Techfullnews

Elon Musk’s replacement was denied by the Tesla board

Elon Musk's replacement

In late 2023, The Wall Street Journal dropped a bombshell report claiming Tesla’s board had quietly initiated a search for Elon Musk’s successor as CEO. According to anonymous sources familiar with the matter:

  • The board allegedly began the process approximately one month before the report
  • Multiple executive search firms were contacted, with one firm reportedly selected to lead the process
  • Directors supposedly urged Musk to publicly commit more time to Tesla

The timing is critical. This alleged search coincided with:

  • Tesla’s first year-over-year delivery decline since 2020 (8.5% drop in Q1 2024)
  • A 13% decline in annual revenue – the first since 2017
  • Musk’s increasingly polarizing political engagements

Tesla’s Furious Rebuttal and the Credibility Battle

Within hours of publication, Tesla launched an aggressive counterattack:

1. Official Statement from Chair Robyn Denholm:

  • Called the report “absolutely false”
  • Claimed the board remains “highly confident” in Musk’s leadership
  • Alleged the WSJ was informed of this before publication

2. Musk’s Personal Response:

  • Accused WSJ of “EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS”
  • Claimed the paper ignored Tesla’s “unequivocal denial”

Journalistic Standoff:
The WSJ maintains it:

  • Reached out to Musk for comment (received no response)
  • Never received any pre-publication statement from Tesla

This credibility battle raises serious questions about:

  • The independence of Tesla’s board
  • The reliability of anonymous sourcing
  • Musk’s increasingly adversarial relationship with mainstream media

Deep Dive: Tesla’s Board Composition and Governance Concerns

Tesla’s eight-member board has long faced criticism for its close ties to Musk:

Notable Members:

  1. Kimbal Musk (Elon’s brother)
  2. James Murdoch (son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch)
  3. Ira Ehrenpreis (venture capitalist, Tesla director since 2007)
  4. Robyn Denholm (Chair since 2018)

Governance Red Flags:

  • Lack of Independence: 5 of 8 directors have served over 10 years
  • Compensation Controversy: Approved Musk’s $56B pay package (later voided by court)
  • Recent Insider Selling: Denholm sold $50M+ in shares over 90 days

Expert Perspective:
“Tesla’s board fails nearly every test of good corporate governance,” says Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. “The level of entrenchment and lack of independent oversight is unprecedented for a company of this size.”

The Five Critical Challenges Facing Tesla’s Leadership

1. The “Key Person” Risk

Musk isn’t just CEO – he’s Tesla’s:

  • Chief product architect
  • Primary technology visionary
  • Main public spokesperson

Succession Planning Reality:

  • Apple began grooming Tim Cook years before Steve Jobs’ passing
  • Microsoft had Satya Nadella in leadership pipeline before Ballmer’s exit
  • Tesla has no publicly identified successor

2. Musk’s Divided Attention

The billionaire currently oversees:

  • SpaceX (CEO)
  • Neuralink (Founder)
  • The Boring Company (Founder)
  • xAI (Founder)
  • X/Twitter (Owner)

Time Allocation Impact:

  • 2023 analysis shows Musk spent <40% time at Tesla
  • Critical product launches (Cybertruck, Roadster) repeatedly delayed

3. Brand Erosion and Political Polarization

Musk’s recent activities:

  • Endorsed conservative political candidates
  • Acquired Twitter and reinstated banned accounts
  • Made controversial statements on gender, COVID, and other hot-button issues

Consumer Impact:

  • 2023 survey showed 18% drop in brand favorability among Democrats
  • 7% increase among Republicans (showing increasing politicization)

4. Operational Challenges

Production Issues:

  • Cybertruck production at 25% of targets
  • Model 3 Highland refresh delayed in North America

Financial Pressures:

  • Operating margins fell from 19% (2021) to 8% (2023)
  • $18B debt load with rising interest expenses

5. Technological Crossroads

Autonomy Delays:

  • Full Self-Driving (FSD) still at Level 2 after 10+ years
  • Major competitors (Waymo, Cruise) deploying robotaxis

Battery Innovation:

  • 4680 cells not meeting energy density targets
  • Chinese competitors achieving faster charging speeds

Potential Succession Scenarios and Implications

Internal Candidates Analysis

1. Drew Baglino (Former SVP Powertrain & Energy)

  • Strengths: Deep technical expertise, 18-year Tesla veteran
  • Weaknesses: Limited public-facing experience, resigned April 2024

2. Tom Zhu (SVP Automotive)

  • Strengths: Turned around China operations, production expert
  • Weaknesses: Limited autonomy/AI experience

3. Lars Moravy (VP Vehicle Engineering)

  • Strengths: Product development leader, respected internally
  • Weaknesses: Unknown strategic vision

External Possibilities

Wildcard Option:
Could Tesla recruit an auto industry veteran like:

  • Jim Farley (Ford CEO)
  • Herbert Diess (Former VW CEO)

Tech Industry Options:

  • Jennifer Tejada (Former PagerDuty CEO)
  • Gwynne Shotwell (SpaceX COO)

Investor Perspectives: What the Street Is Saying

Bull Case:

  • “Musk is irreplaceable as a tech visionary” – Dan Ives, Wedbush
  • “Succession planning doesn’t equal imminent change” – Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley

Bear Case:

  • “The board has failed shareholders by not planning sooner” – GLJ Research
  • “Tesla needs an operational CEO to complement Musk’s vision” – Bernstein

Institutional Investor Sentiment:

  • Vanguard and BlackRock both supported shareholder proposals for better succession planning
  • 32% of votes favored independent chair proposal in 2023 (up from 26% in 2022)

Historical Precedents: Lessons From Tech Leadership Transitions

Successful Transitions:

  1. Microsoft (Ballmer → Nadella)
    • Key: Clear succession pipeline
    • Result: $500B+ value creation
  2. Apple (Jobs → Cook)
    • Key: Multi-year transition period
    • Result: Maintained innovation while scaling

Failed Transitions:

  1. Uber (Kalanick → Khosrowshahi)
    • Issue: Crisis-driven change
    • Result: Years of instability
  2. WeWork (Neumann → SoftBank takeover)
    • Issue: No planning
    • Result: Near-collapse

The Path Forward: Strategic Recommendations

For Tesla’s Board

  1. Formalize Succession Plan
    • Identify 2-3 internal candidates
    • Establish mentorship program
  2. Enhance Governance
    • Add independent directors
    • Separate Chair/CEO roles
  3. Manage Transparent Communication
    • Public roadmap for leadership development
    • Clear timelines for any transitions

For Investors

  1. Monitor These Key Metrics:
    • Musk’s time allocation (via jet tracking, public appearances)
    • Board refreshment (any new independent appointments)
    • Succession-related disclosures in next proxy statement
  2. Engagement Priorities:
    • Push for formal succession committee
    • Advocate for board independence

Conclusion: Why This Matters Beyond Tesla

The Tesla leadership saga represents a case study in:

  • Founder-led company challenges
  • Board governance in disruptive tech
  • Investor rights in high-growth firms

As Ark Invest’s Cathie Wood recently noted: “The market isn’t pricing in the key person risk at Tesla. When that changes, it could be dramatic.”

The coming months will prove crucial. Will Tesla:

  • Double down on Musk’s leadership?
  • Begin a gradual transition?
  • Face a crisis-driven change?

One thing is certain: How Tesla navigates this challenge will shape not just its future, but the broader conversation about leadership in transformative companies.

ADVERTISEMENT
RECOMMENDED
NEXT UP

What started as a smooth court hearing on Friday regarding the sale of Nikola Corporation’s key assets to Lucid Motors took a sharp turn toward controversy — all thanks to a late intervention by a familiar figure from Nikola’s past.

The hearing, conducted via Zoom and overseen by Delaware bankruptcy judge Thomas Horan, had been progressing without a hitch. No formal objections had been filed, and Judge Horan gave his verbal approval for the sale without hesitation. That is, until a new voice broke the calm.

A lawyer, representing ISSO LLC — a firm tied to Trevor Milton, Nikola’s embattled founder — spoke up. His client had “concerns” about the auction process, the attorney said, though he clarified they could be addressed later. He emphasized, however, that he didn’t want his client’s current silence to be used against them in future legal proceedings.

This seemingly minor comment cast a long shadow over what should have been a straightforward conclusion. Trevor Milton, recently spared a prison term by a pardon from former President Donald Trump, appears far from finished with Nikola.

Milton’s Ongoing Influence and Legal Entanglements

Trevor Milton has a complicated history with Nikola. After resigning amid fraud allegations, he faced multiple lawsuits and an arbitration award ordering him to pay $168 million to Nikola — a sum that plays a critical role in the company’s ongoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Before filing for bankruptcy, Nikola agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit from shareholders who had accused Milton of making false and misleading statements. That settlement hinged on distributing any proceeds from the arbitration award to affected shareholders.

Milton’s legal maneuvering during the bankruptcy process has not gone unnoticed. His representatives’ attempts to contest the sale or delay proceedings suggest he may be angling to undermine the company’s efforts to stabilize and move forward — potentially impacting that $168 million award.

What Lucid Motors Is Gaining — and What Nikola Still Holds

Despite the courtroom drama, the sale to Lucid Motors was officially approved. Lucid acquired:

  • Nikola’s Coolidge, Arizona factory
  • The Phoenix headquarters lease
  • Key manufacturing equipment
  • Around 300 Nikola employees who will join Lucid’s workforce

However, Nikola is not completely out of the asset business. It retains its inventory of hydrogen-powered trucks and various other equipment, leaving the door open for additional sales to generate much-needed funds.

Nikola’s Legal Team Pushes Back Against Milton

Nikola’s attorney, Joshua Morris, made it clear during the hearing that Milton’s last-minute objections were not only expected but also unwelcome.

“This is a pattern of behavior that we’ve seen over and over,” Morris said, referencing Milton’s history of disruptive tactics.

Morris argued that Milton’s actions appeared to be an effort to sabotage Nikola’s recovery, speculating that Milton might be trying to force a desperation-driven settlement that would devalue the arbitration award he owes.

“We believe these are baseless assertions. When asked for any evidence or specificity, none was provided,” Morris stated. “We ran the sale process openly and involved all parties.”

Ultimately, the hearing concluded without any formal delays, though the unresolved tension between Milton and his former company leaves open the possibility of future legal battles.

A spokesperson for Milton did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

What This Means for Nikola’s Future

The approval of the asset sale to Lucid Motors is a critical milestone for Nikola as it seeks to navigate bankruptcy proceedings and chart a path forward. However, Trevor Milton’s lingering influence and legal maneuvers could continue to complicate efforts to fully stabilize the company.

As Nikola pushes forward, the focus will likely remain on:

  • Successfully liquidating remaining assets
  • Upholding the shareholder settlement linked to Milton’s arbitration award
  • Minimizing disruption from ongoing legal threats

Lucid Motors, meanwhile, gains valuable infrastructure and talent to bolster its own ambitions in the competitive EV market.

Zoox, Amazon’s autonomous car unit, is deploying a small fleet of adapted test vehicles on Los Angeles streets beginning Tuesday, a tiny but significant step as the company prepares to provide public rides in Las Vegas and San Francisco later this year.

The data-collection endeavor marks Zoox’s entry into its sixth city and provides the framework for a potential robotaxi service. Zoox, unlike rival Waymo, which offers paid robotaxi rides in Los Angeles, is still in its early phases. This deployment will send out manually driven Toyota Highlanders equipped with Zoox’s self-driving technology to collect mapping data ahead of more extensive autonomous testing in Los Angeles this summer.

Zoox is actively testing its self-driving vehicles, including the Highlander test fleet and a purpose-built robotaxis without a steering wheel or pedals, in multiple cities. Notably, Zoox has increased the regions where its purpose-built robotaxi is being tested on public highways without a human driver, including Foster City, San Francisco, and Las Vegas. Zoox recently invited employees, reporters, and other qualified guests to test the service.

The company is also doing tests in Austin, Miami, and Seattle with Highlanders driven by human safety operators.

Zoox’s expansion in California comes just a few weeks after the company issued a voluntary software recall on 258 vehicles owing to difficulties with its autonomous driving system that caused unexpected forceful braking.

Zoox’s debut into Los Angeles comes after Waymo launched a fully autonomous commercial robotaxi service in the city. Waymo is currently the only AV firm in the United States that provides a paid service in many areas, including the Bay Area, Phoenix, and Austin. The Alphabet-owned startup plans to establish a commercial service in Atlanta, Miami, and Washington, D.C. within the next two years.

ADVERTISEMENT
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Get notified about new articles