Steve was a natural performer who elevated business presentations to something close to high art. But what made him fidgety this day was the prospect of addressing the Stanford University graduating class of 2005. University president John Hennessy had broached the idea several months earlier, and after taking just a little time to think it over, Steve had said yes. He was offered speaking engagements constantly, and he always said no. In fact, he was asked to do so many commencement addresses that it became a running joke with Laurene and other friends who had college or graduate degrees: Steve said he’d accept one just to make an end run around them and get his PhD in a day, versus the years and years it had taken them. But in the end, saying no was simply a question of return on investment—conferences and public speaking seemed to offer a meager payoff compared to other things, like a dazzling MacWorld presentation, working on a great product, or being around his family. “If you look closely at how he spent his time,” says Tim Cook, “you’ll see that he hardly ever traveled and he did none of the conferences and get-togethers that so many CEOs attend. He wanted to be home for dinner.”
Stanford was different, even though speaking there would not turn Steve into Dr. Jobs—the school did not offer honorary degrees. For starters, he wouldn’t have to travel or miss dinner, since it was possible for him to drive from his house to the university in just seven minutes. More important, the university was deeply tied into the Silicon Valley tech community in a way he admired. Its education was first-rate and the professors he’d met through the years, like Jim Collins, were top caliber. Despite being a dropout, he always enjoyed spending time around smart college students. “He was only going to do one commencement speech,” says Laurene, “and if it was going to be anywhere it was going to be at Stanford.”
1)能回家吃饭;2)斯坦福与硅谷联系紧密;3)ROI高,斯坦福学生可以加入苹果Getting around to writing the speech proved to be something of a bother. Steve had talked to a few friends about what to say, and he had even asked the screenwriter Aaron Sorkin for some thoughts. But nothing came of all that, so finally he decided to write it himself. He wrote up a draft one night, and then started bouncing ideas off Laurene, Tim Cook, and a couple of others. “He really wanted to get it right,” says Laurene. “He wanted it to say something he really cared about.” The language changed slightly, but its structure, which summed up his essential values in three vignettes, remained the same. In the days before the event he would recite it while walking around the house, from the bedroom upstairs to the kitchen below, the kids watching their dad spring past them in the same kind of trance he’d sometimes enter in the days before MacWorld or Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference. Several times he read it to the whole family at dinner.
这就是我们觉得斯坦福毕业演讲这么好的原因!!!From his earliest days, Steve had always been able to spin a tale. But nothing he ever said before resonated this way. The speech has been viewed at least 35 million times on YouTube. It didn’t go viral, in the way of a Web phenomenon of 2015—social networks weren’t as developed or extensive a decade ago. But it gradually became recognized as something truly exceptional, of great meaning to a world of people beyond the Stanford Stadium as well. Its popularity surprised him. “None of us expected it to take off like that,” says Katie Cotton, who headed up communications and PR for Apple at the time.
公关老大都震惊了,哈哈哈Collins has specialized in the study of what makes great companies tick, and what marks the people who lead them. He sees something unique in Steve’s unorthodox business education. “I used to call him the Beethoven of business,” he says, “but that’s more true of when he was young. When Steve was twenty-two, you could consider him a genius with a thousand helpers. But he grew way beyond that. He’s not a success story, but a growth story. It’s truly remarkable to go from being a great artist to being a great company builder.”
“The narrative that was created around Steve 1.0 has dominated,” says Collins. “That’s partly because the story of a man who matured slowly into a seasoned leader is less interesting. Learning how to have disposable cash flow, and how to pick the right people, and growing, and rounding off the sharp edges, and not merely acting strange—that’s not as interesting! But all that personality stuff is just the packaging, the window dressing. What’s the truth of your ambition? Do you have the humility to continually grow, to learn from your failures and get back up? Are you utterly relentless for your cause, ferocious for your cause? Can you channel your intensity and intelligence and energy and talents and gifts and ideas outward into something that is bigger and more impactful than you are? That’s what great leadership is about.”
WHEN I FIRST read the speech online, I remembered an interview I’d conducted with Steve in 1998. We had been talking about the trajectory of his career when, in a rambling aside not unlike the road on the back cover of the last issue of the Whole Earth Catalog, Steve told me about the impact that the Catalog had had upon him. “I think back to it when I am trying to remind myself of what to do, of what’s the right thing to do.” A few weeks after that interview had been published in Fortune, I received an envelope in the mail. It was from Stewart Brand, and it contained a rare copy of that final issue. “Please give this to Steve next time you see him,” Stewart asked. When I did, a week or two later, Steve was thrilled. He’d remembered the issue for all those years, but had never had the time to locate a copy for himself.
The end of the Stanford speech focuses on the Catalog’s back-cover motto, “Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish,” but my favorite line about the catalog in Steve’s speech is when he describes it as “idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.” This is, in fact, a lovely description of Steve’s companies at their best. He was an empathetic man who wanted these graduates to head off on foolish, hungry pursuits, and who wanted to give them neat tools and great notions as they began their winding journey. Like Jim Collins, I had gotten close enough to Steve to see beyond his harshness and the occasional outright rudeness to the idealist within. Sometimes it was hard to convey this idealism to others, given Steve’s intensity and unpredictably sharp elbows. The Stanford commencement speech gave the world a glimpse of that genuine idealism.
好巧,我也喜欢那一句!!!
“idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.”
1,公司是否能正面推动经济、社会或者文化发 展? 如果做不到,BG可能就不会再往下看了。比如军火、赌博类公司再便宜,BG不会去看。 2,公司销售额在5年之内能否翻倍? 为什么要讨论销售额?因为BG关注公司成长,销售额是比较简单直观的指标,而利润可有一些方法调节。所以,BG主要先关注销售额,再看现金流。 3,公司5年之后会怎么样? 这是未来5到10年或者5到15年的中间维度,一是看公司的成长空间究竟还有多大,二是考虑5年之后,公司的短期估值会不会下降,会不会变得成熟。 4,公司的竞争优势到底是什么?随着时间会变 强还是变弱? BG认为,如果公司的竞争优势是不断变弱的,将来在更远期挣回现金流的可能性就更低了。 5,公司是否有非常独特的文化?文化是否能够进化? 毕竟要投资这么长时间,对创始人和公司管理文化是非常关注的。特别喜欢创始人领导的公司,而不是说创始人什么都不干,创始人在做房地产,找了一些人在做新公司,要尽量避免这样的公司。 谈到进化在BG看来,大部分公司都会有大公司病,需要看它怎么能维持比较灵活的管理,变大之后还能够保持非常快速的成长,比如亚马逊的day one文化(注:就是始终处在 创业启动状态,充满迷茫和压力,但是充满创造力和颠覆思想 )。 6,公司过去的回报率怎么样? 一方面是考虑到公司的ROE(净资产收益率),二是考虑公司的Margins(利润),看它的过去是不是值得投资,如果每年ROE都不到10个点,可能长期来看也没什么意思。 7,ROE能不能随着时间增长? 有些公司一开始没有盈利,一直在烧钱,5年之后说不定ROE会到20%或者更高,它是一个动态过程。这样的公司BG也会投资,包括一些早期项目,很多公司都是没有盈利的。 8,公司怎么分配资本? 资本现金流无非就是5种方法:再投资、收购、还债、分红、回购股份,要看公司在某个阶段的资本分配是不是最优的。 如果公司明明可以发展更多,结果乱分红了;或者是明明到了特别成熟的时候,还不愿意分红,都是错误的分配资本。 9,公司怎样才能长成5倍? BG关注的是怎样,而不是能不能。这会强迫BG每个人去设想一些未来的可能性,包括公司现在的底层架构能不能够延伸到更多的业务。 比如,早期的亚马逊或者是阿里,连一个概念都没有,BG会考虑这个公司有没有这种机遇,以后去扩展到可触及的市场。 10,市场对公司有哪些误解,哪些事...