NURA 6053 Discussion Workplace Environment Assessment Walden

NURA 6053 Discussion Workplace Environment Assessment Walden

Leadership Week 7 Initial Post

Results of the Clark Health Workplace Inventory concluded that the organization I am employed with is a moderately healthy

workplace (Clark, 2015). I am surprised that the results fell in the category they did, I expected a lower score. The reasoning behind

the score I expected was because of the current pandemic. Employees are leaving for higher paying jobs and many have been

unhappy with the stress caused by the pandemic. However, the employees of the organization share the same vision to improve

the lives of the community and we have leaders that are open to listening to our concerns, maintaining a civil work environment. I

was also surprised by the emphasis by the assessment regarding employee self-care and teamwork. Even during the pandemic, our

organization as encouraged self-care giving quiet rooms with massage chairs and our manager has been available even on

weekends and late at night to ensure the unit’s needs are being met. During the stress and chaos of the pandemic, I moved to the

intensive care unit. I was met by a unit that was constantly full of high acuity patients than normal even for the ICU. However, I

found that the team worked well together and communicated effectively presenting a work environment that was civil and healthy

and I am proud to be apart of .

The main idea that I had regarding the results was that the organization runs smoothly because of the shared mission, values

and goals of the organization. Christus Good Shepherd’s mission is to extend the healing ministry of Jesus Christ with core values of

dignity, integrity, excellence, compassion, and stewardship. The vision of Christus Health is to be a leader and advocate in the

creation of innovative health and wellness solutions to improve the lives of the individuals of the community so that all may

experience the healing love of Jesus Christ (Christus Health, 2021). However, as shown by the results of the assessment not falling

in the top category, the current pandemic has put a strain on certain aspects including competitive pay and tension in everyday

work.

One instance where I have felt that I had an uncivil encounter was when I was in the ICU and one of the physicians started yelling

orders at me during a stressful situation and griping in front of the patient that it was late in the day to be inserting lines and such.

Clark (2015) states that the most effective way to stop incivility is to address it when it occurs. However, this takes practice and

requires effective communication and competent dialogue. At the time, I was unable to address the physician outside of the

patient’s room, however I have a wonderful team that did address it with the doctor. The team member gently spoke with the

physician in the appropriate environment and reminded him that we are all exhausted, but that appropriate communication is

essential to decrease work stress between staff and provide safe and effective patient care. Working under conditions of civil

communication, promotes role performance of team members (Liu, et. al., 2020). Even under stressful working conditions, it is

important for each team member to promote a civil working environment to support optimum work performance of each team

member.

 

References

 

Christus Health (2021). Christus Health: Our vision, mission, and values. Retrieved from https://www.christushealth.org/about/our-

mission-values-and-vision

 

Clark, C.M. (2015). Conversations to inspire and promote a more civil workplace. American Nurse Today, 10(11), 18-23. Retrieved

from .

 

Liu, Y., Vashdi, D. R., Cross, T., Bamberger, P., & Erez, A. (2020). Exploring the puzzle of civility: Whether and when team civil

communication influences team members’ role performance. Human Relations, 73(2), 215–241. https://doi-

org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1177/0018726719830164

Discussion: Workplace Environment Assessment

How healthy is your workplace?

You may think your current organization operates seamlessly, or you may feel it has many issues. You may experience or even observe things that give you pause. Yet, much as you wouldn’t try to determine the health of a patient through mere observation, you should not attempt to gauge the health of your work environment based on observation and opinion. Often, there are issues you perceive as problems that others do not; similarly, issues may run much deeper than leadership recognizes.

There are many factors and measures that may impact organizational health. Among these is civility. While an organization can institute policies designed to promote such things as civility, how can it be sure these are managed effectively? In this Discussion, you will examine the use of tools in measuring workplace civility.

NURA 6053 Discussion Workplace Environment Assessment Walden

To Prepare:

• Review the Resources and examine the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory, found on page 20 of Clark (2015).
• Review and complete the Work Environment Assessment Template in the Resources.

By Day 3 of Week 7

Post a brief description of the results of your Work Environment Assessment. Based on the results, how civil is your workplace? Explain why your workplace is or is not civil. Then, describe a situation where you have experienced incivility in the workplace. How was this addressed? Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 6 of Week 7

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by sharing ideas for how shortcomings discovered in their evaluations and/or their examples of incivility could have been managed more effectively.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 7 Discussion Rubric

 

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 7

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 7  Discussion

Module 4: Communication and Relationship Building (Weeks 7-9)

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Diagnosis: Communication Breakdown [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

• Assess work environments for workplace civility
• Analyze strategies to address workplace incivility
• Analyze evidence-based theories for promoting organizational health
• Recommend strategies for improving workplace environments

Due By	Assignment
Week 7, Days 1–2	Read the Learning Resources. Compose your initial Discussion post.
Week 7, Day 3	Post your initial Discussion post. Begin to compose your Assignment.
Week 7, Days 4-5	Review peer Discussion posts. Compose your peer Discussion responses. Continue to compose your Assignment.
Week 7, Day 6	Post two peer Discussion responses.
Week 8, Days 1-7	Continue to compose your Assignment.
Week 9, Day 1-6	Continue to compose your Assignment.
Week 9, Days 7	Deadline to submit your Assignment.

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Broome, M., & Marshall, E. S. (2021). Transformational leadership in nursing: From expert clinician to influential leader (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

• Chapter 5, “Collaborative Leadership Contexts: It Is All About Working Together (pp. 155–178)
• Chapter 8, “Creating and Shaping the Organizational Environment and Culture to Support Practice Excellence” (pp. 237–272)
• Chapter 7, “Building Cohesive and Effective Teams” (pp. 212–231)

Select at least ONE of the following:

 

 

 

 

 

Required Media

 

Laureate Education (Producer). (2009a). Working with Groups and Teams [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_6053_Module04_Week07_Discussion_Rubric

		Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Main Posting		Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.   Supported by at least three current, credible sources.   Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.   At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.   Supported by at least three credible sources.   Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s).   One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.   Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.   Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.   Post is cited with two credible sources.   Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.   Contains some APA formatting errors.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.   Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.   Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.   Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.   Contains only one or no credible sources.   Not written clearly or concisely.   Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.   Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness		Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3.
First Response		Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.   Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.   Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.   Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.   Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.   Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are missing.   No credible sources are cited.
Second Response		Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.   Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.   Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.   Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.   Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.   Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are missing.   No credible sources are cited.
Participation		Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6053_Module04_Week07_Discussion_Rubric