| Course | HCS 475 Leadership and Performance Development (HCS/475) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Leadership and decision-making presentation |
| Length | about 847 words, 3 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Health Administration |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCS 475 Week 3
Travelers, Bonuses or Grow Our Own? A Ten-Slide Presentation on How an Imaging Director Decided to Close an MRI Staffing Gap, and Who She Involved
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
HCS/475: Leadership and Performance Development
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The imaging department, its vacancies and its costs are composites written for a model paper; decision models come from the sources listed.
Slide 1: The Decision
Four of 11 MRI technologist positions are vacant.
Outpatient MRI waits: 19 days.
Choose how to close the gap within 12 months.
Speaker notes
Our imaging director faced a decision that many health care leaders face today: how to respond to a shortage of skilled staff. With four of eleven MRI technologist positions vacant, the department ran two scanners on reduced evening hours, outpatient waits grew to 19 days and referring physicians began sending patients to a freestanding center. This presentation shows how she made the decision and why she involved her team the way she did.
Slide 2: What Was at Stake
Lost outpatient volume and revenue.
Delayed diagnoses for patients.
Burnout among the seven remaining technologists.
Speaker notes
The seven technologists who remained were working extra shifts, and two had said privately they might leave. A decision that fixed capacity but broke the remaining team would fail. That concern shaped both the criteria and who was involved.
Slide 3: Choosing How to Decide
Vroom's questions: How important is decision quality? Is team commitment needed? How much time is there?
Answer: quality high, commitment essential, some time available.
Style chosen: consult the group, then decide.
Speaker notes
Vroom (2000) described a normative model that helps leaders choose how much to involve others, from deciding alone to consulting individuals, consulting the group, facilitating a group decision or delegating. The right choice depends on the importance of quality, the importance of commitment, the leader's and group's expertise and time. Because the technologists would live with the outcome and knew the work best, the director held two group meetings to gather ideas and concerns and then made the decision herself, explaining her reasons.
Slide 4: Three Alternatives
Traveling technologists on 13-week contracts.
Sign-on and retention bonuses.
An in-house program training CT technologists for MRI.
Speaker notes
The team generated seven options; three survived first screening. Travelers fill gaps quickly but cost much more per hour. Bonuses compete in a regional market where every hospital offers them. Training CT technologists for MRI builds a pipeline but takes about a year and requires clinical supervision time.
Slide 5: The Criteria
Speed to restore capacity.
Cost over two years.
Quality and safety, including MRI safety screening.
Effect on retention of current staff.
Speaker notes
The team weighted retention equally with cost because losing even one more technologist would reverse any gain.
Slide 6: Comparing the Options
Travelers: fastest, most costly, no retention benefit.
Bonuses: moderate speed and cost, uncertain retention.
Training: slow, least costly over two years, strongest retention.
Speaker notes
Over two years, travelers for all four positions would cost about $760,000 more than employed staff. A training program for four CT technologists would cost about $220,000, including supervision and certification fees. Current staff said the training program would give them hope that relief was coming and would reward internal candidates.
Slide 7: Checking for Bias
Anchoring: the first quote seen was the traveler rate.
Sunk cost: past bonus spending did not justify more.
A pre-mortem imagined each option failing.
Speaker notes
Kahneman et al. (2011) recommended that leaders review decisions for signs of bias before approving them, including anchoring on an initial figure and failing to consider alternatives. The team ran a short pre-mortem, imagining it was a year later and the chosen plan had failed, and asked why. For training alone, the answer was clear: capacity would stay low for a year. The pre-mortem turned a choice between options into a combination of them.
Slide 8: The Decision
Two travelers for nine months to restore evening hours now.
Train four CT technologists for MRI over 12 months.
Retention bonus for current MRI staff tied to 18 months of service.
Speaker notes
The director combined the options: short-term relief from two travelers, a long-term pipeline from training and a modest retention bonus for the seven technologists who had carried the department. First-year cost: about $410,000, offset by recovered outpatient volume.
Slide 9: Review Points
At three months: evening hours restored, waits under 10 days.
At six months: no resignations among current staff.
At 12 months: four newly certified MRI technologists hired.
Speaker notes
Each review point is also a decision point. If waits have not fallen by three months, the department will add a third traveler. If trainees fall behind, the program will be extended rather than abandoned.
Slide 10: Lessons for Leaders
Decide how to decide before deciding.
Involve those who will live with the result.
Check your thinking for bias, and set review dates.
Speaker notes
The director's choice to consult the group built commitment without giving up her responsibility for the decision. Her technologists later said being asked mattered as much as the outcome. That is the link between leadership and decision making: the process shapes how people carry out the result, and aligning people behind a direction is the leader's work rather than the manager's (Kotter, 1990).
References
Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision... Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 50-60.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 103-111.
Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00003-6
What the HCS 475 Week 3 instructions ask
HCS 475 Week 3 often asks for a presentation, sometimes a team project, on leadership and decision making in health care. Students may be asked to describe decision-making models or processes, explain how leadership style affects who is involved in decisions, identify barriers such as bias or time pressure and apply the ideas to a health care scenario. Slides usually carry speaker notes and a reference slide. Around ten to twelve slides is common. Strong presentations work through one real decision rather than listing models, show the criteria and alternatives, explain why the leader chose a given level of staff involvement and address how the decision will be evaluated.
How this HCS 475 Week 3 example is built
The deck opens with the decision and its stakes: a fifth of MRI capacity unused because of vacancies, with patients waiting nearly three weeks. It then explains a normative decision model that asks a series of questions about the importance of quality, the need for commitment and the time available, and shows why the director chose to consult her team and then decide. Three alternatives are compared against cost, speed, quality and staff retention. A slide on bias shows how the team avoided anchoring on the cheapest option. The decision, a combined short-term and long-term plan, is presented with its first-year cost, followed by review points and the lessons for leadership.
HCS 475 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
The decision-making presentation is generally graded on how clearly it explains decision processes and applies them to a health care leadership situation. Instructors look for a defined decision, alternatives evaluated against criteria, a recognized model or framework used correctly and attention to how leadership style shapes participation. Recognizing barriers such as bias, incomplete information or time pressure earns credit. Slides should be concise with explanation in the notes, and a reference slide should cite sources in APA style. For team versions, a consistent voice and even division of work matter, and instructors can tell when sections were never read together. Presentations that list models without a decision, or that present a choice without criteria, generally score lower.
HCS 475 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
A frequent problem in HCS 475 Week 3 is a deck that defines several decision models and never makes a decision. Build the presentation around one choice. Show the alternatives and the criteria, then walk through the analysis. Explain who was involved and why, since that is where leadership style meets decision making. Name at least one bias and how it was countered. Keep slides short and let the notes explain. Include costs and a review date, since good decisions are revisited. For team projects, agree on formatting and tone before dividing slides. Finally, cite sources on a reference slide in APA format, including any model you name on a slide.
Related HCS 475 sample papers
Other HCS 475 week samples
- HCS 475 Week 1: Leadership Theories and Style
- HCS 475 Week 2: Leading Change in Health Care
- HCS 475 Week 4: Performance Indicators
- HCS 475 Week 5: Mentoring Future Leaders
More BS in Health Administration sample papers
- HCS 468 Week 3: Privacy and Security Risk Analysis
- HCS 472 Week 3: Marketing Strategy and the Four Ps
- HCS 483 Week 3: Information System Implementation
- HCS 490 Week 3: Consumer Access and Communication
HCS 475 Week 3 questions, answered
What does HCS/475 Week 3 usually ask for?
Many sections ask for a presentation, often a team presentation, on leadership and decision making, applying decision models and leadership styles to a health care situation.
Where can I find a free HCS 475 Week 3 sample paper?
The ten-slide MRI staffing decision deck is shown above with all its notes, free of charge, and margin comments explain the structure. We will prepare your first decision-making presentation free.
What is the Vroom decision model?
A normative model that helps leaders choose how much to involve others in a decision, from deciding alone to consulting individuals or the group to delegating, based on factors such as quality, commitment and time.
What biases affect health care leadership decisions?
Common ones include anchoring on the first number seen, confirmation bias, overconfidence, the sunk cost effect and groupthink.
What is the difference between a consultative and a participative decision?
In a consultative decision the leader seeks input and then decides; in a participative decision the group decides together, with the leader as a member.
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 University of Phoenix 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.
Request this one custom, free · All HCS 475 week samples · All courses