FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W276557550> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W276557550 startingPage "7" @default.
• W276557550 abstract "Part one of a three-part series More complex decisions, system diversity and higher stakes require effective board decision processes. In the first article of a series, the problems associated with ineffective board decision processes are examined. Additional articles will address effective processes and rural electric examples of effective board decision-making processes. Why boards need to think about decision processes Rural electric boards are facing tougher decisions today than they ever had to face in the past. Why are the decisions tougher? For one thing, issues are more complex today. The best solutions are often not the most obvious ones. Rather than line extension policies, for example, the issue is more likely to be retention of territory. For another thing, system missions are more diverse today, and a solution that works for one system may be anathema to another. Economic development, sorely needed in many rural communities, may be the source of many of the problems that the rapidly growing suburban system is struggling to manage. Finally, the stakes are higher. Rural electrics exist because, historically, no one else wanted to serve their territories. Today, many of these same service territories are looking a lot more appealing to potential competitors. These new types of issues, often involving competition and politics, have no simple, straightforward, correct solutions. Rural electric boards can best address them by gathering information and considering alternatives. In order to be better solution finders, boards need effective ways of arriving at decisions - effective decision processes. Without effective decision processes, directors who shoot from the hip will make serious mistakes. Boards that jump to conclusions will make many more bad decisions than good. The first solution may no longer be the best solution. What can happen in the boardroom Let's look at what can happen when directors address issues in ineffective ways. Director A, for example, suggests that the board take a certain action. He or she speaks persuasively in favor of that action. Several other directors seem to be in agreement. Then Director B asks a question, or perhaps raises an objection. In an ideal board room, directors may stay calm and listen to each other. Through open discussion, board members need to exchange concerns about the idea. They may discover that their differences are much smaller than their areas of overall agreement. The solution that emerges may be somewhat different from Director A's original idea, since it has been adjusted to accommodate Director B's objection. If this is what happens, the board is likely to arrive at a solution that is consistent with the best interests of the rural electric system. But if discussion gets off track... Too often, though, the board discussion is reduced to directors defending their own opinions. The more directors talk, the more each becomes convinced of his or her own opinion. Director C may speak up to repeat or reinforce what Director A said. Director D may jump in to support Director B. At this point, the real danger is that the directors will take sides on the issue. If this happens, open discussion generally stops. Instead, board members take turns attempting to persuade each other of what have now become their hardened positions on the issue. If this is the way the board deals with differences, there are only two possible resolutions. The first is a win-lose resolution: one side gets its way; the other side loses. Losers may not be willing to put the loss behind them. When win-loss resolutions become the norm, there may be a tendency for the board to split - for directors to form voting blocs. Instead of a board working together to come to conclusions in the best interests of the rural electric system, the group can become a microcosm of a legislature, and cease to function as a board. …" @default.
• W276557550 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W276557550 creator A5019189614 @default.
• W276557550 date "1994-12-22" @default.
• W276557550 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W276557550 title "Board Decision Processes: The Problem" @default.
• W276557550 hasPublicationYear "1994" @default.
• W276557550 type Work @default.
• W276557550 sameAs 276557550 @default.
• W276557550 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W276557550 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W276557550 hasAuthorship W276557550A5019189614 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C127576917 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C2779304628 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C2780378061 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C2781316041 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C42475967 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C91306197 @default.
• W276557550 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C10138342 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C127413603 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C127576917 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C144024400 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C144133560 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C162853370 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C17744445 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C182306322 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C18903297 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C199539241 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C2779304628 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C2780378061 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C2781316041 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C36289849 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C39549134 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C41008148 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C42475967 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C86803240 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C91306197 @default.
• W276557550 hasConceptScore W276557550C94625758 @default.
• W276557550 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W276557550 hasLocation W2765575501 @default.
• W276557550 hasOpenAccess W276557550 @default.
• W276557550 hasPrimaryLocation W2765575501 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W125754071 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W1967925329 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W1972272322 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W1997033499 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W201342201 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W210628678 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W2319004975 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W2323527749 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W2443666602 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W265796036 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W278209714 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W291836812 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W2953590509 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W301147982 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W301771666 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W308936235 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W2610590251 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W2613280735 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W2766808599 @default.
• W276557550 hasRelatedWork W3144801981 @default.
• W276557550 hasVolume "35" @default.
• W276557550 isParatext "false" @default.
• W276557550 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W276557550 magId "276557550" @default.
• W276557550 workType "article" @default.