| Course | NURS 6201 Leadership in Nursing and Healthcare |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Leadership self-assessment |
| Length | About 530 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 6201 Week 2
Leadership Self-Assessment: What Weak Self-Regulation Predicts on a Bad Shift
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6201: Leadership in Nursing and Healthcare
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Leadership Self-Assessment: What Weak Self-Regulation Predicts on a Bad Shift
The Instrument and Its Limits
I completed a self-report emotional intelligence inventory organized around the four domains described by Goleman et al. (2002): self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management. The measure has an obvious limit. It asks me to rate myself, and people's self-ratings tend to be only modestly related to their actual behavior, with most people rating themselves above average (Dunning et al., 2004). I have therefore treated the result as a pattern to test, not a measurement to trust.
The pattern was clear enough. My strongest domain was social awareness: I read the mood of a room and notice when a nurse is struggling. My weakest was self-management, which the inventory framed as self-regulation under pressure. I am not reporting the scores, because a single self-rating is not precise enough to deserve a number.
One Predicted Behavior
If self-regulation is my weak point, the prediction is specific: under pressure, I will decide aloud before the charge nurse has finished reporting, and then defend the decision rather than revisit it. A leader who reads people well but cannot hold back under stress will sense the problem early and then act on half the information.
The prediction is useful precisely because it can be wrong. If I am right about myself, the pattern should appear on any night when pressure and incomplete information arrive together.
Testing the Prediction Against a Night on Record
Three months ago, on a night with two sick calls and a rapid response already under way, the charge nurse phoned me at 1915. My account and hers, written separately the next day for our staffing review, sit side by side below.
1915: She began to report the sick calls. My account says I "listened to the situation." Hers says I interrupted after the first sentence to say I would pull a nurse from the step-down unit.
1920: She tried to add that the rapid response patient might transfer to intensive care, which would free a nurse. My account does not mention this. Hers says I said the float was already arranged.
1945: The patient transferred. The floated nurse arrived to a unit that no longer needed her, and the step-down unit ran short for the rest of the night.
The prediction holds. I decided in the first minute and defended the decision after new information arrived. My own account did not record the interruption at all, which is itself a finding about the limits of self-report.
Carrying the Prediction Forward
The first live week of team nursing will be the highest-risk week for this behavior. Every assignment will be new, team leaders will call with problems I have not seen before, and I will be tempted to solve each one before hearing it out. That matters for more than efficiency. In a large survey of Alberta nurses during hospital restructuring, leadership styles built on emotional intelligence were associated with fewer negative effects on nurses than dissonant styles (Cummings et al., 2005). During go-live week, I will ask the charge nurses to tell me if I interrupt, and I will count how often they do.
References
Cummings, G., Hayduk, L., & Estabrooks, C. (2005). Mitigating the impact of hospital restructuring on nurses: The responsibility of emotionally intelligent leadership. Nursing Research, 54(1), 2-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200501000-00002
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business School Press.
Reading the NURS 6201 Week 2 instructions
NURS 6201 Week 2 asks what a leadership inventory predicts about your own behavior. You describe the instrument and its limits, predict a behavior from your results, test the prediction against an experience and plan forward. Faculty penalize results restated in prose and reward an observable behavior. Cite the instrument's framework in APA 7. If the prediction turns out wrong, say so; that is still analysis. This week often connects to later leadership assignments. Any validated inventory can be used. NURS 6201 faculty want the instrument named with its domains, its limits stated, one behavior predicted from the weakest domain and the prediction tested against a real shift. End with a plan.
Inside the NURS 6201 Week 2 example
Paragraph one identifies the instrument and admits its limits: a self-report measure organized around Goleman's four domains, answered by the person being measured. Her result is described as a pattern, strong on social awareness and weakest on self-regulation, with no score reported as though it were a lab value. The second part converts that pattern into one predicted behavior: under pressure she decides aloud before the charge nurse has finished reporting, then defends the decision. A past night with two sick calls and a rapid response supplies the test, told hour by hour, with the charge nurse's account placed beside her own. The final part carries the prediction into the first live week of team nursing, when every assignment will be new.
NURS 6201 Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks
An inventory result restated in prose is the commonest submission this week, and it collects little, because the criteria look for a behavior somebody could have watched. Much of the grade sits on application, so the night with two sick calls outweighs the paragraph describing Goleman's model. Honesty about the instrument is credited on its own: treating a self-rating as objective invites a comment under critical thinking. A charge nurse's differing account strengthens rather than weakens the paper, since readers favor evidence the author did not control. Sources are expected on emotional intelligence among nurse leaders specifically, not only in business settings. Smaller losses gather where a result is reported with more precision than any self-rating could bear, and where the forecast never connects to the change the course is built around.
NURS 6201 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Self-assessments lose the most when the score is restated in sentences. Predict a behavior. Another common gap is ignoring the instrument's limits. Name them. Writers also test the prediction vaguely. Use a specific shift. Avoid listing every domain score. Focus on the weakest. Plan a concrete change. Keep the shift de-identified. End with the sign that the new habit is taking hold. Writers also forget to ask a colleague whether the prediction rings true. Mention it. Give the plan a trigger, the moment the pause begins. Keep the shift story brief. Close with the sign the plan is working.
Get a NURS 6201 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Tell the desk which inventory your section assigned, what the prompt wants done with the result and the length limit, and a self-assessment drafted from a composite manager's result is returned. Free for the first custom sample, 24 to 48 hours. Your own inventory report never has to leave your hands, since the example is built without it.
More NURS 6201 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6201 Week 1: Discussion Post
- NURS 6201 Week 3: Leadership Style Analysis
- NURS 6201 Week 4: Team Conflict Case Analysis
- NURS 6201 Week 5: Discussion Post
- NURS 6201 Week 6: Change Management Plan
- NURS 6201 Week 7: Stakeholder Analysis
- NURS 6201 Week 8: Discussion Post
- NURS 6201 Week 9: Communication Plan
- NURS 6201 Week 10: Leadership Development Plan
- NURS 6201 Week 11: Reflection
- NURS 6221 Week 2: Discussion Post
- NURS 6053 Week 2: Competing Needs Post
- NURS 6223 Week 2: Adverse Event Analysis
- NURS 6052 Week 2: Search Iteration Log
NURS 6201 Week 2 questions, answered
Which inventory does this sample use?
A self-report emotional intelligence measure organized around Goleman's four domains. If your section assigns a different instrument, such as a style questionnaire or a leadership practices inventory, the finished paper keeps the same shape: the tool's limits, the weakest result, one behavior it predicts, and a shift that tests the prediction. The instrument's name changes while the order of the argument holds.
Is it a problem if the prediction turns out wrong?
Not at all, provided the paper says so. A prediction that fails on the test shift is still evidence, and it usually produces the more interesting paragraph, because the author then has to explain what the inventory missed. Criteria in this course reward that reasoning. When every shift an author picks agrees with the inventory, readers start to wonder how the shifts were picked.
How does this week connect to later assignments?
The same composite manager and the same team nursing change run through the whole course, so this week's weak domain resurfaces. The week 3 style analysis has to suit a leader who decides aloud under pressure, and the week 10 development plan takes the predicted behavior as its target. Your own course may order these differently, and your classroom's sequence wins.
Where can I find a free NURS 6201 Week 2 sample paper?
The weak self-regulation self-assessment is reproduced here with the instrument and limits, the predicted behavior, the night it was tested and the plan forward.
Which behavior does the NURS 6201 Week 2 assessment predict?
That on a bad shift the writer will answer a family's complaint too quickly and defensively, a prediction tested against a real night.