Elon Musk has been widely feted as an exceptional leader in the field of technology and, with his companies Tesla and SpaceX, to pick just two examples, has achieved commercial outcomes that many competitors can only dream of.

At the same time, Musk’s recent foray into public sector efficiency, via his DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) initiative has been widely viewed as, at best, failing to deliver on its promises and, at worst, actively damaging the infrastructure of the United States and its soft power around the world.

It may be the case that much of DOGE’s activities were intended to support a narrative of Government waste and shrink the scope of the State, rather than deliver material efficiencies and savings.

However; a ruthless desire to reduce waste has always been a hallmark of Musk’s approach to technology, and it is interesting to look at why Musk’s usual way of doing things came particularly unstuck when applied to public services. There are also implications for those, such as the Reform party in the UK, who are seeking to adopt the same approach elsewhere.

We do not need to speculate too much as to how Musk goes about his business as this is well-documented. For instance, in his helpful biography, Walter Isaacson, describes how the entrepreneur has a key set of management principles which he calls “The Algorithm”. These are:

Question every requirement.

Delete any part or process you can.

Simplify and optimise.

Accelerate cycle time.

Automate.

DOGE: Deletion Of Government Efficiency

On the face of it, these principles should apply equally well to public services. Principle 1 is particularly important and fruitful in the public sector (although sometimes challenging to deliver in practice) as many bloated bureaucratic procedures have arisen due to its neglect.

However, Musk encountered a very specific problem when he tried to apply principle 2, the deletion of unnecessary activity, to his DOGE initiative.

In a manufacturing process, if deleted parts or processes turn out to be more important than first appeared, they can be subsequently reinstated and any damage done to performance is generally temporary.

This is something Musk has frequently done at both Tesla and SpaceX, saying that “if you don’t end up having to restore 10 percent of the parts you deleted, then you didn’t delete enough.”

However, in the case of public services, the deletion of a service can have profound and irreversible consequences. Some estimates suggest that the US Government has been struggling to reinstate more than 26,000 staff who should never have had their employment terminated in the first place. These include staff involved in poisoning prevention and nuclear weapons oversight, to give just two examples.

The mantras of Musk

As well as these five core principles, Isaacson also documents some of Musk’s favourite mantras. One of these was that “All technical managers must have hands-on experience.”

Here we see another difficulty for Musk (and potentially others) in adopting his approach to the public sector. In the realm of technology, he has sufficient general subject matter expertise to quickly evaluate the skills of others and appoint appropriate experts accordingly. But Musk had no subject matter expertise in public services, so it was impossible for him to ensure his teams had the right technical experience to carry out effective oversight in this area.

This directly contributed to Musk’s difficulties in applying principle 2 above and has also been a stumbling block for those seeking to emulate his methods. For example, Zia Yusuf, of Reform UK, recently alleged that an English local authority, Kent County Council, had spent “£87.5 million per year of taxpayer money” on “’advertising vacancies and ‘interviewing’ people.” It had, in fact, done nothing of the kind. What it had done was, via its fully owned commercial arm, create a national procurement framework in which any public sector organisation could purchase recruitment services – bringing a modest income to the council. The error was entirely the result of the lack of subject matter expertise (in this case procurement) that Musk holds so dear in his technical managers.

DOGE directives

A final aspect of Musk’s challenges relates to leadership style. Like some other famous tech leaders such as Steve Jobs, he takes a directive approach, in which he would personally articulate and enforce the approach he wanted taken to the work.

One issue with the directive leadership style is that it requires a clear and unified management hierarchy in order to be effective. At Tesla and Spacex, Musk had complete control over reporting arrangements. This was not the case at DOGE where the department had more of a matrix management role, with unit heads having their own direct responsibilities. This led to conflict, for example when Musk issued a memo ordering employees to account for the activities they had undertaken that week, and some managers countermanded that instruction.

This is likely to be the single biggest obstacle to the local government DOGE-style initiatives currently championed by the Reform UK. In UK councils, employees are directly accountable to the unelected officer leadership of the council. While, formally, their powers and responsibilities are entirely delegated from the elected councillors, on a day-to-day level their performance is managed by local civil servants. This can make it harder for a directive approach from politicians to achieve results, as there are effectively two related, but separate leadership structures in play.

Talk big, achieve little

The rhetoric from Reform has been uncompromising, and at times inflammatory, with Members of Parliament such as Lee Anderson referring on social media to “twitchy snouts at local authorities”. But years of austerity have meant that low hanging fruit in terms of frivolous funding is not easy to find. There is plenty of evidence that there remains a lot of room for improvement in local government. The UK Government’s own “State of Digital Government Review” recognised that central and local government both need to be far more effective about how they go about procurement, for instance, and the report describes more generally how technology can unlock savings.

However, progress in this area requires the scalpel of subject matter expertise rather than the chainsaw of enthusiasm. Reform has shown itself to be a capable crafter of narratives. But when annual budgets have to be set then reality will bite hard, and, as things stand, there are many reasons to think that Reform, like Musk, will find itself struggling.