sam bezzant

IPIP Results & Reactions
Step 1–3: Summary of My Personality Test Results
I recently completed the IPIP-NEO-120 personality assessment, which evaluates the “Big Five” dimensions: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (also called Emotional Stability). My results showed high Conscientiousness, moderate-to-high Openness, moderate Agreeableness, lower Neuroticism, and moderate Extraversion.

Openness: I tend to enjoy learning, new experiences, and creative problem-solving. This aligns with how I’ve pursued education, entrepreneurship, and complex problem-solving roles.

Conscientiousness: I scored very high here, which suggests I’m disciplined, goal-oriented, and detail-conscious—traits that help me stay productive under pressure.

Extraversion: I’m moderately extroverted, meaning I can confidently lead or socialize when needed, but I also value time to recharge.

Agreeableness: My score reflects someone who is respectful and cooperative but also willing to speak up when something isn’t right.

Neuroticism (low): Scoring low in Neuroticism indicates that I handle stress well, don’t overreact emotionally, and can stay level-headed in tough situations.

Step 4: What an Employer Might See in These Results
A hiring manager reviewing my IPIP profile might view me as a focused, emotionally grounded candidate who thrives on structure and purpose. My high conscientiousness would likely be seen as a major strength—suggesting I’m dependable, timely, and capable of managing tasks with little oversight. In roles that require project ownership, documentation, or follow-through, this trait would shine.

My moderate extraversion and agreeableness could signal that I’m capable of functioning well in a team without being overly passive or dependent. I can communicate clearly, hold others accountable, and still maintain collaborative relationships. The low neuroticism score would likely be seen as an asset in fast-paced or high-stress environments—especially those that require composure and adaptability.

If there’s a perceived weakness, it might be that I’m not highly extroverted or overly eager to “go along” just to maintain harmony. However, these traits also mean I’m principled and clear-headed, especially in roles where confident decision-making and independence are needed.

When I think about effective training, my experience with the Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training stands out as a clear success. The training was designed to equip professionals with de-escalation and nonviolent crisis intervention techniques. What made this training so effective was its practical application, consistent alignment with job demands, and engaging instructional design.

CPI’s approach involved scenario-based learning, allowing us to practice techniques in realistic settings. This method, which ties directly into principles of transfer of training covered in this week’s material, helped reinforce skill retention and confidence in real-world application. The training also had immediate utility: I was able to apply techniques like personal space management and verbal de-escalation the very next day at work, which reinforced the material’s relevance and value. According to our course readings, effective training must be job-relevant, behavior-focused, and grounded in practical outcomes (Smart & Street, 2008).

In contrast, I once took a time management seminar that felt generic and uninspired. It lacked any customization for our specific job roles and offered no opportunities for hands-on practice. The content felt disconnected from my daily work, which likely explains why none of the strategies stuck. It’s a clear example of what happens when training fails to align with learner needs or job context—a common barrier to training effectiveness.

In both cases, the difference came down to content relevance, instructional design, and immediate applicability—all key factors that influence training outcomes as described in this week’s lecture on effective employee development.

Citations:
Smart, G., & Street, R. (2008). Who: The A Method for Hiring. Ballantine Books.

If I had to choose between Avery and Jaime, I would hire Jaime. While Avery may have a higher performance ceiling, reliability and day-to-day consistency are essential in most business settings. A consistently average performer like Jaime is likely to meet deadlines, maintain team morale, and deliver stable output. In contrast, someone with inconsistent performance, even if brilliant occasionally, can cause unpredictability and frustration—especially in team-based environments.

A role where Avery would be the better hire is a creative or project-based position such as a product designer or advertising copywriter. These roles benefit from moments of brilliance that can redefine a campaign or product launch. The value of breakthrough ideas in these jobs often outweighs the cost of inconsistency, especially when performance is judged by the best work produced, not daily output.

On the other hand, Jaime would be a better fit for roles like customer support or assembly line production—jobs that demand reliability, accuracy, and steady performance. These roles can’t afford unpredictability; delivering solid work every day is more valuable than occasional excellence.

Overall, while maximal performance may sound attractive on paper, typical performance is what sustains a business day-to-day. Unless the role specifically calls for breakthrough thinking, I believe consistency trumps occasional brilliance.

Part A: My Brand
My brand as a potential employee is defined by resilience, adaptability, and purpose-driven leadership. As a Ford Scholar, parent, and full-time student who has overcome significant adversity, I bring a unique blend of lived experience and disciplined professionalism. I thrive under pressure, lead by example, and don’t shy away from hard work—whether that’s coordinating teams in mental health settings or managing fishing expeditions for my startup. I’ve consistently turned challenges into strengths. I’m analytical but grounded, with a strong ethical compass and a passion for helping others. I take initiative, communicate clearly, and always aim to build systems that work better—not just for productivity, but for people.

Part B: Creative Situation Wanted Ad
WANTED: One Wildly Capable, Purpose-Driven Professional
Seeking a company with grit, vision, and a mission bigger than its metrics. In return, I offer 15+ years of real-world leadership, an academic foundation in management and analytics, and a mind that solves problems while the rest are still identifying them.

I’m the guy who can lead a crisis team in the morning, ace a business analytics project at lunch, and edit social media reels before dinner. You won’t need to train me on hustle—I’m already fluent. What I need is a mission worth committing to, a team that respects purpose and performance equally, and space to grow into leadership that matters.

I’m not your average candidate, and this isn’t your average resume. Let’s skip the formalities—reach out if you value self-starters who don’t quit and thrive in uncertain terrain. I’m open to project-based roles, internships, or strategic part-time opportunities that align with ethical business, innovation, or community impact.

I’d post this ad on LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and possibly as a boosted Instagram story—targeted to companies I admire. If needed, I’d go old-school and hand it out with a QR code in person. Because when you believe in your value, you don’t wait—you create the opportunity.

Creating and maintaining job descriptions sounds like basic HR housekeeping, but in practice, it’s one of the most overlooked—and costly—areas of workforce management. I’ve seen the impact firsthand in mental health and healthcare settings, where unclear job roles lead to duplicated efforts, confusion, and burnout.

A well-developed job description starts with thorough job analysis, which includes identifying essential tasks and the KSAOs (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other characteristics) needed to perform them effectively (W4 Lecture 1, 2025). When job descriptions are outdated or vague, recruitment, performance evaluation, and even legal protection all suffer. Employees often end up doing work outside their scope, leading to conflict or resentment—especially when expectations are inconsistent across departments or shifts.

One major challenge is that job descriptions quickly become stale. Organizations evolve faster than most HR documents do. To address this, companies can build job descriptions with flexibility in mind and revisit them during performance reviews or when roles shift. Using tools like O*Net or structured SME (subject matter expert) interviews, as suggested in this week’s materials, helps ensure relevance and accuracy over time.

Another issue is balancing efficiency and motivation. The job design lecture discussed how jobs can be structured for maximum efficiency through simplification—but overly rigid roles reduce employee engagement (W4 Lecture 2, 2025). Incorporating motivational elements like job enrichment, task variety, and even employee input into job crafting can result in more meaningful, accurate job descriptions.

Ultimately, job descriptions should not be one-time documents created for compliance. They’re living tools that support hiring, training, retention, and strategic workforce planning. Organizations that treat them as such are better positioned to adapt and retain talent in a competitive labor market.

My most recent position was as a mental health worker at a residential treatment facility. The job description was a major factor in my decision to apply. It listed responsibilities like “providing support to clients in daily living tasks,” “monitoring client behavior,” and “documenting client progress.” It also highlighted the importance of strong interpersonal skills, crisis intervention, and teamwork. At the time, I was looking for meaningful work that would allow me to make a direct impact, and this role sounded aligned with my goals.

Once on the job, I found that many aspects matched the description. I was regularly involved in supporting clients through their daily routines, documenting interactions, and communicating with a multidisciplinary team. However, there were several realities that weren’t mentioned. The emotional toll of the work was much heavier than expected — especially during crises or behavioral escalations. The job also required long hours, including overnight shifts, and often involved being short-staffed, which created additional pressure.

What stood out most was how much emotional regulation and patience the role required, which wasn’t fully conveyed in the posting. Things like de-escalating clients during panic attacks or working with individuals in deep distress are intense experiences that deserve more visibility in a job description.

If I were to rewrite that posting today, I would include clearer expectations around emotional demands, shift flexibility, and physical safety protocols. Being upfront about those realities can better prepare future applicants for the challenges and rewards of the job — and help organizations find the right fit.

If I came across a news article reporting that my favorite company was accused of widespread discrimination against individuals from a group I associate with, it would absolutely change how I felt about the company. Trust is central to my support of any organization, and discovering evidence of systemic discrimination would create serious doubts about the company’s culture, leadership, and commitment to ethical values.

It would strongly influence my decision to support the company moving forward. Even if the company produced products or services I liked, I would find it difficult to justify continuing to purchase from them or publicly associate myself with their brand. Consumer behavior research shows that customers increasingly hold companies accountable for their social responsibility, and I believe that supporting companies financially is a form of endorsement. Unless the company demonstrated meaningful efforts to correct the harm — not just through public relations statements, but through transparent, systemic changes — I would likely withdraw my support.

It would also change whether I would apply to work for the company in the future. A workplace that tolerates or enables discrimination is not one where I could see myself growing professionally or personally. Management research emphasizes the importance of organizational culture in employee engagement and retention, and a discriminatory environment would conflict deeply with my values. I would need to see clear evidence of structural reform, leadership change, and a demonstrated commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion before I would even reconsider.

Ultimately, discrimination erodes the foundation of trust and shared purpose that makes any company truly great. It would be difficult for me to overlook such a fundamental issue.

My most recent experience as a job applicant was with Clackamas County. The process began with an online application that was straightforward and user-friendly. I appreciated the clarity of the job posting, which laid out expectations, qualifications, and timelines. After submitting my materials, I received a timely email indicating that I had made it through the initial screening, which was encouraging and made me feel seen in a competitive pool.

The next step was being invited to a panel interview. This was both nerve-wracking and exciting. The communication from the county was professional and detailed; I was given a list of panelists, a general overview of the interview format, and enough time to prepare. The panel itself was structured and fair, with each member asking thoughtful, behavior-based questions. I was impressed by how standardized the process felt—each candidate clearly received the same level of attention and assessment.

After the interview, I was contacted by the Sheriff’s Office to complete a background check and additional screenings. That part of the process, while more intensive, made sense given the sensitive nature of the role. The level of vetting gave me confidence that the organization took safety and integrity seriously.

Overall, the experience shaped a positive impression of the job and organization. The professionalism, transparency, and structure of the process increased my desire to work there. It signaled that Clackamas County values thoroughness and fairness in recruitment, which aligned with the type of employer I hoped to work for.

In the mini-lecture, the argument was made that hiring the right people is the most important decision a company makes. I don’t fully disagree—having helped open a mental health startup, I saw firsthand how hiring the wrong people created stress, turnover, and even safety issues. But playing devil’s advocate, I can also see why some companies might prioritize other functions—like marketing or product design—especially early on.

For one, a brilliant product that solves a real problem or an unforgettable brand identity can create the momentum that later allows a company to attract top talent. In tech startups, it’s common to see limited HR infrastructure in the beginning, with energy focused almost entirely on engineering or design. Even in healthcare, securing contracts and building clinical workflows often come before hiring a full HR team. In these cases, it’s not that recruitment is unimportant—it’s just that other fires are burning hotter.

That said, underinvesting in recruitment and selection comes with real costs. Weak hires create ripple effects across teams, erode culture, and add to turnover. “Who you hire makes or breaks you”—I’ve lived that. The challenge, though, is that best practices in hiring are often hard to implement when you’re strapped for time, cash, or both.

One solution is to build lean, evidence-based staffing processes from the start—simple structured interviews and clear performance criteria go a long way. While recruitment might not always be the first focus, it should never fall too far behind. If you ignore it for too long, your company may end up designing great products no one’s around to support.

One clear theme from this week’s lectures and readings is that effective human resource management is essential to building organizational value and employee satisfaction. Companies that succeed in this area don’t do so by accident—they create systems that empower managers to unlock individual potential, foster belonging, and promote strategic alignment. I examined Hilton, Ultimate Software (now UKG), and Capital One from the Fortune Best Companies to Work For list and saw these principles in action.

Hilton is celebrated for a culture that treats employees like family, echoing the values discussed in First, Break All the Rules by Buckingham & Coffman (2016). Managers are taught to care deeply and tailor their approach to each person’s strengths—an idea that aligns with this week’s point that people management isn’t about applying universal policies, but about situational leadership that boosts performance and retention.

Ultimate Software stands out for its “people first” philosophy. In the How Google Sold Its Engineers on Management article (Garvin, 2013), the value of data-driven people management was clear. Similarly, Ultimate uses feedback loops and transparent processes to support employees—reinforcing the lecture concept of evidence-based HR. Their managers likely reflect what Project Oxygen at Google revealed: good managers don’t just manage—they coach, empower, and support growth.

Capital One impressed me with its inclusivity. Employees describe being free to express their individuality, which directly ties into strategic HRM concepts. As covered in Lecture 2, companies must align their people practices with strategic goals, and Capital One’s emphasis on authenticity likely improves engagement and innovation across teams.

As a future manager, I hope to model inclusive, development-oriented leadership. I believe my biggest challenges will lie in designing motivating work, balancing fairness with flexibility, and handling performance issues constructively. However, leveraging strong HR systems—like onboarding, training, and performance appraisals—will be key to meeting these challenges and helping employees thrive.

References:

• Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. (2016). First, Break All the Rules.

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

• 2020 Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For. Fortune.com.