
Jack Dorsey does 8 hours at Twitter, 8 hours at Square daily - goatcurious
http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2011/11/14/jack-dorsey-does-8-hours-at-twitter-8-hours-at-square-daily/?awesm=tnw.to_1BpLg&utm_campaign=social%20media&utm_medium=Spreadus&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=Jack%20Dorsey%20does%208%20hours%20at%20Twitter,%208%20hours%20at%20Square%20daily
======
antirez
Jack Dorsey does 8 hours at Twitter, 8 hours at Square, 0 hours at life,
daily.

In other words Jack is free to do whatever he likes, but it is not a good
example for most of us. I'll cite a very short poetry by a Sicilian poet
called Salvatore Quasimodo:

"Everyone stands alone on the heart of the earth / transfixed by a ray of
sunshine / and it is suddenly night"

~~~
bproper
Can anyone from Square or Twitter confirm this work schedule?

~~~
jof
I'm pretty familiar with Jack's situation. Yes, this is indeed true, now. For
a time he was splitting one day on / one day off at each company.

Frankly, Jack has very little time outside of his work, but I wouldn't say
that he doesn't have a life. His work is his life and they are closely
intertwined. This is great, since it means he's quite passionate about both
product sets and the quality of his companies' net output really shines, IMO.

The danger of this obsessive behavior though is that it can begin to warp ones
perspective on others' work/life balance. Jack works like a dog because he's
excited about what he does, so it seems to baffle him when those around him
aren't equally excited and committed to their work as well.

In the case of Square, they've been very quick to fire anyone who isn't
putting 80+% percent of their life into Square -- often with little warning or
reason.

Dogma is dangerous.

~~~
ootachi
Square sounds like a terrible place to work, then. We should stop giving
startups free passes for demanding ridiculous hours out of employees in the
name of equity, when they usually end up screwing their employees out of it
anyway.

~~~
jof
I think startup politics generally reflects the power structure surrounding
it; whether that be founders or investors that hold a relatively big stake in
an organization, or the society surrounding it. The US is not always the most
meritocratic or egalitarian environment, and it seems that those that latch
onto or come into some power tend to hold to it very tightly and don't share
with those around them.

Equity, unless you're very lucky or diligent, often doesn't equate to much. I
think, too often, folks tend to place too much emphasis on equity. The terms
and value of which are not often immediately obvious to the recipient and can
get diluted over time. Twitter's on what... round G now?

Ultimately, starting a startup is a big uphill slog. At the end of the day,
everyone needs to put in some level of herculean effort from time to time if
it's going to work.

The trick is figuring out how to effectively value the things that each
contributor is best at. If you're working in an organization that primarily
values software engineers, it can be hard to get recognition as a visual
designer.

In an organization that primarily (and sometimes only) values and recognizes
software engineers that make things you can see or touch, it can even be hard
to make it as a systems plumber or kernel hacker.

------
tryitnow
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people may miss the most useful point of this
article: blocking out days by themes as a productivity booster.

The big headline is about working 16 hours days, but that headline grabber
will distract from the most useful nugget of information: how he does it.

The really cool thing about this article is theme-blocking his days. Has
anyone tried that? If so, how has it worked?

~~~
ethank
Because of the tuesday-tuesday nature of the record business, working at a
label necessitated this.

Monday->Engineering maintenance for records. Lots of email blasts and such,
site maintenance.

Tuesday - Release day, also radio promo meetings. Executive meeting

Wednesday - Marketing meeting. This was when results of the last week's sales
were finalized so also reconciling retail with stats and such.

Thursday - typically a big launch day for us.

Friday - clean up, product dev work, department stuff. It was a 0 launch day.

------
niklas_a
Clever guy. First he builds Twitter to make sure all other entrepreneurs are
busy checking their tweets. Then he starts another company without any
competition.

~~~
johnnyg
He is _joking_ people. And it is a good one. :-)

~~~
goatcurious
err.. the two comments below are also jokes! one is not so funny and the other
is rather sad

------
bbhacker
I think Jack Dorsey is doing an amazing job and it is extraordinary what he
has shown at Twitter and Square.

That being said, what we are seeing here is basically "story telling" and
"legend building" in action. The same happened when Jeff Immelt took over GE
and The story was "Look at that guy! The hardest working GE employee, putting
in 100 hours a week. What a leader!" (you can Google it).

While I believe that Jack didn't craft a master plan for this, somebody is
certainly putting some effort into building a coherent story that helps Jack
but ultimately also Twitter and Square and therefore its investors.

And once again: it get's us talking as well, so I would say: Mission
Accomplished.

~~~
ahoyhere
You're right. It's called hagiography -- a term HNers would do well to learn.

------
chaz
Regardless of whether or not he actually works 16 hour days, the Monday
through Friday scheduling and focus on specific areas of the business are
really interesting. An entire Friday dedicated to the company and culture --
fantastic for building a team that's with you for the long haul.

------
rationalbeats
Maybe explains why Twitter is so bad at so many things.

Like making money.

Why don't they offer a customized twitter feeds of all the GOP presidential
candidates and sell ads off of that feed?

For example...

I have had a strong suspicion that the upper management at Twitter are not
really on top of it, they appear lazy, and content with just going along for
the ride, instead of steering the what appears to be rudderless ship.

------
blhack
<snark>Poor guy, someday I hope he doesn't have to do that.</snark>

It makes me a little sick to see some people idolize this.

~~~
billpatrianakos
Agreed. We all have to remember we're not Jack Dorsey. A year ago I might have
actually tried to emulate this. Experience tells me unless it's coming
naturally it's a kamikaze mission. I totally respect mr. Dorsey, I just hope
to god the naive don't get a hold of this article and start copying the 16
hour work day part.

~~~
robryan
It depends on timespan, if he thinks that doing this for a short time will be
a big plus for both companies then it could be an okay trade off.

------
twog
That is simply unbelievable, but Im not sure you can sustain a healthy life
with with 16 hour work days

~~~
phren0logy
I did 80+ hours per week for years in medical school, residency, and
fellowship. Many people in medicine make a career of it. It's not as unusual
as you think. There is certainly a fair argument to be made that it's not
particularly healthy or a good idea, but I can assure you that for some people
it's quite sustainable.

~~~
rsynnott
> I did 80+ hours per week for years in medical school, residency, and
> fellowship. Many people in medicine make a career of it. It's not as unusual
> as you think.

Possibly a bad example; in most developed countries the medical professions
have amongst the highest rates of depression, suicide and divorce.

------
Cl4rity
Why is everyone complaining that this isn't a lifestyle to idolize or emulate
when the resounding sentiment here is that it isn't a lifestyle to IDOLIZE OR
EMULATE?

We get it. I get it. You get it. Everyone gets it. I think plenty of the
commenters here do a damn fine job of trivializing other readers'
intelligence.

I'm also certain that Jack Dorsey doesn't work 16-hour days for the attention.
We didn't know this up until now, and Twitter and Square have been running
just fine. That's what matters, and if Dorsey feels like putting in that much
time is necessary, so be it. If he burns out, he'll burn out; if he doesn't,
good for him.

------
pxlpshr
<rant> Four-hour work week? Work smarter, not harder?

I just don't buy those kind of ideologies if you really believe your idea will
change the world. If you want a lifestyle business that provides for you and
your next of kin, more power to you.

And if that's the route you take, please stop trying to convenience everyone
your path to enlightenment is the right way. For awhile, I found that whole
movement to be quasi-religious and therefore quite annoying.

When you love what you do, it's not work and therefore there's no reason to
want to avoid it. And that's why they win. </rant>

~~~
jbellis
IIRC Ferriss arrived at his "four hour" week exactly by not counting work-
related activities he enjoyed, as work.

~~~
peteretep
Actually, he arrived there by split-testing different names for his book on
Google. Four Hour just happened to be the catchiest.

------
theshadow
pfft... All I see in the article are 8 unproductive hours every day. Research
has shown that humans really don't need 8hrs sleep to work at their optimal
best and 4-5 hrs of sleep should be more than enough. He could use those extra
4 hrs every to further develop the companies or even better try launch another
startup on the side. Also walking 2 blocks every day between the two
companies? That seems a waste of time which should be spent working, I know it
doesn't sound much but walking two block every day adds up as a ton of wasted
time. He should iron that inefficiency out of his schedule by having a common
office for both jobs and using skype if he really needs to talk to someone.
Also taking weekends off? Don't even get me started on that.

~~~
andrewpi
_Research has shown that humans really don't need 8hrs sleep to work at their
optimal best and 4-5 hrs of sleep should be more than enough._

Citation please? It's my understanding that losing even 1 hour of sleep a
night will add up over time and cause all sorts of cognitive problems.

~~~
dotBen
_(pssst, andrewpi, I think theshaddow's parent comment is tongue-in-cheek.)_

------
kayoone
Well the schedule looks like its not really "hard" work. When i do all these
things in my startup i feel like i am not really working, i only have the
feeling of accomplishment when i write code and improve the product. Marketing
and Biz dev sure is very important but personally i dont feel like i get stuff
done when doing it, which might be bad. Then again i couldnt put in 16 hours
of work everyday, thats insane and i cant believe hes doing that for a very
long time. After 10-12 hours of coding and working on technical things, i am
done for the day. Some sport in the evening to stay healthy and blow off steam
and thats it. And even that leaves me with very little real life during the
week, which sometimes is frustrating.

------
run4yourlives
Good for him.

Regardless of whether or not it's sustainable, I simply do not want that type
of lifestyle. If I'm not as "successful" because of that, so be it.

~~~
maximusprime
I'd say "success" should be measured in more broad terms... "How much work do
I put into my marriage/children/etc", "How much fun am I having?" etc

I'd agree, his lifestyle seems as out of balance as someone who does no work
at all.

~~~
prawn
What's interesting is that he could have cashed out after Twitter and led an
incredibly entertaining and enjoyable life, but still chooses to push on
further for more success, more challenges, etc to the extent that such a huge
portion of his waking life is taken by "work" like this.

I could understand it (and put in a lot of hours myself) driving to get that
first home run, but less so afterwards. I'd struggle to sit idle and
travelling non-stop isn't the holiday everyone thinks it is, but my dream
lifestyle definitely wouldn't involve 16 hour days once I had the means to
pursue all my interests to a desired extent.

------
jobeyonekenobi
I posted this in the other thread about his hours:

Being a manager and accutely aware of legal ramifications of hours worked
(boring I know), does anyone have any insight into whether there is something
in the US akin to the European Worktime Directive? Over here (UK, but the E.U
as a whole) the average working week is 40 hours by law, and the worker must
opt in to be eligble to work upto a maximum of 70 hours per week. As well as
this 70 hour maximum, 11 hours must be taken between end of work one day and
start of work the next, and an entire 24 hour period of non-work must be taken
once every 7 days, or alternativley a period of 48 hours of non-work must be
taken in a 14 day period.

Any comments?

~~~
JackDanger
The U.S. has nothing like that for salaried employees.

~~~
rpwilcox
IANAL, but I believe the law is slightly more nuanced than that:

<http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics/wages-overtime-pay.htm>

Overtime doesn't apply to a number of class of workers (including executive,
administration, professional, outside sales, and computer related workers).

And I believe you could read "professional" as "anyone with a college degree
working a white-collar job".

Having said that, you're essentially correct...

~~~
runako
I believe "professional" effectively means "salaried". Salaried employees
generally don't get overtime.

Details are in a page linked from the parent (see Learned Professional
Exemption):

[http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17d_profess...](http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17d_professional.htm)

~~~
rpwilcox
If you're a learned professional (matching _all_ of the three criteria on the
page - one of which _is_ salaried), artist/creative, teacher, law/medicine
practioner, or are highly compensated (making > $100,000/year) overtime
doesn't apply to you.

At least, that's what I got out of the page.

~~~
jobeyonekenobi
The definition of Overtime is actually getting paid, yes? The law I am
referring to over in the E.U is actually working, full stop - paid or not. I
am at a position where I am not paid any overtime - I'm still not allowed to
be present at work for more than 70 hours a week. Does nothing like this exist
in the U.S? As in, you could technically work 168 hours with no legal
ramifications?

~~~
rpwilcox
From the US Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division:
<http://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/>

> There is no limit on the number of hours employees 16 years or older may
> work in any workweek.

So, disregarding overtime, yes: you could technically work 168 hours a week
with no legal ramifications.

------
draz
having just recently finished reading the Jobs biography, this turn of events
for Dorsey reminds me of him: ousted from leadership, appointment on the
board, heading a new company (Square vs. Pixar), and then serving as head of
two companies simultaneously.

------
ivankirigin
Note that this means he gives much less to each company than any startup
founder I know.

------
shad0wfax
I am not surprised or in awe that he is putting in 16 hours a day. Every
passionate founder would likely be doing it. I am sure most of us have heard
Steve Job's on how building a company is usually a 18x7 work-week.

What I am in awe and admiration is that he is managing two companies and in
this case two completely different ones by nature! A rule generally accepted
in the startup land is that you don't work on _multiple ideas_ , in order to
stay focussed on building one thing well. While twitter is not a startup (any
longer) and Square is probably a very big/late-phase startup (if we can
qualify it as that), they both definitely need the caring and nurturing of a
founder (IMO). Given that, it is remarkable he is able to do the context
switch needed to run both the companies. I would love to know how effective
his leadership is, in both these companies, given that he isn't there longer
than a typical day in either of them.

I am so tempted to try doing more than one thing, but then since I am a coder,
I guess its not easy to digress daily as he can.

~~~
davidhansen
_A rule generally accepted in the startup land is that you don't work on
multiple ideas_

Interesting. I have not heard this before. As it stands, I have always worked
on multiple projects for as long as I can remember. My current main company
started out as a side project, for example.

Is there a canonical reference or blog post that the startup community refers
to, to elucidate the reasons for one-project focus?

~~~
shad0wfax
The reference I can quote here is from a recent essay PG wrote:
<http://paulgraham.com/stypi.html>. Watch the definition of startup #10 (Avoid
Distractions) - <http://www.stypi.com/hacks/13sentences>

The other source again from PG, that I can infer as not doing too many
things/working on too many ideas is:
<http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html> Read the #18 (A Half-hearted
attempt)

I am sure there are folks who have juggled more than one Idea and succeeded in
all of them. Also, I think the relevance of these posts also probably make
sense to someone starting out early (like say during building the
product/company) and probably not for someone who already is working on
established companies (like in Jack's case). IF you see Jack in fact moved out
of twitter to completely focus on Square and only when it had hit the road
running, did he embark back on twitter.

------
funkydata
Crazy. I really would prefer working 4 hours max each day. Or achieving the
4-hour workweek. That and work from home at first, then everywhere. :)

~~~
tibbon
I think its just differences in lifestyle. I love working super long days. I
just don't like it when life tries to get in the way of work.

~~~
funkydata
I totally agree. Work would be relevant if I enjoyed it.

------
Chrono
Extremely impressive but is it really sustainable in the long run? I
personally do not think that working 16hr days is good for you in the long
run. It is not healthy.

What use is he if he gets burned out in a year or two? Not much I would wager.
Sure one might argue that this pattern of long working hours is crucial in the
first few years of a company. The question if he does so much more in 16 hours
than he could have done in say ten or twelve? I doubt you can remain very
efficient 16 hours per day.

~~~
goatcurious
Wonder what the bankers would say to that...

~~~
mbesto
Many would simply say "I'll do it for 4-5 years and then make some other
junior analyst do it for me when I'm a manager".

It's a pump-dump mentality internally you know...

------
lowglow
I do 16 hours daily at my start-up, only get paid a fraction of the price. I'm
doing something wrong.

~~~
diego
You are. The worst possible thing you can do at a startup is plow ahead and
put in hours like crazy. Just like Steve Jobs killed product lines, or an
engineer removes thousands of lines of code, you can remove 100 hours from the
next month if you think about it carefully for one hour.

~~~
chunkbot
I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs put in 16 hours a day when Apple was still a
startup. I'm not saying you should do that, but it might not be wrong to.

------
MaysonL
And how many hours with his PR agent?

------
tomcreighton
Well, kudos for being devoted to his business(es), but how much is he bringing
to the table during each of those 8-hour periods?

If I was working 16-hour days every day, I'm almost certain I'd be less
productive than if I was working 'normal' or even reduced-hour days.

Maybe he's just _that_ energetic, but my ability to get meaningful work done
is not an endless fount. Downtime is important.

------
BadassFractal
I can easily do 60-70 hour weeks as long as I use the weekend too, but 16 hour
days are ridiculous. I can't believe that the guy is able to give his 100%
every day for 5 days a week at both companies. The most a normal person would
be able to do is a half-assed job, but perhaps Jack is just an ubermensch.

------
jvoorhis
I've worked with startups in varying capacities for 6 years and my schedule is
always tight. Jack Dorsey represents the limit, but I wonder whether the
topical schedule (Mon: management, Tues: product, etc.) is a good
organizational tactic for those of us who wear many hats.

------
alexhawket
"If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are
successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it
doesn’t mean you would be a midget if you were bald."

------
emehrkay
For some reason, his Foundation interview made me a fan. Cant call it. He just
seemed in control

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQy_HFHOZug>

------
drewblaisdell
I will never, ever work 16 hour days like this. That said, if I cofounded
Twitter and Square (and thus had _that much_ of an effect on the world), I
sure as hell would work a lot.

------
thenextcorner
Now that is what I call impressive and determined. This is how you get ahead
and be successful, off course with a smart mind and the skills Jack has, it
makes a difference!

------
mathias
So, do one of these companies work at night, or what?

7am to 3pm = 8 hours 4pm to 12am = 8 hours

------
brousky
Does this mean 8 hours per day is enough if you're CEO of a single company?

------
bretthellman
How is that even possible given the number of times he speaks at events?

~~~
lurker17
Speaking at events is part of his job.

------
brianbreslin
which company do you think will produce a bigger return for him? or make him
wealthier?

------
billpatrianakos
This is not something to be idolized. Maybe it works for Jack, or maybe it's
really exaggerated but there are going to be people reading this that are
going to want to try it. I feel bad for those people. Your first instinct is
to think that you can't succeed without killing yourself. Then you figure out
that if you're killing yourself youve forgotten why you started to begin with.

~~~
AznHisoka
That's exactly what I was thinking while reading this. The person who wrote
this article just sees things at the surface, and lacks any insight/depth into
the long term consequences. Jack Dorsey may be a freak, but for most people,
working this long leads to mental breakdowns, and health problems. It makes
for great journalism, but that's about all.

~~~
billpatrianakos
Agreed. I see a lot of articles that scare me lately. They make it sound like
business owners should do these things. These stories are the exception, not
the rule.

~~~
kerryfalk
Building companies as successful as Twitter and Square are also the exception,
not the rule.

~~~
mgkimsal
He didn't _build_ Twitter working this way. He's now managing its current
course/growth this way.

~~~
kerryfalk
He's still _building_ Twitter and Square. Jobs never stopped building Apple.

Building companies goes well beyond building apps.

This comes up frequently on HN and seems to polarize people. The more it
polarizes people the more on the fence I seem to find myself. I have worked
similar hours split between two companies for four years. At times it sucks
and at times it's great. Everyone is different.

From what I have learned from others, exceptional results require exceptional
work and passion. Working 16 hours days is how it works for Jack. Ben Hogan
was reported to work with a similar ethic when he started his golf career and
he's now known among many as the greatest ball striker ever.

To me that's admirable, to others it isn't. Both positions are acceptable.

~~~
mgkimsal
Of course it does, but _he_ isn't the only one doing it anymore, and I suspect
has a team of people at each company that assists and supports throughout the
day, which was likely not the case in the very early days of twitter.

The required mental focus and energy to get one thing "off the ground" - past
bootstrapped startup phase - is considerably different from keeping something
going - and even growing - once it's hit an operational level that twitter
has. I won't profess to know both sides from direct experience, but can see
that they're not in the same place they were operationally/financially as they
were 4 years ago.

OT: I was probably downvoted by someone who considers Twitter and Facebook as
"startups".

------
wavephorm
That's impressive, but I can't understand how either of these companies are
happy with that situation. It's like trying to argue a polygamist can be fully
dedicated to both families.

~~~
rpicard
How many hours would they expect him to put in normally?

~~~
dpcan
I don't think it would be the hours as much as the mental focus. When I get
done working for 8 hours, I'm usually with my family about an hour and a half
before I can mentally break away from what I've been doing all day, and some
nights my mind will always be on my tasks no matter how hard I try to refocus.

Imagine going from 1 high pressure 8 hours job to another with only a 2 block
walk between them, maybe lunch. I don't know, it sounds like overload to me.

~~~
randomdata
I find it is significantly easier to work two eight hour jobs than it is to
work one sixteen hour job. The context switch is refreshing.

Unlike Dorsey, I have never attempted to maintain that schedule over the long
haul, but over periods of time at least, it is not as difficult as it sounds.

------
johnny6
He should maybe buy an island and retire, since both Twitter (less and less
used and not used by anyone under 30) and Square (with NFC on the horizon) can
basically only go down.

