According to Business Insider, Elon Musk and Sam Altman’s latest public spat involved Altman demanding a refund from Tesla while Musk criticized the OpenAI chief’s leadership. This follows Musk’s June clash with Donald Trump that wiped $138 billion from Tesla’s valuation and cost Musk $34 billion personally. Research from Columbia Business School shows people who see the world as cutthroat tend to admire aggressive leaders, while a 2024 Nagoya University study found reputation-unconcerned individuals gain leadership endorsement in competitive environments. Crisis communications veteran Kevin Donahue calls this public sparring “a sharp departure” from traditional CEO behavior, while Wharton’s Americus Reed describes it as part of the “tech-bro persona” that keeps companies in the public eye.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The strategy behind the chaos
Here’s the thing – this isn’t just random bickering. Donahue thinks it’s “probably a deliberate strategy on both sides” to boost visibility and control narratives. And Reed points out that a pugilistic approach reinforces the idea that “I won’t be outdone by the other guy.” Basically, in the AI arms race where both are competing for talent, investors, and regulatory favor, appearing tough might actually help. The Columbia research backs this up – if your audience sees the world as ruthless, they’ll admire your aggression.
But most CEOs shouldn’t try this
Now for the reality check. Donahue makes it clear that “most public companies and boards don’t want the CEO to be out there like this.” And Reed wouldn’t advise most leaders to engage in social media wars. Why? Because social media is “like a loaded gun” – one wrong move can cost billions. Look at what happened when Musk tangled with Trump – that $138 billion valuation drop isn’t exactly pocket change. Most companies operate in environments where this behavior would get a CEO fired, not celebrated.
The hidden costs nobody talks about
What about the people actually working at these companies? Josh Cordoz from workforce-development firm Sponge points out that public squabbles can erode leaders’ influence when they appear personal. And let’s be real – when employees are worried about job security and paying bills, watching bosses feud over refunds probably doesn’t inspire confidence. The Nagoya University study shows this approach only works in competitive environments – in collaborative settings, it backfires spectacularly. So is this sustainable long-term? Probably not.
The personality factor
Donahue nails it when he says “these aren’t wallflowers.” Musk and Altman operate in unique environments without the usual corporate constraints. But here’s the question – are we watching calculated strategy or just big personalities clashing? The truth is probably both. And while the research suggests some observers might admire this behavior, the Tesla stock plunge shows the market definitely doesn’t always reward it. Most leaders would be wise to remember that what works for Musk and Altman might not work for anyone else – and sometimes doesn’t even work for them.
