| Course | HLTH 8392 The Language of Leadership |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Narrative brief |
| Length | About 700 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8392 Week 8
Narrative Brief: A Health Department's Signature Story of "The Week We Never Closed" During a River Flood, Read Through Ganz's Public Narrative, and What Its Story of Us Leaves Out About Who Waited Longest and Who Paid for the Heroism
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 8392: The Language of Leadership
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Narrative Brief: A Health Department's Signature Story of "The Week We Never Closed" During a River Flood, Read Through Ganz's Public Narrative, and What Its Story of Us Leaves Out About Who Waited Longest and Who Paid for the Heroism
The Story
In a county and along a river both invented for this brief, the health department tells a story about itself at every new employee orientation, in its annual report and in the director's speeches. Six years ago, the river crested at a record level. Two of the department's three buildings flooded. Staff moved clinics into a church hall and a school gym, ran a shelter health station around the clock, distributed tetanus shots and well-water test kits, and kept the vital records office open from a borrowed laptop. "We never closed," the story goes. "Not one day." It ends with the director at the time sleeping on a cot in the gym.
Public Narrative
Ganz (2011) described public narrative as a leadership practice that links three stories: a story of self, why the speaker is called to act; a story of us, what values and experiences a community shares; and a story of now, the urgent challenge that calls the community to act together. Stories work by communicating values through specific moments of challenge, choice and outcome, so that listeners feel what matters rather than being told.
The flood story is a strong story of us. Its challenge is the flood, its choice is to keep serving and its outcome is that the department never closed. It communicates values clearly: endurance, improvisation and service. New employees learn that this is a place where people show up.
What the Story of Us Leaves Out
Every story selects. The flood story's selections are revealing.
It leaves out who waited longest. The department never closed, but its services did not reach everyone equally. Residents of a low-lying neighborhood of mobile homes, where many older and disabled people lived, waited three days for well-water testing because the department's mobile team went first to areas with better road access. Residents who spoke only Spanish found the first notices posted in English. The story's claim, "not one day," is true of the department's doors and less true of its reach.
It leaves out who paid for the heroism. Staff worked 16-hour days for nearly two weeks. Several later described the period as the worst of their careers. Two nurses who had young children at home left the department within a year. The cot in the gym is told as dedication; it could also be told as a sign that the department had no relief staffing plan.
It leaves out what changed. The story ends with endurance, not learning. It does not mention the after-action review, which recommended a mutual aid agreement with neighboring counties and a translation protocol for emergency notices, or whether those recommendations were adopted.
Why the Omissions Matter
A story of us teaches newcomers what the organization values. A story that celebrates never closing may teach that the right response to crisis is to work without limit, and that the measure of success is staying open rather than reaching the people at greatest risk. Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) described sensegiving as influencing how others understand an organization and its direction; a signature story is one of an organization's most powerful sensegiving tools, and what it omits is part of what it teaches.
Does Examining Omissions Mean the Story Is Dishonest?
No. The events happened, and the staff's effort was real. Every story leaves things out. Fairhurst and Sarr (1996) described stories as one of the framing tools leaders use, effective precisely because they select and simplify. The question is whether the omissions shape behavior in ways the organization would not choose if it saw them.
A Revised Story
The brief suggests a revised version that keeps the challenge and the effort and adds two moments: the neighborhood that waited, and the decision afterward to sign mutual aid agreements and translate notices. That version would teach endurance and learning together, and its story of now could point to the next flood season, which is what a public narrative's third part is for.
References
Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Ganz, M. (2011). Public narrative, collective action, and power. In S. Odugbemi & T. Lee (Eds.), Accountability through public opinion: From inertia to public action (pp. 273-289). World Bank.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
The Walden HLTH 8392 Week 8 instructions
Students analyze a story an organization tells about itself, using a narrative framework from the readings. The brief should retell the story as the organization tells it, explain what it communicates using the framework, and examine what it leaves out and why that matters. Faculty expect fairness: the analysis should not accuse the organization of dishonesty for ordinary selection. A revised or extended version of the story is often welcome. About four pages is typical. Specific omissions, supported by the case, are more persuasive than general claims that the story is one-sided. The brief should also say what those omissions teach new members of the organization.
Inside the HLTH 8392 Week 8 example
The opening retells the flood story in the department's own terms. A section explains Ganz's three linked stories and reads the flood account as a story of us about endurance, improvisation and service. A section lists three omissions: who waited longest, who paid for the heroism and what changed afterward. A section explains why omissions matter for what newcomers learn, citing Gioia and Chittipeddi on sensegiving. A short section answers whether examining omissions means the story is dishonest, citing Fairhurst and Sarr on stories as framing tools. The final section proposes a revised story that adds the neighborhood that waited and the decisions that followed, with a story of now pointing to the next flood season.
Reading the HLTH 8392 Week 8 rubric
Narrative briefs are graded on whether they read the story closely and examine its effects. A brief that summarizes the story and praises or attacks it earns middle marks. The rubric rewards accurate use of a narrative framework, specific omissions supported by the case, and an argument about what the story teaches. Faculty value fairness to the people whose effort the story honors. A revision that keeps the story's strengths while adding what was missing shows constructive judgment. Clear organization and correct citations finish the grade. A brief that shows how the story shapes current behavior, such as expectations of unlimited overtime, demonstrates why the audit matters.
HLTH 8392 Week 8 help from the desk
Students auditing an organizational story often either celebrate it or debunk it. Neither is the task. To write a stronger brief, retell the story as the organization does. Use a framework to say what it accomplishes. Then ask who appears in it and who does not, what it counts as success and what it leaves after the ending. Say what those choices teach new members. Propose a version that keeps the story's truth and adds what it missed. Show how the story shapes current behavior. Keep the revision short and in the organization's own voice, so it could actually be told at orientation. We can audit a story your own organization tells, using the same framework.
Get a HLTH 8392 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 8 prompt and rubric along with the story being examined, whether a speech, a web page or an annual report; a narrative brief built on Ganz's three parts is delivered within 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If the section assigns a different narrative framework, the analysis runs on that instead.
More HLTH 8392 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8392 Week 1: Leadership Language Post
- HLTH 8392 Week 2: Merger Talk Rhetorical Analysis
- HLTH 8392 Week 3: Burnout Framing Critique
- HLTH 8392 Week 4: EHR Announcement Audience Analysis
- HLTH 8392 Week 5: Weekend Rotation Message Design
- HLTH 8392 Week 6: Shared Burden Phrase Reply
- HLTH 8392 Week 7: Program Closure Difficult Message
- HLTH 8392 Week 9: Vaccine Storage Crisis Analysis
- HLTH 8392 Week 10: Consolidation Communication Plan
- HLTH 8392 Week 11: Annotated Leadership Address
- HLTH 8317 Week 8: Aid Formula Discussion Post
- HLTH 8247 Week 8: Vaccination Campaign Critique
- HLTH 8242 Week 8: TIDieR Intervention Draft
- HLTH 8202E Week 8: Cognitive Pretest Plan
HLTH 8392 Week 8 questions, answered
Where do organizational stories come from for this assignment?
Anniversary speeches, about-us pages, annual reports, orientation materials and award nominations all carry them. Choose one told repeatedly, since repetition shows the story does identity work. If you use your own organization's story, remove identifying details. A composite, like the sample's flood department, also works when your section prefers it.
What is public narrative?
Marshall Ganz's account of how leaders motivate collective action through three linked stories: a story of self explaining why the leader is called to act, a story of us describing shared values and experience, and a story of now presenting an urgent challenge and a choice. The framework is useful for critique because a missing part shows.
Does examining omissions mean the story is dishonest?
Not necessarily. Every story selects, and the brief does not accuse the department of lying. It asks what the selection accomplishes and whom it leaves out. Your analysis is stronger when it assumes ordinary selection rather than deliberate concealment, then shows why the omissions still matter for what the organization believes about itself.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8392 Week 8 sample paper?
You can read the complete Week 8 narrative brief here; it audits a health department's flood story through Ganz's public narrative and identifies who it leaves out, with three references.
What does the revised story add?
The neighborhood that waited longest for well-water testing and the decisions made afterward, such as mutual aid agreements and translated notices, so the story teaches learning as well as endurance.