MGMT453 - Caleb

One class that really stood out to me was a public speaking course I took freshman year. At first, I thought I was going to hate it, but the way it was structured made a big difference. The instructor used a very hands on, discussion based approach. Instead of just lecturing, we had some fun activities that felt practical, like speaking a random sentence using a random emotion as a way to do role-call, which was difficult but kind of fun. It forced us to get out of our comfort zones and actually practice in a way that felt real. I now realize this connects with what the Harvard Business Review article said about the importance of social support and feeling connected in training (Ellis et al. 2017). That class felt supportive and clear about expectations. It also lines up with the ideas from First, Break All the Rules about “defining the right outcomes” and letting people figure out their own way to get there (Buckingham 2016). On the other hand, when I was in the Air Force, we had tons of trainings called CBT’s, or computer based training, for stuff like operational security and flightline safety. Honestly, most of us just clicked through them and passed the quiz at the end. They didn’t relate to anything we were actively doing and felt like a box to check, not something useful. It was also repetitive and we had to do them every month so most of us had memorized all the answers. It reminded me of the old UPS training style before they created the Integrad program, just a lot of memorizing without applying anything (Hira 2007). There was no interaction or support, and no one really cared about it. It didn’t help us grow or understand the mission better. From what I have learned, I think training is most effective when it’s interactive, goal oriented, and actually helps you connect with the material instead of just throwing info at you.

I’ve had a total of four interviews up to this point in my life. My first one was for Burgerville When I was a senior in highschool, about 10 years ago so I don’t remember it too well. More recently I have had interviews with construction companies like Knife River, Wildish, and Sierra. Each one felt really different in terms of how structured or effective they were. The Sierra Construction interview honestly didn’t feel like much of an interview at all. It was only 10 minutes, and because they already knew my dad, they just wanted to see if I would be late to the interview. From a hiring standpoint, that’s very low on both reliability and validity. According to The Perfect Hire, reliable interviews should collect consistent info across candidates, and this one didn’t do that at all. No one else applying for the same role would’ve had the same experience as me, which doesn’t make it very fair either. But I’m not complaining because it worked in my favor.

The Knife River interview was much better. It was in front of a panel and included a scenario question about scheduling, which was actually kind of fun. This lined up with the idea from the 7 Practical Ways to Reduce Bias in Your Hiring Process article, where it says work sample tests are one of the best ways to predict job performance. That felt true here and they were more focused on how I thought and less on my background. It was probably the most valid and useful interview I’ve done.

The interview I had with Wildish Construction was more like a conversation than a formal interview. I met with the CEO and the Operations Director, and we just talked for about an hour. They mostly wanted to get to know me as a person, not really test my skills or knowledge. It felt personal and welcoming, which I liked, but looking back it wasn’t very structured. Based on what I’ve learned, that kind of unstructured interview isn’t super reliable because there’s no consistent way to compare candidates. It would’ve been more effective if they added a few standardized questions or a simple work sample to balance the casual dynamic with something more job related.

If I could go back and give advice to these companies, I’d tell Sierra to use more structured interview questions and avoid relying on personal connections. For Wildish, I liked the long conversation with the CEO and Operations Director and it had a relaxed, personal feel, but I would suggest mixing that with a work sample or some standardized questions to make the process more balanced and job focused. Knife River’s interview came closest to what I’ve learned makes an interview effective, with a panel format and a scenario that actually tested my skills. I would tell them all that keeping structure and consistency across their interviews would help reduce bias and help them make better hiring decisions.

Writing and updating job descriptions is more complicated than people think. During a recent project, I had to work on job descriptions, and I realized how much actually goes into them. It’s not just writing down what someone does all day. It involves figuring out what really matters in the role and making sure it’s relevant over time. It can be hard to know how often to change them or how to word them clearly so that HR, the employee, and managers are all on the same page.

The article Job Worth Doing: Update Descriptions really changed how I think about job descriptions. It said that a bad job description is worse than not having one at all, which makes a lot of sense now. Job descriptions are used in everything from hiring to training to performance evaluations. So if they’re outdated or vague, the whole system can break down. I liked the idea that they should be reviewed at least once a year and also updated whenever there’s a major change in the role.

Another helpful point came from The Definitive Guide to Recruiting in Good Times and Bad. It explained that a lot of companies don’t actually have a real plan for what kind of talent they’ll need in the future, and because of that, their job descriptions usually end up missing the mark. If a company isn’t thinking ahead about how roles might evolve or what skills they’ll need down the line, the job descriptions won’t reflect what’s actually important. That can create problems during hiring, training, and even performance reviews because the expectations aren’t clear or realistic. That’s where HR and upper management need to work together. HR can help write clear and legally sound descriptions, while managers bring insight into how the job might grow or shift over time. If both sides communicate regularly, it’ll be easier to update descriptions as needed and avoid confusion for everyone involved. It also helps with employee engagement because people want to know their role matters and that there’s a path for growth.

After reading about Adobe, T-Mobile, and Nugget Market in the 2020 Fortune Best Companies to Work For list, I started thinking about what actually makes a job worth sticking around for. At Adobe, someone said they love that the company actually follows through on its promises, especially with work/life balance. That reminded me of First, Break All the Rules, where it talks about how great managers care about individual needs and don’t just treat everyone the same. They’re not just saying we care, but they’re doing it consistently.

T-Mobile really stood out to me too. One employee said their boss trusts them to make decisions, and that they feel like they can actually change things. That reminded me of How Google Sold Its Engineers on Management. Google had to prove that managers mattered using data, and one of the biggest things they found was that people just want to feel supported without being micromanaged. Seems like T-Mobile gets that.

Then there’s Nugget Market, where people talk about the company feeling like a family and the CEO being down to earth. That mirrored Why Did We Ever Go Into HR? That article said HR is becoming way more strategic and people focused, not just about rules or forms.

Honestly, I want to be the kind of manager who’s approachable and actually listens. I don’t want to be the boss who just checks boxes. But I think what’ll be hardest is balancing being nice and holding people accountable. HR basics, like feedback and development plans, will help with that. Those tools matter way more than I used to think. And now I see why companies that actually care about people end up being the best places to work.