Month: November 2025

As employee stress seems to be one of the most pressing health and safety issues within the workplace, looking at how these concerns can accumulate and their associated coping strategies is a priority. With a score of 245 on the Life Stress Questionnaire, I fall into the range where one third of individuals are likely to experience illness or accident due to stress. Meanwhile, the Coping and Stress Management Skills Test gave me a score of 58, meaning that I sometimes use strategies that involve directly addressing stressors. In this, I use methods that are effective if the stressor is controllable, such as adjusting working hours or reorganizing my responsibilities. However, I use less effective strategies in situations where the circumstances are beyond my control. I think recognizing this difference can be important as it may prevent wasted energy in situations that cannot be changed, while encouraging me to focus on areas where I can take action.

In applying this to the workplace, organizations can help employees by promoting more flexible work schedules, offering wellness programs, and encouraging open communication. For example, managers and employees could do regular check‑ins to identify stressors early on before they escalate. Personally, I find that practicing good time management and mindfulness are useful ways to mitigate stress. These practices help me maintain balance and protect my health even when demands are high.

Overall, stress management is not necessarily about eliminating stress, but about building a sense of resilience. By combining organizational support with individual coping strategies, employees can better manage challenges and maintain productivity.

Compensation was a huge factor in my decision to accept a position in the work study student program at a common visitor center on the west coast. I had already worked seasonally at this site for three years, and after finishing high school I never planned on returning. I felt I had gained enough experience there and wanted to move forward with new opportunities. However, the compensation package offered through the program completely changed my mind.

The program directly paid for schooling until participants earned their associate degree, which would removed a major financial burden. Having tuition covered made continuing my education far more achievable and allowed me to focus on my studies without worrying about debt. In addition, the program guaranteed a letter of recommendation upon graduation, which added long-term value by supporting future career opportunities. The position also included full-time benefits, something rarely offered to students, which provided stability and security while balancing work and school.

Another motivating factor was the chance to complete a capstone project as part of the program. This gave me the opportunity to apply what I was learning in a practical setting, strengthening both my academic and professional development. Together, these elements of compensation created a package that went far beyond a paycheck. It addressed immediate financial needs, supported long-term career goals, and provided valuable professional experience.

Ultimately, compensation was the deciding factor in my choice to return. Without these benefits, I would not have considered working at the visitor center again. The program shows how compensation can motivate behavior by aligning financial support, career development, and personal growth. It made a position I had once overlooked into an opportunity that shaped both my education and future career path.

I have worked at Starbucks twice, the first time being my senior year of high school, and now again as a senior in college. These two training experiences differed in many ways, and they taught me more about what makes training truly effective. In particular, the first time being trained, my barista trainer took the time to understand how I learn best, whether that was visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. They helped me organize information in a way that made sense and gave me space to practice until I felt confident in tasks. This kind of personalized approach is similar to the ideas from First, Break All the Rules, as great managers do not try to fix people, but they focus on their strengths.

The second time I was retrained, my experience was the opposite. This time, it was my store manager doing the training, not another barista, and unfortunately, she got several things wrong. On top of that, the information was delivered with no structure or flow. I was expected to remember everything without context or repetition. It felt like trying to build a puzzle without seeing the picture on the box. Since returning to Starbucks, I’ve noticed that every barista is trained the exact same way, step by step, regardless of how they learn. Therefore, this one-size-fits-all method doesn’t work for everyone.

Even though I’m not a certified barista trainer, I’ve made it a point to ask new hires about their learning preferences and strengths. I’ve coached them on the side in ways that actually stick, and it’s made a real difference. When you meet people where they are, they thrive. UPS practices this concept. As described in Making of a UPS Driver, they built a training program that blends video, real-world simulations, and kinesthetic learning. It’s not just about telling people what to do, it is also about letting them do it.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (2020). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently (2020 ed., pp. 129–168). Gallup Press.

Morris, B. (2016, September 28). Making of a UPS driver. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2016/09/28/ups-jobs-driver-training/

To start, my results indicated that I was “moderately faster at sorting ‘Career’ with ‘Male Names’ and ‘Family’ with ‘Female Names’ than ‘Family’ with ‘Male Names’ and ‘Career’ with ‘Female Names’.” While I consciously support gender equality in the workplace, my results suggest that I may have unconscious associations surrounding this topic.

Implicit bias can significantly impact the validity and reliability of the selection process. These biases present concerns with consistency in decision making and whether the process accurately measures what it intends to. In particular, this means that if hiring managers unconsciously associate certain character aspects with certain genders, they may unintentionally favor one gender over the other when evaluating specific skills.

One important observation is that the test itself initially asks participants to sort “Career” with male names and “Family” with female names. This setup inherently trains the brain to associate those pairings first, which may influence the speed and accuracy of later responses. In my case, I also recognize my personal bias. As a woman planning to start a family and reduce my work hours while my husband continues to support us financially, I naturally associate myself more with family-related words. This personal context likely reinforced the associations measured in the test.

In order to counteract this implicit bias, a strategy I plan to implement within hiring practices is structured decision making. Using standardized evaluation criteria can reduce the influence of bias. As discussed in the Be Better Blog, awareness alone is not enough. We must actively design systems that minimize bias and promote fairness.

As interviewing is a critical step in the hiring process, my experiences have shown how much interviews can vary especially when the interviewer is not properly prepared. In particular, I’ve been in interviews that felt like casual conversations and others that were highly rigid. These extremes highlight how important it is to balance structure with flexibility in order to achieve meaningful and fair results. From this week’s reading in First, Break All the Rules, it’s clear that interviews are more than just asking questions, they need to be built around uncovering talent and insight.

In the more casual interviews I’ve had, the lack of structure made it difficult to understand what the interviewer was actually looking for. As they jumped from topic to topic, the conversation felt friendly, but it wasn’t a reliable way to compare candidates fairly. On the other hand, I’ve also experienced overly rigid interviews where the interviewer couldn’t ask any follow-up questions, making the interaction feel robotic. While this format may ensure fairness through consistency, it misses the opportunity to understand how a candidate thinks, communicates, or solves problems.

Furthermore, the article How to Take the Bias Out of Interviews emphasizes that while structured interviews help reduce potential bias, structure alone isn’t enough to truly engage with candidates. Managers should aim to identify individual talent rather than trying to mold people into a generic ideal. To improve the process, I would advise employers to use structured interviews with questions that directly relate to the competencies required for the role, while also training interviewers to ask thoughtful follow-up questions when appropriate.

Ultimately, interviews should be fair, consistent, and thoughtfully designed to uncover real talent. They shouldn’t feel like a formality or a rushed attempt to fill a vacancy. Instead, they should be a meaningful opportunity to understand a candidate’s strengths, potential, and fit for the team. When employers strike the right balance between structure and flexibility, they create a process that respects both the organization’s needs and the candidate’s individuality, leading to better hires and stronger teams.