NR 504 Week 4 Nursing Team Development Analysis Example

Course	NR 504 Leadership and Nursing Practice: Role Development
Week	4
Paper type	Team development analysis
Length	About 1,120 words, 3 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Chamberlain University
Program	MSN
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NR 504 Week 4

Team Development on a Mother-Baby Unit I Used to Belong To: Fifty-Six People Counted, Three Problems Timed by When the Floor Knew and When I Did, and a Quiet That Was Not Agreement

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 504: Leadership and Nursing Practice: Role Development

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title shows the team is counted before it is characterized and that the evidence is timing, which is what the analysis turns on. Student APA 7 title page.

Team Development on a Mother-Baby Unit I Used to Belong To: Fifty-Six People Counted, Three Problems Timed by When the Floor Knew and When I Did, and a Quiet That Was Not Agreement

Count Before Characterizing

The team is the nursing staff of a 26-bed mother-baby unit; I spent nine years there on staff and the last seven weeks as its clinical coordinator. It has 56 people: 44 registered nurses, 9 nursing assistants and 3 unit secretaries. Of the nurses, 22 work mainly days, 18 mainly nights and 4 rotate. Eleven nurses joined in the past twelve months, seven of them new graduates, and two are travel nurses on 13-week contracts. The median length of time a day nurse has worked on the unit is six years; on nights it is three.

Of the 22 day nurses, I worked beside 17 for at least three years. Of the 18 night nurses, I know six well. That difference turns out to matter more than any stage model, and it is the first thing the analysis has to hold in view.

Three Clocks per Problem

For three problems in my first seven weeks, I reconstructed three times: when the floor knew, when I knew, and who was told first.

Table 1

Three Problems and Their Clocks, Weeks 1 to 7

Problem	Floor knew	I knew	Told first
Infant security tag reader at the east exit failing intermittently	Night of week 2, about 0200	Next morning, 0740, at huddle	Night charge nurse told security and the day charge nurse
New graduates feeling unsafe with four couplets plus a baby under phototherapy	Break-room talk through weeks 3 and 4	Week 5, when one new graduate mentioned it to her preceptor, who mentioned it to me	Preceptors, informally
Two senior day nurses in open disagreement over discharge teaching order	Week 2, at the desk, in front of staff	Week 6, from the manager	The manager, by one of the two nurses

Note. Times reconstructed from huddle notes, my calendar and conversations with staff.

The Pattern the Clocks Show

In each case I was told last, or nearly last, and the lag grew from hours to weeks as the problem became more about people than equipment. The broken reader reached me in under six hours because it was a safety fault with a clear owner. The new graduates' concern took about two weeks and came to me only through a preceptor. The disagreement between two senior nurses took four weeks and reached me through the manager, even though I am on the unit every day and the two nurses are people I have known for years.

The pattern is not that staff are hiding things from me. It is that the routes information used to take on this unit, from peer to peer and from charge nurse to manager, have not yet changed to include a new position. On the day I was promoted, I stepped out of the peer route and had not yet been let into any other.

What this page is doingTiming evidence reveals a pattern that no description of the team's mood could, which is the reason for the three clocks.

Stages as Diagnosis

Tuckman (1965) set out four stages that small groups pass through, forming, storming, norming and then performing, and Tuckman and Jensen (1977) added adjourning. Read as a diagnosis rather than a list, the model suggests that the unit is not one team at one stage.

The day shift, stable for years, was in a performing stage before my promotion. My move changed its structure: a member left and returned above it. In Tuckman's terms, that change sends a group back toward forming, in which members test what the new arrangement allows. The quiet on day shift, in which nobody has said anything difficult in front of me for seven weeks, reads at first like a settled team. The four-week lag on the discharge teaching dispute suggests otherwise. The disagreement is real and open among staff; it is only closed in front of me. That is a storming stage that has gone underground, which is harder to manage than open conflict because it cannot be addressed.

Nights look different. With a shorter median tenure and seven new graduates, the night shift is still forming as a group in its own right, independent of me. The new graduates' concern traveled slowly because nights have fewer established routes of any kind, not because anyone was avoiding me.

I Am One of the Variables

An honest analysis has to count me as part of the problem. On days, I am the person who changed the group. Some of the day nurses were my closest colleagues, and at least two of them applied for the job I got. Those facts shape what they tell me. A disagreement between two senior nurses is exactly the kind of thing one would not bring to a former peer who now has a say in scheduling and evaluations, especially if one of the nurses applied for the role.

On nights, my variable is absence. I work days, I know six night nurses well, and my huddles are at 0700 and 1500. The new graduates' concern could not reach me quickly because there was no regular point where night staff and I are in the same room with time to talk.

Making the Early Problem Cheap

The aim is not to be told everything, but to make it cheap for someone to tell me a problem early, when it is still small. Three changes follow from the analysis.

First, I will add a two-minute question at every huddle: "What's something small that's bugging you?" It is a low-cost way to surface issues before they become disputes, and asking it every day makes answering it ordinary rather than a complaint.

Second, I will come in at 0630 twice a week to spend thirty minutes with the night shift before their report. That puts me in the room with the new graduates at a time when they are still on duty and can talk.

Third, for the discharge teaching dispute, I will meet each senior nurse separately, tell each that I know about the disagreement and why it matters for patients, and ask each what a good outcome would be. Bringing it into the open in private first makes it safer to settle in public. None of these changes will close the gap quickly, but each makes the clock between the floor knowing and me knowing a little shorter.

References

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404

What the NR 504 Week 4 assignment asks for

The Week 4 analysis has you assess the development of a team you lead or belong to. Prompts generally ask for the team itself, evidence about how it functions, a team development model, your role in its dynamics, strategies for improvement and APA. Count the team before characterizing it, including shifts, tenure and your history with each group. Gather evidence that shows behavior, such as when problems reached you. Use a development model as a diagnosis tied to that evidence. Count yourself as one of the variables. Propose changes that make it cheaper for people to tell you about problems early. Keep the analysis to what you observed.

Inside the NR 504 Week 4 example

The count section lists 56 staff and the writer's history with each group. Table 1 reconstructs three problems with three clocks each, from huddle notes, a calendar and conversations. The pattern section shows lags growing from hours to weeks as problems became interpersonal, and explains that old routes for information, peer to peer and charge nurse to charge nurse, no longer included the writer. The stages section uses Tuckman and Tuckman and Jensen to diagnose the day shift as re-forming after a member returned above it, and nights as forming with seven new graduates. The variable section names the writer's effect on days and absence on nights. Three changes follow: a two-minute huddle question, early visits to nights and separate meetings with two senior nurses.

Where the points sit in the NR 504 Week 4 rubric

Team development rubrics in NR 504 usually reward a clear description of the team, evidence of team functioning, accurate use of a development model, self-awareness, practical strategies and APA. Evidence is the row this analysis is built around, and it earns credit by timing problems with three clocks rather than describing mood. The team description is credited for counts and history. The model scores because Tuckman's stages diagnose each shift from the evidence. Self-awareness earns points because the writer is counted as a variable on both shifts. Strategies are credited for making early reporting cheap with specific, small changes. Two references complete APA.

Common NR 504 Week 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The most expensive analysis recites a model with no team beneath it, defining five stages in order while the group never appears. Another loss is describing team morale in adjectives instead of evidence. Students also leave themselves out of the analysis, diagnose the whole team as one stage or propose large programs instead of small changes. A team that is not underperforming can still be analyzed for how information moves. A named model is usually expected. You can analyze a team you belong to without managing it. Describe your team and a recent problem, and an NR 504 analysis can time it with three clocks.

Get a NR 504 Week 4 example written to your instructions

Send the assignment instructions, the scenario if one is supplied, and the rubric, and we will write a custom NR 504 team analysis to those exact requirements. Where you would rather not describe your own unit, a supplied scenario does the job just as well. The first example is free and is delivered inside 24-48h.

More NR 504 papers and MSN samples

NR 504 Week 4 questions, answered

My team is not underperforming. Is there anything to analyze?

Usually more than in a struggling one. A team that delivers can still be routing its problems around the person in charge, and a paper that finds this in a well run unit reads as observant rather than as complaint. Where the prompt supplies a scenario, work inside it and use your own team only for the parts the scenario leaves open.

Does a named team development model have to appear?

Follow the prompt, since many sections name one and it then has to carry the analysis rather than open it. Where the choice is yours, pick the model making a claim you can test against your evidence. One that explains why a group avoids disagreement is worth more here than one that simply labels the stage a team is in.

Can I write about a team I do not manage?

Yes, and many sections expect it. Membership is enough, because the timing evidence this analysis runs on is visible from inside the group. Say plainly where you sit, since a reader needs to know whether the late problems were reaching you late or somebody else, and strip anything that would identify the unit or the people in it.

Where can I find a free NR 504 Week 4 sample paper?

This page shows the complete Week 4 team analysis of a mother-baby unit, with the staff count, the three-clock table, the pattern, Tuckman's stages, the writer as variable, three changes and two references.

What pattern do the three clocks show in the NR 504 Week 4 analysis?

The coordinator was told last or nearly last each time, and the lag grew from hours to weeks as problems moved from broken equipment to disagreements between people.