| Course | HLTH 8465 Strategic Planning: Collaboration, Cooperation, and Coordination |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Partnership peer critique post |
| Length | About 500 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | doctoral health administration program |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8465 Week 6
Week 6 Discussion: Responses to Classmates
Peer Critiques: Who Is Likeliest to Say No, and Does the Plan Survive Without Them?
Reply to Lauren
Lauren, you write that "all three hospitals will share the cost and benefit of a regional nurse residency." I think the plan's weakest point is the smallest of the three hospitals. It hires only a handful of new graduate nurses each year, so it would gain the least from a shared residency, while paying a share of the coordinator's salary and releasing its own educators to teach in the program. Of the three, it has the clearest reason to decline.
In Fisher, Ury and Patton's terms, its best alternative to a negotiated agreement is concrete: continue training its few new graduates in-house, as it does now, at a cost it already knows (Fisher et al., 2011). Any agreement has to be better for it than that. A cost share based on equal thirds is unlikely to be.
My question: does your plan survive if the smallest hospital stays out? If the two larger hospitals could run the residency on their own and offer seats to the smallest hospital at a per-nurse fee, you might get a plan that works with or without it, and the smallest hospital could join later at lower risk.
Reply to Marco
Marco, your plan says the housing and health coalition "will track shared measures of housing stability and emergency department use." The partner I would worry about is the housing authority. Its funders already require it to report on its own measures, which are set by federal and state programs and may not match the coalition's. Adopting the coalition's measures would mean reporting twice, and its staff may be judged on the federal measures regardless of what the coalition decides.
Its best alternative is to keep participating at the level of sharing information while declining to adopt the shared measures. That is a real alternative, and it costs the housing authority little. Resource dependence theory suggests it will resist any arrangement that makes it more dependent on partners whose priorities differ from its funders' (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).
My question: could the coalition's shared measures be built from data the housing authority already reports, so that joining costs it no extra reporting? If not, does the plan still work if the housing authority shares data but does not adopt the measures?
A Note on Both Plans
Both plans could be strengthened by asking the same question of every partner: what is its best alternative, and is the agreement better than that for it? Adding partners would multiply holdouts rather than resolve one, and each new partner brings its own best alternative to weigh, so a reduced-scope version that works without the likeliest holdout may be the more durable starting point. Huxham and Vangen note that partnerships often stall when the costs of collaborating fall unevenly on members (Huxham & Vangen, 2005); naming the holdout early is one way to see that unevenness before it stalls the plan.
References
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
Reading the HLTH 8465 Week 6 instructions
Peer critiques in a collaborative strategy course often ask you to test a classmate's coalition. Quote a line from the classmate's plan at the start, so the critique is anchored in what they wrote. Name the partner most likely to decline and give a reason rooted in that organization's position, such as its size, its funders or what it would pay. State that partner's best alternative to agreeing in concrete terms, not as a label. Then ask one question the classmate can take into their next post, ideally whether the plan survives with that partner gone or at reduced scope. Avoid affirming the plan's vision or suggesting more partners, which multiplies holdouts. Keep the two replies roughly equal in length and do not end either on praise.
Inside the HLTH 8465 Week 6 example
The reply to Lauren quotes her plan, names the smallest hospital as the likely holdout because it hires few new graduates and would pay a share of the coordinator, states its alternative of training in-house, citing Fisher, Ury and Patton, and asks whether the residency works without it. The reply to Marco quotes his plan, names the housing authority because its funders set different measures, states its alternative of sharing data without adopting measures, citing Pfeffer and Salancik, and asks whether the measures could use data it already reports. A closing note cites Huxham and Vangen. Both replies stay roughly equal in length, and neither ends on praise; each closes on its question.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 8465 Week 6 rubric
Critique replies collect their points by finding something the classmate missed. Replies that affirm a plan's vision and suggest adding more partners earn little on engagement, since adding partners multiplies holdouts rather than resolving one. The strongest share goes to a named holdout with a reason rooted in that organization's position. The best alternative to agreement is credited when stated concretely, and loses value when used as a label. Asking about reduced scope earns additional credit because it gives the classmate a way forward. Quoting the classmate's own words shows careful reading. Replies that end on praise rather than a question lose engagement credit.
Common HLTH 8465 Week 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Peer critiques of coalition plans often praise the shared vision and suggest inviting more stakeholders. That rarely helps. Read the classmate's plan and ask which partner gains least and pays most; that partner is the likely holdout. Write down what it would do instead of joining, as specifically as you can. Then ask whether the plan could work without it, or with it joining later at lower cost. One well-aimed question gives the classmate more to work with than a list of suggestions. We can draft peer critiques that name the likeliest holdout in a classmate's plan and test whether the plan survives without it. Anchoring each reply in a quoted line keeps the critique tied to what the classmate actually proposed.
Get a HLTH 8465 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Paste in the two classmate posts you need to answer along with the Week 6 prompt and rubric, and matching replies return inside 24-48 hours; the first sample is free. Classmates' words shape the response and are not kept afterward, and the example here answers plans written for teaching.
More HLTH 8465 papers and doctoral health administration program samples
- HLTH 8465 Week 1: Collaborative Strategy Framing Post
- HLTH 8465 Week 2: Collaboration Continuum Post
- HLTH 8465 Week 3: Resource Dependence Analysis
- HLTH 8465 Week 4: Collaborative Strategic Brief
- HLTH 8465 Week 5: Network Governance Memo
- HLTH 8465 Week 7: Partnership Agreement Analysis
- HLTH 8465 Week 8: Partnership Setback Discussion Post
- HLTH 8465 Week 9: Interagency Conflict Case Paper
- HLTH 8465 Week 10: Partnership Counterargument Brief
- HLTH 8465 Week 11: Partnership Synthesis Paper
- HLTH 8430 Week 6: Projection Peer Critique Post
HLTH 8465 Week 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 8465 Week 6 sample paper?
Both peer critiques can be read on this page for free.
Who is the likely holdout in the HLTH 8465 Week 6 nurse residency critique?
The smallest hospital, which hires few new graduates and would pay a share of the coordinator's salary.
What is that hospital's best alternative?
Continuing to train its few new graduate nurses in-house, at a cost it already knows.
Who is the likely holdout in the housing coalition critique?
The housing authority, whose funders require measures that may not match the coalition's shared measures.
What question does each reply ask?
Whether the plan survives without the holdout, or with a reduced scope that costs the holdout less.