In a recent earnings call, Elon Musk, the mercurial CEO of Tesla Inc., candidly acknowledged the precariousness of his position at the helm of the electric-vehicle giant. Musk noted that with his ownership stake at approximately 13%, the company’s board could swiftly oust him if his behavior veered into what he termed “crazy” territory. This admission, reported by Futurism, underscores the ongoing tensions between Musk’s outsized influence and the governance structures meant to check it.

The statement came amid a broader discussion of Tesla’s challenges, including slumping sales and intensifying competition in the EV market. Musk’s remarks highlight a fundamental reality for public companies: even dominant figures like him are not immune to board oversight, especially when shareholder value is at stake.

Musk’s Ownership and Control Dynamics

Industry analysts point out that Musk’s 13% stake, while significant, falls short of the controlling interest that could insulate him from board actions. This contrasts with his earlier efforts to increase his voting power, which have sparked legal battles and investor scrutiny. For instance, a Delaware court ruling earlier this year invalidated a massive compensation package that would have boosted his ownership, a decision Musk has publicly contested.

Adding layers to this narrative, Musk has expressed a desire for more control to prevent activist investors from influencing Tesla’s direction, yet he paradoxically welcomes the board’s ability to intervene if he loses touch with reality. This balancing act reflects the high-stakes governance at Tesla, where innovation often clashes with accountability.

Recent Controversies and Board Responses

Musk’s political forays have amplified concerns about his leadership stability. As detailed in another Futurism piece, his announcement of an “America Party” and erratic social media posts have prompted warnings from analysts that the board may need to step in. One analyst suggested that such behavior could force directors to reassume control, echoing sentiments from posts found on X where Musk has defended his actions while criticizing media reports.

Tesla’s board has faced criticism for its perceived deference to Musk. Historical episodes, such as the 2018 tweet about taking Tesla private that led to SEC charges, tested the board’s resolve. Yet, as Musk himself noted in past communications on X, the board has acted decisively in other instances, like the unanimous decision to fire a former executive in 2007 amid allegations of deception.

Earnings Woes and Future Risks

The context of Musk’s “crazy” comment was Tesla’s disappointing second-quarter results, with profits plunging and shares dipping in premarket trading. A New York Times report highlighted Musk’s warning of “rough” times ahead, exacerbated by policy shifts under the Trump administration, including the scrapping of EV tax credits and potential tariffs.

These headwinds compound internal pressures. Musk has lamented the removal of sustainable energy subsidies while defending SpaceX’s government contracts on merit, as seen in recent X posts. For Tesla insiders, this raises questions about strategic pivots, such as accelerating autonomous driving tech or robotaxi initiatives, amid board oversight.

Governance Implications for Tech Titans

Broader implications extend to how boards manage visionary yet volatile leaders. Musk’s situation mirrors challenges at other firms where CEOs wield immense power but face accountability lapses. Analysts argue that Tesla’s board, composed of allies like Musk’s brother Kimbal, must navigate loyalty with fiduciary duty, especially as investor optimism wanes.

Ultimately, Musk’s admission serves as a reminder that even at Tesla, where innovation drives value, governance mechanisms exist to curb excess. As the company grapples with market realities, the board’s role in potentially reining in its CEO could define its trajectory in an increasingly competitive arena.