Author: Malcolm Harrison

After looking more into labor unions this week, I realized the topic is more complicated than I originally thought. From what I read online and from the lecture materials, unions are mainly meant to protect workers by giving them a collective voice when negotiating with employers. One of the biggest advantages for employees is higher wages and better benefits. Research from the Economic Policy Institute shows that union workers often earn more and are more likely to have benefits like health insurance and retirement plans. Unions can also help create safer working conditions because workers are able to report issues without worrying as much about retaliation.

However, there are also downsides that affect both employees and employers. Union dues can be expensive, and sometimes workers feel like they are paying into something that doesn’t directly benefit them. For employers, unions can make it harder to make quick business decisions because many changes must go through negotiations. Some critics also argue that unions can protect underperforming workers, which may reduce overall productivity.

I talked with a family friend who works in construction and is part of a union. He said the biggest benefit is job security and good healthcare. At the same time, he mentioned that sometimes union rules can slow things down on job sites. This matched pretty closely with what the lectures described about the balance between worker protection and organizational flexibility.

Personally, I would consider joining a union depending on the industry I was working in. In fields where safety risks or job instability are high, unions seem very beneficial. But in industries where there is already strong management and fair pay, union membership might feel less necessary. Overall, I think unions can be valuable, but their effectiveness really depends on the situation and the workplace culture.

After taking the Life Stress Inventory, the Coping and Stress Management Skills Test, and the Type A Personality Survey, I learned a lot about how I respond to pressure and stress. My results suggested that I have some characteristics of a Type A personality, which includes being competitive, achievement-oriented, and sometimes impatient when trying to accomplish tasks quickly. These traits can be helpful in professional environments because they push me to work hard and stay motivated, but they can also lead to higher stress levels if not managed properly. Type A behavior patterns are often associated with a strong drive to succeed and a sense of urgency, which can increase stress if expectations become too demanding.

From the coping and stress management assessment, I realized that I tend to manage stress by staying busy and focusing on completing tasks rather than stepping back and relaxing. While this can help me stay productive, it also showed me that I should work on better stress-management habits. Research shows that effective ways to manage stress include mindfulness, regular exercise, and maintaining healthy social connections. These strategies can improve both mental and physical well-being and help individuals cope with challenging situations more effectively.

As I progress through my professional career, there are several steps I can take to manage stress more effectively. First, maintaining a balanced schedule and setting realistic goals will help prevent burnout. Second, incorporating exercise or physical activity into my routine can improve both physical and mental health. Finally, learning to step away from work and maintain a healthy work-life balance will help me stay productive over the long term rather than becoming overwhelmed by constant pressure.

Organizations today are also becoming more aware of the importance of managing employee stress. Many companies offer wellness programs, mental health resources, and employee assistance programs to help workers cope with stress and maintain their health. Some workplaces also encourage positive stress, known as “eustress,” which can motivate employees and improve performance when managed properly. Overall, both individuals and organizations benefit when stress is recognized and managed effectively.

As a senior in Construction Engineering Management at OSU, I recently had to make a big decision about where I wanted to work after graduation. I was fortunate to receive multiple job offers, and honestly, all of them were strong opportunities. The companies had good reputations, solid project portfolios, and room for growth. But in the end, compensation played a major role in my decision.

One offer stood out because of the overall pay and benefits package. The base salary was noticeably higher than the other offer, but what really made the difference was the total compensation. They offered a stronger 401(k) match, better health insurance coverage, and performance-based bonuses. When I broke it down long term, it wasn’t just about the starting salary — it was about financial stability and future growth.

Compensation motivated my behavior because it directly impacts quality of life, especially right out of college. Student loans, rent, and living expenses add up quickly. Knowing I would start at a higher salary reduced stress and gave me confidence in my financial future. The stronger benefits package also signaled that the company values its employees and is willing to invest in them.

I also thought about equity theory from class. When comparing offers, it was hard to ignore the fact that one company was clearly offering more for similar expectations and responsibilities. That difference influenced how I perceived fairness and opportunity.

In the end, I accepted the higher-paying offer with better benefits. While culture and growth potential mattered, compensation ultimately pushed me toward the decision I felt made the most sense long term. It showed me how powerful total rewards can be in motivating real career choices.

One training I found especially beneficial was my summer internship safety training. It was effective because it was directly connected to the job. The training followed a clear structure and focused on real tasks we would be doing on site. Instead of just listening to lectures, we practiced using equipment and reviewed real safety scenarios. We also received feedback from supervisors, which helped reinforce what we learned. From our lectures, effective training starts with analyzing the job and the employee to make sure the content is relevant. This training did that well because it matched the actual work environment. It also made the material meaningful and easier to remember.

In contrast, I once completed an online compliance training that was not very beneficial. It was mostly slides with little interaction. There were no hands on activities and no real connection to daily job tasks. It felt like something we had to complete rather than something meant to improve performance. Our lecture on evaluating training explains that training should improve learning and job performance, not just completion rates. In this case, it probably did not improve how people performed at work.

Overall, training is most effective when it is relevant, interactive, and clearly connected to job responsibilities. When employees understand why the training matters and have the chance to practice skills, it is much more likely to be successful.

Implicit Bias, Awareness, and Selection Decisions

This week’s materials and my experience with Harvard’s Project Implicit helped me better understand how implicit bias can quietly influence decision-making, even when people believe they are being fair. After completing the Race Implicit Association Test (IAT), my results showed that I was moderately faster at associating White Americans with “good” and Black Americans with “bad.” While this result was uncomfortable to see, it reinforced the idea that implicit bias is often unconscious and shaped by socialization, media exposure, and cultural norms rather than intentional prejudice.

Implicit bias can directly impact the reliability and validity of selection processes, especially in hiring. Reliability refers to consistency in evaluation, while validity refers to whether a process actually measures job-related qualifications. If a hiring manager unknowingly holds implicit racial biases, they may evaluate identical résumés differently based on names, perceived race, or other cues. Research has shown that Black applicants receive fewer callbacks than White applicants with equivalent qualifications, suggesting bias can undermine both fairness and accuracy in selection (Payne et al., 2020). This means organizations may not consistently select the most qualified candidates, weakening the overall effectiveness of the hiring process.

One way to counteract implicit bias is through structured selection systems, such as standardized interview questions and objective scoring rubrics. These reduce the influence of gut feelings and stereotypes by forcing evaluators to focus on job-related criteria. Additionally, increasing awareness through training and self-reflection—like taking the IAT—can help individuals slow down automatic judgments and question their assumptions (Vandiver, as cited in Be Better Blog).

While implicit bias may never fully disappear, acknowledging its presence and actively working against it can improve fairness, decision quality, and trust in organizational systems.

References
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
Payne, K., Niemi, L., & Doris, J. M. (2020). Scientific American.
Vandiver, B. J. (2023). Understanding Implicit Bias—and How to Work Through It, Be Better Blog.

As a senior Construction Management major at Oregon State University, I have participated in job interviews at the OSU career fair for the past three years and have received job offers each year. Because of that experience, I have been able to see firsthand what makes interviews effective and what can make them less reliable or useful. Many of the ideas discussed in lecture about reliability, validity, and utility directly reflect what I have observed in real interviews with construction firms.

The most effective interviews I have had were structured and focused on job-related competencies. When interviewers asked similar questions to every candidate, it made the process feel more fair and consistent. This increased reliability because interviewers could compare candidates based on the same criteria rather than personality or first impressions. In contrast, interviews that were very informal or conversational often felt less reliable, since different candidates were asked completely different questions.

Validity was strongest when interview questions related directly to construction scenarios. Behavioral questions such as describing how I handled schedule conflicts, safety concerns, or teamwork issues on past projects allowed me to demonstrate skills that are directly relevant to the job. These questions aligned with course material emphasizing that past behavior is one of the best predictors of future job performance. Interviews that relied on vague questions about “leadership” or “fit” without clear definitions felt less effective and less predictive of actual job success.

Utility is also an important factor, especially in construction where hiring the wrong person can be costly. While structured interviews require more preparation, they ultimately provide better information for hiring decisions and reduce turnover and training costs. Based on my experience, I would advise employers to use structured interviews, standardized rating systems, and questions tied directly to construction responsibilities. Doing so improves fairness, reduces bias, and leads to better hiring outcomes for both the company and the candidate.

Job descriptions play an important role in helping employees understand their responsibilities and how their work contributes to the organization. However, one of the main challenges with developing and maintaining job descriptions is that jobs often change over time. When job descriptions are not updated to reflect these changes, employees may not fully understand what is expected of them or how to perform their tasks to their highest potential.

Another challenge with job descriptions is the time and effort required to create and maintain them, especially for small HR teams. Because of this, job descriptions are sometimes too broad or outdated. When this happens, employees may experience repetitive work, limited interaction with coworkers or leadership, and a lack of purpose in their roles. These issues can quickly lead to lower job satisfaction and higher turnover, which makes it expensive for companies to hire and train new employees.

Not having clear job descriptions also creates challenges for feedback and performance evaluation. When expectations are unclear, it becomes difficult for leaders to provide meaningful feedback or for employees to understand how they can improve. This can cause frustration and make employees feel unsupported or undervalued in their positions.

One way to address these challenges is by regularly reviewing job descriptions and aligning them with how the work is actually being performed. Involving employees in this process can help ensure fairness and clarity while also increasing engagement. Job descriptions should also allow room for growth through strategies such as job rotation, enlargement, and enrichment, which help reduce repetition and increase interaction. Overall, clear and well-maintained job descriptions support employee satisfaction, improve performance, and help reduce turnover over time.

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