| Course | HA410 Health Care Leadership |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Conflict case analysis |
| Length | About 930 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health Care Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA410 Unit 4
Twelve Step-Down Beds and Two Vice Presidents: A Conflict Case Analysis of a Composite Hospital Dispute Between Critical Care and Cardiovascular Services, Followed Through Pondy's Conflict Episode by a Patient Flow Manager With Authority Over Neither Side
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA410: Health Care Leadership
Unit 4 Conflict Case Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hospital, the departments and every figure are composite and bracketed; the analysis demonstrates the form of a conflict case analysis rather than describing a real dispute.
The Shared Resource
The hospital has [12] staffed step-down beds on one unit. Critical care uses them for patients leaving intensive care who still need closer monitoring than a regular floor. Cardiovascular services uses them for patients recovering from catheterization procedures with complications or high-risk features. The unit's nurse manager reports to cardiovascular services.
Both Sides, Stated Fairly
Critical care: In the last quarter, [38] percent of patients ready for transfer waited more than [eight] hours. While they wait, the intensive care unit holds beds it cannot give to emergency admissions, and twice in one month it diverted ambulances. The director believes cardiovascular services hoards beds. Cardiovascular services: The catheterization lab schedules [25] to [30] procedures a day, and [two] or [three] patients a day need step-down care afterward. If no bed is available, procedures are delayed or patients recover in the lab's holding area, which is not staffed overnight. The director believes critical care sends patients who could go to a regular floor. Each director is protecting real patients with a real need, and each sees the other as the cause of the shortage they both share.
The Week It Went Public
On [Monday], a critical care physician posted in the hospital's leadership chat that a patient had waited [19] hours for a step-down bed while two sat empty "for the cath lab." On [Tuesday], the cardiovascular director replied that the beds were filled within the hour. On [Wednesday], both vice presidents asked the patient flow manager for data.
Pondy's Conflict Episode
Pondy (1967) describes conflict as an episode moving through stages: latent conditions, perceived conflict, felt conflict, manifest conflict and an aftermath that shapes the next episode. Latent conflict: the conditions were present for months. Two departments shared a scarce resource, their goals differed and no rule decided who came first. The unit's manager reported to one side, which made the other suspect bias. Perceived conflict: critical care began logging wait times; cardiovascular services began logging delayed procedures. Each side gathered evidence about the other. Felt conflict: frustration became personal. Nurses on the step-down unit reported being caught between phone calls from both directors. Manifest conflict: the public chat exchange, and a pattern of holding beds or refusing transfers, are the visible behavior. Aftermath: how this episode ends will shape the next. If one side wins by escalation, the other will escalate next time.
Why It Escalated Now
The latent conditions had existed for a year. What changed was volume: the catheterization lab added a second procedure room [three] months ago, and critical care had its busiest winter in five years. Scarcity turned a manageable tension into a visible fight.
What the Patient Flow Manager Controls
The patient flow manager owns the bed board, the data and the daily bed meeting. She has no authority over either director's staff, but she has information neither side has: both sides' data in one place.
What She Can Change
1. Data: one shared report showing step-down bed use by source, hour of day and wait time, with patients who could have gone to a regular floor identified by agreed criteria. Each side would see the same numbers.
2. Criteria: ask both medical directors to agree on step-down admission criteria, so the dispute over which patients need a bed becomes a shared rule rather than a judgment about the other side.
3. Timing: the data may show that catheterization patients arrive in the afternoon and intensive care transfers peak in the morning, which a scheduled bed release could manage.
4. Forum: a weekly fifteen-minute meeting with both directors and the step-down manager to review the report.
Choosing an Approach
Thomas (1992) maps ways of handling conflict on two axes, how hard a party pushes for what it wants and how much it tries to meet the other side's needs. Compromise, splitting the beds six and six, would be quick but would waste beds when one side's demand is low. A collaborative approach, problem solving with shared data and criteria, fits a dispute in which both sides want the same outcome for patients. Research on work groups found that conflict over tasks can sometimes improve decisions, while conflict between people tends to harm both performance and satisfaction (Jehn, 1995), which argues for keeping the dispute about beds and criteria rather than about the two directors.
Escalation as a Last Resort
If the directors cannot agree on criteria within [six] weeks, the patient flow manager will bring both proposals to the two vice presidents with the data. Escalation is not a failure, but arriving with a shared report rather than two accusations keeps it a decision about beds.
Measures
Median wait for step-down transfer; catheterization procedures delayed for lack of a bed; step-down patients meeting agreed criteria; ambulance diversion hours.
Conclusion
The conflict is structural, two departments sharing a scarce resource without a rule, and it surfaced when demand rose. A manager without authority over either side can still change the conditions that produce the conflict: shared data, shared criteria and a regular forum.
References
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638
Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2), 296-320. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391553
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130307
What the HA410 Unit 4 assignment asks for
Unit 4 usually sets a dispute between two departments or professions and asks for a structured reading of it through a named conflict model. Prompts typically require a description of the parties, the source of the conflict, an application of the model's stages or styles, an assessment of how it might be resolved and the role of the leader involved. Some instructors ask students to write both sides fairly enough that either party would accept the description. Expect to cite the conflict model's source and at least one other study of conflict in APA style, and to keep the organization composite. Naming the shared resource precisely, rather than in general terms, makes the analysis sharper.
How the HA 410 Unit 4 example is put together
The sample names the shared resource, staffed step-down beds, with a margin note on precision. Both directors' positions are written with their own figures, and the highlighted sentence says each protects real patients. A dated account covers the week the dispute went public. Each of Pondy's five stages is then matched to events in the case, and a margin note explains why the paper follows the conflict's own sequence. Sections explain why it escalated, what the patient flow manager controls and what she can change, then compare conflict-handling approaches citing two studies. Escalation as a last resort, with a third note, measures and a conclusion close the analysis.
HA410 Unit 4 rubric: what earns full points
Conflict analysis rubrics in HA 410 usually give points for describing the parties fairly, identifying the source, applying the model, assessing resolution options, defining the leader's role, citing sources and writing clearly. Party points depend on balanced accounts with each side's evidence. Source points go to the structural cause, such as a shared resource without a rule. Model points reward applying each stage or style to specific facts. Option points require comparing approaches with reasons. Role points go to what a leader can actually do. Source points need the model and research. Analyses that explain why the conflict surfaced at a particular moment often earn top marks, because they show the writer understood its causes.
HA410 Unit 4 help: mistakes that cost points
Conflict analyses often lose points by taking one side, usually the writer's own department. Another gap is describing the model's stages in general terms without placing events in each. Some papers recommend that leadership simply decide, which ignores what a manager without authority can do. Others never ask why the conflict appeared when it did. Write each side so its director would sign it, apply each stage to dated events, explain the trigger and list changes the leader can make. Then plan escalation for the case where those changes fail. Keep the focus on the resource and the rules, not the personalities. A short list of measures shows how you will know the changes worked.
Get an HA410 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Which two departments are pulling on the same resource in your case? Name them, what each is measured on and what has already been tried, then add the Unit 4 prompt and rubric. The analysis returns in 24-48h at no cost for a first request, both positions stated fairly and every figure bracketed as composite. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HA410 papers and BS in Health Care Administration samples
- HA410 Unit 1: Authority and Influence Post
- HA410 Unit 2: Leadership Practices Assessment
- HA410 Unit 3: Adaptive Leadership Theory Paper
- HA410 Unit 5: Communication Brief
- HA410 Unit 6: Team Charter
- HA410 Unit 7: Change Leadership Plan
- HA410 Unit 8: Delegation Analysis
- HA410 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- HA410 Unit 10: Leadership Philosophy Paper
- HA400 Unit 4: Capacity and Refusal Rights Analysis
- HA255 Unit 4: CNA Structured Interview Guide
HA410 Unit 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA410 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page has the full HA410 Unit 4 conflict case analysis of a composite hospital's dispute over step-down beds between critical care and cardiovascular services, with three sources. Your own conflict can be traced through the same stages.
What are Pondy's stages of conflict?
Latent conflict, perceived conflict, felt conflict, manifest conflict and the aftermath that shapes the next episode.
What causes conflict between hospital departments?
Often a shared scarce resource, different goals and no agreed rule for who comes first.
How can a manager resolve conflict without authority?
By changing the conditions: shared data, agreed criteria, a regular forum and escalation with evidence if needed.
How long is the HA410 Unit 4 analysis?
Roughly five pages, built as a case record followed by an analysis through the model's stages.