At the end of November, we learned of the appointment of Elon Musk to head the DOGE as Minister of Government Effectiveness. It didn’t take long for him to take up his post for this to provoke numerous reactions, some in relation to the mission assigned to him, many in relation to the nature of the character.
For my part, and regardless of what I think of the character, I was very curious to see what would happen. Could the myth of transposing private sector methods work? And, if so, what message would it send to voters and governments around the world?
A few months after he took office, it is already time to draw some conclusions, even if they are not definitive.
In short :
- Musk adopts a short-term approach at DOGE, focused on budget cuts, far from his usual methods based on innovation by first principles.
- The objective here is pragmatic: to reduce public spending quickly, without any real structural transformation.
- Political and institutional constraints severely limit his capacity for action and innovation.
- Transposing private methods to the public sector shows its limitations in the face of the complexity of the state apparatus.
- Musk favors a logic of rapid adaptation, but its long-term impact remains uncertain.
First principles vs. subtraction
In my first post on the subject (Elon Musk Minister of Government Efficiency: a joke more serious than it seems) I made a mistake, but I don’t think I’m the only one. I had argued that the Musk method was based on innovation by subtraction (Jon McNeill’s lessons on innovation through subtraction), and many readers pointed out my mistake.
As I wrote at the time, it is an approach that consists of improving a product, service or process by removing elements deemed superfluous, ineffective or a source of complexity. Rather than adding new features or resources, this method aims to purify and simplify to maximize efficiency, reduce costs and improve the user/citizen experience.
However, experience shows that Musk tends to use first principles thinking.
This is a method that consists of deconstructing a problem or an idea down to its most fundamental elements, the basic truths that cannot be reduced any further, and then reconstructing a solution from there, disregarding analogies, conventions or inherited assumptions.
This is the method used by Musk for Space X, where he rejected the industry’s standard principles and costs, but also occasionally by Steve Jobs when he questioned established conventions in terms of products, business models and user experience.
In a way, the two can complement each other and innovation by subtraction can be in some cases, but not all, a consequence of first principles thinking.
On the other hand, choosing one or the other tells us a lot about the transposition of practices from one sector to another and the constraints that go with it.
To be honest, I was a little disappointed by what I see of Musk’s action at DOGE compared to the initial promise: yes, there are massive reductions in costs and staff, even if in the end the specialized press partly relativizes them, but I did not see the innovation that made it possible to do better with less.
So I decided to explore a little.
Different objectives and contexts
To understand what Musk does and does not do, and how he does it, it must be said that the mission entrusted to him in the context of Doge has nothing to do with the one he sets for himself in his businesses.
In his businesses, Musk aims for disruptive long-term objectives, such as the colonization of Mars or the global energy transition. He takes the long view and his shareholders understand this, at least in general.
Better still, in almost all cases he is the majority shareholder or holds the majority of the voting rights and can therefore set the pace without having to be too accountable.
In the case of DOGE, the objective is more pragmatic and very immediate: to reduce federal spending by 15% (around $1 trillion) by eliminating bureaucratic waste and modernizing government technologies. At the moment, we are seeing the reduction of so-called waste, because when you hit a load-bearing wall, it is always best to ask yourself why it was built before you tear it down (Destruction, disruption, change and transition strategies). On the other hand, I don’t see innovation happening, but after all, maybe he started with what was the fastest to implement.
Indeed, in the context of his business and even if speed of execution is his obsession, there are mid-term elections in two years. This means that in two years’ time the state’s “shareholders” will say what they think of the policy implemented and if savings and growth are not forthcoming, and inflation persists, Trump will surely lose his majority in Congress and this will be the premature end of the implementation of his program.
Contrary to what one might think, it is easier to think long term in a business that you run without sharing too much power (and as long as you have cash) than at the head of a state where you go on the campaign trail almost every year and a half.
To each context its method
As I said, Musk’s usual method is reasoning by first principles to reconstruct innovative solutions freeing himself from accepted principles, dogmas and standards that are not vital and impossible to discuss.
At the DOGE, the method is radically different: direct abolition of federal agencies, massive layoffs and simplification of existing processes without any real reconstruction or profound technological innovation. In other words, innovation by subtraction.
A different place for people
Contrary to popular belief, human capital plays a major role in Musk’s businesses: he hates bloated teams but recruits exceptional talents that will enable major advances.
Under the DOGE, he began cutting essential public services, such as international aid and social security, with potentially negative social consequences.
A restrictive organizational framework
This is perhaps the most important point because everything else stems from it.
Musk is a fan of an entrepreneurial culture focused on continuous innovation and direct collaboration without bureaucracy.
In the DOGE, he finds a rigid governmental context with political and institutional constraints that are obstacles to change, developing an almost immune reflex to profound changes and hindering the application of entrepreneurial methods when they do not block it.
Finally, on both sides of the Atlantic, the Deep State is a reality with a certain capacity for resistance, or even nuisance, some would say.
Pragmatism above all
We expected an ambitious long-term vision from Musk, oriented towards radical transformations, and we end up with pragmatic, very short-term objectives aimed at reducing costs quickly without a clear vision of innovation and systemic transformation.
The only thing that remains of Musk, and this may not be the least of his qualities, is the victory of pragmatism over method. He has less than two years for his decisions to bear fruit and, moreover, his contract with the government is supposed to end in May.
In a way, and without pushing the comparison too far, we could say that he is in the process of effectuation, namely doing what he can with the means at hand and under constraint. But without going too far with the comparison either: the absence of co-construction and a predetermined, non-negotiable vision distance us from the principles of this approach.
Perhaps this is the necessary foundation before going further and being more ambitious in transformation and innovation, but there is no guarantee that he will have the time.
Bottom line
At DOGE, Elon Musk changed his approach radically. Gone are the ambitious long-term objectives and innovation, replaced by a short-term approach dominated by optimization.
Gone is reasoning by first principles, hello innovation by subtraction… innovation minus.
This would tend to prove that despite a very proactive approach, not all methods from the private sector can be transposed to the public sector and that it is more realistic to aim for the optimization of the existing rather than a real transformation that would be the result of a breakthrough innovation.
Unless Musk surprises us, but he may have found someone stronger than him, or a playing field that does not suit him.
Visual credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
