According to Musk’s own words, he wants people who are driven. These people must be self-motivated and must work in innovative ways. This kind of energy transference between the management, leader and the employees can only happen in a more closed and less hierarchical structuring. Therefore, communication between employees and management is more open. The vision of the founder is translated and used to transform working within the company. The power of having a good vision and a clear strategy would mean Tesla’s self-driving technologies are often top of their game. There are to be no missteps, and the technology itself is built very competitively. The company took calculated risks and kept its margins razor thin at times.
While the transformation leadership of the company and the management style has much positive things (Blazek, 2016), there are some negative elements. For instance, there are accusations that micromanagement happens in Tesla Motors. Musk calls himself a nano manager (Alspach, 2016). Micromanagement is necessarily a negative connotation. It means that the manager would closely control the work of their subordinates. This would mean that the level of autonomy in working would be reduced, and to a certain extent, this even destroys a democratic setup of management. The second issue is how there is constant pressure on employees to outperform themselves (Monarch, 2016). This constant pressure does indeed reap results but as a management and motivational strategy, it could lead to much pressure for the employees.