just nodded and smiled and let idiocy have free reign.I've seen it reported (don't have a link to hand) that they've been re-hiring some of the fired supercharger team - which not only makes the whole thing look even more farcical but also means that there's a good chance only the lower-quality staff and the desperate will come back. Anyone with good prospects elsewhere in the job market will either tell them where to stick it (because of either self-respect, they've already got something else lined up, or because they have enough saved to keep the lights on for now and the termination gives them freedom to ignore any non-competes, or all of the above) or will come back to tide them over while they job search.
KaraK said:
Yeah, none of that context makes Musk look any better, quite the reverse actually. Someone whose response to being challenged is to not just fire the person who challenged them but to annihilate nearly all of their department too is not a good manager, I mean that's almost cartoonish mafia-style villainy . You're probably right in that it will encourage other senior managers to avoid ever pushing back or putting across any counterpoints but that's a rubbish way to run a business, not only does it ensure that any blatant missteps aren't picked up before they can do any damage it also wastes a large amount of cash paying senior management people only to use them as messengers.
I've worked for companies where top-level management manged by fear in this way - it was always, without exception, a st show. Good people only stayed as long as it took to find something better and while they were there for the most part they just nodded and smiled and let idiocy have free reign.
I've seen it reported (don't have a link to hand) that they've been re-hiring some of the fired supercharger team - which not only makes the whole thing look even more farcical but also means that there's a good chance only the lower-quality staff and the desperate will come back. Anyone with good prospects elsewhere in the job market will either tell them where to stick it (because of either self-respect, they've already got something else lined up, or because they have enough saved to keep the lights on for now and the termination gives them freedom to ignore any non-competes, or all of the above) or will come back to tide them over while they job search.
Yup. Is this the beginning of a downward spiral for Tesla? Its feeling like it. I've worked for companies where top-level management manged by fear in this way - it was always, without exception, a s
t show. Good people only stayed as long as it took to find something better and while they were there for the most part they just nodded and smiled and let idiocy have free reign.I've seen it reported (don't have a link to hand) that they've been re-hiring some of the fired supercharger team - which not only makes the whole thing look even more farcical but also means that there's a good chance only the lower-quality staff and the desperate will come back. Anyone with good prospects elsewhere in the job market will either tell them where to stick it (because of either self-respect, they've already got something else lined up, or because they have enough saved to keep the lights on for now and the termination gives them freedom to ignore any non-competes, or all of the above) or will come back to tide them over while they job search.
durbster said:
It is fascinating to watch you spin every event into a story where Musk is the only one who truly understands what's going on, and everyone else just can't see it
A company in which the employees have no avenue to challenge bad decisions for fear of being fired is a catastrophe. The only time that works is on telly, on The Apprentice.
When Ross Brawn took over the Ferrari F1 team in the 90s, that is exactly the culture he blamed for their lack of success. Everyone was terrified of speaking up and it meant they were implementing things that their knowledge and experience told them wouldn't work.
In a culture like that, stupid ideas work their way into production, and Musk clearly has a lot of stupid ideas.
Interesting you think what I've said is 'spin'. If you want a more emotive description of what's happening with Tesla's finances at the moment, watch the movie Margin Call, to get a better idea. There have entered a potentially very difficult financial situation.A company in which the employees have no avenue to challenge bad decisions for fear of being fired is a catastrophe. The only time that works is on telly, on The Apprentice.
When Ross Brawn took over the Ferrari F1 team in the 90s, that is exactly the culture he blamed for their lack of success. Everyone was terrified of speaking up and it meant they were implementing things that their knowledge and experience told them wouldn't work.
In a culture like that, stupid ideas work their way into production, and Musk clearly has a lot of stupid ideas.
Basically, they have been planning for something like 50% CAGR. That was the working assumption, and that expected trajectory was baked into all their investment plans, including for new factories, new models, new investment in manufacturing technology, new recruitment etc etc.
But, to use the analogy from the film I mentioned, Musk now thinks the music is about to stop. Whether that is for a few year, or longer, who knows, but he has access to the latest sales data, and will be getting information from the Chinese government too. So that's why he has pushed the panic button - he has stopping much of their capital investment including some of the expected new factories, and he decided to cut staff costs drastically. I think their Q2 figures could be horrible.
So I don't think a departmental manager in Tesla has the perspective to challenge that judgement.
Having said that, whilst I think Musk's judgement on the need to cut costs urgently is probably right, the way it has been handled has been bad.
Meanwhile, a bunch of Tesla owners pissed off that their self driving cars, don't actually self drive are going to court :
https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/tesla_selfd...
Specifically claims about self driving coming soon in 2016 & 2017. We'll probably be at the 10 year anniversary of Elnos first self-driving claims before Tesla have to pony-up.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/tesla_selfd...
Specifically claims about self driving coming soon in 2016 & 2017. We'll probably be at the 10 year anniversary of Elnos first self-driving claims before Tesla have to pony-up.
Al Gorithum said:
CraigyMc said:
If you've ever driven a tesla, or watched a pair of Falcon 9's landing, that's why.
Are you saying that Teslas are good? One of my companies does well out of making them much better. Just because other companies upgrade/sell additions doesn't make them bad. Aplina do it for BMW's, Litchfield for many sports cars, etc.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Interesting you think what I've said is 'spin'. If you want a more emotive description of what's happening with Tesla's finances at the moment, watch the movie Margin Call, to get a better idea. There have entered a potentially very difficult financial situation.
Basically, they have been planning for something like 50% CAGR. That was the working assumption, and that expected trajectory was baked into all their investment plans, including for new factories, new models, new investment in manufacturing technology, new recruitment etc etc.
But, to use the analogy from the film I mentioned, Musk now thinks the music is about to stop. Whether that is for a few year, or longer, who knows, but he has access to the latest sales data, and will be getting information from the Chinese government too. So that's why he has pushed the panic button - he has stopping much of their capital investment including some of the expected new factories, and he decided to cut staff costs drastically. I think their Q2 figures could be horrible.
So I don't think a departmental manager in Tesla has the perspective to challenge that judgement.
Having said that, whilst I think Musk's judgement on the need to cut costs urgently is probably right, the way it has been handled has been bad.
While I have to agree with you that Tesla is facing what is, for them at least, a more or less unprecedented kick in the financials - the sharp drop off in EV sales as a whole and the vastly increased competition in the market alone would be sufficient cause for concerning sales numbers before you even look at the complete absence of new products other than one that's proving troublesome at best and an outright disaster at worst.Basically, they have been planning for something like 50% CAGR. That was the working assumption, and that expected trajectory was baked into all their investment plans, including for new factories, new models, new investment in manufacturing technology, new recruitment etc etc.
But, to use the analogy from the film I mentioned, Musk now thinks the music is about to stop. Whether that is for a few year, or longer, who knows, but he has access to the latest sales data, and will be getting information from the Chinese government too. So that's why he has pushed the panic button - he has stopping much of their capital investment including some of the expected new factories, and he decided to cut staff costs drastically. I think their Q2 figures could be horrible.
So I don't think a departmental manager in Tesla has the perspective to challenge that judgement.
Having said that, whilst I think Musk's judgement on the need to cut costs urgently is probably right, the way it has been handled has been bad.
I'm less convinced by your implication that Musk is some lone person who knows what' really going on and is making the tough but right calls. If we look at his track record from when he took the flamethrower to the twitter workforce there was ample evidence that he didn't have a fecking clue what he was doing. He's also not exactly staying on-message with regards the "times are tough, we desperately need to save money" given his parallel push for a ~$50billion pay package for himself.
Nor do I think your characterisation of Rebecca Tinucci as a mere "departmental manager" lacking in perspective is fair - for a start she was at director level rather than "just" a manager so likely had access to substantial information regarding the business' position. She'd worked for the company for 6+ years and prior to that had been the co-founder of a company turning over $40 million a year. If anyone is going to be best placed to judge what staffing levels are needed for a given department to meet the goals the business has set them it is surely going to be the senior director for that department, no?
We don't know the exact amount of additional layoffs Musk wanted to make going into that meeting or whether it was reasonable or correct or whether Tinucci's position was correct (or even exactly what it was) - but responding to a disagreement with another director (even a subordinate one) by firing not only them but (essentially) their entire department of 400+ employees isn't good management no matter which way you cut it.
Ah that explains Musk ripping off a cyanide and happiness pic, changing it whilst removing the copyright in the process.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1790382311491445120
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1790382311491445120
KaraK said:
While I have to agree with you that Tesla is facing what is, for them at least, a more or less unprecedented kick in the financials - the sharp drop off in EV sales as a whole and the vastly increased competition in the market alone would be sufficient cause for concerning sales numbers before you even look at the complete absence of new products other than one that's proving troublesome at best and an outright disaster at worst.
I'm less convinced by your implication that Musk is some lone person who knows what' really going on and is making the tough but right calls. If we look at his track record from when he took the flamethrower to the twitter workforce there was ample evidence that he didn't have a fecking clue what he was doing. He's also not exactly staying on-message with regards the "times are tough, we desperately need to save money" given his parallel push for a ~$50billion pay package for himself.
Nor do I think your characterisation of Rebecca Tinucci as a mere "departmental manager" lacking in perspective is fair - for a start she was at director level rather than "just" a manager so likely had access to substantial information regarding the business' position. She'd worked for the company for 6+ years and prior to that had been the co-founder of a company turning over $40 million a year. If anyone is going to be best placed to judge what staffing levels are needed for a given department to meet the goals the business has set them it is surely going to be the senior director for that department, no?
We don't know the exact amount of additional layoffs Musk wanted to make going into that meeting or whether it was reasonable or correct or whether Tinucci's position was correct (or even exactly what it was) - but responding to a disagreement with another director (even a subordinate one) by firing not only them but (essentially) their entire department of 400+ employees isn't good management no matter which way you cut it.
I'm not sure we are overly disagreeing. Musk clearly doesn't care about the people he employs. He treats them as tools to solve problems, rather than as real people, with their own perspective, their own values, with families to support etc. Hence why he can discard them, without a second care, if he thinks they no longer have sufficient intrinsic value. That is not the way a well-rounded person thinks (or behaves).I'm less convinced by your implication that Musk is some lone person who knows what' really going on and is making the tough but right calls. If we look at his track record from when he took the flamethrower to the twitter workforce there was ample evidence that he didn't have a fecking clue what he was doing. He's also not exactly staying on-message with regards the "times are tough, we desperately need to save money" given his parallel push for a ~$50billion pay package for himself.
Nor do I think your characterisation of Rebecca Tinucci as a mere "departmental manager" lacking in perspective is fair - for a start she was at director level rather than "just" a manager so likely had access to substantial information regarding the business' position. She'd worked for the company for 6+ years and prior to that had been the co-founder of a company turning over $40 million a year. If anyone is going to be best placed to judge what staffing levels are needed for a given department to meet the goals the business has set them it is surely going to be the senior director for that department, no?
We don't know the exact amount of additional layoffs Musk wanted to make going into that meeting or whether it was reasonable or correct or whether Tinucci's position was correct (or even exactly what it was) - but responding to a disagreement with another director (even a subordinate one) by firing not only them but (essentially) their entire department of 400+ employees isn't good management no matter which way you cut it.
But going back to Tinucci, regardless of her grade, she was responsible for managing a department. By all accounts, she did it well. But she was clearly new to reporting directly to Musk. And it seems Musk explained the dire financial situation, and requested further cuts to her department, and she responded by threatening to resign if he insisted on those cuts. If true, that was a very poor tactic, as it suggests an over-inflated opinion of her own value to the company, and also a lack of concern about the current cash-burn rate. What she could have done is concentrate on defining and agreeing the new business goals with Musk, taking into account the new smaller size of her team.
Is there anyone that hasn't realised that X is the sandbox that Elon is allowed to play in yet?
The guy has companies that are doing human/machine interface requiring medical intervention and human trials, space exploration with clear goals, communications for civilian and military running nearly 6,000 global satellites, self driving cars and whatever other cooky st he's thinking up.
To be allowed to do most of the above he has to be deeply embedded within the US Govt, or he'd be seen as an existential security threat!
Therefore, whilst you all complain about him and pray for his failure, he has the strongest of backing and some of his ventures will not be allowed to fail.
If you think otherwise, then frankly, you're not really thinking.
The guy has companies that are doing human/machine interface requiring medical intervention and human trials, space exploration with clear goals, communications for civilian and military running nearly 6,000 global satellites, self driving cars and whatever other cooky s
t he's thinking up.To be allowed to do most of the above he has to be deeply embedded within the US Govt, or he'd be seen as an existential security threat!
Therefore, whilst you all complain about him and pray for his failure, he has the strongest of backing and some of his ventures will not be allowed to fail.
If you think otherwise, then frankly, you're not really thinking.
Al Gorithum said:
WestyCarl said:
As easy to live with transport yes they are good.
Just because other companies upgrade/sell additions doesn't make them bad. Aplina do it for BMW's, Litchfield for many sports cars, etc.
The build quality is poor, but fair enough if you're happy with that.Just because other companies upgrade/sell additions doesn't make them bad. Aplina do it for BMW's, Litchfield for many sports cars, etc.
So far nothing has fallen off, rattled, come loose or broken (which is better than my previous BMW 530e) and it's never visited a service center in 50k+ miles.
However the seats are not as comfy as German brands and annoyingly the velcro has worn off the bottom of the drivers floor mat meaning it flops around. So yes, that bit is p*** poor quality
EddieSteadyGo said:
I'm not sure we are overly disagreeing. Musk clearly doesn't care about the people he employs. He treats them as tools to solve problems, rather than as real people, with their own perspective, their own values, with families to support etc. Hence why he can discard them, without a second care, if he thinks they no longer have sufficient intrinsic value. That is not the way a well-rounded person thinks (or behaves).
But going back to Tinucci, regardless of her grade, she was responsible for managing a department. By all accounts, she did it well. But she was clearly new to reporting directly to Musk. And it seems Musk explained the dire financial situation, and requested further cuts to her department, and she responded by threatening to resign if he insisted on those cuts. If true, that was a very poor tactic, as it suggests an over-inflated opinion of her own value to the company, and also a lack of concern about the current cash-burn rate. What she could have done is concentrate on defining and agreeing the new business goals with Musk, taking into account the new smaller size of her team.
To a large extent we're both speculating since the meeting was apparently just the two of them we don't know how it played out, but I think where our opinions diverge is that you're adopting the view that Tinucci goofed by not acquiescing to Musk's demands for a second round of cuts to her team, whereas I'm leaning towards thinking that maybe Tinucci had good cause for taking a firmer stance, she was after all a long serving employee with a stellar reputation and I'd argue that she did the professional thing a director in her position should do when faced with carrying out a management decision that she fundamentally opposed - she offered to resign rather than do it. Musk responded by firing her and 400+ people. Like I say we'll probably never know the real events of that meeting so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about who we give the benefit of the doubt to here.But going back to Tinucci, regardless of her grade, she was responsible for managing a department. By all accounts, she did it well. But she was clearly new to reporting directly to Musk. And it seems Musk explained the dire financial situation, and requested further cuts to her department, and she responded by threatening to resign if he insisted on those cuts. If true, that was a very poor tactic, as it suggests an over-inflated opinion of her own value to the company, and also a lack of concern about the current cash-burn rate. What she could have done is concentrate on defining and agreeing the new business goals with Musk, taking into account the new smaller size of her team.
One possible scenario that I hadn't previously considered - what if the hundreds of sackings in the supercharger department weren't a toys-out-the-pram moment but the actual layoffs that Musk asked for in the first place?
In case anyone missed this, layoffs still continuing:
Apart from the 164 jobs lost at the Fremont factory, the rest are all engineering. This is on top of the hundreds he's already laid off from key locations in California such as Page Mill Road, Hanover Street and Deer Creek Road. How many more will get laid off I wonder?
Apart from the 164 jobs lost at the Fremont factory, the rest are all engineering. This is on top of the hundreds he's already laid off from key locations in California such as Page Mill Road, Hanover Street and Deer Creek Road. How many more will get laid off I wonder?
WestyCarl said:
I guess it depends how you you define quality.
So far nothing has fallen off, rattled, come loose or broken (which is better than my previous BMW 530e) and it's never visited a service center in 50k+ miles.
However the seats are not as comfy as German brands and annoyingly the velcro has worn off the bottom of the drivers floor mat meaning it flops around. So yes, that bit is p*** poor quality
same, mines coming up for 5 and the only thing I had under warranty was a replacement rear spoiler that had de-lacquered, which they changed on my driveSo far nothing has fallen off, rattled, come loose or broken (which is better than my previous BMW 530e) and it's never visited a service center in 50k+ miles.
However the seats are not as comfy as German brands and annoyingly the velcro has worn off the bottom of the drivers floor mat meaning it flops around. So yes, that bit is p*** poor quality
every new AMG, RS and M car I have owned had a raft of problems including lunching an engine at 4k miles, coil packs failing and blowing the ecu at 90mph, 2 failed Mechatronic units and a lunched gearbox at 10k miles
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff