I think you're arguing tangentially to the point being made, which is that: no insubordination happened. They were simply critical of how Musk represented them.

I have to assume they knew when they penned the letter that they would find out whether their leader could take criticism and help them make a better company and product together, or react immaturely and let them know that their time would be better spent elsewhere. Seems they got their answer.

In any case, yeah, Musk owns the company and has the right to fire people for criticizing his business decisions. Bold strategy, we'll see how it turns out for him.

I think you can reasonably argue that the company Musk leads are largely supported (at least historically) by his showmanship and personality cult. That may be shifting, but it's absolutely fair that diminishing the reputation of companies whose stock valuations are largely based on seemingly irrational faith in dear-leader is in fact weakening the company.

I think there's also this game that gets played now where internal dissent tries to whip up external dissenters to get their way within companies. Leaders need to decide if this is happening or not and act accordingly.

> find out whether their leader could take criticism and help them make a better company and product together

This is cringe worthy. They knew exactly what would happen and expected to rally support online. I can't say with certainty what the ultimate goal was.

Bold strategy, we'll see how it turns out for him

This is common and has been common for hundreds of years.

Burn the boss, lose your job.

It isn't rocket science.