Month: May 2026

A situation that comes to mind is overtime pay. My husband used to pick up extra shifts pretty regularly. The additional money was a big motivator. With bills, savings goals, kids, and just life in general, the extra income felt worth it.

But after a while, his behavior changed. The overtime pay did not change, but how he viewed it did. The longer hours, stress, missed family time, and exhaustion started carrying more weight. Eventually, there were times he turned down opportunities he probably would have accepted before.

I think compensation motivated both behaviors, just in different ways. At first, the financial reward outweighed the downsides. Eventually, it did not feel like the tradeoff balanced out anymore. I started to think about how compensation is more than just money. People compare what they are putting into work with what they are getting back out of it. At some point it starts to feel like there is no balance and that the tradeoff is just not worth the effort.

This also made me think about incentives. Incentive pay is supposed to encourage performance and productivity, but people are not motivated by pay alone. Sometimes companies assume higher pay automatically leads to more effort, but people are also weighing stress, time, flexibility, and quality of life.

To me, this is a good example of how compensation can influence behavior, but not always in the way organizations expect. More pay can motivate someone for a while, but eventually people start asking whether what they are earning still matches what the job is costing them.

References

Compensation (Pay Structures). Course Learning Materials, Week 8.

Incentive Pay. Course Learning Materials, Week 8.

Thinking about training effectiveness, I realized the difference between a good and bad learning experience usually comes down to how well the training connects to real-world application. One class I found especially beneficial was a hands-on construction lab where we applied concepts directly to real scenarios. In contrast, a less effective class relied heavily on long lectures with little interaction or application.

The effective training aligned closely with what our lectures describe as maximizing “transfer to the job,” meaning the ability to apply what is learned in a real work setting (Training Lecture). We practiced skills, received feedback, and worked through realistic problems, which reinforced learning. The training also created a strong learning environment by making content relevant and giving opportunities to practice, both of which are key principles for effective training design (Training Lecture). This aligns with the idea that hands-on methods are especially useful for building job-related skills and improving performance.

On the other hand, the less effective class lacked engagement and practical application. Although information was presented, it did not feel meaningful or connected to real tasks. Without opportunities to apply the material, there was little retention or improvement in performance. This reflects a failure in training design, particularly in not ensuring transfer of learning.

Additionally, course readings emphasize that development should go beyond just delivering information and instead focus on building skills through experience and application (Development Outline). The ineffective training focused too narrowly on content delivery instead of actual skill development.

Overall, training is most effective when it is interactive, relevant, and directly applicable. Without those elements, even well-structured content can fail to produce meaningful results.

References

Training Lecture. (Week 6). Training (student version) PowerPoint slides.

Development Outline. (Week 6). Development reading/outline.

I took the Project Implicit Age test, and my results showed a strong to moderate automatic preference for younger people over older people. A large percentage of respondents had similar results, which made it clear that this type of bias is fairly common. I wouldn’t say I favor one age group over another, but this result shows that bias can still influence my decisions without me realizing it.

In hiring, this matters because implicit bias can affect both reliability and validity in the selection process. Reliability refers to consistency in how candidates are evaluated, and bias can lead to inconsistent judgments even when candidates provide similar responses (W5 Lecture 2 – Introduction to Selection). For example, an older candidate might be perceived as less adaptable or less comfortable with technology, even when their experience shows otherwise. Validity is also affected because the selection process may not accurately measure job-related skills and qualifications. Instead, decisions can reflect assumptions rather than actual ability, which reduces how well the process predicts job performance (Selection Outline; Chamorro-Premuzic & Steinmetz, 2013).

This connects to structured interviews. Unstructured interviews allow more room for bias, while structured interviews use standardized questions and scoring criteria, which helps reduce bias and improve consistency (W5 Lecture 4 – Increasing Interview Effectiveness). Research also shows that standardizing hiring processes and focusing on job-related criteria can help minimize unconscious bias (Knight, 2017).

One way I could reduce implicit bias is by using structured scoring tools tied directly to the job description. This keeps evaluations focused on relevant qualifications instead of impressions. Overall, this test showed me that even unintentional bias can affect hiring decisions, which is why structured processes are important.

References

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Steinmetz, C. (2013). The perfect hire. Scientific American Mind.

Knight, R. (2017). 7 practical ways to reduce bias in your hiring process. Harvard Business Review.

W5 Lecture 2 – Introduction to Selection.

W5 Lecture 4 – Increasing Interview Effectiveness.

Selection Outline.

Looking back on my experience working as a front desk clerk at a hotel in Miami, I’ve realized how important effective interviews are in predicting job performance. Although I was initially hired for a front desk position, I eventually took on many supervisory responsibilities due to my experience and the need for continuity when leadership was changing. This made it clear to me that the interview process did not fully capture who was actually capable of performing at a higher level.

From what I remember, the interview itself was fairly unstructured and focused more on general questions rather than assessing specific skills related to leadership, problem-solving, or decision-making. This creates issues with validity, since the questions were not directly tied to the actual responsibilities of the role. According to the lecture, selection methods should be based on job-related knowledge, skills, and abilities in order to accurately predict performance (W5 Lecture 2 – Introduction to Selection).

There were also concerns with reliability. Different candidates were likely evaluated based on different conversations rather than a standardized set of questions, which can lead to inconsistent and biased hiring decisions. Structured interviews, where all candidates are asked the same questions and evaluated using consistent criteria, tend to be more reliable and fair (W5 Lecture 3 – Selection Methods).

If I could advise the employer, I would recommend implementing a more structured interview process that includes job-related and behavioral questions focused on leadership and teamwork. Preparing standardized questions and using clear evaluation criteria would improve both reliability and validity while leading to better hiring decisions (W5 Lecture 4 – Improving Interview Effectiveness).

References

W5 Lecture 2 – Introduction to Selection. Oregon State University.

W5 Lecture 3 – Selection Methods. Oregon State University.

W5 Lecture 4 – Improving Interview Effectiveness. Oregon State University.