Ethical Constructs and Leadership Style

Ethical Constructs and Leadership Style Essay Paper

Ethical Constructs and Leadership Style Essay Paper help

For this Assignment, you evaluate an issue and consider how you could act as a moral agent or advocate, facilitating the resolution of the issue for a positive outcome.

Ethical Constructs and Leadership Style essay assignment

Student paper example
Citing Sources
The Writing Center is a great resource

To prepare for Ethical Constructs and Leadership Style:

Consider the examples of leadership demonstrated in this week’s media presentation and the other Learning Resources.
To further your self-knowledge, you are required to complete the Kiersey Temperament as indicated in this week’s Learning Resources. Consider your leadership style, including your strengths for leading others and include your results from Kiersey Temperament Sorter to describe potential challenges related to your leadership style.
Mentally survey your work environment, or one with which you are familiar, and identify a timely issue/dilemma that requires you to perform the leadership role of moral agent or advocate to improve a situation (e.g., speaking or acting on behalf of a vulnerable patient, the need for appropriate staffing, a colleague being treated unfairly).
What ethical, moral, or legal skills, dispositions, and/or strategies would help you resolve this dilemma? Define the differences between ethical, moral, and legal leadership.
Finally, consider the values and principles that guide the nursing profession; the organization’s mission, vision, and values; the leadership and management competencies addressed in this course; and your own values and reasons for entering the profession. What motivation do you see for taking a stand on an important issue even when it is difficult to do so?

To complete the Ethical Constructs and Leadership Style assignment: USE ALL THE 4 RESOURCES INCLUDING THE MEDIA AS REFERENCES FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT
Write a 4 page paper (page count does not include title and reference page, The School of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references.) that addresses the following:

Introduce the conceptual frameworks of the ethical constructs of ethics, moral, or legal standards and the purpose of the paper.
Consider an ethical, moral, or legal dilemma that you have encountered in your work environment and describe it.
Analyze the moral, ethical, and legal implications utilized in this situation. Describe your role as a moral agent or advocate for this specific issue.
Consider your leadership styles identified by your self-assessment and determine if they act as a barrier or facilitation during this dilemma

REFERENCES/MEDIA

Readings
•Marquis, B. L., & Huston, C. J. (2015). Leadership roles and management functions in nursing: Theory and application (8th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. ◦Chapter 4, “Ethical Issues
•Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R. P., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on followers’ ethical decision-making in the face of temptation: An experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 581-594. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.001
•Disch, J. (2014). Using Evidence-Based Advocacy to Improve the Nation’s Health. Nurse Leader, 12(4), 28-31. doi:10.1016/j.mnl.2014.05.003
•Martin, M. B. (2014). Transcultural Advocacy and Policy in the Workplace: Implications for Nurses in Professional Development. Journal for nurses in professional development, 30(1), 29-33. doi: 10.1097/NND.0000000000000027
Name: Discussion Rubric

Grid View
List View

	Excellent 90–100	Good 80–89	Fair 70–79	Poor 0–69
Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.	40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources.	35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references.	31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to 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. Cited with fewer than two credible references.	0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). 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 references.
Main Posting: Writing	6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) 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 Posting: Timely and full participation	9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.	9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response: Writing	6 (6%) – 6 (6%) is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully 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.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
First Response: Timely and full participation	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.	9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response: Writing	6 (6%) – 6 (6%) is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully 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.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response: Timely and full participation	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100