READ this article and ANSWER the questions that follows: Personality Testing: Yes or No? Mark, a project leader in Austin, Texas, needed a new software engineer for his eight-person team. He used his network, reviewed résumés, and invited 15 candidates for interviews. In addition, he had the top three candidates complete the 16-Personality Factors Test. This was a general test that he believed would reveal personality characteristics that were important to know before making a job offer. Personality testing is a relatively inexpensive method that helps managers make important hiring decisions. Tom, a member of Mark’s team, warned everyone about putting too much confidence into personality test results, however. Tom had read that personality tests were not reliable and could be faked. Another team member, Mary, believed Tom to be correct and incorrect at the same time. Some tests are poor, while others have helped employers make good selection decisions, she said. She emphasized “helped.” Tests by themselves shouldn’t be the sole factor in hiring top performers. They are just one tool, she said. She had heard about other firms using different kinds of tests to assess emotions, intelligence, and interpersonal style. In fact, studies do indicate that good personality tests are more reliable predictions of performance than interviews and résumés. However, they are still controversial. Some employers have had to face law-suits because personality tests were used inappropriately. For example, Rent-A-Center, Inc., used a personality test to fill management positions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago ruled that the test qualified as a medical exam. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits requiring medical examinations before making a job offer. Court rulings on and controversy about personality testing has not stopped employers from using such tests. In an effort to match the best-qualified person with the position, personality testing, al-though controversial, can be beneficial. Employers are very interested in what differentiates one person from another in terms of behavior and performance. Personality testing attempts to provide quantifiable data that can make the differentiation easier. Such differentiation is still difficult. Some personality researchers suggest there are regional differences in personality. That is, a New York candidate for Mark’s position would be different from an Oregon candidate. Mark, after considering all the issues surrounding personality testing, decided he would not con-duct or use such tests in the future. Source: Adapted from Patrick D. Converse, Frederick L Oswald, Anna has, Cynthia Hedricks, and Radha Roy, “Comparing Personal-ity Test Formats and Warnings: Effects on Criterion-Related Validity and Test-Taker Reactions,” International Journal of Selection and Assessmentl6, no. 2 (June 2008), pp. 155-69; Victoria Knight, “Personality Tests as Hiring Tools,” The. Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2006, p. B3A; and “The Rig Five Personality Test,” www.outofservice. com/big five/inio {accessed April 6, 2009),—

– Is Mark making a good decision to drop the use of personality testing? Why/Why?

Answer should at least 300 words

Classic Case 23.2 Webster v. Blue Ship Tea Room, Inc. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 347 Mass. 421 198 N.E.2d 309 (1964) Background and Facts Blue Ship Tea Room, Inc., was located in Boston in an old building over- looking the ocean. Priscilla Webster, who had been born and raised in New England, went to the restaurant and ordered fish chowder. The chowder was milky in color. After three or four spoonfuls, she felt something lodged in her throat. As a result, she underwent two esophagoscopies (procedures in which an instrument is used to look into the throat). In the second esophagoscopy, a fish bone was found and removed. Webster filed a suit against the restaurant in a Massachusetts state court for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The jury rendered a verdict for Webster, and the restaurant appealed to the state’s highest court. In the Language of the Court REARDON, Justice [The plaintiff ordered a cup of fish chowder. Presently, there was set before her “a small bowl of fish chowdet.*** After 3 or 4 (spoonfuls) she was aware that something had lodged in her throat because she couldn’t swallow and couldn’t clear her throat by gulping and she could feel it.” This misadventure led to two esophagoscopies at the Massachusetts General Hospital, in the second of which, on April 27. 1959, a fish bone was found and removed. The sequence of events produced injury to the plaintiff which was not insubstantial We must decide whether a fish bone lurking in a fish chowder, about the ingredients of which there is no other complaint, constitutes a breach of implied warranty under applicable provisions of the Uni- form Commercial Code *** As the judge put it in his charge ljury instruction). “Was the fish chowder fit to be caten and wholesome? * * * Nobody is claiming that the fish itself wasn’t wholesome. But the bone of contention here-I don’t mean that for a pun-bur was this fish bone a foreign substance that made the fish chowder unwholesome or not fit to be eaten?” (We think that it is not too much to say that a person sitting down in New England to consume a good New England fish chowder embarks on a gustatory (taste-related) adventure which may entail the removal of some fish bones from his bowl as he proceeds. We are not inclined to tamper with age-old recipes by any amendment reflecting the plaintiff’s view of the effect of the Uniform Commercial Code upon them. We are aware of the heavy body of case law involving foreign substances in food, but we sense a strong distinction between them and those relative to unwholesomeness of the food itself. [for example, tainted mackerel, and a fish bone in a fish chowder. * * * We consider that the joys of life in New England include the ready availability of fresh fish chowdet. We should be prepared to cope with the hacards of file bones, the occasional presence of which in choose us, it seem to us, so be anticipated and MITTLUNG — SCIDCOM example,) tainted mackerel, and a fish bone in a fish chowder. We consider that the joys of life in New England include the ready availability of fresh fish chowder. We should be prepared to cope with the hazards of fish bones, the occasional presence of which in chowders is, it seems to us, to be anticipated, and which, in the light of a hallowed tradition, do not impair their fitness or merchantability (Emphasis added.) Decision and Remedy The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts “sympathized with a plaintiff who has suffered a peculiarly New England injury” but entered a judgment for the defendant, Blue Ship Tea Room. A fish bone in fish chowder is not a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Impact of This Case on Today’s Law This classic case, phrased in memorable language, was an early application of the UCC’s implied warranty of merchantability to food products. The case established the rule that consumers should expect to find, on occasion, elements of food products that are natural to the product (such as fish bones in fish chowder). Courts today still apply this rule. Critical Thinking • E-Commerce if Webster had made the chowder herself from a recipe that she had found on the Internet, could she have successfully brought an action against its author for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability? Explain.