Elon Musk’s leadership style, marked by its aggressive focus on efficiency, accountability, and cost-cutting, continues to redefine not only the corporate world but now the US government under the Trump administration. His latest directive, requiring every federal employee to account for their workweek or risk termination, signals a major shift in how the federal workforce is managed. This bold move has reignited debates about productivity, government bureaucracy, and the role of private-sector efficiency in public administration.
Musk’s response to a resurfaced conversation with former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal—"Parag got nothing done. Parag was fired."—was a direct jab at the former executive’s approach to leadership and internal communication. Back in 2022, before Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, Agrawal had attempted to explain the challenges within the company, urging Musk to focus on making Twitter better rather than publicly questioning its future. Musk’s blunt response, “What did you get done this week?” has now become a benchmark question, not just for corporate employees but for the entire federal workforce under his jurisdiction.
This policy, in alignment with Trump’s broader agenda of reducing government size and expenditure, has already been put into action. Employees at key federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, received emails with the subject line, "What did you do last week?" Musk has made it clear that failure to respond will be taken as voluntary resignation, a drastic step that underscores his no-nonsense approach.
Musk’s announcement that "a large number of good responses have been received already" suggests that he is using this exercise not only to identify inefficiencies but also to recognize high performers within the government. He further stated that employees who provided compelling answers should be considered for promotions, making it clear that his strategy is not solely about cuts—it’s about reshaping the system to reward merit and eliminate redundancy.
Critics, however, argue that this policy is unrealistic and dangerously disruptive. Government jobs, unlike corporate roles, often involve long-term projects, regulatory processes, and crisis management that do not always yield immediate, tangible results. By demanding weekly reports of accomplishments, Musk may be undermining the very functions that keep government agencies running smoothly. Additionally, opponents believe this move fosters a culture of fear and instability, which could lead to mass resignations, low morale, and inefficiencies rather than improvements.
This situation also brings back memories of Musk’s dramatic restructuring of Twitter, now X. When he took over the social media platform, one of his first actions was the termination of Parag Agrawal, along with other top executives, including Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal and Policy Head Vijaya Gadde. Thousands of employees were laid off in the following months, and Musk introduced a strict work culture that prioritized rapid execution over traditional corporate processes. Agrawal and other executives later filed a lawsuit against Musk, claiming they were owed $128 million in severance pay and accusing him of firing them under false pretenses to avoid payments.
Beyond Musk’s leadership, this new development reflects the evolving political climate in the United States. Trump’s administration, having placed Musk in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has given him a free hand to impose sweeping changes aimed at reducing government spending. With a target of saving $2 trillion, DOGE has already begun implementing aggressive policies to cut federal programs and downsize the workforce. Trump’s endorsement of Musk’s approach suggests that this is just the beginning of a broader effort to streamline government operations through corporate-style efficiency measures.
As this policy unfolds, its consequences will likely be significant. While some applaud Musk’s approach for promoting accountability and removing inefficiencies, others warn that such drastic measures could weaken government institutions and undermine essential services. The coming weeks will reveal how federal employees respond to these demands and whether the administration will face legal or political pushback. Regardless of the outcome, Musk’s influence on governance is becoming increasingly evident, and his presence in Washington is reshaping not just Silicon Valley, but the very structure of the US government itself.
