The Elon Musk Email Debacle: How would his own Grok AI have handled it?

On Saturday, February 22, federal employees across multiple United States government agencies received an unexpected email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) titled: “What did you do last week?”

The email requested that employees summarize their accomplishments in five bullet points and copy their manager, with a deadline of Monday, February 24, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. EST.

The directive reportedly originated from Elon Musk, who is now leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration. Musk later posted on X that failure to comply would be treated as a resignation, though the original email made no mention of such consequences.

The email caused immediate confusion and pushback, with agencies like the FBI, State Department, and Department of Defense advising employees not to respond until further guidance was provided. Some employees were warned not to include any sensitive information. Unions quickly stepped in, calling the initiative disrespectful and potentially illegal.

Musk took to X to mock the outrage, suggesting that it was absurd for government employees to be concerned about a simple accountability request.

But let’s break this down: why wouldn’t it cause concern or confusion with how it was rolled out?

A deliberate strategy or communication disaster?

There are only two plausible explanations for what took place with the “What did you do last week?” email.

Either this email was designed to cause frustration and pushback as part of a plan to get people to quit or be fired for not replying or replying poorly. Many believe that getting people to quit is the reason for the tone of some DOGE emails and the recent return to office mandate.

Or, the rollout of this initiative is horrible change management and lousy communication if you genuinely want people not to be confused and to indeed respond, especially when some employees receive one directive from their supervisor and another from Musk.

Deliberate strategy or communication mess? It’s one or the other. However, what Musk did was not a well-executed effort that followed anything close to good internal employee communication.

If genuine, a directive like this should have been communicated clearly through the proper channels, with buy-in from agency leadership. Instead, it felt like an arbitrary demand dropped on a Saturday, with no consideration for how different departments would need to handle it.

Even Musk’s AI thought the rollout was a mess

Musk’s defenders will argue that government bureaucracy needs to be shaken up. That may be true.

However, effective change requires more than throwing a grenade into the system and hoping the fallout sorts itself out. Disruption for disruption’s sake isn’t leadership — it’s just chaos. But that very much could be what Musk wants.

Ironically, Musk’s AI Grok described the rollout as chaotic, noting that it caused agency confusion and immediate resistance.

How Grok would have handled Musk’s accountability initiative

I asked Grok, “How would this initiative been rolled out professionally if the government wanted more people to respond?”

Grok says:

To roll out an initiative like this professionally and maximize federal employee participation, the government could have taken a more structured, transparent, and respectful approach. Here’s how it might have looked:

Clear Authority and Communication: The request would come from a recognized agency — like OPM or individual department heads — with explicit legal backing under existing federal regulations (e.g., 5 CFR § 430, which governs performance management). Instead of an ambiguous email, it’d be preceded by an official memo or announcement from leadership, explaining the purpose and citing the specific policy or executive order authorizing it.

Reasonable Timeline: A one-business-day deadline over a weekend (Saturday to Monday) was a logistical nightmare. A professional rollout would give at least a week — say, Thursday, February 20, 2025, to Thursday, February 27, 2025 — allowing time for employees to consult supervisors, craft responses, and address questions. This respects work-life balance and operational realities, especially for those on classified or field assignments.

Defined Purpose and Tone: The email would articulate a clear, constructive goal — e.g., “To enhance accountability and align efforts with administration priorities, we’re collecting a brief summary of your recent contributions.” The tone would be professional and collaborative, not abrupt or threatening, avoiding any hint of ultimatums like “respond or resign” unless legally vetted and explicitly justified.

Tailored Guidance: Recognizing the diversity of federal roles, the request would provide examples of acceptable responses for different job types — administrative, technical, law enforcement, etc. — and clarify how to handle sensitive work (e.g., “For classified duties, describe your role in general terms, such as ‘Supported national security operations’”). Agencies could distribute FAQs or hold briefings to reduce confusion.

Chain-of-Command Integration: Rather than a top-down blast, the initiative would leverage existing reporting structures. Employees would submit summaries to supervisors first, who’d consolidate and forward them, ensuring accuracy and relevance. This respects agency autonomy and prevents mixed signals, like some departments telling staff to ignore the email.

Legal and Union Buy-In: Before launch, OPM or DOGE would consult federal unions and legal experts to ensure compliance with civil service protections (e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 7513 on adverse actions). A joint statement with union leaders could frame it as a pilot program, reducing perceptions of overreach and building trust.

Technical Support: A dedicated portal or form (not just email replies) would streamline submissions, with a help desk for questions. This avoids inbox chaos and ensures consistency, especially for the government’s 2.1 million civilian employees.

For example, a polished rollout might start with a speech from Musk or Trump on February 18, 2025, announcing a “Government Efficiency Review,” followed by an email on February 20: “Dear Federal Team, To showcase your vital work, please submit a short summary of last week’s achievements by February 27. See your supervisor for guidance. Thank you for your service.” By Monday, February 24, participation could’ve hit 80–90% instead of the reported scramble and resistance.

This approach balances efficiency goals with professionalism, sidestepping the confusion and pushback that sank the real effort.

Not everything in that Grok plan is a great idea, but something between this and what Musk did would have been a better way to get responses, if that’s what he was truly after.

What Musk did instead was either ridiculous by design, or just subpar change management and communication. It could also be a bit of both.

+++

With over 20 years of experience in marketing and PR, Mike Holden is the director of marketing for Thorn Technologies and publisher of the No Budget Marketing newsletter.

Written by: Editor