Month: May 2025

https://blogs.oregonstate.edu/travisbennetthumanresouceblog/wp-admin/post.php?post=2&action=edit

After completing the Type A Personality Survey, I learned that I sit somewhere in the middle between a Type A and Type B personality. I have a moderate score, with a noticeable lean toward impatience and irritability. In stressful situations, I can become easily frustrated or feel a sense of urgency that pushes me to be reactive. While this drive helps me meet goals, the emotional cost can be high if left unchecked.

This duality shows up in my daily life. I strive to succeed and stay productive, but I’ve also noticed that I internalize stress, especially when things don’t go as planned. According to the survey, this kind of emotional reactivity can increase the risk of heart disease and damage relationships if not managed properly. As I continue through my professional journey, I know I need to focus on improving emotional regulation and stress management to stay healthy and effective.

One strategy I’ve started practicing is taking intentional breaks during the day—short walks, breathing exercises, or even 10 minutes away from screens. These moments help reset my mindset. I’ve also learned to manage expectations and prioritize sleep, which has helped reduce my irritability.

Organizations are becoming more aware of stress-related health issues and are offering resources to support employee well-being. Some of the more progressive companies provide mental health benefits, on-site wellness programs, flexible work schedules, and stress management workshops. For example, Google and Salesforce both offer mindfulness training and access to mental health coaching. These steps not only improve productivity but also help employees feel supported.

Overall, recognizing my tendencies and proactively addressing them is key. As stress becomes a more visible workplace issue, both individuals and organizations need to invest in mental wellness to build healthier, more sustainable work environments.

1. What am I good at?
I’m good at taking initiative and getting things done when others won’t step up. I have strong leadership instincts, especially in high-pressure environments, and I’m able to make decisions quickly while staying composed. I’m also good at helping people feel heard, even when we’re in conflict or under stress.

2. What do I value?
I value growth, honesty, and purpose. I care about doing work that matters, not just climbing for the sake of status or money. I believe that the way we treat people—especially when no one’s watching—defines the quality of our leadership and our character.

3. How did I get here?
I got here by being persistent. I’ve faced setbacks and rough circumstances that could have knocked me off course, but I didn’t let them. I’ve worked hard to improve myself and keep showing up, even when the outcome was uncertain. That mindset has carried me through school, work, and life in general.

4. Where am I going?
I’m moving toward a career where I can lead with both competence and compassion. I’m not looking to just maintain a job—I want to build something, challenge myself, and help others along the way. Whether that means turning down more money for the right environment or staying flexible about where I end up, I want to stay intentional about what I say yes to.

When I left my job at Telecare, a secure residential mental health facility, it wasn’t because I disliked the clients or the work itself—it was because the compensation no longer justified the sacrifices I was making. At the time, I was working full-time in a high-stress environment that demanded emotional resilience, crisis intervention skills, and constant presence. Yet I was earning $22 per hour, despite having leadership experience, additional certifications, and a proven track record of success in similar roles.

The turning point came when I was offered a role at a nonprofit that paid significantly more, even for fewer hours. The decision wasn’t difficult. I didn’t feel valued where I was, and the financial gap made it clear: the company’s for-profit model prioritized margins over mission. I wasn’t alone—many experienced staff left for the same reason. The stress stayed high, but the rewards simply didn’t.

Compensation in this case wasn’t just about money—it symbolized appreciation, respect, and sustainability. Being underpaid in a taxing job eroded my motivation and loyalty. Once I saw that my skills were worth more elsewhere, I couldn’t justify staying.

This experience highlighted how crucial compensation is in retaining skilled workers, especially in fields like mental health where burnout is common. Pay isn’t everything—but when it doesn’t reflect the work or the value you bring, it becomes the only thing that matters.

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.