Employees inside Elon Musk’s empire describe a work culture that has tipped from intense to unsustainable, with some staffers now expected to log up to 120-hour weeks as leadership churn ripples across all five of his major companies. What began as a badge-of-honor grind at Tesla, SpaceX, and other ventures is now driving a wave of departures that is reshaping the talent base behind some of the world’s most closely watched technologies. The exodus is forcing a hard reassessment of whether Musk’s signature “24/7 campaign” style can still attract and retain the people needed to keep his sprawling portfolio on track.
The 120-hour week that broke the spell
The mythology around Elon Musk has long rested on the idea that extraordinary products demand extraordinary sacrifice, but the latest accounts from inside his orbit suggest that bargain is collapsing under its own weight. Employees at Elon Musk’s five companies now describe schedules that can reach 120 hours in a single week, a level of strain that turns even the most mission-driven job into a health risk rather than a career highlight. The same culture that once drew ambitious engineers with promises of impact and equity is now pushing them out as they confront the physical and emotional cost of a workload that leaves no room for rest, family, or basic recovery.
Reports of staff “fleeing over 120 hour workweeks” frame the current moment as a tipping point, with Employees at Elon Musk’s five companies no longer willing to treat exhaustion as proof of loyalty. The phrase “Musk Faces Mass Exodus Across All, Companies, Staff Fleeing Over, Hour Workweeks” captures how central the 120-hour figure has become to the story, turning a once-celebrated hustle into a liability for recruitment and retention. When the baseline expectation is that personal life will be sacrificed indefinitely, even highly compensated staff begin to calculate whether the trade-off still makes sense.
From heroic grind to structural burnout
Inside Musk’s organizations, the grind has always been part of the pitch, but the current pattern looks less like a sprint and more like a permanent state of emergency. One former insider, Liberatore, publicly described working “102 days – 7 days per week in the office; 120+ hours per week,” a snapshot that illustrates how the culture has normalized what would elsewhere be treated as a crisis schedule. That kind of cadence might be survivable for a short launch window or a critical product deadline, yet it becomes corrosive when it stretches into months and quarters with no clear off-ramp.
The same account framed the environment as “a 24/7 campaign,” language that underlines how Musk’s companies operate as if they are always in the final week before an election rather than running a sustainable business. In that context, Liberatore’s description of working 102 straight days at more than 120 hours per week is not just a personal anecdote, it is a data point in a broader pattern of structural burnout that is now feeding the wave of resignations. The details, shared on a business networking site and later highlighted in coverage of Liberatore, show how the line between dedication and self-harm has been crossed inside key teams.
“He burns through deputies”: churn at the top
The mass departures are not limited to rank-and-file engineers or operations staff, they are most visible among the senior deputies who once formed Musk’s inner circle. One anonymous advisor captured the pattern bluntly, saying that “the one constant in Elon’s world is how quickly he burns through deputies,” a remark that points to a leadership model built on relentless pressure and rapid turnover rather than long-term partnership. Across the five companies he controls, that churn is now visible in repeated reshuffles, abrupt exits, and a revolving door of executives who arrive with fanfare and leave with little explanation.
Accounts of this pattern emphasize that the problem is systemic, not confined to a single venture or product line. Observers note that “Across the five companies he” leads, the same dynamic plays out: intense proximity to Elon, followed by exhaustion, conflict, or disillusionment, and then a quiet departure that leaves yet another gap in the leadership chart. The description that “then there’s ‘Tesla time’” in reporting on Elon Musk’s turnover hints at an internal joke that has become a warning label, shorthand for deadlines and expectations that routinely ignore normal human limits.
Morale, recruitment, and the “campaign-style” ethos
As the hours stretch and the exits mount, the cultural cost is showing up in morale surveys, recruiting pipelines, and the informal networks that once funneled top talent into Musk’s orbit. One long-standing lieutenant warned that “Elon’s behaviour is affecting morale, retention and recruitment,” tying the exodus directly to the way the chief executive sets tone and expectations. When the person at the top treats 120-hour weeks as a reasonable baseline and public confrontation as a management tool, it becomes harder for managers below to promise new hires anything different.
Insiders describe the prevailing style as a “campaign-style work ethos,” a phrase that captures both the urgency and the instability of life inside these companies. In a political campaign, staff accept that the job will consume their lives for a finite period, after which the organization disbands or resets. At Musk’s firms, that same ethos has been stretched into a permanent operating model, leaving people with no realistic prospect of a cooldown. The warning that “Elon’s behaviour is affecting morale, retention and recruitment” and that this is tied to a “campaign-style work ethos” is laid out starkly in analysis of Elon’s behaviour, which connects the dots between leadership style and the growing difficulty of filling key roles.
Burnout meets politics at Tesla and xAI
The exodus is not driven by workload alone, it is also colliding with Musk’s increasingly visible political activism and strategic pivots, particularly at Tesla and xAI. Senior staff who once joined to build electric vehicles or cutting-edge artificial intelligence now find themselves navigating public controversies, abrupt product shifts, and mass layoffs layered on top of already punishing hours. The result is a form of double burnout, where employees are drained not only by the time they spend at work but also by the cognitive dissonance of defending decisions they did not make and may not support.
Reports of “Churn at Tesla and xAI” link this leadership turnover to disillusionment with the billionaire’s activism, as well as to the stress of repeated reorganizations that can wipe out entire teams within a week of each other. When staff are asked to work 120-hour weeks on projects that may be shelved or radically rebranded overnight, the sense of purpose that once justified the grind begins to evaporate. The description of how “Churn at Tesla and xAI” has been driven by burnout and politics is detailed in coverage of Elo Musk’s senior staff exits, which underscores how ideological battles and strategic zigzags are now as destabilizing as the workload itself.
Five companies, one retention problem
What makes the current moment so striking is that the retention crisis is not confined to a single troubled unit, it is playing out across all five of Musk’s flagship companies at once. From Tesla’s vehicle and battery operations to SpaceX’s launch and satellite programs, from xAI’s research labs to the social media and infrastructure ventures that round out the portfolio, the same complaints surface: unrelenting hours, volatile priorities, and a leadership style that prizes loyalty over dissent. The phrase “Musk Faces Mass Exodus Across All, Companies, Staff Fleeing Over, Hour Workweeks” captures how widespread the pattern has become, turning what might once have been dismissed as isolated grumbling into a structural risk.
Video reports on the situation describe how “Musk faces mass exodus across all 5 companies” and how “Employees at Elon Musk’s five” firms are now leaving rather than accept schedules “exceeding 120 hours per week.” That framing matters because it signals to potential recruits that there may be no safe harbor within the empire, no quieter division where the culture is meaningfully different. When the same stories of burnout and departure echo from rocket factories to AI labs, the brand that once magnetized talent can start to repel it. The warning that “Musk faces mass exodus across all 5 companies” and that Employees at Elon Musk’s five ventures are confronting workloads “exceeding 120 hours per week” is laid out in video coverage of Musk faces mass exodus, reinforcing that this is a portfolio-wide challenge rather than a localized flare-up.
Top aides walk, projects feel the strain
The departure of top aides is not just a human resources story, it has direct consequences for the ambitious projects that underpin Musk’s public narrative. When senior leaders who understand the technical, regulatory, and operational details of programs like Optimus or autonomous taxis walk out, they leave behind gaps that cannot be filled overnight, no matter how strong the brand. The resulting delays, miscommunications, and strategic drift can slow everything from factory ramp-ups to software rollouts, even if the official messaging continues to project confidence.
Recent accounts of “Employee turnover at Musk companies” highlight how both new hires and long-serving executives are now heading for the exits, often citing a mix of burnout and discomfort with the chief’s controversial political views. One report notes that “Musk’s controversial political views have also pushed employees away” and that “Both new hir” and veteran staff are reconsidering their future as the internal climate shifts. The description of how “Employee turnover at Musk companies” is reshaping key initiatives, including work on Optimus and autonomous taxis, is laid out in reporting on top aides fleeing all 5 companies, which makes clear that the talent drain is now intersecting with some of the most high-profile bets in the portfolio.
Politics, perception, and the employer brand
For years, Musk’s companies benefited from a kind of cultural halo, attracting people who wanted to work at the cutting edge of electric vehicles, reusable rockets, and artificial intelligence. That halo is now dimming as his personal political interventions become more central to the public image of the businesses themselves. Employees who joined to build products are finding themselves fielding questions from family and friends regarding Musk’s politics, a shift that adds reputational stress to already overloaded schedules. When the boss’s social media feed becomes a daily flashpoint, it is harder for staff to separate their professional identity from controversies they did not choose.
Reports on “Employee turnover at Musk companies” emphasize that “Musk’s controversial political views have also pushed employees away” and that “Both new hir” and long-tenured staff are feeling the strain of this new reality. One account quotes insiders saying that the backlash “isn’t going to go away,” a recognition that the political dimension is now baked into the employer brand rather than a passing storm. The warning that “Employee turnover at Musk companies” is being driven by a mix of overwork and politics, and that “Both new hir” and veterans are affected, is spelled out in coverage of Employee turnover at Musk companies, which underlines how reputational risk is now a core factor in retention.
What happens when the exodus continues
The immediate impact of the current wave of departures is visible in delayed timelines, reshuffled org charts, and the quiet shelving of some initiatives, but the longer-term risk is deeper. If the perception hardens that working for Elon Musk means accepting 120-hour weeks, constant political crossfire, and a high likelihood of burnout, the pool of people willing to sign up will shrink, especially among those with options at other leading tech and industrial firms. Over time, that could erode the very advantage that helped Musk’s companies punch above their weight: a concentration of top-tier talent willing to endure short-term pain for long-term impact.
At the same time, the pattern described by insiders, from the advisor who said “Even” he was struck by how quickly deputies are burned through to the lieutenant who warned that “Elon’s behaviour is affecting morale, retention and recruitment,” suggests that the problem is not self-correcting. Without a deliberate shift in expectations and tone from the top, the “24/7 campaign” model is likely to keep producing the same outcome: exhausted staff, public accounts of 102-day stretches at more than 120 hours per week, and a steady stream of headlines about mass exits across all five companies. For now, the people leaving are voting with their feet, and the message they are sending is clear: even for the most ambitious employees, there is a point at which no mission is worth 120 hours a week.
More from MorningOverview