Reading — 2026 Jan–Apr Recall Set 67

A. At the beginning of the 20th century, grocery stores in the United States were full-service. A customer would ask a clerk behind the counter for specific items and the clerk would package the items, which were limited to dry goods. If they wanted to save some time, they had to ask a delivery boy or themselves to send the note of what they wanted to buy to the grocery store first and then go to pay for the goods later. These grocery stores usually carried only one brand of each good. There were early chain stores, such as the A&P Stores, but these were all entirely full-service and very time-consuming. B. In 1885, a Virginia boy named Clarence Saunders began working part-time as a clerk in a grocery store when he was 14 years old, and quit school when the shopkeeper offered him full-time work with room and board. Later he worked in an Alabama coke plant and in a Tennessee sawmill before he returned to the grocery business. By 1900, when he was nineteen years old, he was earning $30 a month as a salesman for a wholesale grocer. During his years working in grocery stores, he found that it was very inconvenient and inefficient for people to buy things because more than a century ago, long before there were computers, shopping was done quite differently than it is today. Entering a store, the customer would approach the counter (or wait for a clerk to become available) and place an order, either verbally or, as was often the case for boys running errands, in the form of a note or list. While the customer waited, the clerk would move behind the counter and throughout the store, select the items on the list – some from shelves so high that a long-handled grasping device had to be used – and bring them back to the counter to be tallied and bagged or boxed. The process might be expedited by the customer calling or sending in the order beforehand, or by the order being handled by a delivery boy on a bike, but otherwise, it did not vary greatly. Saunders, a flamboyant and innovative man, noticed that this method resulted in wasted time and expense, so he came up with an unheard-of solution that would revolutionize the entire grocery industry: he developed a way for shoppers to serve themselves. C. So in 1902, he moved to Memphis where he developed his concept to form a grocery wholesale cooperative and a full-service grocery store. For his new “cafeteria grocery”, Saunders divided his grocery into three distinct areas: 1) A front “lobby” forming an entrance and exit and checkouts at the front. 2) A sales department, which was specially designed to allow customers to roam the aisles and select their own groceries. Removing unnecessary clerks, creating elaborate aisle displays, and rearranging the store to force customers to view all of the merchandise and over the shelving and cabinets units of sales department were “galleries” where supervisors were allowed to keep an eye on the customers while not disturbing them. 3) And another section of his store is the room only allowed for the clerks which were called the “stockroom” or “storage room” where large refrigerators were situated to keep fresh products from being perishable. The new format allowed multiple customers to shop at the same time and led to the previously unknown phenomenon of impulse shopping. Though this format of grocery market was drastically different from its competitors, the style became the standard for the modern grocery store and later supermarket. D. On September 6, 1916, Saunders launched the self-service revolution in the USA by opening the first self-service Piggly Wiggly store, at 79 Jefferson Street in Memphis, Tennessee, with its characteristic turnstile at the entrance. Customers paid cash and selected their own goods from the shelves. It was unlike any other grocery store of that time. Inside a Piggly Wiggly, shoppers were not at the mercy of shop clerks. They were free to roam the store, check out the merchandise and get what they needed with their own two hands and feet. Prices on items at Piggly Wiggly were clearly marked. No one pressured customers to buy milk or pickles. And the biggest benefit at the Piggly Wiggly was that shoppers saved money. Self-service was positive all around. “It’s good for both the consumer and retailer because it cuts costs,” noted George T. Haley, a professor at the University of New Haven and director of the Center for International Industry Competitiveness. “If you looked at the way grocery stores were run previous to Piggly Wiggly and Alpha Beta, what you find is that there was a tremendous amount of labor involved, and labor is a major expense.” Piggly Wiggly cut the fat. E. Piggly Wiggly and the self-service concept took off. Saunders opened nine stores in the Memphis area within the first year of business. Consumers embraced the efficiency, the simplicity and most of all the lower food prices. Saunders soon patented his self-service concept and began franchising Piggly Wiggly stores. Thanks to the benefits of self-service and franchising, Piggly Wiggly ballooned to nearly 1,300 stores by 1923. Piggly Wiggle sold $100 million – worth $1.3 billion today – in groceries, making it the third-biggest grocery retailer in the nation. The company’s stock was even listed on the New York Stock Exchange, doubling from late 1922 to March 1923. Saunders had his hands all over Piggly Wiggly. He was instrumental in the design and layout of his stores. He even invented the turnstile. F. However, Saunders was forced into bankruptcy in 1923 after a dramatic spat with the New York Stock Exchange and he went on to create the “Clarence Saunders sole-owner-of-my-name” chain, which went into bankruptcy. G. Until the time of his death in October 1953, Saunders was developing plans for another automatic store system called the Foodelectric. But the store, which was to be located two blocks from the first Piggly Wiggly store, never opened. But his name was well-remembered along with the name Piggly Wiggly.

A recent excavation in Dublin challenges long-held ideas about when the Scandinavian raiders known as Vikings arrived in Ireland. A When Irish archaeologists working under Dublin's South Great George's Street unearthed the remains of four young men buried with fragments of Viking shields, daggers, and personal ornaments, in the excavation, appeared to be simply more evidence of the Viking presence in Ireland. At least 77 Viking burial sites have been found across the base of artifacts that accompanied them, and the South Great George's Street burials seemed to be further examples. Yet when archaeologist Linzi Simpson sent the remains for analysis, the tests showed that the men had been buried in Irish soil for years, or even decades, before the accepted date for establishing the first year-round Viking settlement in Dublin. B Simpson's findings are now adding new weight to an idea gaining growing acceptance that instead of a sudden, calamitous Invasion, the arrival of the Vikings in Ireland started with small-scale settlements and trade links connected Ireland with Northern Europe. Furthermore, those trading contacts may have occurred generations before the violent raids described in contemporary texts, works written by monks living in isolated monasteries. These were often the only places where literate people lived and were especially targeted by Viking raiders for their food suppliers and treasures. Scholars continue to examine the texts written by monks but are also considering their limitations. “Most researchers accept now that the raids were not the first contact, as the old texts suggest,” says Viking expert Gareth Williams. How did the Vikings know where all those monasteries were? It's because there was already contact. They were already trading before those raids happened.” C Although the earlier dates for a Viking presence in Dublin that have been identified by Simpson and independent archaeologists differ from the later dates by only a few decades, when combined with other evidence, they are challenging the chronology of Viking settlement in Ireland. Since the 1960s, archaeologists have been gathering information about the mid-ninth-century settlement that lay under the sidewalks of Fishamble Street in Dublin. According to archeologist Ruth Jonson, the Vikings started with sporadic summer raids, but after some years of profitable plunder, they decided to stay and built settlements for the winter. D Carbon dating, which measures the age of organic materials based on the amount of radioactive carbon 14 remaining in a specimen, usually gives a range of likely dates for the time of death. The older the material, the wider the range. In the case of the four individuals excavated at the South Great George's Street site, Simpson found that two of them had a 95 percent probability of having died between 670 and 680, with a 68 percent probability of death occurring between 690 and 790. Thus, the entire most likely range was before the first documented arrival of Vikings in 795. A third individual lived slightly later, with a 95 percent probability of having died between 680 and 882. The dates were not what Simpson had thought they would be. These dates seem impossibly early and difficult to reconcile with the available historical and archaeological sources,” she says. E The fourth individual excavated at South Great George's Street was the most intact of the group and revealed the most about the lives and hardships of Vikings at this time. A powerfully built man in his late teens or early 20s, he was approximately 1.70m. tall by the day's standards, with the muscular torso and upper limbs that would have come from hard, ocean-going rowing. His bones showed streets associated with heavy lifting beginning in childhood. Unlike the three other men, he was not buried with weapons. Like one of the other men found at the site, he had a congenital deformity at the base of his spine, perhaps indicating they were relatives. Carbon dating gave a wider range for his lifetime, showing a 95 percent probability that he died between 786 and 955. F Tests were also carried out on the four South Great George's Street men's isotopic oxygen levels. Such tests indicate where a person spent their childhood based on a chemical signature left by groundwater in developing teeth. The results showed that the two men with the spinal had spent their childhood in Scandinavia. However, the other two had spent their childhoods in Ireland or Scotland, another sign of permanent settlement by Viking families and not just summer raids by warriors. G The evidence of an earlier-than-expected Viking presence in Ireland, based as it is on forensic tests conducted on a handful of burials, may seem slight. But seemingly small pieces of evidence can overturn well-established conventions in archaeology. Both Simpson and Johnson stress more excavations and tests will be needed before anyone can rewrite the history of Viking settlement, and such work is years away. Williams adds, There are two possibilities raised by (Simpson's) work. Either there was Viking activity earlier than we've realized in Ireland, or there is something in the water or soil in Dublin skewing the data, and both possibilities need further research.” Nevertheless, Williams agrees with Simpson and others that the chronology of the Viking presence in Ireland is uncertain and that they were possibly trading or raiding in Ireland before 795. 'It's a poorly documented part of history, says Williams. But before there was Viking settlement, there was this big trading zone in the North Sea. Did it extend to the Irish Sea? We don't have any evidence to say that, but it could be just a matter of time.”

Most organisations are looking for talent. But what if they’ve got it wrong, asks Jeffrey Pfeffer. A One widely held assumption about talent is that it is a reasonably fixed characteristic and it is therefore the job of organisations to identify, recruit and retain star performers. This belief affects the way people are managed in the workplace. Most recruitment decisions are influenced by the skills and abilities of an individual rather than their aptitude and attitude. In terms of career development, organisations invest in staff who have been selected to reach higher-level positions, while ignoring front-line employees and people with less perceived potential. This idea, that talent is a fixed, identifiable characteristic – and that those firms with the best people do the best – is both flawed and harmful to people and organisations. There is a lot of evidence on this point, and it is useful to highlight some of the most pertinent arguments. B First, are there stars? There is no question that in every field, from sports to computer programming to music, there are people who are better than the rest. As psychologist Dean Keith Simonton, who has spent his career studying greatness, has said, ‘Wherever you look, the same story can be told. Identify the ten per cent who have achieved the most in a certain endeavour. Count the accomplishments they have to their credit. Now tally the accomplishments of the remaining 90 per cent. The first tally will equal or surpass the second.’ For instance, in music, 16 individuals have produced about 50 per cent of the Western classical music that is performed and recorded today, while another 235 composers have produced the remaining half. The more interesting questions concern not the existence of stars, but whether these stars can be reliably identified and, even more importantly, whether their talent is a fixed aspect or can be altered. C Identifying the best people is tricky. Quality of performance changes over time and this is true whether we are talking about professors or footballers. If performance naturally varies, any measurement taken at a single point in time, such as when someone is being hired, will have error and imprecision. Therefore, single assessments of talent are likely to contain mistakes in their categorisation of people. Also, judgements about performance and ability depend on the standards used to judge what is good and bad. It should surprise no-one that for Bach to be considered a great musician, standards of music needed to change to embrace the qualities that his compositions possessed. Similarly, artists and art come in and out of fashion, which means that what is genius depends not only on a person’s ability, but on the prevailing standards used to evaluate output. D Finally, it is difficult to evaluate people and their abilities with precision. In the domain of work, research shows that the best predictors of job performance tend to be measures of intelligence. But even these measures correlate only loosely with performance, which means that more than 80 per cent of the variation in performance is unexplained by even the best predictors. Even in the sports arena, where one would think natural ability would be readily assessed because sports teams spend lots of resources on identifying talent, mistakes get made. Basketball star Michael Jordan was dropped by his high-school basketball coach and a number of top American football quarterbacks were available early in their careers because they were not considered good enough by various teams. E This leads on to the next question: is talent born or made? Should organisations assume that almost anyone can become a star performer, which implies that there ought to be a greater emphasis on motivation and development, or do they just figure out who is good and who isn’t? Here the evidence is clear: talent is at least as much ‘created’ as inherent and, more importantly, the customary way companies think about identifying talent almost certainly works to destroy a lot of untapped potential. Decades of research by K. Anders Ericsson, professor of psychology at Florida State University, show that exceptional performance doesn’t happen without around ten years of nearly daily, deliberate practice for about four hours a day, by people who, with the assistance of their coaches, have access to the best techniques. Once achieved, exceptional performance can’t be maintained without relentless effort. So performance may be as much a consequence of training as it is of innate ability, which suggests that performance can be altered by how people are managed. F Further research by Stanford psychology professor Carol Dweck shows that the tendency of organisations to see performance results as an opportunity for an ‘assessment’ of ability, results in lower performance and poor motivation. Dweck identified two sets of goals that people bring to a performance context: ‘performance goals, where the purpose is to validate one’s ability or avoid demonstrating a lack of ability, and learning goals, where the aim is to acquire new knowledge and skills’. People with performance goals have been shown to be more prone to helpless behaviour and debilitation after a setback, while people with learning goals strive for higher performance. The implications for managing people and talent are clear. Seeing talent as fixed and job performance as a way of classifying people creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which ability and intelligence do become fixed. By contrast, seeing ability as malleable leads to a different sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, in which individuals and their employers may invest in ways to enhance performance.