Elon Musk and Mary Barra: Comparing and Contrasting Real-World Examples

of Path-Goal Leadership Theory

Jessica Jordon

Introduction

Leadership is a dynamic and evolving concept, especially as modern technology brings rapid transformation and the speed of innovation stands to bring organizational success or failure. Regardless of company or industry, the modern leader faces new workplace dynamics and an increased rate of change that must be met and managed successfully. Path-Goal Theory, developed by Robert House, offers a framework to understand how leaders can adapt their behavior to meet the evolving needs of employees and company goals.

At its core, Path-Goal Theory suggests that effective leaders flex their styles depending on the challenge in front of them. Cycling through Directive, Supportive, Participative, or Achievement-Oriented styles, Path-Goal Theory aims to optimize both goal performance and employee satisfaction. 

With its large-scale manufacturing, workforce and organizational complexities, high level of regulation, and susceptibility of disruption, we use the automotive industry as the backdrop of our leadership teaching case. Bringing legacy to meet rapid transformation, we will explore the leadership styles of two CEOs: Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and Mary Barra, CEO of General Motors (GM), through the lens of Path-Goal Theory.

Background

Both Elon Musk and Mary Barra are leading their companies through groundbreaking shifts in the automotive industry. While both leaders aim to transform their companies and revolutionize driving as we know it, they both employ distinct leadership approaches to achieve their goals. We will briefly walk through each leader’s tenure highlights, and explore their leadership styles through the Path-Goal lens.

Elon Musk, Tesla

Founded in 2003, Musk joined Tesla in 2008 as a major shareholder before being named as CEO. Under his leadership in 2008, Tesla began production on their first electric vehicles, and was the first company to sell cars directly to consumers, bypassing auto dealers. By 2021, Tesla became only the seventh U.S. company to be valued at a trillion dollars.1

Mary Barra, General Motors (GM)

Founded more than a century ago in 1908, GM was ranked the largest automaker for 77 years before losing its number one spot in 2008. Originally founded by William Durant who was, in 1908, the largest manufacturer of horse-drawn vehicles in the U.S., Durant acquired Buick Motor Company from James Whiting and formed General Motors Company.2 With plants operating around the globe, GM has been at the forefront of innovation in transportation since its inception, growing to be among the first to collaborate with NASA to develop the earliest electric vehicles, and committing to a full electric auto pivot by aiming to end production of internal combustion engines by 2035.2 Rising from production line ranks in 1980 when she was 18-years old, Mary Barra became CEO in 2014 - the first female CEO of a “Big Three” automaker.1 As CEO, Barra is shepherding transformational moves for GM into not only electric-powered cars, but also driverless automobiles.3

Leadership Comparison: Elon Musk and Mary Barra

Musk’s Directive and Achievement-Oriented Leadership style is on full display through the tweets he sends, the interviews he gives, and the news leaked from his companies. With a high work ethic, Musk is known for diving into the technical details of projects, taking charge to dictate solutions, and being unafraid to set aggressive deadlines.4 This drive has caused Musk to be self-described as a “nano-manager”, and receiving a reputation as someone who is impulsive, demanding - reportedly expecting employees to work up to 80 hours per week - and volatile; sometimes rewarding employee behavior and sometimes punishing the same behavior through swearing, threatening and firing employees.4 Musk’s high performance expectations drive his employees to push beyond the realm of possibility, fueling innovation and at the same time creating a high-pressure environment where burnout is inevitable.

With a Directive Leadership Style, Barra diverges from Musk in that she also displays Participative and Support Leadership. Her aggressive strategy to transform GM is seen through clear goals, and progress is achieved through fostering a culture of feedback, collaboration, and inclusion.5 Barra weaves together GM objectives and customer objectives to create a set of core values that focuses employee energy in a way that feels directly impactful to company bottom line success. Barra creates a work environment where employees feel valued and part of the decision-making process, bolstering employee engagement and buy-in through rapid change.5

Conclusion

Both Musk and Barra have set bold visions for their respective companies. Both leaders have also been met with enormous challenges - our teaching case wasn’t able to explore the nuance between their visions and strategies, how their leadership style impacts employee motivation, the impacts of their leadership on organizational culture, how they cultivate innovation, stability and inclusivity, or how they handle crises. As they set out to transform and revolutionize the automotive industry, these influential leaders will need to continue to align their leadership styles with the needs of their employees, and the challenges facing their companies. Their inability to adapt could have devastating consequences as both companies race to be the leader in electric autos.

Leadership has never neatly fit into one theory, but this case demonstrates that leadership must be adaptable, balancing the needs of both the task and people completing the task. As we examined two players in a storied industry, both Musk and Barra exhibit principles of Path-Goal Theory, but we saw two vastly different styles of leadership emerge: Musk, thriving in high-stakes environments - often of his own creation - and Barra with a seemingly steady hand accelerating transformational change in a global giant of a corporation.

Discussion Questions

1. Can you imagine how Elon Musk’s achievement-oriented leadership and Mary Barra’s participative leadership impact employee motivation and innovation? Do you think one approach is more sustainable in the longer term?
2. Path-Goal Theory emphasizes the role that task and work environment play in determining the right leadership style. How might the automotive industry have shaped the leadership approaches of Musk and Barra?
3. GM and Tesla approach vehicle production differently. Do you think these differences necessitate specific leadership strategies? Said another way: Would Barra be successful as CEO of Tesla or Musk be successful as CEO of GM?
4. Elon Musk is often referred to as a visionary and someone who directly challenges boundaries and the status quo. Mary Barra is a pioneering woman in a legacy industry (automotive), hoping to transform GM into a leader of electric vehicles. How does Path-Goal Theory explain the leadership behaviors necessary for accelerating innovation in a startup (like Tesla) versus a deeply historied organization (like GM)?

References

1. Tesla, Wikipedia
2. General Motors, Wikipedia
3. Mary Barra, Wikipedia
4. Elon Musk, Wikipedia
5. Leadership Journeys - Mary Barra, IEDP.com

Author Bio

Jessica Jordon is a communications professional with over a decade of experience supporting senior leaders in the financial sector. She specializes in strategic communications: integrated messaging, executive communications consulting, speechwriting, and leadership presence. Currently pursuing a master's degree in public policy from the University of Northern Iowa, Jessica is bringing a level up to integrated communications plans by combining her professional and educational experiences.

License

This case study is licensed CC BY-NC 4.0.