Compare Hofstede's five value dimensions and the GLOBE framework

Both Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions and the GLOBE framework examine a
particular country's beliefs and traditions and rate them on specific areas.
Hofstede’s five dimensions look at these culture differences: power distance (level
of inequality in a community), individualism (how integrated a society is into groups),
masculinity (gender roles), uncertainty avoidance (how a culture handles
unstructured situations), and long term orientation (perseverance). Countries are
given scores in each of the five areas which is then correlated and compared to
data from other countries.

The GLOBE framework was developed after Hofstede’s dimensions and expands
on his work. The GLOBE framework compares countries looking at nine different
areas including power distance, uncertainty avoidance , assertiveness (value of
competition), humane orientation (kindness to others), future orientation (value of
planning), individual collectivism (integration into groups), gender difference (gender
roles), in-group collectivism (membership in small groups), and performance
orientation (improvement).

QNo 3.

 Fundamental Attribution Error

·       The tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and overestimate the

influence of internal factors when making judgments about the behavior of others.

In other words, you tend to cut yourself a break while holding others 100 percent accountable for their
actions. For instance, if you've ever chastised a "lazy employee" for being late to a meeting and then
proceeded to make an excuse for being late yourself that same day, you've made the fundamental
attribution error.

For example, think back to the "lazy employee." Since she was late to an important meeting,
you might be inclined to form a judgment of her character based on this one action alone. It's
possible, however, that her behavior is due to several external, rather than internal, factors.
For instance, any number of situational factors could have caused her to run behind schedule,
such as a family emergency or traffic jam, which have nothing to do with the quality of her
character.
In action, forming impressions of a person's character based on limited information can have
long-lasting effects. Now that you perceive this person as "lazy," your opinions of her may
begin to shift over time. Unless the opportunity arises for you to get to know your employee
better, you may always view her in a negative light.

 - Halo Effect

–    Drawing a general impression about an individual on the basis of a single characteristic.

How the Halo Effect Impacts Your Workplace

By Bridget Miller, Contributing Editor Oct 2, 2018 Learning & Development, Talent
The halo effect refers to the idea that our overall impression of someone will directly impact how we perceive almost
everything they do. If that person has an overall positive impression—a halo as it were—then we’re more likely to
perceive everything they do more positively.

Source: wildpixel / iStock / Getty

The halo effect can be the result of any number of things. It could be as simple as the employee performing a
particular task very well very early on in his or her career, creating a lasting good impression. It could be a shared
hobby or interest that creates a bond with someone in a position of power. It could be the employee’s attitude or
professionalism creates a great first impression. It could be that the employee was recommended to be hired by
someone in a position of authority, creating an instant good impression before even meeting the individual.

This is a cognitive bias that we all have—both in the workplace and out. We tend to make quick judgments and
decisions based on past experience or limited information. This tendency is good in general, because it helps us
navigate daily life, but it can lead to biases that can occasionally lead to unfair treatment. This is why it’s important to
recognize biases like the halo effect and the impact they may have in the workplace.

This is an HR issue for multiple reasons, such as:

1. Training. This is the type of topic that HR teams can promote for training. Managers, supervisors, and
others in positions of authority would benefit from training on how to combat internal biases.
2. Biases affect outcomes. HR also needs to know that this and other biases may affect outcomes.
Performance reviews may be impacted. Disciplinary proceedings may be impacted. Training, as noted
above, can help, but it may not eliminate it—and HR needs to be aware of that.

Here are some other examples of how the halo effect impacts the workplace:

 When some employees are always viewed with a more positive light (the “halo”), that almost by default
means that there will be others who are not viewed as positively, even if their actions are substantially the
same. This can lead to resentment from those who are not afforded the same benefits, projects,
assignments or other perks that come with being a favored employee. In short, the halo effect can damage
those who are not in it.
 The halo effect can lead to unfair differences in how employees are treated, especially in disciplinary issues.
 The halo effect also may come into play during the hiring process. If one candidate becomes favored
because of it, it could result in the hiring process being biased. It may not be bad for one individual hire, but
if there’s a particular trait that is prized above other traits it can lead to less diversity in the workplace and
can have a negative impact over time. It could also mean perfectly qualified applicants are overlooked.
 The halo effect can mask problems. For example, if an employee is viewed favorably because of one
particular aspect of their performance—such as high sales volume—that may make it less likely that they will
be held to the same standard on other important things, like proper communication with other employees or
completing their work in a timely manner, etc. It makes it easier to overlook problems that would have been
 addressed otherwise. This is not only a problem in and of itself, but can also lead to resentment from other
employees who are in fact held to specific standards on those other items.

These are just a few examples, making it easy to see how this common cognitive bias can have negative
consequences. From an HR perspective, we can train team members to recognize this and other common biases to
reduce the chance they will have a negative impact on the organization.

Q no 4.

The theory of Person-Environment (PE) assumes that positive responses occur when individuals tend
to fit or match the environment. For example, When a good fit exists in between person &
environment, PE fit theories of vocational choice propose occurrence of high satisfaction, mental &
physical well-being when there is good fit (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Holland, 1997). Extensive research
supports the proposition that individuals are satisfied with and adjust most easily to jobs that are
congruent with their own career-relevant personality types.

PE-fit is conceptualized as a general term, under which fall more specific notions of fit. In the
recruitment and selection domain, two common forms of fit identified are

Person-Job Fit

This is a match between an individual & requirements of a specific job. Companies often pursue that
person-job fit so as to match the applicant’s knowledge and skills to the requirements of specific job
openings and focus on an applicant’s ability to perform right away without any training.

Person-Organization Fit

This is match between an individual & broader organizational attributes.

Companies while pursuing P-O fit focus on how well individuals fit with values of their company &
culture. They tend to emphasis on hiring people with an ability to work & co-operate with other
employees in the company.