"A qualitative approach was employed, involving in-depth semi-structured interviews. Thematic and content analyses were applied. Out of a sample of 47 participants using Flow, 18 participants consented to be interviewed."
You can't share enough information here to get really good advice. If you do this you will need someone whose advice you trust, who understands your weaknesses as well as your strengths. Could be a friend, could be a coach.
As someone else said, if you can make this a win for everyone involved, that's the best and most likely to succeed approach. To do that starts with asking good open ended questions and listening to what those with the power to make this decision want for themselves, especially the CEO, and showing them respect.
People may express confidence in you now when you're not in charge. Inevitably if you do end up in charge you'll end up less popular. If part of what motivates you is what other people think of you, be careful.
It was a breach of their guidelines to report a method of suicide, so it sounds like they were just fixing that. This is standard in the UK because of evidence showing that reporting methods can be followed by further suicides.
Suicide, Attempted Suicide, Self-Harm and Eating Disorders
5.3.45 Suicide, attempted suicide and self-harm should be portrayed with sensitivity, whether in drama or in factual content. Factual reporting and fictional portrayal of suicide, attempted suicide and self-harm have the potential to make such actions appear feasible and even reasonable to the vulnerable.
Methods of suicide and self-harm must not be included in output except where they are editorially justified and are also justified by the context. We should not include explicit details that would allow a method of suicide to be imitated.
All these guidelines are what is making BBC unreadable for me. The language they use is just so artificial. I understand why they do, and how they feel like they have a responsibility to "optimize" language for some metrics, but in my opinion what really matters is the objective reality, not the phrasing. Maybe they could report more on the NHS inability to cope with mental health patients rather than avoid using the word gunshot in a country where gun ownership is so scarce.
Agree. I thought the leverage one was the odd one out - more ego than impact. I think high impact organizations are usually made out of individually low leverage people working together
I'm curious what about Fedora specifically makes the difference for you? I started using Cinnamon with Mint (derived from Ubuntu, Debian) last year and also found it a big improvement from Windows.
I'm willing to bet its more about the "Fedora" than the "Cinnamon". I was an Arch user for about 15 years with a few attempts in between to try other distros (including Fedora), but recently I've been installing Fedora on my machines because the last two versions have been really good. Its very competent, software availability has improved, they take security much more seriously than any other (normal) distro and they are always on top of the latest features and upcoming "tech" on the linux world.
I was part of the team that set up a non-profit, was CEO of that, am CEO of another.
I suggest testing very carefully the idea that a non-profit is the best way to work on whatever idea or problem you're interested in. For-profits only have to get a successful two-way relationship between the customer and supplier and then when demand goes up, funding goes up. Non-profits have to get a successful three-way relationship between the beneficiary, the supplier, and the funder. Demand going up often doesn't mean funding goes up. There are problems that can best be tackled by non-profits but often a for-profit will have a simpler business model and better chance of financial sustainability.
There are also plenty of ways to configure a for-profit with some of the qualities of a non-profit, including employee ownership like the co-operative movement, donating a proportion of ownership/profits, having an explicit social purpose like the Body Shop or Patagonia.
I respect you for asking. Learning to manage better has never stopped for me but the difference between no training and some is massive. It will be good for you and your colleagues.
The book that has made the most difference to me as a manager is Crucial Accountability and it's very relevant to what you're asking about.
I'd really encourage you to do an intro to line management type course as well. I've never known anyone come out of one saying that was amazing but people always find them useful.
reply