What makes a company great to work for?

Reflecting on my experiences, I can clearly distinguish between highly beneficial training and training that fell flat. One training I found especially effective was a leadership and organizational workshop that emphasized self-assessment, peer discussions, and practical exercises. The instructor encouraged participants to identify their unique strengths and explore ways to leverage them within team settings. This approach reflected a key principle from First, Break All the Rules: great managers focus on individuals’ strengths rather than trying to fix weaknesses (Buckingham & Coffman, 2020). By concentrating on what each participant naturally excelled at, the training felt highly personalized and meaningful. Engaging in discussions and real-world simulations allowed me to immediately apply insights to workplace challenges, reinforcing the learning and making it memorable.

In contrast, some other training courses I have experienced were less effective. These consisted primarily of long text slides and multiple-choice quizzes, with little to no opportunity for discussion or practical application. According to Buckingham and Coffman, employees learn best when they can connect training to their own talents and responsibilities (2020). Because this type of training was impersonal and procedural, it was difficult to retain information, and I did not feel motivated to fully engage with the content.

The differences between these experiences illustrate important factors for effective training. Training that aligns with individual strengths, encourages interaction, and connects to real-world application produces higher engagement, better retention, and actionable skills (Buckingham & Coffman, 2020). On the other hand, programs that neglect these principles risk disengagement and minimal impact. For organizations, designing training that actively involves employees and leverages their natural talents transforms learning from a mandatory task into a meaningful opportunity for growth and development.

Reference

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (2020). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently.

After completing the Implicit Association Test (IAT), my results indicated that I was moderately faster at pairing “Gay people” with “Good” and “Straight people” with “Bad” than the reverse. While this does not mean I consciously prefer one group over another, the results suggest that I may hold implicit associations that operate outside of my awareness. As the IAT materials explain, the test captures the speed of mental associations, not deliberate beliefs. The results can fluctuate based on context, fatigue, or test design (Project Implicit, n.d.).

These implicit associations are important to consider in selection processes such as hiring, admissions, or promotions. Implicit bias threatens construct validity if decision-makers unintentionally evaluate candidates based on stereotypes rather than job-relevant criteria. If an interviewer unconsciously associates competence more strongly with certain groups, their ratings may reflect bias rather than true performance potential. This will weaken the accuracy of the selection tool (Scientific American, 2020). Implicit bias can also undermine reliability because biased judgments are likely to be inconsistent across evaluators or situations. This could introduce random systematic errors into decisions, which could result in discrimination even when organizations intend to be fair.

One thing that we could try to counteract implicit bias is to rely more heavily on structured selection methods like standardized interview questions, blind resume screening, and clear scoring rubrics. Research suggests that structure reduces the influence of subjective impressions and forces evaluators to focus on job-related evidence rather than gut reactions (Better Homes & Gardens Real Estate, n.d.).

The IAT reinforces that bias can exist even among well-intentioned people. Making intentional, evidence-based selection practices essential for fairness and validity.

Sources

Better Homes & Gardens Real Estate. (n.d.). Implicit bias. https://bhgrecareer.com/bebetterblog/implicit-bias/

Project Implicit. (n.d.). Understanding the IAT. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

Scientific American. (2020). How to think about implicit bias. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-think-about-implicit-bias/

Interviews are often treated as neutral assessments of talent. However, my experience as well as information from the readings, suggests they can be surprisingly flawed measures of performance if not designed carefully. Thinking back on interviews I’ve had, I’ve seen both strong and weak practices that affected their reliability, validity, and utility.

In the most effective interviews, employers use structured, behavior-based questions, such as “Tell me about a time when…” rather than engaging in casual conversation. This would increase reliability because each candidate was evaluated using similar criteria, which would reduce interviewer bias. These interviews would also feel more valid because questions were clearly tied to job-relevant skills instead of personality or likability. For example, an employer asked me how I handled a team conflict, which aligned with the role’s collaboration requirements. Arguments that great managers select for talent first and design interviews to reveal patterns of behavior rather than surface traits (Buckingham and Coffman, 2016).

Ineffective interviews I experienced were largely unstructured and heavily dependent on “gut feeling”. I would be asked questions like “Why should we hire you?” which provided little useful information bout my actual capabilities. It was a bit vague. While others would focus too much on minor details in my resume rather than on my underlying talents. These practices lowered both reliability and validity since other candidates likely faced very different questions. These questions would not accurately predict job performance. Caution against this kind of intuition-based hiring, arguing that managers often confuse confidence or charisma with true talent (Buckingham and Coffman, 2016).

If I could recommend anything to those employers, it would be to use a structured interview with a consistent set of questions for all candidates. This would improve reliability. I would also design questions around specific job-related talents and behaviors to enhance validity. I would also train interviewers to recognize and minimize their biases. They should focus on evidence rather than first impressions. The best managers “define the outcomes, then let each person find their own route to excellence.” (Buckingham and Coffman, 2016). This will help have a better selection through more thorough interviewing.

Sources

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (2016). First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently (2020 ed.). Gallup Press.

Job analysis and job descriptions are the main components of effective talent management. Yet, they present ongoing challenges for organizations. Keeping job descriptions current as roles evolve is a major difficulty. Technology changes, staffing needs, and organizational priorities often change job responsibilities. Job descriptions are often treated as static documents. When job descriptions no longer reflect actual work, confusion may happen regarding employee expectations. Which can include performance evaluation and accountability.

Another issue is defining jobs in a way that emphasizes employee strengths rather than rigid task lists. Great managers define roles by focusing on talent, skills, knowledge, and natural abilities, rather than narrowing duties (Buckingham and Coffman, 2016). Many organizations continue to rely on highly detailed task-based job descriptions that limit flexibility and discourage employees from applying their strengths. This can lead to frustrations, particularly when employees are evaluated on responsibilities that were never clearly communicated. This also shows a disconnect.

The absence of accurate job descriptions can create even more organizational issues. Employers face difficulties in recruiting, workforce planning, and legal compliance without them. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) emphasizes that updated job descriptions serve as the foundation for many human resource functions and help ensure clarity and consistency across the organization (Tyler, 2013). Labor shortages following the COVID-19 pandemic forced many employers to rethink job expectations and structures to attract workers, highlighting the importance of clearly defined and realistic roles (Rosenberg, E., 2021).

One solution is to treat job descriptions as living documents. Regular job analysis, collaboration between employees and managers, and periodic updates can help ensure job descriptions remain accurate and relevant. Focusing on talent and adaptability, organizations can improve engagement, performance, and alignment between employees and organizational goals.

Sources:

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (2016). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently (2016 ed.). Gallup Press.

Rosenberg, E. (2021, June 12). These businesses found a way around the worker shortage. The Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/these-businesses-found-a-way-around-the-worker-shortage-a-big-boost-in-wages/

Tyler, K. (2013, January 1). Job worth doing: Update descriptions. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/hr-magazine/job-worth-update-descriptions?

The 2025 Fortune Best Companies to Work For list shows how modern HR practices can lead to effective management and strong organizational cultures.  Breitfelder and Dowling (2008) describe the “new HR” as a function that moves beyond administrative tasks to become a strategic partner focused on people, performance, and purpose.  Companies like Cisco Systems, American Express, and Wegmans Food Markets demonstrate this philosophy.

The employees of these companies emphasize trust, development, and psychological safety as top priorities.  Cisco demonstrates on authenticity and wellbeing that HR should help leaders create environments where employees feel valued rather than controlled.  This also aligns with Breitfelder and Dowling’s argument that HR leaders are most effective when they focus on enabling people to do their best work instead of enforcing rigid rules.

American Express and Wegmas both reflect ideas from First, Break All the Rules.  Buckingham and Coffman (2016) state that great managers do not manage people identically.  They should focus on an individual’s strengths, build genuine relationships, and provide frequent feedback.  Both companies emphasize growth opportunities and internal mobility.  This shows how HR systems can support managers by aligning talent development with business goals.

As a manager, I want to lead in a way that reflects these practices.  I want to be a manager who builds trust, recognizes an individual’s strengths, and gives clarity and support.  Not one that just focuses on policies or hierarchy.  I believe HR functions like performance management, training, and employee engagement will be essential in helping me do this.

I believe the most challenging aspect of management for me will be balancing organizational demands with the employees’ needs.  Bucking and Coffman (2016) stated that managing performance while maintaining strong relationships will require discipline and emotional intelligence.  The “new HR” model reminds us that people decisions are complex and require thoughtful judgment.  Not a one-size-fits-all solution (Breitfelder & Dowling, 2008).

These companies demonstrate that when HR empowers managers to focus on people as individuals, both the employees and the organizations thrive.

Citations:

Breitfelder, M.D., & Dowling, D.W. (2008). Why did we ever go into HR? Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 39-43.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (2016). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. Gallup Press.