DNP 840 Topic 1 DQ 2: working across organizational levels
The prompt ends by asking whether the challenges outweigh the rewards. Listing both and declining to answer is the most common way to lose the marks that clause carries.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Across and between levels — a boundary-spanning role
The phrase across and between levels describes a specific organisational position, and the literature has a name for it: boundary spanning. The doctorally prepared nurse sits between the bedside and the executive suite, fluent enough in clinical detail to be credible with staff and fluent enough in finance, regulation and strategy to be credible upward. That dual fluency is the value — most organisational failures happen at the seams, where a decision made with good executive logic meets a workflow reality nobody in the room understood. Someone who can carry information in both directions, and translate it rather than merely relay it, prevents a category of failure that neither level can prevent alone. Note that the position is not only vertical, since across levels also means across departments that answer to different executives, where the coordination problem is lateral and there is often no shared authority above the disagreement at all.
The challenges follow from the same position. A boundary spanner usually has influence rather than authority, and has to achieve things through people who do not report to them. There is a credibility tax in both directions — too clinical for the executives, too corporate for the unit — and it is paid continuously rather than once. Loyalty conflicts are real when a resource decision you helped make lands on colleagues you still work beside. And the role is frequently undefined in the organisational chart, so its scope is whatever you can negotiate. Then answer the final clause, because it is asked directly: take a position on whether one outweighs the other, and defend it with a condition. The most defensible answer is usually that the rewards outweigh the challenges when the role has explicit executive sponsorship and defined scope, and do not when it depends purely on personal credibility — which makes the answer contingent rather than evasive.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Describe boundary spanning as an organisational position.
- 02Identify the specific value of dual fluency between levels.
- 03Recognise influence without authority as the role's core constraint.
- 04Answer a comparative question with a conditional verdict.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Name: Discussion Rubric Grid View List View Excellent 90–100 Good 80–89 Fair 70–79 Poor 0–69 Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Main Posting: Timely and full participation 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. First Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. First Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Second Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Second Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Total Points: 100 Name: Discussion Rubric
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01An account of what working across levels involves.
- 02The rewards, tied to what the position uniquely enables.
- 03The challenges, including influence without authority.
- 04A verdict on whether one outweighs the other, with its condition.
The movement, its rewards, its costs, then the weighing
The position between levels
Describe boundary spanning and the dual fluency it requires.
What it makes possible
Set out the failures this position uniquely prevents.
What it costs
Identify influence without authority, credibility tax and loyalty conflict.
The verdict
Answer whether the rewards outweigh the challenges, and when.
What the literature calls this position
Recommended databases
- PubMed Central
- CINAHL
- ANCC Magnet resources
- Health Affairs
Search sequence
- 1.Search boundary spanning in health care leadership for the formal literature.
- 2.Find evidence on nurse leaders' influence where formal authority is absent.
- 3.Look for what organisational sponsorship changes about such roles.
- 4.Note how the DNP role is defined, or not, in organisational structures.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Expanding knowledge and roles for authority and practice boundaries of Emergency Department nurses: a grounded theory study
International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being · 2019
On nurses expanding authority and practice boundaries, which is the between-levels position examined empirically.
- 02
Past, Present and Future: A Historical Analysis and Reflection of 100 Years of Nursing Leadership
Journal of Nursing Management · 2025
A historical analysis of nursing leadership, useful for what has and has not changed about the position's authority.
- 03
Healthcare organizational change: implications for access to care and its measurement
Health Services Research · 1998
On organisational change and its effects, which is where decisions made at one level meet realities at another.
- 04
Learn About the ANCC Magnet Recognition Program
American Nurses Credentialing Center · 2025
A structural model that defines nursing decision rights explicitly, which is the sponsorship condition in institutional form.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Listing challenges and rewards and never answering the final clause.
- Describing leadership generally rather than the between-levels position.
- Ignoring that the role usually lacks formal authority.
- Giving an unconditional verdict where the honest answer is conditional.
Submission checklist
- Have you answered whether one outweighs the other?
- Is your verdict attached to a condition?
- Did you name the influence-without-authority problem?
- Is the discussion about between-levels work specifically?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.