| Course | NURS 4110 Leadership and Health Policy |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Self-assessment analysis |
| Length | About 770 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 4110 Week 3
Leadership Practices Inventory Self-Assessment: A Strong Model and a Missing Vision
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 4110: Leadership and Health Policy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Leadership Practices Inventory Self-Assessment: A Strong Model and a Missing Vision
Most self-assessments end with a list of strengths. This one ends with a problem worth solving. I completed the self version of Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Practices Inventory after six years as a staff nurse on a composite 24-bed cardiac step-down unit, most of them on nights. The result points to a specific gap, and that gap matters most for the role I want next: a seat on our hospital's nursing practice council, the body that reviews and revises organizational nursing policy.
The Instrument
The inventory measures five practices that Kouzes and Posner (2017) drew from accounts of leaders at their best. Four are modeling the way, encouraging the heart, challenging the process and enabling others to act; the fifth, and the one this analysis turns on, is inspiring a shared vision. Respondents rate how often they engage in behaviors linked to each practice on a frequency scale, and the self form can be paired with observer forms completed by colleagues.
The instrument has a large evidence base. Posner (2016) reviewed its psychometric properties using a normative database of nearly 2.8 million respondents and several hundred studies, and concluded that it performs reliably across settings. In nursing samples, Tourangeau and McGilton (2004) found that a three-factor solution fit the data at least as well as the original five, which is a reminder that the practices overlap. For an educational self-assessment, the five-practice version is the one that gives the most usable feedback, and it is the one I used.
Results
I am reporting the results as a ranking rather than as raw scores, because the pattern is what matters for development and a single self-rating is not a precise measurement. Modeling the way came first, with enabling others close behind in second. Encouraging the heart was third and challenging the process fourth. Shared vision came last, clearly below the other four, and the items I rated lowest within it were about describing a compelling picture of the future and talking about how others' interests could be met by working toward a common goal. I had expected my weakest area to be encouraging the heart, since I rarely celebrate wins out loud, so the actual order was a surprise.
Strengths
Model the way fits what I actually do. On nights I follow the unit's policies visibly, including the ones that are inconvenient at 0300, such as a second-nurse check on heparin rate changes. Newer nurses notice this. Two of them have told me that they started doing the double check consistently because they saw me do it when no one was watching.
Enable others to act shows up in how I precept. I let orientees make the call on low-risk decisions and then talk through their reasoning with them afterward, rather than stepping in. That builds their confidence and, over time, their judgment.
Development Areas
Inspire a shared vision is my lowest practice, and it is the costly one for the role I want. A practice council member who proposes a policy revision has to do more than show that the current policy has problems. She has to describe a future state that colleagues, managers and the chief nursing officer would choose over the present one, and explain why it serves their interests as well as hers. Kouzes and Posner (2017) describe this practice as envisioning the future and enlisting others in it. My habit is the opposite. I follow good policy faithfully and complain about bad policy privately, but I rarely describe what a better one would look like.
Challenge the process, my fourth-ranked practice, is related. I notice problems, but I usually wait for someone else to propose the fix. Together these two results describe a nurse who is dependable inside existing rules and quiet about changing them.
Implications
The finding changes what I will work on. Improving how I model the way would make me a better staff nurse, but it would not make me an effective council member. The goal I will carry into next week's development plan is to present one written evidence summary at a practice council meeting within six months, framed around the future practice it would create rather than around the problem alone. That task forces the exact behavior I rated lowest.
One limitation is that the result reflects only my own view. Before the council application, I plan to ask my manager and two colleagues to complete the observer version, since self-ratings and observer ratings can differ and the gap between them is often where the most useful feedback lies.
References
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations (6th ed.). Wiley.
Posner, B. Z. (2016). Investigating the reliability and validity of the Leadership Practices Inventory. Administrative Sciences, 6(4), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci6040017
Tourangeau, A. E., & McGilton, K. (2004). Measuring leadership practices of nurses using the Leadership Practices Inventory. Nursing Research, 53(3), 182-189. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200405000-00005
The Walden NURS 4110 Week 3 instructions
Week 3 of NURS 4110 usually asks for an analysis of a leadership self-assessment. You describe the instrument, report results, interpret strengths and development areas with examples, and state implications for your goals. Faculty mark interpretation, so listing results and promising to work on weak areas earns little. Cite the instrument and its developers in APA 7. Exact scores may be reported or summarized, depending on your section. Arguing implications against a specific goal makes the analysis concrete. Other self-assessments can follow the same structure. NURS 4110 faculty want the instrument described, results reported by practice and each one interpreted with a unit example. Argue implications against one goal. Report results by practice.
How this NURS 4110 Week 3 example is built
About three pages in the Walden template, with labeled sections for the instrument, results, strengths, development areas and implications. The instrument section describes the inventory in two sentences, its five practices and its self-rating format, without reproducing any items. Results are reported as a ranking of the five practices rather than as raw scores, which keeps the analysis about pattern: modeling the way ranks highest, inspiring a shared vision lowest. Strengths are tied to one observed behavior each, such as the author's habit of following the unit's policies visibly on nights. The development section explains why the lowest practice is the costly one, since a council member proposing a policy revision has to describe a future colleagues would choose. Implications connect the finding to a named goal the next week's development plan will carry.
Reading the NURS 4110 Week 3 rubric
Self-assessment templates are often marked on interpretation rather than disclosure. A section that lists results and then states that the author will work on the lowest one has reported without analyzing, and application rows in many rubrics sit unearned. The stronger pattern connects each finding to behavior and to a role, which is why a gap argued against a specific policy seat tends to outscore a gap described in general. Accuracy about the instrument counts in several sections, and misnaming the five practices or treating a self-rating as objective measurement costs credibility. Some rubrics credit acknowledgment of limitations explicitly. Evidence beyond the instrument itself is commonly expected, such as a source on leadership development in nursing. Template sections left thin, particularly implications, lose points that a closing paragraph cannot recover.
Common NURS 4110 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Self-assessments lose credit when they report scores and stop. Explain what each result means in practice. Another common gap is development areas framed as personality flaws. Treat them as skills to build. Writers also leave implications general. Tie them to one goal, such as a council seat. Avoid reporting only strengths. Give examples from your unit for each practice. Cite the instrument correctly. Close with the first step toward the weaker practice. Writers also forget the limits of a self-report tool, which can inflate scores. Mention them. Another frequent slip is ignoring the observer version of the inventory. Note whether peers could rate you. Keep the examples from your own unit.
Get a NURS 4110 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Supply the Week 3 template, the rubric and the name of the assessment your section assigned, and a NURS 4110 leadership inventory analysis is written around it. First one free, 24 to 48 hours. Personal results are not needed; the sample works from an invented ranking to show how a finding is argued against a role.
More NURS 4110 papers and BSN samples
- NURS 4110 Week 1: Leadership Voice Post
- NURS 4110 Week 2: Leadership Style Critique
- NURS 4110 Week 4: Advocacy Development Plan
- NURS 4110 Week 5: Policy Issue Selection Post
- NURS 4110 Week 6: Policy Stakeholder Map
- NURS 4110 Week 7: Policy Impact Post
- NURS 4110 Week 8: Advocacy Letter Draft
- NURS 4110 Week 9: Revision Response Memo
- NURS 4110 Week 10: Final Policy Brief
- NURS 4110 Week 11: Policy Voice Reflection
- NURS 4151 Week 3: PICOT Question
- NURS 4106 Week 3: Quantified Problem Statement
- NURS 4212 Week 3: Community Demographics Section
- NURS 3111 Week 3: Charting Workflow Critique
NURS 4110 Week 3 questions, answered
Does the analysis need my actual inventory scores?
Most templates ask for results, and a ranking of the five practices usually satisfies that without printing raw numbers. The example reports its composite results as a ranking, which keeps the discussion on pattern. Where a rubric requires scores, they can be added in a small table, but the analysis still has to explain what the pattern means for a role.
Why argue the gap against a policy council seat?
Because an inventory result means little until it meets a job. The course pairs leadership with policy, and a nursing practice council is where organizational policy gets revised, so it gives the lowest practice real stakes. Inspiring a shared vision matters less for a nurse following policy than for one asking colleagues to change it, which is the argument the analysis makes.
What if my section assigns a different self-assessment?
The structure transfers. Emotional intelligence measures, style questionnaires and the inventory used here all produce a pattern that can be ranked, tied to behavior and argued against a role. The example's method is the point, brief description, ranked results, one behavior per strength, a gap argued for its cost. Only the instrument section and the vocabulary change with the tool.
Where can I find a free NURS 4110 Week 3 sample paper?
The Leadership Practices Inventory analysis is printed here with the instrument, results by practice, interpreted strengths, the vision gap and implications.
Which practice scored lowest in NURS 4110 Week 3?
Inspiring a shared vision, while modeling the way scored highest on the Leadership Practices Inventory.