Can anyone from Square or Twitter confirm this work schedule?
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.
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.
What does this mean practically - that employees are expected to put 134 hours a week into working at Square? Or does sleep time not count against them, meaning they are expected to work only 89.6 hours a week? How many hours of sleep each night does Square recommend their employees get?
I would expect to work 70 - 80+ weeks there if you're really into it (and checking in / working at home in the evenings and mornings).
If you are exempt (Salaried) - you basically work when your manager tells you to. I've been at (several) companies where we had 3-4 month death marches with _everyone_ working late and on weekends in the office to push the ball over the line.
I guess what he's getting at is that the US is a pretty terrible place to work and live, gilded though the cage may often be, and it is hard to disagree.
This is probably the point of confusion. In most of Europe, at any rate, salaried employees are subject to the working time directive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive
I can choose to work over that amount, and time worked over those 40 hours is time-in-lieu, which I can take off pretty much whenever I want (although I have to get approval if I want to take more than one day off at a time - but if it's just a day, or half a day then I just shoot them an email that morning)... My company are a bit more flexible on taking that time off than a lot of places, but apart from that, the conditions are similar to a lot of other places...
If people at Square don't like the environment, they are free to find another job. Similarly, if Dorsey doesn't like an employee's output for any reason, or "the cut of his jib" for that matter, he pays him up to the day and fires him. If it can't be shown to be due to discrimination (race, gender etc), and there was no employment contract, that's that.
Without this culture, starting a company would be nearly impossible. You can see evidence of this in the number of innovative startups out of more heavily regulated countries vs. the US.
[edit: I would add that there is a perverse incentive here: I believe US startups under-hire women and people of color _precisely_ because it is not that difficult to make a case for discrimination in promotion, compensation, and treatment of employees here. Hiring white, upper-middle-class males greatly reduces that risk. I think it's an unfortunate unintended consequence of the desire to redress discrimination.]
Quite a few startups come from the UK, Ireland and Germany; in all three countries the alleged behavior by Square would be highly illegal.
(yes there are some counter examples, I know, but I'm talking about magnitudes, not frolicking in the margin)
If anything, the 80-hour/wk and ready firing of employees thing was traditionally seen as a more "mom-and-pop business" type culture, associated with lower-status industries like the family-owned restaurant, not with technology.
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.