| Course | HS850 Advanced Health Leadership |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion board post |
| Length | About 390 words, 2 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 discussion post |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Health Science (DHSc) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS850 Unit 1
Two Vendors Instead of Five: A Unit 1 Discussion Post on Why Physicians Ignored a Respected Colleague Once She Became an Executive
HS850 · Unit 1 Discussion Board Post
Posted by [Student Name]
The health system, the vice president and the classmates are composite; the theories and study cited are real.
Initial Post
Dr. A. had performed thousands of procedures alongside the cardiologists she now leads. When she asked them to narrow stent choices to two vendors, which would save the system about [1.4] million dollars a year, nobody objected in the meeting and nobody changed. I think the silence is better explained by structure than by personality.
Mintzberg (1979) described hospitals as professional bureaucracies, organizations in which the operating core of trained professionals controls its own work through standards learned in training, not through rules set by managers. In such organizations, administrative authority flows upward from professionals, not downward to them. Freidson (2001) went further, arguing that professionalism is a third logic of organizing work, distinct from both market and managerial hierarchy, in which practitioners claim the right to judge their own work. By taking the vice president title, Dr. A. moved from the professional logic to the managerial one. Her former partners did not stop respecting her; they stopped treating her requests as clinical judgments.
The cardiologists did not reject Dr. A.; they reclassified her request from a colleague's clinical opinion to an administrator's cost measure, and the second carries no professional obligation.
The evidence on device choice fits. Orthopedic surgeons in one study reported that their implant choices were shaped heavily by vendor relationships and training history, with hospital pressure to standardize having limited effect (Burns et al., 2009). My question for the group: would the request have landed differently if the cardiologists themselves had chosen the two vendors against clinical criteria they wrote?
Reply to Keisha
Keisha, the nurse manager in your example changed a unit's handoff routine, which is the opposite case: in nursing, the managerial line runs through the profession. Does that explain why the same request works on your unit and fails with physicians?
Reply to Tom
Tom, you argued that compensation incentives would solve this. Gainsharing might move behavior, but in Freidson's terms it buys compliance through the market logic. Would it still leave the professional judgment untouched?
References
Burns, L. R., Housman, M. G., Booth, R. E., & Koenig, A. (2009). Implant vendors and hospitals: Competing influences over product choice by orthopedic surgeons. Health Care Management Review, 34(1), 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HMR.0000342984.22426.ac
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic: On the practice of knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall.
What the HS850 Unit 1 assignment asks for
Doctoral leadership courses at Purdue Global usually open with a post that applies a leadership or organizational theory to a situation from practice, supported by scholarly sources, followed by replies to classmates. Most initial posts run about 350 to 500 words. The strongest posts start from a specific moment rather than a general topic, then let theory account for a behavior that looks irrational at first. Instructors check that the theory's vocabulary is used correctly and at least one source that goes beyond a textbook definition. A final question that draws on classmates' own settings keeps the thread alive. Replies should apply the same theory to a classmate's example or show where it breaks, rather than restating agreement.
Inside the HS850 Unit 1 example
The post opens with the request and the silence that followed, including the savings at stake. Paragraph two explains the professional bureaucracy and the third logic, then applies them: by taking the title, the cardiologist moved from one logic to another. The highlighted sentence states the reclassification argument in one line. Paragraph three cites research on how orthopedic surgeons choose implants under vendor influence and hospital pressure, then asks whether the request would have worked had the cardiologists picked the two vendors themselves. The reply to Keisha contrasts nursing, where the management line runs through the profession. The reply to Tom asks whether gainsharing buys compliance without touching professional judgment.
Where the points sit in the HS850 Unit 1 rubric
Discussion grading in this course commonly weighs how deeply theory is applied, how strong the sources are, what the replies add and how cleanly the post is written. Theoretical analysis usually counts most: posts earn it by using a theory to explain a specific situation, not by summarizing the theory. Evidence points reward sources that are scholarly and relevant; a classic text paired with an empirical study tends to score well. Replies earn their share by moving the conversation somewhere new, for example by testing the theory against a classmate's case. Mechanics cover clarity, organization and APA citation. Posts that describe leadership in general terms without a concrete situation usually land in the middle of the scale.
HS850 Unit 1 help: mistakes that cost points
Many posts summarize a theory accurately but never apply it to an actual event, which leaves the analysis abstract. Others choose a theory that does not fit the situation and stretch it. Some learners treat physician resistance as a personality problem without considering structure. Citing only one textbook weakens the evidence score. Replies that simply agree add nothing. If your prompt names a different theory, such as transformational leadership or institutional logics, or you want to use an example from nursing, public health or a clinic, send the prompt and your example, and we will draft a post with replies that applies the theory to your situation.
Get an HS850 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Tell us which clinicians you lead or work beside, and describe a moment when an instruction from your office was absorbed without effect. Add the Unit 1 board prompt, how many replies it requires, and the rubric. Two sources then explain that moment and a reply tests one classmate's case. Nothing is charged for a first request, returned 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 HS850 papers and DHSc samples
- HS850 Unit 2: Leadership Literature Review
- HS850 Unit 3: Self-assessment Analysis
- HS850 Unit 4: Case Analysis
- HS850 Unit 5: Seminar Reflection
- HS850 Unit 6: Conflict Resolution Memo
- HS850 Unit 7: Team Development Plan
- HS850 Unit 8: Organizational Culture Appraisal
- HS850 Unit 9: Leadership Philosophy Paper
- HS850 Unit 10: Development Plan
- HS840 Unit 1: Research Question Discussion Post
- HS830 Unit 1: Vendor Concentration Discussion Post
- HS820 Unit 1: Spain Discussion Post
- HS810 Unit 1: Policy Problem Definition
HS850 Unit 1 questions, answered
Can the post use a physician example if I am not a physician?
Yes. The course concerns leading licensed professionals, and many writers observe physician leadership from an administrative or nursing seat, as the composite writer here does. Write from the position you actually hold, describe the clinicians' behavior rather than their motives, and keep the organization and everyone in it unidentifiable. The theory applies whichever license the leader or the led happens to carry.
Is Mintzberg current enough for a doctoral post?
His configurations date from 1979 and remain widely cited in health services research, precisely because hospitals fit the professional bureaucracy so closely. Pair him with a recent source where the prompt asks for current literature, for instance work on hybrid clinician managers, and say what the newer study adds. An older source that explains the mechanism outranks a recent one that only restates it.
How long should the reply be?
Most sections expect replies of roughly half the initial post, often with a source of their own. Length matters less than contribution: the reply here earns its place by predicting where a classmate's example would break. Agreement plus a restated point rarely meets the participation criterion, while one precise question grounded in the literature generally does.
Where can I find a free HS850 Unit 1 sample paper?
The complete Unit 1 discussion post is on this page, applying Mintzberg and Freidson to a stent standardization request that cardiologists ignored, with two replies.
What does Freidson mean by the third logic?
That professionalism is its own way of organizing work, in which practitioners control and judge their work, distinct from market competition and from managerial hierarchy.