Opportunism In The Workplace
In my high school days, I worked at a Dairy Queen near my home. The owner was very peculiar, and almost always scheduled the same two people together, forming four groups of two. For the purpose of anonymity, I'll refer to my partner as Jake.
The owner spent a lot of time out of the store, and would compensate for his complete lack of monitoring and assistance by implementing extremely thorough random inspections. If anything was even slightly amiss at the store, we'd receive a very stern talking to and a threat to keep our pay. I now know that that's illegal, but at the time Jake and I took that threat very seriously. The point is that we had to be extremely careful when it came to maintaining the store. With only two workers in the store a majority of the time, one person would handle the in-store customers and the register, and a less lucky person would handle the drive-thru.
During one particularly slow summer midday shift, I take off the headset and tell Jake that I'm taking my lunch break. Apparently he didn't hear me, because on my walk to the backroom I see Jake giving out refunds. Except no one had come to the store in over an hour; he was just marking receipts with the big red "REFUNDS" sharpie and pocketing the cash. Now I'm faced with a dilemma: do I rat out Jake, or do I risk the owner blaming both of us? But before I can answer, Jake notices my slack-jawed stare and firmly assures me that "if you tell [Owner's name], I'll say you did it". In a last-ditch attempt to pretend I didn't see him stealing from the register using the same trick the former third worker got fired for, I say "I don't know what you're talking about" and walk away to the backroom.
With no way to prove it was him, and far too intimidated to even consider arguing with the owner, I sit and wait to see where the pieces fall. Maybe the owner will figure out the truth? Maybe he'll blame one of the other pairs? In the middle of my next shift the next day, the bell rings and the owner strides in with no time to spare. He inspects the floors, the Blizzard machine, the ingredient cans, the bathrooms. Everything seems in line. Then he comes to the register, and sure enough he finds it extremely suspicious that 6 customers in a row asked for refunds, and calls us up. The owner looks me right in the eyes, and before he could finish the words "who did this?" I was already pointing to Jake. Jake was flabbergasted, and immediately began cursing at me and was on the verge of tears in seconds. The owner asked to speak with him outside, and that was the last I saw of Jake.
So what exactly happened here? Were we all acting opportunistically? Were none of us? Let's break it down.
Jake had full opportunity to blame the refunds on me, which at the time sounded to me like a foolproof plan, but instead he just resorted to shouting. He certainly wasn't being a good citizen, nor was he acting ethically, and he waited no time before his barrage of swearing. So what were his qualms with the original, far more opportunistic plan? I've never seen him since so we may never get the answer.
The owner's most opportunistic move was unclear. He had already instituted as much threat as he could without one of us complaining to our very-much-aware-of-labor-laws parents, so there wasn't much left he could do to squeeze a confession out of one of us. It seemed he made no move at all but came out on top by solving the case and firing an over-the-line employee. Good things come to those who wait 2 seconds?
Ultimately, I think I took the most opportunistic path by outing Jake before he even had the chance to make his move. Was it being a good citizen? Well, I did betray his trust, but also he was a jerk who didn't deserve any defending. Was I acting ethically? Ultimately, I didn't care at all about the stolen money, I just didn't want my money stolen as a result of it, so it's unclear. Good things come to those who wait? I didn't wait at all. I was so terrified of getting blamed that I just instinctually ratted him out.
In the end, I got out of a bind by acting opportunistically with very little thought in a way that could've easily backfired had Jake just blamed me like he originally planned. This feels almost like an information problem crossed with a broken Prisoner's Dilemma.
The owner spent a lot of time out of the store, and would compensate for his complete lack of monitoring and assistance by implementing extremely thorough random inspections. If anything was even slightly amiss at the store, we'd receive a very stern talking to and a threat to keep our pay. I now know that that's illegal, but at the time Jake and I took that threat very seriously. The point is that we had to be extremely careful when it came to maintaining the store. With only two workers in the store a majority of the time, one person would handle the in-store customers and the register, and a less lucky person would handle the drive-thru.
During one particularly slow summer midday shift, I take off the headset and tell Jake that I'm taking my lunch break. Apparently he didn't hear me, because on my walk to the backroom I see Jake giving out refunds. Except no one had come to the store in over an hour; he was just marking receipts with the big red "REFUNDS" sharpie and pocketing the cash. Now I'm faced with a dilemma: do I rat out Jake, or do I risk the owner blaming both of us? But before I can answer, Jake notices my slack-jawed stare and firmly assures me that "if you tell [Owner's name], I'll say you did it". In a last-ditch attempt to pretend I didn't see him stealing from the register using the same trick the former third worker got fired for, I say "I don't know what you're talking about" and walk away to the backroom.
With no way to prove it was him, and far too intimidated to even consider arguing with the owner, I sit and wait to see where the pieces fall. Maybe the owner will figure out the truth? Maybe he'll blame one of the other pairs? In the middle of my next shift the next day, the bell rings and the owner strides in with no time to spare. He inspects the floors, the Blizzard machine, the ingredient cans, the bathrooms. Everything seems in line. Then he comes to the register, and sure enough he finds it extremely suspicious that 6 customers in a row asked for refunds, and calls us up. The owner looks me right in the eyes, and before he could finish the words "who did this?" I was already pointing to Jake. Jake was flabbergasted, and immediately began cursing at me and was on the verge of tears in seconds. The owner asked to speak with him outside, and that was the last I saw of Jake.
So what exactly happened here? Were we all acting opportunistically? Were none of us? Let's break it down.
Jake had full opportunity to blame the refunds on me, which at the time sounded to me like a foolproof plan, but instead he just resorted to shouting. He certainly wasn't being a good citizen, nor was he acting ethically, and he waited no time before his barrage of swearing. So what were his qualms with the original, far more opportunistic plan? I've never seen him since so we may never get the answer.
The owner's most opportunistic move was unclear. He had already instituted as much threat as he could without one of us complaining to our very-much-aware-of-labor-laws parents, so there wasn't much left he could do to squeeze a confession out of one of us. It seemed he made no move at all but came out on top by solving the case and firing an over-the-line employee. Good things come to those who wait 2 seconds?
Ultimately, I think I took the most opportunistic path by outing Jake before he even had the chance to make his move. Was it being a good citizen? Well, I did betray his trust, but also he was a jerk who didn't deserve any defending. Was I acting ethically? Ultimately, I didn't care at all about the stolen money, I just didn't want my money stolen as a result of it, so it's unclear. Good things come to those who wait? I didn't wait at all. I was so terrified of getting blamed that I just instinctually ratted him out.
In the end, I got out of a bind by acting opportunistically with very little thought in a way that could've easily backfired had Jake just blamed me like he originally planned. This feels almost like an information problem crossed with a broken Prisoner's Dilemma.
You're a good story teller. There was some real drama here, which made it unlike other student posts.
ReplyDeleteOn the economics, I have never worked at a fast food place so don't have a sense of this, but it seems to me that there was a good deal of irrationality in the play all around. Could you have gotten a different job at some other fast food place in town that would pay approximate the same thing? If so, the threat your boss gave you really shouldn't have been credible. It only makes sense if you liked that job compared to some alternative or if there weren't these other jobs available.
On Jake's behavior, in retrospect it seems quite mistaken and here I'm not talking about the ethics. I'm talking about the implied assumption that he wouldn't get caught. How could he believe that? If you're going to be a thief like that, you need to be a bit clever, or so I would surmise. There seemed to be no cleverness here whatsoever.
Employee theft is an issue at some companies. It's not something I have direct experience with. But we can conjecture that the ability to monitor the employee matters for how it is resolved, as is the punishment when caught. In the case of Jake it was too small a crime to warrant pressing charges but one might expect that people refrain from true criminal behavior because they don't want it to go on their record, or they don't want to pay a big fine, or they don't want to go to jail. So there is some relationship between the severity of the punishment and how easy it is to detect the theft, for the combination to be a credible deterrent.
We'll never know, but I wonder if Jake found another job that summer.
I probably could have gotten another equivalent McJob, but I had a few incentives to stay. One was that the location of the DQ was at the exact midpoint between my home and my school, which was a short distance anyway, meaning I was able to efficiently go to school, to work, then home, and over the summer it was an even easier route, which was important for someone who didn't have a car at the time. My physical laziness, coupled with the fact that my parents would've been very upset if I quit (regardless of my rationale) made me want to stay at DQ.
DeleteWhenever an Economics textbook or professor talks about the assumption of a rational agent, Jake disproves that assumption. He's one of those people who continues to baffle you every time you hear him speak. He is the irrational agent.
You mentioned there was another person that was fired. Was it for the same thing Jake was doing? It seems like a tough situation to handle, especially if the store has had a history of money disappearing from the register. While you want to protect your stream of income, there seems to be a level of risk when doing so if dealing with an opportunistic person. Fortunately for you, it seems like everything worked out for the best.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great story, but I too am still trying to understand Jake's behavior. It seemed like his plan wasn't very well thought out, and he didn't follow through on threats. Maybe he came to a conclusion that trying to accuse you wouldn't have worked? Or maybe he just realized that he had no way to get out and resulted in irrational behavior. It still seems odd though.
ReplyDeleteIt's also interesting to think what could have happened had you not spoken up right away. This is a situation I have never seen before, so it's definitely something new to hear. Obviously, you acted so you would keep your job and not assume a risk associated with saying nothing.
It's good to hear that it worked out in the end, because sometimes that isn't the case.