| Course | NR 582NP Leadership and Role Development for Advanced Nursing Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Leadership self-assessment |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, nurse practitioner core |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 582NP Week 2
Leadership Self-Assessment: An Inventory That Rated Me Highest on Enabling Others, Tested Against One Colleague I Persuaded and One Who Heard Me Out and Changed Nothing
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 582NP: Leadership and Role Development for Advanced Nursing Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Leadership Self-Assessment: An Inventory That Rated Me Highest on Enabling Others, Tested Against One Colleague I Persuaded and One Who Heard Me Out and Changed Nothing
What the Instrument Returned
I completed the self-report version of a leadership practices inventory built on Kouzes and Posner's five practices (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). My highest score was on enabling others to act; my lowest was on inspiring a shared vision. The middle three, modeling the way, challenging the process and encouraging the heart, sat close together. That is the result. The rest of this paper tests it.
Attempt 1: A Colleague Who Changed What They Did
In March, a new graduate nurse on my unit, Jordan, was hanging intravenous potassium without checking the most recent level, because the order set did not prompt it. I did not report it. I asked Jordan, at the start of a shift, whether we could look at the next potassium order together. We pulled up the lab value, found it was eight hours old, and called for a recheck before hanging. I then asked Jordan to show me how the order set looked on the screen, and we found the place where a lab link could go. Jordan brought the idea to the unit's practice council the next month, under Jordan's own name. The council added the link.
What I did: worked alongside rather than corrected, made the next step small and let Jordan carry the idea forward. That fits the inventory's high score on enabling others. Jordan was free to ignore me and chose not to.
Attempt 2: A Colleague Who Heard Me and Carried On
In June, I tried to persuade our day charge nurse, Pat, to stop assigning the two sickest patients on the unit to the same nurse when admissions were expected. I raised it at a huddle with data from three shifts. Pat listened, said "that's a fair point," and the next week's assignments looked exactly the same.
What happened: I presented a pattern and a request. I did not ask what Pat was protecting. Later I learned that Pat paired the sickest patients deliberately so that one experienced nurse would hold them, instead of spreading risk across two less experienced nurses. My argument never touched that reason. I had a vision of a fairer assignment but did not connect it to what Pat cared about.
This is where the inventory's lowest score shows up in practice. Inspiring a shared vision means building a picture the other person wants too. I built a picture only I wanted.
A Third Data Point, From a Conflict
The conflict mode instrument I completed for week 3 adds to this picture. My default under pressure is accommodating (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977). In the potassium episode, accommodating worked: I set aside my own wish to correct Jordan and let Jordan lead. In the assignment episode, accommodating failed: when Pat said "that's a fair point," I accepted the polite answer and did not press for the real reason. The same habit helped in one case and hurt in the other, depending on whether the other person had more or less authority than I did.
What the Test Shows
The instrument was partly right. My strength is in close, one-to-one work where I can make the next step small for someone else. My weakness is in persuading someone with more authority, where I present a case and stop. The inventory called the weakness "vision"; I would call it failing to ask what the other person is protecting.
The instrument also missed something. It rated me moderately on challenging the process, but in both attempts I challenged a process. The difference between them was not whether I challenged but how I listened, and to whom.
What I Will Do Differently
In the next attempt to influence someone with more authority, I will ask what they are protecting before I present anything, and I will build the proposal around that. A review of nursing leadership found relational approaches associated with better staff outcomes than task-focused ones (Cummings et al., 2018), and my failed attempt was the more task-focused of the two.
Why Self-Report Needs Testing
An inventory I fill in about myself captures my own view of my behavior. People tend to rate themselves on what they intend, not on what others observe. The potassium episode and the assignment episode are tests the inventory cannot run on its own: one shows the behavior producing change in someone else, the other shows the same intentions producing nothing. Together they say more than the scores do.
How I Would Approach Pat Now
I would start with a question: "When you put the two sickest patients with one nurse, what are you trying to prevent?" If the answer is spreading risk across less experienced nurses, I would ask whether there is a way to protect against that while still giving the nurse holding both patients some relief on admission nights, such as the charge nurse taking the first admission. That proposal would start from Pat's interest, not mine.
What Others Said
I showed this paper to Jordan, who said the potassium episode felt like being helped, not corrected. I did not show it to Pat. When I asked a senior colleague who knows us both whether my account of the assignment episode was fair, the colleague said it was, and added that Pat respects data but distrusts proposals that arrive without first asking about the reasons behind current practice.
What the Middle Scores Mean
The three practices in the middle, modeling the way, challenging the process and encouraging the heart, did not separate in either episode. I modeled checking a lab value with Jordan; I challenged a process with Pat; I encouraged Jordan to take the idea to council. Close middle scores may mean these practices are used together rather than that they are equally strong.
Limits of This Assessment
It rests on a self-report instrument and two episodes. A colleague-rated version of the inventory would test whether others see what I see, and I have asked two colleagues to complete it. If their ratings, when they come back next month, differ from mine on enabling others or on inspiring a shared vision, the difference itself will be the next thing to test.
References
Cummings, G. G., Tate, K., Lee, S., Wong, C. A., Paananen, T., Micaroni, S. P. M., & Chatterjee, G. E. (2018). Leadership styles and outcome patterns for the nursing workforce and work environment: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 85, 19-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.04.016
Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The "MODE" instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(2), 309-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447703700204
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge (6th ed.). Wiley.
What the NR 582NP Week 2 assignment asks for
The Week 2 self-assessment treats the instrument result as a claim to be tested rather than a finding to report. Record what the tool returned in one compressed passage. Then test it against two attempts at influence you can describe: one where a colleague changed what they did, and one where a colleague heard you out and carried on exactly as before. The failed attempt usually teaches more. Most rubrics mark down a flattering paper where every subscale is a strength, a result reported and never argued with and influence described in the abstract with nobody named who was persuaded. Expect to say what the instrument got right and what it missed. A short closing section on what you would do differently in the failed episode turns the assessment into a plan.
How the NR 582NP Week 2 example is put together
The sample states the inventory's highest and lowest practices in one paragraph. The first episode follows a new graduate who was hanging potassium without checking levels, through working alongside rather than correcting, to the graduate taking the idea to the practice council. The second follows a charge nurse who listened to a request about assignments and changed nothing, and what the writer later learned was being protected. A section adds the conflict mode result. Further sections cover why self-report needs testing, what the test shows, what the middle scores mean, a new approach to the charge nurse, a colleague's view and the limits of the assessment.
Reading the NR 582NP Week 2 grading rubric
The most expensive paper is the flattering one, every subscale a strength and one weakness repaired in the same paragraph; this sample makes its failed episode the center. A result reported and never argued with comes next, with paraphrased descriptors and no moment from practice, while this paper tests the result against two named episodes. Influence described in the abstract loses a row, and both episodes here name the person and what they did afterward. Using a second instrument to explain both outcomes earns the analysis marks. Stating the assessment's limits completes the honesty criterion. The closing approach to the charge nurse shows the result was used rather than filed.
NR 582NP Week 2 help from the desk
Weak NR 582NP Week 2 papers read every result as a strength. Others paraphrase the instrument's descriptions for pages. Many describe the writer as collaborative without naming anyone who was persuaded. The failed attempt is often missing, which is the episode that teaches most. Some papers never say what the instrument missed. Choose one success and one failure you can describe in detail, and let them argue with the score. Name the person in each episode and say what that person did next. If your instrument differs, send its result and two episodes, and a sample can test one against the other.
Get a NR 582NP Week 2 example written to your instructions
Give us the assignment file, the template your section posted and the name of whatever inventory you completed, plus two lines on the attempts at influence you plan to use. A custom example is written to that brief and comes back inside 24-48h. The first one is free, and what you submit remains your own.
More NR 582NP papers and MSN samples
- NR 582NP Week 1: Leadership Without a Title Post
- NR 582NP Week 3: Conflict Case Analysis
- NR 582NP Week 4: Interprofessional Communication Plan
- NR 582NP Week 5: Change Proposal
- NR 582NP Week 6: Role Transition Plan
- NR 582NP Week 7: Negotiation Brief
- NR 582NP Week 8: Professional Portfolio Piece
- NR 581NP Week 2: Scope of Practice Brief
- NR 565 Week 2: Thiazide Drug Class Write-Up
- NR 545 Week 2: Mechanism Write-Up
- NR 507 Week 2: Case Analysis
NR 582NP Week 2 questions, answered
What if my instrument result looks accurate?
Then say so and prove it with the two episodes, which makes a perfectly strong paper. Agreement is not the problem; unexamined agreement is. A reader wants the result held against something that happened, so a paper concluding that the tool got it right, here is where, and here is where it nearly did not, earns everything on offer.
Is a failed attempt at influence safe to write about?
It is the safest material in the assignment, provided you write behavior rather than blame. Describe what you asked, what the other person did, and what you now think you misjudged. Faculty read a great many papers in which everything the writer tried worked, and the one reporting a colleague who declined reads as the only honest document in the batch.
How much of the paper should be about the new role?
A closing section rather than half the document. This week assesses the person, and the transition work has its own assignment later in the term. What belongs here is a single link: the trait you identified, and the specific moment in advanced practice where it stops being covered by a policy and starts being covered by you.
Where can I find a free NR 582NP Week 2 sample paper?
The full self-assessment testing an inventory against a success and a failure is published on this page.
What did the failed episode show in the NR 582NP Week 2 self-assessment?
That the writer presented a request without asking what the charge nurse was protecting, which the inventory's low score on shared vision had hinted at.