| Course | HCM-3070 Principles of Healthcare Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion forum: initial post and two replies |
| Length | About 569 words |
| Format | Discussion post with APA 7 citations |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | B.S. in Healthcare Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCM 3070 Module 1
Module 1 Discussion: Initial Post and Replies
Centralized Scheduling at Cedar Ridge: Was the Organization Ready, or Just Told?
Last spring, Cedar Ridge Regional Medical Center, the composite 214-bed nonprofit hospital I am using for this course, moved nurse scheduling for its six inpatient units from the unit managers to a central staffing office with new self-scheduling software. The change was announced in March and went live in May. Managers expected some grumbling. What they got was a petition signed by more than a hundred nurses and three resignations on one medical-surgical floor in the first month.
It would be easy to call this resistance to change and stop there. I think that misreads it. Weiner (2009) describes organizational readiness for change as two shared beliefs: change commitment, meaning members want to make the change work, and change efficacy, meaning they believe they collectively can. Both depend on how people appraise the task, the resources and the situation. At Cedar Ridge, nurses were never asked whether they valued the change, and the reasons given were about efficiency for the hospital, not benefits for them. Commitment was low from the start. Efficacy was low too: the software was introduced with one ninety-minute class, during a month when two units were already short-staffed, and the first schedule posted with errors that left a night shift uncovered.
If I were the manager, I would have treated readiness as something to build and measure before go-live. That would mean explaining what nurses would gain, such as seeing open shifts across all units and trading shifts without a manager's signature, piloting on one unit that volunteered, and delaying the hospital-wide start until the pilot unit's schedules posted cleanly twice in a row. A change that is well designed can still fail if the people expected to carry it out do not believe in it or do not believe they can do it.
Reply to Danielle
Danielle, your example of the switch to a new electronic health record at your clinic fits Weiner's distinction well, because your staff clearly had commitment, since everyone wanted to get off paper, but not efficacy, since the training came after go-live. I am curious whether your clinic measured readiness at all before launching. Even a short survey could have flagged the training gap early. Holt et al. (2007) developed a readiness scale that asks whether staff see a change as appropriate, whether leaders support it, whether they feel able to carry it out and whether it will benefit them personally, and the third of those questions would have exposed your clinic's problem before go-live. At Cedar Ridge, the managers only learned how unready people were when the petition arrived, which is the most expensive way to find out.
Reply to Marcus
Marcus, you argued that some people simply resist any change, and there is research to support that. Oreg (2003) built a measure of how strongly a person tends to push back against change; its four parts are a liking for routine, an emotional response when change is imposed, rigid thinking and a focus on short-term discomfort. I would add one caution for managers, though. The emotional reaction dimension is specifically about imposed change, which suggests that how a change is introduced can trigger resistance even in people who are not generally rigid. If most of a unit resists, as happened on the floor at Cedar Ridge, the process deserves a look before the people do.
References
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
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680-693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680
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
Reading the HCM 3070 Module 1 assignment instructions
The HCM-3070 Online syllabus lists Module 1 as Managing in a Culture of Change and requires six discussion forums across the course. Each initial post should fully answer the question in at least 200 words and should bring something new to the thread, an angle or a fact others have not raised, and each student replies to two peers with at least 100 words apiece; brief replies such as thanks do not count. The prompt for this forum is set in the classroom and may change between terms, so read it before drafting. Use APA citations for any source you draw on, and check the Course Calendar for the posting and reply deadlines. Forum posts in this course make up 16% of the final grade, so each one is worth real effort.
How the HCM 3070 Module 1 example is put together
The initial post opens with a specific change at a composite hospital and the reaction it produced, then refuses the easy label of resistance. It uses one theory to separate two missing ingredients, commitment and efficacy, and gives concrete evidence of each from the case. It closes with what a manager should have done, framed as steps rather than slogans. The first reply connects a peer's example to the same theory and asks a useful question. The second reply engages a peer's argument respectfully, adds research on dispositional resistance, and points out a nuance that changes the management lesson. Both replies stay under two hundred words and each adds one clear idea.
Where the marks sit in the HCM 3070 Module 1 rubric
Discussion forums in this course are graded on whether the initial post fully answers the question, meets the minimum length, contributes a new perspective or information, applies course concepts accurately, and is written with correct grammar and APA citations, along with timely and substantive replies to two peers. Mentors notice when a post uses a concept to analyze a situation rather than define it. Replies that extend, question or respectfully challenge a peer's point earn more than agreement. Posting early enough for others to respond is part of good forum practice, and the syllabus discourages one-line replies. A brief APA reference list at the end of the post is expected when sources are cited.
HCM 3070 Module 1 help from the desk
Students often lose discussion points by summarizing the reading instead of applying it, or by writing replies that only agree. Pick a real or composite example and analyze it with one concept. In replies, add something: a source, a question or a counterpoint. Keep the initial post focused; two hundred well-chosen words beat five hundred general ones. Cite in APA even in a forum. Avoid identifying real coworkers or patients when drawing on your workplace. If you are unsure of the prompt's intent, ask the mentor early. The desk can draft an initial post and replies for your forum prompt. Read two or three classmates' posts before replying so you can pick ones you can genuinely extend.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HCM 3070 and B.S. in Healthcare Management sample papers
- HCM 3070 Module 2: Planning and Decision Paper
- HCM 3070 Module 3: Employee Success Discussion
- HCM 3070 Module 4: Turnover Cost Analysis
- HCM 3070 Module 5: Final Project Part 1
- HCM 3070 Module 6: Final Project Part 2
- HCM 4050 Module 2: Demand for Health Paper
- HCM 4040 Module 3: Continuous Improvement Paper
- HCM 3080 Module 1: Law and Ethics Exercise
- HCM 4060 Module 1: HR in Healthcare Case Study
HCM 3070 Module 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HCM 3070 Module 1 sample paper?
The complete initial post and two replies are above, with notes on the sheets. They apply a readiness-for-change theory to a hospital scheduling change; follow the same pattern of case, concept and action for your prompt.
How long should an HCM-3070 discussion post be?
The syllabus asks for an initial post of at least 200 words that adds a new point of view or information, and replies to two peers of at least 100 words each.
What is organizational readiness for change?
A shared resolve among members to implement a change and a shared belief that they can do it, sometimes called change commitment and change efficacy. It depends on how people judge the task, resources and situation.
Is resistance to change a personality trait?
Partly. Research has measured individual differences in resistance, including routine seeking and emotional reaction to imposed change, but how a change is introduced also shapes how people react.
How many discussions are in HCM-3070?
The Online syllabus requires six discussion forums, along with two written assignments, quizzes, a midterm exam and a two-part final project.