Yes, in addition to firing various executives and engineers, he laid off about 50% of the company. So 75% of the remaining 50% will likely be leaving.
He started with about 7500 employees two weeks ago, and will have about 900-1000 left after this round of cuts.
Who needs people? Heāll just put the company on autopilot with the destination āsuccess.ā
I think opinions of him being a genius are overblown. But also, I think this is not all ineptness. Thereās some other game going on here. Maybe itās all for the kicks, or maybe thereās another goal. Iāve read suppositions about turning it into some kind of one-world financial system (I donāt begin to understand what that meant, so donāt @ me!).
But overall, thereās a kind of narcissistic, supremely sociopathic mind that, with no ability to believe one can ever be wrong, or do wrong, or lose, coupled with enough starter millions, can pull off all kinds of things and power. I donāt call it genius.
Weāve seen enough of it in our recent history. I find it a bit horrifying, to be honest.
I think he realizes itās all gone off the railsā¦
Musk is a genius. Someone who created and runs 2-3 (or is it 4?) successful companies is a genius. We donāt need to dispute that. That he isnāt all and everything doesnāt disqualify him.
This uproar against Musk reminds me of what John Adams said during French Revolution about violence lawlessness, etc. Something like no revolution comes without. Musk is an outlier. I plan to sit back and watch where it goes before judging. Making Twitter open source news org sounds good to me if doable.
Iāll just have to disagree that making money makes you a genius. Clever, sure. Itās not like he invents the things he sells. He had a ton of capital to start, which always makes it easier. By your estimation, billionaire = genius. Which a lot of people believe. I donāt. So I will continue to dispute it. 
Well now that the āmajor restructuringā is about done, I believe his plan is to turn Twitter over to someone else to run. So some normalcy might be in the cards eventually.
How quickly Twitter can be stabilized, let alone return to growth and profitability after being gutted of employees is another question though.
I guess it depends on what your definition of genius is. He had money to start and he made more money by picking a market and starting a company that had enough value to be bought out (Zip2)ā¦ thatās a pretty good accomplishment. The engineering behind Zip2 was good, but nothing special, which means he was definitely above average intelligence, but nothing to indicate āgeniusā status (at least in engineering terms).
He has however, started a number of challenging businesses that have had successā¦ which is really difficult. So he clearly has talent in identifying a market space, and attracting the right people to get that business going. That is definitely an outlier
However, I also think we romanticize successful people a bit too much. Luck has a lot to do with success (ie, being smart and hardworking are often necessary but not always sufficient conditions for massive success). Musk can have talent for starting up interesting and important engineering companies, and also be capricious, foolish, arrogant, and so onā¦ they arenāt mutually exclusive.
SpaceX towers in accomplishments over NASA, and all other manned space programs. Tesla still leads in EV sales, while other US car manufacturers struggle to match sales. At a minimum you have to admit heās intelligent.
Can Twitter operate with 1,000 employees.? Maybe. Will be fun to watch.
He reminds me of something a former boss told me.
What does it take to be a leader? The answer: followers.
Iām not saying he hasnāt done successful things, but Iāve never understood the way heās been lionized by some.
Did anyone say money is brain? Does anyone call Sam Walton genius? We donāt call Bezos genius. I havenāt heard Bill Gates called genius. We are not that stupid not to know the difference between money making and genius endeavor.
What Musk did is more than making m money. Take space travel. While Virgin Galatic and Bezoās just went up and came down with passengers, Muskās went and and stayed up there. Tesla is still way ahead of other EVās. Look at Starlink. Come to the rescue to Ukraine. These are all laudable accomplishments whether you call it genius or not. I donāt know Iād be the first to call it genius but I wouldnāt denounce someone calling it genius, either. Narrow definition, narrow mind.
Is Muskās acquisition of Twitter the worst acquisition in M&A history? B of A buying Countrywide in 2008 is the current leader, with B of A turning a $2.5 billion acquisition into a $40 billion loss. It looks like Musk is going to top it though.
You can be a āgeniusā and still be a terrible manager and a terrible human being.
When 75% of your employees choose to quit rather than work for you, and most of the remaining 25% have no choice due to visa restrictions, thatās a pretty good sign that youāre a terrible manager. Obviously Muskās other companies are successful (with significant government help in the case of Tesla) but itās pretty hard to argue that his leadership of Twitter has been anything but an embarrassing disaster so far.
Maybe āhardcoreā developers will start banging on Twitterās door for jobs and prove me wrong. But the folks that tend to be willing to do that expect significant stock options in a growing company with good morale and a strong leader they can trust, not a shrinking company with terrible morale and a mean-spirited, bullying, capricious leader.
Even if a Twitter recruiter reached out to me with an offer of 5M in options Iād decline just because I wouldnāt trust Musk not to weasel out of it somehow, like waiting until the day before vesting then firing me for being 5 minutes late badging into the office.
Speaking of Twitterā¦
Some of the tech companies donāt have strong leaders with good morale either. For example, Amazon was in that category for years, itās well known as a terrible place to work, for a while this stock went through the roof.
Netflix is another one
I was talking about startups where you expect to work long hours in exchange for an eventual payout of stock options. The options only pay off if leadership has a clear vision and morale is strong enough to minimize turnover while growing the company aggressively. Twitter right now has no clear vision, terrible morale, and the user and advertising base is shrinking - but Musk is demanding people work like itās a growing startupā¦ without even giving incentive stock options.
If youāre going to talk large public companies with poor morale, thatās a different calculation. Netflix and Amazon arenāt requiring 80 hour weeks, their leadership is reliable, and their CEOās arenāt insulting their own products and employees. They reportedly arenāt great places to work, but they look a darn sight better than Twitter under Musk.
You must not work for the same start up I did. Frankly, startups are even worse. I thought things have changed, but my daughter faced the same problem. Thank goodness, sheās finally with a leader she can trust.
Startups and small companies are all over the place in management practices.
What employers can get away with depends on the labor market for the type of employees at the time. Obviously, they can get away with more when the labor market is shrinking with layoffs, etc., but an employer that is an unpleasant place to work may find employees leaving when the labor market grows at a later time.
You reinforced my point. You left the bad startups with poor leadership, just like employees are leaving Twitter. Meanwhile your D found a good startup with a good leader so sheāll stay for a while.
Presumably you wouldnāt recommend friends to work at those bad startups, and the former Twitter employees arenāt going to recommend their friends/colleagues to work there either. With all this playing out publicly, people willing to work 80-hour weeks at a good startup are likely not going to give Twitter serious consideration.