Willem VanderHorst MGMT 453 Blog

After gaining several years of professional experience in the U.S., I would be highly interested in accepting an international assignment in Japan. Professionally, this opportunity would open doors in global operations, enhance my cross-cultural competence, and position me as a more strategic leader in a multinational context. However, relocating would require thoughtful consideration of cultural, social, and professional differences.

One of the first frameworks I’d use to evaluate this opportunity is Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Japan scores high in uncertainty avoidance and masculinity, meaning the work culture values precision, risk-aversion, and performance. In contrast, the U.S. scores lower in uncertainty avoidance and has a more individualistic approach. Japan also ranks high in power distance, indicating more hierarchy and formal authority in the workplace. These contrasts mean I’d need to adapt to more indirect communication styles and possibly more rigid corporate protocols compared to the U.S.’s more casual, flexible environment.

From an International HRM perspective, Japan often uses a polycentric orientation, meaning host country nationals (HCNs) are preferred in management roles. As an outsider, this means my position would need to be clearly defined and supported to avoid friction. Other key considerations include language barriers, legal compliance, repatriation planning, and family adjustment if I relocate with dependents.

What would convince me to accept this assignment? Strong cultural training and a clear career development path post-assignment would be critical. I’d also want repatriation support and assurance that this move strengthens—not sidelines—my long-term advancement. Ultimately, the chance to live and work in Japan, build global relationships, and deepen my leadership toolkit makes this an exciting, worthwhile opportunity.

A good friend of mine who works in the tech industry recently made a big decision to leave his job at a mid-sized software company, and compensation was a clear motivator. He’d been with the company for several years, and while the base pay was competitive at first, his responsibilities kept growing leading projects, managing a small team, but his salary barely budged. Despite consistent high performance, raises were minimal and bonuses inconsistent. What pushed him over the edge was when he found out a new hire with similar experience was brought on at a significantly higher salary. According to him, that broke his sense of fairness and respect in the company.

This aligns with what we learned in class about distributive justice and equity theory when employees perceive their compensation as unequal compared to their peers with similar input, motivation and job satisfaction drop sharply (Week 8: Introduction to Compensation). It wasn’t just about the money; it was about the message. The undervaluation of his work signaled to him that the company didn’t truly recognize or reward loyalty and growth.

When he accepted a new offer elsewhere, the base salary was only moderately higher, but the incentive structure, equity options, and transparent pay bands made him feel like he was joining a place that valued his contributions. It wasn’t just a financial move it was about regaining a sense of worth and fairness. His story is a clear reminder of how critical compensation design is not only for attracting talent, but also for retaining and motivating it.

Reflecting on my experience working in the IT department of a federal university, I’ve participated in several training sessions, some highly effective, others not so much. One training that stood out as particularly beneficial was a cybersecurity awareness workshop. This session was well-structured, following the Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate (ADDIE) model highlighted in this week’s materials. The workshop covered real-world threats, phishing simulations, and hands-on exercises that mirrored potential breaches we might encounter. It didn’t just provide information; it simulated actual attack scenarios, allowing us to apply what we learned in real-time. This hands-on experience reinforced the knowledge, making it both relevant and memorable. Additionally, the training was evaluated using the Pre-/Post-Measure method, which allowed us to see our progress and areas for improvement. This level of structured evaluation ensured the training was not only effective but also measurable.

In contrast, one training that fell short was an IT ticketing system workshop. Unlike the cybersecurity session, it was purely lecture-based with minimal interaction. The material was delivered through PowerPoint slides with little real-world application or practical engagement. According to this week’s readings, effective training requires opportunities for hands-on practice and a clear link to job tasks. This session lacked both, making it challenging to connect concepts with actual work tasks. Furthermore, there was no follow-up or evaluation to measure effectiveness, so any learning that did occur was not tracked or reinforced.

If I could advise on improvements, I would suggest integrating simulation exercises for the ticketing system training, similar to what was done in the cybersecurity workshop. This would create an opportunity to practice ticket resolution in a risk-free environment, enhancing learning retention and job readiness. Proper evaluation, like Pre-/Post-Measures, would also ensure knowledge transfer and identify gaps early on. This approach would align with best practices for effective training design and significantly improve learning outcomes.

Reflecting on my interview at a dairy farm service company, where I already have relevant dairy experience, I noticed both strengths and weaknesses in their selection process. The interview was informal and largely unstructured: a few general questions about my background and whether I could “handle early mornings.” While this created a relaxed atmosphere, it lacked structure, which significantly reduced reliability and validity. As discussed in this week’s materials, unstructured interviews are prone to bias, lack consistency across candidates, and rarely predict job performance well.

If I were advising the company, I’d recommend transitioning to a structured interview format. This would involve standardized, job-related questions based on a job analysis, paired with clear scoring criteria. For example, instead of asking “Can you work under pressure?” they might use a situational question like: “Tell me about a time you managed a calving emergency on your own.” That taps into actual experience and provides more predictive validity.

To increase utility, I’d also suggest incorporating work samples, for instance, having candidates perform a basic equipment check or simulate troubleshooting a milking system issue. Though more time-intensive, work samples offer high validity and directly align with job performance expectations.

Ultimately, a more systematic approach would lead to better person-job fit, more equitable evaluations, and higher long-term performance, especially in a labor-intensive, skill-based field like dairy services.

This week’s materials really emphasized how central job descriptions are to everything we do in HR. As Jill Bidwell put it, the job description is the “mother of all HR processes.” It ties into recruitment, performance management, compensation, and even legal defense. Without it, we lose a critical foundation​. From this weeks lectures, I realized that job descriptions don’t just describe tasks, they capture the KSAOs (knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics) needed for success​. Without clear, updated descriptions, workforce planning also becomes reactive instead of strategic​.

One major challenge is that updating job descriptions often falls to the bottom of the priority list. As discussed in the Sauer-Danfoss case, it’s easy for organizations to “set and forget” descriptions, leading to misalignment over time. An outdated job description can actually hurt more than help during lawsuits or audits​. Another challenge is balancing specificity with flexibility: roles evolve, and a rigid description can limit job crafting and motivation​.

To overcome these issues, I believe updating job descriptions needs to be tied to key annual processes like performance reviews and goal-setting, ensuring at least one structured touchpoint a year​. At the same time, managers and employees should be empowered to propose updates any time significant role changes occur, not just during annual reviews. HR should act as a coach and facilitator, not just an enforcer, to help managers keep descriptions accurate but adaptable​.

Finally, companies should view job descriptions as living documents, embedded into workforce planning, training, and DEI initiatives. As First, Break All the Rules emphasizes, understanding individual talents and matching them with outcomes is crucial for success​. An effective job description does exactly that, aligns individual strengths with organizational needs.

What Makes a Company Great: HR in Action and My Vision as a Future Manager

Exploring companies ranked in the 2020 Fortune Best Companies to Work For, a few stood out in how they align their HR practices with core strategic goals. For instance, Cisco, Salesforce, Wegmans Food Markets, and NVIDIA each exemplify how strategic HR practices contribute to creating engaging, high-performance workplaces.

At Cisco, employees frequently mention a sense of trust, inclusivity, and empowerment. This directly connects to the idea from Lecture 2 that strategic HRM means aligning HR practices with organizational capabilities—like fostering collaboration and innovation through a culture of trust​. Salesforce is praised for its commitment to values, social responsibility, and employee wellness. These reflect Lecture 1’s emphasis on the importance of organizational culture and how HR shapes and reflects it​. Wegmans excels through employee training and promotion from within, showing how investing in development helps create the competencies needed to perform effectively. This supports the idea from Lecture 3 that evidence-based HR—backed by data and proven practices—can improve performance and employee satisfaction​. Finally, NVIDIA stands out for empowering its people through innovation and flexibility, reinforcing the lecture point that workforce planning and employee engagement are key HR functions​.

As a future manager, I aspire to be someone who inspires, empowers, and supports my team—someone who values development, inclusion, and data-informed decision-making. I believe HR functions like training, development, and employee engagement will be essential tools in building high-performing teams.

The most challenging part of a manager’s job, I believe, will be balancing strategic business goals with individual employee needs—especially in a dynamic workplace shaped by technology, diversity, and rapid change. Leveraging the HR strategies and analytics discussed in class will be key to overcoming those challenges while fostering a positive and productive workplace.