"The Great One Man Myth" (or: Elon Musk Deconstructed)

[zapta]

Yes, it's a common pattern among socialists..

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A quick Google search:

so·cial·ist
?s?SH?l?st/
noun
noun: socialist; plural noun: socialists
1.
a person who advocates or practices socialism.
synonyms:   left-wing, progressive, leftist, labor, anti-corporate, antiglobalization; More
antonyms:   conservative

[mtdoc]

Yes, it's a common pattern among socialists..

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A quick Google search:

so·cial·ist
?s?SH?l?st/
noun
noun: socialist; plural noun: socialists
1.
a person who advocates or practices socialism.
synonyms:   left-wing, progressive, leftist, labor, anti-corporate, antiglobalization; More
antonyms:   conservative

Congratulations, you can use Google. Now correctly apply the word. Even better, learn what it really means - with a broader and deeper understanding than provided by one particular dictionary definition.

You could start here: Libertarian Socialism

[c4757p]

Achievements of management aren't achievements. Wake me when he's actually done things, not just told other people to.

Well, wake me when you set up and lead an organization that provides thousands of jobs and sends rockets to space.

Musk >> c4757p.

I'm more interested in the people working those thousands of jobs and building the rockets. "Creating jobs" is boring. Sure, Musk has accomplished more than I have, but his employees have accomplished even more. I'm tired to death of hearing about him... let's hear about them a bit for once.

It is a similarly common pattern among corporatists to discount and demonize the role of the workers, and further to insist that having a modicum of respect for these workers is socialism

Nobody here discounting or disrespecting workers. It's in your mind. Recognizing achievement of person X doesn't mean we disrespect person Y. Musk had major achievements and I respect it. It doesn't mean that his workers didn't have achievements on their own. Achievement is not a zero sum game. Enough with the class envy.

Class envy! That's a funny one. Whatever my emotions toward him may be, I promise you there is no envy.

[zapta]

Congratulations, you can use Google.

Thanks.

[wkb]

Isn't the guy discussed in this topic, a banker that uses his dollars to buy himself a new image?

No.  He has never been a banker.  He is CEO of Solar City (makes solar panels) Tesla (makes EV cars and batteries for EV cars and for home and industrial use) and SpaceX (space launch company).

I think PayPal is very technically close to a bank, in the opinion of the US Government at least.

They need a bank licence in NL from the Dutch national bank to operated so..

[rx8pilot]

My take.....

Throw 100 of the worlds most capable coders in a room and say "GO!" Not much will happen. Add 1 visionary software architect to the mix and it will more likely produce something useful. Next, throw in someone that has a keen sense of what most people in the world need or desire and a reasonable understanding of what is possible with software - and you will be on the path for a world changing idea.

On a forum of engineers, including myself, it is not going to be popular to describe engineers of all disciplines as 'paint' that are needed to paint a large scale solution that one person has visualized. Big things take teams of brilliant people that can sort out and solve huge numbers of complex issues. In general, for this to work - they need to be told what the problem is and what parameters and resources they have to solve it. It is the legwork of the bigger picture. Without the big picture visionary on a pedestal calling the shots, the designers and engineers applying all manner of cerebral prowess would be aimless and therefore get nothing useful done regardless of skill. I doubt that the ultra-smart aerospace trained engineer could put this team together to realize a bigger than life dream. I have not yet seen Elon Musk make claims that he designed every piece and part of his companies. It is very unique to have the vision of the future AND the skills to build and guide a team at this scale to make the vision a reality.

This is not short-changing engineers. Imagine a world class orchestra with no sheet music in front of them. Mozart gets the credit because the orchestra is silent without his pieces of paper that layout his vision. I don't think even the best composer the world has ever known can play all the instruments needed to play the music they conceived.

As for taking advantage of government incentives and buying defunct mega-factories super cheap is cunning brilliance. Why spend money when you don't need to? It large scale eBay and coupon shopping to kickstart a new business.

For anyone that thinks this is all BS, go start a company and sell it for $billions, and then start a new car company and an f'ing rocket ship company.

[c4757p]

I will concede that the "leaders" are important... if dreadfully boring, and no more important than the people they lead. We don't hear enough about the people who actually do the things the leaders tell them to do. Sure, they need someone commanding them in order for them to accomplish things that take multiple people, but fuck am I sick of hearing about these leaders all the time. The things the people under the leaders are doing are actually interesting.

Let's have fewer articles gushing about what a visionary Musk is (and sure, proportionally fewer articles ranting about how he's not), and see some articles about the technologies "his" people have invented. We have enough leader worship in the world as it is.

It's fair to say that they are important, and I'll have to admit to a bit of an accidental strawman in thinking people here were implying the engineers were not - but that is the impression that I get all the time from those who like to talk endlessly about how great leaders are and never mention the people they lead. A bit of balance would be nice, FFS. Some of us really couldn't care less about "people issues" and just want to get to the meat of how things were done. Sadly, it seems that this will be forever limited to niche locations like this forum, the general populace will continue to be fed stories of great managers and never hear about great engineers.

[rx8pilot]

I agree and would LOVE to learn more about how the accomplishments are actually achieved. The problem is that only a micro-spec of society is interested and capable of understanding any of it. It is much easier for general society that reads the news to wrap their hands around Elon than to wrap their heads around the practical challenges of shooting a rocket into space and docking with a space station travelling at MACH 25.

[Mechanical Menace]

The problem is that only a micro-spec of society is interested and capable of understanding any of it.

Interested I'd agree.

[Smokey]

In reality, you need both the whacked out idea guy and the engineer (and someone with good business skills) to be equally important to have a successful company.  It's like what the US President, House and Senate were intended to be when they created them.  They are all important, have different roles, and they all keep each other in check.  When you give the president too much power (like declaring war without congressional approval, or always parking in the handicap parking space) that's when things get out of wack.
The glorious leader praise has a lot of parallel with science fiction authors.  I think science fiction authors get WAY too much credit for thinking up how things are going to be in the future.  Imagining how things might be in the future is the easy part.  Actually making those things happen is just a little bit harder.  If the science fiction author misplaces a period, the reader just skips over it.  If an engineer misplaces a decimal point, things blow up and people might get killed.

[mtdoc]

I guess it seems pretty obvious to me that for any successful enterprise that relies on science and technology, it takes both excellent hands-on engineers and scientists as well as a leader with some vision and the skills to actually allow the magic to happen.  Both are necessary and neither one is sufficient.  Often the leader has the necessary technical chops to really have a hand in day to day technical decisions and sometimes they don't. Often when things are starting out they have hands on involvement but with success and growth the role of the leader by necessity becomes one of providing vision, inspiration and management.

Lots of examples of this.  Apple computer, Hewlett Packard, Intel, etc, etc - pretty much any large successful technical company.  The same is true for basic science. Most renowned scientists eventually grow the size of their lab in proportion to their success and no longer are hands on but are simply managing and inspiring a group of graduate students and postdocs.

Both are important. It's just that the leaders get the attention - both good and bad. This has always been true. It also seems true that the more innovative and successful they are the more they attract admirers and detractors.

In case anyone has not seen this before, I think the video below gives a pretty good idea of who Musk really is:

[SL4P]

My take.....

Throw 100 of the worlds most capable coders in a room and say "GO!" Not much will happen. Add 1 visionary software architect to the mix and it will more likely produce something useful. Next, throw in someone that has a keen sense of what most people in the world need or desire and a reasonable understanding of what is possible with software - and you will be on the path for a world changing idea.

*BINGO !

[Kjelt]

Oh well what's worth I am glad there are still 60's proven technology russian rockets available to provide new supplies to the ISS, while those advanced "future" spaceX rockets still keep failing

[LabSpokane]

Every successful venture has a mix of people.  At the top is usually the charismatic leader, who is the visionary that chooses the destination.  In the supporting roles, there are the very technically able (engineers / scientists), those who focus on the finance side (accountants), and those who champion the vision and push it into the market (sales / marketing).  It takes all competency in all four elements to successfully make things happen. 

Musk's space venture would be nothing without his engineers, and conversely, the engineers would not have a rocket to build without Elon.  And so it goes for the other groups.

A lot of the over-focus on Musk is related to the Media.  Musk the Hero Technocrat Entrepreneur is a far easier story to write than the gory details of how a rocket makes it to space.

[vvanders]

Keep in mind he also dumped millions of his dollars into spacex and Tesla almost to the point of bankruptcy.

He could have very easily just lived on the interest.

[EEVblog]

Keep in mind he also dumped millions of his dollars into spacex and Tesla almost to the point of bankruptcy.
He could have very easily just lived on the interest.

That is the single most important thing about Elon Musk. He had the balls to put his own money on the line.
It's easy for anyone with an idea and a dream to do a startup and spend someone else's money. But few people put all their money on the line. That alone commands respect.
There are countless people just as smart as Elon, with just as much drive, passion and vision. The difference is he got lucky with his early business ventures, got a huge wad of cash, and had the balls to bet it all on black.
Make no mistake either, there would be no mythical Elon Musk, no Telsa and no Space-X if Musk didn't have that money to begin with to enable it all.

[rx8pilot]

Make no mistake either, there would be no mythical Elon Musk, no Telsa and no Space-X if Musk didn't have that money to begin with to enable it all.

In a parallel universe....Elon Musk walks into a bank with a business plan and a loan application. "I want to get a loan for a rocket ship please", he says. The banker laughs as he pushes the young boy out the door. Elon replies, "...but I am smart, have passion, vision, and DRIVE!...Seriously, I can build a commercial space transportation system".

Yep, I guess you need your own money for that big vision.

[HP-ILnerd]

A lot of the over-focus on Musk is related to the Media.  Musk the Hero Technocrat Entrepreneur is a far easier story to write than the gory details of how a rocket makes it to space.

Therein lies the center of the problem here.  I was once at a talk an astronaut (George Nelson) gave, and someone asked him why there was so much media focus on the Space Shuttle toilet.  He said "Probably because it's something they can understand." 

The media likes to have a hero and/or a villain.  They are in the news business.  I.e., they have to package their stories such that the consumers want to consume it.  So everything is a crisis or a controversy.

Media reporting of the space sector alone would improve immensely if they made reporters spend one lousy day playing "Kerbal Space Program." 

[zapta]

It's easy for anyone with an idea and a dream to do a startup and spend someone else's money.

Try to raise a significant amount of money. It's not that easy.

The difference is he got lucky with his early business ventures,...

His multiple successes suggest to me that it may be more than just luck.  Same applies to Steve Jobs.

[rx8pilot]

Try to raise a significant amount of money. It's not that easy.

I agree that raising startup capital is not easy. Earning $billions of your own from scratch is substantially harder. I have been trying for a while now to earn a few $billion, and so far, no luck. Gonna have to stick with banks, leases, and VC's. Sucks, right? 

[zapta]

Try to raise a significant amount of money. It's not that easy.

I agree that raising startup capital is not easy. Earning $billions of your own from scratch is substantially harder. I have been trying for a while now to earn a few $billion, and so far, no luck. Gonna have to stick with banks, leases, and VC's. Sucks, right? 

Good luck. Anything of interest for people here?

As for Musk, he worked his way up in small increments. His first startup got him a measly $22M

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Zip2

He is a serial entrepreneur.

[Galenbo]

Throw 100 of the worlds most capable coders in a room and say "GO!" Not much will happen. Add 1 visionary software architect to the mix and it will more likely produce something useful. Next, throw in someone that has a keen sense of what most people in the world need or desire and a reasonable understanding of what is possible with software - and you will be on the path for a world changing idea.

Throw in a banker too, to get everything payed.

[Kjelt]

As for Musk, he worked his way up in small increments. His first startup got him a measly $22M

Well I give him credit for that, I suspect 95% maybe more of the (not self) employed engineers on this forum would take that money, retire and do electronics for their hobby. Perhaps a small business as hobby on the side, but never invest all 100% gambling on loosing everything and have to apply for a job to become an employee again.

[EEVblog]

It's easy for anyone with an idea and a dream to do a startup and spend someone else's money.

Try to raise a significant amount of money. It's not that easy.

Sure, but it's what people do these days. Hardly anyone puts up their own money any more, let alone practically all of it to the tune of $100M.

His multiple successes suggest to me that it may be more than just luck.  Same applies to Steve Jobs.

IIRC Paypal was not doing great financially, and ebay bought them out fairly cheaply in the scheme of things at the time.
Someone else could have come along at any time and pipped PayPal for six leaving them worthless.
I'm not saying it was all luck, of course not, but some luck always plays a part in any success story.
There are countless people that had a better idea and better products and worked harder and were smarter businessmen than Musk, but many of them luck-out and never get the financial reward Musk did. As mentioned, PayPal actually got bought cheaply for $1.4BN. Not a Nest-like lucky dip of $3.2BN

Same for Telsa and Space-X. They were both on the verge of bandruptcy, as in weeks away for Tesla, before the 4th Space-X rocket finally worked and they got the NASA contract days later. That saved Space-X and Tesla. If that rocket failed, it's likely this thread would never have started.

[EEVblog]

As for Musk, he worked his way up in small increments. His first startup got him a measly $22M

Well I give him credit for that, I suspect 95% maybe more of the (not self) employed engineers on this forum would take that money, retire and do electronics for their hobby. Perhaps a small business as hobby on the side, but never invest all 100% gambling on loosing everything and have to apply for a job to become an employee again.

The thing is once you get that money and a name for yourself, it gets easier to get money. If Space-X and Tesla had failed (as they were on the verge of doing), Musk could still walk into any VC and get a chunk of cash for the next venture. The serial entrepreneurs know this, and hence are more willing to gamble it all, but most don't, they like to blow other people's money not their own.
This is Musk's biggest strength, as being the biggest shareholder because he put his own money in, it puts him in a position to execute things however he wants. That's important for a company like Space-X that literally is rocket science. If Musk had no share in Space-X and used all other people's money, the VC's would make him do things too safe and rigid etc that would probably be more likely than not to guarantee ultimate company failure.