NUR 5123 Module 6 Communication Self-Assessment and Development Goal Example

Two Questions Before My Position: A Communication Self-Assessment From an Interventional Radiology Nurse Manager's Summer, and One Measurable Goal

Student Name

American College of Education

NUR5123: Relationships Through Communication

Module 6 Assignment

Instructor Name

August 10, 2027

Why Assess Myself Now

This summer I managed three communication problems in my interventional radiology department: a handoff that let a bleed go unrecognized, a senior physician who silenced a nurse at a time-out and a change in sedation practice that affected eight groups of people. I planned two of those conversations carefully and handled one of them badly on the telephone before I had a plan. A self-assessment is worth doing only if it uses more than my own impression, so I used three sources: a validated scale, anonymous feedback from colleagues and an honest review of what I actually did in the events described in the earlier modules.

The Instrument and My Scores

I completed the Interpersonal Communication Competence Scale developed by Rubin and Martin (1994), which measures ten dimensions of interpersonal skill: self-disclosure, empathy, social relaxation, assertiveness, altercentrism, interaction management, expressiveness, supportiveness, immediacy and environmental control. Altercentrism refers to attention to the other person, their words and interests, and interaction management to handling the flow of a conversation, such as turn-taking and knowing when to let the other person lead. Rubin and Martin reported acceptable reliability for the scale and evidence for its validity, and it is short enough to repeat.

My highest scores were in assertiveness, expressiveness and supportiveness, each averaging above 4 on the 5-point items. My lowest were in altercentrism and interaction management, both averaging 3.0. On the altercentrism items I rated myself lowest on staying focused on what the other person is saying when I disagree, and on the interaction management items I rated myself lowest on letting the other person finish before I respond.

Self-report has obvious limits. Most of us score ourselves kindly on skills we admire, and I completed the scale in the same month as the events it was meant to measure, when my memory of the difficult calls was fresh and possibly harsher than it will be later. The scale's value here is less its absolute numbers than the contrast between dimensions: whatever bias I bring applies to all ten, so the gap between my highest and lowest scores is more trustworthy than any single score.

What Colleagues Said

I asked six colleagues, two staff nurses, a charge nurse, a technologist, an interventional radiologist and the oncology nurse manager from the Module 1 event, to answer five questions anonymously through a form collected by our department secretary. Four of the six described me as clear, fair and quick to act. Four also said, in different words, that I sometimes decide what a problem is before hearing the other person out. The oncology manager wrote that on our first call about the biopsy patient I had started with what her nurse did wrong and had not asked what happened on her unit. The staff nurse from the time-out incident wrote that she felt protected afterward, which suggests that the planned conversation with Dr. R. worked as intended.

What the Events Showed

The events of this course confirm the pattern. In Module 1, the telephone argument between the two managers escalated because each of us met accusation with accusation; I was one of those managers. I began the call with my conclusion and did not ask a single question. In contrast, when I planned the conversation with Dr. R. in Module 3, I scripted my opening around a request to hear the physician's side and prepared responses that acknowledged Dr. R.'s points before restating mine. That conversation reached agreement. When I prepare, I listen; when I am surprised or angry, I advocate first and listen later, if at all.

The same pattern matters beyond my own conversations. A review of research on speaking up in hospitals found that the attitude of leaders and fear of others' responses were among the factors that determine whether staff voice safety concerns (Okuyama et al., 2014). Studying work teams at a manufacturing company, Edmondson (1999) found that a shared sense that the team was safe for speaking up predicted how much the team sought feedback, owned up to mistakes and experimented, and that learning in turn predicted how well the team performed. If my staff see me decide before I listen, they will conclude that raising a concern with me is a risk, and they will raise fewer.

The Development Goal

My goal is this: from September 1 to December 31, in every conversation about a problem, complaint or conflict, I will ask at least two open questions about the other person's view before I state my own, and I will raise my altercentrism and interaction management scores on the Rubin and Martin scale from 3.0 to at least 3.8 and the number of colleagues who describe me as listening before deciding from two of six to at least five of six.

Three actions support the goal. First, I will keep a brief log after each problem conversation, recording whether I asked two questions first and, if not, what triggered me to advocate early. Second, I will not respond to unexpected complaints on the spot when I can avoid it; I will say that I want to understand what happened and arrange to talk within the day, which gives me the preparation that the log shows I need. Third, I have asked the oncology nurse manager, whose feedback was the most direct, to meet monthly as a peer coach, since our units share the most difficult handoffs and she has seen me at my worst.

What I Am Keeping

A development plan that lists only weaknesses risks trading away strengths. My assertiveness was useful this summer. It allowed me to raise the time-out incident with the most senior physician in the department rather than letting it pass, and it helped me hold the line when the sedation change met resistance from physicians worried about lost cases. My colleagues described me as fair and quick to act, and the staff nurse involved in the time-out felt protected. I do not want to become a manager who listens so carefully that nothing is decided. The goal, then, is about order rather than volume: questions first, position second, and a decision still made. The log will record decisions as well as questions, so that I can see whether asking first slows me down in ways that matter to patients or staff. If it does, the log will show that too, and I will adjust the goal rather than abandon the decisiveness my team relies on.

Review

In January I will repeat the scale, send the same five questions to the same six colleagues and review my log. If the scores and feedback have moved but the log shows I still advocate first in unplanned conversations, the next goal will focus on those moments specifically. If nothing has moved, I will ask the director of nursing for a coach from outside the department. I expect the log to be the most useful source, because it records what I did rather than what I or others remember.

References

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Okuyama, A., Wagner, C., & Bijnen, B. (2014). Speaking up for patient safety by hospital-based health care professionals: A literature review. BMC Health Services Research, 14, Article 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-61

Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonal communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099409359938