NUR 670 servant leadership and purpose: discussion guide
The post has to move from a personal grievance to a diagnosis — and the servant-leader idea of purpose is the specific lens the question hands you for making that move.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 10, 2026
What does the NUR 670 servant leadership question require?
This question has a two-part structure and the second part carries the marks. The first part is narrative: a time you felt used and manipulated, the circumstances, and whether you felt valued by the leader. The second is analytical and it is where most posts thin out — based on the textbook, explain how the issue of purpose in the servant-leader paradigm could have produced a better outcome for the leader as well as for you. Those three words at the start are an instruction to use a specific source, and the phrase "for the leader and yourself" rules out an answer in which the leader simply behaves better and gains nothing. You have to argue that the leader also lost something, which is a harder and much more interesting claim. Plan that argument before you write the story, because the story you choose has to be one that can carry it.
Start with the incident, but write it as evidence rather than as grievance. What makes a story useful here is not how badly you were treated but how clearly it shows the mechanism. Feeling used has a recognisable structure: your effort was directed toward a goal that was never explained to you, or that turned out to belong to someone else, and you discovered the real purpose afterwards. Feeling manipulated adds concealment — the reason you were given was not the reason that operated. Say what you were told, what you did, and what you later learned, and the analytical half will have something concrete to work on. Keep the account professional and de-identified; a post that reads as a complaint about a named person is uncomfortable for everyone in the thread and does not read as leadership analysis.
Purpose in the servant-leader paradigm is not the same thing as having a goal, and the distinction is what the question turns on. Greenleaf's formulation begins with the desire to serve rather than the desire to lead, and his best test asks whether those served grow — whether they become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous. Read against that test, being used is the exact inverse: your capacity was consumed and you ended the episode less trusting and less willing than you began. A leader operating from purpose in this sense would have made the shared aim explicit, shown where your contribution sat inside it, and treated your development as part of the objective rather than as a cost of achieving it. Notice that this is a demanding standard rather than a comfortable one: a leader can be pleasant, available and well liked and still fail it, if the people around them are no more capable at the end of a project than at the start.
The requirement to show a benefit for the leader is the part worth planning before you write. The honest answer is that manipulation is efficient once and expensive afterwards. A leader who obtains effort by concealment spends credibility that cannot be recovered cheaply, and the next request costs more; discretionary effort — the willingness to notice a problem and mention it — is the first thing withdrawn and the last thing a leader can demand. The evidence supports this direction: reviews of servant leadership in nursing associate it with higher job satisfaction, lower burnout and improved psychological safety, and psychological safety is precisely the condition under which staff raise problems early. The counterfactual is therefore concrete rather than moral: with purpose made explicit, the leader would have kept a source of information they instead lost.
Ground the discussion in the wider evidence rather than in the single episode, since one experience proves nothing on its own. Work on incivility and lateral violence in nursing describes behaviours that devalue people and links them to burnout, reduced job performance and compromised patient safety, so your experience sits inside a documented pattern with organisational consequences. Naming that pattern also protects the post from reading as a private complaint, and it is the move that turns a story into an analysis a marker can grade. It gives your classmates something to engage with too, since a documented pattern can be agreed or disputed while a personal experience can only be sympathised with — which is exactly the difference between a substantive reply and one that reads as "that happened to me too".
On mechanics, the course requires an initial post of at least 250 words with a minimum of one scholarly source, plus replies to peers on three separate days. The textbook is named in the question, so cite it explicitly rather than substituting an article that says something similar. Close by saying what you now do differently as a result — whether you ask for the purpose behind a request, or make purpose explicit when you are the one delegating. That closing turn answers the second half of the question properly, since the paradigm is not only a description of good leaders but a claim about what any of us owes the people we ask for effort. The question is set in a course about your own leadership development, so an answer that ends with the other person's failings has stopped one step short of where it was going.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Convert a personal professional experience into analysable evidence.
- 02Distinguish purpose in the servant-leader sense from simply having a goal.
- 03Argue a benefit to the leader, not only to the follower.
- 04Situate an individual experience within a documented organisational pattern.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS Discussion Questions (DQ) Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Weekly Participation Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. APA Format and Writing Quality Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition. Use of Direct Quotes I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source. LopesWrite Policy For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Late Policy The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Communication Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours. 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
What the initial post has to contain
- 01A described incident in which you felt used and manipulated, with its circumstances.
- 02A statement of whether you felt valued by the leader.
- 03An explanation, drawn from the textbook, of how purpose in the servant-leader paradigm could have yielded a better outcome.
- 04A benefit identified for the leader as well as for you.
- 05At least 250 words and a minimum of one scholarly source.
- 06Three replies to peers across three separate days.
From the incident to the counterfactual
The incident
Describe the circumstances concisely: what was asked, what reason was given, and what turned out to be the case.
Whether you felt valued
Answer the question directly and say what in the leader's behaviour produced that judgement.
Purpose in the servant-leader paradigm
Define purpose as the textbook does and apply Greenleaf's test of whether those served grow to this episode.
The counterfactual for both parties
Say what would have gone differently and identify what the leader gained by not doing it and lost by doing it.
Where to ground the servant leadership claim
Recommended databases
- Your course textbook, which the question names directly
- CINAHL and PubMed Central
- Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership
Search sequence
- 1.Find the textbook's treatment of purpose first and note its exact language; the question is anchored there and a paraphrase from elsewhere will not satisfy it.
- 2.Search servant leadership and nursing outcomes for the follower-level consequences, which is what supplies the leader's incentive in your counterfactual.
- 3.Search incivility or lateral violence for the organisational pattern your incident belongs to, so the post is not resting on one anecdote.
- 4.Look for psychological safety specifically if you want to argue that the leader lost information, since that is the mechanism the literature names.
Sources on servant leadership and incivility
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
What is Servant Leadership?
Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership · 2024
Greenleaf's own account, including the test of whether those served grow — healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous. The cleanest statement of what purpose means in this paradigm; it is an advocacy source, so pair it with the textbook and with empirical work.
- 02
Impact of Servant Leadership on the Work Environment and the Attitudes and Behavior of Nursing Professionals as a Function of Gender: A Systematic Review
Journal of Nursing Management · 2025
Fourteen studies and 7,041 participants linking servant leadership to job satisfaction, reduced burnout and psychological safety. The evidence that the leader's counterfactual gain is real rather than sentimental.
- 03
Workplace incivility, lateral violence and bullying among nurses. A review about their prevalence and related factors
Acta Biomedica · 2018
Prevalence and correlates of behaviours that devalue nurses, with their organisational consequences. Use it to place your incident inside a documented pattern; it is a broad review, so cite it for prevalence rather than for any specific mechanism.
- 04
A systematic review of the relationships between nurse leaders' leadership styles and nurses' work-related well-being
International Journal of Nursing Practice · 2022
Seventeen quantitative studies across eight countries showing destructive, supportive and relational styles affecting well-being through trust and empowerment. Useful for naming the mediating mechanism between how a leader behaves and how a follower ends up feeling.
Before you post
Common mistakes
- Writing the incident as a complaint rather than as evidence of a mechanism.
- Identifying the leader, or including enough detail that colleagues could.
- Treating purpose as any goal, which loses the distinctive claim of the servant-leader paradigm.
- Explaining only how you would have benefited, when the question names the leader too.
- Substituting a journal article for the textbook the question explicitly points at.
- Concluding that the leader was simply a bad person, which is not an analysis.
- Spending most of the word count on the story and reaching the paradigm in the last two sentences.
Submission checklist
- The incident is described professionally and without identifying anyone.
- It is clear what you were told, what you did, and what you later discovered.
- Purpose is defined in servant-leader terms, not as a synonym for objective.
- The textbook is cited for that definition.
- A specific benefit to the leader is argued.
- At least one scholarly source supports the wider pattern.
- The post reaches 250 words and follows APA 7.
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.