1. Ch 1, page 60-61, question 4: What is “evidence based HR”? Why might an HR department resist becoming evidenced based?
The concept of "evidence based HR" is using specific tools (key performance indicators) to help clarify course of action, identify errors or omissions, and align HR to corporate strategy. It is a decision-making process combining critical thinking with use of the best available scientific evidence and business information (Rousseau & Barends 2011). It forces HR professionals to measure their efficiency and effectiveness quantitatively. In addition, it presents a clearer way to share information with colleagues in a systematic way. One tool that is used is Critical Path Analysis, which helps illustrate the minimum time
Many companies that take up such a policy are not inclined to punishing or discriminating against women. Rather, they attribute the policy to the need for sanity and decency at the work place. In a world where dresses for women can expose some of the most sensitive parts of their body, the need for regulation cannot be ignored. Furthermore, one cannot claim that putting on dresses is less fashionable as compared to putting on suits. The design and fitting of the dress and the suit would determine whether one is neat or not. From all these considerations, the disparate treatment theory rules out the possibility of the policy that requires men to put on suits and women dresses as discriminatory to women (Bent, 2011).

4. Ch 4, page 185, question 6: What are the trade-offs between the different approaches to job design? Which approach do you think should be weighted most heavily when designing jobs?
There are three major approaches to job design: the engineering approach, human approach, and the job characteristic approach. Each is valuable in its own way, but there are trade-offs that occur depending upon the approach, which is taken. With the engineering approach (also called the task approach), there is a lot of repetition. This can lead to boredom. In this approach, there is