Bruce Muzik talks about his experience of challenging perceptions and prejudices he absorbed from birth in Apartheid South Africa. Here's how he took off those distorting lenses and experienced his native country in a new way.
It started by sharing his terrible secret:
He gives a good insight into how generalisations about other cultures and communities arise and are perpetuated.
His main purpose is in motivating others to take steps to remove numbness and increase aliveness.
In management studies we consider various ways in which people interact and cooperate. There are psychometric instruments to help us distinguish personality and style differences. Emotional intelligence guides us in ways to manage ourselves and our interactions with others. Team roles enable us to consider various functions that have to be fulfilled in completing a project and the distribution across members of the group engaged in the work.
Bruce Muzik encourages us to come back to ourselves and work on the inner kinks that block energy and a full sense of aliveness. I don't think he's encouraging people to be naive and blunder into the boss's office with the words 'I hate you and all you stand for'. He does suggest ways that might improve working relationships and trust.
One of his coaching examples might shed some light on the mysterious suicide of Welsh football manager, Gary Speed, who did not seem depressed and had no major conflicts with family and friends in the days before he died. Perhaps he nursed a secret that became unbearable?
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Me and my shadow
As I see it, the ultimate purpose of taking psychological inventories and analysing our style is to improve how we relate to other people. Merely learning to label ourselves and other people adds little to the sum of human knowledge.
Daniel Goleman's work on emotional and other non-standard forms of intelligence encourages us to distinguish between awareness and management of self and relationship with others. Our personal style shows up in patterns that may or may not blend well with others and have a positive impact on communication and relationships.
Jung's archetypes, the inspiration for work on modern style inventories, included the notion that we come to terms with some of our weaker dimensions as we go through life. He noted that the weakest trait was our shadow side and likely to rise up and bite us on the backside at awkward moments in life. If we don't recognise the shadow, develop self awareness and do something about it, we may be stuck with patterns that are destructive and don't serve us well. The intention is not to get us to change personality, but work to our strengths. If we have a wider choice of responses and behaviours, we may defuse unnecessary conflict and misunderstandings.
My colleague, Kieran Duignan, is breaking new ground with what he calls Behavioural Diplomacy, building on the work of Scott Benjamin. He has developed a questionnaire (to be used with clients and their close network) to illuminate those dark corners. His portrait of behaviour patterns may not make comfortable reading to clients. With time and changing circumstances, client motivation may shift and bring them to the table ready to work on managing themselves and relationships differently. Mergers and acquisitions with their job insecurity or changing demands from new management can be one catalyst for a shift in motivation.
Richard Fisch, co-author of a seminal book on change, who died last month, founded the Brief Therapy Centre at MRI in Palo Alto California. He took a revolutionary approach to mental health research, focussing on the problem that the client was most concerned about rather than telling the client what he believed was wrong with them (current practice in psychology at the time.) This solved problems of 'resistance' or lack of motivation for change, as sessions dealt with major concerns brought by the client. Reading some of Fisch's case examples, there are some clear shadows or areas that don't work in his client's dealings with others, of which they seem totally unaware. Fisch is able to frame them as skill deficits and work successfully with the client to change patterns in the service of their desired goal.
In discussion with Kieran Duignan on his work on Behavioural Diplomacy, I reflected on my experience in some organisations where senior male managers with sub-optimal patterns sometimes appoint a woman in a floating role to act as a buffer between them and humanoids. The senior managers showed minimal interest or awareness in their own style, but felt the need for someone to deal with what they regard as trivial, routine and time consuming people issues.
Many years ago I talked to the Managing Director of a major UK agency supplying temporary secretarial staff to offices around the country. His partner, an Executive Secretary, was launching a work-to-rule of people in her position to campaign for better recognition and reward for their services. Thus, for example, when the chief executive told her to respond to a client requesting a meeting "Tell him to p*ss off, I'm going to play golf", she would do exactly that, rather than relaying a more diplomatic message to the caller.
Perhaps the Executive Secretary of decades ago has transformed into non-Board roles such as Strategy Consultant or Development Analyst, but always held by women. Maybe senior women who are criticised for being too aggressive or lacking sufficient people skills are those who don't have a buffer to deal with those pesky humanoids.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
Truth, Justice and the American Way
This week UNESCO voted with a majority of 93 votes to recognise Palestine as a separate entity for the purposes of the organisation's work:
The United States voted against, along with 13 other countries including Canada, Germany and Australia.
107 countries voted for the motion including France, Russia, China and Austria.
The United Kingdom abstained along with 51 other countries including Denmark and Georgia.
Comments from the source of these numbers:
'Most of these are no surprise, although it is worth noting the division in Europe, with Spain, France, Ireland, Austria, Finland and Greece voting “yes,” Germany, Czech Republic and Sweden voting “no,” and the UK, Italy and Denmark abstaining. It’s also probably worth noting that the US didn’t manage to get a “no” vote from such solid supporters as countries like Latvia (which voted “no” to bringing the motion to the General Assembly earlier this month but abstained today) and Tuvalu, Nauru and other island states that almost always support the US in international forums. Another formerly stalwart US supporter who voted for Palestine is Iceland. I remember chatting with an Icelandic diplomat during the Bush administration who had told me that after one particularly egregious instance of Washington dictating terms on what should have been a bilateral decision between Reykjavik and DC the US could no longer count on their automatic support in international forums.'
The United States has since cut off $60 million funding to UNESCO. The spokeswoman at the press conference stated that the USA criticised this unilateral move, which undermined their efforts at brokering a peace settlement in the Middle East.
Wikileaks (strongly attacked by the US government as a hostile force working against democracy) released the Palestine Papers earlier this year, revealing the true nature of this 'peace process'.
They revealed that the Palestinians had made concessions requested of them repeatedly, only to be greeted with indifference by the Israeli/US parties to the negotiations, who then demanded more:
Other papers revealed communications between Israel and the US describing policy to keep Gaza on the brink of economic collapse, without tipping it over to the abyss completely:
Noam Chomsky has been critical of US support for Israel, posing as an honest broker in peace negotiations, when its role is firmly partisan. Part of the problem is the economic benefit to the US arms industry that flows from the huge amount of aid given to Israel. The US government has promised $30 billion in military aid over the next decade. He also believes that the US contributes to a PR offensive to soften public opinion to accept an attack on Iran. The principal rationale is the allegation that Middle Eastern people want such a military offensive, when the idea comes from Middle Eastern dictators (allied with the US) rather than ordinary people:
What do you do when you want to enforce policies, but find yourself in the minority?
Bully and coerce by withdrawing funding. Go on the offensive with mis-information.
Who abstained?
Countries that rely on good relations with the USA... such as UK, Denmark and Georgia. It's easier to remain neutral than vote against and risk public ridicule.
When Israel voted against the motion, other delegates laughed.
The United States and some other western governments have taken action to starve Wikileaks of funding. They have targetted online payment conduits, banks and other financial institutions to ensure that money does not flow in for further revelations.
Professor Chomsky believes that the US government reveals itself as defiantly anti-democratic in its foreign policy action. He also thinks that the scare tactics about the threat to security by the leaks is a smokescreen. He cites the example of a study from a medical journal in Falluja (attacked by US forces in November 2004). They found levels of cancers, leukemias and other diseases higher than in the aftermath of Hiroshima. This was not covered in the US media, which focussed on Iran and Afghanistan:
From a Palestinian viewpoint it seems fruitless to continue negotiating with two parties, who have huge economic interests in delaying a resolution or allowing concessions from their side. It makes more sense to take another route and seek acceptance by a UN body responsible for humanitarian aid and cultural heritage. Trust networks within the UN have built up over time and recognise some of the attempts made by Israel to erase Palestinian territory, homes and culture. UNESCO has censored Israel several times for its treatment of Arab sites of archaeological significance (to little effect.)
It will be interesting to see what happens when the UN resolution is tabled to recognise Palestine as a separate state.
Update
Israel has today decided to speed up building 2000 new settlement homes in the West Bank and withhold funds from the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians are appealing to the UN to intervene.
The USA and Israel have long criticsed Middle Eastern governments and held Israel as a prime example of democracy in the region.
How strange that their response to democratic election processes is to punish people for 'voting the wrong way.'
Perhaps the world does not share a common perception of democracy and dictatorship.
Update 2
Canada has also announced a cut to its UNESCO funding. It would be fascinating to have heard this week's conversations across North America between US and Canadian diplomats and politicians.
The United States voted against, along with 13 other countries including Canada, Germany and Australia.
107 countries voted for the motion including France, Russia, China and Austria.
The United Kingdom abstained along with 51 other countries including Denmark and Georgia.
Comments from the source of these numbers:
'Most of these are no surprise, although it is worth noting the division in Europe, with Spain, France, Ireland, Austria, Finland and Greece voting “yes,” Germany, Czech Republic and Sweden voting “no,” and the UK, Italy and Denmark abstaining. It’s also probably worth noting that the US didn’t manage to get a “no” vote from such solid supporters as countries like Latvia (which voted “no” to bringing the motion to the General Assembly earlier this month but abstained today) and Tuvalu, Nauru and other island states that almost always support the US in international forums. Another formerly stalwart US supporter who voted for Palestine is Iceland. I remember chatting with an Icelandic diplomat during the Bush administration who had told me that after one particularly egregious instance of Washington dictating terms on what should have been a bilateral decision between Reykjavik and DC the US could no longer count on their automatic support in international forums.'
The United States has since cut off $60 million funding to UNESCO. The spokeswoman at the press conference stated that the USA criticised this unilateral move, which undermined their efforts at brokering a peace settlement in the Middle East.
Wikileaks (strongly attacked by the US government as a hostile force working against democracy) released the Palestine Papers earlier this year, revealing the true nature of this 'peace process'.
They revealed that the Palestinians had made concessions requested of them repeatedly, only to be greeted with indifference by the Israeli/US parties to the negotiations, who then demanded more:
Other papers revealed communications between Israel and the US describing policy to keep Gaza on the brink of economic collapse, without tipping it over to the abyss completely:
Noam Chomsky has been critical of US support for Israel, posing as an honest broker in peace negotiations, when its role is firmly partisan. Part of the problem is the economic benefit to the US arms industry that flows from the huge amount of aid given to Israel. The US government has promised $30 billion in military aid over the next decade. He also believes that the US contributes to a PR offensive to soften public opinion to accept an attack on Iran. The principal rationale is the allegation that Middle Eastern people want such a military offensive, when the idea comes from Middle Eastern dictators (allied with the US) rather than ordinary people:
What do you do when you want to enforce policies, but find yourself in the minority?
Bully and coerce by withdrawing funding. Go on the offensive with mis-information.
Who abstained?
Countries that rely on good relations with the USA... such as UK, Denmark and Georgia. It's easier to remain neutral than vote against and risk public ridicule.
When Israel voted against the motion, other delegates laughed.
The United States and some other western governments have taken action to starve Wikileaks of funding. They have targetted online payment conduits, banks and other financial institutions to ensure that money does not flow in for further revelations.
Professor Chomsky believes that the US government reveals itself as defiantly anti-democratic in its foreign policy action. He also thinks that the scare tactics about the threat to security by the leaks is a smokescreen. He cites the example of a study from a medical journal in Falluja (attacked by US forces in November 2004). They found levels of cancers, leukemias and other diseases higher than in the aftermath of Hiroshima. This was not covered in the US media, which focussed on Iran and Afghanistan:
From a Palestinian viewpoint it seems fruitless to continue negotiating with two parties, who have huge economic interests in delaying a resolution or allowing concessions from their side. It makes more sense to take another route and seek acceptance by a UN body responsible for humanitarian aid and cultural heritage. Trust networks within the UN have built up over time and recognise some of the attempts made by Israel to erase Palestinian territory, homes and culture. UNESCO has censored Israel several times for its treatment of Arab sites of archaeological significance (to little effect.)
It will be interesting to see what happens when the UN resolution is tabled to recognise Palestine as a separate state.
Update
Israel has today decided to speed up building 2000 new settlement homes in the West Bank and withhold funds from the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians are appealing to the UN to intervene.
The USA and Israel have long criticsed Middle Eastern governments and held Israel as a prime example of democracy in the region.
How strange that their response to democratic election processes is to punish people for 'voting the wrong way.'
Perhaps the world does not share a common perception of democracy and dictatorship.
Update 2
Canada has also announced a cut to its UNESCO funding. It would be fascinating to have heard this week's conversations across North America between US and Canadian diplomats and politicians.
Friday, 21 October 2011
Give us the money
There's a view that financial resources are a necessary pre-requisite for creativity and innovation. Some say that commercial firms won't produce anything of value unless they can find a way to monetise it.
One curious exception to this idea is the development of the internet. 'Necessity is the mother of invention' seems to have been a driving force in opening up communication between people via computer in a variety of settings. Academics and research scientists at CERN contributed to a mixture of piecemeal developments that eventually led to what we use (and take for granted today):
Tim Berners-Lee was one of the pioneers at CERN and often credited as one of the fathers of the world wide web. He has recently spoken at UK Parliamentary sub committees discussing the idea of a 2 speed internet, charging people a premium for faster data transfer. He argues passionately that web innovation developed (and continues) through a culture of cooperation, free exchange of ideas and collaboration. He describes it as a Worldwide Open Data Movement:
The European Court of Justice has recently banned the issuing of patents for embryonic stem cell research. Research companies protested that this would set back the timetable for research into cures for a range of chronic and life threatening illnesses. News reports warned that scientists and their research could migrate to other territories, where there were no legal barriers to the work. They hinted that profits from drugs would benefit other economies than our own.
On the one hand there is growing criticism of the ways in which drug companies have profited from harvesting tissue samples, stem cells and genetic code for their work, without rewarding individuals who contributted to them. Henrietta Lacks is a famous example of someone who benefitted mankind through her tissue samples, but did not gain any reward for her family.
Lawyers have already quietly shifted their strategy to patenting the drug therapies rather than the stem cells, so the argument seems to be specious.
Dennis Ritchie is another innovator who gives the lie to the 'money first' premise of creativity and innovation.
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson worked for Bell Labs (at AT & T) and were designing a complex muti-user operating system called Multics. Bell Labs stopped the project, but Ritchie and Thompson decided to continue building the operating system themselves and came up with Unics (which became Unix). As a telephone monopoly, AT & T were not legally able to sell computer products.
'So the researchers in Bell Labs did what geeks do – they gave it away to their peers in university research labs, under a licence that permitted the recipients to modify and improve it. In doing this Ritchie and Thompson unwittingly launched the academic discipline of computer science, because university departments were suddenly able to give their students software that was not only powerful (and malleable) but also free. The result was that virtually every computer science student in the world became a Unix geek in the course of his or her education.'
Graduates took their Unix experience with them to industry and continued to modify and improve it in commercial applications.
This was the catalyst for several developments. Richard Stallman founded the free software movement (GNU), following Bob Wallace's Shareware. Linus Torvalds modified Unix and released it as Linux.
C++ and Java were built on the C language that Dennis Ritchie devised. Steve Jobs used Unix as the basis for his NeXT computer workstation. He took this experience back to Apple. OS X is built on Unix and and powers all Apple products.
Money does come for good work, but not necessarily for the original patented design. It seems that holding on tight to an idea only seems to squash it, rather than sharing and helping it grow.
One curious exception to this idea is the development of the internet. 'Necessity is the mother of invention' seems to have been a driving force in opening up communication between people via computer in a variety of settings. Academics and research scientists at CERN contributed to a mixture of piecemeal developments that eventually led to what we use (and take for granted today):
Tim Berners-Lee was one of the pioneers at CERN and often credited as one of the fathers of the world wide web. He has recently spoken at UK Parliamentary sub committees discussing the idea of a 2 speed internet, charging people a premium for faster data transfer. He argues passionately that web innovation developed (and continues) through a culture of cooperation, free exchange of ideas and collaboration. He describes it as a Worldwide Open Data Movement:
The European Court of Justice has recently banned the issuing of patents for embryonic stem cell research. Research companies protested that this would set back the timetable for research into cures for a range of chronic and life threatening illnesses. News reports warned that scientists and their research could migrate to other territories, where there were no legal barriers to the work. They hinted that profits from drugs would benefit other economies than our own.
On the one hand there is growing criticism of the ways in which drug companies have profited from harvesting tissue samples, stem cells and genetic code for their work, without rewarding individuals who contributted to them. Henrietta Lacks is a famous example of someone who benefitted mankind through her tissue samples, but did not gain any reward for her family.
Lawyers have already quietly shifted their strategy to patenting the drug therapies rather than the stem cells, so the argument seems to be specious.
Dennis Ritchie is another innovator who gives the lie to the 'money first' premise of creativity and innovation.
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson worked for Bell Labs (at AT & T) and were designing a complex muti-user operating system called Multics. Bell Labs stopped the project, but Ritchie and Thompson decided to continue building the operating system themselves and came up with Unics (which became Unix). As a telephone monopoly, AT & T were not legally able to sell computer products.
'So the researchers in Bell Labs did what geeks do – they gave it away to their peers in university research labs, under a licence that permitted the recipients to modify and improve it. In doing this Ritchie and Thompson unwittingly launched the academic discipline of computer science, because university departments were suddenly able to give their students software that was not only powerful (and malleable) but also free. The result was that virtually every computer science student in the world became a Unix geek in the course of his or her education.'
Graduates took their Unix experience with them to industry and continued to modify and improve it in commercial applications.
This was the catalyst for several developments. Richard Stallman founded the free software movement (GNU), following Bob Wallace's Shareware. Linus Torvalds modified Unix and released it as Linux.
C++ and Java were built on the C language that Dennis Ritchie devised. Steve Jobs used Unix as the basis for his NeXT computer workstation. He took this experience back to Apple. OS X is built on Unix and and powers all Apple products.
Money does come for good work, but not necessarily for the original patented design. It seems that holding on tight to an idea only seems to squash it, rather than sharing and helping it grow.
Sunday, 16 October 2011
War on terror?
The USA give an annual subsidy of $3bn to an independent and affluent state. Much of it is in the form of military hardware.
The policy supports the line that Israel is conducting a war on terror.
This is part of state supported military action:
Destroying the means for a population to feed themselves and earn money from food crops does not fit into my perception of a war against terrorism.
However it does support the idea that Israel wishes to systematically remove Palestinians from land and colonise it for Israeli (non Arab Jews). That reminds me of something my parents' generation fought against as part of a world war.
Such action will continue unopposed until the USA recognises that their subsidy is used to displace, starve and destroy one ethnic group.
The policy supports the line that Israel is conducting a war on terror.
This is part of state supported military action:
Destroying the means for a population to feed themselves and earn money from food crops does not fit into my perception of a war against terrorism.
However it does support the idea that Israel wishes to systematically remove Palestinians from land and colonise it for Israeli (non Arab Jews). That reminds me of something my parents' generation fought against as part of a world war.
Such action will continue unopposed until the USA recognises that their subsidy is used to displace, starve and destroy one ethnic group.
Friday, 14 October 2011
We're all in this together.........
UK politicians tell us that cuts and economies are painful but necessary. We need to reduce government debt and deficit to secure our position in world markets and ensure that cash continues to flow into the UK and through the economy.
So far so good.
We are part of the global capitalist economy. The focus is on private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods and services for profit in a market. Profit enables businesses to expand and grow. Without profit, companies must cut their coat according to their cloth and trim expenses.
Some UK banks were in trouble and needed government assistance to survive. Some of them stopped paying dividends to shareholders until they were in balance and had made efforts to repay government loans. I have written before about interesting practices used by Bank of Ireland (supported by the Irish government), which included some sleight of hand in dealing with bond holders (who had purchased bonds in other financial institutions, only to find that BOI had taken them over and intended to squeeze them to the limit.)
This post reflects on an interesting new breed of UK capitalism.
It seems that when they don't make a profit but losses, some organisations reduce shareholder dividends, staff wages, capital spending and other outgoings. At the same time, or after a suitably discreet interval, they increase executive pay. A lot. More than the rate of inflation.
Here's the comment of one seasoned investor on this practice and his lone cry at shareholder meetings challenging the economics and ethics of it.
He quotes the reply of one non-executive to his challenge:
'Well .... you do understand it is the Chancellor that you need to blame for all this !!? You see he raised the tax up to 50% last year on all pay after £150k.'
So remuneration committees ensure that executives don't have to tighten their belts in a tough economic climate, unlike everyone else in their organisation.
Mothercare is one company that experiences this pattern.
Will Hutton, editor of the Observer, is said to be in the same boat.
Protests in the United States may spread to the UK. The focus over the Atlantic is banking profits at the expense of ordinary people's jobs. Here the socialisation of capitalism at executive pay levels seems to be a greater concern. If excessive executive pay empties the coffers of the company, the ship is sinking and the boardroom occupants are taking on board more water. Action by ShareSoc is focussed on government regulation. They want to end the practice of directors voting 18x the salary of ordinary workers for new directors and CEO (who probably had nothing to do with any profits generated). Sharesoc are here.
My complaint is a behaviourist one. B F Skinner taught us about reward and punishment through his animal experiments.
If you reward success, it's more likely to continue. If you reward failure, there's no incentive to improve the business or evaluate risk before taking action.
Clearly we're NOT all in this together.
So far so good.
We are part of the global capitalist economy. The focus is on private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods and services for profit in a market. Profit enables businesses to expand and grow. Without profit, companies must cut their coat according to their cloth and trim expenses.
Some UK banks were in trouble and needed government assistance to survive. Some of them stopped paying dividends to shareholders until they were in balance and had made efforts to repay government loans. I have written before about interesting practices used by Bank of Ireland (supported by the Irish government), which included some sleight of hand in dealing with bond holders (who had purchased bonds in other financial institutions, only to find that BOI had taken them over and intended to squeeze them to the limit.)
This post reflects on an interesting new breed of UK capitalism.
It seems that when they don't make a profit but losses, some organisations reduce shareholder dividends, staff wages, capital spending and other outgoings. At the same time, or after a suitably discreet interval, they increase executive pay. A lot. More than the rate of inflation.
Here's the comment of one seasoned investor on this practice and his lone cry at shareholder meetings challenging the economics and ethics of it.
He quotes the reply of one non-executive to his challenge:
'Well .... you do understand it is the Chancellor that you need to blame for all this !!? You see he raised the tax up to 50% last year on all pay after £150k.'
So remuneration committees ensure that executives don't have to tighten their belts in a tough economic climate, unlike everyone else in their organisation.
Mothercare is one company that experiences this pattern.
Will Hutton, editor of the Observer, is said to be in the same boat.
Protests in the United States may spread to the UK. The focus over the Atlantic is banking profits at the expense of ordinary people's jobs. Here the socialisation of capitalism at executive pay levels seems to be a greater concern. If excessive executive pay empties the coffers of the company, the ship is sinking and the boardroom occupants are taking on board more water. Action by ShareSoc is focussed on government regulation. They want to end the practice of directors voting 18x the salary of ordinary workers for new directors and CEO (who probably had nothing to do with any profits generated). Sharesoc are here.
My complaint is a behaviourist one. B F Skinner taught us about reward and punishment through his animal experiments.
If you reward success, it's more likely to continue. If you reward failure, there's no incentive to improve the business or evaluate risk before taking action.
Clearly we're NOT all in this together.
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Steve Jobs the common sense entrepreneur
That's the view of Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple computers.
Woz describes Steve Jobs as someone with a very quick mind, who thought things through. He knew when something would and would not sell. Jobs also had a clear notion of when to be ahead of the world and when to be a follower.
Woz describes Steve Jobs' legacy as someone who built Apple into a strong company with great products. The distinction is that people love the products and enjoy doing their work on them, which is rare in technology. Fans associate Steve Jobs with this because he was a manager of the tiny little details that mattered. Above all, says Woz, marketing was his greatest strength.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Woz described the last phone conversation he had with Steve Jobs. He was clearly weak, but Wozniak never asked about personal issues. Jobs reminisced about the old days and sounded his old, boyish enthusiastic self about the future and the impact that Apple had made on the world.
Eric Schmidt (of Google) has some interesting memories of Steve Jobs here.
Mona Simpson, his sister, delivered the eulogy here.
RIP
Woz describes Steve Jobs as someone with a very quick mind, who thought things through. He knew when something would and would not sell. Jobs also had a clear notion of when to be ahead of the world and when to be a follower.
Woz describes Steve Jobs' legacy as someone who built Apple into a strong company with great products. The distinction is that people love the products and enjoy doing their work on them, which is rare in technology. Fans associate Steve Jobs with this because he was a manager of the tiny little details that mattered. Above all, says Woz, marketing was his greatest strength.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Woz described the last phone conversation he had with Steve Jobs. He was clearly weak, but Wozniak never asked about personal issues. Jobs reminisced about the old days and sounded his old, boyish enthusiastic self about the future and the impact that Apple had made on the world.
Eric Schmidt (of Google) has some interesting memories of Steve Jobs here.
Mona Simpson, his sister, delivered the eulogy here.
RIP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)