Chainsaw or Scalpel?

Cutting costs is sometimes necessary—but leaders must choose their tools wisely. Use a scalpel, not a chainsaw, or you risk killing the patient.

When Elon Musk showed up wielding a chainsaw at CPAC as a symbol of his mission to slash government spending and bureaucracy, the message was clear: dramatic cuts were coming. But the image also raised a deeper question—one that goes to the heart of leadership in times of crisis and change: Should leaders approach organizational transformation with a chainsaw—or a scalpel?

Lessons from Two Famous Cost Cutters

Musk isn’t the first high-profile executive to turn heads with bold cuts. Two other names come to mind: “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap and “Neutron Jack” Welch.

Al Dunlap made headlines in the 1990s as the CEO of Scott Paper, where he eliminated more than a third of the workforce before flipping the company to Kimberly-Clark. Then came Sunbeam. Dunlap cut half the staff there in a bid to turn things around. But revenue collapsed and Al was eventually fired (it turned out he had been cooking the books). The company ultimately declared bankruptcy. His cuts were deep—but not surgical.

Jack Welch earned the moniker “Neutron Jack” for eliminating 100,000 jobs—about a quarter of GE’s workforce—shortly after becoming CEO in 1981. But Welch’s story turned out differently. Under his 20-year leadership, GE’s market cap skyrocketed from $12 billion to $280 billion. Welch, for all his ruthlessness, operated with long-term value creation in mind. He wasn't just cutting—he was reshaping.

Four Types of Leadership

Bill Rothschild, who served as GE’s Senior Corporate Strategist for three decades, believed that different moments in an organization’s life cycle demand different leadership archetypes. In his book “Risktaker, Caretaker, Surgeon, Undertaker”, he outlines four leadership personas:

When organizations stagnate or slide toward decline, Rothschild argues, they don’t need a cheerleader or a caretaker—they need a surgeon. Someone who knows where to cut and where not to.

Surgeons don’t hack away indiscriminately. They use scalpels, not chainsaws. And they always start with one guiding principle: First, do no harm.

The Chainsaw Problem

That’s the trouble with the chainsaw approach: it’s all force, no finesse. Sure, it’s fast. But it’s also indiscriminate. Muscles, arteries, nerves—everything goes under the blade.

In organizational terms, that translates to severed relationships, shattered morale, broken processes, and loss of institutional knowledge. When the cuts go too deep—or are made without understanding what’s vital—the patient may not recover.

We’re already seeing signs that Musk’s cost-cutting at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) may be doing more harm than good:

• Whiplash decisions: Some employees were terminated so abruptly that operations stalled and agencies had to scramble to rehire them.

• Mixed signals: Others who accepted voluntary buyouts were told their roles were actually “mission critical” and urged to stay.

• Legal backlash: The rapid-fire layoffs have triggered a wave of lawsuits and labor disputes.

• Operational disruption: A freeze on government-issued payment cards halted travel and supply purchases, paralyzing day-to-day functions.

In the name of cutting waste, DOGE may be sawing through the very tendons that allow the government to function.

Cutting Fat versus Cutting Muscle

Let’s be clear: the federal government could be more efficient. There’s no shortage of waste, redundancy, or antiquated systems. But when change is needed—real, systemic, lasting change—leadership must be more surgeon than lumberjack.

Surgeon-leaders know that not everything can be saved, but they take care to preserve what matters most:

They cut the fat, not the muscle.

They measure twice, cut once.

They keep the long-term health of the organization in mind.

Most importantly, they manage the recovery. They plan for what comes after the cut—how the team will heal, how capabilities will be rebuilt, and how trust can be restored.

What's the Endgame?

The most critical difference between the scalpel and the chainsaw isn’t just the tool—it’s the intent behind the action.

If the goal is to restore the organization to health, the cuts must be precise and targeted. If the goal is to shut it down—or burn it all down—then the chainsaw starts to make sense. But you can’t claim you’re saving the patient if your actions look like euthanasia.

And that’s the lingering question behind the DOGE effort. Is this an attempt to make government more efficient? Or is it an ideological crusade to dismantle it?

A Cautionary Tale for All Leaders

Whether you lead a business, a non-profit, or a public agency, the lesson is the same: transformation requires more than boldness. It requires judgment. It requires empathy. It requires a scalpel.

The next time your organization is facing stagnation, financial pressure, or the need to reinvent itself, ask yourself this:

• Am I wielding a chainsaw or a scalpel?

• Am I cutting to heal—or just to cut?

• Will my organization emerge stronger—or just smaller?

Because if your patient dies on the table, you don’t get credit for the surgery. You get blamed for the malpractice.

Want more on leadership, transformation, and fixing work? Subscribe for weekly posts that dig into the hard choices leaders face and how to make them wisely.