| Course | NU 726 Professionalism and Leadership for Advanced Practice |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Leadership model application paper |
| Length | About 1,000 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 726 Unit 3
Leading Without Authority: Applying Kouzes and Posner's Five Practices to an Unused Catheter Removal Protocol
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 726: Professionalism and Leadership for Advanced Practice
Instructor Name
February 5, 2026
Leading Without Authority: Applying Kouzes and Posner's Five Practices to an Unused Catheter Removal Protocol
The Model
Kouzes and Posner (2017) describe exemplary leadership as five practices that can be learned and observed: model the way, by clarifying values and setting an example; inspire a shared vision, by describing a future others want and enlisting them in it; challenge the process, by seeking opportunities to improve and experimenting in small steps; enable others to act, by building trust and increasing others' competence and choice; and encourage the heart, by recognizing contributions and celebrating progress. The model was chosen because it does not depend on positional authority. Its practices describe what anyone does when others follow them willingly, which fits the position of a nurse practitioner who influences a unit's practice without supervising its staff.
The Situation
I am a nurse practitioner on the hospitalist service of a composite 200-bed community hospital, assigned to a 32-bed medical unit. Eighteen months ago, the hospital approved a nurse-driven protocol allowing registered nurses to remove indwelling urinary catheters without a physician order when the patient no longer meets any of the listed indications. Nobody opposed it. Nobody uses it. A chart review I conducted of 40 catheterized patients on the unit found that nurses removed catheters under the protocol in 3 cases; in the other 37, catheters remained until a physician or nurse practitioner wrote an order, a median of 2.1 days after the last documented indication had ended. The unit's catheter-associated urinary tract infection rate is above the hospital's target.
The evidence that nurse-driven removal works is strong. Reminder systems and stop orders reduced catheter-associated urinary tract infections by about half in a meta-analysis (Meddings et al., 2010), and a national prevention program that combined technical and cultural changes, including nurse-driven removal, reduced infections on general units (Saint et al., 2016). The problem is not evidence, and it is not opposition; in a year and a half, no one has argued against the protocol at a staff meeting, in a survey, or in a complaint. It is that the nurses on this unit do not act on a protocol they are allowed to use.
I have no authority over the nurses; they report to the nurse manager. I cannot mandate use of the protocol. Whatever changes must happen through influence.
Understanding Why the Protocol Sits Unused
Before applying the model, I asked seven nurses, individually, why they did not use the protocol. Their answers clustered around three reasons. First, fear of blame: "If I pull it and the patient retains, the doctor will ask who told me to." Second, habit: the catheter question is not part of the nurses' shift assessment, so it arises only when a prescriber raises it. Third, uncertainty about the protocol: four of seven could not name its indications. None said they disagreed with removing unnecessary catheters. These answers shape which practices matter most.
Applying the Five Practices
Model the way. I began with my own behavior. On rounds, I now ask about every catheter at every patient, and when a patient no longer meets an indication, I say to the nurse, "This one meets the protocol; you can take it out," rather than writing an order myself. Writing the order would solve the individual case and undermine the protocol.
Inspire a shared vision. At a unit meeting, I did not present infection rates first. I described a patient from the previous month, with permission and without identifying details, who developed a urinary infection and delirium after a catheter stayed in two extra days, and asked what the unit would look like if no patient kept a catheter a day longer than needed. The nurses described that future themselves: fewer infections, fewer confused patients at night, fewer catheter-related falls.
Challenge the process. With the nurse manager's agreement, we proposed a small experiment: for one month, the catheter question would be added to the nurses' morning safety huddle, with the charge nurse asking, "Who has a catheter, and does it still meet an indication?" This tests a change to the process, not a demand on individuals.
Enable others to act. The fear of blame was the most important barrier, so I asked the hospitalist group to state in writing that nurses removing catheters under the protocol were acting correctly, and that any retention afterward would be managed without blame. I also created a pocket card with the indications and the bladder scan steps for monitoring after removal.
Encourage the heart. At the end of each week, the charge nurse posts the number of catheters removed under the protocol on the unit board, and I thank individual nurses by name at huddle when they remove a catheter, describing the specific patient benefit rather than offering general praise.
What Changed in What I Do
The model changed my own behavior in concrete ways. I stopped writing removal orders for eligible patients, which felt slower at first. I spent time interviewing nurses before presenting data, which reversed my original plan to open with the infection rate. I sought a written statement from physicians, which I would not have thought necessary before identifying fear of blame as the main barrier. After one month, nurses removed 19 of 31 eligible catheters under the protocol, and the median delay after the last indication fell to under one day.
Limits of the Model Here
The five practices explained most of what worked, but the model says little about the structural change that mattered most: adding the catheter question to the huddle. That change came from the nurse manager's authority, not from my influence. The model describes what I could do; it does not describe how influence depends on a partner who holds authority. In this situation, leading without authority meant leading alongside it. The next test of the change is durability: whether the huddle question survives the next staffing crisis, which is when habits usually return, and whether nurses keep removing catheters once the weekly count stops being posted.
References
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations (6th ed.). Wiley.
Meddings, J., Rogers, M. A. M., Macy, M., & Saint, S. (2010). Systematic review and meta-analysis: Reminder systems to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections and urinary catheter use in hospitalized patients. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 51(5), 550-560. https://doi.org/10.1086/655133
Saint, S., Greene, M. T., Krein, S. L., Rogers, M. A. M., Ratz, D., Fowler, K. E., Edson, B. S., Watson, S. R., Meyer-Lucas, B., Masuga, M., Faulkner, K., Gould, C. V., Battles, J., & Fakih, M. G. (2016). A program to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection in acute care. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(22), 2111-2119. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1504906
The Herzing NU 726 Unit 3 instructions
The Unit 3 assignment asks you to analyze a leadership situation using a recognized leadership theory or model. Expect to describe the model and its key concepts, present a situation from practice, and show how the model explains what happened or guides what should happen. Many versions ask you to evaluate the model's usefulness and reflect on your own leadership behavior. Common models include transformational leadership, servant leadership and Kouzes and Posner's five practices, but check whether your section restricts the choice. First person is usually acceptable because the situation comes from your practice. A situation where you led without formal authority works well for advanced practice roles. Support the clinical part of the situation with evidence too, such as research on catheter-associated infection.
Inside the NU 726 Unit 3 example
The paper begins with a compact description of the five practices from Kouzes and Posner's own text, using their exact names. The situation section establishes the unit, the protocol and the problem with one clear fact: it existed but was not used. Before applying the model, the paper reports what the nurses said, which gives the analysis real material to work with. Each practice is then applied under its own label, describing specific actions such as asking about every catheter on rounds and leaving the removal decision to the nurse. A short section names what changed in the writer's own behavior. The final section is honest that the model explains personal influence well but says little about the structural change that mattered most.
NU 726 Unit 3 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing rubrics for a leadership analysis generally give points for describing the theory, presenting the situation, applying the theory, evaluating the theory, self-reflection, and writing. The theory criterion rewards accurate description with primary sources. Situation points require enough detail to make the analysis meaningful. Application is typically the largest criterion, earning full credit when each concept is linked to specific behaviors and events rather than described abstractly. Evaluation points go to papers that identify the model's limits as well as its strengths. Self-reflection is scored on concrete changes in the student's own approach. Writing points cover organization, scholarly tone, appropriate first person and APA 7 citations, including evidence for the clinical problem, such as Meddings and colleagues' review of reminder and stop-order interventions.
NU 726 Unit 3 help before you submit
The most frequent Unit 3 problem is describing the leadership model at length and then applying it in a single paragraph. Another is choosing a situation where nothing happened, which leaves the model with little to explain. Students often apply concepts loosely, for example calling any encouragement transformational without showing the specific behaviors involved. Evaluation is often missing, and a paper that only praises its model loses points. Self-reflection that stays general, such as I learned to be a better leader, earns little. Leaving the clinical evidence unsupported weakens the situation section. If your situation involves colleagues, keep them unidentifiable. Finally, cite the model's original authors rather than a secondary textbook, since graders look for the primary source.
Get a NU 726 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 3 instructions and the rubric from your NU 726 classroom, plus the model and the situation if either has been assigned. We write a custom example that applies the framework to a scenario with real resistance in it, and return it in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 726 papers and MSN samples
- NU 726 Unit 1: Professional role paper
- NU 726 Unit 2: Discussion post
- NU 726 Unit 4: Conflict case analysis
- NU 726 Unit 5: Advocacy brief
- NU 726 Unit 6: Interprofessional collaboration analysis
- NU 726 Unit 7: Professional development plan
- NU 726 Unit 8: Leadership philosophy reflection
- NU 480 Unit 3: Practice boundary matrix
- NU 602 Unit 3: Standardized rate comparison
- NU 651 Unit 3: Stakeholder power and interest map
- NU 715 Unit 3: Encounter suitability criteria
NU 726 Unit 3 questions, answered
Which leadership model works best here?
The one that fits the friction in your situation. Transformational work suits stalled change and low morale, servant leadership suits retention and staff support problems, and complexity or adaptive frameworks suit situations with no clean answer. Define whichever you pick from scholarly sources rather than a summary site, then stay with it, since switching models midway reads as indecision to a grader.
Can I write about a situation from my own unit?
In many sections yes, provided your instructions allow it and you strip identifying detail about the employer, the patients and the people involved. Real situations produce stronger papers because the resistance is genuine and you know what happened next. Describe roles, constraints and outcomes, and keep names, dates and anything confidential out of the submitted file.
What if my situation ended badly?
That usually improves the paper. A situation where the influence attempt failed gives the analysis something to explain, and the rubric is reading for reasoning rather than for a happy result. Describe what was tried, apply the model to why it did not land, and finish with the approach the framework would have produced instead.
Where can I find a free NU 726 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page has the full NU 726 Unit 3 catheter protocol analysis at no charge, with each of the five practices applied and the model's limits. A custom paper can apply a different model, such as servant leadership, to the situation from your own practice.
How do I lead a practice change without formal authority?
Start by asking the people affected why the current practice persists, then model the behavior you want and share credit. In this sample a nurse practitioner interviews seven nurses, stops writing removal orders herself and names nurses who use the protocol.