The Kind of Manager I Want to Be

One of the most beneficial learning experiences I have had was a business course at Oregon State University that focused on real-world application. In contrast, a less effective experience was an online compliance training I completed for work. The difference between these two experiences highlights several key factors that influence training effectiveness.

The business course was effective because it incorporated active learning, clear objectives, and meaningful feedback. According to Raymond A. Noe (2020), training is most effective when learners are engaged and can connect material to real-life situations. In this class, assignments required applying concepts to case studies, which increased both understanding and retention. Additionally, the instructor provided timely feedback, which reinforced learning and allowed for improvement.

On the other hand, the compliance training lacked engagement and relevance. It relied heavily on passive learning methods, such as long videos and slides with minimal interaction. Research shows that learners retain more information when they are actively involved rather than passively receiving content (Salas et al., 2012). The training also failed to explain why the material mattered, reducing motivation to learn.

Another key difference was the learning environment. The business course fostered discussion and collaboration, which supports deeper learning. In contrast, the compliance training was isolated and repetitive, making it difficult to stay focused.

Overall, effective training depends on engagement, relevance, feedback, and active participation. When these elements are present, learners are more likely to retain and apply what they have learned.

References

Noe, R. A. (2020). Employee Training and Development.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development.

For this assignment, I completed the Career-Gender Implicit Association Test through Harvard’s Project Implicit. My results showed a slight tendency to associate men with careers and women with family roles. While I do not consciously believe this, it was still surprising to see how quickly those associations appeared. It made me think about how much of our thinking can be influenced by patterns we have been exposed to over time, even if we do not agree with them.

Thinking about my own experience, especially in retail interviews, I can see how implicit bias could affect hiring decisions. Many of the interviews I have been part of were fairly informal, and decisions often seemed to come down to first impressions or how well someone connected with the interviewer. This can impact reliability because different candidates may be evaluated in completely different ways depending on the interviewer’s unconscious preferences. Without a consistent structure, it is easier for bias to influence decisions.

Implicit bias can also affect validity. Instead of focusing only on whether a candidate can perform the job, an employer might unknowingly favor someone who fits certain expectations or stereotypes. This makes the hiring process less accurate, since the decision is not based purely on job-related skills. The readings explained that implicit bias operates automatically and can influence behavior without awareness, which makes it difficult to control unless there are systems in place to reduce its impact. One way to help prevent this is by using structured interviews with the same set of questions for every candidate and a clear way to evaluate responses. This would make the process more consistent and focused on actual qualifications rather than personal impressions.

Overall, this activity made me more aware of how bias can influence decisions in ways that are not always obvious, especially in less formal hiring situations.

Looking back on the interviews I have participated in, most of my experience has been in retail rather than formal business settings. I have had multiple interviews for retail positions, and they were usually more relaxed and conversational. Because of that, I have seen both effective and ineffective interview styles, even within similar types of jobs.

Some of the better interviews I had were still somewhat structured, even if they did not feel very formal. The interviewer would ask similar questions about my availability, past work experience, and how I handled customer situations. This made it easier to understand what they were looking for and gave me a fair chance to explain my skills. Based on what we learned in class, this connects to reliability, since each applicant is being asked similar questions and evaluated in a more consistent way.

Other interviews felt much more unstructured and focused mostly on small talk. In a few cases, the interviewer talked more about themselves or the store rather than asking me meaningful questions. While this made the interview feel less stressful, it also made it harder to show what I could actually contribute. These types of interviews did not seem very reliable because different candidates could end up having completely different conversations.

Validity was also something I noticed, even if I did not have a name for it at the time. The more effective interviews included questions about real situations, like dealing with difficult customers or working in a fast-paced environment. Those questions felt relevant to the job. In contrast, some interviews included questions that did not seem connected to the role, which made them less useful in predicting job performance.

Utility, or how useful the interview is for making a hiring decision, seemed higher in the more structured interviews. When the interviewer focused on job-related skills and asked consistent questions, it felt like they were actually trying to compare candidates in a meaningful way.

If I could go back and give advice to those employers, I would suggest using a more structured approach, even in retail settings. Having a consistent set of questions and focusing on real job situations would make the interview process more fair and more effective. Even though retail interviews tend to be more informal, adding structure would improve reliability, validity, and overall usefulness.

Before this week, I did not think much about job descriptions beyond them being something you read when applying for a job. After learning about job analysis, I realized they are much more important and can actually affect how well a workplace runs. From my experience working at Costco, I have seen how unclear or outdated expectations can cause confusion, even in a fast-paced environment.

One challenge with job descriptions is keeping them accurate. Jobs change over time as businesses adjust to new systems, customer needs, and staffing levels. At Costco, employees often help in different areas depending on how busy the store is. Because of this, a job description written at the time of hiring might not fully match what the employee actually does on a daily basis. This can lead to confusion about responsibilities.

Another challenge is finding the right level of detail. If a job description is too vague, employees may not fully understand what is expected of them. If it is too detailed, it can make the job feel restrictive and leave little room for flexibility. Our course material explains that job analysis should clearly define tasks and responsibilities, but it should also allow employees to adjust when needed.

When job descriptions are missing or unclear, it can create bigger problems. Employees may feel unsure about their role, which can affect performance and morale. It can also make evaluations feel unfair if expectations were never clearly explained.

One way to improve this is by updating job descriptions regularly and involving employees in the process. This helps make sure the descriptions match the actual work being done. Clear communication and flexibility can make job descriptions more useful for both employees and employers.

Companies like Hilton, Cisco, and NVIDIA consistently rank among the Fortune Best Companies to Work For, and employee feedback reveals a clear pattern: strong human resource practices are at the core of their success. In the Great Place to Work article I reviewed, employees emphasized trust in leadership, supportive management, and opportunities for growth as key reasons their workplace stands out.

These companies reflect major HR concepts discussed in class, particularly the importance of job design, employee development, and motivation. For example, organizations like Cisco and NVIDIA invest heavily in training and career advancement, ensuring employees have the competencies needed to succeed. This aligns with the idea that employees add the most value when they are properly developed and supported. Additionally, companies such as Hilton focus on creating a positive and inclusive work environment, which demonstrates how effective job design and culture can improve employee engagement and performance.

As a future manager, I want to create a workplace where employees feel valued, supported, and motivated to do their best work. I believe HR functions such as performance management, training, and employee recognition will be essential tools in helping me achieve this. Providing clear expectations, consistent feedback, and growth opportunities will allow employees to contribute meaningfully to company goals.

One of the most challenging aspects of being a manager will be balancing organizational objectives with individual employee needs. Every employee is different, and maintaining fairness while keeping everyone motivated can be difficult. However, by applying strong HR practices, like open communication, fair evaluation systems, and ongoing development, I believe it is possible to build a team that is both productive and engaged.

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