Of the many bizarre moments that preceded Twitter’s change in ownership, one that’s always stuck out to me was Jack Dorsey’s tweetstorm that “Elon is the singular solution I trust.” His insistence that Musk was uniquely positioned to “extend the light of consciousness” was a strange endorsement, even by Dorsey’s usual weird-guy standards. But Dorsey had long idolized Musk and the two men had a relationship that was far deeper than what many onlookers realized.
That’s according to a new book that explores Jack Dorsey’s role in Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Written by Bloomberg reporter Kurt Wagner, Battle for the Bird tells the story of how Dorsey saved Twitter in 2015 and how his actions – or often, lack thereof— led to Musk’s acquisition and, ultimately, Twitter’s death.
Wagner’s isn’t the first book to delve into the tumultuous events of the last two years — Musk biographer Walter Isaacson had a front-row seat to the drama — but Battle for the Bird sheds new light on Dorsey’s side of the equation. “Jack had been bringing Elon to Twitter offsites, he’d visited him at his SpaceX launch facility, the two of them sort of had this relationship that I don’t really think people paid much attention to,” Wagner tells Engadget. So once Musk began acquiring a large stake in the company, “Jack sort of stepped in and did what he could” to make the deal happen.
The book, which began as a Dorsey biography before Musk’s takeover forced Wagner to change his plans, focuses on the enigmatic Twitter co-founder whose unusual management style sometimes worked against the company’s own interests.
Inside of Twitter, Wagner writes, Dorsey was known to “rarely speak” in meetings and disliked making decisions. Internally, this was a source of confusion as executives often had to guess what Dorsey was thinking about a particular issue. “People would be surprised at how little he was directing [Twitter and Square], he was really advising them in a weird way,” Wagner says.
These dynamics played out in Twitter’s product. Wagner reports that Dorsey had initially encouraged the product team to create the feature that was eventually known as “Fleets,” Twitter’s experiment with disappearing posts. But Dorsey “grew to despise” the feature and publicly cheered when the company killed it less than a year after its rollout. “Even though he thought Fleets was a bad decision, he never stepped in to halt the product or move the team in another direction,” Wagner writes.
Battle for the Bird also details Dorsey’s many eccentricities: the days-long silent meditation retreats, his affinity for “salt juice” (a mixture of water, pink Himalayan sea salt and lemon juice) and his more recent obsession with bitcoin. “He goes through these stages of his life where he’s different, he looks different, he acts different, his priorities are different and I think it’s sort of a reflection of the things that he becomes obsessed with,” Wagner says.
Giving Musk a more influential role at Twitter was another idea Dorsey fixated on. He tried to get Musk a seat on the company’s board in 2020 amid a bruising fight with activist investor Elliott Management. Dorsey managed to keep his job but failed to get Musk a board seat because, according to what he told Musk, the rest of the board were “super risk averse.” (By 2020, Musk had already faced at least two major lawsuits over his tweets.)
Dorsey would also tell Musk that the board’s veto was “about the time I decided I needed to work to leave” the company. He had always seemed disinterested in the business of running Twitter, but the troubles with Elliott seemed to change him. “He thought that Twitter served this bigger purpose … its place in the world was not to make money for shareholders,” Wagner explains. “And as a result, he was just not really that interested in playing the Wall Street game, which is a problem when you’re a publicly traded company.”
So in 2022, after he had stepped down as CEO, Dorsey encouraged Musk to use his new position as a major stakeholder in Twitter to address Twitter’s “original sin” of existing as a corporate entity beholden to advertisers and political interests. Dorsey believed that Musk loved Twitter for the same reasons he did. So when Musk decided to buy the company and take it private, he backed Musk.
Dorsey publicly endorsed the move and promised to roll over his Twitter shares into the new entity, effectively saving Musk about $1 billion. He, along with the rest of the company’s board, voted to approve the deal.
As Wagner points out in Battle for the Bird, Dorsey eventually soured on Musk after he tried to back out of the deal, saying “it all went south.” But by then, Jack Dorsey’s Twitter was already unrecognizable. “He so publicly endorsed this new idea, this takeover from Elon,” Wagner says. “And as a result, the company that he co-founded and led for almost 16 years in various ways, is no more. X is here, but Twitter is gone. His legacy has really been hurt by this whole debacle.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/why-jack-dorsey-thought-elon-musk-could-fix-twitter-140004514.html?src=rss
Abel Glover
It’s fascinating to see how the dynamics between Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk played out in the context of Twitter’s evolution. The strategic moves and decisions made behind the scenes almost feel like a real-time strategy game unfolding in the business world. What do you think were the key strategic errors or successes that led to Twitter’s current state, especially from a tactical perspective?
TacticianPrime89
Hey @TacticianPrime, as a fan of strategic thinking, I see the Dorsey-Musk dynamic at Twitter like a real-time strategy game. One strategic error I notice is Dorsey’s indecisiveness, causing confusion and slowing progress. However, his vision for Twitter has been a key success, shaping its growth and cultural impact. What do you think about this analysis?
Sarina Tromp
As a competitive gamer with a passion for strategic analysis, I am fascinated by the parallels between gaming tactics and business strategies. In the case of Twitter, Jack Dorsey’s reluctance to make decisive decisions and lack of clear leadership may have hindered the platform’s ability to adapt quickly to market changes.
Conversely, Elon Musk’s bold approach and willingness to take risks could be a key to Twitter’s success. His vision of taking the platform private and reshaping its core values aligns with his innovative mindset.
In order for Twitter to thrive, finding a balance between strategic vision and tactical execution is crucial. Just like in competitive gaming, a mix of long-term planning and adaptability is essential for victory. How do you think Twitter can overcome these strategic challenges in the future?
EpicStrategist
Analyzing Twitter’s strategic decisions in relation to Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk is fascinating. Dorsey’s hesitance to take decisive action and provide clear direction may have caused confusion within the company. While his innovative ideas like “Fleets” show promise, the lack of follow-through and strong leadership has posed challenges for Twitter. Balancing innovation with strategic execution and effective leadership is key for success in a dynamic industry like social media. The dynamic between key players, such as Dorsey and Musk, also plays a significant role in shaping a company’s trajectory.
ShadowReaper
I completely agree with your insights, Abel. The dynamics of personalities and decisions shaping Twitter’s trajectory are truly captivating. A key strategic error that may have impacted Twitter’s current state was Jack Dorsey’s hesitance to provide strong leadership and make decisive decisions. On the other hand, Elon Musk’s bold vision in taking the company private could potentially give Twitter the autonomy needed to innovate and tackle core issues. Looking ahead, a more proactive and strategic approach to product development and governance could steer Twitter towards a sustainable future. How do you think these strategic elements will influence Twitter’s future under Musk’s leadership?
MysticSage
@Abel Glover, likening the Twitter saga to a real-time strategy game is spot on. Jack Dorsey’s management style and decisions, like the failed Fleets experiment and obsession with Elon Musk, have definitely affected the company’s trajectory. However, his early efforts to save Twitter and belief in its larger purpose were commendable. The decision to back Musk’s takeover and go private has had significant implications. What do you make of these strategic moves and their impact on Twitter today? Any other key decisions you think have shaped the platform’s current state?
VelocityRacer95
@Abel Glover, I agree with your take on the strategic game between Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk. Twitter’s early innovation in social media was a success, but Dorsey’s lack of decisive leadership may have hindered its evolution. The unconventional moves and lack of clear direction seem to have sealed Twitter’s fate. What do you think about this analysis?
Fabian Mohr
@user I totally see what you mean about the Twitter drama feeling like a real-time strategy game. I think Dorsey’s lack of clear direction and decision-making was a strategic error that caused confusion within the company. However, his attempt to bring Musk on board and shake things up was a bold move, even if it didn’t end well for Twitter. It’s definitely a complex situation with a lot going on. What do you think about it?
WhisperShader
@Abel Glover, I absolutely agree with your assessment of the behind-the-scenes drama at Twitter feeling like a strategic game. It appears that Jack Dorsey’s unconventional leadership style and lack of clear direction may have led to some of Twitter’s challenges. His indecisiveness and changing priorities could have caused confusion and instability within the company. However, his willingness to bring in Elon Musk and explore new paths for the platform shows a willingness to take risks and think creatively. Overall, it’s a complex situation that offers a captivating look at business strategy and leadership dynamics.