Chapter 1: The Dangers of Self-Serving Leadership

In recent weeks, the actions of Elon Musk have highlighted the troubling traits of corporate leadership, illustrating how one person's ego can devastate workforce morale. Musk's behavior exemplifies a brand of selfishness that many might find shocking, even in today's corporate landscape.

As a business consultant focused on enhancing leadership effectiveness, I am astounded by the arrogance displayed by Tesla's executives. Just days after announcing a significant layoff affecting 10% of its workforce, the Tesla Board sought shareholder approval for a staggering $56 billion in executive compensation for Musk. Yes, that is indeed a billion with a "b."

My disbelief grows as I ponder how the board would arrive at such an outrageous proposal. They aim to grant Musk stock options exceeding the combined total of the 200 highest-paid executives globally—individuals who already earn, on average, over 400 times more than their employees.

Does Musk merit such financial rewards?

If you were to ask him, the answer would undoubtedly be yes. However, for anyone with even a basic grasp of economics, the response is a resounding no.

While it's conceivable that Musk's performance warrants exceptional pay, one must consider that not long ago, his work ethic was so commendable that employees even launched a GoFundMe campaign to buy him a couch for his long nights at the office. Today, however, Tesla faces dwindling sales, a 37% drop in stock value, a troubled Cybertruck rollout, and Musk's divided focus on Twitter and SpaceX. Is he really deserving of such a financial windfall?

The Tesla board's request for such an exorbitant compensation package is unprecedented and reflects a troubling trend in corporate governance. It's akin to stacking a jury with individuals who clearly have conflicts of interest.

Interestingly, this isn't the first time Tesla has attempted to secure $56 billion for Musk. Previously, a Delaware judge deemed the compensation plan a violation of SEC regulations, which require that boards act in the best interest of the company. Who would have thought such rules existed?

Now, Tesla appears to be trying again, operating under the dubious principle of "Elon wants more money, and he doesn't like being told no." This proxy vote threatens to undermine the company's work culture.

The disconnect between executive pay and employee compensation has never been clearer. Employees are acutely aware of the disparity, yet they continue to fulfill their roles, even as corporate greed festers beneath the surface. However, following layoffs, resentment often surfaces, prompting employees to question management's priorities.

Tesla's recent actions starkly expose the gap between leadership decisions and employee welfare. Following layoffs, workers might wonder, "Why is the company prioritizing a $56 billion payday for Musk instead of fighting for our jobs?"

This situation inevitably affects the daily experiences of employees, who now have irrefutable proof that their interests are secondary to Musk's financial desires.

Moreover, many companies exacerbate the challenges of layoffs by expecting remaining staff to work harder and longer without additional support. A notorious example is the approach taken by Vishal Garg of Better.com, who, after firing 900 employees during a Zoom call, envisioned a "leaner, meaner, hungrier workforce." Unsurprisingly, this strategy was unsuccessful.