Elon Musk has once again captured public attention—not with a new Tesla or a SpaceX launch, but with an email. An email sent to all employees of the US federal government as part of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. His directive?
“List five things you achieved last week.”
This simple yet direct inquiry has sparked widespread discussion, particularly among those involved in employee management and organisational performance. While some see it as a pragmatic approach to increasing accountability, others have reacted with hostility, arguing that it imposes an excessive burden on employees and fosters a culture of micromanagement. Critics within the public sector contend that such an approach oversimplifies complex governmental roles and disregards the collaborative nature of bureaucratic work.
So, what is Musk aiming to accomplish, and how does this initiative align with contemporary research on workplace productivity? One answer may be informed by the influential 2012 study by Ernest O’Boyle Jr. and Herman Aguinis, which challenges conventional thinking about how individual performance is distributed.
DOGE: A Focus on Output Over Process
For those unfamiliar, DOGE is Musk’s initiative, launched in collaboration with Vivek Ramaswamy, to enhance efficiency within U.S. government operations. Tasked with the formidable challenge of cutting through bureaucracy, DOGE aims to not only streamline processes but also reduce costs and improve overall performance. By leveraging a data-driven approach, the initiative seeks to identify inefficiencies, reallocate resources effectively, and ensure that government functions operate with greater accountability and impact.
Musk’s request for employees to list five tangible accomplishments is not merely a check-in—it is a deliberate effort to measure individual contributions based on concrete results rather than bureaucratic obligations. This reflects a growing movement in management that prioritises outcomes over process.
In many commercial settings, weekly stand-up meetings and performance reviews are common, with employees expected to summarise their key contributions. High-performing organisations frequently assess productivity by tracking tangible outputs rather than routine task completion. A practice far less prevalent in the public sector, where performance assessments tend to emphasise compliance with established procedures rather than individual impact.
This raises an important question: Is Musk applying a one-size-fits-all approach to performance evaluation, or is he leveraging a more nuanced strategy? This is where I think it is worth exploring O’Boyle and Aguinis’ important paper, The Best and the Rest: Revisiting the Norm of Normality of Individual Performance.
The Power Law of Performance and Related Concepts
Traditional HR models tend to assume employee performance follows a bell curve—with most individuals clustering around an average level of productivity, while only a small percentage excel or underperform. This assumption underpins many performance management systems, which allocate rewards and disciplinary actions accordingly. And, to be fair, it’s an understandable assumption to make, after all many human characteristics and traits are normally distributed.
O’Boyle and Aguinis challenge this assumption, presenting compelling evidence that performance does not follow a normal distribution but instead adheres to a power law.
Under a power law distribution, a small cohort of high performers generates the vast majority of output, while the remaining workforce contributes significantly less. Their study, which analysed 633,263 individuals across fields such as academia, entertainment, politics, and sports, revealed the following:
- In academia, 65.8% of researchers fall below the mean publication rate, while a small elite produces the majority of published work.
- In the NBA, 71.1% of players score below the mean, while a handful of superstars account for most points scored.
This power law distribution suggests the top 5% or 10%—sometimes even fewer—account for an outsized impact on productivity and innovation.
These findings align with other well-established principles of productivity distribution, such as the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule) and Price’s Law.
- The Pareto Principle suggests that roughly 80% of outcomes result from 20% of efforts, meaning that a small portion of employees drive most of the success.
- Price’s Law takes this further, stating that half of the total work in a given domain is done by the square root of the total number of contributors, meaning that in a large workforce, a disproportionately small number of individuals generate most of the results.
Both of these principles reinforce the idea that performance is not evenly distributed— It’s not a gentle curve; it’s a cliff.
DOGE Through the Lens of the Power Law
Musk’s email directive can be interpreted as an effort to identify high-impact performers within DOGE. If performance follows a power law distribution, asking employees for their key accomplishments may reveal significant disparities in contribution:
- A small subset of employees will report high-value, transformative work, such as eliminating inefficiencies or saving substantial amounts of money.
- The majority of employees may list incremental improvements or struggle to pinpoint meaningful achievements.
By applying a data-driven approach to talent identification, Musk may be seeking to distinguish the most impactful contributors from the rest, aligning with O’Boyle and Aguinis’ research, as well as the insights from the Pareto Principle and Price’s Law.
Lessons for Employers
Musk’s approach offers valuable lessons for UK employers, particularly in sectors where performance assessment remains rigid and process-driven. Here are three key takeaways:
1. Redefine Performance Metrics
Most organisations assume that all employees contribute relatively equally. The power law challenges this notion, suggesting that a small fraction of the workforce generates the majority of value.
To test this in your organisation, try Musk’s method: ask employees what they accomplished last week. This simple exercise can illuminate which individuals are consistently delivering high-impact results.
2. Customise Management Strategies for High Performers
Elite performers require different incentives, training opportunities, and leadership approaches compared to their peers.
If Musk identifies a top 5% within DOGE, he will likely restructure resources to empower these individuals. UK organisations should consider similar strategies—ensuring that their most productive employees are not stifled by one-size-fits-all management approaches.
Are we nurturing our high performers, or are we forcing them into bureaucratic frameworks designed for the average?
3. Question the Bell Curve Assumption
Many performance appraisal systems rely on ranking employees into pre-determined categories—high, middle, and low performers. O’Boyle and Aguinis argue that such models are flawed because performance rarely conforms to a symmetrical distribution.
Instead of rigid rankings, Musk’s approach provides a direct measure of achievement, offering a more transparent way to assess employee contributions.
For UK employers—particularly in the public and third sectors, where fairness and equality are central to decision-making—this presents an uncomfortable but necessary question:
Are we rewarding effort, or are we rewarding impact?
Conclusion
While the long-term effects of Musk’s DOGE initiative remain to be seen, his focus on individual accountability and measurable outcomes echoes O’Boyle and Aguinis’ assertion that performance follows a power law distribution. The Pareto Principle and Price’s Law further reinforce this concept, highlighting the reality that most productivity comes from a select few individuals.
In an era where efficiency and productivity are paramount, from Whitehall to the City, acknowledging that a small proportion of employees drive the majority of success could be transformative.
So, would Musk’s five-things test work in your organisation?
For now, I’ll be watching DOGE closely – if anyone can turn a power law into policy, it’s Elon Musk.