In late 2022 Elon Musk acquired Twitter and began to make deep and sweeping changes to his newly private company.
Musk’s approach to handling Twitter has been nothing if not controversial. Twitter has had a 50 per cent reduction in headcount. Entire teams have been dissolved and severance packages offered to anyone who doesn’t want to work under Elon’s vision. Meanwhile, Musk oversaw the departure of a number of executives senior executives.
From an end user perspective, Twitter has undergone major changes: Previously banned accounts have been reinstated; an abortive premium function was rolled out, scaled back and rolled out again; third party developers have had their access to Twitter’s API revoked, and; Twitter’s curation algorithms have been changed.
This blog doesn’t attempt to cast judgement on the validity of these changes. Other’s have done that enough elsewhere. Here we will look at them through a Change Management lens to answer the question, how does Elon Musk approach business change?
Continuous development versus revolutionary change
Musk promotes a radical, shock and awe style, approach to managing change in his businesses. In the years leading up to Musk’s takeover Twitter had changed gradually, when at all, with a highly risk averse approach to the roll out of new product features.
By contrast, Musk undertook a process of defrosting the business, making big, sudden changes, striking so quickly that internal opposition could be minimised.
Such revolutionary changes could easily be criticised as knee-jerk. Relying on top-down directives and a singular vision avoids governance structures and strategic oversight.
Changing based on the priorities of an ambitious and enthusiastic leader risks missing other opportunities in pursuit of an individual’s priorities. Whilst, focusing on the short term could mean the business swerves from one opportunity to the next in response to tactical issues.
Likewise, as we saw with the roll out, roll back and subsequent release of Twitter Blue, revolutionary change can result in abortive work as quality control is challenging. Projects must balance budget, time, and quality. In the case of revolutionary change, time is prioritised over quality.
Does slow and steady win the race?
Not always. Businesses which opt for a more controlled approach see change as a process of continuous renewal. Change is an evolutionary process. In such companies a dedicated team of change practitioners have oversight of all aspects of a businesses change portfolio.
A slow and steady approach is less risky. This is why it is preferred by large organisations, or those which are publicly accountable. Continuous improvement allows for change to become part of an organisation’s business as usual. Where change is always happening, sponsors and project managers can become skilled. Where change is well funded research and development opportunities can be worked through.
But, all organisations must be prepared for drastic change. As the coronavirus pandemic demonstrated, external factors can mean change is forced upon us. Organisations should build up continuous change capabilities. But, they should also keep one eye on existential threats which could require radical changes.
This blog was inspired by the work of Paul Roberts’ book Change and Project Management. I also rely on excellent reporting like this from The Verge.