One experienced nurse's conduct toward new graduates, documented from the manager's opening note to its resolution, forms the NU514 Unit 8 case, with the unit's precepting load examined alongside her behavior. Searches like "nu 514 unit 8 assignment example", "nu514 unit 8 sample" and "nu514 unit 8 example" land here.
A Standard Held, a Load Reduced: A Five-Month Performance Management Case on Incivility Toward New Graduates in a Surgical ICU
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU514: Human Resources Management
Unit 8 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The nurse, residents and all documentation are composite; no individual is identifiable. The research and position statement cited are published.
The Narrative
The nurse in this case has fifteen years on the unit and is one of its most skilled clinicians. In the prior quarter she was assigned an orientee on [71] percent of her shifts, more than any other night nurse, because she was one of only four experienced nurses on nights. In stay interviews in [May], two new graduate residents independently named her. Both described being corrected in front of patients' families and other staff, and one described eye-rolling and sighing during handoff when she asked questions. A night charge nurse, asked afterward, said she had seen the handoff behavior herself twice.
Documentation, in Dated Order
[Date 1], manager's first note: "Two residents, in separate stay interviews, described public correction and dismissive responses to questions during handoff by [the nurse]. Charge nurse [name] reports observing dismissive handoff behavior on two occasions in April. No conclusion reached; fact-finding meeting scheduled."
[Date 2], fact-finding meeting: "Met with [the nurse] to describe what was reported and observed, without naming residents. She did not dispute the handoff behavior. She said she had precepted three orientees in six weeks, often on consecutive nights, with no break from orientee assignments since February, and that she was 'running on empty.' She said she did not intend to embarrass anyone and was worried about patient safety when orientees missed things. She asked to be taken off precepting for a period."
[Date 3], expectations memo: "The following behaviors are expected: (1) clinical corrections of colleagues are made privately, away from patients and families, unless there is an immediate safety risk; (2) questions during handoff are answered, and if time is short, a time to answer is agreed; (3) no comments on a colleague's competence in front of patients, families or other staff; (4) concerns about an orientee's practice are brought to the charge nurse or educator. Separately, [the nurse] will not be assigned an orientee for eight weeks, and afterward on no more than half of her shifts."
[Date 4], sixty-day check: "Peer feedback requested from six colleagues across shifts, two of them residents. Five of six described handoffs as respectful. One described a single instance of public correction in June, which [the nurse] acknowledged. Expectations remain in place."
[Date 5], closing note, five months after the first: "No further reports. Both residents describe the working relationship as professional. [The nurse] has resumed precepting on one-third of her shifts and requested preceptor development training, which she has completed. File closed with expectations continuing as standard unit behavior."
Analysis: Was the Process Fair?
Evidence before conclusion. The manager did not act on the residents' accounts alone. A charge nurse's direct observation corroborated them, and the nurse's own account was sought before any expectations were written. The fact-finding meeting described what was reported without naming the residents, which protected them from retaliation. It began with the facts rather than a verdict, which left room for the nurse's own account, the approach Stone et al. (2010) describe as separating what happened from judgments about intent.
Her explanation taken seriously. The nurse's account, an unbroken precepting load, was not treated as an excuse but as information. The unit had assigned her orientees on more than seven in ten shifts because it had few experienced night nurses. The manager capped her orientee assignments because the unit had contributed to the behavior, and held the behavioral standard because the residents' experience was not acceptable regardless of its cause. Doing only one of those would have been unfair: capping the load without a standard would have excused the behavior, and a standard without the cap would have ignored the unit's part.
Observable expectations. The expectations memo describes behaviors a colleague could see: where corrections happen, whether questions are answered, what is not said in front of others. It does not ask the nurse to "be nicer" or "improve her attitude," which could not be measured or fairly assessed.
Measured follow-up. The sixty-day check used peer feedback from six colleagues across shifts, including residents, rather than relying on the manager's impression. One lapse was acknowledged, not ignored, and not escalated.
Why It Mattered
Incivility toward new nurses is not a minor matter of manners. Research with staff nurses has linked workplace incivility to burnout and to lower commitment and higher turnover intention (Laschinger et al., 2009). On this unit, first-year turnover among new graduates was [43] percent, and the retention study earlier in the term found that new graduates on nights felt underprepared and unsupported. Nurses and employers share responsibility for preventing incivility and bullying and for building a culture of respect, according to the profession's position statement (American Nurses Association, 2015). A skilled nurse whose behavior drives new graduates away costs the unit far more than the precepting she provides.
What the Manager Did Not Do
Three tempting shortcuts were avoided, and each would have made the case less fair. The manager did not move straight to a written warning, which would have skipped the nurse's account and treated a first report as a finding. She did not quietly reassign the residents to other preceptors and leave the behavior unaddressed, which would have protected two residents while leaving the next orientee exposed. And she did not raise the matter in a staff meeting as a general reminder about respect, which would have signaled to everyone who was meant without giving the nurse a chance to respond.
What the Unit Learned
The case exposed a structural problem: the unit relied on a handful of experienced night nurses to precept almost every new graduate, with no limit and no support. The manager's response in this case, capping one nurse's load, was a local fix. The broader fix is a rule for all preceptors, no more than half of shifts with an orientee, protected breaks between orientees, and preceptor development for anyone who precepts. Those rules are part of the new graduate transition plan in the next unit.
Limits
The case is built from documents, which record what was reported and decided, not everything that happened. The residents may have felt unable to report further incidents. And the outcome, a closed file, could reflect genuine change or simply more care in front of witnesses; the continuing expectations and repeat stay interviews are how the unit will know.
References
American Nurses Association. (2015). Incivility, bullying, and workplace violence [Position statement]. American Nurses Association.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Leiter, M., Day, A., & Gilin, D. (2009). Workplace empowerment, incivility, and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(3), 302-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2009.00999.x
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2010). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most (10th anniversary ed.). Penguin Books.
How this NU514 Unit 8 example is structured
The case runs chronologically so that fairness can be judged at every step. Evidence is gathered before any conclusion: the residents' accounts are corroborated by a charge nurse's direct observation, and the nurse's own account is sought in the fact-finding meeting before expectations are written. Her explanation, an unbroken precepting load, is taken seriously, and the manager caps her orientee assignments while holding the behavioral standard. Expectations are phrased as behaviors a colleague could observe: correcting privately, answering questions during handoff, no commentary on a resident's pace in front of patients or families. A note on representation records that under the 1975 Weingarten decision a union member may request a representative at an investigatory interview. The analysis asks whether the outcome, sustained improvement under a documented plan, was proportionate and consistent with how the unit has treated similar conduct.
Get an NU514 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Outline a performance concern, drawn from a real workplace with every identifier removed, or from the assigned scenario, plus the Unit 8 instructions and rubric. What returns within 24-48h is a model case documented step by step from the opening note to its resolution, and a first request is free. The judgment calls in your paper stay your own. 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.
NU514 Unit 8 questions, answered
Is incivility a performance issue or a conduct issue?
Organizations classify it differently, and the case notes that its composite hospital handles it under a code of conduct linked to performance review. Either way the documentation standard is the same: observed behavior, dates, the standard breached and a follow-up. The sample cites the Joint Commission's 2008 alert because behavior that discourages questions can affect patient safety, which raises the stakes beyond interpersonal friction.
Why cap her precepting load if the behavior was hers?
Because fairness includes the conditions the organization created. She had precepted on most of her shifts for a quarter without relief, and nobody had tracked it. Capping the load addresses the unit's contribution while the behavioral standard still applies to her. The case shows both actions in the same memo, which reads as balanced rather than as excusing or scapegoating.
What if the nurse disputes the residents' accounts?
Then the case needs corroboration, and the sample has it: a charge nurse observed one incident directly. Where none exists, a manager can still set expectations for future conduct without finding that past events occurred. Documenting the dispute itself, with the nurse's account in her own words, protects everyone involved and shows the process was fair.