Ethics

Dayton Hudson is one of the several companies that utilizes psychological testing as a part of the recruitment process. After completing the test, some applicants and employees accused the company of invading their privacy, which is a violation of their rights as stipulated in the Constitution. The situation, when taken from the utilitarian perspective, shows that the company has invaded the privacy of their employees with the kind of psychological test used and that alternatives should be used.

Dayton Hudson claims that the tests used did not invade the applicants privacy because they only receive results and the answers are left with the agency who conducts the test for them. However, the absence of Dayton Hudson at the time when the test is administered does not relieve them of their ethical obligations as it remains a part of their requirements. It redounds to the fact that there is no need for the applicants to answer questions that they believe are violative of their rights if the company would not require it as a part of their recruitment process. Likewise, the necessity of this kind of examination is only suitable to the interests of Dayton Hudson, which is a single entity in comparison to the number of potential applicants who are suffering because of the psychological test. In this case, it is better to protect the interests of the many than to serve the requirements of Dayton Hudson.

If the company decides to reformulate the test and include questions that did not ask personal questions, then it can only be considered as a means of concealing the intentions of the company. In such a case, the company should do a pilot test among volunteers to determine whether the new test is still invasive of their privacy. If the test is able to serve the ends of Dayton Hudson without any complaints from the volunteers, then they can proceed with the use of such test. However, it is still at the best interest of the organization to give the applicants an option of whether to take the test or not. If they decide not to undergo the test, then an alternative can be considered such as a probationary period for the applicants in order to determine their responses towards situation at work.

If the test is proven to be highly accurate, then it is fair for all applicants. Taken from the utilitarian perspective, the test should be able to maximize happiness among those who take it (Mill, 1867). For a highly-accurate test, the percentage of inaccuracy would be very low, which translates to a lower percentage of persons to whom the test unintentionally discriminates. In this case, Dayton Hudson can not remove something that serves the happiness of the many in order to accommodate a small percentage of applicants who are not included because of test errors.

If the court decides that psychological testing is legally impermissible, the company can fulfill its responsibility towards its customers by adopting alternative strategies for determining the suitability of the applicants in relation to the job. Likewise, they can conduct a series of training-workshops to ensure that the recruited applicants are aware of the situations they can encounter and the response expected from them.