2011年11月18日 星期五

Amazon 成功的秘訣是…

November 18th, 2011 by Jamie

Amazon 成功的秘訣是…

從任何的標準去看,今日的 Amazon,都是一家超級成功的企業 — 它的線上書城和其他 B2C 電子商務業務,全球第一,年營業額超過 200 億美金。它的 AWS (Amazon Web Services) 雲端服務,市占率超過 95%。它的 Kindle 電子書城,年營業額達 55 億美金,獨步全球。它最新推出的 Kindle Fire 多媒體平板,被譽為最有機會挑戰蘋果 iPad 的競爭對手。它的市值近 1,000 億美金,僅次於 Google,是全世界第二值錢的網路公司。
所以為什麼 Amazon 這麼成功?秘密就在創辦人 Jeff Bezos 的這一段話裡面
1997 年,我們 (上市後) 給股東的第一封信,標題是「重點都在長線」。如果你在做的事情需要三年的時間,那你必定和一大堆人在競爭。但如果你願意投資七年的時間,那你的競爭對手只剩下一小撮,因為很少公司願意這樣做。僅僅是把你的時間拉長,你就能夠做一些別人沒辦法做到的事情。在 Amazon,我們喜歡做 5-7 年的事情。我們願意播種,然後讓它們慢慢長大 — 我們非常的固執。我們的座右銘是「固執的願景,靈活的細節」。
許多時候,一些事情的發生是必然的,難就難在你不知道它需要多少時間。但你知道如果你有耐心,它必定會發生。電子書一定會發生;IaaS 雲端服務一定會發生。 所以你可以堅持你的信念,只要你想的夠長線,有耐心的話。
沒錯,龜兔賽跑的故事我們都聽過,鴨子滑水的道理我們都知道,也不是第一次聊唯有累積沒有奇蹟。但真的能夠花 5-10 年的時間去實現一個願景的人,事實上少之又少。你或許忘了,Steve Jobs 花了七年的時間,才把 Apple 從谷底翻身。Mark Zuckerberg 也花了六、七年的時間,才讓 Facebook 成為世界第一的網站
這些人或許都是天才,但這個世界上也從來沒有缺少過天才。真正成功的人,是那些能夠堅持到最後的人。創業的重點不是在爆紅,創業的重點,是在當全世界都瞧不起你的時候,勇敢的繼續嘗試、繼續進步、繼續累積、繼續 Iterate、繼續 Pivot,直到你成為領導品牌的那一天為止。
你不孤獨,因為你前面的偉人,都花了這麼多的時間。加油!

2011年11月7日 星期一

一粒老鼠屎,會壞了整碗粥達30~40%


一粒老鼠屎,會壞了整碗粥達30~40%

 
by Mr. 6 on November 8th, 2011, 目前有 4 則留言分享到塗鴉牆490 
 
今天忙碌就短短分享一下一個小研究──
昨天在華頓(Wharton)商學院的網站上看到一篇有趣的小文章,他們引用了《華爾街日報》的一篇引述研究表示,如果在一個組織或公司內,有一位同事特別的「懶」或特別的「難搞」,他/她一個人就可以讓整間公司或組織的效率拉下了高達30%~40%
美國人稱為「壞蘋果併發症」(Bad Apple Syndrome),也就是說,只要一箱蘋果有一顆有蛀蟲,好像其他蘋果都很爛的感覺,專家說,這種併發症在組織或公司內,非常具有感染力(remarkably contagious)!在東方稱為「一粒老鼠屎,壞了一鍋粥」,而這句話這次有了實際的「數字」,可以壞了達30~40%,還真的是「壞了」!
當然,這間公司或組織若到了幾百人這麼多,單單辦公室就走不完了,一顆老鼠屎無法壞了整鍋粥,但,假設這個團體是只有「十個人」,依這樣來看,只要其中一人有問題,整個團體就會掉了40%的效率,意思是說,十個人變成只有六個人;也就是說,一人有問題,連帶害了3個人一起和他「陪葬」,從這樣看起來,以大家的經驗,這個數字似乎蠻有道理!

根據研究,這老鼠屎壞粥的主要原因,在於一位狀況差的同事,可能造成其他人「無關緊要的錯誤判斷、與決定」(unrelated judgments and decisions),以及其他同事在這個組織裡所感受到的連結(harm the connection others feel with the organization)。如果某個人如此令人討厭,而他也在這個組織中,讓你不但不喜歡這個人,也連帶不喜歡這個組織,也連帶不喜歡其他也在同一個組織內的同事。因此研究建議,相關人員已經不只要樹立「對的模範」,也要「打擊不對的行為」(censure bad behavior),不然,一個公司或組織的同事們其實就像「情緒的導電體」(emotional conductors),一有老鼠屎,立刻整粥壞一半。
這份研究,相信很多人有些感觸,但我是想起小時候──
嚇!在粥裡面看到一根頭髮!一整碗都不能吃了,要大人換一碗!
大人就會說,頭髮拿起來就好了,其他的部份還是可以吃啊。
一粒老鼠屎,既然對企業或組織造成30~40%的下滑影響,那我們應該思考的不是杜絕這一粒老鼠屎,而是「怎麼吃下去」一碗已經被降了30~40%的粥
這碗粥,依然是一間完整的公司或組織,端視你怎麼面對它,或許,當這碗粥真的煮得很愉快,那粒老鼠屎,也會慢慢莫名其妙的……消失了(或許)。
(圖片來源:TokyoLunch)

你最重要的任務:找到 Product-Market Fit


你最重要的任務:找到 Product-Market Fit

在很多人心中,創業初期最重要的工作就是把「在我腦海裡的那個產品」做出來。在他們的想像中,這是一個全世界人都想要的產品 (原因往往是「因為從來都沒有人做過」),所以想當然耳只要能把產品做出來,「會員」就會像潮水般湧入,這時只要再簡單的去拉一些廣告 (相信我,拉廣告一點都不簡單),接下來就等著躺在家裡數鈔票。
所以才會有「請問我的 App 做出來了,接下來要怎麼行銷?」這樣的問題出現,因為等到產品做出來,你才發現之前對於「市場」的假設,完全是錯誤的。會員並沒有像潮水般湧來,這時候你也只能不知所措。
也就是說,「產品」根本不是你創業的目的,「市場」才是你創業的真正目的。做產品,只是為了找到市場。修改產品,只是為了配合市場。進行一個 Pivot,只是因為你發現市場不如預期。這一切一切努力,最終就是要找到所謂的「Product-Market Fit」(簡稱 PMF)。

當 Product-Market Fit 來襲

最近第三屆 appWorks 育成計畫的其中一個團隊,正在經歷 PMF。PMF 來的感覺是很奇妙的,因為它往往不在你的預期當中 — 就像你覺得市場會喜歡的產品,最後他們不喜歡一樣;往往你覺得隨便做做、太爛、太普通的產品,有時反而正中他們的要害。
這時你的下載/會員數會爆衝 — 在幾乎沒有刻意推廣的情況下、伺服器會被塞爆、訂單如雪片般飛來、Email 信箱爆衝,甚至連本來不想理你的合作夥伴,都自己找上門來。你以為這是很棒的一件事情嗎?不,這個時候真正的創業才開始。你發現一天只有 24 小時根本不夠用,又要滅火、又要追蹤使用情況、又要修改功能、又要建立 SOP (工作準則)、還要開始雇用員工,甚至得跟投資人募一筆資金來應付這樣的成長。
創業沒有「成功」的一天,每天都是在解決當前的問題,尋找明天的成長。但在找到 PMF 之前,其他的事情都不重要,因為這一切,都是在 Product-Market Fit 才開始的。
加油!
(Image via blackbutterfly, CC License)

2011年11月4日 星期五

只留下最好的人才


◎ 主題學習

只留下最好的人才

280
根據《財星》(Fortune)雜誌公布的2006年「全美最受景仰企業」名單,奇異高居第一,而且是近10年來第六次掄元。無論市道好壞,奇異總是能持續地創造出令其他企業景仰的成就,其中的關鍵要素之一,就是人才的鑑別、培養、評估及論功行賞。 
被譽為「20世紀最佳經理人」的奇異前執行長傑克‧威爾許(Jack Welch)在他所撰寫的《jack》(Straight from the Gut)一書中指出,奇異的使命不外乎發掘與培養優秀人才,「沒有一項比得上我對培養人才的執著;我希望讓員工成為奇異的核心競爭力。」
活力曲線:鑑別出人才的差異
而在培育人才的過程中,制度扮演了非常重要的角色。透過不斷地摸索,奇異找到了名為「活力曲線」(vitality curve)的理想評估方式,基於差異化原則,鑑別出哪些主管是事業單位內表現最優秀的前20%(Top 20)、哪些是不可或缺的中間70%(The Vital 70),以及哪些是墊底的10%(Bottom 10),由此區分出A、B、C級員工。 
表現優異的A級員工,不但調薪幅度是B級員工的2~3倍,還能獲得高額的股票選擇權;表現不及格的C級員工,則得不到任何獎勵,通常還得離開公司;至於為數最多的B級員工,其調薪幅度也必須足以表彰他們的貢獻,其中約有60%~70%的人能得到認股權。 
活力曲線是一套以加薪、授予選擇權或晉升等誘因為後盾的人事評鑑制度,但剔除底端10%的員工,則往往被視為殘忍、冷酷的行為。然而威爾許認為,「把人留在一個無法幫助他成長茁壯的地方,才是真正無情的『假仁慈』」。 
這套汰弱留強的制度,不見得十分精確,遺珠之憾在所難免,但是卻可以為組織建立起整齊劃一的勁旅,而這也正是塑造一個偉大組織的方式。透過年復一年的動態過程,沒人能夠安然無憂,所有主管都必須持續證明自己的能力。 
藉由人才鑑別制度,奇異發現A級員工多半具備所謂的「領導力4E」:高度的幹勁(Energy)、激勵(Energize)他人士氣的能力、制定艱難決策的膽識(Edge),以及貫徹執行(Execute)、達成承諾的能力;而這4個E的共通點則是P,即Passion(熱情)。 
奇異那套拒絕在C級員工身上浪費時間的人事制度,或許備受爭議,但那是因為該公司認為A級員工不但能自我敦促,還能感染周遭環境,激勵他人士氣。因此,奇異也花了許多心血提升B級員工的素質,設法讓他們進入A級員工之列。奇異及威爾許或許偏愛菁英,但他們也非常願意在員工不斷蛻變的過程當中,提供一臂之力,協助他們躋身菁英之林。 
威爾許認為,培育人才是經理人的職責之一,無法區分員工高下,或是未能挑出單位中表現差者(即墊底的10%)的經理人,將被畫入C級,所遞交的紅利或選擇權發放計畫,也會遭到駁回。至於A級員工的流失,更被視為嚴重過錯。一旦失去一位A級員工,奇異便會深入檢討,並要求主管為這項損失負責(這套方法的確管用,A級員工的流失率每年不到1%)。
人力資源循環:對菁英人才追蹤列管
威爾許說,「對員工的全神貫注,正是奇異的管理特色。」為協助員工了解組織的遊戲規則,公司必須建立一套結構與思考邏輯,其中心就是奇異的「人力資源循環」:每年4月在每個事業單位展開歷時一天的人事檢討會議;6月進行兩小時的視訊會議,追蹤人事檢討會議的後續進度;11月再舉辦第二次人事檢討會議,確認各單位均已貫徹執行4月間所達成的協議。 人事檢討會議旨在探討員工的生涯、晉升機會、活力曲線及個人長短處。在人事檢討卷宗裡,包含每位主管的簡歷和照片(威爾許對照片這種小細節也很在意,他曾當面對一名主管說:「唉呀!你本人和照片完全不同,那張照片一點都看不出你的優異表現。」意在促使對方換張照片。」)。照片旁是一個九宮格,根據經理人的「潛力」與「績效」,在其中一個格子裡打勾。照片下方則是經理人的優缺點摘要,除了正面評語之外,至少必須列出一項有待加強的短處。通常在會議上,花費最多時間討論的,就是那些需要提升的領域,以及探討特定經理人是否仍有成長的機會。 
針對高潛力經理人,奇異安排了「導師專案」,讓每一個人都有一位來自管理高層的導師。導師的職責則是負責讓徒弟晉升為A級員工。而這項培育人才的任務,也被列入管理高層績效評估的項目裡;換言之,管理高層除了自身是A級領導者之外,同時也必須身兼一流的導師。 《領導引擎》的作者提區指出,成功領導人無不把人才養成當成自己的主要職責,不但會親自投注時間和心力訓練人才,也期望公司的管理高層和第一線主管都能從善如流,「對他們而言,教導其實是一種生活方式。」
主管訓練中心:培養行動學習的能力
曾在1985~1987年間任職於奇異的可羅頓維爾(Crotonville)主管訓練中心的提區認為,真正讓奇異不同凡響的,不是那個全盤思考公司走向,或替公司賺進530億資產和賣掉160億資產的威爾許,而是那個世界一流的導師威爾許。簡言之,在威爾許擔任執行長期間,就是一頁篩選和培養領導人的企業發展史。 
1956年,奇異在紐約奧新寧(Ossining)成立可羅頓維爾(Crotonville)主管訓練中心(如今更名為「威爾許領導力中心」),旨在訓練和教育經理人。多年來,訓練中心的講師都是根據逾3500頁管理守則的「藍皮書」(blue books),教導數以千計的奇異主管學會了掌控事業營運的概念和自身所背負的利潤責任。 
到了1981年,亦即威爾許上任之際,可羅頓維爾已不再是菁英薈萃之地,而是疲態盡顯、陳舊不堪。於是威爾許決定全面改造,找來曾任教於哈佛商學院(Harvard Business School)的吉姆‧波曼(Jim Baughman),希望透過硬體及軟體的提升,將可羅頓威爾塑造為一個著重領導人養成,而非僅提供狹隘技術訓練的園地。 
威爾許是提區所知最投入、最用心的一位領導導師。從1984年起,有長達15年的時間,他隔周便前往可羅頓維爾,全程參與公司3項旨在培育領導人才的課程,包括為最具潛力主管提供的「高階主管開發課程」(EDC)、針對中階主管的「企業管理課程」(BMC),以及為爆發力十足的後起之秀所提供的管理發展課程(MDC)。在提區「行動學習」(action leaning)的概念引導下,參與課程的主管都必須將重點放在解決奇異的實際問題上。 
初階的MDC每年共有6~8個梯次,培訓400~500名經理人;BMC每年舉辦3次,每次約有60多人參與;至於EDC則每年舉辦1次,培訓35~50位最具潛力的主管。後兩項課程都是為期3周。這些課程具有高度象徵意義,代表公司對員工成就的認可。參加BMC的學員名單需事先經過公司高層核准;參與EDC的名單,更需通過人力資源部門主管和威爾許的審核。
接班與交棒:A+級企業的成功祕訣
威爾許表示,他很自然地就沉迷於可羅頓維爾的「教學活動」,每個月總會在大教室內出現個一、兩次,每次可長達4小時之久。不過,這位領導導師從不會發表冗長言論,而是喜歡全然開放的雙向溝通,享受教學相長的經驗。 
課堂上的威爾許,總會藉由說故事,分享個人的經驗,讓在場人士體會他所遭遇過的道德困境和領導難題。在上行下效的風氣裡,可羅頓維爾成了員工的進修場所和知識泉源,也為奇異培養出生生不息的卓越領導人和領導導師。 
提區指出,在一個競爭的世界裡,領導人開發他人生產力的舉動,需要排除許多自我中心主義和權力欲望。畢竟,培養接班人在某種程度上就好像培養了一個緊追在後、甚至有可能青出於藍的勁敵。然而,真正的領導人都是最有自信和自知之明的導師,他們曉得善用自己的長處,更能坦然面對自己的不足。 
在一次年度性的總經理會議上,威爾許針對「接班交棒」這個話題提出了自己的看法。他說,隨著他與同期的領導人逐漸老去,身為領導者最大的挑戰就是,「協助奇異年輕一輩日益茁壯」。在傑出領導人會老去凋零、局勢又變化莫測的商場上,能在內部各層級培養出具備A級領導人的組織,便能無畏於趨勢的演變,持續蓬勃發展。謝不斷進行,組織的活力仍然豐沛不至枯竭。
威爾許的接班與交棒 
「當你在找尋接班人時,首要之務就是不要找一個跟你一樣的人,」奇異前任執行長雷金諾德‧瓊斯(Reginald Jones)1982年在哈佛商學院的課堂上這樣說道,「另一件事則是,你最好能預見未來環境……,找到某個能適應環境的人……,」結果,瓊斯挑上了傑克‧威爾許。《財星》雜誌(2005年6月)將他這最後、但最好的決策,列為「商業史上20個關鍵決策」之一。
接班/威爾許:「我就是你要的人!」
然而,當奇異人資部門開始規畫瓊斯的接班人選名單時,威爾許從不曾列名其中。直到1977年底,威爾許升任消費品事業類別執行長(sector executive),位居公司層級的第27層,距離瓊斯的職位第29層,僅有兩步之遙;但在此同時,具備接班人候選資格的,還有另外6個人。 
瓊斯其實很早就屬意威爾許為接班人,但還是與每位候選人各自進行了他名聞遐邇的「飛機面談」。1979年,瓊斯把威爾許叫到他辦公室,問道:「傑克,假設你和我共同搭乘的飛機失事了,誰該繼承我的遺缺,擔任奇異下一任執行長?」 
就像大多數候選人一樣,威爾許的回答是,他會「爬出飛機殘骸」,準備掌管公司。然而,瓊斯的意思是「兩人皆已罹難」,一定要威爾許說出最佳接替人選。 
無從選擇下,威爾許只得不再堅持自己是最佳接班人,說出了另一人的名字。瓊斯的用意很明顯,他想知道每位候選人對其他人在智力、領導力、道德和公眾形象上的評價各是如何,並藉此了解哪些人可融洽合作。 
1979年6月,瓊斯再找威爾許二度進行「飛機面談」,只不過這次威爾許「倖存了」。於是他毫不猶豫地說,「我就是你要的人。」瓊斯繼續追問他對領導團隊的規畫,並從中更加確信威爾許就是最佳接班人選。1981年4月1日,威爾許正式接任董事長兼執行長。
交棒/伊梅特「全然的從容與自信」
1994年,時年58歲的威爾許,在距離退休還有7年任期之際,開始踏上尋找接班人的路途。他說,「我覺得,要做出正確決策,就是需要那麼長的時間。……我們需要挑選一位能在變革環境中壯大與成長的人選,在未來5年、10年、甚至20年,帶領公司步入另一個層次。」 當時,威爾許對於接班人的遴選程序,提出了下列4個想法:首先,接班人須是奇異內部眾所公認的領袖;其次,竭力消除遴選過程中的政治鬥爭;第三,董事會應積極參與這項人事決策;第四,接班人要年輕,至少能做滿10年,以承擔其決策的長遠影響。 
到了1998年,初選名單上的23人,只剩8位,然而在組織的不斷試煉下,他們卻已經歷過17種不同的職務。同年底,名單上僅剩3人,即納德利(Robert Nardelli)、麥克奈尼(James McNerney)和伊梅特(Jeffrey Immelt)。 
此後,威爾許不斷創造深入評估他們的機會,但是他同時也決定,在正式接班人選出爐之前,就要3位候選人挑出自己在當時所屬事業部門的「接班人」;換言之,未能成為正式接班人者,前進後退都無路可走。威爾許此舉的目的是不希望落選的候選人繼續留在組織裡,以免成為新領導人的阻力。 
對威爾許而言,3位候選人的績效表現均極為傑出;更難抉擇的是,他和他們都有多年的深厚交情,而3人也都曾在可羅頓維爾上過威爾許的課。 
再怎麼掙扎,還是要做出決定。2000年12月底,威爾許向董事會提出推薦人選:伊梅特。理由是,他在醫療事業的驚人成就,足以成為奇異未來各項事業的典範。此外,伊梅特在「才智」和「敏銳度」上具有完美的組合,同時還具備了威爾許最看重的一項特質:「全然的從容與自信」。 
伊梅特在2001年9月7日正式上任;納德利轉戰房屋修繕用品連鎖店Home Depot擔任執行長;麥克奈尼則先是出任3M公司執行長,而後於2005年轉任波音(Boeing)公司執行長。

2011年11月1日 星期二

賈伯斯妹妹 悼念詞


http://forum.inside.com.tw/viewthread.php?tid=1041
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/mona-simpsons-eulogy-for-steve-jobs.html?_r=4&emc=eta1&pagewanted=all



OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

A Sister’s Eulogy for Steve Jobs

I grew up as an only child, with a single mother. Because we were poor and because I knew my father had emigrated from Syria, I imagined he looked like Omar Sharif. I hoped he would be rich and kind and would come into our lives (and our not yet furnished apartment) and help us. Later, after I’d met my father, I tried to believe he’d changed his number and left no forwarding address because he was an idealistic revolutionary, plotting a new world for the Arab people.

Related

Even as a feminist, my whole life I’d been waiting for a man to love, who could love me. For decades, I’d thought that man would be my father. When I was 25, I met that man and he was my brother.
By then, I lived in New York, where I was trying to write my first novel. I had a job at a small magazine in an office the size of a closet, with three other aspiring writers. When one day a lawyer called me — me, the middle-class girl from California who hassled the boss to buy us health insurance — and said his client was rich and famous and was my long-lost brother, the young editors went wild. This was 1985 and we worked at a cutting-edge literary magazine, but I’d fallen into the plot of a Dickens novel and really, we all loved those best. The lawyer refused to tell me my brother’s name and my colleagues started a betting pool. The leading candidate: John Travolta. I secretly hoped for a literary descendant of Henry James — someone more talented than I, someone brilliant without even trying.
When I met Steve, he was a guy my age in jeans, Arab- or Jewish-looking and handsomer than Omar Sharif.
We took a long walk — something, it happened, that we both liked to do. I don’t remember much of what we said that first day, only that he felt like someone I’d pick to be a friend. He explained that he worked in computers.
I didn’t know much about computers. I still worked on a manual Olivetti typewriter.
I told Steve I’d recently considered my first purchase of a computer: something called the Cromemco.
Steve told me it was a good thing I’d waited. He said he was making something that was going to be insanely beautiful.
I want to tell you a few things I learned from Steve, during three distinct periods, over the 27 years I knew him. They’re not periods of years, but of states of being. His full life. His illness. His dying.
Steve worked at what he loved. He worked really hard. Every day.
That’s incredibly simple, but true.
He was the opposite of absent-minded.
He was never embarrassed about working hard, even if the results were failures. If someone as smart as Steve wasn’t ashamed to admit trying, maybe I didn’t have to be.
When he got kicked out of Apple, things were painful. He told me about a dinner at which 500 Silicon Valley leaders met the then-sitting president. Steve hadn’t been invited.
He was hurt but he still went to work at Next. Every single day.
Novelty was not Steve’s highest value. Beauty was.
For an innovator, Steve was remarkably loyal. If he loved a shirt, he’d order 10 or 100 of them. In the Palo Alto house, there are probably enough black cotton turtlenecks for everyone in this church.
He didn’t favor trends or gimmicks. He liked people his own age.
His philosophy of aesthetics reminds me of a quote that went something like this: “Fashion is what seems beautiful now but looks ugly later; art can be ugly at first but it becomes beautiful later.”
Steve always aspired to make beautiful later.
He was willing to be misunderstood.
Uninvited to the ball, he drove the third or fourth iteration of his same black sports car to Next, where he and his team were quietly inventing the platform on which Tim Berners-Lee would write the program for the World Wide Web.
Steve was like a girl in the amount of time he spent talking about love. Love was his supreme virtue, his god of gods. He tracked and worried about the romantic lives of the people working with him.
Whenever he saw a man he thought a woman might find dashing, he called out, “Hey are you single? Do you wanna come to dinner with my sister?”
I remember when he phoned the day he met Laurene. “There’s this beautiful woman and she’s really smart and she has this dog and I’m going to marry her.”
When Reed was born, he began gushing and never stopped. He was a physical dad, with each of his children. He fretted over Lisa’s boyfriends and Erin’s travel and skirt lengths and Eve’s safety around the horses she adored.
None of us who attended Reed’s graduation party will ever forget the scene of Reed and Steve slow dancing.
His abiding love for Laurene sustained him. He believed that love happened all the time, everywhere. In that most important way, Steve was never ironic, never cynical, never pessimistic. I try to learn from that, still.
Steve had been successful at a young age, and he felt that had isolated him. Most of the choices he made from the time I knew him were designed to dissolve the walls around him. A middle-class boy from Los Altos, he fell in love with a middle-class girl from New Jersey. It was important to both of them to raise Lisa, Reed, Erin and Eve as grounded, normal children. Their house didn’t intimidate with art or polish; in fact, for many of the first years I knew Steve and Lo together, dinner was served on the grass, and sometimes consisted of just one vegetable. Lots of that one vegetable. But one. Broccoli. In season. Simply prepared. With just the right, recently snipped, herb.
Even as a young millionaire, Steve always picked me up at the airport. He’d be standing there in his jeans.
When a family member called him at work, his secretary Linetta answered, “Your dad’s in a meeting. Would you like me to interrupt him?”
When Reed insisted on dressing up as a witch every Halloween, Steve, Laurene, Erin and Eve all went wiccan.
They once embarked on a kitchen remodel; it took years. They cooked on a hotplate in the garage. The Pixar building, under construction during the same period, finished in half the time. And that was it for the Palo Alto house. The bathrooms stayed old. But — and this was a crucial distinction — it had been a great house to start with; Steve saw to that.
This is not to say that he didn’t enjoy his success: he enjoyed his success a lot, just minus a few zeros. He told me how much he loved going to the Palo Alto bike store and gleefully realizing he could afford to buy the best bike there.
And he did.
Steve was humble. Steve liked to keep learning.
Once, he told me if he’d grown up differently, he might have become a mathematician. He spoke reverently about colleges and loved walking around the Stanford campus. In the last year of his life, he studied a book of paintings by Mark Rothko, an artist he hadn’t known about before, thinking of what could inspire people on the walls of a future Apple campus.
Steve cultivated whimsy. What other C.E.O. knows the history of English and Chinese tea roses and has a favorite David Austin rose?
He had surprises tucked in all his pockets. I’ll venture that Laurene will discover treats — songs he loved, a poem he cut out and put in a drawer — even after 20 years of an exceptionally close marriage. I spoke to him every other day or so, but when I opened The New York Times and saw a feature on the company’s patents, I was still surprised and delighted to see a sketch for a perfect staircase.
With his four children, with his wife, with all of us, Steve had a lot of fun.
He treasured happiness.
Then, Steve became ill and we watched his life compress into a smaller circle. Once, he’d loved walking through Paris. He’d discovered a small handmade soba shop in Kyoto. He downhill skied gracefully. He cross-country skied clumsily. No more.
Eventually, even ordinary pleasures, like a good peach, no longer appealed to him.
Yet, what amazed me, and what I learned from his illness, was how much was still left after so much had been taken away.
I remember my brother learning to walk again, with a chair. After his liver transplant, once a day he would get up on legs that seemed too thin to bear him, arms pitched to the chair back. He’d push that chair down the Memphis hospital corridor towards the nursing station and then he’d sit down on the chair, rest, turn around and walk back again. He counted his steps and, each day, pressed a little farther.
Laurene got down on her knees and looked into his eyes.
“You can do this, Steve,” she said. His eyes widened. His lips pressed into each other.
He tried. He always, always tried, and always with love at the core of that effort. He was an intensely emotional man.
I realized during that terrifying time that Steve was not enduring the pain for himself. He set destinations: his son Reed’s graduation from high school, his daughter Erin’s trip to Kyoto, the launching of a boat he was building on which he planned to take his family around the world and where he hoped he and Laurene would someday retire.
Even ill, his taste, his discrimination and his judgment held. He went through 67 nurses before finding kindred spirits and then he completely trusted the three who stayed with him to the end. Tracy. Arturo. Elham.
One time when Steve had contracted a tenacious pneumonia his doctor forbid everything — even ice. We were in a standard I.C.U. unit. Steve, who generally disliked cutting in line or dropping his own name, confessed that this once, he’d like to be treated a little specially.
I told him: Steve, this is special treatment.
He leaned over to me, and said: “I want it to be a little more special.”
Intubated, when he couldn’t talk, he asked for a notepad. He sketched devices to hold an iPad in a hospital bed. He designed new fluid monitors and x-ray equipment. He redrew that not-quite-special-enough hospital unit. And every time his wife walked into the room, I watched his smile remake itself on his face.
For the really big, big things, you have to trust me, he wrote on his sketchpad. He looked up. You have to.
By that, he meant that we should disobey the doctors and give him a piece of ice.
None of us knows for certain how long we’ll be here. On Steve’s better days, even in the last year, he embarked upon projects and elicited promises from his friends at Apple to finish them. Some boat builders in the Netherlands have a gorgeous stainless steel hull ready to be covered with the finishing wood. His three daughters remain unmarried, his two youngest still girls, and he’d wanted to walk them down the aisle as he’d walked me the day of my wedding.
We all — in the end — die in medias res. In the middle of a story. Of many stories.
I suppose it’s not quite accurate to call the death of someone who lived with cancer for years unexpected, but Steve’s death was unexpected for us.
What I learned from my brother’s death was that character is essential: What he was, was how he died.
Tuesday morning, he called me to ask me to hurry up to Palo Alto. His tone was affectionate, dear, loving, but like someone whose luggage was already strapped onto the vehicle, who was already on the beginning of his journey, even as he was sorry, truly deeply sorry, to be leaving us.
He started his farewell and I stopped him. I said, “Wait. I’m coming. I’m in a taxi to the airport. I’ll be there.”
“I’m telling you now because I’m afraid you won’t make it on time, honey.”
When I arrived, he and his Laurene were joking together like partners who’d lived and worked together every day of their lives. He looked into his children’s eyes as if he couldn’t unlock his gaze.
Until about 2 in the afternoon, his wife could rouse him, to talk to his friends from Apple.
Then, after awhile, it was clear that he would no longer wake to us.
His breathing changed. It became severe, deliberate, purposeful. I could feel him counting his steps again, pushing farther than before.
This is what I learned: he was working at this, too. Death didn’t happen to Steve, he achieved it.
He told me, when he was saying goodbye and telling me he was sorry, so sorry we wouldn’t be able to be old together as we’d always planned, that he was going to a better place.
Dr. Fischer gave him a 50/50 chance of making it through the night.
He made it through the night, Laurene next to him on the bed sometimes jerked up when there was a longer pause between his breaths. She and I looked at each other, then he would heave a deep breath and begin again.
This had to be done. Even now, he had a stern, still handsome profile, the profile of an absolutist, a romantic. His breath indicated an arduous journey, some steep path, altitude.
He seemed to be climbing.
But with that will, that work ethic, that strength, there was also sweet Steve’s capacity for wonderment, the artist’s belief in the ideal, the still more beautiful later.
Steve’s final words, hours earlier, were monosyllables, repeated three times.
Before embarking, he’d looked at his sister Patty, then for a long time at his children, then at his life’s partner, Laurene, and then over their shoulders past them.
Steve’s final words were:
OH WOW. OH WOW. OH WOW.
Mona Simpson is a novelist and a professor of English at the University of California, Los Angeles. She delivered this eulogy for her brother, Steve Jobs, on Oct. 16 at his memorial service at the Memorial Church of Stanford University.