| Course | HA510 Organizational Development in Health Care |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Resistance to change analysis |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Health Administration (MHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA510 Unit 8
Not Refused, Just Worked Around: A Resistance to Change Analysis of Float Pool Workarounds at a Composite Merged System That Looks Past the Charge Nurses to the Leaders, Coding Every Rollout Message Against the Five Beliefs Tied to Readiness
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA510: Organizational Development in Health Care
Unit 8 Resistance to Change Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The system, the messages and every count are composite and bracketed; message content is paraphrased and attributed to roles.
The Resistance in the Records
Float pool requests from the two small hospitals were [six] percent of the system's total over five months, though they employ about [20] percent of its nurses. Charge nurse logs show [84] shift trades arranged off the platform. Twice in one month, a float nurse sent to a small hospital was sent back unused because the charge nurse had already covered the gap by text.
The Frame
Weiner (2009) treats readiness as something members hold in common: a shared wish to implement the change, his change commitment, and a shared belief that the group is capable of it, his change efficacy. Armenakis and Harris identify five beliefs that shape readiness and that leaders' messages can build: discrepancy, that change is needed; appropriateness, that this change is the right one; efficacy, that we can do it; principal support, that leaders we respect back it; and personal valence, that it benefits me (Armenakis & Harris, 2002).
Coding the Rollout Messages
The writer collected all [14] rollout messages: [six] system emails, [three] town hall slide sets, [two] FAQs and [three] unit huddle scripts. Each was coded for which beliefs it addressed and from whose voice. Discrepancy: addressed in [11] of [14], but always in system terms, such as overtime costs and idle float nurses at the regional center. None described a problem at the small hospitals. Appropriateness: addressed in [six], mostly describing the platform's features. Efficacy: addressed in [nine], mainly through training dates. Principal support: [13] of [14] came from regional center leaders. None came from a small hospital administrator or director of nursing. Personal valence: addressed in [two], both about regional center staff getting fair access to extra shifts. Every message told small hospital nurses why the system needed the change, and none told them why they might want it.
What the Coding Shows
For small hospital nurses, the messages built little readiness. Discrepancy was framed around a problem they did not see. Principal support came from leaders they rarely meet. Personal valence was absent; the only benefits described went to regional center staff. Working around the platform is a reasonable response to a change that has not been made relevant to them.
Why Not Call It Resistance
Labeling the charge nurses as resistant locates the problem in them. The records show something different: a local system that works, text-message trades among nurses who know each other, and a new system that offers them nothing they value. In Weiner's terms, commitment is low because the change was not presented as theirs.
Recommendations
1. Discrepancy: share small hospital data, such as the days they worked short while float nurses sat idle, so the problem is visible locally.
2. Principal support: have each small hospital's director of nursing co-sign messages and lead huddles.
3. Personal valence: name local benefits, such as guaranteed float coverage for planned leave and the ability to pick up extra shifts at the regional center.
4. Appropriateness: adapt the change, letting charge nurses request specific float nurses who have oriented at their hospital.
5. Efficacy: orient float nurses at each small hospital so charge nurses trust them.
Measures
A short readiness survey can be adapted from published readiness scales, which measure beliefs such as appropriateness, management support, efficacy and personal benefit (Holt et al., 2007), and given at the small hospitals before and after the new messages. Other measures: float requests from the small hospitals as a share of the total; off-platform trades; float nurses returned unused.
What the Small Hospital Leaders Said
Both directors of nursing said they learned of the staffing office's launch date from the same system email their staff received. One said she supported the idea but "was never asked to sell it, so I didn't." That comment matches the principal support finding: the leaders staff trust most were left out of the rollout.
A Message Rewritten
A huddle script rewritten with the five beliefs might read: "Last month we worked short four nights while two float nurses at the regional center had no assignment (discrepancy). The float pool lets us call them in (appropriateness). Three of them are orienting here this month so you'll know them (efficacy). I asked for this, and I'll review it with you in six weeks (principal support). It also means you can get your planned leave covered without calling around (personal valence)."
Limits
Messages show what leaders said, not what nurses heard. Fourteen messages may not include informal conversations. The analysis assumes the beliefs drive behavior, which the planned survey would test.
Conclusion
The charge nurses' workarounds are a response to messages that never addressed their beliefs. Rebuilding readiness means local data, local leaders and local benefits, not more pressure to use the platform.
References
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210423080
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306295295
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4, Article 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
HA510 Unit 8 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 8 usually presents staff who are not following a new system and asks students to explain why and what leaders should do next. Instructions commonly require describing the resistance with evidence, applying a framework such as readiness for change, identifying causes and proposing actions. Many instructors encourage students to look beyond the people resisting to the conditions and messages that shaped their response. Expect to cite readiness research in APA style, use composite records and messages attributed to roles and avoid treating resistance as a character flaw. Coding the change messages leaders actually sent is a direct way to show what was and was not said to the people now resisting.
How the HA 510 Unit 8 example is put together
The sample describes the resistance in records rather than complaints, with a margin note on shifting attention to leaders' messages. The frame cites Weiner's theory and Armenakis and Harris's five beliefs. All fourteen rollout messages are coded by belief and by voice, and the highlighted sentence says no message told small hospital nurses why they might want the change. A section on what the coding shows carries a margin note, followed by why the label resistance misleads. Five recommendations match the five beliefs. Measures cite a readiness scale, then the directors' own account with a third note, a rewritten huddle script that uses all five beliefs and the limits of message analysis close it.
Reading the HA510 Unit 8 grading rubric
Resistance analysis rubrics in HA 510 tend to award points for evidence of resistance, use of a framework, analysis of causes, attention to leadership, recommendations, measures and citations. Evidence points depend on records rather than complaints. Framework points go to accurate use of readiness concepts. Cause points reward linking resistance to specific gaps. Leadership points require examining what leaders said and who said it. Recommendation points go to actions tied to each gap. Measure points need ways to track readiness and behavior. Analyses that rewrite a message to show the fix in practice often earn the highest marks, because they turn a diagnosis into words a leader could use tomorrow.
Common HA510 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Resistance papers often lose points by describing resistant staff as stubborn or change-averse, which locates the problem in them. Another gap is recommending more training when the issue is desire, not knowledge. Some papers never look at the messages people received. Others propose generic communication plans. Document resistance in records, apply a readiness framework, code the actual messages for the beliefs they address and who delivered them and recommend changes for each gap. Then show a rewritten message, since it makes the recommendation concrete. Including the views of local leaders helps confirm whether they were part of the rollout or left out of it.
Get an HA510 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Three things carry this analysis: the change meeting resistance, what that resistance looks like day to day, and what leaders have said about it, in presentations or emails you can summarize. Add the Unit 8 instructions and rubric, and a first analysis covering both sides arrives free, typically within 24-48h. 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 HA510 papers and MHA samples
- HA510 Unit 1: Four Worlds Theory Post
- HA510 Unit 2: Hospital Structure Comparison
- HA510 Unit 3: Competing Values Culture Diagnostic
- HA510 Unit 4: Lewin and ADKAR Change Analysis
- HA510 Unit 5: Transfer Center Team Development Case
- HA510 Unit 6: Email Conflict Analysis
- HA510 Unit 7: Post-Merger Engagement Research Paper
- HA510 Unit 9: Development Intervention Plan
- HA510 Unit 10: Organizational Development Proposal
- HA520 Unit 4:
- HA540 Unit 5:
HA510 Unit 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA510 Unit 8 sample paper?
The complete HA510 Unit 8 resistance to change analysis is on this page, coding a composite staffing office's rollout messages against five readiness beliefs, with three sources. Your own change messages can be coded the same way.
How does Weiner define readiness in HA510 Unit 8?
As members' shared commitment to implementing a change plus a common confidence that the group is able to carry it through.
What are the five beliefs that shape readiness?
Discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support and personal valence.
Why look at leaders' messages when staff resist?
Readiness is built or not built by what leaders say before the change, so gaps in messages often explain later resistance.
How long is the HA510 Unit 8 analysis?
Six to seven pages, moving from records to the frame to coded messages.