| Course | NU 651 Leading and Managing in Complex Organizations |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder power and interest map |
| Length | About 820 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 651 Unit 3
Who Can Stop a Discharge Lounge: A Stakeholder Power and Interest Map and the Order of Conversations
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 651: Leading and Managing in Complex Organizations
Instructor Name
February 6, 2026
Who Can Stop a Discharge Lounge: A Stakeholder Power and Interest Map and the Order of Conversations
The Change and the Decision Point
The change: open a 12-chair discharge lounge on the first floor of the composite 300-bed community hospital, staffed by a registered nurse and a patient care technician from 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, where patients cleared for discharge can sit in comfort while a ride, medications, or paperwork catches up, freeing their inpatient beds hours earlier. It requires $380,000 to renovate a former outpatient laboratory waiting area and about 2.1 full-time equivalent staff. The decision point that matters most is the system capital committee's spring meeting, which ranks capital requests from all five hospitals; the staffing depends on the hospital's operating budget, which the chief financial officer and president control. Nurse-staffed discharge lounges have been described as a patient flow solution that moves ready patients out of inpatient beds earlier in the day (Woods et al., 2020).
Method
Each party touching the change is placed by power, meaning what it can do to the change, whether approve, block, delay, or undermine it in practice, and by interest, meaning what it stands to gain or lose. The classic sorting by power and interest is a starting point, not an answer; the useful work lies in understanding each party's stake and planning how to engage it (Bryson, 2004). Stakeholder analysis in health policy has been criticized when it becomes a list of names without a plan for action, so this map ends with a sequence of conversations (Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000).
The Map
The table lists each party, its power and interest, its likely stance, and what it gains or loses.
| Party | Power over this change | Interest | Likely stance | What they gain or lose |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chief nursing officer | High: sponsor; owns nursing staffing | High | Supportive | Gains progress on boarding; loses nursing hours to the lounge |
| Hospital president | High: final operating approval; presents at capital committee | High: boarding is on the system dashboard | Open | Gains a visible fix; risks spending on an unproven model |
| Chief financial officer | High: operating budget | Medium | Skeptical | Loses $380,000 in capital and new staff cost; gains only if beds turn over faster |
| Vice president, support services | High: controls the space | Low to medium | Neutral | Loses space he planned for storage |
| System capital committee | High: ranks capital | Low: competing requests | Neutral to skeptical | Other hospitals want the same money |
| Hospitalist group director | Medium: discharge order timing determines lounge use | Medium | Uncertain | Gains earlier bed availability; loses control if patients are moved before he sees them |
| Emergency department medical director | Medium: medical executive committee seat | High | Strong ally | Gains fewer boarders |
| Unit charge nurses | Low formally, high in practice: decide who goes to the lounge | High | Divided | Gain beds; fear patients sent down before truly ready |
| Pharmacy director | Medium | Medium | Neutral | Must deliver discharge medications to a new location |
| Patients and families | Low | High | Unknown | Comfort while waiting; worry about being moved |
Reading the Map
Three findings shape the plan. First, the parties with the most formal power, the chief financial officer, the capital committee, and the support services vice president, have the least interest, so they will not engage on their own and must be approached with arguments in their terms: cost, comparison with other requests, and space. Second, the charge nurses have little formal power but decide daily whether the lounge is used; a lounge that is funded but that charge nurses do not trust will sit empty. Their concern that patients might leave before they are ready is legitimate, and the published evaluation of discharge lounge use and readmissions will be shared with them (Emmerling et al., 2020). Third, the emergency department medical director has high interest and useful power on the medical staff side, which makes him the best messenger to the hospitalist group.
The Order of Conversations
1. Chief nursing officer, this week: confirm sponsorship and agree that she will present the staffing request with me. Ask: her commitment to reallocate 1.0 nurse position from float pool vacancies.
2. Charge nurses on the four busiest units, over two weeks: present the idea as a draft and ask them to write the criteria for who may go to the lounge. Ask: two volunteers to join the design group. Doing this before the finance conversation gives me their criteria and their support as evidence.
3. Emergency department medical director: ask him to raise the lounge with the hospitalist director and at the medical executive committee. Ask: a letter of support.
4. Hospitalist group director, jointly with the emergency department medical director: agree that the attending physician's discharge order, not a nurse's judgment, determines eligibility. Ask: support for a pilot.
5. Vice president of support services: discuss the space before any document names it. Ask: agreement to release the space, in exchange for help finding storage elsewhere.
6. Chief financial officer, with the chief nursing officer: present the bed hours freed per day, the cost per bed hour compared with opening a new inpatient bed, and the staffing plan. Ask: agreement to support the operating cost if capital is approved.
7. President: present the full package with the letters of support. Ask: sponsorship at the capital committee.
8. Capital committee, spring meeting, presented by the president.
What Could Still Go Wrong
If the chief financial officer does not support the operating cost, the capital request will fail even if it ranks well, so conversation 6 is the true gate. If the charge nurses' criteria are too restrictive, the lounge will be underused and the numbers promised to finance will not appear. I will track both risks and return to the relevant party before the capital meeting, not after. One more risk is timing: the capital committee meets quarterly, and if the conversations run past the spring deadline, the request waits three months. The sequence above is planned to finish two weeks before the submission date, which leaves room for one conversation to slip. If the vice president of support services will not release the space, a smaller lounge in a converted family waiting room on the second floor is the fallback, at lower cost but with fewer chairs.
References
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239
Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030410001675722
Emmerling, S. A., Fisher, M. C., & McGarvey, J. (2020). The use of a patient discharge lounge and the impact on 30-day hospital readmission. Journal of Nursing Administration, 50(11), 590-597. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000942
Woods, R., Sandoval, R., Vermillion, G., Bates-Jackson, B., Nwankwo, A., Canamar, C. P., & Sarff, L. (2020). The discharge lounge: A patient flow process solution. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 35(3), 240-244. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000469
The Herzing NU 651 Unit 3 instructions
Unit 3 asks you to map the stakeholders for a change you want to lead and plan how to engage them. Expect to define the change and the decision point, identify stakeholders, assess each one's power and interest, present the results in a grid or table, interpret the map and plan engagement. Many versions use a power-interest grid, Bryson's stakeholder techniques or a similar model. Some sections cap the list at eight or ten parties, so read the prompt before you start. Define power and interest in your own terms before rating anyone, so the ratings are consistent. Describe roles rather than naming individuals. The engagement plan is often where the analysis proves its worth, so set out who you will talk to first, what you will ask and why that order makes sense.
How the NU 651 Unit 3 example is put together
The paper opens with the change and the decision point, so it is clear what stakeholders could stop. The method section defines power and interest precisely. The map is a table with five columns for each party, giving power, interest, stance and gains or losses. The reading section draws three findings, which turns the table into strategy. The conversation plan is numbered and dated, with each entry naming what to ask for. Its order follows from the map: sponsors first, then those with high interest who can shape the proposal, then those with formal power who need to see support already assembled. The risks section identifies the single conversation that would sink the request if it went badly and what the leader would do then.
NU 651 Unit 3 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing grades a stakeholder map on the definition of the change, the identification of stakeholders, the assessment of power and interest, the interpretation, the engagement strategy and writing. Identification points reward a complete list that includes less obvious parties, such as transport staff or the bed placement office. Assessment criteria look for consistent ratings with reasons attached to each. Interpretation is often heavily weighted, giving full credit when the paper draws strategic conclusions rather than restating the grid in prose. The engagement row rewards a sequenced plan with specific asks and dates. Some rubrics include a risk criterion for the conversation most likely to fail. Graders also look for a grid that can be read at a glance and for Bryson's 2004 article and Emmerling and colleagues cited correctly in APA 7.
Common NU 651 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The usual Unit 3 weakness is a grid with stakeholders placed in quadrants and no explanation of why. Another frequent issue is leaving out parties with informal power, such as frontline staff who can undermine a change in practice. Students often treat interest as support, though a party can care a great deal and oppose the change. Engagement plans without order or specific requests add little. Naming real people creates problems if the paper is shared. Some maps include every department in the hospital, diluting the analysis. Finally, identify what each stakeholder gains or loses, because that column explains their likely stance and makes the engagement plan believable.
Get a NU 651 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 3 instructions and the rubric from your NU 651 classroom, plus the change you are mapping and the approval it has to win. We write a custom example with power and interest assessed separately, the informal parties included and an ordered engagement sequence attached, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 651 papers and MSN samples
- NU 651 Unit 1: Organizational structure assessment
- NU 651 Unit 2: Coordination mechanism selection
- NU 651 Unit 4: Negotiation preparation document
- NU 651 Unit 5: Competing capital bid
- NU 651 Unit 6: Service integration analysis
- NU 651 Unit 7: Governance and committee review
- NU 651 Unit 8: Organizational change dossier
- NU 760 Unit 3: Annotated bibliography
- NU 780 Unit 3: Population health paper
- NU 480 Unit 3: Practice boundary matrix
- NU 602 Unit 3: Standardized rate comparison
NU 651 Unit 3 questions, answered
Which grid or model should the map use?
Take whichever the instructions name. If the choice is left to you, a two-axis power and interest grid is defensible, widely cited and easy for a reader to check, and it leaves room for the engagement section that carries most of the credit. Whatever you adopt, state the criteria behind each placement, because an unexplained dot in a corner is an assertion rather than an analysis.
How many stakeholders belong on it?
Enough to cover the approval and the adoption, which is usually eight to twelve roles rather than thirty. Include whoever signs, whoever pays, whoever staffs it and whoever has to change their day once it exists. A long list padded out with departments that will never hear about the change dilutes the analysis and buries the four parties who decide the outcome.
Can the map name real people?
Write roles, not names. Role titles keep the analysis transferable and keep you clear of committing something about a colleague to a file you cannot control. If your instructions ask for a real organizational context, describe positions and their leverage, leave judgments about individuals out of it, and keep anything confidential where you found it.
Where can I find a free NU 651 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page shows the full NU 651 Unit 3 discharge lounge stakeholder map for free, the table, findings and conversation order. A custom map can be built for the change you plan to lead.
How do I make a stakeholder power and interest map for a nursing project?
Define power and interest first, rate each party consistently, place them in a table with likely stance and gains or losses, then decide whom to talk to first. This sample orders conversations so sponsors and high-interest groups come before the final approvers.