I think his status as a single child-free person goes understated in this article. It takes a special kind of husband/wife to be okay with someone who works this hard and not having to juggle a home life frees up his schedule to a huge degree. I can imagine working hard 18hr days while still in my 30s, but I cannot imagine doing that while maintaining a marriage and taking care of a kid or two. The guy is a billionaire so I guess he could pay for full time staff to help out but that isn't really the same as being there in person.
Yup. And I remember very clearly that day when it was going to be my career or my family, and I chose my family. I did so because more and more people I knew were getting more and more stressed at how pissed off their spouse was or that they never saw their kids. A number of them got divorced and could only see their children on every other weekend.
It will be interesting when he is 60 if he feels like he made the right choices.
Plenty of executives work long hours. In fact I imagine most do. I can't find it, but I remember reading where Scott McNealy talked about his dad working long hours as an executive at GM.
Except Elon only gets the kids for only half the time (shares custody with his ex-wife) and has a current wife and nannies taking care of the kids when he has them. He mentioned in videos that he doesn't get to spend that much time with his kids.
Just because it's possible for executives to work long hours, it doesn't mean it's healthy for their family life to.
Maybe he was more interested in spending time with their mothers than with the kids... Very few parents prioritize their kids before themselves even if many feel that is what they one is supposed to do.
I think it very much depends on how much interaction as a father you want to have with your kids.
If you want to be cooking some nice meals for them, coaching sports, attending events, assisting with homework, tucking into bed, dealing with illness, prepping for holidays, having fun together, taking vacations, etc. then you have to devote a substantial amount of time. I suspect that most of these busy CEO dads don't spend all that much time doing these things.
You only have so much time in the day and available time that corresponds to the time the child is available and active is in very short supply.
Ah, you hit it on the head. My neighborhood is full of these types, and that's the catch - you can keep your family together, but, just like happened to me standing at the ATM yesterday, the kids ride by on their hoverboards and you hear one of them telling the other how their dad had to go in to work (again) today - just like he always has to on Christmas.
My experience growing up in New York and going to school with lots of kids of fathers in finance was very much the opposite. There was zero expectation that they maintain regular families.
I largely agree with this, but would add that traders (and even investment bankers in their 30s/40s) will work very little on the weekend. Certainly no senior trader is in the office.
Would you guys agree that Jack Dorsey is a good CEO? And one of his roles as a CEO is to be able to motivate the employees towards the mission and vision of the company? And one would also be able to delegate tasks accordingly?
Also, would you guys agree that working hard for more than 16 hours a day for an extended period of time (months) is not really productive? Even more, I'd even say unhealthy and almost unrealistic (Yes, there are special cases).
I am predicting that Jack Dorsey spends less effort on most tasks and his most cognitive demanding task is about making tough critical decisions. Would you guys agree on this?
Now, why is it that some writers like to make CEOs look like gods? I wish there was a platform where you can rate writers based on their work. I'm pretty sure making them look like gods is very unhealthy for the community. Like doesn't these kind of articles piss you off?
> Would you guys agree that Jack Dorsey is a good CEO?
No, from what I've heard, Square isn't a particularly nice place to work - with very poor work-life balances throughout the company, and Dorsey micro-manages every little detail of design and product.
Twitter, on the other hand doesn't appear to be doing particularly well, as evidenced by the current share price, and the large amount of criticism from the tech community targeted at them.
Apple was lauded for years by the tech world for many reasons: dominance in audio/video/image production, the switch to a bsd based os, their dev kits, etc...
Microsoft has suffered greatly from the tech world's hatred. And, one has to wonder how different the mobile world would be if MS had built a better/more open community around their brand.
The techies, developers, etc... are the early adopters. They are the ones that are needed to keep your products fresh and relevant. Once they leave, the company is left with the unwashed masses and the platform stagnates (e.g. Microsoft).
"Now, why is it that some writers like to make CEOs look like gods? I wish there was a platform where you can rate writers based on their work. I'm pretty sure making them look like gods is very unhealthy for the community. Like doesn't these kind of articles piss you off?"
Why is this a bad thing? Becoming one like Dorsey or a CEO of huge company or simply a successful founder requires a certain mindset. A "growth" mindset at least, where you want to spend more hours for your passion (in this case business) than watching netfix. I think this mindset is pretty good. Working 18 hours a day doing your passion (And this is passion and not "work" for Dorsey or Musk) is much better than wasting your time away.
So there is nothing wrong with articles like this, showing only a normal day of people who like doing what they do.
As of 2013, the WSJ had a print circulation of 2.4 million, and 900,000 digital subscribers. Do you seriously think all of those people are CEOs and staff?
Google's results for "how many companies are there in the US" bring up a bunch of credible-looking hits putting the number in the multiples of millions.
Put another way, 2.4 million + 900,000 is a bit over one percent of the US population. I've heard the phrase "one percent" before...
I'm not sure what your point is. It's clear that WSJ has a readership in the millions, even if you dispute the precise circulation numbers. And that's what my response to the parent was about. It won't do to suggest that only CEOs and their staff read it.
My point is that the number of companies, and hence the number of CEOs, is also in the millions, even if you restrict just to the US. So it's certainly numerically possible that it's written for CEOs and their staff (and people who want to be CEOs), which is a much larger number.
If that were the case, it would apply to every large-circulation publication, though. So it's a moot point. You could just as easily say the same thing about the NYTimes, the Financial Times, or the Economist.
Jack actually walked out of the Twitter meeting where they were explaining the layoffs to the leftover employees. I'm sure he had an important meeting though.
FTA even the chairman of the board who, by definition, is Jack's direct boss had to taxicab him to have their weekly one on one. I am not sure I buy this, unless Jack is avoiding these meetings. WTF else is Jack doing? For God's sake, the other guy is not just some type of investment bank MBAs, he's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omid_Kordestani and was early employee and executive at both Netscape and Google.
I really think the future is bleak for both Twitter and Square.
He has a pretty hot girlfriend. I follow her on Instagram and based on her Instagram posts it looks like she and Jack jet set around the world traveling pretty constantly. Lots of art galleries, fashion shows, film festivals type stuff.
In the most charitable light, I believe Jack doesn't want to be seen as a villain. In a less charitable light.... I think most people can read between the lines.
Those can't or do not wish to see any ominous signs here, tend to be still working at the company. Willful ignorance of this kind is completely understandable, in my mind, since few wish to bite the hand that feeds them.
When you're working 18 hours days and burning out...he is mentally putting a cost/benefit to every single thing he does. I'm sure he decided he could generate more value doing something else (not a vague something else; a specific "I'm going to do this"). It's a coping mechanism and probably one of the few ways to stay productive in the face of insurmountable work.
Having put superhero efforts into a few roles, I can relate to that kind of behavior.
This article is as bland as it gets. How does Jack Dorsey run both Twitter and Square? By managing his time. Of course, we know he manages time, which is the biggest constraint in accomplishing the task of managing two companies. How exactly does he manage time? Said that, I believe the only reason this is in news is because some investors are worried that Jack Dorsey being a CEO of two companies will affect the company's performance, and this article is sharing Twitter/Square's view that Jack Dorsey isn't alone and that there are other CEO's who did that.
in terms of returns for investors/founders/early employees, yes they are, and twitter is undoubtedly in terms of reach/impact one of the most important tech companies in the last decade, whether they actually sustain moving forward is another question
So was pets.com at its time (and countless others). The time scale is different, but ... if twitter crashes and burns soon because it can't make any money, it will have left more impact on the history books, but ultimately will be remembered as "a facebook like also-ran, that only had a whats-on-your-mind line"
I typically work 14-20 hours a day, as a DevOps. Sounds crazy, yeah. This is an illness. I am depressed, and also bored. I am compulsive to working and sitting in front of a computer. And finally, I am super micro-manage. I like things to be done in my way. Now, I can't get up early in the morning because the lack of sleep. I don't understand how he can be on time every day and manage to work 18 hours a day. This guy is just nut, to be honest. Rumor has it that he's trying to be Steve Jobs or someone similar. My bet is he's just very controlling.
Yeah, but it came with a bunch of free advertising at the time. Square also thought Starbucks would help Square launch new customer-facing products because of Howard Schultz's board seat, but that never materialized.
I think it was a good deal at first, but definitely wasn't worth it over the long haul. Square was betting that Starbucks would help them in exchange for subsidizing their payment processing, but Starbucks pretty much just stuck to the contract they signed.
You can buy a lot of advertising for $100k a day. More importantly, you can stop buying that advertising when the product doesn't catch on. Dorsey pulled the product in 2014 and is still paying close to a Super Bowl spot every month to advertise it.
> Square also thought Starbucks would help Square launch new customer-facing products
It was obvious that this was never going to happen from the beginning. Square neutered Wallet for the Starbucks deal, turning it into a less compelling implementation of the existing QR-code system.
I think it is premature to judge his performance as of yet. If he makes both companies succeed, it will be worth a post-mortem to figure out what worked. If not, then there really isn't going to be much of interest to talk about.
Imho Twitter should be offering a PRO feature for easier handling of accounts with large amounts of followers, with increased analytics, possibilities for promotion etc.
Square is already charging a fee on transactions (as it should) but imho it should also aim at beeing the number 1 provider of POS hardware to merchants, and again deliver a pro offering, with analytics of revenue, customerbase and much more.
I read somewhere that the purpose of monks for society was to meditate outside of the demands and temptations of daily life, allowing them to make the wisest and clearheaded decisions. Jack Dorsey kind of reminds me of that.
The comment I chided wasn't 10798178 (which indeed was fine), but an uncivil reply to it which its author subsequently deleted. The deletion is what made this confusing. You should see "[deleted]" just above my comment upthread—that's a stand-in for the post I was replying to.
That's a misunderstanding of how HN works. Upvotes don't determine everything here, because the main value of the site—intellectual curiosity—would quickly be overwhelmed if they did. Drama, gossip, and outrage routinely drive more upvotes, even among groups of smart people. So
HN is a constitutional democracy: mostly driven by upvotes, but with checks and balances to mitigate the bad effects. The HN guidelines are the constitution and moderation is one of the checks.
If you can't trust the community's votes, perhaps the voting system should be viewed as a failed experiment. I'm not being facetious.
After all, if you look at HN's front page five or six years ago, and compare it to the front page today, you'll see that HN used to be a legitimately useful tool for entrepreneurs; whereas now it is primarily a source of frivolous distractions. There's almost nothing on this site that helps entrepreneurs.
I understand that YC gets some benefits from the move to lower common denominator content; but in the long run do you all really want to be associated with a site that destroys more value than it creates? Because that is where HN is now. The true entrepreneurial community is gone. The voting is now useless.
