A Postscript to Power
In recent months, we’ve taken a hard look at executive overcommitment, governance breakdowns, and the underestimated risks that surface when bold leaders are handed influence without the boundaries to match. Elon Musk’s tenure at DOGE—and his very public split from Donald Trump—has become a real-world illustration of everything we share about the risks to cutting corners.
Our approach is always to look at real situations and take away the key learnings, and in this case, there are many. It’s about understanding how highlighted early, when ignored, how those risk unfolds in plain sight—and why you can’t take the attitude, “she’ll be right, mate”.
So, here’s what happened, what we already saw coming, and why it matters more than ever for executives, boards, governments, and anyone vetting leaders in high-risk roles.
The Sequence Everyone Saw Coming
Let’s recap:
- Blog 1: The Leadership Risk We Can’t Ignore examined how overcommitment erodes leadership capacity—even for someone like Musk. With too many roles, responsibilities, and public fronts, the potential for burnout, impulsiveness, and detachment grows.
- Blog 2: Cutting Corners at the Top tackled systemic failures in vetting leadership appointments. The decision to place Musk in charge of DOGE—without rigorous checks—highlighted what happens when influence outpaces oversight.
- Newsletter Exclusive: S4R Analysis of Musk used Unearth’s people-centred S4R tool to explore Musk’s predispositions, stressors, triggers, and onset patterns. The analysis warned of foreseeable escalation.
Then, the headlines landed:
- Musk walking away from DOGE, blasting Trump’s administration in the process.
- Trump retaliated by pulling government contracts and publicly criticising Musk’s stability.
- Tesla stock dipped. Trust fractured. DOGE entered disarray.
The fallout didn’t shock anyone paying attention.
When Warnings Are Seen—But Silenced
The writing was on the wall.
The media discussed it.
Commentators warned it was only a matter of time.
Even some leaders quietly voiced concern behind closed doors.
So why didn’t we act?
Because foresight doesn’t prevent failure—action does.
And in this case, process was manipulated to serve power, not protection.
When the President says, “make it happen,” formal vetting gets fast-tracked.
Due diligence bends under pressure.
And the system—designed to ensure stability—gets overridden by urgency and influence.
Here’s why this keeps happening:
- Charisma clouds judgment.
- Political expediency rewards speed over sustainability.
- Accountability structures are reactive—and easily bypassed.
- And no one wants to be the one to challenge the most powerful person in the room.
This isn’t just about Musk.
It’s about what happens when governance is treated as optional, and risk management is seen as a delay rather than a discipline.
Let this be the reminder:
Leadership decisions—especially those tied to national infrastructure and public trust—must be insulated from personal agendas.
Because when that insulation fails, the fallout is never contained to one person.
What This Means for You
If you’re involved in senior appointments or leadership decisions, this moment should prompt pause.
Vetting isn’t just about credentials, skills, experience, or even headlines—it’s about alignment, mindset, and capacity.
And it must go one step further: alignment to your organisation’s identity.
Because no matter how impressive someone looks on paper, if their approach and values don’t match the system they’re entering, they’ll eventually create friction—and possibly fallout.
If you’re close to risk or compliance, chances are you’ve already seen this play out.
You’ve sat in rooms where shortcuts were taken, where red flags were rationalised.
You know that blind spots rarely hide—they’re just unspoken.
S4R helps turn intuition into insight. It’s not about pointing fingers. It’s about putting structure around risk—so we stop leaving it to chance.
What We Know Now: The Real Risk Was Never Hidden
We said it in the S4R newsletter: Musk’s leadership style—relentless, centralised, and reactive—was high-risk for a role requiring diplomacy, coordination, and systemic stability.
We didn’t need hindsight. We had foresight.
But in many systems, foresight isn’t the problem—it’s follow-through.
Boards defer. Governments gamble. And organisations suffer.
So What’s the Takeaway?
We don’t need to keep playing this game of “let’s wait and see.”
Tools like S4R exist to flag not just problems—but potential. The key is using them before appointments, during tenure, and even post-onboarding to track alignment and risk exposure.
What if S4R became standard across:
• Government vetting and public-private partnerships?
• M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions) due diligence?
• Executive onboarding and succession planning?
It’s not about replacing judgment. It’s about improving it.
One More Thing…
While our S4R analysis focused on risks, the same model can surface opportunities. It’s a compass for clarity—not a hammer for criticism. When used properly, it can also enhance onboarding, performance tracking, and leadership development.
Final Word
The Musk–Trump fallout wasn’t random.
It was predictable.
So the real question is:
If we saw it coming—why didn’t we act?
Let this be the case that finally shifts the conversation from reactive containment to proactive clarity.
Because ignoring red flags isn’t strength.
It’s neglect.
And in leadership, neglect has consequences.
Want future deep dives like this one?
Make sure you’re subscribed to:
🔹 Unearth Risk Insights – practical leadership and risk tools
🔹 Risk Rebels: Beyond the Surface – bold thinking, deeper conversations, and a home for future Risk Rebels
And if you’re ready to rethink how you vet, appoint, or support your leaders—let’s talk.
S4R isn’t just a framework. It’s a strategic advantage waiting to be integrated.
Reach out to explore how S4R can elevate your executive vetting, onboarding, and succession planning.
Because the warning signs aren’t the problem—it’s what happens when we ignore them.
Risk Rebels – What Say You?
