NR 723 Week 3 Governance and Stakeholder Map Example

Governance and Stakeholder Map: Twelve Seats, Four Powers Each, and One Request Walked From a Course Coordinator's Desk to a Signature

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 723: Role of the Educational Leader Across Settings

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Governance and Stakeholder Map: Twelve Seats, Four Powers Each, and One Request Walked From a Course Coordinator's Desk to a Signature

How the Map Was Built

The map covers the seats that can affect a change to how clinical judgment is taught and graded in the junior-year adult health clinical course, which runs nine sections, seven of them taught by adjunct instructors. Seats were taken from documents rather than from memory: the faculty bylaws, the curriculum committee's charter, the school's organizational chart, the simulation center's booking policy, the adjunct contract template, the affiliation agreement template and the accreditor's standards for baccalaureate programs. Rows are seats, not people, because people change and seats do not.

The Map

Table 1

Seats Affecting a Change in Clinical Assignment and Grading, With Four Kinds of Power

Note. Note. Built from the bylaws, committee charter, organizational chart, booking policy, adjunct contract and affiliation template.

Not Every Seat Matters Equally

The table lists twelve seats, but only four can authorize something the change needs: the coordinator, for the assignment itself; the curriculum committee, if the change touches course outcomes; the associate dean, for paid adjunct time; and the simulation center director, for a room and staff. The rest can recommend, slow or inform. The accreditor's standards support the change, since they expect programs to assess outcomes consistently, but the accreditor will not act within a term. Distinguishing seats that authorize from seats that only need to be kept informed is what tells the coordinator where to spend time (Bolman & Deal, 2017).

What the External Standards Add

Two external bodies appear at the bottom of the map because they act slowly, but they shape every other seat's willingness. The competency framework the school adopted in 2022 requires programs to show that graduates can make clinical judgments, and to assess that competency with evidence rather than assume it (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2021). The curriculum committee and the associate dean both cite this framework in their own reports, so a request framed as meeting it is easier for them to approve. The accreditor's next site visit, in three years, will ask how the school assesses competencies consistently across sections. Neither body will intervene in a single course, but both give the seats that can say yes a reason that is not the coordinator's preference. A map that left them out would miss why the associate dean is likely to fund paid calibration at all.

The Seats That Stall Without Objecting

Two seats are easy to miss because they never say no. Payroll and human resources must create a stipend payment type for adjuncts who attend calibration sessions; there is none in the current contract template, and creating one has taken six to eight weeks in the past. Nobody in that office opposes the change, and the request could still miss the January sessions. The second is the adjunct instructors themselves: none has objected to the new assignment, but if calibration is unpaid, several will not attend, and the shared rubric will be applied seven different ways. Both seats show up on most maps as supporters, or not at all; on this one they appear as the most likely places for the change to stop.

One Request, Walked to a Signature

The request is to pay seven adjuncts to attend two ninety-minute calibration sessions in the January gap. It travels as follows. The coordinator drafts the request with costs, $1,050 for the two sessions. The chair endorses it and forwards it to the associate dean; the chair cannot approve it. The associate dean approves payment from the adjunct and overload line, which has room in January because no sections run then. Payroll creates the stipend type, the step most likely to stall, so the request goes to the associate dean in October, not December. The simulation center director books a room with two case scenarios for the second session, which must be requested by mid-October for a January date. The curriculum committee is not involved, because the new assignment fits the course's existing outcome on clinical judgment, so no syllabus outcome changes; the coordinator confirms this with the committee chair in writing to avoid a later dispute.

Where the Year's Effort Goes

The map directs effort to four places in this order: the payroll stipend type, started in October because it is slow and silent; the associate dean, because the fund holder decides whether adjuncts are paid; the adjuncts, through individual conversations about the new assignment before January; and the curriculum committee chair, to confirm in writing that no outcome change is involved. The dean's innovation fund is not needed for this request and is held in reserve for the larger proposal later in the year. The clinical judgment model the assignment is built on is already part of the national licensure context (Dickison et al., 2019), which helps with every seat but substitutes for none of the conversations above.

References

American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. https://www.aacnnursing.org/essentials

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Dickison, P., Haerling, K. A., & Lasater, K. (2019). Integrating the National Council of State Boards of Nursing clinical judgment model into nursing educational frameworks. Journal of Nursing Education, 58(2), 72-78. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20190122-03