sam bezzant

As a vested Teamster, I’ve experienced firsthand both the value and complexity of union membership. This week I took a deeper dive into the broader discussion around labor unions, reflecting on my own experience and insights from The Week’s breakdown of union pros and cons (“Are labor unions a good thing?”).

Unions undeniably protect workers. They help secure better pay, job security, retirement benefits, and collective power when negotiating with employers. I’ve directly benefited from this—knowing my pension is protected and that there’s a structure in place if issues arise has given me peace of mind. As The Week notes, union workers earn roughly 11% more than their nonunion counterparts and are more likely to have health coverage and pensions.

But it’s not all positive. I’ve also seen bureaucracy, inflexibility, and internal politics slow down decisions and frustrate members. Some workers feel locked into outdated practices or see dues used in ways they don’t always agree with. That tension is real.

What stood out from this week’s course materials was how legislation—like right-to-work laws—has chipped away at union influence while promoting an image of individual freedom. But that “freedom” often comes at the cost of reduced bargaining power and wage stagnation.

For me, the value of a union comes down to protection. In industries with high turnover, physical risk, or where workers are often disposable, unions matter. I’d support unionization in any job where leadership fails to protect its people. I’ve lived the benefits—and seen the drawbacks—but overall, I’d rather have a union than face management alone.

Citations:

• Are labor unions a good thing? (2023). The Week. https://theweek.com/business/labor-unions-pros-cons
• Shermer, E. T. (2018). The right to work really means the right to work for less. Washington Post.

The most important thing I learned in this course is the predictive power of cognitive ability in employee selection and the value of using assessments like the Criteria Cognitive Aptitude Test (CCAT) early in the hiring process. This stood out to me because it directly challenges a flawed but common hiring practice I’ve seen repeatedly—making hiring decisions primarily based on whether someone “feels right” in an interview.

I’ve participated in multiple hiring discussions where other decision-makers focused almost exclusively on whether they liked the candidate. While likability and cultural fit are important, relying solely on gut feeling or how well someone performs in a loosely structured interview is a recipe for inconsistency and bias. This course helped me understand why that approach often fails: interviews, particularly unstructured ones, are not the most valid predictors of job performance. In contrast, cognitive ability testing has one of the strongest correlations with job success, especially when combined with structured interviews and work sample tests.

Learning about tools like the CCAT helped me rethink what it means to build a fair, effective hiring system. The CCAT doesn’t just test intelligence—it measures problem-solving ability, adaptability, and learning potential, which are all essential in fast-paced, cognitively demanding roles like the ones I’ve hired for in the past. Pairing a cognitive test with a situational judgment test (SJT) or personality inventory also helps triangulate key traits like conscientiousness and emotional stability—qualities that significantly impact long-term performance and retention.

This lesson matters to my future career because I plan to take on leadership roles where I’ll be responsible for building teams. Being able to explain—and implement—a structured, evidence-based selection process will help me avoid bad hires, reduce turnover, and promote equity. It also positions me to advocate for tools and methods that may feel unfamiliar to others but are proven by research to work better than intuition alone.

In short, this course gave me a practical, research-backed framework for talent selection. Moving forward, I won’t rely on who seems most charismatic in an interview. I’ll rely on structured tools that actually predict success.

https://blogs.oregonstate.edu/travisbennetthumanresouceblog/wp-admin/post.php?post=2&action=edit

After completing the Type A Personality Survey, I learned that I sit somewhere in the middle between a Type A and Type B personality. I have a moderate score, with a noticeable lean toward impatience and irritability. In stressful situations, I can become easily frustrated or feel a sense of urgency that pushes me to be reactive. While this drive helps me meet goals, the emotional cost can be high if left unchecked.

This duality shows up in my daily life. I strive to succeed and stay productive, but I’ve also noticed that I internalize stress, especially when things don’t go as planned. According to the survey, this kind of emotional reactivity can increase the risk of heart disease and damage relationships if not managed properly. As I continue through my professional journey, I know I need to focus on improving emotional regulation and stress management to stay healthy and effective.

One strategy I’ve started practicing is taking intentional breaks during the day—short walks, breathing exercises, or even 10 minutes away from screens. These moments help reset my mindset. I’ve also learned to manage expectations and prioritize sleep, which has helped reduce my irritability.

Organizations are becoming more aware of stress-related health issues and are offering resources to support employee well-being. Some of the more progressive companies provide mental health benefits, on-site wellness programs, flexible work schedules, and stress management workshops. For example, Google and Salesforce both offer mindfulness training and access to mental health coaching. These steps not only improve productivity but also help employees feel supported.

Overall, recognizing my tendencies and proactively addressing them is key. As stress becomes a more visible workplace issue, both individuals and organizations need to invest in mental wellness to build healthier, more sustainable work environments.

1. What am I good at?
I’m good at taking initiative and getting things done when others won’t step up. I have strong leadership instincts, especially in high-pressure environments, and I’m able to make decisions quickly while staying composed. I’m also good at helping people feel heard, even when we’re in conflict or under stress.

2. What do I value?
I value growth, honesty, and purpose. I care about doing work that matters, not just climbing for the sake of status or money. I believe that the way we treat people—especially when no one’s watching—defines the quality of our leadership and our character.

3. How did I get here?
I got here by being persistent. I’ve faced setbacks and rough circumstances that could have knocked me off course, but I didn’t let them. I’ve worked hard to improve myself and keep showing up, even when the outcome was uncertain. That mindset has carried me through school, work, and life in general.

4. Where am I going?
I’m moving toward a career where I can lead with both competence and compassion. I’m not looking to just maintain a job—I want to build something, challenge myself, and help others along the way. Whether that means turning down more money for the right environment or staying flexible about where I end up, I want to stay intentional about what I say yes to.

When I left my job at Telecare, a secure residential mental health facility, it wasn’t because I disliked the clients or the work itself—it was because the compensation no longer justified the sacrifices I was making. At the time, I was working full-time in a high-stress environment that demanded emotional resilience, crisis intervention skills, and constant presence. Yet I was earning $22 per hour, despite having leadership experience, additional certifications, and a proven track record of success in similar roles.

The turning point came when I was offered a role at a nonprofit that paid significantly more, even for fewer hours. The decision wasn’t difficult. I didn’t feel valued where I was, and the financial gap made it clear: the company’s for-profit model prioritized margins over mission. I wasn’t alone—many experienced staff left for the same reason. The stress stayed high, but the rewards simply didn’t.

Compensation in this case wasn’t just about money—it symbolized appreciation, respect, and sustainability. Being underpaid in a taxing job eroded my motivation and loyalty. Once I saw that my skills were worth more elsewhere, I couldn’t justify staying.

This experience highlighted how crucial compensation is in retaining skilled workers, especially in fields like mental health where burnout is common. Pay isn’t everything—but when it doesn’t reflect the work or the value you bring, it becomes the only thing that matters.

IPIP Results & Reactions
Step 1–3: Summary of My Personality Test Results
I recently completed the IPIP-NEO-120 personality assessment, which evaluates the “Big Five” dimensions: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (also called Emotional Stability). My results showed high Conscientiousness, moderate-to-high Openness, moderate Agreeableness, lower Neuroticism, and moderate Extraversion.

Openness: I tend to enjoy learning, new experiences, and creative problem-solving. This aligns with how I’ve pursued education, entrepreneurship, and complex problem-solving roles.

Conscientiousness: I scored very high here, which suggests I’m disciplined, goal-oriented, and detail-conscious—traits that help me stay productive under pressure.

Extraversion: I’m moderately extroverted, meaning I can confidently lead or socialize when needed, but I also value time to recharge.

Agreeableness: My score reflects someone who is respectful and cooperative but also willing to speak up when something isn’t right.

Neuroticism (low): Scoring low in Neuroticism indicates that I handle stress well, don’t overreact emotionally, and can stay level-headed in tough situations.

Step 4: What an Employer Might See in These Results
A hiring manager reviewing my IPIP profile might view me as a focused, emotionally grounded candidate who thrives on structure and purpose. My high conscientiousness would likely be seen as a major strength—suggesting I’m dependable, timely, and capable of managing tasks with little oversight. In roles that require project ownership, documentation, or follow-through, this trait would shine.

My moderate extraversion and agreeableness could signal that I’m capable of functioning well in a team without being overly passive or dependent. I can communicate clearly, hold others accountable, and still maintain collaborative relationships. The low neuroticism score would likely be seen as an asset in fast-paced or high-stress environments—especially those that require composure and adaptability.

If there’s a perceived weakness, it might be that I’m not highly extroverted or overly eager to “go along” just to maintain harmony. However, these traits also mean I’m principled and clear-headed, especially in roles where confident decision-making and independence are needed.

When I think about effective training, my experience with the Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training stands out as a clear success. The training was designed to equip professionals with de-escalation and nonviolent crisis intervention techniques. What made this training so effective was its practical application, consistent alignment with job demands, and engaging instructional design.

CPI’s approach involved scenario-based learning, allowing us to practice techniques in realistic settings. This method, which ties directly into principles of transfer of training covered in this week’s material, helped reinforce skill retention and confidence in real-world application. The training also had immediate utility: I was able to apply techniques like personal space management and verbal de-escalation the very next day at work, which reinforced the material’s relevance and value. According to our course readings, effective training must be job-relevant, behavior-focused, and grounded in practical outcomes (Smart & Street, 2008).

In contrast, I once took a time management seminar that felt generic and uninspired. It lacked any customization for our specific job roles and offered no opportunities for hands-on practice. The content felt disconnected from my daily work, which likely explains why none of the strategies stuck. It’s a clear example of what happens when training fails to align with learner needs or job context—a common barrier to training effectiveness.

In both cases, the difference came down to content relevance, instructional design, and immediate applicability—all key factors that influence training outcomes as described in this week’s lecture on effective employee development.

Citations:
Smart, G., & Street, R. (2008). Who: The A Method for Hiring. Ballantine Books.

If I had to choose between Avery and Jaime, I would hire Jaime. While Avery may have a higher performance ceiling, reliability and day-to-day consistency are essential in most business settings. A consistently average performer like Jaime is likely to meet deadlines, maintain team morale, and deliver stable output. In contrast, someone with inconsistent performance, even if brilliant occasionally, can cause unpredictability and frustration—especially in team-based environments.

A role where Avery would be the better hire is a creative or project-based position such as a product designer or advertising copywriter. These roles benefit from moments of brilliance that can redefine a campaign or product launch. The value of breakthrough ideas in these jobs often outweighs the cost of inconsistency, especially when performance is judged by the best work produced, not daily output.

On the other hand, Jaime would be a better fit for roles like customer support or assembly line production—jobs that demand reliability, accuracy, and steady performance. These roles can’t afford unpredictability; delivering solid work every day is more valuable than occasional excellence.

Overall, while maximal performance may sound attractive on paper, typical performance is what sustains a business day-to-day. Unless the role specifically calls for breakthrough thinking, I believe consistency trumps occasional brilliance.

Part A: My Brand
My brand as a potential employee is defined by resilience, adaptability, and purpose-driven leadership. As a Ford Scholar, parent, and full-time student who has overcome significant adversity, I bring a unique blend of lived experience and disciplined professionalism. I thrive under pressure, lead by example, and don’t shy away from hard work—whether that’s coordinating teams in mental health settings or managing fishing expeditions for my startup. I’ve consistently turned challenges into strengths. I’m analytical but grounded, with a strong ethical compass and a passion for helping others. I take initiative, communicate clearly, and always aim to build systems that work better—not just for productivity, but for people.

Part B: Creative Situation Wanted Ad
WANTED: One Wildly Capable, Purpose-Driven Professional
Seeking a company with grit, vision, and a mission bigger than its metrics. In return, I offer 15+ years of real-world leadership, an academic foundation in management and analytics, and a mind that solves problems while the rest are still identifying them.

I’m the guy who can lead a crisis team in the morning, ace a business analytics project at lunch, and edit social media reels before dinner. You won’t need to train me on hustle—I’m already fluent. What I need is a mission worth committing to, a team that respects purpose and performance equally, and space to grow into leadership that matters.

I’m not your average candidate, and this isn’t your average resume. Let’s skip the formalities—reach out if you value self-starters who don’t quit and thrive in uncertain terrain. I’m open to project-based roles, internships, or strategic part-time opportunities that align with ethical business, innovation, or community impact.

I’d post this ad on LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and possibly as a boosted Instagram story—targeted to companies I admire. If needed, I’d go old-school and hand it out with a QR code in person. Because when you believe in your value, you don’t wait—you create the opportunity.

Creating and maintaining job descriptions sounds like basic HR housekeeping, but in practice, it’s one of the most overlooked—and costly—areas of workforce management. I’ve seen the impact firsthand in mental health and healthcare settings, where unclear job roles lead to duplicated efforts, confusion, and burnout.

A well-developed job description starts with thorough job analysis, which includes identifying essential tasks and the KSAOs (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other characteristics) needed to perform them effectively (W4 Lecture 1, 2025). When job descriptions are outdated or vague, recruitment, performance evaluation, and even legal protection all suffer. Employees often end up doing work outside their scope, leading to conflict or resentment—especially when expectations are inconsistent across departments or shifts.

One major challenge is that job descriptions quickly become stale. Organizations evolve faster than most HR documents do. To address this, companies can build job descriptions with flexibility in mind and revisit them during performance reviews or when roles shift. Using tools like O*Net or structured SME (subject matter expert) interviews, as suggested in this week’s materials, helps ensure relevance and accuracy over time.

Another issue is balancing efficiency and motivation. The job design lecture discussed how jobs can be structured for maximum efficiency through simplification—but overly rigid roles reduce employee engagement (W4 Lecture 2, 2025). Incorporating motivational elements like job enrichment, task variety, and even employee input into job crafting can result in more meaningful, accurate job descriptions.

Ultimately, job descriptions should not be one-time documents created for compliance. They’re living tools that support hiring, training, retention, and strategic workforce planning. Organizations that treat them as such are better positioned to adapt and retain talent in a competitive labor market.