Month: April 2021

I participated in class discussion this day.

TOPIC: Maximal VS Typical Performance. In Wednesday’s class we discussed if we would rather hire someone with high maximal potential but low typical performance, or someone of the opposite skill set. I made a remark about how many of us prefer a solid, typical performer BUT we often promote the latter. I still find this to be fascinating because we often want someone steady yet reward the ones who have the amazing projects. It makes me wonder that even though we say we value consistency more, our actions don’t back this up. I made some other comments too, but that is the idea that stuck in my mind from Wednesday.

I participated in class discussion this week.

Topic 1: Stange Job descriptions. While originally this was presented about strange jobs we have seen, it transitioned into a conversation about scams, protecting ourselves from scam ads, and how jobs can unintentionally look deceiving. I added a comment about a funny I-5 ad I have seen that is a play on Uncle Sam. I also added other comments on how I am frustrated with the gig economy taking advantage of people, especially those of low income.

Topic 2: Networking: I mentioned how they say “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know” but really it matters “it’s who knows you.” I say this because for us to benefit from our networks, people have to be able to recall us. If we know them, this is just one side of the street. It has to go both ways.

The title is a nod to the strange titles we discussed in class 🙂

I participated in the class discussion this week.

Discussion 1: Job Descriptions. We talked about what we look for in a job description and our experiences with them. I commented about how I look for consistency between what people have said about the job and the description itself. As someone who has gotten almost all my jobs through relationships, most of the experience I have with descriptions is me just browsing for fun. Therefore, I value what people say about the job above what the description actually says more, so long as they are credible (at least for hiring).

Discussion 2: Silly titles. I mentioned how silly job titles can make you not look credible to your subordinates or partners. I also mentioned yogurt extreme call their employees “swirl masters,” which when I saw that yesterday I thought “poor them.”

I participated in the class lecture this week.

DISCUSSION 1: Reaction to Discrimination Accusation in Business. For this discussion, I added that if they broke a non-grey part of the law, then they should’ve known better and I would hold them accountable. However, if the law is grey or it’s someone who went AWOL that they didn’t know about, then I could be more forgiving. Additionally, I agreed a lot with the class’s concerns of authenticity for I look for sincerity in businesses’ reactions to discrimination. Lastly, I added the comments that people under 40 and not judging based on physical appearance should be protected classes (and I agree political opinion should be too but I would think the first amendment protects this).

DISCUSSION 2: Bias. I asked a lot of questions for this discussion. I wanted to know more about if bias compounds and becoming systematic. It seems the research seems to suggest that it does. Additionally, I proposed focusing on qualifications more would help reduce bias, and it appears it does not. However, the proposed solution of probation periods may. Overall, I learned that discrimination is no longer blatant and inflicted as we traditionally think of it like the 1950s (for most), but now it tends to be subtle and elusive in nature, breeding underneath until it becomes inflicted enough to recognize. Great discussion, I learned a lot!