Chamberlain College Of Nursing Transcultural Nursing

Chamberlain College Of Nursingnr394 Transcultural Nursingtranscultur

Analyze the case involving Peter Helms and Dean Manion, focusing on peer leadership competencies and interactions between the department head and dean within a university setting. Discuss Peter’s use of peer leadership with Dean Manion in terms of the four competencies: Assist, Participate, Reflect, and Presence. Evaluate strategies Peter could have employed to better influence Dean Manion’s decisions. Consider what Dean Manion could have done differently to influence Peter to abandon his reorganization efforts. Finally, analyze what Peter might have done to better persuade faculty members opposed to his proposed changes.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Leadership within academic institutions functions on complex interpersonal dynamics, strategic influence, and managing differing stakeholder interests. The case of Peter Helms, the Department Head of the Technology Department, and Dean Manion reveals intricate leadership challenges that necessitate a nuanced understanding of peer leadership competencies. This paper evaluates Peter’s application of the four peer leadership competencies—Assist, Participate, Reflect, and Presence—in his interactions with Dean Manion, and explores alternative strategies that could have facilitated more effective influence and conflict resolution. Moreover, it contemplates what Dean Manion and Peter could have done differently to promote constructive engagement and mitigate the escalating conflict that ultimately led to departmental division.

Peer Leadership Competencies in Context

Peter Helms’s leadership approach can be critically examined through the lens of the four peer leadership competencies: Assist, Participate, Reflect, and Presence. Each plays a vital role in fostering influence, collaboration, and conflict management within organizational settings.

Assist pertains to proactively supporting colleagues and advancing shared goals. In the case, Peter’s initiative to explore a department move without involving faculty demonstrates a lack of this competency. His unilateral discussions with another dean and the unauthorized distribution of the white paper exemplify an attempt to bypass collective decision-making, thereby undermining trust and collaborative spirit (Clarke & Scott, 2018). Effective assist would have entailed engaging faculty early, listening to their perspectives, and fostering inclusive decision-making.

Participate involves active involvement and shared responsibility in leadership processes. Peter’s participation seemed limited to unilateral actions, such as drafting and disseminating the white paper. His failure to involve faculty or seek consensus reflects weak participation. Influence is strengthened when leaders demonstrate transparency and invite input, which was lacking here (Northouse, 2019).

Reflect requires leaders to critically assess their actions, biases, and their impact on others. Peter’s characterizations of the department and his unilateral plans suggest limited reflection. He did not adequately consider faculty concerns, the institutional context, or Dean Manion’s perspectives. Reflective leaders recognize the importance of understanding the environment and adjusting their strategies accordingly (Schön, 1983). A more reflective approach could have involved formal feedback sessions with faculty and open dialogue with Dean Manion.

Presence denotes the capacity to project confidence, credibility, and genuine engagement. Peter’s decision to bypass faculty and discussion with the dean in isolation diminished his presence as a collaborative leader. Conversely, a leader with strong presence would have maintained visibility, been approachable, and demonstrated sincerity in engaging stakeholders (Kouzes & Posner, 2017).

Strategies for Better Influence

To improve his influence over Dean Manion, Peter could have adopted several strategies aligning with these competencies. Building mutual trust through consistent, transparent communication would have established a foundation for influence. Engaging Dean Manion in joint problem-solving sessions, jointly examining the department’s future direction, could have fostered a partnership rather than an adversarial stance (Yukl, 2013). Demonstrating a genuine understanding of Dean Manion’s priorities—such as outreach and external funding—may have encouraged collaborative solutions aligning department goals and college vision.

Dean’s Role in Influencing Peter

Dean Manion could have employed active listening and transparent communication to influence Peter’s efforts constructively. Providing clear, consistent feedback, clarifying expectations, and involving Peter in broader strategic discussions would have helped shift from confrontation to collaboration (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Recognizing Peter’s initiatives early and providing guidance or mentorship could have mitigated escalation. Additionally, explicitly involving faculty in decision-making could have balanced overarching leadership with participative influence.

Influencing Faculty Opposition

Peter’s influence on faculty opposed to the reorganization could have been strengthened through inclusive engagement. Establishing open forums for dialogue, actively soliciting concerns, and demonstrating openness to feedback are essential. Moreover, leaders should clarify the benefits of proposed changes and address faculty fears directly (Kotter, 1997). Building consensus requires transparency and shared ownership of initiatives. Utilizing peer influence among faculty who support change can also help sway opposition by fostering a positive peer environment.

Conclusion

Effective peer leadership within academic settings hinges on the competencies of Assist, Participate, Reflect, and Presence. In Peter Helms’s case, strategic application of these competencies may have prevented conflict escalation. Building trust, fostering collaboration, practicing reflective leadership, and maintaining credible presence are essential for managing organizational change and conflict. Similarly, leaders must cultivate mutual influence through transparent communication, shared goals, and genuine engagement, thereby creating a resilient and unified academic community.

References

• Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.
• Clarke, J., & Scott, J. (2018). Leadership in higher education: Roles, responsibilities, and the importance of shared decision-making. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(5), 457-470.
• Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The Leadership Challenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
• Kotter, J. P. (1997). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications.
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. Basic Books.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. Pearson Education.