Elon Musk’s DOGE has sent emails to federal workers requesting a summary of their activities from the previous week, a decision that has sparked frustration among employees who fear job loss. A career coach noted that DOGE’s approach resembles “fear-based management.”
Musk, recognized for his unconventional leadership at Tesla, SpaceX, and X, is now applying similar strategies to federal operations, drawing mixed reactions from business leaders and government officials. “This method is not just ineffective; it’s harmful,” said George Carrillo, a former Oregon government executive, in an interview with Business Insider.
As the CEO of the Hispanic Construction Council and a former program executive at the Oregon Department of Human Services, Carrillo emphasized that overwhelming employees with unrealistic demands can destabilize teams and drive talented individuals away, jeopardizing the continuity and expertise necessary for government functioning. “I’ve witnessed how these actions can weaken team dynamics and erode public confidence,” he added.
A recent email sent to federal employees requested a five-bullet-point summary of their work over the last week, with a stipulation that failure to respond would be interpreted as a resignation. This directive was linked to a remark by President Donald Trump, who suggested on TruthSocial that Musk should adopt a “more aggressive” approach.
The email mirrored one Musk had issued upon his acquisition of Twitter (now X) in 2022, where he asked engineers to print their latest software code for review. Some business leaders defend DOGE’s approach, arguing it could produce tangible outcomes despite the backlash. Neal K. Shah, CEO of CareYaya Health Technologies, described it as a demonstration of “commitment to rapid organizational improvement,” highlighting its advantages over conventional downsizing.
Shah believes DOGE’s strategy “bypasses the typical bureaucratic delays” and enables employees to accurately document their contributions, while also providing leadership with immediate productivity insights, potentially leading to improved task documentation, efficiency, and public trust through demonstrable effectiveness.
Conversely, other management experts argue that the email reflects a lack of empathy, risking team morale and, consequently, overall efficiency. Federal employees reported feelings of frustration and apprehension regarding job security. One employee remarked that the approach felt like “harassment.”
Lisa Rigoli, a human resources strategist and leadership coach, criticized the email for lacking emotional intelligence and prioritizing “efficiency over human-centered leadership.” She stated, “This illustrates how leaders are increasingly disconnected from the emotional repercussions of their actions,” noting that while business schools prepare executives intellectually, few address the emotional demands of leadership.
Tamanna Ramesh, founder of Spark Careers, echoed these sentiments, asserting that such tactics could harm staff morale. “Mandating employees to justify their roles through weekly reports—under the threat of termination—represents fear-based management. It doesn’t promote innovation or efficiency; instead, it breeds resentment, disengagement, and quiet quitting,” she explained.
Ramesh acknowledged that performance tracking is standard practice, but emphasized that the “level of public scrutiny and punitive framing is unusual.” She stressed, “This approach neglects psychological safety, which is crucial for high-performing teams.”
Rigoli further noted that DOGE’s email is indicative of a troubling trend where leaders execute layoffs with cold efficiency rather than intentional leadership. “We demand loyalty, transparency, and commitment from employees, yet during organizational cuts, we often resort to impersonal mass communications,” she stated.
“Efficiency should not be about arbitrary cuts or applying pressure unnecessarily,” Carrillo remarked. “Successful organizations build trust, promote collaboration, and develop thoughtful strategies to achieve their goals while preserving staff morale.” He recommended conducting a comprehensive workforce analysis before considering any layoffs to identify priorities and address staffing needs effectively.
