Tesla’s board doubles its pressure on Ilon Musk. With its chairman denying a report that the electric car company is looking to replace it, the Board of Directors sends a clear message: We are in the business of Ilon Musk.

It is a questionable move, given one of the basic responsibilities of directors: risk assessment. Right now, Tesla is facing a number of them, including reduced sales, Musk’s commitment to the government’s efficiency ministry and, above all, its plan to bet on the future of the company in the robotic taxi. The greatest risk, however, is caused by the Musk itself. After all, the worst case scenario for a fleet of autonomous taxi is the security issue that is found. Apart from the possibility of costing lives, any major problem could scare people by pushing them from Tesla. Musk’s leadership style makes this scenario terribly reasonably reasonable.

All companies that provide a safe environment have some common features. They encourage open disagreement, minimize the hierarchy and raise the well -being of workers and their customers as primary issues. They ensure that everyone who works there have psychological security – that they feel free to express ideas, ask questions, admit mistakes, and even disagree with superiors, all without fear. All these are prerequisites for these companies that want to ensure physical security, as they enable employees to highlight the dangers of their bosses. Companies that deviate from this approach – as Boeing has done in recent years – are punished by both accidents and markets.

Cynthia Carroll in Anglo American and Paul O’Neill in Alcoa used this culture to change their companies’ approach to the issue of security. Carroll undertook an mining operation that had an average of 44 deaths per year and, over six years, reduced this number to 12. When it began, he said that he found an environment of “bullying and fear” that had been formed by apartheid in South Africa. Doing everything, from the temporary closure of the company’s largest mine after an accident, to the change in compensation criteria, to the imposition of the bosses to apologize to the family of anyone who is killed in their mines, Carroll turned the company into a company whose basic values ​​were.

At Alcoa aluminum production company, O’Neill was so focused on security that after his first speech as CEO, a member of the public said: “The Board of Directors put a crazy Hippie leader and will destroy the company.” O’Neill sent a memorandum to the staff by urging employees to raise any security concerns about their bosses and, if not heard, to contact him directly. He even shared his landline number. The result: The percentage of working days lost due to injuries declined by more than 80%, even when the company’s stock price jumped from $ 7 per share in April 1987, when O’Neill started as CEO at $ 67 at the end of 1999, when he resigned.

Boeing followed the opposite direction. It was once so recognized for the security that the pilots were saying jokingly “if it is not Boeing, I am not leaving”, the approach of the manufacturer of aircraft dominated the engineering sector and was obsessive with safety, began to weaken after the purchase of McDonnell Douglas. Her culture was sacrificed to reduce costs and informants were punished, destroying the psychological security and reputation they had built generations. It took two 737 max and 346 deaths to start the company to restore the damage.

In terms of security, Musk often says the right things. In 2013, he sent an email to the company that “anyone in Tesla can and should send email/talk to anyone else according to what he thinks is the fastest way to solve a problem for the benefit of the whole company … You can talk to me … you should consider yourself to do so.” In October 2021, he sent a memorandum to all Tesla executives, giving those who receive “clear instructions” from himself three options. The first was’ send me an email to explain why what I said was wrong. Sometimes I’m just wrong! ” This is exactly what psychological safety requires.

Unfortunately, Musk’s actions do not always seem to agree with what he is saying. In 2014, Tesla engineer Cristina Balan said she visited her with serious concerns about the security that Model S’s and its suppliers can offer. According to Balan, she was told that if she did not resign, members of her team waiting for their green cards would be deported. (Tesla has stated that Balan has been using the company’s resources in a “secret project.” She has sued the company for defamation.) Over the years, many employees have accused the company of fracturing them for expressing their concerns about security issues or criticizing Musk.

Thus, Tesla’s security culture probably leaves a lot of room for improvement. And if a problem arises, Musk himself has ensured that the company cannot be based on regulators. Doge’s job cuts in the National Road Traffic Security Administration focused on “staff assessing the dangers of autonomous driving,” said Ars Technica. This is reminiscent of what happened to Boeing, who allegedly used its influence on the federal government to weaken FAA’s supervision on the company.

Few chief executives in history are as tolerant of the risks that they are undertaken at the expense of the company as Musk, who, in his own appreciation, has led Tesla to “many crises”. Here, however, the call comes from the interior. Musk’s approach to leadership is the one that sows the seeds for Tesla’s next crisis – a crisis that could affect the whole industry. If he does not want to follow the example of Boeing, and become the youngest powerful American manufacturer to be canceled by his own mistakes, he must realize that being bold does not necessarily mean that he is playing fast and loose on security.

*Gautam Mukunda writes about corporate administration and innovation. He teaches leadership at the Yale School of Management and is the author of the book “Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter”