This is the complete opposite of the truth on almost every front. Elon is really good at bluster and branding. The execution is never there at launch of one of his ventures and usually only halfway there years later, this applies to X.com, SolarCity, Tesla, and SpaceX, all of which were and in some cases still are failures even until this day. But surviving for long enough and with the right folks around you means that you can turn things around.
But if you claim that SpaceX isn't the leading Space company by a huge margin, or that their execution is somehow behind any other space company, you obviously do not know much at all about SpaceX.
The success of SpaceX has nothing to do with Musk and a lot to do with this woman: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell. That even you, who ostensibly cares quite a bit about SpaceX, don’t know this is a testament to how little execution matters.
I think your definition of execution is a little off, or at least, confused.
In a previous comment you wrote:
> But surviving for long enough and with the right folks around you means that you can turn things around.
Did Elon not hire and then promote Gwynne? Is recruiting the right people and keeping them happy and fulfilled not an important part of executing any vision?
If all you do as a CEO is hire smart people who make tons of money for your company while solving hard problems, you've succeeded as a CEO. What else does a CEO do?
If every company that a CEO touches is a tirefire until they are removed from day-to-day operations, is that good execution on their part? Just because they eventually hire the right people and those people are successful? (Ignoring of course that hiring is not a 1 person job.)
Even when they are a liability to the company through their actions, lying to shareholders and customers? I'm not so sure. If Elon had ever lead a company to success of his own volition then I could say different. But he mostly gets credit for other people's work -- that's how his inclusion into the list of founders of Paypal came about in the first place, how he came to be head of Tesla, and also now how folks mistakenly give him credit for the success of SpaceX.
> If every company that a CEO touches is a tirefire until they are removed from day-to-day operations, is that good execution on their part?
Maybe? I think it'd be silly to claim that Tesla and SpaceX are so successful that they were able to become world class companies even under hostile leadership. They are successful in part because of their leadership, such as Gwynne as you mentioned (god bless her).
> Even when they are a liability to the company through their actions, lying to shareholders and customers?
One might argue this is even the primary purpose of a CEO, to lie and lie and keep the illusion going until the engineers have enough time to actually deliver. Tim Cook had a similar bout with Apple Maps, AirPower, and the infamous car project, but he doesn't seem to be cast in the same light as Elon with FSD.
> If Elon had ever lead a company to success of his own volition
If I may, I don't think anyone has ever lead a company to success of their own volition, so this is a false premise. You're saying that tons of other people helped make these companies succeed, but this is true for every company, even the ones that eventually fail.
Elon is a complicated character and he's certainly not a saint, but he is at the very least involved in these companies, and while they are doing well he deserves at least some credit for selling a vision that excites investors and customers and keeps the lights on. As I learn more about the business world, I'm beginning to see that a lot of tech CEOs have a similar social function to rockstars: they get crowds to feel ecstasy and hope and headbang to the music while skilled operators in the background sell merch, records, and deals.
