DQ 2 : In health care organizations, is there ever a point where the influx of diverse ideas becomes counter-productive to innovation and effectiveness?
A deliberately uncomfortable prompt. The defensible answer turns on a distinction the question does not make for you: diversity of people is not the same thing as proliferation of options, and only one of them has a ceiling.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 18, 2026
Is there a point where diversity of ideas turns costly?
Make the distinction before you take a position, because without it any answer sounds like an argument against inclusion and that is not what the evidence supports. Diversity of people — professions, backgrounds, roles, seniority — reliably improves the quality of decisions by widening the set of considerations that reach the table, and the health care literature on this is not seriously contested. Proliferation of options is a different variable. A committee that generates forty candidate solutions and no mechanism for closing on one has a process problem, and it will produce delay, decision fatigue and eventually a default choice made by whoever outlasts everyone else. Those two things get conflated in this discussion constantly, and separating them is what lets you answer honestly rather than diplomatically. The distinction is not pedantic housekeeping; it decides whether the position you take is defensible or merely contrarian.
Once separated, the position writes itself and can be defended. Yes, there is a point at which the influx becomes counter-productive — and it is a point about convergence, not about who was invited. Innovation processes have two phases, divergent and convergent, and the failure mode in health care organisations is a committee that never leaves the first. Say what the convergence mechanism should be: a decision right assigned to a named person, a deadline, a criterion set agreed before the options are generated, a pilot rather than a vote. Then handle the obvious objection, which is that calling for closure is how minority views get shut down — the answer is that a criterion agreed in advance is exactly what protects a minority view from being dismissed on grounds invented afterwards. Support the position with evidence on decision quality rather than with an anecdote about a long meeting.
Likely learning objectives
- Separate diversity of participants from proliferation of options.
- Locate the failure in the convergence phase rather than in inclusion.
- Specify a convergence mechanism a leader could implement.
- Answer the objection that closure suppresses minority views.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
HCA 822 Topic 3 DQ 2 DQ 2 : In health care organizations, is there ever a point where the influx of diverse ideas becomes counter-productive to innovation and effectiveness? In health care organizations, is there ever a point where the influx of diverse ideas becomes counter-productive to innovation and effectiveness? Support your position.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course! HCA 822 Topic 3 DQ 2 Name: Discussion Rubric Grid View List View Excellent 90–100 Good 80–89 Fair 70–79 Poor 0–69 Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Main Posting: Timely and full participation 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. First Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. First Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Second Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Second Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Total Points: 100 Name: Discussion Rubric
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01An explicit distinction between people-diversity and option-proliferation.
- 02A stated position on the prompt's question.
- 03A named convergence mechanism.
- 04The strongest objection, engaged.
- 05Evidence about decision quality rather than an anecdote.
Taking the position, then defending it against the obvious reply
Two variables that get conflated
Separate who is in the room from how many options are on the table.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A distinction stated sharply enough to classify a new case.
What diversity of people reliably buys
State the evidence-backed benefit before arguing about limits.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A benefit tied to decision quality, not to fairness alone.
The position
Answer the question directly and locate the failure in convergence.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A claim about a phase of the process, not about participation.
The convergence mechanism
Name decision rights, criteria and a deadline.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A named decision-holder rather than 'leadership should decide'.
The suppression objection
Answer the charge that closure silences minority views.
What the assessor is likely looking for
An argument that criteria set in advance protect dissent.
What the evidence says about diversity and decision quality
Recommended databases
- PubMed Central
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- Implementation Science
- CINAHL Complete
Search sequence
- 1.Find evidence on equity and inclusion programmes and their measured effects in health institutions.
- 2.Look for implementation research on why quality initiatives stall between decision and action.
- 3.Read on psychological safety, which is the mechanism that makes dissent available at all.
- 4.Decide the position before searching, then look for evidence that would refute it.
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.
Effect and outcome of equity, diversity and inclusion programs in healthcare institutions: a systematic review protocol
PMC / National Library of Medicine · 2024
Measured effects of equity and inclusion programmes in healthcare institutions — the people-diversity half.
Psychological safety in an ECMO retrieval team: a qualitative study to inform improvement
BMJ Open Quality · 2024
Psychological safety in a clinical team; the condition under which diverse views actually get spoken.
Implementation strategies for large scale quality improvement initiatives in primary care settings: a qualitative assessment
BMC Primary Care · 2023
Implementation strategies for large-scale quality improvement, for where initiatives stall.
A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project
Implementation Science (via PubMed Central) · 2015
A taxonomy of implementation strategies — a vocabulary for the convergence mechanism you propose.
IPEC Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice: Version 3
Interprofessional Education Collaborative, Washington, DC · 2023
The competency framework that treats diverse professional input as a requirement, not an option.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Answering in a way that reads as an argument against inclusion.
- Refusing to take a position because the question is uncomfortable.
- Naming 'too many cooks' without a mechanism for what goes wrong.
- Proposing closure without saying who holds the decision right.
Submission checklist
- Have you distinguished diverse people from proliferating options?
- Is your position stated plainly rather than hedged?
- Does your convergence mechanism name who decides and when?
- Have you answered the suppression objection?
- Is your support evidence about decisions rather than a story about a meeting?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.

Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.