Miami Dade College Collaborative Decision Making & Empowering Nurse Leaders HW Read the Journal Article: Collaborative Decision making: Empowering nurse le

Miami Dade College Collaborative Decision Making & Empowering Nurse Leaders HW Read the Journal Article: Collaborative Decision making: Empowering nurse leadersSubmit a Two-page APA 6th edition reflective response to the article with at least two references that are within the last 5 years Team Concepts
Collaborative decision making:
Empowering nurse leaders
By Linda S. Burkett, DNP, MSN, RN, FCN
D
ecision making is significant to every professional organization, guiding trajectory
and success. Understanding the complexity
of decision making is imperative, as is recognizing the unique human dimensions inherent
in the decision-making process.1-3 Personality
type directly influences how individuals make
decisions. For this reason, decision making is an
elemental component of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI), a 93 forced-choice-question
personality assessment tool. Corporations have
been using the MBTI for over 60 years to develop
leaders and gain insight to enhance collaboration,
team building, problem solving, career development, management training, counseling, and
conflict resolution. Foundational to the MBTI is
Carl Jung’s theory of dichotomous personality
types—extraversion/introversion, energy
sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and
judging/perceiving—which determine behaviors,
inclinations, and priorities, each innate to decision
making and significant to collaborative work.2
Extraversion is a preference for the outside
world, activities, and others. Introversion is a preference for personal thoughts, memories, and experiences. A sensing preference is characterized by a
penchant for facts, concrete data, and specifics. An
intuition preference is characterized by a penchant
for assessing the big picture, focusing on relationships, connections, and identifying patterns. Thinking reflects a person’s tendency to be objective in
decision making, stepping away from the circumstance to analyze and apply reasoning. Feeling
reflects a person’s tendency to be subjective in
decision making, stepping into the circumstance,
considering the impact on all stakeholders’ values,
and applying empathy. Judging indicates people
who prefer to organize the world. Perceiving indicates people who prefer to experience the world.4
Methods
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact
of MBTI educational modules for personality type
www.nursingmanagement.com
comprehension and application by nurse leaders
to enhance collaborative decision making. A
shared governance council at a 228-bed facility
within a seven-hospital network in western Pennsylvania was selected as a pilot study venue. The
shared governance council included full-time formal and informal nurse leaders, representing
administration, inpatient units (orthopedics,
psychiatric, oncology, ICU, telemetry, ED), and
outpatient radiology. All members were female,
with educational backgrounds that included
diploma, associate, BSN, and MSN degrees; a
range of years
in nursing
from 5 to over
20; and a range
of years in
nursing leadership from 1 to
over 20. Eight
of the 10 council members completed the 4-month
study. The sample size was strategic for a deepdive investigation into the topic.
A noted gap in the literature was assimilating
personality types into the collaborative decisionmaking process. The author created a conceptual
framework representing the correlation of personality types to decision-making styles and its impact on leadership constructs. (See Figure 1.) Without a published tool to specifically measure nurse
leader collaborative decision making enhanced by
MBTI application, a leadership training survey
created by Dr. Marc DeSimone was used as a
focused assessment.
With permission and consultation, “How Well
Do You Participate in Collaborative Decision
Making?” was created as a 10-item assessment,
using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all”;
5 = “very much”). The tool queried seven constructs of nursing leadership recognized by
research findings: trust, peer appreciation and
understanding, collaboration, communication,
professional growth, ethical conduct, and
Nursing Management  September 2016 7
Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Team Concepts
evidence-based practice.2,5-8 In addition, it surveyed three constructs
of decision evaluation: value (appropriate merit and benefit to all
stakeholders), expediency (efficient
use of time and a defined process),
and pragmatism (practicality of
implementing the decision within
fiscal and strategic confines).9
Every effort was made to ensure
the assessment’s validity and
reliability.
This study employed descriptive
content analysis and survey meth-
Figure 1: Conceptual framework4,5,9,10
Decision-making process
Subjective expected utility
theory + type theory
MBTI personality
dichotomies
Define problem
Extraversion/introversion
Focus and energy
Collect data
Identify options
Sensing/intuition
Information and perception
Assign utility/weigh outcomes
Project risk
Thinking/feeling
Evaluation and synthesis
Add stakeholders’ values
Make final decision
Judging/perceiving
Orientation to outer world
Implementation
Act on decision
Evaluate decision
Decision
value
Constructs of nurse leader
decision making
Trust
Colleague appreciation
and understanding
Collaboration
Communication
Professional growth
Ethical conduct
Evidence-based practice
8 September 2016  Nursing Management
Decision
expediency
odology, utilizing an interrupted
time-series design of four monthly
education sessions, with pre- and
postintervention assessments. Open
discussion and group observation
provided qualitative data and feedback. Member self-report methods
were implemented to discern perceived improvement. Individual
session usefulness was evaluated
by asking: 1. Was this session interesting to you? 2. Did this session
add new knowledge for you? 3. Do
you think the session informs dimensions of communication for collaborative decision making? 4. Was
the presenter effective? 5. Did you
attend session one, completing the
collaborative decision-making assessment and the MBTI? This evaluation was completed after each
session using a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = “not at all”; 5 = “very much”)
to measure member buy-in and appraisal of the presented materials.
Decision
pragmatism
Session one began with an introduction and opening comments made
by the sole facilitator, a certified
MBTI practitioner. Informed consent
was obtained, with participation
signifying member agreement. The
preintervention assessment tool
“How Well Do You Participate in
Collaborative Decision Making?”
was administered. The MBTI was
given and results were revealed, followed by a best-fit education module to confirm personality type
through further explanation and
member self-report. Voluntarily disclosed member personality types
were then displayed on a poster,
serving as a team type table.
Session two was conducted by
the investigator, beginning with a review of personality type descriptors.
Group discussion enabled a safe environment for member feedback on
personality type comprehension,
self-awareness, and insight into
www.nursingmanagement.com
Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Team Concepts
www.nursingmanagement.com
Figure 2: Members’ dichotomous personality types
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Extraversion/
introversion
Sensing/
intuition
Thinking/
feeling
Judging/
perceiving
Figure 3: Nursing leadership constructs and
decision evaluation improvement
50
62.5
62.5
Decision
pragmatism
62.5
Decision process
expediency
87.5
25
25
25
Ethical conduct
Evidence-based
practice
Decision value to
stakeholders
50
Professional
growth
Communication
Collaboration
Trust
0
Appreciation and
understanding
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percent
personality type propensities. Members shared new understanding of
personal inclinations toward methods of engagement, information
collection, and problem resolution.
Discussion of the team type table
followed, demonstrating group
strengths and personality gaps. The
decision-making process was described: define the problem; collect
data; identify options; assign utility/
weigh outcomes; project risk; add
stakeholders’ values; make the final
decision; act on the decision; and
evaluate the decision by value,
expediency, and pragmatism.9 Discussion incorporated the influence
of personality type on each step.
Four diverse activities were completed to explore personality type
influence on decision making per
scenario. Clear differences in approaches and priorities were noted
by type.
Session three explored the impact of individual perception and
information processing on decision
making. A detailed illustration was
briefly presented. What the members recalled about the picture
was discussed to demonstrate
how differently people perceive
and interpret information, aligned
with personality type. Divided by
type dichotomy, members were
asked to resolve a nurse staffing
challenge. Solutions were compared, highlighting the influence
of personality type.
Session four included recognizing team strengths and gaps by increasing member understanding,
group trust, communication, and
collaboration. The decision-making
process was used to navigate a critical decision team scenario. Attention was given to personality type
preferences, outcomes, and stakeholder values. Discussion of the
impact of personality type on nurse
leadership constructs, best practice,
and shared governance council
collaboration followed. Additional
open dialogue about the project,
activities, learned knowledge,
application capacity, and personal
disclosures occurred, and the postintervention assessment tool was
administered.
Results
The MBTI and best-fit education module disclosed member
self-report of personality type.
(See Figure 2.) Most members had
a preference for feeling over thinking. What draws individuals into
caring professions is typically an
empathetic, subjective viewpoint,
defined as feeling.4 More members
reported a preference for extraversion over introversion, common
to groups and demonstrated by
participation degrees during discussions. Sensing/intuition and
judging/perceiving had equal
representation.
The coded matched analysis
for the pre- and postassessment
revealed that all members reported
improvement in nursing leadership
constructs and decision evaluation.
Nursing Management  September 2016 9
Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Team Concepts
(See Figure 3.) Individual improvement ranged from 10% to 70%, according to outcome comparison.
The greatest collective improvement was reported in collaboration
at 87.5%. High improvement was
reported in group trust, decision
process expediency, and decision
pragmatism at 62.5%. Peer appreciation and understanding, as well as
communication, revealed a 50% improvement. All other constructs reported a 25% improvement, with
the exception of personal professional growth, which showed no
perceived change during the
4-month project. Group discussion
revealed that each member declared an initial moderate-to-high
regard for this construct and didn’t
waiver.
All four sessions were evaluated
by member report. A cumulative
graph demonstrated the positive
trajectory of evaluation by session,
inclusive of interest; added knowledge; informed communication for
collaborative decision making; and
presenter effectiveness, which
scored highest in all four sessions.
(See Figure 4.) The escalating results
reflected member buy-in and value
placed on the project’s content and
goals.
Significant qualitative data were
gleaned from emergent themes
shared by participants. (To view the
themes, see the Nursing Management
iPad app.) The project sample size
and supportive context created a
safe environment for personal disclosure of thoughts and reflections.
Understanding the MBTI helped
members define their actions, propensities, and inclinations. Comments were categorized into the
common themes of personality type
self-awareness, impact on decision
making, awareness of other council
members’ personality types, understanding of MBTI application in the
workplace, and enhanced collaboration with other healthcare disciplines. Productive and positive
feedback demonstrated substantial
benefits to self, peers, and the interdisciplinary team.
Acknowledged inherent limitations of the study were the small
convenience sample, an investigatorcreated tool, and self-reported data
collection.
The personality impact
Educating nurse leaders about personality types is increasingly significant to nursing practice. This study
exemplifies the prospective benefits
Figure 4: Session total mean scores
19.25
18.87
18.1
of incorporating personality types
into the nurse leader decisionmaking process. Heightened selfawareness and peer appreciation of
the impact of personality types can
improve communication and collaboration within nursing and other
disciplines. Empowering nurses to
engage in decision-making forums
brings sage input from the bedside
to the boardroom. NM
REFERENCES
1. Barrett A, Piatek C, Korber S, Padula C.
Lessons learned from a lateral violence
and team-building intervention. Nurs Adm
Q. 2009;33(4):342-351.
2. Bassett S. Accountability in the NHS. Nurs
Manag (Harrow). 2012;19(8):24-26.
3. DiMeglio K, Padula C, Piatek C, et al.
Group cohesion and nurse satisfaction:
examination of a team-building approach.
J Nurs Adm. 2005;35(3):110-120.
4. Myers IB, McCaulley MH, Quenk NL, Hammer AL. MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator Instrument. 3rd ed. Mountain View, CA: CPP; 2009:5-12.
5. Dougherty MB, Larson EL. The nurse-nurse
collaboration scale. J Nurs Adm. 2010;
40(1):17-25.
6. Politi MC, Street RL Jr. The importance of
communication in collaborative decision
making: facilitating shared mind and the
management of uncertainty. J Eval Clin
Pract. 2011;17(4):579-584.
7. Brewton C, Eppling J, Hobley M. Our
VOICE: an interdisciplinary approach to
shared governance. Hosp Top. 2012;
90(2):39-46.
8. Moore J, Prentice D. Collaboration among
nurse practitioners and registered nurses
in outpatient oncology settings in Canada.
J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(7):1574-1583.
9. Hough JH, Ogilvie D. An empirical test of
cognitive style and strategic decision outcomes. J Management Studies. 2005;
42(2):417-448.
10. Dowding D, Thompson C. Measuring the
quality of judgment and decision-making
in nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2003;44(1):49-57.
Linda S. Burkett was an RN-BSN program instructor. She’s currently pursuing other venues
to apply the components of this project.
17.6
The author has disclosed no financial relationships related to this article.
SESSION ONE
SESSION TWO
SESSION THREE
SESSION FOUR
DOI-10.1097/01.NUMA.0000491131.60730.d3
10 September 2016  Nursing Management
www.nursingmanagement.com
Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Miami Dade College Collaborative Decision Making & Empowering Nurse Leaders HW Read the Journal Article: Collaborative Decision making: Empowering nurse le
For $10/Page 0nly
Order Essay
Calculator

Calculate the price of your paper

Total price:$26

Need a better grade?
We've got you covered.

Order your paper