Month: April 2025

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.