Elon Musk Defends Cutting 80 % Of X’s Employees

Since Elon Musk acquired Twitter, renamed X, the billionaire has made efficiency a mantra, even if it means disrupting traditional corporate structures. His recent revelation of having reduced the workforce by 80 % illustrates his atypical vision of management and leadership. Thus, while this decision shocks with its magnitude, it also opens the debate on the viability of such a model.

A drastic purge in the workforce of X

From his arrival at the head of Twitter, Elon Musk promised radical change. He confirmed on X (formerly Twitter) that he had laid off 80 % of the employees. This announcement was made in the context of a discussion where he responded to a humorous meme that mentioned a reduction of “90 % of the workforce.” Musk noted with irony: “It’s more like 80 %, but the end result is the same.” A statement that further illuminates the extent of the orchestrated transformations.

For Musk, this overhaul was necessary to make the company more agile and competitive. By streamlining human resources, he believes he has simplified the company’s structure to better respond to market needs. This choice, although extreme, fits into a strategy aimed at repositioning X as a platform resolutely focused on the future.

A libertarian model that goes beyond X

Beyond the walls of his company, Musk seems to apply his libertarian convictions on a larger scale. Recently named “advisor in governmental efficiency,” he aims to drastically reduce American public spending. With a targeted saving of $2 trillion, he notably plans to limit funds allocated to agencies he considers ineffective or too progressive.

This approach illustrates a radical vision of management, where the allocation of resources favors efficiency at the expense of traditional structures. For his critics, this approach could undermine institutions and jeopardize thousands of jobs. In contrast, his supporters see it as an opportunity to modernize systems often deemed obsolete and costly.

By challenging established models, Elon Musk continues to divide opinions. The decisions made at X and within his new governmental responsibilities could well redefine the standards of management and efficiency. However, they also raise the question of the limits that should not be crossed to preserve social and economic balance. As the results of these choices begin to be felt, the question remains: can this model, both audacious and controversial, thrive in the long term without compromising the very foundations on which the organizations it aims to transform rest?