What is Elon Musks temperament?

[MoonFlier]

On April 10 ... a court filing was made on Tues., April 4 which reads, "Twitter Inc. has been merged into X Corp. and no longer exists. X Corp. is a privately held corporation, incorporated in Nevada, and with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California"

I'm not sure which is more entertaining, watching Musk screw with the Twitter company or DeSantis facing off against Disney.
They're both messed up.

 

[MoonFlier]

is it true that Must assigned his dog the roll of Twitter CEO as he stepped down?
I'm not familiar with corporate law, but I thought that was a position appointed by a board... perhaps the board consisted of Elon and only Elon.

If true, what was Fido paid, and did he have to show up at the office every day as the twitter employees were made to do?

Whatever the case, this is all a moot point as Elon is once again in charge since Twitter is just a product name within the X Corp. (owned by X Holdings Corp, owned by Elon.)

 

[dragulagu]

No, he just went memeing with his little shib.
But he's starting to troll himself now. Ironically.

 

[aeon]

 

[aeon]

 

[Darkly Detached]

We need to add ASSHOLE to MBTI so we can type people like him.

 

[Fluffyhamster]

ENFJ. I think he is good at Fe because liberals hate him.

 

[TomasM]

Most CEO's of large organizations agree with him on this. The reason he is called out for his views is because he says what he thinks [and believes] to be true, while a large number of people (including CEO's of other big companies) listen. There's a reason they listen.

The reasoning is simple, most people can't stay engaged within the distractions of the home life. Productivity decreases significantly when people work from. Creativity is constrained because people aren't constantly interacting with one another like they do when engaging in a physical workspace.

There are some good reasons for allowing people to work from home but it is generally a small exception. If a person demonstrates the need and offers a larger value to the organization [than they are paid] then it is likely to be granted. If it doesn't meet those criteria then, "lala land," will soon ring in their ears.

I worked from home for a few years and know others that met the criteria and personally, I would much rather work in an office. Long stints of working from home can become hard on a person for a variety of reasons - even high level introverts like myself. I actually quit a high paying job where I was working at home because it was less fulfilling and hard on my mental state. If I had a choice, it would probably be some kind of a hybrid solution where I spent 3 days in the office and 2 days at home working. Granted, it was not uncommon for me to work very long hours and be engaged during non work hours in the middle of the night during my at home job.

I would rather work in the office doing things that were creative and involved a broad spectrum of constant new challenges, than working from home doing anything that approaches repetition.

Saying that a request to work from home is "morally wrong," is a stretch, but I suppose that depends on who is making the request and how it is being made.

I can see why people get upset by his statements, but I believe he says some things just so the conversation will end and his position will be clear. If he doesn't say it then the management of the entire organization will be constantly hit with requests that don't meet the criteria for organizational success. If he says it once then the productivity of management and their groups goes up significantly.

I think he's an INTJ for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. Lot's of good analysis done by many people.

 

[Wyote]

Data shows that productivity goes up when people are working from home, but nevermind that

 

[TomasM]

Data shows that productivity goes up when people are working from home, but nevermind that

I base what I'm saying about a reduction in productivity on my MBA and business analytics studies. I can also reference working with CEO's and HR departments.

I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule and there are a variety of studies that can be cited but as a whole, productivity goes down.

If productivity was higher and there was an increased value to the organization then CEO's would be on the bandwagon and everyone would be working from home. Reduced productivity is the leading reason for CEO's not allowing most people to work from home.

 

[aeon]

Data shows that productivity goes up when people are working from home, but nevermind that

I’m glad you said it so I didn’t have to.

All the data from business studies (biased?) was blown out of the water by the biggest dataset in history—COVID-19 WFH cohorts.

That data showed exactly that WFH results in greater productivity, longer employee retention, greater employee satisfaction, increased employee health, a reduction of maladaptive behaviors in regards to ethanol, better work-life balance, and increased company profitability.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[TomasM]

I’m glad you said it so I didn’t have to.

All the data from business studies (biased?) was blown out of the water by the biggest dataset in history—COVID-19 WFH cohorts.

That data showed exactly that WFH results in greater productivity, longer employee retention, greater employee satisfaction, increased employee health, a reduction of maladaptive behaviors in regards to ethanol, better work-life balance, and increased company profitability.

Cheers,
Ian

I believe that Covid created a large number of company closures, more mental health problems and an increase in substance abuse, suicide rates, and death across the board. This has to be considered when looking at the dataset you suggest.

The productivity and increased profits were seen by a small number of very large organizations that benefited from the problems caused by Covid because they were able to consolidate a tremendous amount of market share. A very large number of businesses had to close their doors due to the problems caused by Covid. These large companies also saw reduced costs with respect to labor due to inflation. Yes, wages have increased but prices have outpaced the increases in wages. There is a lag with respect to pricing (including wages) when it comes to inflation and we still haven't fully caught up to the impact caused by Covid.

So, believe the Covid WFH study if you like, but that simply means you're buying into consolidated larger businesses and the eradication of the small and medium sized businesses. One of the biggest issues in the past election was the economy and wages for the working class was a big reason for the shift in leadership - this is not a coincidence.

Just because the dataset is large doesn't make it accurate with respect to cause and effect. There's lies, big lies, and then there's statistics.

I could go into more of the reasons why CEO's don't like WFH but again, I stand by productivity as being the largest reason for their choices. There are also other costs associated with WFH that are a big factor but the costs are generally related to the specific industry.

If you are in an area that has greatly benefited from Covid then you are in the minority.

 

[Wyote]

I mean, you can argue your case all you want
I have access to large amounts of physical data saying you're wrong though. Not just the one off WFH covid study.
I have the best data. It's really big. Yuge.

 

[TomasM]

I mean, you can argue your case all you want
I have access to large amounts of physical data saying you're wrong though. Not just the one off WFH covid study.
I have the best data. It's really big. Yuge.

It’s not my case, it’s a fact.

CEO’s are not going to change on this in the long-run. They will only change in the short-run when business adaptability is required. Covid required adaptability.

 

[Wyote]

Kind of a weird flex to blindly trust tech bros while having so much distrust for politico bros but ok

 

[aeon]

I believe that Covid created a large number of company closures, more mental health problems and an increase in substance abuse, suicide rates, and death across the board. This has to be considered when looking at the dataset you suggest.

The productivity and increased profits were seen by a small number of very large organizations that benefited from the problems caused by Covid because they were able to consolidate a tremendous amount of market share. A very large number of businesses had to close their doors due to the problems caused by Covid. These large companies also saw reduced costs with respect to labor due to inflation. Yes, wages have increased but prices have outpaced the increases in wages. There is a lag with respect to pricing (including wages) when it comes to inflation and we still haven't fully caught up to the impact caused by Covid.

So, believe the Covid WFH study if you like, but that simply means you're buying into consolidated larger businesses and the eradication of the small and medium sized businesses. One of the biggest issues in the past election was the economy and wages for the working class was a big reason for the shift in leadership - this is not a coincidence.

Just because the dataset is large doesn't make it accurate with respect to cause and effect. There's lies, big lies, and then there's statistics.

I could go into more of the reasons why CEO's don't like WFH but again, I stand by productivity as being the largest reason for their choices. There are also other costs associated with WFH that are a big factor but the costs are generally related to the specific industry.

If you are in an area that has greatly benefited from Covid then you are in the minority.

Your arrogance and unvarnished condescension is duly noted.

And no, I’m not saying that because you disagreed with my point, even if your offered argument was well outside of the stated context.

Bye,
Ian

 

[TomasM]

Kind of a weird flex to blindly trust tech bros while having so much distrust for politico bros but ok

I don't trust greedy people and those that reach for power.

I do trust most tech guys but that doesn't mean that I trust tech CEO's.

Politics has set the tone for outsourcing on a global scale. They've also favored deregulation of the the financial sector. Both of those things have really harmed our country.

Business has to adapt to the things that politics institutes. So when CEO's globalize labor they are doing it because politics changed the rules and they will go out of business if they don't.

Politics and judicial sets the rules of the game and then businesses play by those rules for the interest of stockholders.

I've worked in tech for a long time and have heavily leveraged Microsoft products along with many other technologies. That does not mean I like Bill Gates - I don't because he's unethical.

When it comes to Elon, I'm still on the fence. He's doing things that haven't been done and I love his ambition with respect to science and engineering. Normally I wouldn't trust a CEO that aligns with politics and government but Elon is in a grey area. SpaceX and Tesla require coordination with the government because these businesses require big governmental contracts and subsidies. He has always said that he doesn't favor party lines but when Biden took office, he excluded Elon in a way that could potentially harm his businesses. This created distrust and Elon's logical brain told him to change immediately or his business and stockholders would be dramatically harmed. Now that he has aligned more with Trump, I think he feels a little safer but I don't believe he truly trusts Trump. I think he will cooperate with the Trump administration as long as it benefits his business interests but only to the limit it allows him to get what his companies require. I will continue to watch closely because he's right on the edge of overstepping my greed and power rules of distrust.

In general, I don't trust Big Data when it involves personal data. They've proven they can't be trusted.

When it comes to WFH, I'm not so much supporting Elon as I am just stating the reality of what I've learned and seen in practice.

 

[Wyote]

Yeah I get all that.
I'm just stating the actual reality based on very real global data I've worked with directly hands on rofl.
I'm just some stupid low life moron though, don't mind me.

 

[TomasM]

Your arrogance and unvarnished condescension is duly noted.

Neither was intended. It was only a discussion about a topic to me. Apologies if it came across as either.

I honestly, would love to hear more of the facts if it disproved what I believed was accurate. If you see something that demonstrates a change in what is happening then I would really like to know how that would happen. The world is changing dramatically these days, so i could be completely wrong, but that would also mean that what I've been learning recently in my MBA / analytics program (one class left) is a complete fallacy.

If you made a good case that is counter to what I'm saying then I would go back to my professors (Ph.D.'s in their respective fields) and have a real conversation.

Discourse is welcomed and I don't discriminate against good information.

Perhaps my initial response to what was said about your post came across as aggressive. Sometimes when I see things I comment about the content, but not against the person. I do sometimes come across as overly direct when it comes to things related to my interest. Again, I apologize if it felt overly directed or even pointed - not the intent.

 

[TomasM]

I'm just stating the actual reality based on very real global data I've worked with directly hands on rofl.

I would love to hear about it. Has it been published or peer reviewed. If it hasn't then that's ok, but it does help with credibility. I'm not above seeing through the lines when it is explained but I have to have something that makes the case credible. Do you work in HR, have you been involved in hiring policies that involve WFH? Can you provide any specifics with respect to what you've worked on directly?

You often lead with humor and acronyms (rofl, lmfao, etc.) that degrade your credibility so I don't know when to take you seriously or if there is any foundation under what you're saying. This is the depth I was speaking about the other day.