As a case study on implementing organizational change, Elon Musk’s actions on Twitter will become the gold standard for what not to do.

Among other things, appears from the evidence successful organizational change requires: a clear, compelling vision that is effectively communicated; employee participation; and honesty in how change is implemented. Trust in leaders also crucial.

Musk, the richest man in the world, seems to be in a hurry to turn Twitter into a money spinner. But it takes time to understand the requirements for successful organizational change. Two out of three such efforts fail, resulting in significant costs, stressed workforce and loss of important talent.

Change management never quite goes according to plan. It’s hard to figure out if Musk has a plan at all.

Musk’s ‘extremely hardcore’ style

Since taking over Twitter on Oct. 27, Musk has stopped his employees from working from home, canceled employee lunches, and laid off about 3,700 employees – about half of Twitter’s workforce. Many realized they had been fired when they could no longer do so access their laptops.

Just days later it to arise that Musk had a team of snoopers search employees’ private messages on Slack, that fire who had criticized him.

Then, last Wednesday, Musk sent an ultimatum to staff to commit to a new “extremely hardcore” Twitter that will “mean long, high-intensity hours.” Employees had until 5 p.m. the next day to accept or accept severance pay.

Reportedly around 500 staff written farewell messages.

Musk does not seem to have anticipated this reaction. As the “hardcore” deadline approached, he began bringing key personnel to meetings, trying to convince them to stay.

He also revoked his work-from-home ban, email staff that “all it takes for approval is for your manager to take responsibility for making sure you are an outstanding contributor”.

It was unsuccessful. So many employees decided to leave that on Twitter on Friday all staff locked from his office until Monday amid confusion over who actually still worked there and should have access.

Layoffs and restructuring are common in organizational changes. But the way they are managed is significant Effects for those who leave, but also for those who stay. If you want employees to be involved and respond to a crisis, telling them they’re lazy and threatening them won’t help.

Choice is important

But what about SpaceX and Tesla – the companies upon which Musk has built his fame and fortune? Doesn’t their success prove that he is a good leader?

Not so fast. There’s a big difference between a mission-driven company like SpaceX and a platform like Twitter.

When there is a common mission to achieve something extraordinary or what has not been done before, Staff members will often willingly work extremely long hours in difficult situations.

They will choose to pull out all the stops and work long hours if they feel connected to the organization’s purpose or if their work matters. But the main point here is that they choose.

Like a Twitter employee tweeted after Musk’s “hardcore” email:

I didn’t want to work for someone who threatened us multiple times by email about “exceptional tweeps should work here” when I was already working 60-70 hours a week.

Musk ignores the fundamentals

Both Tesla and SpaceX have that many dissatisfied employeeswith lawsuits filed over working conditions and Musk’s management style.

He is praised for his think on iterative design and solving technical problems. Challenging old models that may no longer be useful is important. But the fundamentals of leadership and organizational change are still essential – and Musk falls woefully short on these.

While his employees — real people who aren’t billionaires and have to pay rent or mortgages — grappled with what being “hardcore” really means, and how that might affect their ability to live a life outside of work, Musk tweeted about his poll on whether former US President Donald Trump should be allowed back on the platform.

Then, after Trump refused to back down, Musk tweeted the following:

The idea that another CEO would send such a message on social media is almost unbelievable.

Some have suggested this whole debacle is an ego tripper for Musk – a theory believed by his attempt to do so get out of the deal. His actions pose a significant risk to the company, even if there are still enough employees around to keep it going.

Twitter’s former head of trust and security, Yoel Roth, who stepped down Nov. 10, wrote last week:

Almost immediately after the acquisition closed, a wave of racist and anti-Semitic trolls sprang up on Twitter. Wary marketers, including those at General Mills, Audi, and Pfizer, slowed or stopped ad spending on the platform, creating a crisis within the company to protect precious ad revenue.

But even more powerful than the advertisers, Roth noted, are the digital storefronts of Apple and Google:

Failure to follow Apple and Google guidelines would be catastrophic, risking Twitter being removed from their app stores and making it more difficult for billions of potential users to get Twitter’s services.

Organizations are complex, interdependent systems supported by a web of behavioral processes. To create successful change requires individual, workgroup, and organizational goals to be aligned.

Even if the little blue bird is still flying for now, the human-guided systems that keep it aloft are under serious threat.

• Libby (Elizabeth) SanderMBA Director and Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior, Bond Business School, Bond University

This article has been republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.