Opportunism in the Workplace
It does take a decent amount of discipline to not act
opportunistically. It may seem rather easy to take advantage of circumstances
without regarding any sort of principles or consequences. As the prompt states,
being a good citizen, realizing the unethical implications, or having patience
as a virtue can all be reasons why people don’t engage in opportunism. Opportunism
is also driven by self-interest, so people who don’t hold others in high regard
may be more susceptible to taking advantage of certain circumstances. When
self-interest is involved, people may not even be thinking of others when
taking advantage and acting opportunistically, but their actions inadvertently
cause some scale of harm to other individuals.
I will give two examples, because this first one does not
need to be analyzed as much in detail, but is a simple example of opportunism
(and lack thereof) in action. Driving back to school on I-57 south towards
Champaign can result in some merging down into one lane. About a half-mile
before the merge actually occurs, cars would begin consolidating into one lane,
to avoid having to do so right at the merging point. My mom, who was doing the
driving, would always get upset at cars that would speed down the lane that was
closing, just to pass as many cars as possible before moving to one lane. She
had many chances to join those cars and try to pass as many people as possible,
knowing that doing so would create extra backup and would elongate the merging
process – a large inconvenience to everybody who was patiently waiting. My mom
is definitely considered a “good citizen” (a better one than myself, at least),
and patience is definitely a strong virtue of hers. Albeit a simple example,
but her values and respect for others in a similar situation are reasons why
she will rarely act opportunistically, especially if others will be affected in
any sort of negative way.
Since there’s not too much to speculate about her decision
or reasoning, a different example of not acting opportunistically comes from my
summer job that I talked about in my last blog, being an Assistant Manager at
the pool and tennis club in my hometown. The management team consisted of Mike,
the club manager, and two assistant managers, one being myself. For a little more context, it helps to
know that when we were both promoted to the Assistant Manager position, there
was no written contract/job description/statement of responsibilities that we
were forced to adhere to. This made it easier to take advantage of
circumstances as they arose, since there was no specific method to handling any
situation; Mike had confidence in us to use good judgement and represent his mission,
as well as the club’s mission, when interacting with members and/or staff. An
opportunity arose when I could have taken full control of the scheduling, which
would have allowed my to create a schedule that demonstrated (not to others’
knowledge, however) my personal bias towards some of the lifeguards. For
example, if I knew I was working in the afternoon one day, I would have been
able to schedule lifeguards that I liked more than others or those that I perceived
as better employees. What made the possibility intriguing is that I could have
done this and my method would not have been noticed, as nobody really looks
into how the schedule is created or what the thought process is behind
it.
I ended up handing the scheduling duties off to the other
Assistant Manager. The main reason being that I did not trust myself to
complete this task (scheduling) regularly without letting personal bias
interfere with the decision-making process. The right way to do it is to take
into account the lifeguard’s conflicts (making sure not to schedule them if
they’re out of town), as well as put together a good mix of new lifeguards with
older, more experienced ones. Also important is identifying groups of people
who work well together and those that don’t. I cannot say that I would have
stuck to those principles all of the time. Letting personal bias interfere with
this job would have been unethical, and it would not have been fair to some of
the lifeguards who have no control over the schedule. Additionally, I would have
felt guilty in that I was not doing my job properly, or letting Mike down in
any way. So my reasoning comes from two sources – being fair to the staff and not
going behind my superior’s back. Whenever
situations would come along that gave me an opportunity to take action completely
out of self-interest, I did my best to understand the consequences of any
action, both positive and negative. Since opportunism is utilized without
regard to planning or principle, I tried to show some patience and understand
as many potential consequences that would arise from any decision or action I
would take. It seems to have worked so far.
This was a good post. Maybe you're getting the hang of it, though economists typically prefer more observations before coming to a conclusion like that.
ReplyDeleteThe last time I taught many people used driving as an example. I do think being behind the wheel gets certain people into a very competitive mindset - it's dog eat dog - that sort of thing . There is also the real economics of this that time behind the wheel has an opportunity cost to it, and for some people that opportunity cost is higher than for others. But it's pretty hard to get data on the idea that those with high time value drive faster than everyone else or are the type to drive all the way to the end of the merge lane. My guess is that being rude one road and having high time value are positively correlated, but the correlation is far from perfect.
I thought on your other story you omitted something. If you passed the burden of scheduling onto your fellow assistant manager, did you absorb some other burden so it was a fair allocation. Now if scheduling was actually a perq for the other assistant manager, then that wouldn't have been necessary. But you didn't say that. So, why did the other assistant manager willingly take on the scheduling task? And then, how do you know that the other assistant manager wouldn't also play favorites in the scheduling? If, in fact, the other assistant manager took on the scheduling just to play favorites, then this sort of decision for you is sometimes called being between a rock and a hard place. There might be no good answer.
Yet you wrote the essay as if there was a good answer, so it would be good to explain more why that was true.
When we both took over the "assistant manager role" (we were both assistant managers, but were filling the role of only one person), we knew that some of the job functions would be split between the two of us directly. There would additional responsibilities that we would handle collaboratively, but the scheduling is one example of a function that was the responsibility of just one of us. Other things that I were solely responsible for included checking the pool equipment room daily and chemically testing the pool water to make sure it was up to standard (I actually had to get a certification to be able to do this, the other assistant manager did not get such certification).
DeleteIn the original post, I should have included how the other manager viewed the scheduling duty. She generally liked the idea of making the schedules more than I did. I had the feeling she would want to take over scheduling beforehand but it was not decided until we officially started. Meaning, even though we both had an idea who was going to do it, I still had every opportunity to take advantage of the potential power that came with the schedule-making. I do not know if she ever played favorites when making the schedule, but I was confident that she was doing the job properly.