This is all part of a plan that was laid down some time ago.<p>Jack is a product guy. Tremendously good (evidence being he created both Twitter and Square). Jack is not an operator of a quickly scaling company, or at least, that's what Ev has said on the record more than once.<p>Jack recognizes his strengths and weaknesses. At Twitter his weaknesses were "recognized" for him and he was pushed out as CEO. It was painful and left some damaged bridges. He's been maturing and growing since then and looking back, probably agrees it was the right move even if it was handled the wrong way.<p>Then he founded Square. He got the product launched and hired Keith Rabois, a well-known operator. A hardcore, real operator and business guy.<p>Jack will run product at both companies. Keith will run day to day operations at Square, probably even as CEO. DickC will continue to run day to day operations at Twitter. Jack will play to his strengths and let someone else keep the cash balances in check.<p>With Twitter, Jack was pushed out. With Square, he probably couldn't have hired Keith if there wasn't a plan or timeline in place for Keith to become CEO.<p>* This is all my speculation.
How can he expect any loyalty or dedication from his employees after doing this? If I was working for square, I'd be pissed that the leader of the company just cut a significant amount of time from what you're working on everyday.
Any thoughts on why he'd choose to do this when he is focusing on Square? Could it be that he disagrees with what's happening with Twitter and wants to steer it in the direction he wants it to go?
Nothing against Jack, but this much management chair swapping is not good for a company. Tells me there is a lot of internal struggle going on. Perhaps the shareholders are pressing for monetization, and Ev pushed back on that (or tried and failed) and now Jack is coming in to give it a try.