Leadership Reflections

Before this week’s materials, I honestly didn’t know a lot about labor unions other than hearing about strikes in the news. After doing some reading and research, I realized that unions have played a pretty big role in shaping wages, workplace safety, and employee rights in the U.S.

One thing that I liked the most is how unions give workers a collective voice. Instead of employees having to negotiate with their employer individually, unions allow workers to bargain as a group. That can make it easier for workers to push for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. In an article by Nicholas Kristof, he explains that the decline of unions in the United States may actually be connected to the rise in income inequality over the past few decades (Kristof, 2015). Reading that made me realize that unions don’t just affect individual workplaces, they can also have broader effects on society and the economy.

I also read about “right-to-work” laws, which allow employees to choose whether or not they want to join a union. Supporters say these laws protect workers’ freedom to decide, but critics argue that they can weaken unions because workers may still benefit from union negotiations without paying union dues (Kasperkevic, 2017).

Overall, one of my biggest takeaways from this topic is that unions seem especially important in industries where workers may not have a lot of bargaining power on their own. Personally, I think whether I would join a union would depend on the job and the work environment. If the company treated employees fairly and listened to concerns, I might not feel like a union was necessary. But if workers were dealing with unfair pay, unsafe conditions, or poor treatment, I would probably support unionization because having a collective voice could help improve those issues.

References

Kristof, N. (2015). The cost of a decline in unions. The New York Times.

Kasperkevic, J. (2017). Push for nationwide right-to-work law could weaken unions. Marketplace.

After completing the Life Stress Inventory, the Coping and Stress Management Skills Test, and the Type A Personality survey, I learned a lot about how stress shows up in my life and how my personality plays a role in how I handle it. The results suggested that I experience a moderate amount of stress and that my personality is a balance between Type A and Type B traits. In other words, I can be driven and goal-oriented, but I also tend to stay fairly flexible and laid back in many situations.

One thing that stood out to me from the assessments is how stress can build up over time. Even when individual situations do not seem overwhelming on their own, multiple life changes, responsibilities, and pressures can add up and affect overall well-being. Seeing how these factors contribute to stress made me realize the importance of being more intentional about managing it.

As I move forward in my professional career, I think it will be important to develop habits that help keep stress under control. For me, that means maintaining a consistent routine, staying organized, and making time for activities that help me recharge. Exercise, hobbies, and taking breaks from work can all play a role in preventing stress from building up too much. It will also be important to set boundaries between work and personal life so that work stress does not carry over into everything else.

Many organizations are becoming more aware of how stress affects employee health and productivity. Because of this, many companies are investing in wellness programs, mental health resources, and employee assistance programs that offer counseling or stress management support. Some organizations are also providing flexible work schedules and encouraging work-life balance to help employees maintain better overall health.

Overall, these assessments helped me become more aware of my own stress levels and how my personality influences the way I deal with pressure. Learning to manage stress early in my career will be important for maintaining both my health and long-term professional success.

In my current role, I supervise a group within our Specialty Services team. This team supports a unique patient demographic that requires a more “white glove” experience. These calls are often longer, more complex, and involve additional follow-through compared to standard scheduling calls. The team is expected to provide a higher-touch experience, manage more detailed coordination, and handle sensitive patient needs with extra care.

However, because the call volume for Specialty Services alone is relatively low, these team members also continue to handle high-volume state calls. In practice, this means they carry the workload of their regular team while also taking on more complex Specialty responsibilities. Despite the increased expectations and responsibilities, they are not classified as a separate team and do not receive additional compensation.

Compensation has clearly become a motivating factor in their behavior. While they continue to perform well and have not reduced their effort, morale has noticeably declined. They frequently ask when compensation adjustments might occur. More concerning, I have started to see some of them quietly explore other employment opportunities.

What seems to be driving this shift is not simply the desire for more money. It is the perception that their added value and increased workload are not being recognized in a tangible way. Compensation signals organizational value. When employees take on more responsibility without differentiation in pay, it can create frustration and feelings of inequity.

This situation has reinforced for me how closely compensation is tied to engagement and retention. Even when employees are dedicated and mission-driven, sustained extra effort without meaningful reward can gradually erode morale. Compensation, in this case, represents acknowledgment, fairness, and recognition, not just a paycheck.

One thing I’ve learned from onboarding experiences is that watching someone else do the job is not the same as actually doing it yourself. I’ve gone through trainings where I spent a lot of time observing experienced employees complete tasks and walk through systems. While that helped me understand the general flow of the role, I didn’t truly feel confident until I was given the opportunity to try it on my own.

The article Your New Hires Won’t Succeed Unless You Onboard Them Properly emphasizes that onboarding is more than just delivering information. Ellis et al. (2017) explains that effective onboarding requires support, check-ins, and social integration. Simply exposing new hires to information is not enough to ensure success. The research cited in the article shows that feeling supported by supervisors and socially connected in the workplace significantly impacts role clarity, job satisfaction, and long-term success.

From my experience, shadowing without hands-on practice feels similar to reading policies without applying them. It builds awareness, but not mastery. What has been most beneficial is when managers provide opportunities to practice tasks independently while still offering support and feedback. The article highlights that managers play a critical role in this process, and that proactive engagement from both the employee and supervisor improves outcomes.

Overall, onboarding is most effective when it combines guidance with real application. Watching can introduce the task, but doing it with support is what truly builds confidence and competence.

References

Ellis, A. M., Nifadkar, S. S., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2017, June 20). Your new hires won’t succeed unless you onboard them properly. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/06/your-new-hires-wont-succeed-unless-you-onboard-them-properly

As part of this week’s assignments, I took the Implicit Association Test (IAT), and my results showed that I was moderately faster at associating Black people with negative words and White people with positive words than the opposite pairing. Seeing this result was uncomfortable, but also really eye-opening. It reinforced the idea that implicit bias isn’t something people consciously choose. Instead, it’s shaped over time by culture, media, and social experiences, often without us realizing it.

When it comes to hiring, implicit bias can impact both the reliability and validity of selection decisions. Reliability is about consistency, while validity is about whether decisions are actually based on job-related qualifications. If a hiring manager unconsciously views certain candidates more favorably because of race, names, or background, then candidates with similar skills may be evaluated differently. That makes the process less consistent and weakens how accurately it measures what really matters for the job.

Implicit bias is especially likely to show up in more subjective parts of the hiring process, like resume reviews or unstructured interviews. Even with good intentions, people often rely on “gut feelings,” and research shows those instincts can be influenced by unconscious bias (Scientific American, n.d.). Over time, these small judgments can add up and lead to patterns that disadvantage certain groups, even when an organization believes it is being fair.

One way to help reduce the impact of implicit bias is to use more structured and standardized hiring practices. This includes asking all candidates the same interview questions, using clear scoring criteria, and focusing on specific skills rather than general impressions. These steps don’t eliminate bias completely, but they do help limit its influence and make hiring decisions more consistent, fair, and job-related.

References

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

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

Most of the interviews I’ve participated in have either been one on one or panel interviews. And over the last few years, many of the roles I’ve applied for have been internal, since I’ve been moving and switching positions within the same company. Because of that, previous interviews often focused less on whether I could do the job and more on my experience, why I wanted to make the change, and how my current role prepared me for the next one. For more horizontal moves, the questions were usually straightforward and centered around my background and motivations.

My most recent interview for a supervisor position felt very different. It was more intense and clearly focused on evaluating me as a people leader. The questions were about my temperament, how I stay organized, how I would handle escalations, how I work with different personalities, and how I would approach harder conversations like giving feedback or addressing performance issues. Those questions felt much more valid because they directly reflected the real responsibilities of a leadership role, rather than just technical skills.

This experience aligns with what Chamorro-Premuzic and Steinmetz describe in “The Perfect Hire“, where they argue that unstructured interviews often lack predictive validity, while structured, behavior based questions are more effective at predicting future performance. Interviews that focus on real situations and judgment provide more useful information for employers and a better assessment of leadership potential overall.

I’ve also always found it helpful to ask for feedback after interviews where I didn’t get the position. In one case, I was told that I didn’t ask enough questions about the role itself or what the day to day work looked like, which made it seem like I wasn’t very interested. Since then, I’ve made it a point to ask more thoughtful, role specific questions in every interview. Overall, most of my interviews have been effective, especially as learning experiences. Each one has helped me better highlight my strengths, understand employer expectations, and grow more confident in future interviews.

---

References

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Steinmetz, C. (2013). The perfect hire. Scientific American Mind, 24(3), 42–47.

---

When I think of job postings, I usually think of them as a quick way to grab someone’s attention and make sure the right candidate applies for the position. I look at job descriptions to see if a role sounds interesting, matches my skills, and fits what I’m looking for before I even consider applying. If a posting is unclear or overly generic, I’m more likely to scroll past it.

I also rely on job descriptions when updating my resume. They help me understand what employers value most and allow me to highlight the parts of my experience that best align with the role. Clear job descriptions make it easier to tailor resumes and help me to feel confident that I’m presenting myself accurately.

After learning more about job analysis, I realize job descriptions serve a much bigger purpose than just hiring. One major challenge is keeping them up to date as roles evolve. Jobs often change over time due to new technology, staffing needs, or workflow adjustments. When descriptions aren’t updated, it can create confusion around expectations and make performance reviews more difficult. I’ve seen situations where what’s written doesn’t match the day-to-day work at all.

Not having job descriptions can cause even bigger problems, like unclear responsibilities or uneven workloads. The SHRM article emphasizes that job descriptions should be treated as living documents and reviewed regularly. I agree with this approach. Involving employees in updates and reviewing descriptions consistently can help keep them relevant, useful, and beneficial for both the organization and the employee.

Reference:
SHRM. Job Worth: Update Your Descriptions.
https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/hr-magazine/job-worth-update-descriptions

Looking at the 2025 Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For, it’s pretty clear that strong HR practices play a huge role in what makes a company a genuinely good place to work. After reading employee feedback from Hilton, Synchrony, Cisco, and American Express, the top 4 in the list, this is what I’ve seen.

At 1st place in the list, at Hilton employees talk a lot about teamwork, diversity, and feeling welcomed. 95% of employees say it’s a great place to work, they are proving that creating an inclusive and supportive environment matters. Synchrony stood out for its flexibility and benefits, especially options like work from home and flexible schedules. Employees seem to genuinely appreciate having their lives outside of work respected, which likely plays a big role in job satisfaction. It is important to have those work-life balances and they are getting that there.

Cisco really stood out to me because of how much emphasis employees place on mental health, trust, and being able to bring their full selves to work. People feel supported taking time off when they need it, which makes the workplace feel more human. American Express also focuses heavily on employee well-being and growth, offering strong benefits, career development opportunities, and a culture where employees feel supported by leadership.

I find this topic especially interesting to reflect on as someone who is about to graduate as well as someone already in a management role and actively trying to implement some of these same ideas. I try to prioritize communication, flexibility, and support while still making sure work gets done. At the same time, I’m still navigating what kind of manager I want to be and learning through experience. Seeing how these companies support their employees reinforces that leadership isn’t always about having everything figured out, it’s about continuously improving, listening, and adjusting as you grow. I want to be a manager who supports employees as people, not just workers. These companies show that when people feel supported, strong performance naturally follows.

Welcome to blogs.oregonstate.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!