Musk demonstrates how to destroy a workplace
ON NOV 16, in yet another perplexing move by Twitter’s new chief executive officer Elon Musk, surviving employees of the Big Tech giant’s earlier layoffs were given a stark choice: be part of a new “extremely hardcore” “Twitter 2.0”, or take three months’ severance pay and leave.
It remains difficult to tell what Musk’s game plan for Twitter is, with theories ranging from right-wing ambitions to mere incompetence. Some have speculated that the ultimatum aimed precisely to purge the company of workers who might dare to challenge their new leader. If, on the other hand, Musk had thought the challenge would tap some fount of Stakhanovite zeal or tech bro machismo, he was wrong. Employees were given till 5pm the next day to make their decision, but many wasted no time in voting with their feet, whether in internal channels or publicly on Twitter itself. By the time the deadline rolled around, hundreds had opted for the severance package, according to reports.
Devotees of Musk have said that the departure of less-than-dedicated employees is no loss. Yet, the refusal to accept absurd terms is a sign of rationality, not of indolence. Indeed, in Twitter’s European markets – where labour rights are rather more developed than in the United States, to put it lightly – many employees have reportedly ignored the ultimatum, as it lacks legal force.
Musk had said that Twitter’s new culture would mean “working long hours at high intensity”, adding: “Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade.” This was unreasonable by design and self-contradictory in defining better-than-expected performance as the base expectation. This approach might have a chance of working in start-up culture, with a core team driven by a fresh vision and holding literal high stakes in the form of equity.
But Twitter’s workforce today will not make the sort of outsize personal gains that ensue when a startup makes it big. They have little reason to work themselves to the bone just to enrich their boss. And as employees of an established company, they have basic expectations about working conditions, fair assessment, and other fundamental principles of HR. On a purely practical level, employees had little to gain by staying at a “hardcore” Twitter, unless they were on employment visas and needed the job to stay in the country.
Not only did the ultimatum fail to give employees a pragmatic reason to stay, it was psychologically off-putting.
The tech industry is no stranger to long hours or high intensity. But there is a huge difference between having to ramp up intensity to achieve a specific goal, and being told that such unhealthy work practices are the expected norm. It does not help, of course, that the demand was made by a new CEO with no existing goodwill; nor that it came after merciless layoffs; nor that Musk has failed to set out a coherent roadmap for Twitter, particularly after a farcical series of changes to the platform’s policies on verification and subscription.
While some performativity may be expected, it is striking how the public farewells of Twitter staff – on their own platform – are characterised by warmth, camaraderie, and gratitude for their years at the company.
By trying to create “Twitter 2.0”, mandating a do-or-die spirit in the service of a vision that is nebulous at best and toxic at worst, Musk may have instead destroyed a workplace culture that was doing just fine before his arrival.
