64 min 2026-04
Jack Dorsey: Every Company Can Now Be a Mini-AGI
概要
Jack Dorsey 阐述如何把 Block 重构为 mini-AGI：砍掉40%员工和所有管理层，用四层智能架构取代层级，每天用 Claude Code 编程3小时，并分享 Cash App 从全公司反对到占业务半壁江山的创业故事
核心洞察
- Block 正在进行一场激进的组织手术：砍掉 40% 员工、消灭 people manager 职位、把 5 层管理层级压到 2-3 层，终极目标是 6000 人全部直接向 Jack 汇报。 驱动力不是降本增效，而是 Jack 对公司本质的重新定义——他把公司比作一个 mini-AGI，每个员工是一个 agent，中间的管理层是"不必要的延迟和信号损耗"。整个裁员过程仅用 3 周完成。
- Jack 提出了"四层架构"来取代传统组织结构：Capabilities（能力层）→ Interfaces（界面层）→ Proactive Intelligence（主动智能层）→ World Model（世界模型层）。 最顶层的 World Model 是公司自己的 foundation model，用支付、贷款、客户行为等内部数据训练，能像 LLM 预测下一个 token 一样预测商业趋势。这不是比喻，Jack 正在 Block 落地实施。
- Jack 从 2025 年 1 月开始每天花 3 小时用 Claude Code 编程，Block 内部使用开源 AI agent Goose。 他写那篇引发广泛讨论的"From Hierarchy to Intelligence"文章时，先用 Claude 起草、Claude 读完他过去一年的笔记后生成初稿，然后他花 2.5-3 周反复改到满意。他认为 AI 正从根本上改变"focus"的含义——过去 focus 意味着做窄，现在 AI 让你可以做宽，focus 只在最后 20%（品味和判断）才重要。
- Cash App 的故事是 Jack 创始人直觉 vs 全公司反对的经典案例。 最初只有 8 人团队，连 COO Keith Rabois（PayPal 创始团队出身）都说"这是已解决的问题"，董事会否决，全公司讨厌了 2-3 年，S-1 里提及不到 8 次——如今占 Block 超过一半的业务。Jack 的经验是：坚持反共识判断必然损失信誉，但如果原则正确，信誉可以赚回来。
- Roelof Botha 提出 CEO 永恒品质的 ALE 框架（Authenticity / Logic / Empathy），Jack 则强调 AI 时代最稀缺的能力是"重新编程自己的思维和假设"。 Jack 认为大多数人把 AI 的输出当作最终产出，而不是当作更好的输入来创造更好的产出——能分辨 signal vs noise、有 point of view 的人将越来越稀缺。
- 贯穿全场的核心线索是"消除中间层"——无论是组织架构中的管理层、思维中的惯性假设、还是产品中的信息延迟，Jack 的每一个决策都指向同一个方向：让信号直达决策点，去掉一切损耗。
"公司就是 Mini-AGI"：Jack 对组织的根本重新定义
核心论点：传统公司的层级结构本质上是一个低效的信息处理系统——管理层是信号衰减和延迟的来源。如果把公司看作一个 AGI、每个员工看作一个 agent，那么中间管理层就是不必要的。
- Jack 的出发点不是"如何让管理更高效"，而是"公司到底是什么"。他的答案是：公司是一个集体智能系统，它的目标是建立一个关于自身业务的 world model——就像 LLM 建立关于语言的 world model 一样
- 他写了一篇叫"From Hierarchy to Intelligence"的长文，用 2.5-3 周反复打磨。写作过程本身就体现了他的 AI 工作方式：先让 Claude 读完他过去一年的笔记，生成初稿，然后他在此基础上不断重写
- "Every company can now be a mini-AGI"——这不是比喻。Jack 正在 Block 实际推行这套架构：取消所有 people manager，重新定义三种角色（IC / DRI / Player Coach），用四层技术架构取代管理层级
"A company is a collection of people trying to build a world model of their business... And I think every company now has the potential to be a mini-AGI." —— Jack Dorsey
三种角色取代管理层级：IC、DRI、Player Coach
核心论点：Block 不再有传统的 people manager。所有人只能是三种角色之一——IC（做事的人）、DRI（对结果负责的人）、Player Coach（上场打球的教练）。
- IC（Individual Contributor）= Builder：核心职责是构建——写代码、做设计、做产品。Jack 强调 IC 才是公司的核心
- DRI（Directly Responsible Individual）= Owner：对某个项目或领域的结果负全责，但不是通过"管人"来实现，而是通过设定方向和对齐目标
- Player Coach：Jack 特别强调这个角色，借用 NBA 的 Bill Russell 类比——Russell 是历史上最成功的球员教练之一，"他不会坐在场边说'你去跑那个战术'"，他自己上场打球的同时指挥队友
- 关键区别：Player Coach 不是 people manager 换了个名字。People manager 做的是"管理"——审批、考核、协调。Player Coach 做的是"示范 + 指导"——自己做最难的部分，同时带着团队一起成长
- Block 的转型路径：从 5 层管理层级压缩到 2-3 层，最终目标是 6000 人全部直接向 Jack 汇报。这听起来疯狂，但 Jack 认为有了 AI 辅助的信息系统，CEO 不需要通过层级来获取信息和做决策
"Bill Russell... he's on the court with you, playing and coaching at the same time. That's what I want." —— Jack Dorsey
四层架构：从 Capabilities 到 World Model
核心论点：Jack 提出用四层技术架构取代传统组织层级——这是一套让公司像 AI 系统一样运转的框架。
- 第一层：Capabilities（能力层）——公司拥有的所有底层能力，比如支付处理、风控、身份验证。相当于 AI 系统的基础工具
- 第二层：Interfaces（界面层）——这些能力如何被内部和外部使用者访问。不只是 UI，还包括 API、内部工具、数据接口
- 第三层：Proactive Intelligence（主动智能层）——系统不再只是被动响应请求，而是主动发现问题和机会。比如"这个商户的资金流异常，可能需要贷款"或"这个用户的消费模式变了，可能在经历财务困难"
- 第四层：World Model（世界模型层）——公司自己的 foundation model。用内部数据（交易历史、贷款表现、客户行为、市场趋势）训练，能像 LLM 预测下一个 token 一样预测"下一步会发生什么"
- Jack 特别强调 World Model 不是外部 API 调用能替代的——你必须用自己的数据训练自己的模型，因为你的数据是独特的。Block 有数十亿笔交易数据、完整的商户生命周期数据，这是训练 world model 的核心原料
40% 裁员：3 周执行的"不可逆决定"
核心论点：Block 裁掉了 40% 的员工，整个过程从决定到执行仅 3 周。这不是通常意义上的"优化"，而是组织架构的根本重构——消灭了所有 people manager 职位。
Brian 问 Jack 具体怎么做到 3 周裁掉 40% 的人，Jack 讲述了完整的决策和执行过程：
- 起因：Jack 意识到 Block 的 5 层管理层级造成了严重的信号衰减和决策延迟。他开始思考"如果从零开始建这家公司，我会怎么建？"答案是不要管理层级
- 决策过程：Jack 先和 Roelof（Sequoia 合伙人、Block 董事会成员）讨论了这个想法。Roelof 的反应是支持方向但关心执行细节——"how are we going to make sure these people are well taken care of?"
- 3 周时间线：从董事会批准到完成裁员，只用了大约 3 周。Jack 认为拖延只会让痛苦加倍——一旦决定了方向，快速执行对所有人都更好
- 没有 people manager 的世界：裁掉的不只是人数，而是一整个角色类型。所有原来的 people manager 必须选择：转为 IC（真正做事）、成为 DRI（对结果负责但不管人）、或者离开
Roelof 补充了董事会视角：他最关心的不是裁员本身，而是被裁员工的安置。他提到自己作为董事会成员，关键职责是确保这种重大决策的执行过程公平且有尊严。
"The biggest thing that I had is a lot of these people were there because I asked them to be there... And then, you know, I had to just be straight with them." —— Jack Dorsey
同时当两家上市公司 CEO 是"Anti-pattern"——最大遗憾是过度委托
核心论点：Jack 明确说同时管理 Twitter 和 Square 是一个"anti-pattern"，他最大的遗憾是在那段时间过度委托，让自己远离了产品和技术细节。
- Jack 坦承当年同时管 Twitter 和 Square 两家上市公司是错误的模式。不是说完全不可能，而是这种模式天然导致 CEO 不得不过度依赖中间管理层
- 他的最大遗憾（biggest regret）就是"delegated too much"——把太多决策权交给了下面的人，自己失去了对细节的掌控
- 这个教训直接影响了他现在的做法：消灭管理层级、自己每天花 3 小时写代码、从幻灯片转向原型。核心逻辑是"CEO 必须离最前线够近"
- 现在 Block 的会议已经不用幻灯片了，改用原型。Jack 认为幻灯片是"把想法稀释两次"——先从脑子里稀释到文字，再从文字稀释到 bullet points。原型则是"直接展示你想要的东西"
"My biggest regret is I delegated too much." —— Jack Dorsey
Cash App 的故事：创始人直觉 vs 全公司反对
核心论点：Cash App 是 Block 内部孵化的最成功产品，但在最初 2-3 年里遭到了全公司上下的反对——包括董事会、COO、和绝大多数员工。
这是整场访谈中最有叙事张力的故事，Jack 从头到尾完整讲述了 Cash App 从被鄙视到成为主力业务的过程：
- Square 最初是做商户支付的，使命是"make commerce easy"。Cash App 是一个 P2P 转账工具——完全不在公司主线上
- 团队只有 8 个人，公司内部讨厌了 2-3 年。不是冷漠，是积极讨厌——Jack 每天都在为它的存续辩护，每次辩护都损失一点信誉
- COO Keith Rabois 是 PayPal 创始团队出身的，就连他都说"这是一个已解决的问题"——言下之意是 PayPal/Venmo 已经做了
- 董事会直接否决过。Jack 提到 Square Loans（商户贷款）也是类似的模式——董事会说"绝对不行，你们不能做贷款业务"，他坚持推动后获批
- S-1（上市招股书）里 Cash App 被提及不到 8 次
- 结果：Cash App 后来实现盈利，现在占 Block 业务的一半以上
Jack 从中提炼的经验：坚持反共识判断，你一定会损失信誉。关键是你知道如何把信誉赚回来——如果你的判断最终被证明正确，你不仅赚回信誉，还赚到了团队对你直觉的信任。
Roelof 讲了一个相关的小故事：Sequoia 在招聘他时写了一份内部 memo，列出他的优点是 DGAF（Don't Give A F*ck），缺点也是 DGAF——这正是 Jack 身上的特质。
"Everyone in the company hated Cash App... We mentioned it less than eight times in our S-1 to go public. Our investors didn't understand it at all." —— Jack Dorsey
AI 工具如何重塑日常工作：Claude Code、Goose、和"3 小时编程"
核心论点：Jack 从 2025 年 1 月开始密集使用 AI 编程工具，现在每天花 3 小时用 Claude Code 写代码。他认为 AI 正在根本性地改变"focus"的含义。
- Jack 使用两个主要 AI 工具：Claude Code（个人每天 3 小时的编程搭档）和 Goose（Block 开源的 AI agent，全公司使用）
- 他的"From Hierarchy to Intelligence"文章的写作过程是一个典型的人机协作案例：Claude 先读完他过去一年的笔记（他有大量日常笔记习惯），生成初稿，然后他花 2.5-3 周反复重写打磨
- Focus 的重新定义：过去 focus 意味着"做窄、做少"——砍掉不重要的事，集中在一件事上。Jack 认为 AI 时代 focus 的含义变了：你可以做宽（wider exploration），因为 AI 帮你处理 80% 的执行工作。真正需要 focus 的是最后 20%——品味（taste）和判断（judgment）
- Jack 对当下 AI 使用方式的批判：大多数人把 AI 的输出当作最终产出（output），而不是当作更好的输入（input）来创造自己更好的产出。他每天 3 小时的编程不是让 AI 写完他复制粘贴，而是把 AI 产出作为思考的原料
"Most people are seeing what these tools do as output rather than better input to create better output ourselves." —— Jack Dorsey
分发（Distribution）是创业的核心差异化
核心论点：Jack 认为"分发"是初创公司最被低估的差异化因素——有了 AI，product-market fit 的达成速度会加快，但分发能力的构建无法被 AI 替代。
- Jack 对创业者的建议集中在一个词：distribution。不是"你的产品有多好"，而是"你的产品能不能到达用户手上"
- 他认为 AI 是"有史以来最大的护城河消解器"（biggest drainer of moats）——产品壁垒、技术壁垒都在被 AI 快速拉平。但分发渠道（品牌、社区、合作关系、嵌入式部署）仍然需要时间和创意来构建
- 这与他对"copies of copies"现象的批评相呼应：当 AI 让构建产品变得容易，大量公司只是在复制彼此，真正的差异化来自分发能力和品味（point of view）
冥想与 CEO 思维训练：10 天 Vipassana 的实战价值
核心论点：Jack 做的不是"放松式冥想"，而是高强度的 Vipassana 内观禅修——他认为这是训练大脑"专注力 + 观察力 + 去反应化"的物理训练，直接提升 CEO 的决策质量。
Brian 问 Jack 是否所有 CEO 都应该冥想，还特别提到 Marc Andreessen 说自己"不内省"。Jack 的回应很有意思：
- 先调侃了一下："他说自己不内省，这件事本身就很内省"——全场笑了
- 然后认真解释了他做的冥想类型：10 天 Vipassana 禅修，每天从早上 4:30 坐到晚上 9:00
- 前 3 天：盘腿坐着，只做一件事——感受呼吸经过上唇的触感。不是想象，是实际的物理感受。训练大脑聚焦
- 后 7 天：从头到脚扫描全身的感受（尤其是疼痛），盘腿坐 3 小时不能动。训练大脑观察而不反应——"如果我站起来，疼痛就消失了。所以它不是永恒的"
- 核心收获：训练大脑意识到"一切都是无常的"（impermanent），不需要对即将消失的东西产生执着或痛苦。然后把这个能力迁移到商业和生活中的每一个情绪反应
CEO 的永恒品质 vs 新时代要求
核心论点：Roelof 提出 ALE 框架（Authenticity / Logic / Empathy）作为 CEO 永恒品质，Jack 则认为 AI 时代最重要的新能力是"持续重新编程自己的思维和假设"。
Brian 最后问了一个收尾问题：CEO 的哪些品质是永恒的，哪些是新的？
- Roelof 的 ALE 框架：
- Authenticity（真实性）——别人看到的是不是真实的你？是否端着？
- Logic（逻辑性）——你是否可预测、理性？还是情绪化地飞起来？
- Empathy（共情力）——你是否真正关心你的团队和业务？"反社会人格的反面"
- Roelof 引用 Steven Pinker 关于 COVID 的观点——"大家都以为世界会彻底不同，但最终很多事情回到了原来的样子"。人际相处的基本面不会因为 AI 而改变
- Jack 的补充——新时代最重要的能力：
- 能够"重新编程自己的思维和假设"（reprogram your mind and assumptions）
- 不被 AI 的输出带着走——大多数人现在会"默认接受"AI 的建议，而不是把它当作 input
- 有自己的 point of view——当 AI 让构建变得容易，"copies of copies of copies"会泛滥，真正稀缺的是有品味、有观点、敢做和别人不一样的事
Brian 把 Jack 的组织理念命名为"Dorsey Mode"——区别于传统的 Manager Mode（层级化金字塔）和近年流行的 Founder Mode（扁平但创始人集权）。Dorsey Mode 更像一个圆形，权力不在人身上，而在系统中——系统做大部分决策，实时响应员工和客户。
"I value someone who's able to reprogram their mind and assumptions constantly." —— Jack Dorsey
董事会建设与创始人信誉管理
核心论点：Jack 的建议是把第一个投资人当作"你无法解雇的 hire"来选择——因为董事会成员一旦进入，比任何员工都更难移除。
- Jack 把选投资人/董事会成员的框架从"谁给我最多钱"翻转为"谁是我最想共事的人"。核心洞察：员工不合适可以解雇，但早期投资人坐在你的董事会上，几乎无法移除
- 他提到 Roelof 就是他精心选择的董事会成员——Block 在关键决策时刻（比如 40% 裁员），董事会的支持至关重要
- Roelof 作为 Block 董事会成员的视角：他最关心的不是商业决策本身，而是"这些被影响的人是否被善待"（how are we going to make sure these people are well taken care of?）
"无限导师"哲学：把每一次遭遇当作学习
核心论点：Jack 放弃了传统的"找一个导师"模式，转而把生活中的每一次遭遇都当作导师——从负面反馈到信誉损失，一切都是教学时刻。
- 起因：当年第一次当 Twitter CEO 时，所有人告诉他需要找一个 CEO coach。他找了，但觉得学不到东西
- 转变：他决定换一个框架——不再找"一个导师"，而是把每一次遭遇（每个人、每个问题、每次失败）都当作导师。条件是自己必须做一个决定：我要从中学到什么？
- 他强迫自己每天写下"今天每次遭遇中我学到了什么"
- 核心洞察：这个框架给你 agency（主动权）——不是等着导师教你，而是你主动从一切中提取教训。当你决定"这是我的导师"，你就拥有了对这个情境的控制权
附录：关键人/机构/产品/数据
| 名称 | 说明 |
|------|------|
| Jack Dorsey | Block（前 Square）CEO / 联合创始人，Twitter 联合创始人 / 前 CEO |
| Brian Halligan | HubSpot 联合创始人 / 执行主席，"Long Strange Trip" 播客主持人 |
| Roelof Botha | Sequoia Capital 合伙人，Block 董事会成员 |
| Keith Rabois | Block 前 COO，PayPal 创始团队成员，反对过 Cash App |
| Bill Russell | NBA 历史上最成功的球员教练，Jack 用来比喻 Player Coach |
| Marc Andreessen | 被提及"不内省"的评论，Jack 调侃"他说自己不内省本身就很内省" |
| Steven Pinker | Roelof 引用其 COVID 期间的观点——世界会回归常态 |
| Block | 前 Square，Jack Dorsey 的支付/金融科技公司 |
| Cash App | Block 旗下 P2P 转账产品，从 8 人团队到占业务一半以上 |
| Square Loans | Block 的商户贷款产品，最初被董事会否决 |
| Goose | Block 开源的 AI agent 工具 |
| Claude Code | Jack 每天使用 3 小时的 AI 编程工具（Anthropic） |
| PTC | Brian 90 年代工作的公司，用来对比"Manager Mode" |
| HubSpot | Brian 创办的公司，被用来对比"Founder Mode" |
| 40% 裁员 | Block 裁掉约 40% 员工，3 周完成 |
| 6000 人 | Block 目标：全员直接向 CEO 汇报 |
| 5 层 → 2-3 层 | Block 管理层级压缩目标 |
| 3 小时/天 | Jack 每天使用 Claude Code 编程的时长 |
| 2.5-3 周 | Jack 写"From Hierarchy to Intelligence"文章的时间 |
| 2025 年 1 月 | Jack 开始密集使用 AI 编程工具的时间点 |
| 10 天 Vipassana | Jack 参加的冥想禅修类型 |
| ALE | Roelof 的 CEO 品质框架：Authenticity / Logic / Empathy |
| "Dorsey Mode" | Brian 命名的组织模式，区别于 Manager Mode 和 Founder Mode |
中文翻译 English Original
**Jack Dorsey：** 从去年开始，我一直有这种存在性的焦虑，同时又充满希望和乐观——在同一个小时里，在同一个思考过程中。未来公司到底意味着什么？这些组织结构会变成什么样？而这是我能想到的唯一一种持久的结构，可以存续很长时间。这个想法源于一个担忧——我们的公司会不会在未来几年完全变得无关紧要。
**Jack Dorsey:** Since last year I've just had this existential dread and also like hope and optimism at in the same hour in the same thought process of like what is even a company going forward? Like what like what are these structures going forward? And this is the only like durable one structure that I could actually imagine lasting for quite some time. And it was coming from a place of like wow is our company just going to be completely irrelevant you know in the next coming years.
**Brian Halligan：** 大家好，今天我们在播客上请到了 Jack Dorsey，Twitter 的创始人，也是 Block 的创始人。他是唯一一个让自己创办的两家公司都进入 S&P 500 的创始人，想想就觉得很酷。同时还有 Roelof Botha，Sequoia 的合伙人，也是 Jack 在 Block 董事会的成员。这次对话非常有意思。他最近发表了一篇文章，你们可能看过，叫《From Hierarchy to Intelligence》。这是一份宣言，从第一性原理出发，重新思考一个组织应该如何运作。如何彻底消除层级制度？如何把 AI 放在中心位置，彻底改变公司的运作方式？
我让他充分展开了这个话题，他讲得非常深入。Block 正在真正改变它的组织方式。录制前他跟我说，"我很想听听你和其他人对这个的反馈。"所以如果你有什么想法，尽管说。他希望得到反馈。他在一场重大变革的早期阶段。这大概占了对话的一半。后半部分我就直接问他 CEO 层面的建议。我跟很多 CEO 打交道，大家都知道。怎么打造一个出色的董事会？他在这方面肯定吃过不少亏。怎么打造你的第二幕——比如 Cash App 相对于 Square 最初的业务。同时当两家公司的 CEO 是不是一个好主意？
什么时候该勇敢地坚持己见，什么时候该顺势而为？什么时候该死磕到底，什么时候该随波逐流？他对现代 CEO 的角色有一些非常有意思的看法。请继续收听。最后我会回来分享一些进一步的想法。我觉得 Jack 讲得很好，Roelof 也是。让我们开始吧。
Jack，我读了你的文章，《From Hierarchy to Intelligence》，我觉得写得非常好。在我们深入具体内容之前，你能先说说你觉得普通公司的层级结构有什么问题吗？比如 HubSpot、Block 这样的公司，是什么让你开始思考这个问题的？
我让他充分展开了这个话题，他讲得非常深入。Block 正在真正改变它的组织方式。录制前他跟我说，"我很想听听你和其他人对这个的反馈。"所以如果你有什么想法，尽管说。他希望得到反馈。他在一场重大变革的早期阶段。这大概占了对话的一半。后半部分我就直接问他 CEO 层面的建议。我跟很多 CEO 打交道，大家都知道。怎么打造一个出色的董事会？他在这方面肯定吃过不少亏。怎么打造你的第二幕——比如 Cash App 相对于 Square 最初的业务。同时当两家公司的 CEO 是不是一个好主意？
什么时候该勇敢地坚持己见，什么时候该顺势而为？什么时候该死磕到底，什么时候该随波逐流？他对现代 CEO 的角色有一些非常有意思的看法。请继续收听。最后我会回来分享一些进一步的想法。我觉得 Jack 讲得很好，Roelof 也是。让我们开始吧。
Jack，我读了你的文章，《From Hierarchy to Intelligence》，我觉得写得非常好。在我们深入具体内容之前，你能先说说你觉得普通公司的层级结构有什么问题吗？比如 HubSpot、Block 这样的公司，是什么让你开始思考这个问题的？
**Brian Halligan:** All right everybody we had Jack Dorsey on the pod today founder of Twitter and founder of Block. He's the only founder to have two of his companies end up on the S&P 500. Listening to that today that's pretty cool. Also Roelof Botha who's a Sequoia partner and is on Jack's board at Block. The conversation was super interesting to me. He recently put an article out that you may have seen called from hierarchy to intelligence. And it's a manifesto on how to rethink basically rethink from the first principles how an organization works. How do you completely eliminate hierarchy and how do you put AI right in the center and transform how your company works.
And I let him go on that and he was very thoughtful and he spoke a lot about it. Block is really changing the way it's organized. Before we started he said I'd love to get some feedback from you and from other people on this. So if you get comments on it let her rip. He wants some feedback on it. He's in the early innings of a big transformation over there. That was about half of it. The second half of it I just asked him for like CEO advice. I work with lots of CEOs as you folks know. Like how do you build an amazing board? He's certainly got some scars around board building. How do you build your second act like the Cash App versus the original business of Square. Is it a good idea to be a CEO of two different companies at the same time?
Being brave and not giving a flock versus going with the flow and when do you really dig in and when do you kind of go with the flow? And he had some really interesting thoughts on the job of a modern CEO. So tune in. I'll be back at the end and give you some further thoughts but I thought Jack did a really nice job and Roelof did too. Let's get into it.
Jack I read your piece. I think it's fantastic from hierarchy to intelligence. Before we get into the meat of what it is can you describe what you think is wrong with the way normal companies hierarchies work companies like HubSpot companies like Block like what kind of led you to this?
And I let him go on that and he was very thoughtful and he spoke a lot about it. Block is really changing the way it's organized. Before we started he said I'd love to get some feedback from you and from other people on this. So if you get comments on it let her rip. He wants some feedback on it. He's in the early innings of a big transformation over there. That was about half of it. The second half of it I just asked him for like CEO advice. I work with lots of CEOs as you folks know. Like how do you build an amazing board? He's certainly got some scars around board building. How do you build your second act like the Cash App versus the original business of Square. Is it a good idea to be a CEO of two different companies at the same time?
Being brave and not giving a flock versus going with the flow and when do you really dig in and when do you kind of go with the flow? And he had some really interesting thoughts on the job of a modern CEO. So tune in. I'll be back at the end and give you some further thoughts but I thought Jack did a really nice job and Roelof did too. Let's get into it.
Jack I read your piece. I think it's fantastic from hierarchy to intelligence. Before we get into the meat of what it is can you describe what you think is wrong with the way normal companies hierarchies work companies like HubSpot companies like Block like what kind of led you to this?
**Jack Dorsey：** 我不确定有什么单一的、根本性的错误。更多的是去认识到——我们在这种模式中看到了什么？层级制度的功能到底是什么？我们想要探索的是，它到底从哪里来，为什么会存在？
如果你从第一性原理来看，这一切都是关于向大量人群传递信息流。让一大群人能够接收到信息，并且在人类可管理的规模下运作。所以我们一直在沿用这种结构，基本上是从两千多年前借鉴并稍加迭代的。现在我们面临着一个完全根本性的时刻，可以去质疑我们工作方式的每一个要素。而我认为被质疑最少的，恰恰是层级制度本身。以及我们如何在公司内部管理信息的流动。
如果说我们身处今天这样一个世界——比如 Block 是完全远程的，或者说远程优先——我们做的每一件事都会产生某种工件（artifact），无论是 Slack 消息、邮件、pull request、代码、Google 文档，还是我们录制的会议。所有这些东西都是关于公司如何运作、如何建设、在哪里失败、犯了什么错误的信息工件。传统上，我们一直依赖管理结构中的人类——在层级链条上上下下地传递这些信息。
我们可以把所有这些工件收集起来，在上面构建一个智能层。围绕它建立一个模型，真正地和公司进行对话，了解公司的运转状况。不仅仅是我作为 CEO 能这样做，公司里的任何人都可以拥有同样的信息获取能力，同样理解公司能做什么。这样你就可以为公司构建世界模型（world model）——把公司看作一个 mini AGI（通用人工智能），因为它确实是一种智能体。如果你审视一家公司，它就是一种智能，只不过在信息流效率和员工实际能力发挥方面，之前的结构不是最优的，也不是信息损耗最小的。
今天的技术已经足够成熟，我们可以对公司进行建模。公司里每个人都可以输入意图——也就是战略或者工件——每个人也都可以查询它。这真的打开了无限可能的大门。比如我和 Roelof 每个季度开一次董事会，我们要准备一大堆董事会文件、幻灯片、演示。留给他们提问的时间很有限。但想象一下，如果每一位董事会成员都可以直接查询公司，与公司的智能系统实时对话。这样我们每个季度的会议时间就可以真正聚焦在更有创造性的、更重大的生存性决策上，而不是日常事务。
财报电话会议和分析师也是如此。你可以给他们提供完全合规的 Reg FD 信息，按照他们自己的时间线，回答他们的问题。你可以把这扩展到公司里的任何岗位或角色。这非常了不起——我们以前从来没有这种能力，现在有了。公司的架构和结构最终将决定它的速度，以及它为客户制定的路线图是否正确。
如果你从第一性原理来看，这一切都是关于向大量人群传递信息流。让一大群人能够接收到信息，并且在人类可管理的规模下运作。所以我们一直在沿用这种结构，基本上是从两千多年前借鉴并稍加迭代的。现在我们面临着一个完全根本性的时刻，可以去质疑我们工作方式的每一个要素。而我认为被质疑最少的，恰恰是层级制度本身。以及我们如何在公司内部管理信息的流动。
如果说我们身处今天这样一个世界——比如 Block 是完全远程的，或者说远程优先——我们做的每一件事都会产生某种工件（artifact），无论是 Slack 消息、邮件、pull request、代码、Google 文档，还是我们录制的会议。所有这些东西都是关于公司如何运作、如何建设、在哪里失败、犯了什么错误的信息工件。传统上，我们一直依赖管理结构中的人类——在层级链条上上下下地传递这些信息。
我们可以把所有这些工件收集起来，在上面构建一个智能层。围绕它建立一个模型，真正地和公司进行对话，了解公司的运转状况。不仅仅是我作为 CEO 能这样做，公司里的任何人都可以拥有同样的信息获取能力，同样理解公司能做什么。这样你就可以为公司构建世界模型（world model）——把公司看作一个 mini AGI（通用人工智能），因为它确实是一种智能体。如果你审视一家公司，它就是一种智能，只不过在信息流效率和员工实际能力发挥方面，之前的结构不是最优的，也不是信息损耗最小的。
今天的技术已经足够成熟，我们可以对公司进行建模。公司里每个人都可以输入意图——也就是战略或者工件——每个人也都可以查询它。这真的打开了无限可能的大门。比如我和 Roelof 每个季度开一次董事会，我们要准备一大堆董事会文件、幻灯片、演示。留给他们提问的时间很有限。但想象一下，如果每一位董事会成员都可以直接查询公司，与公司的智能系统实时对话。这样我们每个季度的会议时间就可以真正聚焦在更有创造性的、更重大的生存性决策上，而不是日常事务。
财报电话会议和分析师也是如此。你可以给他们提供完全合规的 Reg FD 信息，按照他们自己的时间线，回答他们的问题。你可以把这扩展到公司里的任何岗位或角色。这非常了不起——我们以前从来没有这种能力，现在有了。公司的架构和结构最终将决定它的速度，以及它为客户制定的路线图是否正确。
**Jack Dorsey:** I don't know if um there's one thing that's ultimately wrong. Um it's it's it's recognizing that like what what do we what do we see in the in the pattern? What what is the function of the hierarchy? And um what we wanted to explore is just like what where does it actually come from and and why did why does it exist in the first place?
And if you look at it from first principles it's all about information flow to a broad base of people. Um so being able to communicate over a breadth of people and um have that be manageable at a human scale. So we've gotten into structures that you know we've borrowed and iterated on a little bit over 2,000 years. Yeah. Um and now we're we're facing this um I think a completely foundational moment in being able to question every element of how we work. And the one that I think is questioned the least is probably the hierarchy. And probably about how we manage communication flow around the companies.
So if if we're in a world where we are today where Block for instance is completely remote or we're remote first every single thing that we do creates some sort of artifacts whether it be a Slack message an email um pull request code um you know all these Google document a meeting that we record all these things have these artifacts of information about how the company is working is building is failing is making mistakes all these things. And traditionally we've been relying upon humans in a management structure in a hierarchy to go up and down a chain to relay that information.
Instead we can take all of those artifacts and put an intelligence on top of it. Build a model around it and actually have a conversation with the company about how the company is doing. And it's not just me as CEO that can do that but anyone in the company could have that same sort of access to information and same understanding of like what the company can do. So you get to a point where you can build these world models for companies like treat the company as a mini AGI for instance an artificial general intelligence because it really is. I mean if you look at a company it is an intelligence but it hasn't been structured in the way that's the most efficient or um the least lossy in terms of information flow and what people can actually do within the company.
So um the technology is good enough today that we can actually model the company. We can have everyone in the company um put in intent which would be strategy or these artifacts and we can also have everyone in the company query it as well and it just it really opens the door for what's possible like you know Roelof and I have a board meeting every quarter where we construct a bunch of board docs slides presentations um we get only so much time for them to have questions but imagine if every single board member can just query the company and have a conversation with the company's intelligence in real time and we can make that meeting time that we have every quarter really focused on more of the creative or bigger existential decisions and issues than the day-to-day.
The same can be said for like our earnings call and analysts like you giving them like fully reg FD possible information that is on their timeline with their questioning. Um but you can scale this to any position or any role in the company which is pretty phenomenal and like we've just never had that ability before and now we do and you know I think the the architecture and the structure of the company is ultimately going to determine its velocity and how well its road map for customers is correct.
And if you look at it from first principles it's all about information flow to a broad base of people. Um so being able to communicate over a breadth of people and um have that be manageable at a human scale. So we've gotten into structures that you know we've borrowed and iterated on a little bit over 2,000 years. Yeah. Um and now we're we're facing this um I think a completely foundational moment in being able to question every element of how we work. And the one that I think is questioned the least is probably the hierarchy. And probably about how we manage communication flow around the companies.
So if if we're in a world where we are today where Block for instance is completely remote or we're remote first every single thing that we do creates some sort of artifacts whether it be a Slack message an email um pull request code um you know all these Google document a meeting that we record all these things have these artifacts of information about how the company is working is building is failing is making mistakes all these things. And traditionally we've been relying upon humans in a management structure in a hierarchy to go up and down a chain to relay that information.
Instead we can take all of those artifacts and put an intelligence on top of it. Build a model around it and actually have a conversation with the company about how the company is doing. And it's not just me as CEO that can do that but anyone in the company could have that same sort of access to information and same understanding of like what the company can do. So you get to a point where you can build these world models for companies like treat the company as a mini AGI for instance an artificial general intelligence because it really is. I mean if you look at a company it is an intelligence but it hasn't been structured in the way that's the most efficient or um the least lossy in terms of information flow and what people can actually do within the company.
So um the technology is good enough today that we can actually model the company. We can have everyone in the company um put in intent which would be strategy or these artifacts and we can also have everyone in the company query it as well and it just it really opens the door for what's possible like you know Roelof and I have a board meeting every quarter where we construct a bunch of board docs slides presentations um we get only so much time for them to have questions but imagine if every single board member can just query the company and have a conversation with the company's intelligence in real time and we can make that meeting time that we have every quarter really focused on more of the creative or bigger existential decisions and issues than the day-to-day.
The same can be said for like our earnings call and analysts like you giving them like fully reg FD possible information that is on their timeline with their questioning. Um but you can scale this to any position or any role in the company which is pretty phenomenal and like we've just never had that ability before and now we do and you know I think the the architecture and the structure of the company is ultimately going to determine its velocity and how well its road map for customers is correct.
**Brian Halligan：** 深入一下这个话题，你能描述一下之前的组织结构是什么样的吗？当然你们还处于很早期的阶段，但现在变成什么样了？哪些角色被取消了？新的角色是什么？具体展开讲讲 Block 今天的样子以及未来的方向。
**Brian Halligan:** And do just kind of drilling down on it can you describe sort of what the organization looked like before? And granted you're very early in this but what's it look like now? Which roles have been eliminated? Um what are the new roles? Um just kind of drill down a little bit into what Block looks like today and kind of where it's going.
**Jack Dorsey：** 是的，我们确实还处于早期。一个衡量我们进度的指标是从我到公司任何一个人之间的层级深度。我估计我们现在最大深度大概是五层。从我到公司的任何一个人之间有五个人。我希望今年能把它降到两到三层。最理想的情况下，没有任何中间层，公司里所有人都直接向我汇报。那就是全部 6000 人。如果用老的组织结构来看，这听起来有点荒唐。但如果你想到我们大部分工作都会通过智能层来完成，它就变得容易管理多了。这也引出了未来的角色设置。
我们想把角色精简到只有三种。第一种是 IC（individual contributor），也就是建设者（builder）或运营者（operator）。可以是销售、工程师、设计师、产品经理——无论是什么，他们都在用工具来建设或运营公司。他们的能力被增强了，因为他们可以使用 agent。一个人就可以完成或探索以前需要一个团队或十个人才能做的事情。这是第一种角色。我认为这里有一种持久的人类技能——判断力、品味和创造力。公司里最大的群体就是建设者和运营者，也就是 IC。
第二种角色是 DRI（directly responsible individual，直接责任人）。这是负责客户结果的人。他们制定战略，了解什么样的路线图能解决客户的需求和问题，然后组建一个 IC 团队来完成任务。这里持久的人类技能是所有权意识和责任感。他们真正拥有结果，对成败负责。
最后一种角色是我们今天所说的管理者，我们把它叫做 player coach（球员教练）。这种人在培养其他人的能力和专业水平，但不是告诉他们怎么做，而是通过自己动手做来示范。这些人可能同时也是 IC 或 DRI，但他们特别擅长教练技能，能帮助周围的人不断进步、精通自己的手艺。目前 IC 和 DRI 向 player coach 汇报，这是一种管理结构。但我认为未来它会变成一种指派关系，不是汇报结构，而是我被指派给某些 IC 或 DRI，帮助他们精进技艺。这里持久的人类技能显然就是培养人才和教练能力。这需要大量的同理心，以及我们公认的优秀管理者所具备的各种软技能。
但不要求他们必须具有战略眼光。他们必须动手做，因为需要展示技能、以身作则。但不一定需要成为 DRI。在极少数情况下，一个人可以同时承担三种角色。我觉得我自己可以承担这三种角色。我的领导团队也被要求同时承担这三种角色。他们要像 IC 一样动手建设或运营公司，要有战略思维、考虑路线图和客户结果，还要做教练，帮助身边的人提升技能水平。
我们想把角色精简到只有三种。第一种是 IC（individual contributor），也就是建设者（builder）或运营者（operator）。可以是销售、工程师、设计师、产品经理——无论是什么，他们都在用工具来建设或运营公司。他们的能力被增强了，因为他们可以使用 agent。一个人就可以完成或探索以前需要一个团队或十个人才能做的事情。这是第一种角色。我认为这里有一种持久的人类技能——判断力、品味和创造力。公司里最大的群体就是建设者和运营者，也就是 IC。
第二种角色是 DRI（directly responsible individual，直接责任人）。这是负责客户结果的人。他们制定战略，了解什么样的路线图能解决客户的需求和问题，然后组建一个 IC 团队来完成任务。这里持久的人类技能是所有权意识和责任感。他们真正拥有结果，对成败负责。
最后一种角色是我们今天所说的管理者，我们把它叫做 player coach（球员教练）。这种人在培养其他人的能力和专业水平，但不是告诉他们怎么做，而是通过自己动手做来示范。这些人可能同时也是 IC 或 DRI，但他们特别擅长教练技能，能帮助周围的人不断进步、精通自己的手艺。目前 IC 和 DRI 向 player coach 汇报，这是一种管理结构。但我认为未来它会变成一种指派关系，不是汇报结构，而是我被指派给某些 IC 或 DRI，帮助他们精进技艺。这里持久的人类技能显然就是培养人才和教练能力。这需要大量的同理心，以及我们公认的优秀管理者所具备的各种软技能。
但不要求他们必须具有战略眼光。他们必须动手做，因为需要展示技能、以身作则。但不一定需要成为 DRI。在极少数情况下，一个人可以同时承担三种角色。我觉得我自己可以承担这三种角色。我的领导团队也被要求同时承担这三种角色。他们要像 IC 一样动手建设或运营公司，要有战略思维、考虑路线图和客户结果，还要做教练，帮助身边的人提升技能水平。
**Jack Dorsey:** Yeah we we we are early in it. Um I mean just from a you know one measurement of how far along we are would be the depth from me to any other individual in the company. And I would say our max depth right now is probably five. Okay. Folks between me and anyone in the company. Um I would want to get that down to two to three this year and in the most ideal case you know there is no layer everyone in the company reports to me. And that would be you know all 6,000 of the company and that feels somewhat you know ridiculous when you consider like the old structure but when you consider that um the majority of our work is going through this intelligence layer um it's a lot more manageable and that goes into the roles going forward.
We want to normalize down to just three roles. The first is an IC which is a builder or an operator. This is a sales person this is an engineer it's a designer. Um a product person like you know whatever it is they're actually working with the tools to build or to operate the company. Um they're augmented because they have access to agents. So you know one person can you know potentially do the work or explore the breadth that you know it would take a team or you know 10 people to do in the past. So that's number one and then I think there's a durable human skill that lasts there which is judgment and taste and creativity. Um so that's probably the largest part of the population is the builder and the operators ICs.
The second role is the DRI. And that's someone who can own the customer outcomes. They're putting strategy together. They're understanding what road map allows us to solve customer needs and problems. And they're assembling a team of these ICs to get something done. Um but the durable human skill there is ownership and accountability. Um you know they're really owning the outcomes and whether something is failing or not.
And then the last role would be what we consider managers today which we're calling a player coach. This is someone who is building the capability and the capacity of other humans and their craft but instead of telling them how to do it they're showing them how to do it by doing the work. So, these are people who might be ICs or they might be DRIs, but they're also really good at giving um coaching skills at a coaching skill to help the people around them get better and better and master their craft. And today, that's a management structure where ICs and even DRIs report to a player coach. But I think in the future, it's an assignment. It's not a reporting structure, but I'm assigned to ICs or I'm assigned to DRIs to help them master their craft. And obviously, the durable human skill there is building human capacity and coaching. Um and there's a lot of empathy there and you know, all the soft skills that we recognized um great managers are known for.
But not making it a requirement that they have to be strategic necessarily. They have to build um because they need to show off the skill and teach in that way, but they don't necessarily need to be a DRI. Now, I in very rare cases, one person can take on all three of those roles. I think I can take on all three of those roles. My leadership team is expected to take on all three of those roles. They're expected to build as an IC or operate the company. They're expected to be strategic and actually think about road maps and customer outcomes. And they're expected to coach and um help raise the skill level um around them with the people that they work with their direct team.
We want to normalize down to just three roles. The first is an IC which is a builder or an operator. This is a sales person this is an engineer it's a designer. Um a product person like you know whatever it is they're actually working with the tools to build or to operate the company. Um they're augmented because they have access to agents. So you know one person can you know potentially do the work or explore the breadth that you know it would take a team or you know 10 people to do in the past. So that's number one and then I think there's a durable human skill that lasts there which is judgment and taste and creativity. Um so that's probably the largest part of the population is the builder and the operators ICs.
The second role is the DRI. And that's someone who can own the customer outcomes. They're putting strategy together. They're understanding what road map allows us to solve customer needs and problems. And they're assembling a team of these ICs to get something done. Um but the durable human skill there is ownership and accountability. Um you know they're really owning the outcomes and whether something is failing or not.
And then the last role would be what we consider managers today which we're calling a player coach. This is someone who is building the capability and the capacity of other humans and their craft but instead of telling them how to do it they're showing them how to do it by doing the work. So, these are people who might be ICs or they might be DRIs, but they're also really good at giving um coaching skills at a coaching skill to help the people around them get better and better and master their craft. And today, that's a management structure where ICs and even DRIs report to a player coach. But I think in the future, it's an assignment. It's not a reporting structure, but I'm assigned to ICs or I'm assigned to DRIs to help them master their craft. And obviously, the durable human skill there is building human capacity and coaching. Um and there's a lot of empathy there and you know, all the soft skills that we recognized um great managers are known for.
But not making it a requirement that they have to be strategic necessarily. They have to build um because they need to show off the skill and teach in that way, but they don't necessarily need to be a DRI. Now, I in very rare cases, one person can take on all three of those roles. I think I can take on all three of those roles. My leadership team is expected to take on all three of those roles. They're expected to build as an IC or operate the company. They're expected to be strategic and actually think about road maps and customer outcomes. And they're expected to coach and um help raise the skill level um around them with the people that they work with their direct team.
**Brian Halligan：** 做一个简单的前后对比。假设你们现在处于中间阶段，而且让我们假设两年后一切运转良好，组织极其扁平。CEO 的角色在之前和之后有什么变化？大多数听众都是 CEO。规划流程变了吗？那些原来的总监和经理——那些"粘合剂"式的角色——他们怎么办？说说你角色的前后变化。
**Brian Halligan:** Just a little kind of before and after and your your mid on this and let's pretend like it's working great and it's 2 years from now. And it's extremely flat. Like what is what is the role of the CEO before and after? How's that changed? Most of the listeners, by the way, are CEOs. Um what does like planning look like before and after? What happens to all those people who are directors and managers or the kind of glue people? What are some kind of the before and afters in your role?
**Jack Dorsey：** 过去我把 CEO 的工作分成三部分。第一，确保我们有正确的原则和正确的团队氛围。这包括招聘和解雇、设定价值观、文化和基调。第二，确保决策是在客户需求、行业趋势和竞争环境的背景下做出的。第三，不断提高我们的执行标准。持续增强我们的能力，推动自己去做那些不舒服的事情，这样我们才能一直成长。这就是我到目前为止对自己工作的理解。
未来，这些要素当然还在，但我觉得更重要的是公司作为智能体运作的架构。如果我们把公司作为一个智能体来建设，我们人类的工作，我作为 CEO 的工作，就是不断将它对齐到我们认为正确的方向上。在我的想象中，公司的智能体——世界模型——在中心，而人类在边缘，不断地将它对齐到客户结果上。但即便这也会改变，因为我认为公司的最终限制因素是它自己的路线图。
这些技术指向的是：我们的客户将会期望他们可以提出一个路线图上不存在的需求，然后系统就直接满足他们。这就涉及到具体要构建什么。我们构建能力层（capabilities），本质上就是我们的工具——发卡、收单、点对点借贷，所有我们作为金融科技公司做的事情。然后是接口层（interfaces），比如 Square 有收银台和仪表盘，还有 Cash App、Title、Bitkey、Proto。这些接口连接真实世界、接触人类，我们通过这些接口交付能力。目前它们是按照特定的导航路径来构建的，反映的是我们的路线图和我们对客户需求的理解。
再往上是第三层——主动智能层（proactive intelligence）。我们对客户有深入的理解。我们在处理资金流转。金钱是世界上最诚实的信号。你可以在几乎所有事情上撒谎，但当一笔交易发生时，它真实地反映了你的生活或你生意的状况。基于这些信息，我们可以主动向客户提供建议，而不是等着他们来找我们，或者期望他们能问对问题。
举个简单但非常有价值的例子：我们怎么保护客户的现金流？很多人把我们当银行账户用。我们怎么确保他们能付房租、能付 Spotify 订阅、能给孩子发零花钱，而且这些支出按照合理的顺序排列，让他们永远不会归零、不会透支，还能有一些缓冲，让他们甚至可以考虑储蓄或积累财富？我觉得心安是最关键的。
如果我们能主动服务客户——客户也可以反过来提需求，比如一个商家说，"我一直在用你们的库存管理功能，但缺少某个特性，能加上吗？"我们就应该能基于已有的能力实时构建和组合出来。如果做不到，说明我们的能力存在缺口——这就是我们的路线图。客户仅仅通过使用和与我们系统对话，就在告诉我们路线图应该是什么。然后由我们来做判断。最后一层是世界模型——客户的世界模型和公司的世界模型。我们对自身和客户的深度理解。
要说一件我或公司里任何人必须做的事，大概就是这个被用滥了的词——判断力。针对我们想要在世界上构建什么来做判断。它与我们的意图一致吗？与我们的价值观一致吗？与我们的品味一致吗？它是独特的吗？至于我的角色，我是在最后把关——检查边缘上的这些人类是否在正确地做对齐工作。
未来，这些要素当然还在，但我觉得更重要的是公司作为智能体运作的架构。如果我们把公司作为一个智能体来建设，我们人类的工作，我作为 CEO 的工作，就是不断将它对齐到我们认为正确的方向上。在我的想象中，公司的智能体——世界模型——在中心，而人类在边缘，不断地将它对齐到客户结果上。但即便这也会改变，因为我认为公司的最终限制因素是它自己的路线图。
这些技术指向的是：我们的客户将会期望他们可以提出一个路线图上不存在的需求，然后系统就直接满足他们。这就涉及到具体要构建什么。我们构建能力层（capabilities），本质上就是我们的工具——发卡、收单、点对点借贷，所有我们作为金融科技公司做的事情。然后是接口层（interfaces），比如 Square 有收银台和仪表盘，还有 Cash App、Title、Bitkey、Proto。这些接口连接真实世界、接触人类，我们通过这些接口交付能力。目前它们是按照特定的导航路径来构建的，反映的是我们的路线图和我们对客户需求的理解。
再往上是第三层——主动智能层（proactive intelligence）。我们对客户有深入的理解。我们在处理资金流转。金钱是世界上最诚实的信号。你可以在几乎所有事情上撒谎，但当一笔交易发生时，它真实地反映了你的生活或你生意的状况。基于这些信息，我们可以主动向客户提供建议，而不是等着他们来找我们，或者期望他们能问对问题。
举个简单但非常有价值的例子：我们怎么保护客户的现金流？很多人把我们当银行账户用。我们怎么确保他们能付房租、能付 Spotify 订阅、能给孩子发零花钱，而且这些支出按照合理的顺序排列，让他们永远不会归零、不会透支，还能有一些缓冲，让他们甚至可以考虑储蓄或积累财富？我觉得心安是最关键的。
如果我们能主动服务客户——客户也可以反过来提需求，比如一个商家说，"我一直在用你们的库存管理功能，但缺少某个特性，能加上吗？"我们就应该能基于已有的能力实时构建和组合出来。如果做不到，说明我们的能力存在缺口——这就是我们的路线图。客户仅仅通过使用和与我们系统对话，就在告诉我们路线图应该是什么。然后由我们来做判断。最后一层是世界模型——客户的世界模型和公司的世界模型。我们对自身和客户的深度理解。
要说一件我或公司里任何人必须做的事，大概就是这个被用滥了的词——判断力。针对我们想要在世界上构建什么来做判断。它与我们的意图一致吗？与我们的价值观一致吗？与我们的品味一致吗？它是独特的吗？至于我的角色，我是在最后把关——检查边缘上的这些人类是否在正确地做对齐工作。
**Jack Dorsey:** I think um my my job as CEO in the past I thought about in three ways. Number one is to ensure that we have the right principles and the right team dynamic. And that's like hiring and firing and setting values and setting the culture and setting the tone. The second is to ensure that decisions are being made in context of our customers and industry trends and competition. And the third would be to raise the bar on our execution. Like to constantly increase our capability and to push ourselves into doing things that are uncomfortable so that we're growing all the time. So, that's how I thought about my job up until this point.
I think in the future, you have those elements certainly, but I think it's more about like the architecture of how the company as an intelligence works. And like if we're building a company as an intelligence, our job is as humans and my job as CEO is to constantly align it to where we think the right outcome is. And I I see like, you know, visually I see the the intelligence, the world model for the company in the center. And then on the edge are the humans who are just constantly aligning this towards customer outcomes. But even that changes, I believe, because I think a company's ultimate limiting factor is its own road map.
And I think what these technologies point to are that our customers are going to have the expectation that they can ask for a future that doesn't exist on a road map and that it just is served to them. And that's where like you really get into the layers of like, okay, so what do we actually build? We build up capabilities, which are effectively our tools. Like we can issue cards, we do card acceptance, peer-to-peer lending, all these things we do as a financial technology company. We have these interfaces like Square, which has a register and a dashboard. We have Cash App, we have Title, we have Bitkey, we have Proto. These are interfaces. These actually touch the real world, touch humans, and we can deliver our capabilities in these interfaces. Today, they're built with like these very specific navigations that are our road map and our understanding of what our customers want.
When you move to the third layer, you have proactive intelligence. We have all this understanding of our customers. We're moving money. Money is the most honest signal in the world. Um you can lie about literally everything, but when a transaction occurs, like that's something that really tells the truth about your life or your business's life. And um based on that, we can actually prompt our customers instead of waiting for them to prompt us or having the right question to ask.
So, we can do the very simple but very valuable thing of like, how do we protect our customers' cash flow? Like we have people using us as a bank account. How do we make sure that they can pay the rent and they can pay their Spotify bill and they can pay um their kids' allowance and this is all sequenced in a way that allows them to never go to zero, never go negative, and have some cushion that allows them to even think about um getting to saving or building wealth. And that's just, you know, peace of mind, I think is the most critical aspect here.
So if we're enabling a customer, if we're able to prompt a customer and also they can ask like as a business, hey, I have this inventory thing that I've been using, but it's missing this feature. Can I have this feature? We should just be able to build that and compose it in real time based on our capabilities. If we can't, and it points to a deficiency in capabilities or a gap, that's our road map. Yeah. So, our customers just by using and talking with our systems are telling us what our road map should be and then it's up to us to give the judgment. And then the final layer is the world model. It's the customer world model. It's the company world model. Our deep understanding of ourselves and also our customers.
But I think like if I had to say one thing that, you know, myself or anyone in the company has to do, it's I guess it's this overused phrase of judgment. Um but it is judgment against like what we intend to build in the world. And is it aligned with that judgment? Is it aligned with the values? Is it aligned with the taste that we have and is it unique or is it not? And I guess for my part I'm the um extra checkpoint on like, is the alignment circle of humans, the edge of humans actually working correctly?
I think in the future, you have those elements certainly, but I think it's more about like the architecture of how the company as an intelligence works. And like if we're building a company as an intelligence, our job is as humans and my job as CEO is to constantly align it to where we think the right outcome is. And I I see like, you know, visually I see the the intelligence, the world model for the company in the center. And then on the edge are the humans who are just constantly aligning this towards customer outcomes. But even that changes, I believe, because I think a company's ultimate limiting factor is its own road map.
And I think what these technologies point to are that our customers are going to have the expectation that they can ask for a future that doesn't exist on a road map and that it just is served to them. And that's where like you really get into the layers of like, okay, so what do we actually build? We build up capabilities, which are effectively our tools. Like we can issue cards, we do card acceptance, peer-to-peer lending, all these things we do as a financial technology company. We have these interfaces like Square, which has a register and a dashboard. We have Cash App, we have Title, we have Bitkey, we have Proto. These are interfaces. These actually touch the real world, touch humans, and we can deliver our capabilities in these interfaces. Today, they're built with like these very specific navigations that are our road map and our understanding of what our customers want.
When you move to the third layer, you have proactive intelligence. We have all this understanding of our customers. We're moving money. Money is the most honest signal in the world. Um you can lie about literally everything, but when a transaction occurs, like that's something that really tells the truth about your life or your business's life. And um based on that, we can actually prompt our customers instead of waiting for them to prompt us or having the right question to ask.
So, we can do the very simple but very valuable thing of like, how do we protect our customers' cash flow? Like we have people using us as a bank account. How do we make sure that they can pay the rent and they can pay their Spotify bill and they can pay um their kids' allowance and this is all sequenced in a way that allows them to never go to zero, never go negative, and have some cushion that allows them to even think about um getting to saving or building wealth. And that's just, you know, peace of mind, I think is the most critical aspect here.
So if we're enabling a customer, if we're able to prompt a customer and also they can ask like as a business, hey, I have this inventory thing that I've been using, but it's missing this feature. Can I have this feature? We should just be able to build that and compose it in real time based on our capabilities. If we can't, and it points to a deficiency in capabilities or a gap, that's our road map. Yeah. So, our customers just by using and talking with our systems are telling us what our road map should be and then it's up to us to give the judgment. And then the final layer is the world model. It's the customer world model. It's the company world model. Our deep understanding of ourselves and also our customers.
But I think like if I had to say one thing that, you know, myself or anyone in the company has to do, it's I guess it's this overused phrase of judgment. Um but it is judgment against like what we intend to build in the world. And is it aligned with that judgment? Is it aligned with the values? Is it aligned with the taste that we have and is it unique or is it not? And I guess for my part I'm the um extra checkpoint on like, is the alignment circle of humans, the edge of humans actually working correctly?
**Brian Halligan：** 我能看到这对 Block 特别有效，因为你们有大量信号。那对于 Sierra、Workday 这种信号质量和频率不同的公司呢？这套方法适用吗，还是效果没那么好？
**Brian Halligan:** In this I see how this works exceptionally well for Block. You have a lot of signal. How does this work for I don't know, Sierra, Workday, somebody who doesn't have the quality signal, the frequency of signals. Does it apply or it doesn't work as well?
**Jack Dorsey：** 我觉得可能也适用。关键在于你是否在构建一个深刻理解人性的业务，而且每一次交互都让这种理解更深。这是一种真实的、持续积累的信号。如果你在做这样的事情，那你就可以把公司作为智能体来构建。如果不是，那它可能只是其他东西的附加功能。我觉得整个行业大部分人在把 AI 看作副驾驶（co-pilot），是附加在现有系统上的增强。而不是思考如何以 AI 为核心彻底重建整个公司。
如果你的业务不适合这样做，而且你最终看起来跟前沿实验室（frontier labs）太过相似，那你要实现差异化并生存下来就会非常困难。这就是我一直在思考这些问题的原因。从 2025 年 1 月开始，这些工具真正成熟了。Goose——Block 开源的 AI agent 编程工具——比 Claude Code 早一个月，在 2025 年 1 月发布。Claude Code 在接下来的月份发布，大概在 5 月份正式推出 beta 版。那整整一年，我每天早上花 3 个小时，不断逼自己——我能不能让它做到我认为它做不到的事，或者我认为我自己做不到的事。每一天都能成功，每一天都让我惊讶。
这种复合效应非常惊人。能够看到这一点，理解它，然后调整你的公司走在前面，我认为这在当下至关重要。我觉得人们还没有充分感受到这一点。他们活在一种抽象的认知里——"这些工具会让我们公司每个人的生产力提高 10 倍。"我不认为这是一个生产力的问题。这是一个结构性的转变。
如果你的业务不适合这样做，而且你最终看起来跟前沿实验室（frontier labs）太过相似，那你要实现差异化并生存下来就会非常困难。这就是我一直在思考这些问题的原因。从 2025 年 1 月开始，这些工具真正成熟了。Goose——Block 开源的 AI agent 编程工具——比 Claude Code 早一个月，在 2025 年 1 月发布。Claude Code 在接下来的月份发布，大概在 5 月份正式推出 beta 版。那整整一年，我每天早上花 3 个小时，不断逼自己——我能不能让它做到我认为它做不到的事，或者我认为我自己做不到的事。每一天都能成功，每一天都让我惊讶。
这种复合效应非常惊人。能够看到这一点，理解它，然后调整你的公司走在前面，我认为这在当下至关重要。我觉得人们还没有充分感受到这一点。他们活在一种抽象的认知里——"这些工具会让我们公司每个人的生产力提高 10 倍。"我不认为这是一个生产力的问题。这是一个结构性的转变。
**Jack Dorsey:** I think it probably does. It I think it goes down to like, are you building a business that like understands something of human nature deeply and it gets deeper every single time. And that's a real tangible signal that just doesn't go away or and if you are, then I think you can build your company as an intelligence. If you're not, then it's probably an add-on to something else. Um and I think most of the industry is thinking about AI as like a co-pilot, as something that is augmented onto rather than like, how do you just rebuild your whole company with this as the core?
Like and if it doesn't make sense for your business to do that and you end up being or looking very similar or rhyming too closely with um the frontier labs, then I think it's going to be very very challenging to differentiate and survive. And that's kind of what's been leading me to all this is like I just, you know, since January of 2025, which is when these tools really came to bear. Like we -- Goose, um which is an agent coding harness, was 1 month before Claude Code in January of 2025. And Claude Code came out the following month and then like was really put out of beta in May of that year. And you know, that whole year I just spent every single day for 3 hours every morning just pushing myself like, can I get it to do something that I didn't think it was capable of or I didn't think I was capable of. And every single day it worked. Like every single day I was surprised.
And it's it's, you know, it's -- the compounding nature of this is pretty incredible. So, you know, being able to like see that, understand it, and then shift your company to be ahead of it, I think is absolutely critical right now. And I don't think people are feeling it enough. They're just living in this abstraction of like, oh yeah, like these tools will make everyone in our company 10x more productive. I don't think this is a productivity thing. I think it's a structural thing that needs to shift.
Like and if it doesn't make sense for your business to do that and you end up being or looking very similar or rhyming too closely with um the frontier labs, then I think it's going to be very very challenging to differentiate and survive. And that's kind of what's been leading me to all this is like I just, you know, since January of 2025, which is when these tools really came to bear. Like we -- Goose, um which is an agent coding harness, was 1 month before Claude Code in January of 2025. And Claude Code came out the following month and then like was really put out of beta in May of that year. And you know, that whole year I just spent every single day for 3 hours every morning just pushing myself like, can I get it to do something that I didn't think it was capable of or I didn't think I was capable of. And every single day it worked. Like every single day I was surprised.
And it's it's, you know, it's -- the compounding nature of this is pretty incredible. So, you know, being able to like see that, understand it, and then shift your company to be ahead of it, I think is absolutely critical right now. And I don't think people are feeling it enough. They're just living in this abstraction of like, oh yeah, like these tools will make everyone in our company 10x more productive. I don't think this is a productivity thing. I think it's a structural thing that needs to shift.
**Brian Halligan：** 我觉得你说得对。人们把它想成副驾驶和个人生产力的提升，而你的思路是完整的商业转型。我觉得这个想法非常有意思、非常有说服力。
**Brian Halligan:** I think you're right. I think people are thinking of it as co-pilots and individual productivity versus your -- I think your idea is complete business transformation and I think it's super interesting and compelling.
**Roelof Botha：** 我能补充一个想法吗？我听到现在一直在思考这个。有一本我最喜欢的著作——Adam Smith 的《国富论》（Wealth of Nations）。核心思想是，如果你有正确的信号，你可以依靠系统中大量小参与者的自利行为来达到最优结果。但你需要正确的框架和正确的系统。我觉得今天很多公司的运作方式更像是命令与控制。
非常明显。你有层级，有政治博弈，有人为了位置勾心斗角，真实情况到底是什么并不总是清楚的。我觉得我们设想的是一个系统——它就是基本事实（ground truth）。你去掉所有中间层级，回到创始人们经常向往的那种生产力水平。他们怀念公司只有 100 人而不是 500 人的日子，因为那时候效率高得多。为什么？因为有高度透明、极少的层级。
所以正如 Jack 所说的，这里的可能性在于——不是仅仅关注个人生产力，而是重新想象我们作为人类如何协作。你可以用更少的人来完成更多的事，是的，每个人更高产。但更重要的是一种不同的协作方式，你获得了正确的信号。它更像是一个资本主义体系——信号告诉你该构建什么。不是谁拍桌子拍得更响谁的产品就能获批。而是——更多客户想要这个而不是那个，那我们就做这个。对我来说，这个认识有一种真正的魔力。
非常明显。你有层级，有政治博弈，有人为了位置勾心斗角，真实情况到底是什么并不总是清楚的。我觉得我们设想的是一个系统——它就是基本事实（ground truth）。你去掉所有中间层级，回到创始人们经常向往的那种生产力水平。他们怀念公司只有 100 人而不是 500 人的日子，因为那时候效率高得多。为什么？因为有高度透明、极少的层级。
所以正如 Jack 所说的，这里的可能性在于——不是仅仅关注个人生产力，而是重新想象我们作为人类如何协作。你可以用更少的人来完成更多的事，是的，每个人更高产。但更重要的是一种不同的协作方式，你获得了正确的信号。它更像是一个资本主义体系——信号告诉你该构建什么。不是谁拍桌子拍得更响谁的产品就能获批。而是——更多客户想要这个而不是那个，那我们就做这个。对我来说，这个认识有一种真正的魔力。
**Roelof Botha:** Can I add one thought I've had as I've listened to this so far. You know, one of the one of my favorite pieces of writing ever is Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. And this idea that if you have the right signals, you can rely on the self-interested behavior of many small participants in the system to actually lead to optimal outcomes. But you just need to have the right framework and the right system. I think the way that many companies work today is a little bit more command and control.
Very much. And you have hierarchies and you have political actions and people, you know, jockeying for position and it's not always clear what is actually true. And I think part of what we're envisioning here is you have a system that's just ground truth. And you do away with all the layers, you get back to the kind of productivity that founders often long for. They long for the days when they were 100 people and not 500 people cuz they were so much more productive. Why? Because you had, you know, lots of transparency, limited hierarchy.
And so I think the possibility here as Jack was saying is instead of just focusing on individual productivity, you reimagine how we work together as humans. And you can do it with far smaller number of people that are far more productive, yes, but there's a different way of working together where you get the right signals. And it's a much much more similar to a capitalist system where the signals tell you what to build. It's not somebody who pounds the table harder who gets their product approved. It's just listen, more customers want this than that. That's how we're going to decide what to build next. So for me, there's something quite magical in that realization.
Very much. And you have hierarchies and you have political actions and people, you know, jockeying for position and it's not always clear what is actually true. And I think part of what we're envisioning here is you have a system that's just ground truth. And you do away with all the layers, you get back to the kind of productivity that founders often long for. They long for the days when they were 100 people and not 500 people cuz they were so much more productive. Why? Because you had, you know, lots of transparency, limited hierarchy.
And so I think the possibility here as Jack was saying is instead of just focusing on individual productivity, you reimagine how we work together as humans. And you can do it with far smaller number of people that are far more productive, yes, but there's a different way of working together where you get the right signals. And it's a much much more similar to a capitalist system where the signals tell you what to build. It's not somebody who pounds the table harder who gets their product approved. It's just listen, more customers want this than that. That's how we're going to decide what to build next. So for me, there's something quite magical in that realization.
**Brian Halligan：** 是的。大概在创建 HubSpot 四年后，我取消了组织架构图、取消了头衔，结果所有人都炸了。他们不喜欢这个主意。我们这样运行了大概 9 个月，后来我扛不住了，又恢复了。但我们当时没有一个拥有所有这些信号、能帮助我们做决策的智能系统。所以今年看到这些进展很令人兴奋。
我有一个理论想请教你，Roelof。我大概这样理解：manager mode 是一个金字塔，VP 做大部分决策。Founder mode 比较扁平，创始人做很多决策。然后还有一种我暂且叫它 Dorsey mode——是一个圆圈，AI 做大部分决策。你认同吗？
我有一个理论想请教你，Roelof。我大概这样理解：manager mode 是一个金字塔，VP 做大部分决策。Founder mode 比较扁平，创始人做很多决策。然后还有一种我暂且叫它 Dorsey mode——是一个圆圈，AI 做大部分决策。你认同吗？
**Brian Halligan:** Yeah. About 4 years into building HubSpot, I eliminated no org charts, no titles, and everyone lost their mind. They didn't like the idea. And we ran that for about 9 months and I got worn down and I brought it back. The thing we didn't have was an intelligence system that had all those signals that could help us make decisions. So it's exciting to see this year.
I have a theory I want to run by you, Roelof. Like I sort of think of like there's manager mode, it's a pyramid. The VPs make most of the decisions. And there's founder mode, kind of flat. The founder makes a lot of decisions. And then there's I'm just going to call it Dorsey mode. It's a circle and the AI makes most of the decisions. Do you buy that?
I have a theory I want to run by you, Roelof. Like I sort of think of like there's manager mode, it's a pyramid. The VPs make most of the decisions. And there's founder mode, kind of flat. The founder makes a lot of decisions. And then there's I'm just going to call it Dorsey mode. It's a circle and the AI makes most of the decisions. Do you buy that?
**Roelof Botha：** 我不认为 AI 在做大部分决策。Jack 可以纠正我。我觉得 AI 是在帮助沟通和对齐。管理团队或核心圈子负责设定框架——目标函数是什么？我们是在优化增长率、人均毛利、净推荐值（NPS），还是这些变量的某种组合？而边缘的人类承担着极其重要的功能——纠偏、提供信息、引导方向。
Jack 有一句话我特别喜欢，我已经不知道"偷"了多少次——公司有多个创始时刻（multiple founding moments）。你的公司里有很多聪明人，每天都在用巧妙的想法改变产品、引入新东西。所以那种只有一个天才想出一切的想法——我不信奉英雄崇拜，也不信奉相反的替罪羊思维。关键是释放团队的最大潜力来推动公司前进。所以我认同这个"圆圈"的概念。
Jack 有一句话我特别喜欢，我已经不知道"偷"了多少次——公司有多个创始时刻（multiple founding moments）。你的公司里有很多聪明人，每天都在用巧妙的想法改变产品、引入新东西。所以那种只有一个天才想出一切的想法——我不信奉英雄崇拜，也不信奉相反的替罪羊思维。关键是释放团队的最大潜力来推动公司前进。所以我认同这个"圆圈"的概念。
**Roelof Botha:** Well, I don't think the AI makes most of the decisions. I think that and Jack should correct me here. I think the AI helps with communicating the alignment. And the management team or the inner core helps set the framework. What is the objective function? Are we optimizing for growth rate, gross profit per employee, net promoter score, probably some combination of those variables. And the humans at the edges perform an incredibly valuable function of correcting and informing and sort of steering that.
And I think one of the phrases that Jack has, which I absolutely love and I've stolen so many times, is companies have multiple founding moments. Yeah. There's so many smart people in your company that have clever ideas that every day inflect the product, introduce something new. And so this idea that there's just, you know, one person who is the brilliant person who comes up with everything. I just don't think, you know, I don't believe in hero worship or the converse of that where you sort of scapegoat people. I think it's harnessing the best of your team to really advance the company. So I subscribe to the circle idea.
And I think one of the phrases that Jack has, which I absolutely love and I've stolen so many times, is companies have multiple founding moments. Yeah. There's so many smart people in your company that have clever ideas that every day inflect the product, introduce something new. And so this idea that there's just, you know, one person who is the brilliant person who comes up with everything. I just don't think, you know, I don't believe in hero worship or the converse of that where you sort of scapegoat people. I think it's harnessing the best of your team to really advance the company. So I subscribe to the circle idea.
**Jack Dorsey：** 是的，我也不认为 AI 在做大部分决策。我觉得它在促成一种信息更充分的决策。最理想的情况下，其实是我们的客户在做大部分决策——因为他们的查询和使用行为直接指明了我们的路线图应该往哪里走。然后由我们来判断这是否与我们想成为的公司、我们认为最有战略价值的方向一致。
只是之前我们没法达到那种数据保真度。因为我们必须去推断，做客户调研，做访谈，查看客户支持记录，看 Twitter 上的产品反馈，等等。但当你的界面变成与客户的对话，而不是那种可视化的导航，你就突然获得了惊人的保真度——我们的客户到底关心什么？他们到底想要什么？然后由我们决定这是否与我们想成为的公司一致，否则他们应该去其他地方。
这些边界都会模糊——这才是最疯狂的事情。从去年开始，我一直在经历这种存在性焦虑和乐观的交替——在同一个小时、同一个思考过程中。未来公司到底意味着什么？这些结构会变成什么样？这个想法源于一种担忧——我们的公司会不会很快就完全无关紧要了？我们到底在什么方面有差异化？我们的护城河是什么？我们需要成为什么来守住并拓展它？
所有这些都源于客户期望。Open Core 最让我惊叹的一件事是，人们想把它装进一台 Mac mini 里，让它非常实在地属于自己，完全掌控用它做什么。我们看到 Square 的商家也在这样做——对接 Square 的 API。Cash App 的用户也是。这些人不是技术人员，就是普通人——"我想要一个 bot 来帮我管理生活。"这种 agency（自主权）——不管你怎么评价 Open Core 目前的水平，它只会越来越好。但背后的诉求是 agency。我想实实在在地掌控这个智能，让它帮我变得更好、拓展我的可能性。
这个期望底线已经急剧提高了。这又回到了我说的——公司的限制因素就是路线图。我们需要把这个限制因素从等式中移除。我们需要确保客户真正在跟我们一起构建，让他们把我们看作一系列能力——能快速、简单、有价值地实现他们的需求。所以最终还是回到我们的能力集、接口的直觉性、以及世界模型的智能程度——能否有用，能否实时组合 UI。
只是之前我们没法达到那种数据保真度。因为我们必须去推断，做客户调研，做访谈，查看客户支持记录，看 Twitter 上的产品反馈，等等。但当你的界面变成与客户的对话，而不是那种可视化的导航，你就突然获得了惊人的保真度——我们的客户到底关心什么？他们到底想要什么？然后由我们决定这是否与我们想成为的公司一致，否则他们应该去其他地方。
这些边界都会模糊——这才是最疯狂的事情。从去年开始，我一直在经历这种存在性焦虑和乐观的交替——在同一个小时、同一个思考过程中。未来公司到底意味着什么？这些结构会变成什么样？这个想法源于一种担忧——我们的公司会不会很快就完全无关紧要了？我们到底在什么方面有差异化？我们的护城河是什么？我们需要成为什么来守住并拓展它？
所有这些都源于客户期望。Open Core 最让我惊叹的一件事是，人们想把它装进一台 Mac mini 里，让它非常实在地属于自己，完全掌控用它做什么。我们看到 Square 的商家也在这样做——对接 Square 的 API。Cash App 的用户也是。这些人不是技术人员，就是普通人——"我想要一个 bot 来帮我管理生活。"这种 agency（自主权）——不管你怎么评价 Open Core 目前的水平，它只会越来越好。但背后的诉求是 agency。我想实实在在地掌控这个智能，让它帮我变得更好、拓展我的可能性。
这个期望底线已经急剧提高了。这又回到了我说的——公司的限制因素就是路线图。我们需要把这个限制因素从等式中移除。我们需要确保客户真正在跟我们一起构建，让他们把我们看作一系列能力——能快速、简单、有价值地实现他们的需求。所以最终还是回到我们的能力集、接口的直觉性、以及世界模型的智能程度——能否有用，能否实时组合 UI。
**Jack Dorsey:** Yeah, I also don't think the AI is making the majority of the decisions. I think it's facilitating a more context-rich decision. I think ultimately like in the most ideal case, our customers are actually making the majority of the decisions because they're just based on their queries and what they're trying to do with the system delineates like where our road map should go. And then it's up to our judgment as to whether that's consistent with what we want to be and what we think is most strategic or not.
Um but we just, you know, we weren't able to get to that level of data fidelity before. Um because we had to infer it. We had to do customer research. We had to do interviews. We had to do um look at our customer support. Um you know, product feedback on Twitter, all these other things. But when your interface is a conversation with your customer instead of like this visual navigation, you suddenly get like this amazing fidelity of like what do our customers actually care about? What do they actually want? And it's up to us then to decide if that's consistent with what we want to be as a company or if they should be going elsewhere to do that.
And then I think all these things are going to blur. That I mean, that's the craziest thing is like you know, again since last year, I've just had this existential dread and also optimism at in the same hour in the same thought process of like what is even a company going forward? Like what are these structures going forward? Lasting for quite some time. Yeah. Um and it was coming from a place of like, "Wow, is our company just going to be completely irrelevant, you know, in the next coming years or even sooner? Like what do we actually differentiate on? What do we have a moat around? And what do we need to be to defend and also to grow that?"
Um and like what are the -- and all that follows from customer expectation. Like the most amazing thing about Open Core to me was that um people wanted to take this thing and contain it into a Mac mini and make it very tangibly theirs. Um and have all this agency around what they did with it. And we're seeing Square sellers do stuff with it like that. Interface with the Square APIs. And we're seeing Cash App customers. And these are like not tech people. These are just like people -- I want a bot to help me manage my life. That agency independent of what your thoughts on like how good of a system Open Core is right now, it'll get better and better. But the intent behind that is agency. I want to tangibly control this intelligence and for it to better me and what it makes possible for me is incredible.
And that expectation floor has just risen dramatically. And that leads me again to like yeah, our limiting factor as a company is our road map. Like we need to remove that from the equation. We need to ensure that our customers are truly building alongside us. And that they, you know, are seeing us as a series of capabilities that makes their desires fast and easy and valuable. So like it really goes back to the capability set that we have. And then like the intuition of the interface that we have. And then like how intelligent our world models can be to be helpful and to compose UI in real time.
Um but we just, you know, we weren't able to get to that level of data fidelity before. Um because we had to infer it. We had to do customer research. We had to do interviews. We had to do um look at our customer support. Um you know, product feedback on Twitter, all these other things. But when your interface is a conversation with your customer instead of like this visual navigation, you suddenly get like this amazing fidelity of like what do our customers actually care about? What do they actually want? And it's up to us then to decide if that's consistent with what we want to be as a company or if they should be going elsewhere to do that.
And then I think all these things are going to blur. That I mean, that's the craziest thing is like you know, again since last year, I've just had this existential dread and also optimism at in the same hour in the same thought process of like what is even a company going forward? Like what are these structures going forward? Lasting for quite some time. Yeah. Um and it was coming from a place of like, "Wow, is our company just going to be completely irrelevant, you know, in the next coming years or even sooner? Like what do we actually differentiate on? What do we have a moat around? And what do we need to be to defend and also to grow that?"
Um and like what are the -- and all that follows from customer expectation. Like the most amazing thing about Open Core to me was that um people wanted to take this thing and contain it into a Mac mini and make it very tangibly theirs. Um and have all this agency around what they did with it. And we're seeing Square sellers do stuff with it like that. Interface with the Square APIs. And we're seeing Cash App customers. And these are like not tech people. These are just like people -- I want a bot to help me manage my life. That agency independent of what your thoughts on like how good of a system Open Core is right now, it'll get better and better. But the intent behind that is agency. I want to tangibly control this intelligence and for it to better me and what it makes possible for me is incredible.
And that expectation floor has just risen dramatically. And that leads me again to like yeah, our limiting factor as a company is our road map. Like we need to remove that from the equation. We need to ensure that our customers are truly building alongside us. And that they, you know, are seeing us as a series of capabilities that makes their desires fast and easy and valuable. So like it really goes back to the capability set that we have. And then like the intuition of the interface that we have. And then like how intelligent our world models can be to be helpful and to compose UI in real time.
**Brian Halligan：** 今天早上我去了一家叫 Rogo 的公司，在纽约。他们读了你的文章。假设你在给一家 100 人公司的 CEO 做顾问，他们已经有了层级结构。他们应该怎么做？先从系统开始？先从数据开始？先从组织开始？怎么执行这套 Dorsey 方法论？
**Brian Halligan:** Um I spent this morning at a company we call Rogo here in New York City. They read your article. Let's say you're advising the CEO of a 100-person company. They've already got their hierarchy. What should they do? Should they start with their system? Should they start with data? Should they start with their org? Like how should people go about, you know, running the Dorsey playbook?
**Jack Dorsey：** 什么 Dorsey 方法论……[笑] 我们并没有全部想明白。在这条路上，我们带着很重要的谦逊心态。我们相信方向是对的，但知道还有很多要去摸索。更准确的说法是——如果你在 100 人的阶段，或者今天从零开始，如果你要把公司作为 AGI、作为一个智能体来构建，它会是什么样的？你需要什么来真正形成差异化？
如果我今天创业，我会对能多快构建东西、多快做出原型、多快交付给客户感到无比兴奋。但我也会陷入一种关于分发和注意力的焦虑。因为市面上噪音太多了，很难找到真正有意义的信号——谁在做真正有趣的、能从根本上改变什么的东西，而且能存活超过一年。分发（distribution）正在成为真正的差异化因素。我觉得有某个临界点，今天我们理解的分发方式会被封闭。比如 App、网站、传统零售——很多东西都会改变。如果你今天没有分发渠道，未来争夺它会非常困难。但也会出现新的分发领域，可能更重要。至于具体什么样，我还不知道。
不过我想说的是，100 人的公司大概不会超过两到三层。现在正是真正审视的时候——我到底需要层级吗？Brian，Square 创立一年后，我们也取消了头衔，把所有人统一为 lead。我们当时跟很多银行打交道，那些银行里全是 EVP、VP，他们在你名片上找对应的头衔。有一种名片文化。所以我们把名片全撕了。统一为一个标题格式——"你是什么的 lead"。lead 后面跟的头衔越长，说明你在组织里越靠下。
我们一直保持着这个做法。我们没有头衔，只有"你领导什么"。回到 DRI 的概念——你最终对什么负责？我觉得这对我们帮助很大。但这是更进一步的。如果你今天刚起步或者只有 100 人，什么才是解决客户问题的根本？层级在哪里阻碍了这一点？
看看你们用的所有工具。看看你们仅仅通过日常工作就产生了多少信息。只要把这些放进一个智能系统，然后去查询它，你对公司的理解就会比以前多两到三倍。因为之前你依赖人来告诉你事情。而你知道，由于 Roelof 提到的那些原因——议程、政治、情绪、人情——信息并不总能如实传达。想象一下，如果你的公司是完全透明的——每一个方面都可读。从数据层面来说，我们离这个并不远了。关键是在上面加上智能层，让它有用，然后让它主动发挥作用。
最难的部分是——我们能确定因果关系——但让这些公司和客户的世界模型达到可预测性，目前还是一个研究问题。不过这是完全可以解决的。
如果我今天创业，我会对能多快构建东西、多快做出原型、多快交付给客户感到无比兴奋。但我也会陷入一种关于分发和注意力的焦虑。因为市面上噪音太多了，很难找到真正有意义的信号——谁在做真正有趣的、能从根本上改变什么的东西，而且能存活超过一年。分发（distribution）正在成为真正的差异化因素。我觉得有某个临界点，今天我们理解的分发方式会被封闭。比如 App、网站、传统零售——很多东西都会改变。如果你今天没有分发渠道，未来争夺它会非常困难。但也会出现新的分发领域，可能更重要。至于具体什么样，我还不知道。
不过我想说的是，100 人的公司大概不会超过两到三层。现在正是真正审视的时候——我到底需要层级吗？Brian，Square 创立一年后，我们也取消了头衔，把所有人统一为 lead。我们当时跟很多银行打交道，那些银行里全是 EVP、VP，他们在你名片上找对应的头衔。有一种名片文化。所以我们把名片全撕了。统一为一个标题格式——"你是什么的 lead"。lead 后面跟的头衔越长，说明你在组织里越靠下。
我们一直保持着这个做法。我们没有头衔，只有"你领导什么"。回到 DRI 的概念——你最终对什么负责？我觉得这对我们帮助很大。但这是更进一步的。如果你今天刚起步或者只有 100 人，什么才是解决客户问题的根本？层级在哪里阻碍了这一点？
看看你们用的所有工具。看看你们仅仅通过日常工作就产生了多少信息。只要把这些放进一个智能系统，然后去查询它，你对公司的理解就会比以前多两到三倍。因为之前你依赖人来告诉你事情。而你知道，由于 Roelof 提到的那些原因——议程、政治、情绪、人情——信息并不总能如实传达。想象一下，如果你的公司是完全透明的——每一个方面都可读。从数据层面来说，我们离这个并不远了。关键是在上面加上智能层，让它有用，然后让它主动发挥作用。
最难的部分是——我们能确定因果关系——但让这些公司和客户的世界模型达到可预测性，目前还是一个研究问题。不过这是完全可以解决的。
**Jack Dorsey:** Uh I don't know about this Dorsey playbook thing, but [laughter] um well, we don't have it all figured out. I think there's an important dose of humility that we have that we really bring on this path. We believe it's right, but we know there's a lot to figure out. Yeah, it's more like if you were to at 100 people or even, you know, just starting today, if you were to build your company as an AGI, as an intelligence, what would it look like? And what would you need to really differentiate?
Like if I were starting a company today, I would be so excited about how quickly I could build things and how quickly I could prototype and get things out to customers. I would be um in this like valley of dread about distribution and attention because there is so much noise out there and it's so hard to get to the actual signal of like who's building something interesting that will actually fundamentally change something and will be around for more than a year. Yeah. It's like I think distribution really becomes a differentiator. And I think there's some event horizon where the way we think about distribution today closes off. You know, it like there's apps for instance and websites and the traditional retail. There's a number of things that will change. And if you don't have the distribution today, it's going to be very hard to fight for that. But there'll be new areas of distribution that are probably more important. And I don't know what those look like.
But I would say like I would assume that a company of 100 probably is no more than two to three layers deep, hopefully. Um and now would be the time to just like really question like do I need a hierarchy? Like Brian, a year into Square, I also we removed titles. We normalized everyone to lead. Yeah. We did it for like we were talking with all these banks all the time and you would have these EVPs and VPs and they were looking for the same on a business card. And there's this whole business card culture. Yep. So we ripped up all the business cards. We normalized down to a title of like you're a lead of what. And the longer that is behind lead is probably the farther down you are in the organization.
Um and we've kept it. Like we, you know, we don't have titles. We have like, you know, what do you lead? Um going back to like the DRI thing, what are you ultimately responsible for? And I think it's helped us a lot. Um but this is another step. Like if you're starting today or you're 100 today, like what is actually fundamental to solving your customer's problems and where is the hierarchy getting in the way of that?
And look at all the tools you're using. Like look at all the information you're generating just by doing your work. Like just putting that into an intelligence and being able to query it will give you an understanding of the company that like is two to three times more than you had before ever. Because you're relying upon people telling you things. And you know that doesn't always happen for various reasons that you know Roelof spoke to in terms of agenda or politics or emotions or empathy all these things. Imagine if your company was entirely legible. Like entirely legible every aspect of it and we're not far off from that from a data perspective. It's putting the intelligence on top of it and making it useful and then making it proactive.
Like that's the hardest bit is like we can determine causal -- getting to predictability for these world models around the company and customer is still right now very much a research problem but it's eminently solvable.
Like if I were starting a company today, I would be so excited about how quickly I could build things and how quickly I could prototype and get things out to customers. I would be um in this like valley of dread about distribution and attention because there is so much noise out there and it's so hard to get to the actual signal of like who's building something interesting that will actually fundamentally change something and will be around for more than a year. Yeah. It's like I think distribution really becomes a differentiator. And I think there's some event horizon where the way we think about distribution today closes off. You know, it like there's apps for instance and websites and the traditional retail. There's a number of things that will change. And if you don't have the distribution today, it's going to be very hard to fight for that. But there'll be new areas of distribution that are probably more important. And I don't know what those look like.
But I would say like I would assume that a company of 100 probably is no more than two to three layers deep, hopefully. Um and now would be the time to just like really question like do I need a hierarchy? Like Brian, a year into Square, I also we removed titles. We normalized everyone to lead. Yeah. We did it for like we were talking with all these banks all the time and you would have these EVPs and VPs and they were looking for the same on a business card. And there's this whole business card culture. Yep. So we ripped up all the business cards. We normalized down to a title of like you're a lead of what. And the longer that is behind lead is probably the farther down you are in the organization.
Um and we've kept it. Like we, you know, we don't have titles. We have like, you know, what do you lead? Um going back to like the DRI thing, what are you ultimately responsible for? And I think it's helped us a lot. Um but this is another step. Like if you're starting today or you're 100 today, like what is actually fundamental to solving your customer's problems and where is the hierarchy getting in the way of that?
And look at all the tools you're using. Like look at all the information you're generating just by doing your work. Like just putting that into an intelligence and being able to query it will give you an understanding of the company that like is two to three times more than you had before ever. Because you're relying upon people telling you things. And you know that doesn't always happen for various reasons that you know Roelof spoke to in terms of agenda or politics or emotions or empathy all these things. Imagine if your company was entirely legible. Like entirely legible every aspect of it and we're not far off from that from a data perspective. It's putting the intelligence on top of it and making it useful and then making it proactive.
Like that's the hardest bit is like we can determine causal -- getting to predictability for these world models around the company and customer is still right now very much a research problem but it's eminently solvable.
**Brian Halligan：** 你们能带我看看幕后吗？Jack，这是一个非常大胆的举动——你裁掉了 40% 的员工。对于在听的 CEO 们来说，当时内部的讨论是怎样的？规模应该多大？应该多激进？Ruth Porat 有一句名言——如果你不得不吃一个难以下咽的东西，别一小口一小口地啃。你似乎一口咬了下去。幕后的讨论是怎样的？Roelof，他是怎么向你们提案的？董事会是什么反应？
**Brian Halligan:** Can you guys just take me behind the scenes? Like Jack this was a really bold move. You laid off 40% of your employees. Just like for CEOs listening what was that debate inside like how big should it be how bold should it be? You know Ruth Porat's got this good line if you're going to eat a [***] sandwich don't nibble and you seem like you took a big bite. What was that debate behind the scenes and then Roelof like how did he pitch it to you guys and what was the board's reaction just like behind the scenes on that?
**Jack Dorsey：** 去年 12 月，模型有了一次非常明显的全面升级。从擅长构建原型和全新项目，变成了能理解大型代码库和遗留代码库——比如我们自己的。幻觉（hallucination）问题在编程能力方面已经不再是一个话题，工具链突然变得非常成熟。就在那一个月里。
所有人都回家过假期了，每个人都在玩这些工具，他们对这些工具的能力感到震惊。回来之后，讨论就是绕着桌子转一圈问——如果今天有这些工具，你会这样建公司吗？公司会是什么样？我团队里每个人的回答都是——不会是这样的。不会是这个规模，不会是这种结构。
我们之前一直在边缘上做调整——比如从 GM 结构转为职能结构，把层级上限设为四层（我加四层），各种小改动。但如果我们真的重启、重建公司——最终会不会变成今天这个样子？答案是一致的——不会。
然后我们做了一个推演——保持服务 100% 运行所需的最少人数是多少？接下来，完全满足监管合规所需的最少人数是多少？我们是高度受监管的企业，这一点极其重要，法务也是。第三，为了实现我们对资本市场的承诺、同时把公司重建为智能体，所需的最少人数是多少？我们大致就得到了那个数字，并且预留了一些缓冲以防犯错——事实上我们也确实犯了一些错误，很难避免，尤其是以之前的运作方式。
我觉得往后会容易得多，因为公司会更加透明，我们的所有行动都会更加可追溯。所以未来我的信心会大得多。但整个过程——从探索到执行——不到三周。总体来说，我想确保的是，既然我们知道公司未来会变成这样，我不想等到被逼到墙角再做。我们是上市公司，有各种挑战。其他公司迟早也会意识到这一点。我不想被动应对，我要走在前面。这样我们就能以更多的正直来做这件事，对离开的人更加慷慨，对留下来的人也是。我们不是被动地做出一个平庸的回应，而是主动地追求卓越。这就是我们想要设定的基调。
每一天都在反复确认——我们做的对吗？这组人选对吗？我们还有什么没想到的？什么没有讨论到？我们把核心圈子控制得非常小。然后跟董事会沟通，从我的角度来看，他们非常开放——不仅仅是开放，更像是"是的，我们同意，应该这样做。"但还是让 Roelof 来说。
所有人都回家过假期了，每个人都在玩这些工具，他们对这些工具的能力感到震惊。回来之后，讨论就是绕着桌子转一圈问——如果今天有这些工具，你会这样建公司吗？公司会是什么样？我团队里每个人的回答都是——不会是这样的。不会是这个规模，不会是这种结构。
我们之前一直在边缘上做调整——比如从 GM 结构转为职能结构，把层级上限设为四层（我加四层），各种小改动。但如果我们真的重启、重建公司——最终会不会变成今天这个样子？答案是一致的——不会。
然后我们做了一个推演——保持服务 100% 运行所需的最少人数是多少？接下来，完全满足监管合规所需的最少人数是多少？我们是高度受监管的企业，这一点极其重要，法务也是。第三，为了实现我们对资本市场的承诺、同时把公司重建为智能体，所需的最少人数是多少？我们大致就得到了那个数字，并且预留了一些缓冲以防犯错——事实上我们也确实犯了一些错误，很难避免，尤其是以之前的运作方式。
我觉得往后会容易得多，因为公司会更加透明，我们的所有行动都会更加可追溯。所以未来我的信心会大得多。但整个过程——从探索到执行——不到三周。总体来说，我想确保的是，既然我们知道公司未来会变成这样，我不想等到被逼到墙角再做。我们是上市公司，有各种挑战。其他公司迟早也会意识到这一点。我不想被动应对，我要走在前面。这样我们就能以更多的正直来做这件事，对离开的人更加慷慨，对留下来的人也是。我们不是被动地做出一个平庸的回应，而是主动地追求卓越。这就是我们想要设定的基调。
每一天都在反复确认——我们做的对吗？这组人选对吗？我们还有什么没想到的？什么没有讨论到？我们把核心圈子控制得非常小。然后跟董事会沟通，从我的角度来看，他们非常开放——不仅仅是开放，更像是"是的，我们同意，应该这样做。"但还是让 Roelof 来说。
**Jack Dorsey:** Yeah. So um it was something you know December of last year is when the models really got a noticeable full upgrade from being able to be really good at building prototypes and greenfield efforts to like understanding large code bases and legacy code bases like our own. There was you know hallucination wasn't much of a topic in terms of like the coding ability and the tool harnesses became suddenly very mature. Like just in that month.
And um it just like everyone went home for the holidays and everyone played with these tools and they were surprised at how capable they were and what they could do with them and you know we came back and the conversation was like just going around the table would you build the company this way if you had these tools today? Like what would the company look like? And everyone around the table in my team just said like it would not look like this. It would not be this size. It would not be structured this way.
And we've been making like changes on the edge like you know going from a GM structure to a functional structure to reduce like putting a cap on our layers to four me plus four and all these like small things um but if we were to really reboot and rebuild the company like would we end up where we look today and the answer was uniformly no.
Yeah. And then we just did this exercise of like okay so what is the minimum number of people that we would need to keep the service up 100%? And then next what is the minimum number of people that we would need to be fully in compliance with our regulators. We're a highly regulated business so that one's extremely important to us and legal obviously. And then third what is the minimal set of folks that we need in order to grow to fulfill our commitments we've made to the street but also rebuild the company as an intelligence and that's roughly the number that we got to and we built in some buffer in case we made mistakes which we did and you know hard not to um especially operating the way we have.
Like I think going forward it'll be much easier because more of the company will be legible and all of our actions will be a lot more legible so I'd have a lot more confidence going forward than not. But um it was that and that was a span of you know exploration to execution and you know under three weeks um and I think generally I wanted to make sure that we if we knew that this was what our company was going to be in the future I didn't want to have to do it with our backs against the wall. We're a public company and there's various challenges there and other companies will probably get to this realization at some point. I don't want to react to that. I want to be ahead of it because then we can do it with a lot more integrity. We can do it with a lot more generosity for the people that we're asking to leave um and even for the people that we're asking to stay and we're not just reacting into something mediocre. We're you know acting towards excellence and like that's just the tone that we wanted to set.
So you know every day it was just like constantly checking like are we doing the right thing? Is this the right set of folks? Like what are we not thinking about? What are we not talking about? And we you know we kept the group very very tight. Um and had a conversation with the board which was uh my perspective very open to it and actually more than open more like yes we agree like we should do this but I'll let Roelof speak to that.
And um it just like everyone went home for the holidays and everyone played with these tools and they were surprised at how capable they were and what they could do with them and you know we came back and the conversation was like just going around the table would you build the company this way if you had these tools today? Like what would the company look like? And everyone around the table in my team just said like it would not look like this. It would not be this size. It would not be structured this way.
And we've been making like changes on the edge like you know going from a GM structure to a functional structure to reduce like putting a cap on our layers to four me plus four and all these like small things um but if we were to really reboot and rebuild the company like would we end up where we look today and the answer was uniformly no.
Yeah. And then we just did this exercise of like okay so what is the minimum number of people that we would need to keep the service up 100%? And then next what is the minimum number of people that we would need to be fully in compliance with our regulators. We're a highly regulated business so that one's extremely important to us and legal obviously. And then third what is the minimal set of folks that we need in order to grow to fulfill our commitments we've made to the street but also rebuild the company as an intelligence and that's roughly the number that we got to and we built in some buffer in case we made mistakes which we did and you know hard not to um especially operating the way we have.
Like I think going forward it'll be much easier because more of the company will be legible and all of our actions will be a lot more legible so I'd have a lot more confidence going forward than not. But um it was that and that was a span of you know exploration to execution and you know under three weeks um and I think generally I wanted to make sure that we if we knew that this was what our company was going to be in the future I didn't want to have to do it with our backs against the wall. We're a public company and there's various challenges there and other companies will probably get to this realization at some point. I don't want to react to that. I want to be ahead of it because then we can do it with a lot more integrity. We can do it with a lot more generosity for the people that we're asking to leave um and even for the people that we're asking to stay and we're not just reacting into something mediocre. We're you know acting towards excellence and like that's just the tone that we wanted to set.
So you know every day it was just like constantly checking like are we doing the right thing? Is this the right set of folks? Like what are we not thinking about? What are we not talking about? And we you know we kept the group very very tight. Um and had a conversation with the board which was uh my perspective very open to it and actually more than open more like yes we agree like we should do this but I'll let Roelof speak to that.
**Roelof Botha：** 这是一个非常快的过程。我觉得有帮助的是 Jack 给我们写了一份非常详细的备忘录，阐述了逻辑。它是有原则的，不是应激反应式的。条理非常清晰、非常有逻辑。很明显，公司和管理团队对于如何让这件事可行是抱着开放讨论的态度，而不是教条式地说"我们已经想好了"。在那三周里，方案的要素在不断演进，根据管理团队成员和董事会成员的反馈进行调整。第一周的起点和最终宣布时的方案是有差异的。
而且这也是我们在董事会和管理团队之间建立了深厚信任的体现。我们作为一个团队经历了很多，所以我们有很多简明的沟通方式来做这种关键决策。我们在短时间内多次集中讨论，确保深入了关键问题。董事会完全支持。
而且这也是我们在董事会和管理团队之间建立了深厚信任的体现。我们作为一个团队经历了很多，所以我们有很多简明的沟通方式来做这种关键决策。我们在短时间内多次集中讨论，确保深入了关键问题。董事会完全支持。
**Roelof Botha:** It was a very quick process. Okay. I think part of what helps is that Jack had written us a very detailed note laying out the logic. It's principled. It's not -- as Jack was saying it's not reactionary. It's very well laid out very logical. It was clear that the company and the management team was interested in the conversation about how to make this work um as opposed to being dogmatic and saying we have it all figured out. So even in the course of those three weeks elements of this evolved and it evolved in light of feedback from management team members and board members. You know some of where we started in the first of those three weeks is different from where we ultimately landed by the time the announcement took place.
And also I think it's an example of where we've built enormous trust between the board and the management team. You know we've been through a lot as a team and so we have a lot of shorthands to be able to make crucial decisions like this. We gathered several times in quick succession to make sure we drilled in on the key issues. And the board was fully supportive.
And also I think it's an example of where we've built enormous trust between the board and the management team. You know we've been through a lot as a team and so we have a lot of shorthands to be able to make crucial decisions like this. We gathered several times in quick succession to make sure we drilled in on the key issues. And the board was fully supportive.
**Brian Halligan：** 你们两位——Roelof，你参加过很多董事会。Jack，你在不同的董事会上也经历过起起落落。对于在听的 CEO 们有什么建议？应该什么时候开始引入独立董事？怎么打造一个真正服务好公司、员工、投资人和客户的优秀董事会？你们的建议是什么？
**Brian Halligan:** You two -- Roelof you've been on a lot of boards. Jack you've had your ups and downs with different boards. Any advice for these CEOs listening that should they start bringing in 100 employees? Should they start bringing in independence? Should they -- like how do you build an amazing board that really serves the company well the employees well the investors well the customers well. Like what's your advice on that?
**Jack Dorsey：** 早期我一直跟自己和团队说——你的第一个董事会成员就是你的投资人。我会把这种关系当作一个你永远无法解雇的 hire（雇佣）来对待。实际上，他们反而可以解雇你——我自己就经历过。这种思维真的会给你压力，让你去找到一个你真心想要在公司共事的人，同时知道你永远无法解雇他们，而他们可以解雇你。
对我来说，很多年轻创始人会追逐品牌名气，尤其是 VC 的品牌。但我一直想找对的人。这就是为什么 Roelof——我们在优化的是让他加入我们的董事会和成为投资人。但核心是他能提升我们的对话水平、提升我们的执行水平，而且会一路挑战我们。
即使在考虑添加独立董事成员时——董事会的核心职能是确保公司有正确的 CEO。这是他们的首要职责。他们有各种委员会责任，但最终的受托责任就是——我们的 CEO 是否合适。你必须构建一个对此有不同视角的董事会。要对大胆的想法保持开放——那些在当下看起来疯狂的事情，比如这次可能就是。但如果我们仔细讨论、充分记录、描绘出可能的前景和不作为的机会成本，它是可以被合理化的。
因为如果我们不做这样的事，我想象的就是——每年裁 10%、20%。那是最让人士气崩溃、最没有创造力的公司建设方式。完全被逼到墙角，感觉一直在输。我跟董事会说了——我不想那样。我不想在那样的公司待着，没有意义。它摧毁灵魂，毫无激励可言。我告诉他们我真正有信心的是什么——然后就是，开干吧，来挑战它。
对我来说，很多年轻创始人会追逐品牌名气，尤其是 VC 的品牌。但我一直想找对的人。这就是为什么 Roelof——我们在优化的是让他加入我们的董事会和成为投资人。但核心是他能提升我们的对话水平、提升我们的执行水平，而且会一路挑战我们。
即使在考虑添加独立董事成员时——董事会的核心职能是确保公司有正确的 CEO。这是他们的首要职责。他们有各种委员会责任，但最终的受托责任就是——我们的 CEO 是否合适。你必须构建一个对此有不同视角的董事会。要对大胆的想法保持开放——那些在当下看起来疯狂的事情，比如这次可能就是。但如果我们仔细讨论、充分记录、描绘出可能的前景和不作为的机会成本，它是可以被合理化的。
因为如果我们不做这样的事，我想象的就是——每年裁 10%、20%。那是最让人士气崩溃、最没有创造力的公司建设方式。完全被逼到墙角，感觉一直在输。我跟董事会说了——我不想那样。我不想在那样的公司待着，没有意义。它摧毁灵魂，毫无激励可言。我告诉他们我真正有信心的是什么——然后就是，开干吧，来挑战它。
**Jack Dorsey:** I mean early on I always told myself and my team that like your first board is your investors right? Um and I would treat that relationship as a hire you can never fire and in fact they can fire you and I've been on the other side of that. It really puts pressure on finding the right person that you'd actually want to work with at the company knowing that you could never fire them. And again they can fire you.
And for me it was around you know I think a lot of young founders kind of go for the brand names especially around VCs but I always wanted to go for the person um and you know that's why Roelof um you know we were optimizing for him to be on our board and be an investor but like it was the fact that like he would uplevel our conversation uplevel our execution more than anything else and challenge us along the way.
Even as you think about adding independent board members like the core function of a board is to ensure that the company has the right CEO. Like that's their one job. Um they have all these committee responsibilities but the ultimate fiduciary duty is like do we have the right CEO. And I think you have to build a board that has different perspective on that. Um and that is open to wild ideas things that are going to just seem like crazy in the moment which like this one might be. Um but it can be rationalized if we talk through it and we really document it and paint a picture of like where this could go and like what the opportunity cost is if we don't do something.
Um because like if we didn't do something like this I just imagine like every year it's a 10% riff or 20% riff or whatever it is and like that is just the most demoralizing like crappy like non-creative building of a company ever. And it's all you know with your backs against the wall and like it just feels like losing constantly. Um and I you know I had a conversation with the board about I don't want that. Like that's not -- I don't want to be at a company like that. Like it just doesn't make sense. It's soul-crushing you know and it's just not inspiring and I feel good about it. So here's what I do feel good about and like let's go. Let's challenge it.
And for me it was around you know I think a lot of young founders kind of go for the brand names especially around VCs but I always wanted to go for the person um and you know that's why Roelof um you know we were optimizing for him to be on our board and be an investor but like it was the fact that like he would uplevel our conversation uplevel our execution more than anything else and challenge us along the way.
Even as you think about adding independent board members like the core function of a board is to ensure that the company has the right CEO. Like that's their one job. Um they have all these committee responsibilities but the ultimate fiduciary duty is like do we have the right CEO. And I think you have to build a board that has different perspective on that. Um and that is open to wild ideas things that are going to just seem like crazy in the moment which like this one might be. Um but it can be rationalized if we talk through it and we really document it and paint a picture of like where this could go and like what the opportunity cost is if we don't do something.
Um because like if we didn't do something like this I just imagine like every year it's a 10% riff or 20% riff or whatever it is and like that is just the most demoralizing like crappy like non-creative building of a company ever. And it's all you know with your backs against the wall and like it just feels like losing constantly. Um and I you know I had a conversation with the board about I don't want that. Like that's not -- I don't want to be at a company like that. Like it just doesn't make sense. It's soul-crushing you know and it's just not inspiring and I feel good about it. So here's what I do feel good about and like let's go. Let's challenge it.
**Brian Halligan：** Roelof，你也在很多董事会上。你也有一些很好的经验。给 CEO 们一些关于如何打造董事会的建议。
**Brian Halligan:** Well, Jack, you're on a lot of boards. You're on some really good ones. Advice for CEOs how to build a board.
**Roelof Botha：** 我觉得第一轮融资时，当你引入一个投资人董事会成员，你应该把它当作一个招聘决策，而不是融资决策。因为他们对你公司最终结果的影响远大于资金本身。然后我通常建议在一两年内引入一位优秀的独立董事。至少在你找到产品市场契合点（product market fit）之前。
创始人和投资人董事之间有一种特殊的关系——正如 Jack 说的，那个人有可能得出创始人不再适合管理公司的结论，可能对也可能错。如果你能引入一位独立董事，创始人和这位董事之间是一种不同的关系。尤其是如果这个人有过相关经验，它可以成为一种非常好的精神伙伴关系，帮助创始人走过这段旅程——当然取决于他们的经验水平。
董事会往往组建得太晚、太匆忙，尤其是在 IPO 前夕。人们突然意识到"我的董事会只有 4 个人，需要 9 个"。然后你仓促地把一群人凑在一起，他们没有背景、没有历史、没有默契。但你一定会被考验——做空报告、敌意激进投资人、棘手的融资——这些都会真正检验团队的韧性。你需要了解董事会成员之间的互动、他们的意愿、以及他们与公司核心价值观的一致性。所以我觉得这件事需要比大多数人投入的更多的精力和慎重。
创始人和投资人董事之间有一种特殊的关系——正如 Jack 说的，那个人有可能得出创始人不再适合管理公司的结论，可能对也可能错。如果你能引入一位独立董事，创始人和这位董事之间是一种不同的关系。尤其是如果这个人有过相关经验，它可以成为一种非常好的精神伙伴关系，帮助创始人走过这段旅程——当然取决于他们的经验水平。
董事会往往组建得太晚、太匆忙，尤其是在 IPO 前夕。人们突然意识到"我的董事会只有 4 个人，需要 9 个"。然后你仓促地把一群人凑在一起，他们没有背景、没有历史、没有默契。但你一定会被考验——做空报告、敌意激进投资人、棘手的融资——这些都会真正检验团队的韧性。你需要了解董事会成员之间的互动、他们的意愿、以及他们与公司核心价值观的一致性。所以我觉得这件事需要比大多数人投入的更多的精力和慎重。
**Roelof Botha:** I think the first financing when you get an investor if you're getting an investor board member, you should treat it as a recruiting decision. Not a financing decision. Cuz they'll have a much bigger bearing on the ultimate outcome of your company. And then I'm generally a fan of getting a very good independent board member within a year or two. Okay. Certainly by the time you get product market fit.
And I think there's a different relationship that the founder has with the investor board member by virtue of what Jack, you know, described that sometimes, you know, that person may come to the conclusion that the founder is no longer the right person to run the company, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly. Um if you can get an independent board member, there's a different relationship that the founder has with that board member. And especially if that person has previous experience, it can be a fantastic mental relationship to help the founder on that journey depending obviously on their level of experience.
I think boards are often built too late in a rush, especially in the run-up to an IPO where people suddenly realize, "Ooh, I've got a four-person board and I need nine." or whatever the case is. And then you suddenly assemble people who have no context, they have no history, and they have no chemistry. Cuz you will be tested. You're going to have a situation where there's a short seller report or you're dealing with a hostile, you know, situation with an activist investor or a tricky financing, you know, that really test the mettle of the team. And you want to understand the dynamic between the board members and just their willingness to go along and their alignment with the core values of the business. And so I just think it's one of those things that requires a lot more care than I think most people apply to it.
And I think there's a different relationship that the founder has with the investor board member by virtue of what Jack, you know, described that sometimes, you know, that person may come to the conclusion that the founder is no longer the right person to run the company, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly. Um if you can get an independent board member, there's a different relationship that the founder has with that board member. And especially if that person has previous experience, it can be a fantastic mental relationship to help the founder on that journey depending obviously on their level of experience.
I think boards are often built too late in a rush, especially in the run-up to an IPO where people suddenly realize, "Ooh, I've got a four-person board and I need nine." or whatever the case is. And then you suddenly assemble people who have no context, they have no history, and they have no chemistry. Cuz you will be tested. You're going to have a situation where there's a short seller report or you're dealing with a hostile, you know, situation with an activist investor or a tricky financing, you know, that really test the mettle of the team. And you want to understand the dynamic between the board members and just their willingness to go along and their alignment with the core values of the business. And so I just think it's one of those things that requires a lot more care than I think most people apply to it.
**Brian Halligan：** 是的。Jack，你创办了几家很棒的公司。你既是初创公司创始人，又是规模化公司的 CEO。他是唯一一个创办了两家进入 S&P 500 的公司的人，了不起。也是唯一一个同时担任两家上市公司 CEO 的人。Jack，有必要说明一下。
**Brian Halligan:** Yeah. Jack, you've started a couple great companies here. You're kind of startup founder. Scale-up CEO. He was the only person to have founded two companies that made it into the S&P 500. Amazing. And the only person to have been simultaneously CEO of two public companies. Okay, Jack. Just for the record.
**Jack Dorsey：** 顺便说一下，这不应该成为任何人的目标。
**Jack Dorsey:** Which should not be a goal for anyone, by the way.
**Brian Halligan：** 推荐同时当两家公司的 CEO 吗？什么时候是个好主意？
**Brian Halligan:** Recommend being CEO of two companies? Is it ever a good idea?
**Jack Dorsey：** 上市公司不行。私有公司，也许。我觉得未来可能会有更多人同时领导多家私有公司的趋势。但上市公司——这应该是一个反目标（anti-goal），一个反模式（anti-pattern）。
**Jack Dorsey:** Not public companies. Yeah. Private, maybe. Private I think there's probably going to be more of a trend where people are leading multiple companies that are private, but public companies like it should be an anti-goal. It's an anti-pattern.
**Brian Halligan：** 创始人 CEO 们能从你身上学到什么？你做对了什么？做错了什么？对那些 100 人公司的 CEO 有什么建议？
**Brian Halligan:** What can founder CEOs learn from like what did you do right? What did you just get wrong? What advice do you have for that 100-person company CEO? Yeah, what do you got?
**Jack Dorsey：** 我这辈子唯一的遗憾——无论是生活还是商业——都是在我决定不去学习某样东西的时候。因为我拥抱我们所有的错误和糟糕的决策。但如果我没有从中主动学习，那才是我遗憾的。
可能最严重的一个案例是在管理这些公司的过程中——委托了太多。尤其是在 Block 里。因为我想建立一种多 CEO 的结构，但后来我意识到——"天哪，我们正在变成一个控股公司。"这边有 Square 的 CEO，那边有 Cash App 的 CEO。公司的价值不在于这些不相关的业务各自增长。而在于如何把它们整合在一起，真正挑战整个金融网络——因为我们拥有柜台的两边。为什么我们不按照这个逻辑来组织？结果是文化分裂、价值观分裂、执行水平参差不齐，一团糟。
所以如果有一件事是我会持续纠正的，就是委托太多。而且我没有从中足够快地吸取教训——这才是遗憾。但当你的整个公司变得完全透明，那就是完全不同的方程式了。如果让我预测未来的遗憾，可能是——我是否真的在系统中注入了足够的熵、足够的意图，来让我们在未来保持相关性。这就是为什么要做这次转变。我想不到有什么比把公司重建为一个智能体更重要、更正确的事情了，考虑到一切的发展趋势。
我感觉自己必须不断构建、不断从我们推出的东西中学习，才能让我们在未来保持相关性。
可能最严重的一个案例是在管理这些公司的过程中——委托了太多。尤其是在 Block 里。因为我想建立一种多 CEO 的结构，但后来我意识到——"天哪，我们正在变成一个控股公司。"这边有 Square 的 CEO，那边有 Cash App 的 CEO。公司的价值不在于这些不相关的业务各自增长。而在于如何把它们整合在一起，真正挑战整个金融网络——因为我们拥有柜台的两边。为什么我们不按照这个逻辑来组织？结果是文化分裂、价值观分裂、执行水平参差不齐，一团糟。
所以如果有一件事是我会持续纠正的，就是委托太多。而且我没有从中足够快地吸取教训——这才是遗憾。但当你的整个公司变得完全透明，那就是完全不同的方程式了。如果让我预测未来的遗憾，可能是——我是否真的在系统中注入了足够的熵、足够的意图，来让我们在未来保持相关性。这就是为什么要做这次转变。我想不到有什么比把公司重建为一个智能体更重要、更正确的事情了，考虑到一切的发展趋势。
我感觉自己必须不断构建、不断从我们推出的东西中学习，才能让我们在未来保持相关性。
**Jack Dorsey:** My only regrets in life and also in our businesses um are where I decided not to learn something. Okay. Because I like I embrace all of our mistakes and all of the bad decisions we made, but like if I'm not learning from that actively learning from it, like that's what I regret.
And you know, in probably the worst case in any of these companies um like just delegating way too much. Yeah. Um especially within Block because like I wanted to set a structure where we had multiple CEOs in this company, but I realized, "Oh man, we're just building like a holding company now." Yeah. And like we got like, you know, the CEO over here for Square and CEO over here for Cash App and like the value of our company is not like these unrelated things that are growing at different clips. It's how do we bring them together and like, you know, really challenge the whole financial network entirely because we have both sides of the counter. So like why aren't we structured that way? And that I think led to just very differing cultures and values and execution levels and that was a mess.
So I think the one thing that I probably consistently would have corrected would be just delegating too much, you know, too much of that and I didn't learn that fast enough. Like that's the regret is I didn't choose to learn from that fast enough. But when you have your whole entire company legible, it's a very different equation. Um I think my regrets going forward if I were to predict them would be like am I actually putting enough entropy into the system like enough of the intent into the system to actually keep us relevant going forward. Um and that's hence the shift. Like I can't imagine doing anything bigger than rebuilding our company as an intelligence or more correct given where everything is trending.
It just feels like I have to constantly build and constantly learn from whatever we're putting out there in order for us to stay relevant going forward.
And you know, in probably the worst case in any of these companies um like just delegating way too much. Yeah. Um especially within Block because like I wanted to set a structure where we had multiple CEOs in this company, but I realized, "Oh man, we're just building like a holding company now." Yeah. And like we got like, you know, the CEO over here for Square and CEO over here for Cash App and like the value of our company is not like these unrelated things that are growing at different clips. It's how do we bring them together and like, you know, really challenge the whole financial network entirely because we have both sides of the counter. So like why aren't we structured that way? And that I think led to just very differing cultures and values and execution levels and that was a mess.
So I think the one thing that I probably consistently would have corrected would be just delegating too much, you know, too much of that and I didn't learn that fast enough. Like that's the regret is I didn't choose to learn from that fast enough. But when you have your whole entire company legible, it's a very different equation. Um I think my regrets going forward if I were to predict them would be like am I actually putting enough entropy into the system like enough of the intent into the system to actually keep us relevant going forward. Um and that's hence the shift. Like I can't imagine doing anything bigger than rebuilding our company as an intelligence or more correct given where everything is trending.
It just feels like I have to constantly build and constantly learn from whatever we're putting out there in order for us to stay relevant going forward.
**Brian Halligan：** 有一个小插曲是上周出现的，Jack，关于今天的会议有多不同。你能谈谈现在会议的频率吗？今天会议的氛围和性质与一年前相比有什么变化？
**Brian Halligan:** So there's one anecdote that came up Jack last week, which is how different meetings are today. They're obviously -- maybe you can talk about how frequent meetings are taking place now. And what's the color? What are the nature of the meetings today versus what they were a year ago?
**Jack Dorsey：** 就在两个月前，每次公司内部开会——Brian，你也有过这种经验——大家看一个 PPT 或者 Google 文档，然后过一遍。现在每个人带来的都是他们自己做的原型。这太棒了。要么是模拟数据，要么是真实数据。但它展现工作的方式比任何幻灯片都有更多的深度和真实感。
而且因为可以实时修改，我们可以围绕他们正在构建的东西进行实时对话。我们能探索的广度突然变得不可思议。这让我们回到了判断力的问题——现在我们要拉动哪根线？因为我们可以看到所有的横向可能性。我们要在哪里深入？什么是正确的路径？在那条路上犯错、回到分叉点、走另一条路的成本正在趋近于零。因为这些工具可以极快地探索路径，我们也可以更快地走下去。
而且因为可以实时修改，我们可以围绕他们正在构建的东西进行实时对话。我们能探索的广度突然变得不可思议。这让我们回到了判断力的问题——现在我们要拉动哪根线？因为我们可以看到所有的横向可能性。我们要在哪里深入？什么是正确的路径？在那条路上犯错、回到分叉点、走另一条路的成本正在趋近于零。因为这些工具可以极快地探索路径，我们也可以更快地走下去。
**Jack Dorsey:** Well, I mean just two months ago every meeting that we would have with a company I mean you have this Brian like you see a presentation or Google Doc and we go through it. Yeah. Now um everyone is bringing a prototype that they built. Yeah. Which is pretty amazing. And like it's either simulated data or real data. But it's a cut on their work in a way that's far more um has far more depth and realism than we could ever get from a slide deck.
And because they can actually modify it in real time, like we can have a conversation around like what they're actually building in real time. Um so like the breadth that we get to explore is suddenly incredible. And that allows us to like really, again, it goes back to judgment. Like which thread are we pulling on this now? Because we can see like everything in the horizontal. Where do we want to go like deep? And like what is the right path? And the cost of like being wrong on that path and going back up the tree and going down another path is getting closer and closer to zero because the tools can explore the path so quickly and then also we can go down them much much faster.
And because they can actually modify it in real time, like we can have a conversation around like what they're actually building in real time. Um so like the breadth that we get to explore is suddenly incredible. And that allows us to like really, again, it goes back to judgment. Like which thread are we pulling on this now? Because we can see like everything in the horizontal. Where do we want to go like deep? And like what is the right path? And the cost of like being wrong on that path and going back up the tree and going down another path is getting closer and closer to zero because the tools can explore the path so quickly and then also we can go down them much much faster.
**Brian Halligan：** 我完全同意。过去很多时候，有效的做法是——当我们做太多事情、太分散的时候，就说"让我们聚焦"，然后就有了进展。但我看到现在的创业公司在并行做更多事情，而且更高效、做得更多。我以前鼓吹聚焦，现在没那么强调了。你们怎么看？
**Brian Halligan:** I completely agree with you. Like a lot of times in the past history what worked was when we were doing a lot of different stuff and we were distracted. It's like let's just get focused and then we made progress. I see the startups these days doing more things in parallel and just being more productive and getting more done. And I used to preach focus. I don't preach it as much as I do. What do you -- either of you have a reaction to that?
**Jack Dorsey：** 我觉得是先有更宽的视野。因为过去如果要探索不同路径，成本非常高，尤其涉及硬件的话。做个原型可能要很长时间。但今天一个小时就能搞定。所以我确实鼓励更多探索。
但当我们选定了路径之后，要聚焦在细节上。这就是 80/20 法则——这些工具能完成大约 80% 的工作。最后 20% 取决于我们的创造力、品味和判断力有多好。以及不断逼迫这些模型去做我们原以为它们做不到的事情。我觉得魔法仍然发生在那里，聚焦仍然体现在那里。
因为现在你还是得选择一个方向去执行，因为我们还有路线图。但当你像我说的那样移除这个限制因素，转而专注于构建四个层面——能力、接口、主动智能和世界模型——一切就都变了。所以我甚至不确定这个问题是否还重要了。
但当我们选定了路径之后，要聚焦在细节上。这就是 80/20 法则——这些工具能完成大约 80% 的工作。最后 20% 取决于我们的创造力、品味和判断力有多好。以及不断逼迫这些模型去做我们原以为它们做不到的事情。我觉得魔法仍然发生在那里，聚焦仍然体现在那里。
因为现在你还是得选择一个方向去执行，因为我们还有路线图。但当你像我说的那样移除这个限制因素，转而专注于构建四个层面——能力、接口、主动智能和世界模型——一切就都变了。所以我甚至不确定这个问题是否还重要了。
**Jack Dorsey:** Yeah, it's uh I think it's having a wider perspective to start and then like because in the past if we were to explore different paths like it would be a very costly exercise, especially with hardware for instance. Take you a long time to build that prototype. But today we can do it in an hour. Yeah. And then um so I do encourage more exploration.
But I think focus on getting the details right when we do choose that path and like it's the 80/20 percent thing, which is like you know, these tools will build about 80% of where we need to go. Yeah. And then that last 20% is going to be a function of like how good our creativity, how good our taste is, how good our judgment is. Yeah. And um just constantly pushing these models to doing something they weren't -- we didn't think they were capable of. And that's where I think the magic still happens and where I think the focus still comes to bear.
Um because at the end of the day you have to right now you have to pick something to put out there because we do have a roadmap. But when you remove that limiting factor as I said and you focus on building the four things instead like, you know, the capabilities, the interface, proactive intelligence, and the world model, then, you know, it just changes everything. So I don't even know if the question matters anymore.
But I think focus on getting the details right when we do choose that path and like it's the 80/20 percent thing, which is like you know, these tools will build about 80% of where we need to go. Yeah. And then that last 20% is going to be a function of like how good our creativity, how good our taste is, how good our judgment is. Yeah. And um just constantly pushing these models to doing something they weren't -- we didn't think they were capable of. And that's where I think the magic still happens and where I think the focus still comes to bear.
Um because at the end of the day you have to right now you have to pick something to put out there because we do have a roadmap. But when you remove that limiting factor as I said and you focus on building the four things instead like, you know, the capabilities, the interface, proactive intelligence, and the world model, then, you know, it just changes everything. So I don't even know if the question matters anymore.
**Brian Halligan：** 很多 CEO 在第二幕上挣扎。你在 Block 做了很棒的第二幕。你在 Blue Sky 上做了有意思的事，在 Spiral 上也是。对于想要找到第二幕的 CEO 们有什么建议？
**Brian Halligan:** Yeah. A lot of CEOs are struggling with the second acts. And you've done amazing second act work at Block. You did interesting stuff with Blue Sky, interesting stuff with Spiral. Advice to CEOs trying to figure that second act out.
**Jack Dorsey：** 我从来没把它当成"第二幕"。它只是我想做的事情，必须做的事情，而且很有趣。
**Jack Dorsey:** Uh I don't know if I ever considered it to be like a second act. It's just something that like we had -- I wanted to do and I had to do and it was interesting.
**Brian Halligan：** 当你在构建新东西的时候，它会分散组织的注意力。你怎么给它配置资源？
**Brian Halligan:** Are you building something new? It's distracting to the org and like how do you resource it?
**Jack Dorsey：** Cash App 早期就是那种情况。这说到了一个好的点。我觉得每个领导者都必须能接受在利益相关者面前失去信誉。这就是关键。为了做一些有趣的事——我们经历了很多这样的时刻，这些就是我认为对公司至关重要的创始时刻。我们从读卡器起步。
后来我们判断——"我们可能应该给商家放贷。因为没有商家真的想接受信用卡。他们想要的是更多销售额。什么能帮他们获得更多销售额？更多资金投入到他们的生意里。"当我们第一次把这个提案拿给董事会，他们说——"绝对不行。你们不要碰借贷业务，这太荒谬了。"我在董事会和公司内部都失去了一些信誉，因为我们想做这件事，而且一直在推动。最终他们同意了。
Cash App 也是一样。我们本来是做商家业务的，使命是让商业变得简单。然后我们做了一个点对点转账产品，简单到就像发一封邮件一样。我们当时的 COO Keith Rabois，是 PayPal 创始团队的成员，连他都说不行，说"这是一个已经被解决的问题"。公司里所有人都讨厌 Cash App。团队只有 8 个人。被讨厌了两到三年。在我们上市的 S-1 文件里，Cash App 被提到不到 8 次。投资人完全不理解它。
我每天允许它存在、为它辩护，我就失去一点信誉。但我知道如果我们在那里取得成功，我就能赢回信誉。我们确实做到了——我们实现了变现，它变得盈利了，现在它占了我们业务的一半以上。所以我觉得关键是要能够接受失去信誉这件事。如果你清楚知道怎么赢回来，那就没问题。如果你有原则支撑——为什么它重要、为什么它必须存在——你就不需要在意别人怎么想。你知道一段时间内人们不会信任你，但没关系。你在把自己的声誉押在这上面，而你相信它。
后来我们判断——"我们可能应该给商家放贷。因为没有商家真的想接受信用卡。他们想要的是更多销售额。什么能帮他们获得更多销售额？更多资金投入到他们的生意里。"当我们第一次把这个提案拿给董事会，他们说——"绝对不行。你们不要碰借贷业务，这太荒谬了。"我在董事会和公司内部都失去了一些信誉，因为我们想做这件事，而且一直在推动。最终他们同意了。
Cash App 也是一样。我们本来是做商家业务的，使命是让商业变得简单。然后我们做了一个点对点转账产品，简单到就像发一封邮件一样。我们当时的 COO Keith Rabois，是 PayPal 创始团队的成员，连他都说不行，说"这是一个已经被解决的问题"。公司里所有人都讨厌 Cash App。团队只有 8 个人。被讨厌了两到三年。在我们上市的 S-1 文件里，Cash App 被提到不到 8 次。投资人完全不理解它。
我每天允许它存在、为它辩护，我就失去一点信誉。但我知道如果我们在那里取得成功，我就能赢回信誉。我们确实做到了——我们实现了变现，它变得盈利了，现在它占了我们业务的一半以上。所以我觉得关键是要能够接受失去信誉这件事。如果你清楚知道怎么赢回来，那就没问题。如果你有原则支撑——为什么它重要、为什么它必须存在——你就不需要在意别人怎么想。你知道一段时间内人们不会信任你，但没关系。你在把自己的声誉押在这上面，而你相信它。
**Jack Dorsey:** Well, Cash App was like that in the early days. Yeah. Well, that's a good point. Like so I think every leader has to be comfortable with losing credibility with their stakeholders. That's the point. In order to do something interesting like when we had multiple moments and these are the founding moments that I think are critical for a company, but like we started with our card reader.
Eventually we determined that, "Hey, we should probably lend money to sellers because like no seller wants to accept credit cards. What they want is to get more sales. And what helps them get more sales? More capital to deploy into their business." When we first brought it to our board, our board said, "Absolutely no. Like you're not getting in the lending business. Like it's ridiculous." And we lost -- I lost some credibility with the board and our population cuz we wanted to do this and we kept pushing it and pushing it and eventually they said yes.
Cash App was the same thing where we were about merchants. Our mission was make commerce easy. And we built this thing that allowed effortless peer-to-peer as effortless as just, you know, sending an email to start. And our COO at the time was on the founding team of PayPal, Keith Rabois. And even he said no and he said like, you know, this is a solved problem. Everyone in the company hated Cash App. It was a team of eight people. And hated it for two to three years. We mentioned it less than eight times in our S-1 to go public. Um our investors didn't understand it at all.
And every day that I allowed it to persist and defended it, I lost credibility. And I knew that I could earn it back if we saw success there and we did. Like we monetized it and it became profitable and, you know, it's now over half our business and um so it I think it's getting comfortable with like you're going to lose credibility and if you have an understanding of like how to earn that back, it's okay and you don't have to care about what people think if you have the principle of why it's important and why this needs to exist and you're okay with, yep, people aren't going to trust me for a bit and it's okay. Um I'm staking part of my reputation on this and this is why I believe it.
Eventually we determined that, "Hey, we should probably lend money to sellers because like no seller wants to accept credit cards. What they want is to get more sales. And what helps them get more sales? More capital to deploy into their business." When we first brought it to our board, our board said, "Absolutely no. Like you're not getting in the lending business. Like it's ridiculous." And we lost -- I lost some credibility with the board and our population cuz we wanted to do this and we kept pushing it and pushing it and eventually they said yes.
Cash App was the same thing where we were about merchants. Our mission was make commerce easy. And we built this thing that allowed effortless peer-to-peer as effortless as just, you know, sending an email to start. And our COO at the time was on the founding team of PayPal, Keith Rabois. And even he said no and he said like, you know, this is a solved problem. Everyone in the company hated Cash App. It was a team of eight people. And hated it for two to three years. We mentioned it less than eight times in our S-1 to go public. Um our investors didn't understand it at all.
And every day that I allowed it to persist and defended it, I lost credibility. And I knew that I could earn it back if we saw success there and we did. Like we monetized it and it became profitable and, you know, it's now over half our business and um so it I think it's getting comfortable with like you're going to lose credibility and if you have an understanding of like how to earn that back, it's okay and you don't have to care about what people think if you have the principle of why it's important and why this needs to exist and you're okay with, yep, people aren't going to trust me for a bit and it's okay. Um I'm staking part of my reputation on this and this is why I believe it.
**Roelof Botha：** 我觉得这让所有这些回答都更有力了。我讲个有趣的故事。当 Sequoia 在考虑招我的时候，他们会写一份评估备忘录——就像投资一家公司或者招一个人时写的那种。关于我的备忘录里，我的一个优点是 DGAF——不在乎别人怎么看。我的一个缺点也是 DGAF——不在乎别人怎么看。你给我的感觉也是一个 DGAF 程度很高的人，能长时间坚持自己的信念。创始人们在这方面很挣扎，我自己也是。有什么建议？
**Roelof Botha:** I think it makes all those answers stronger, by the way. I have a weird story for you. When Sequoia was hiring me, they write a memo when they're investing in a company or when they're hiring someone and the memo on me was one of my strengths was I was DGAF, don't give a flock, and one of my weaknesses was I was DGAF, I don't give a flock. Um you strike me as someone who has high DGAF and you stick with your convictions for very long periods of time. Founders struggle with that. I struggle with that. Advice.
**Jack Dorsey：** 对我来说也是会动摇的。我受到很多批评、很多反对、很多挑战——内部的、外部的。但我在第一次当 Twitter CEO 的时候做了一个决定。当时所有人都告诉我需要一个 CEO 教练。我找了一个，人很好，但我完全学不到东西。这让我想起了以前那种不断寻找——谁是我的导师？我该跟谁学？
大约在那个时候，我决定转变心态——我交谈的每一个人、我遇到的每一件事、我面对的每一个问题，那就是我的导师。要让它成为导师，我必须决定要从中学到什么。每一次遭遇都在试图教我什么，我需要做的就是弄清楚它在教什么。然后我会强迫自己每天把它写下来——每一次交流，我从中学到了什么？
我最大的遗憾还是那些我决定不去学习的时刻。因为很可能我会重蹈覆辙。即便是负面反馈或者信誉损失也是教学时刻。关键就是一个决定——我是否在从中学习？这种心态给了你掌控感。它让你对所有这些事情拥有 agency。这件事现在想告诉我什么？我在忽视什么？我在什么事情上固执？有时候我能找到正确答案，有时候找不到，继续老路，然后失败。但拥有这种心态，而不是人生中只有一个导师——现在你有了无限的导师。这是我发现的一种很好的面对生活和挑战的方式。
大约在那个时候，我决定转变心态——我交谈的每一个人、我遇到的每一件事、我面对的每一个问题，那就是我的导师。要让它成为导师，我必须决定要从中学到什么。每一次遭遇都在试图教我什么，我需要做的就是弄清楚它在教什么。然后我会强迫自己每天把它写下来——每一次交流，我从中学到了什么？
我最大的遗憾还是那些我决定不去学习的时刻。因为很可能我会重蹈覆辙。即便是负面反馈或者信誉损失也是教学时刻。关键就是一个决定——我是否在从中学习？这种心态给了你掌控感。它让你对所有这些事情拥有 agency。这件事现在想告诉我什么？我在忽视什么？我在什么事情上固执？有时候我能找到正确答案，有时候找不到，继续老路，然后失败。但拥有这种心态，而不是人生中只有一个导师——现在你有了无限的导师。这是我发现的一种很好的面对生活和挑战的方式。
**Jack Dorsey:** Yeah. I would say it wavers for me. Like it's definitely um I get a lot of hate, a lot of pushback, a lot of challenges like internally, externally, um but again, it's -- I made a decision some time ago when I first became CEO of Twitter. Everyone was telling me I needed a CEO coach. And I got the CEO coach and he was a great guy, but like I was learning absolutely nothing. And it just reminded me of all these times when you put so much emphasis on like who's my mentor, who am I learning from, who's my mentor, who am I learning from.
And around that time, I just decided I'm going to shift my mindset and every single person I talk with, every single encounter I have, every single problem I face, that's my mentor. To for it to be a mentor, I have to decide that I'm going to learn something from it. Like every encounter I have is trying to teach me something and what am I trying to learn from it. And just I would force myself to like write it down like every day and every encounter and just like, what did I learn from this?
And again, my biggest regrets are when I decided not to learn something from it. Because it's likely that I would have repeated it or whatnot. So even the negative feedback um or the credibility loss is a teaching moment. And it's just a decision of like, am I learning from this or not? And that allows you ownership over it. Like it gives you agency over all this stuff. Like, what is this thing trying to tell me right now? Like what am I ignoring? What am I being stubborn about? Um and you know, sometimes I get to the right answer, sometimes I don't and I just like continue in my ways and it's a failure, but I just having that mindset instead of having this one mentor in your life, now you have infinite mentors. It's like, you know, it's just an amazing way to approach life and challenges that I found.
And around that time, I just decided I'm going to shift my mindset and every single person I talk with, every single encounter I have, every single problem I face, that's my mentor. To for it to be a mentor, I have to decide that I'm going to learn something from it. Like every encounter I have is trying to teach me something and what am I trying to learn from it. And just I would force myself to like write it down like every day and every encounter and just like, what did I learn from this?
And again, my biggest regrets are when I decided not to learn something from it. Because it's likely that I would have repeated it or whatnot. So even the negative feedback um or the credibility loss is a teaching moment. And it's just a decision of like, am I learning from this or not? And that allows you ownership over it. Like it gives you agency over all this stuff. Like, what is this thing trying to tell me right now? Like what am I ignoring? What am I being stubborn about? Um and you know, sometimes I get to the right answer, sometimes I don't and I just like continue in my ways and it's a failure, but I just having that mindset instead of having this one mentor in your life, now you have infinite mentors. It's like, you know, it's just an amazing way to approach life and challenges that I found.
**Brian Halligan：** 你确实是一个学习者，在其他地方我也看过你大量谈论这个。你还是一个冥想者。所有 CEO 都应该冥想吗？你作为 CEO 从中获得了什么好处？你怎么看 Marc Andreessen 说自己"不内省"那番话？我觉得那个评论很有意思。谈谈冥想、CEO 和你从中获得的东西。
**Brian Halligan:** You're definitely a learner and talk a lot about it on other -- I've seen you talk about it a lot. You're a meditator. Should all CEOs meditate? Um what are the benefits you get as a CEO? And what do you take from Marc Andreessen talking about how he's very -- he's not introspective. I thought that was an interesting comment. Like talk about meditation, CEOs, what do you get from it?
**Jack Dorsey：** 他说自己不内省这件事本身就非常内省。我觉得这很有意思，要说清楚这一点。
我对那个说法没什么特别的感触。但我确实觉得当人们想到冥想的时候，他们会想到一些玄乎的东西——沙漠里的人，看着云飘过，把你的念头想象成云朵，让它们消散。我也被这样描述过。但如果你真正深入真正的冥想，它其实是一个非常身体化的事情。非常物理化的练习。你在做的是训练你的思维聚焦于一个点。一个点。
我参加的冥想静修是 10 天。前 3 天，你从早上 4:30 坐到晚上 9:00，只专注于你上嘴唇处呼吸的感觉。就是那个感觉。你在训练的是让思维变得锐利，然后只是观察。观察感受，但不从情绪或理智层面对它做出反应。
接下来 7 天，你从头到脚扫描身体，感受各种感觉，比如疼痛。你盘腿坐着，3 个小时不能动。非常痛。但你观察这种疼痛，然后不断用这种心态——这不是永恒的。如果我站起来，它就消失了。你在训练思维去认识到一切都是无常的。没有必要为一个终将消逝的东西而痛苦或执着。
你是在用一种非常微小的身体层面的方式来做这件事，然后你把这整套概念应用到整个人生——每一种情绪、反应或遭遇。所以我推荐它，因为它能锐化你的专注力、锐化你的观察力，减少你本能地立刻反应的冲动。让你真正地看到事物的本质，然后选择你想如何用这些信息来行动。如果你把它看成玄乎的、飘在云端的东西，那你得到的也就是那些。如果你把它看成一种让大脑变强的身体练习，你就会得到那个效果。这就是我的理解，这也是你练的东西。
我对那个说法没什么特别的感触。但我确实觉得当人们想到冥想的时候，他们会想到一些玄乎的东西——沙漠里的人，看着云飘过，把你的念头想象成云朵，让它们消散。我也被这样描述过。但如果你真正深入真正的冥想，它其实是一个非常身体化的事情。非常物理化的练习。你在做的是训练你的思维聚焦于一个点。一个点。
我参加的冥想静修是 10 天。前 3 天，你从早上 4:30 坐到晚上 9:00，只专注于你上嘴唇处呼吸的感觉。就是那个感觉。你在训练的是让思维变得锐利，然后只是观察。观察感受，但不从情绪或理智层面对它做出反应。
接下来 7 天，你从头到脚扫描身体，感受各种感觉，比如疼痛。你盘腿坐着，3 个小时不能动。非常痛。但你观察这种疼痛，然后不断用这种心态——这不是永恒的。如果我站起来，它就消失了。你在训练思维去认识到一切都是无常的。没有必要为一个终将消逝的东西而痛苦或执着。
你是在用一种非常微小的身体层面的方式来做这件事，然后你把这整套概念应用到整个人生——每一种情绪、反应或遭遇。所以我推荐它，因为它能锐化你的专注力、锐化你的观察力，减少你本能地立刻反应的冲动。让你真正地看到事物的本质，然后选择你想如何用这些信息来行动。如果你把它看成玄乎的、飘在云端的东西，那你得到的也就是那些。如果你把它看成一种让大脑变强的身体练习，你就会得到那个效果。这就是我的理解，这也是你练的东西。
**Jack Dorsey:** Him saying that he's not introspective is very introspective, I think. I thought that was interesting. Just to be clear.
I don't -- I didn't get a lot from that, but I do think um the -- when people think of meditation, they think of like this woo-woo like, you know, person in the desert and I've been characterized as that and looking at the clouds and like imagine the clouds going by and your thoughts are the clouds and you know, make them dissipate. But if you actually get into like true meditation, it's a very physical thing. Like it's a very physical practice and what you're doing is you're training your mind to focus on one point. One point.
Like the meditation retreats I did were 10 days and you spend the first 3 days sitting from 4:30 in the morning till 9:00 p.m. focusing on the feeling of your breath on your upper lip. Just that and just the sensation of it. And what you're training your mind to do is to sharpen your focus and then just to observe. Observe the sensation without reacting to it from an emotional intellectual standpoint.
And then the next 7 days, you go up and down your body and you're scanning for sensations like pain and you're sitting cross-legged and you can't move for 3 hours at a time. And it's super painful. And you actually observe this pain and you're just like you're constantly with this mindset of like, this isn't permanent. If I were to stand up, it goes away. And it's just that training your mind to like recognize everything is impermanent. There's no need to suffer or be attached to something that's going to go away.
Like you're doing it in this very small physical way, but then you apply that whole concept to your whole life, every emotion or reaction or encounter you have. So I would recommend it only because it sharpens your focus, it sharpens your power of observation and it diminishes your instinct to immediately react to things. And to actually see them for what they are and then choose how you want to act with that information. So if you think about it as like a woo-woo you know, head in the clouds, then that's what you're going to get from it. If you see it as a physical practice to make your mind stronger, you'll get that and that's what I see and that's what you practice.
I don't -- I didn't get a lot from that, but I do think um the -- when people think of meditation, they think of like this woo-woo like, you know, person in the desert and I've been characterized as that and looking at the clouds and like imagine the clouds going by and your thoughts are the clouds and you know, make them dissipate. But if you actually get into like true meditation, it's a very physical thing. Like it's a very physical practice and what you're doing is you're training your mind to focus on one point. One point.
Like the meditation retreats I did were 10 days and you spend the first 3 days sitting from 4:30 in the morning till 9:00 p.m. focusing on the feeling of your breath on your upper lip. Just that and just the sensation of it. And what you're training your mind to do is to sharpen your focus and then just to observe. Observe the sensation without reacting to it from an emotional intellectual standpoint.
And then the next 7 days, you go up and down your body and you're scanning for sensations like pain and you're sitting cross-legged and you can't move for 3 hours at a time. And it's super painful. And you actually observe this pain and you're just like you're constantly with this mindset of like, this isn't permanent. If I were to stand up, it goes away. And it's just that training your mind to like recognize everything is impermanent. There's no need to suffer or be attached to something that's going to go away.
Like you're doing it in this very small physical way, but then you apply that whole concept to your whole life, every emotion or reaction or encounter you have. So I would recommend it only because it sharpens your focus, it sharpens your power of observation and it diminishes your instinct to immediately react to things. And to actually see them for what they are and then choose how you want to act with that information. So if you think about it as like a woo-woo you know, head in the clouds, then that's what you're going to get from it. If you see it as a physical practice to make your mind stronger, you'll get that and that's what I see and that's what you practice.
**Brian Halligan：** 最后一个问题。先从你开始，Roelof。CEO 有一些经得住时间考验的永恒品质。Roelof，你参与过 YouTube、Instagram、Block、Unity。什么是永恒的 CEO 品质？什么是新的？今天的 CEO 需要什么新品质？
**Brian Halligan:** Let me just close on -- I'll start with you, Roelof. There's some timeless qualities of CEOs that last the test of time and Roelof, you're involved with YouTube, Instagram, Block, [***], Unity. What are timeless CEO qualities? And what is new? Like what are the new qualities CEOs need today?
**Roelof Botha：** 我喜欢缩写，所以我想了一个——ALE。A-L-E。虽然对大多数人来说不是一种好喝的饮料，但总之——Authenticity（真实）、Logic（逻辑）、Empathy（同理心）。
真实——你是不是装腔作势？别人看到的是不是真实的你？你的行为是否真诚？逻辑——你是否理性？是否可预测？还是动不动就情绪失控？同理心——你是否真的关心你的团队？真的关心这个业务？某种意义上是反社会人格的反面——深度的同理心。
这三个品质——当然还有很多其他的可以列——但你很难把太多东西同时记在脑子里。对我来说，最重要的三个就是真实、逻辑和同理心。
在与人打交道方面，大部分东西是不变的。我记得 COVID 期间很多人都觉得世界会变得完全不同。我听了 Steven Pinker 的一个演讲，他说事情很可能会基本回到原来的样子。这里也一样。是的，公司在以不同的方式构建。是的，AI 绝对是变革性的，会颠覆很多行业。我觉得它是有史以来对公司护城河最大的消解器。但与人打交道和领导力的一些基本面是不变的。
有一个不同的地方——变化的速度太快了。我觉得要再次感谢 Jack 在这个决策上的执行速度。因为本来可以在这件事上犹豫六到十二个月。所以你必须快速行动。
真实——你是不是装腔作势？别人看到的是不是真实的你？你的行为是否真诚？逻辑——你是否理性？是否可预测？还是动不动就情绪失控？同理心——你是否真的关心你的团队？真的关心这个业务？某种意义上是反社会人格的反面——深度的同理心。
这三个品质——当然还有很多其他的可以列——但你很难把太多东西同时记在脑子里。对我来说，最重要的三个就是真实、逻辑和同理心。
在与人打交道方面，大部分东西是不变的。我记得 COVID 期间很多人都觉得世界会变得完全不同。我听了 Steven Pinker 的一个演讲，他说事情很可能会基本回到原来的样子。这里也一样。是的，公司在以不同的方式构建。是的，AI 绝对是变革性的，会颠覆很多行业。我觉得它是有史以来对公司护城河最大的消解器。但与人打交道和领导力的一些基本面是不变的。
有一个不同的地方——变化的速度太快了。我觉得要再次感谢 Jack 在这个决策上的执行速度。因为本来可以在这件事上犹豫六到十二个月。所以你必须快速行动。
**Roelof Botha:** I like acronyms, so I came up with one which is um ALE. A L E. Which is sort of not a very pleasant drink for most people, but anyway, um authenticity, logic and empathy.
So authenticity, I mean, are you, you know, are you pretentious? Are you who you -- do people see who you really are? Do you behave authentically? Are you logical? Are you predictable? Are you rational? Or do you fly off the handle? And are you empathetic? Do you really care about the team that you manage? Do you really care about the business? Or you know, sort of opposite of being a sociopath, perhaps, but deep empathy.
So I think of those three qualities, I mean, there are many more that one could list, but you know, I think it's just hard to keep it in your mind. So for me, those are the three most important, authenticity, logic and empathy.
I think when it comes to dealing with humans, most of those things stay the same. And I remember how many of us thought the world was going to be so different in the midst of COVID and I listened to a talk that Steven Pinker gave and he talked about how probably things are going to go back largely the way they were before. But I think the same is true here. Yes, companies are being built differently. Yes, AI is absolutely transformational. It's going to upend so many industries. I think it's the biggest drainer of moats companies have ever seen. But some of the, you know, basics of dealing with people and leading remain true.
The one I would say is probably different is the pace of change is so fast. And I think, you know, kudos again to Jack for the speed with which we're moving on this decision cuz it would have been easy to dither for 6 or 12 months on this decision. So you've got to move fast.
So authenticity, I mean, are you, you know, are you pretentious? Are you who you -- do people see who you really are? Do you behave authentically? Are you logical? Are you predictable? Are you rational? Or do you fly off the handle? And are you empathetic? Do you really care about the team that you manage? Do you really care about the business? Or you know, sort of opposite of being a sociopath, perhaps, but deep empathy.
So I think of those three qualities, I mean, there are many more that one could list, but you know, I think it's just hard to keep it in your mind. So for me, those are the three most important, authenticity, logic and empathy.
I think when it comes to dealing with humans, most of those things stay the same. And I remember how many of us thought the world was going to be so different in the midst of COVID and I listened to a talk that Steven Pinker gave and he talked about how probably things are going to go back largely the way they were before. But I think the same is true here. Yes, companies are being built differently. Yes, AI is absolutely transformational. It's going to upend so many industries. I think it's the biggest drainer of moats companies have ever seen. But some of the, you know, basics of dealing with people and leading remain true.
The one I would say is probably different is the pace of change is so fast. And I think, you know, kudos again to Jack for the speed with which we're moving on this decision cuz it would have been easy to dither for 6 or 12 months on this decision. So you've got to move fast.
**Brian Halligan：** Jack，你对这个怎么看？你在职业生涯中招聘了一些出色的人才，他们后来也做了很了不起的事。你觉得什么是永恒的？什么变了？
**Brian Halligan:** Jack, thoughts on that? Like you've hired some amazing people in your career that have gone on to do some amazing stuff. What do you think? And what's changed? What's timeless? What's changed?
**Jack Dorsey：** 我看重的是一个人能否不断重新编程自己的思维和假设。这话说了很多遍，但就是能质疑自己的要求、自己的假设、自己的决策——你对过去、公司的过去、神圣不可侵犯的传统或者竞争对手做法的执念有多僵硬。能够放开去想一阵子，然后把所有这些收敛成实际可管理的、能清晰传达给他人的东西。
我觉得这非常有价值。它一直都有价值，还是现在更有价值？因为事情变化太快，我觉得更有价值了。顺着当下的势头走会变得非常容易。而要跳出这种惯性会越来越难——因为工具就是这样运作的，"我们就是这样做事的"。人们会因为把部分智能外包给了智能系统，而更容易默认接受这些系统的建议，而不是把它们当作输入。
我觉得我们仍然处于一个阶段——大多数人把这些智能工具的产出当作输出，而不是更好的输入，来创造我们自己更好的输出。这对我很重要。当我每天花 3 个小时的时候——这是给我的输入。然后由我来用所有这些新输入创造更好的输出。能够同时看到所有这些东西的能力是非凡的。
所以需要的是能够从噪音中辨别信号、把酷炫和不相关区分开的人。这个词现在被严重过度使用了，但品味（taste）确实是真的。不只是"我知道什么东西搭在一起好看"。更像是——你有没有自己的观点？有没有一种有态度的驱动力去实现它？它有意义吗？它比其他已有的东西更有意义吗？我觉得这至关重要。
每一个创始人做的事情都是——我在构建一个世界上不存在的东西，因为我想看到它。正因为它不存在，我才去构建它。但现在你看到很多公司——它们就是 copies of copies of copies of copies（副本的副本的副本的副本），因为这很容易。与其问你的观点是什么，不如问这里面有什么是有态度的？哪里在推动边界？哪里让人不舒服？
我觉得这非常有价值。它一直都有价值，还是现在更有价值？因为事情变化太快，我觉得更有价值了。顺着当下的势头走会变得非常容易。而要跳出这种惯性会越来越难——因为工具就是这样运作的，"我们就是这样做事的"。人们会因为把部分智能外包给了智能系统，而更容易默认接受这些系统的建议，而不是把它们当作输入。
我觉得我们仍然处于一个阶段——大多数人把这些智能工具的产出当作输出，而不是更好的输入，来创造我们自己更好的输出。这对我很重要。当我每天花 3 个小时的时候——这是给我的输入。然后由我来用所有这些新输入创造更好的输出。能够同时看到所有这些东西的能力是非凡的。
所以需要的是能够从噪音中辨别信号、把酷炫和不相关区分开的人。这个词现在被严重过度使用了，但品味（taste）确实是真的。不只是"我知道什么东西搭在一起好看"。更像是——你有没有自己的观点？有没有一种有态度的驱动力去实现它？它有意义吗？它比其他已有的东西更有意义吗？我觉得这至关重要。
每一个创始人做的事情都是——我在构建一个世界上不存在的东西，因为我想看到它。正因为它不存在，我才去构建它。但现在你看到很多公司——它们就是 copies of copies of copies of copies（副本的副本的副本的副本），因为这很容易。与其问你的观点是什么，不如问这里面有什么是有态度的？哪里在推动边界？哪里让人不舒服？
**Jack Dorsey:** I value someone who's able to reprogram their mind and assumptions constantly. Um I mean, this is stated a lot, but just being able to question your own requirements, your own assumptions and your own decisions or how rigid you are towards your past, the company's past and sacred cows or what the competition is doing. Um it's just, you know, being able to like go wild for a bit and then also being able to get that entire corpus down to something that's actually manageable and that can be articulated in a way that other people understand.
I think that's extremely valuable. Has it been valuable or is more valuable cuz things are moving so fast right now? I think it's more valuable. Like being able to -- yeah, I mean, I think it's going to be so easy to go along with the momentum of what's happening around us today. And it's going to be increasingly hard to break free of that momentum given what the tools do and like this is the way we do things and I think people will um because we're offloading some of our intelligence to intelligences and people will go along with -- more likely to default to what these things are suggesting rather than seeing them as an input.
Like I think we're still in a mode where most people are seeing what the intelligences do, these tools do, as output rather than better input to create better output ourselves. And I like I think that's important to me like when I was doing that like every day 3 hours like this is input to me. And it's now up to me to like really make better output from like all this new input that I have and like the ability to just take all this and see it at once is just phenomenal.
So having someone who's able to discern signal from noise and cool from not relevant, you know, like there's -- this is highly overused right now but the taste thing is real and it's not just like I know what things look good together. It's more like do I have a point of view? Have a perspective and an opinionated drive to get it there? And is it relevant? Is it more relevant than what else is out there? And I think that's critical.
That's what any founder is doing is like I'm building something that didn't exist in the world because I wanted to see it there. And because it didn't exist is why I'm building it. And I think right now you're seeing a lot of companies -- they're just copies of copies of copies of copies because it's easy. Yeah. Instead of like what's your point of view? Like what is opinionated in this and like where is it pushing the boundaries and where is it uncomfortable?
I think that's extremely valuable. Has it been valuable or is more valuable cuz things are moving so fast right now? I think it's more valuable. Like being able to -- yeah, I mean, I think it's going to be so easy to go along with the momentum of what's happening around us today. And it's going to be increasingly hard to break free of that momentum given what the tools do and like this is the way we do things and I think people will um because we're offloading some of our intelligence to intelligences and people will go along with -- more likely to default to what these things are suggesting rather than seeing them as an input.
Like I think we're still in a mode where most people are seeing what the intelligences do, these tools do, as output rather than better input to create better output ourselves. And I like I think that's important to me like when I was doing that like every day 3 hours like this is input to me. And it's now up to me to like really make better output from like all this new input that I have and like the ability to just take all this and see it at once is just phenomenal.
So having someone who's able to discern signal from noise and cool from not relevant, you know, like there's -- this is highly overused right now but the taste thing is real and it's not just like I know what things look good together. It's more like do I have a point of view? Have a perspective and an opinionated drive to get it there? And is it relevant? Is it more relevant than what else is out there? And I think that's critical.
That's what any founder is doing is like I'm building something that didn't exist in the world because I wanted to see it there. And because it didn't exist is why I'm building it. And I think right now you're seeing a lot of companies -- they're just copies of copies of copies of copies because it's easy. Yeah. Instead of like what's your point of view? Like what is opinionated in this and like where is it pushing the boundaries and where is it uncomfortable?
**Brian Halligan：** 我觉得说得太好了。这是一个很好的结束。感谢你们两位来 Long Strange Trip。我很喜欢你写的那篇文章，我觉得它会改变很多公司的做法。感谢你们。
**Brian Halligan:** I think that's brilliant. It's a great place to end. Thank you both for coming on Long Strange Trip. I love the article you wrote. I think it's going to be game-changing for lots of companies. Appreciate you both.
**Jack Dorsey：** 谢谢。
**Jack Dorsey:** Thank you.
**Roelof Botha：** 谢谢你，Brian。谢谢你，Jack。
**Roelof Botha:** Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Jack.
**Brian Halligan：** 希望你们喜欢这期节目。我非常享受跟他的对话。他是一个不寻常的人，有一些很有意思的想法。我觉得他关于如何变革公司建设方式、重新思考层级结构的想法很有道理。我感觉在未来的某个时间点，这种变革在某种程度上是不可避免的。
我这样理解——在我的职业生涯早期，我在 PTC 工作，那是 90 年代。非常典型的 manager mode，非常层级化。权力基本集中在 VP 手里。后来我经营 HubSpot，当时还没有 founder mode 这个说法，但本质上就是 founder mode。不是金字塔，而是扁平的，很多权力掌握在创始人手中。
他在我看来提出的是 Dorsey mode。我说这话的时候他笑了，但我觉得这就是"接下来会怎样"。它更像一个圆圈，而不是一个极度扁平的组织。权力存在于系统中，系统做出大量决策，能实时回应员工和客户。我把 Dorsey mode 理解为彻底取消层级，基本上构建一个大脑，获取正确的输入，让它做出以前由层级来做的很多决策。
我觉得他抓住了什么重要的东西。我很想知道你们怎么看。在 Twitter 上评论或者在 YouTube 上留言。我很好奇你们的想法。我觉得 Jack 也会很好奇。他在推行这套方法的非常早期阶段，他在寻求反馈。感谢大家的收听。
我这样理解——在我的职业生涯早期，我在 PTC 工作，那是 90 年代。非常典型的 manager mode，非常层级化。权力基本集中在 VP 手里。后来我经营 HubSpot，当时还没有 founder mode 这个说法，但本质上就是 founder mode。不是金字塔，而是扁平的，很多权力掌握在创始人手中。
他在我看来提出的是 Dorsey mode。我说这话的时候他笑了，但我觉得这就是"接下来会怎样"。它更像一个圆圈，而不是一个极度扁平的组织。权力存在于系统中，系统做出大量决策，能实时回应员工和客户。我把 Dorsey mode 理解为彻底取消层级，基本上构建一个大脑，获取正确的输入，让它做出以前由层级来做的很多决策。
我觉得他抓住了什么重要的东西。我很想知道你们怎么看。在 Twitter 上评论或者在 YouTube 上留言。我很好奇你们的想法。我觉得 Jack 也会很好奇。他在推行这套方法的非常早期阶段，他在寻求反馈。感谢大家的收听。
**Brian Halligan:** Hope you liked that. I really enjoyed speaking to him. He's an unusual Homo Sapien and he's got some interesting thoughts. I think his ideas on how to transform the way you build a company and rethink the hierarchy they kind of make sense to me and I feel like at some point in the future it's somewhat inevitable that this kind of thing is going to happen.
And I sort of think of it as like when I grew up in my career I worked at this company PTC in the 90s. It was very very manager mode. Very hierarchical. Um the power rested in the VPs essentially. Um when I ran HubSpot they didn't call it founder mode then but it was kind of founder mode. Instead of being a pyramid it was flat and a lot of power was rested in the founder's hands.
He's sort of proposing the Dorsey mode in my mind. He laughed about it when I said it but I think of his like what's next. And it's more like a circle than a really flat organization and the power rests in the kind of in the system and the system makes a lot of decisions and can react real time to the employees and the customers but I think of Dorsey mode as getting rid of the hierarchy altogether building basically the brain, getting the inputs right and having it making a lot of the decisions that a hierarchy used to.
I think he's onto something. I'm curious to see what you think. Um comment on Twitter or comment on YouTube. I'm curious about your thoughts on it. I think Jack would be curious too. He's in the very early innings of rolling this out and he's looking for feedback on it. Anyway, appreciate you all. Thanks for tuning in.
And I sort of think of it as like when I grew up in my career I worked at this company PTC in the 90s. It was very very manager mode. Very hierarchical. Um the power rested in the VPs essentially. Um when I ran HubSpot they didn't call it founder mode then but it was kind of founder mode. Instead of being a pyramid it was flat and a lot of power was rested in the founder's hands.
He's sort of proposing the Dorsey mode in my mind. He laughed about it when I said it but I think of his like what's next. And it's more like a circle than a really flat organization and the power rests in the kind of in the system and the system makes a lot of decisions and can react real time to the employees and the customers but I think of Dorsey mode as getting rid of the hierarchy altogether building basically the brain, getting the inputs right and having it making a lot of the decisions that a hierarchy used to.
I think he's onto something. I'm curious to see what you think. Um comment on Twitter or comment on YouTube. I'm curious about your thoughts on it. I think Jack would be curious too. He's in the very early innings of rolling this out and he's looking for feedback on it. Anyway, appreciate you all. Thanks for tuning in.
