When I began my career in healthcare, I started as a phlebotomist. The training I took part in to become a phlebotomist was three months long and ended with a licensure. I found this training to be highly beneficial to my career goals. The phlebotomist training enabled me to learn every aspect of the position, provided an internship, and a license to practice in the state of Washington. It utilized a combination training methods, such as presentation and hands-on, to establish what was to be expected on the job and communicate the relevance for the training (lecture6.1). The overall effectiveness of the training was based on students becoming hirable candidates to employers in the area.

After being hired at my first phlebotomy position, I went through various onboarding trainings for the organization. These trainings went over policies, safety, cyber security, compliance, etc. All of the trainings were completed by presentation techniques that were usually displayed via a computer program. The downside about these trainings is that there is no one available to ask questions to and it doesn’t portray an effective overview of company culture. While the onboarding training did connect content to the job, it was less effective at replicating working conditions or establishing a level of acceptable performance. Once I was moved from the computer training to staff trainers and being involved with the team, I felt like I was able to socialize, ask questions, and have hands-on. It could be how I learn best, but I feel that with a team member available, I am better at integrating into a position and learning how systems work than being on a computer only.

Have you ever gone through an interview and left thinking “what just happened?” I felt confused leaving the speed-dating type of interview I had had. Prior to the interview, I had believed myself to be a decent candidate for the position with the education and a bit of field knowledge to back me up. However, once I left the interview, I felt like I should question my decision to apply in the first place.

I’ve participated in my share of interviews, but none have deterred me quite as much as that one. Normally, I’ve found interviews to be structured, provide a certain amount of time, and leave room for any questions at the end. The number of interviewers has ranged from one to six and the questions have been preplanned. I’ve applied to positions that only required a resume and others that needed supporting documents as well as supplemental questions. Few interviews have asked me to complete a task-based test.

These structured interviews provide a reliable environment where both the interviewer and interviewee stay on task and answers provided are more realistically scored against other interviews. The content of the structured questions helps to establish the validity of the applicant to be able to perform in the position. Interviewers are also less likely to ask leading or inappropriate questions.

The interview that made me question whether I was meant to apply for the job was quite the opposite of a structured and well-established goal interview. This interview was in short, a group of interviewees who moved in a circle around the room to various (20 or so) interviewers. Essentially speed dating. The questions were not written down and each interviewer had their own questions, which could change per interviewee. Unfortunately, some of the questions were not appropriate to the job, some interviewers made their own comments, and there didn’t seem to be a grading system.

If I could go back to that organization and advise them on interviewing, I would start with the overall structure and redesign the interview. I would ask that they establish a more private place with a smaller panel of interviewers for an interviewee to feel secure, unrushed, and that they may make an impression. I’d express the uncertainty that I felt against the types of questions asked and explain that many did not demonstrate validity for the position. I would create a list of questions that pertained to the position and establish a reliable scoring system. Therefore, enabling the interviewers to find a suitable candidates and making future decisions more efficient.

The Great Place to Work Trust Index survey identified the top 100 companies. The survey measured the level of trust an employee has in an organization and the consistency of employee experience within that organization (“Fortune 100 Best,” 2025). Out of the four companies I reviewed, employees valued culture, felt welcomed despite their position, were proud of where they worked, and believed management to be honest and approachable. The reviews demonstrated HR practices that have a people-first focus and create a culture that empowers employees to develop, maintain individuality, and strive for excellence. Through the GPTW survey, these companies show a high-trust culture that is proven to outperform competitors (“Fortune 100 Best,” 2025).

The practices of these organizations have many qualities of the type of manager that I strive to be. I believe that a great manager is someone who truly knows their people and can show them where they might develop while allowing each person to be themselves. As Michael implied in First, Break all the Rules, “everyone is different”, and what works for one person may not work for another (Buckingham & Coffman, 2020. P. 15).  As someone who loves watching people develop and be engaged, a management position is a great position to be in. Especially providing that HR dynamics are changing to lean more towards “increasing the asset value of human capital” and not focusing as much on function (Breitfelder & Dowling, 2008. p. 40).

While the aspects of a great manager seem like they stem from simple human kindness, there are certain aspects that I could find challenging. I know that I have room for improvement in effective communication and not taking criticism personally. In order to work on those pieces of myself, I have been actively communicating needs and complaining less. I’ve also been writing down criticism that I receive and working through the why I might have been given it so that I may understand where it comes from. I hope to one day be as aware of necessary change as Sebastien Marotte from Google, who thought about what changes were possible, made a plan, and implemented it to be better than he was before (Garvin, 2023. P. 79).

Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. 2016. First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently.

 Breitfelder, M. D., & Dowling, D. W. (2008). Why Did We Ever Go Into HR? Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 39-43.

Garvin, D. A. (2013). How Google Sold Its Engineers on Management. Harvard Business Review, 91(12), 74-82.

Great Place to Work Institute. (2025) Fortune 100 best companies to work for 2025. https://www.greatplacetowork.com/best-workplaces/100-best/2025.

Welcome to blogs.oregonstate.edu/grimmhrblog. While I’m new to the blogging world, I am excited to try something new! Check out my first post on my take about HR practices for a thriving organization and what kind of manager I’d like to be.