If Elon Musk Were McKinsey, Would He Still Be the Villain?
A quick perspective on DOGE, management consulting, the Federal Government, and what Elon Musk is working on.
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is making waves with its aggressive push to streamline federal agencies, slash bureaucratic inefficiencies, and implement radical cost-cutting measures. The backlash has been swift and intense. Critics call it reckless, authoritarian, and even dystopian.
But let’s ask a different question: What if McKinsey & Company or Boston Consulting Group (BCG) were leading this charge instead? Would the same media outlets, political voices, and critics be up in arms? Or would we see a carefully managed PR narrative celebrating “data-driven transformation” and “strategic restructuring”?
The difference, it seems, is branding—not substance.
For decades, top consulting firms have made billions advising corporations and governments on how to reduce costs, streamline operations, and improve efficiencies—which is often a euphemism for laying off employees and cutting programs.
McKinsey charged New York City’s public hospital system $27.5 million for recommendations that resulted in nurse layoffs.
The U.S. Department of Defense has paid McKinsey over $600 million for consulting contracts, many of which focused on cost-cutting and operational restructuring.
McKinsey was hired by Saudi Arabia to restructure its government ministries, leading to layoffs and major efficiency overhauls.
These firms stereotypically deliver PowerPoint decks, charge enormous fees, and leave behind a leaner workforce.
Musk, on the other hand, is doing essentially the same thing—but without the consulting fees.
How DOGE Disrupts the Consulting Model
DOGE has been implementing cost-cutting measures that look eerily similar to what McKinsey or BCG would recommend:
Requiring federal employees to submit weekly reports proving their value—or risk termination. This is standard “accountability tracking” in consulting playbooks.
Reviewing agency effectiveness and shutting down redundant programs. Classic consulting deliverable: an “efficiency matrix” with red-highlighted cost centers to be eliminated.
Proposing mass layoffs and budget reductions to eliminate waste. McKinsey calls this “workforce optimization.”
The difference? McKinsey would charge the government $500 million for the recommendations. Musk is implementing them directly—and people hate him for it.
So, imagine if Musk rebranded DOGE as “DOGE Consulting Group.”
Instead of bluntly telling employees to justify their jobs, he’d deliver a 100-slide PowerPoint deck on “Value-Driven Organizational Efficiency.”
Instead of calling out agencies as wasteful, he’d recommend “strategic restructuring of underperforming verticals.”
Instead of offering his cost-cutting insights for free, he’d bill the government hundreds of millions.
Would the backlash be the same? Or would it be reframed as thoughtful, data-backed transformation?
This is the paradox: Musk’s methods are jarring because they’re direct. Consulting firms do the same thing under layers of corporate polish and invoice padding.
Who Really Profits From Efficiency?
There’s another angle here—who benefits financially?
When McKinsey recommends layoffs, McKinsey profits.
When BCG implements “workforce streamlining,” they get another government contract.
When Deloitte proposes a “transformational efficiency plan,” they bill for execution and follow-up advisory services.
When Musk cuts government inefficiencies, he gets labeled an autocrat—but he’s not pocketing consulting fees. Instead, he’s disrupting an entrenched industry that thrives on inefficiency while selling the illusion of efficiency.
The reaction to DOGE isn’t really about whether cutting government bloat is good or bad—I think it’s more about about who is doing it, how they’re doing it, and who’s getting paid.
If McKinsey were leading the charge, would the media be outraged? Would there be congressional hearings? Or would we see an HBR case study on “innovative government transformation”?
The lesson here is that in the world of corporate and government restructuring, narrative matters more than reality.
And for all the outrage directed at Musk, he’s doing what consulting firms have done for decades—he’s just not hiding it behind a glossy presentation and a multi-million-dollar invoice.
What a weird and wonderful world,
Quick PSA
On a different note, I wanted to share something personal with you all. This year, I’m running the Chicago Marathon on behalf of the American Cancer Society. Cancer has impacted so many lives, including my own, and I’m honored to be running in support of research, treatment, and patient care.
If you’ve enjoyed this newsletter and want to support a great cause, I would truly appreciate any donation toward my fundraising goal. Every contribution, big or small, makes a difference.
Thank you for your support—it means the world to me!