DNP 840 Topic 6: comparison of leadership models
Servant against transformational is the required comparison, and the axis is named for you: how each brings about change. Comparing them on values instead is the easy wrong turn.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Two parts, and part one has a required comparator
Part One has a fixed shape. Servant leadership is the anchor, at least one transformational model must be among the comparators, and the contrast has to be about how the models bring about change in organisations. That last constraint is the useful one, because it rules out the comparison most papers default to — a values comparison, in which servant leadership cares about people and transformational leadership inspires them, and both sound admirable and nothing has been distinguished. Compare on mechanism. Transformational leadership works through a compelling vision, idealised influence and intellectual stimulation: change flows from the leader's articulation of a future and followers' identification with it. Servant leadership inverts the direction — the leader's first commitment is to followers' growth and needs, and organisational change is downstream of people who have been developed and entrusted. Take the definitions from their originators, since textbook tables flatten exactly the mechanism distinctions you are asked to draw.
That difference has consequences you can argue rather than assert. Transformational change is typically faster and more dependent on the leader, which makes it fragile when the leader leaves; servant-led change is slower and more distributed, which makes it more durable and less suited to a crisis needing a decision this afternoon. Say which conditions each suits, because that is a claim with content. Handle the evidence honestly too: transformational leadership has a substantial measurement literature and reasonably consistent associations with nurse outcomes, while servant leadership's evidence base is thinner and its instruments less settled — noting that is a strength rather than a weakness in a doctoral paper. Then make sure Part Two is genuinely present and distinguishable, since a document that merges the two parts loses the marks allocated to the second. Part Two works better on a specific leader or situation, since Part One's comparison only proves itself when applied.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Compare leadership models on mechanism rather than on values.
- 02Explain how each model produces organisational change.
- 03Match a model to the conditions it suits.
- 04Report an uneven evidence base accurately.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Name: Assignment Rubric Grid View List View Excellent Good Fair Poor Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 28 (28%) – 31 (31%) The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values. An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 0 (0%) – 24 (24%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing. An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing. Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it is missing. Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Total Points: 100 Name: Assignment Rubric
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A review covering several models including servant and transformational.
- 02A comparison drawn on how change is produced.
- 03Conditions under which each model works better.
- 04An honest account of the evidence behind each.
- 05Both parts present and distinguishable in one document.
Compare, contrast on change, then apply
The models in scope
Introduce the assortment of models being reviewed.
Servant leadership
Set out its constructs and how change follows from them.
Transformational leadership
Set out its components and its route to organisational change.
How each produces change
Contrast the two on speed, durability and dependence on the leader.
Evidence and its limits
Report what has been measured for each model.
Part Two: leadership in practice
Deliver the second part as a distinct, complete section.
Where the models are defined and tested
Recommended databases
- PubMed Central
- CINAHL
- Business Source Complete
- Your programme's leadership readings
Search sequence
- 1.Find the original statements of each model rather than textbook summaries.
- 2.Search each model with nurse outcomes to see what has been measured.
- 3.Note which instruments exist for each and how established they are.
- 4.Look for a study comparing the two directly rather than separately.
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
A systematic review of the relationships between nurse leaders' leadership styles and nurses' work-related well-being
International Journal of Nursing Practice · 2022
A systematic review of nurse leaders' leadership styles and workforce outcomes, which is the measured evidence the comparison needs.
- 02
The effect of servant leadership on medical staff unethical pro-organizational behavior: the role of work meaning and power distance
BMC Nursing · 2025
A study of servant leadership's effects in a health setting, including an outcome that complicates the model's usual framing.
- 03
Healthcare Top Management's Transformational Leadership Behaviors and Nurses' Occupational and Organizational Outcomes
Journal of Nursing Management · 2024
On transformational leadership behaviours and nurse outcomes, which is the comparator's evidence base.
- 04
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 placing both models in the profession's own trajectory.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Comparing the models on values, which distinguishes nothing.
- Omitting the required transformational comparator.
- Treating both evidence bases as equally strong.
- Merging the two parts so the second is not separately assessable.
Submission checklist
- Is the comparison about mechanism of change?
- Is at least one transformational model included?
- Have you said which conditions suit which model?
- Are both parts clearly delineated?
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.