Workplace Environment Assessment: Civility and Nurse Wellbeing
This paper presents a comprehensive workplace environment assessment completed using the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory, yielding a score of 95 out of 100. The author examines what the results reveal about civility, employee motivation, workload management, and nurse burnout in a healthcare setting. Drawing on the DESC model outlined by Clark (2015), the paper connects assessment findings to evidence-based strategies for improving communication, self-care, and teamwork. A real-world example involving an overworked colleague illustrates the risks of poor workload management. The paper concludes with practical, evidence-based recommendations for creating high-performance interprofessional teams through task prioritization, open communication, and organizational self-care initiatives.
- Introduction: Overview of workplace assessment purpose and structure
- Work Environment Assessment Results: Clark Inventory score, civility findings, and burnout example
- Surprises and Prior Beliefs from the Assessment: Unexpected findings on motivation, workload, and self-care
- Literature Review: The DESC Model and Workplace Civility: DESC model applied to workload and communication issues
- Evidence-Based Strategies for High-Performance Interprofessional Teams: Task prioritization and open communication strategies
- Conclusion: Early intervention recommended for healthy workplace culture
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds abstract concepts in a concrete, personal example — the overworked colleague assigned to a critical-care patient — making the risks of poor workload management vivid and credible.
- Moves logically from assessment data to theory to practical recommendations, giving the paper a clear problem-solution structure.
- Applies the DESC model specifically to the identified workplace issue, demonstrating how a theoretical framework can be operationalized in a real nursing context.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the use of a validated assessment tool (the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory) as an evidence base for generating actionable recommendations. Rather than relying on general claims, the author ties each recommendation directly back to scored inventory items, showing how quantitative self-assessment can anchor qualitative analysis and support theory-to-practice transfer.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into five labeled parts: an assessment summary table narrative, a descriptive analysis of results, a reflection on surprises and prior beliefs, a literature review centered on the DESC model, and a set of evidence-based strategies for interprofessional team development. Each section builds on the previous one, moving from observation to theory to application — a pattern well-suited to reflective professional nursing writing at the undergraduate level.
Introduction
A workplace environment assessment is essential for identifying potential risks and working hazards that impede employee progress and performance. In the nursing profession, such an assessment helps determine the obstacles that reduce productivity — and eliminating those obstacles is critical to ensuring patient safety and quality care. This paper presents the results of a completed Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory, describes those results in detail with real examples, and offers evidence-based recommendations for creating high-performing interprofessional teams.
Work Environment Assessment Results
After completing the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory — a tool for assessing how healthy a workplace environment is for its employees — the final score was 95 (Clark, 2015, p. 20). A score between 90 and 100 indicates a healthy workplace free from incivility and immoral behavior.
The aggregate score suggests that the workplace is a healthy and civil place to work. There is collaboration among colleagues and generally open communication with higher authorities, though occasionally leadership remains vested in its own perspective. Overall, no uncivil behavior, harassment, bullying, or serious workplace misconduct was observed.
The assessment results showed that a score of 95 is conducive to a healthy work environment free from uncivil behavior. When considering the definition of workplace incivility, it encompasses forcing employees to engage in illegal activity, lying and deceiving, disrespecting others with foul language or aggressive conduct, or coercing them in any form (Bandow & Hunter, 2008). None of these behaviors were observed or experienced in the assessed workplace.
However, minor issues were noted in the survey. The statement regarding a "high level of employee satisfaction" was rated 4 (somewhat true), as was the statement regarding organizational culture being assessed on an ongoing basis, and the statement regarding members of the organization being involved in shared decision-making. These ratings of 4 reflected observable employee burnout due to heavy workload.
There is less emphasis on employee self-care than ideal, which affects teamwork and can negatively influence patient health outcomes in some cases. This may be the beginning of a larger problem if not addressed early. It may also stem from employees not being sufficiently involved in shared decision-making. Whatever instructions are handed down from higher authorities, employees are expected to comply — and this may be placing extra pressure on staff, gradually reducing their motivation.
One specific incident illustrated these issues clearly. A fellow nurse was not feeling well — she had worked overtime the previous night due to a high patient census, had not slept adequately, and was experiencing a headache from extreme fatigue. The following day, she was assigned a patient in critical care, requiring extra diligence with clinical assessment and medication management. Her physical condition was not conducive to performing at her best, yet her duty and code of ethics required her to serve each patient with full care.
This situation demonstrated that employees were experiencing heavy workloads and lacked sufficient motivation to perform at their maximum capacity. They felt unable to voice concerns or communicate openly with higher authorities, and were expected to fulfill their job responsibilities regardless of fatigue or poor physical condition.
The communication at all organizational levels is generally direct, though there is a risk that certain pressures can create an impression of incivility. Teamwork and collaboration are encouraged, and collective achievements are recognized as organizational accomplishments. However, if workloads are not distributed in a way that prevents burnout, open acknowledgment from staff would be more difficult to sustain. As illustrated in the example above, the colleague felt an internal pressure to perform her duty regardless of how tired or overworked she already was.
Surprises and Prior Beliefs from the Assessment
Two aspects of the results were surprising. First, employee motivation was lower than expected. Since no illegal or uncivil behavior had been observed within the organization, it was reasonable to assume employees would be fully satisfied with their work and management. Second, workload was not being managed as effectively as anticipated. Both statements on the Clark Assessment were rated 4, reflecting a belief that even though most things were running smoothly, these two areas were falling short. Had workload been managed more efficiently, higher motivation and stronger employee engagement — and consequently better patient outcomes — would likely follow.
One idea confirmed by the assessment was the expectation that there would be an increased emphasis on employee self-care and wellness. Organizations should prioritize caring for their employees, who are considered a vital asset (Fulmer & Ployhart, 2014): when employees perform at their peak, they produce excellent outcomes, which is especially critical in healthcare. However, the assessment revealed that employee self-care was not emphasized sufficiently, contributing to lower motivation and slightly increased burnout due to inefficient workload management.
Overall, the assessment results suggest that the workplace is a civil environment. The working conditions are healthy, and no unjust behavior was observed according to the established definition of an uncivil workplace. Although workload management and staff motivation — particularly related to burnout — present areas for improvement, the general effect of the workplace is positive.
Conclusion
Since the problem is at the initial stage and has not yet become a major issue for the organization, it can be managed at a lower level before infiltrating all departments. Addressing workload management and self-care proactively — through task prioritization, open communication, team collaboration, and leadership-driven wellness initiatives — will sustain the workplace's high civility score and ensure that both employees and patients continue to benefit from a healthy, high-performing environment.
References
Bandow, D. & Hunter, D. (2008). Developing policies about uncivil workplace behavior. Business Communication Quarterly, 2008, 103–106. DOI: 10.1177/1080569907313380
Clark, C. M. (2015, November). Conversations to inspire and promote a more civil workplace. American Nurse Today, 10(11), 18–23. Retrieved from https://www.myamericannurse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ant11-CE-Civility-1023.pdf
Fulmer, I. S. & Ployhart, R. E. (2014). "Our most important asset": A multidisciplinary/multilevel review of human capital valuation for research and practice. Journal of Management, 40(1), 161–192. DOI: 10.1177/0149206313511271
Mills, J., Wand, T. & Fraser, J. A. (2018). Exploring the meaning and practice of self-care among palliative care nurses and doctors: A qualitative study. BMC Palliative Care, 17(1), 63. DOI: 10.1186/s12904-018-0318-0
Raziq, A. & Maulabaksh, R. (2015). Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 717–725. DOI: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00524-9
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.