Opportunism is in the Eye of the Beholder: Antecedents of Subjective Opportunism Judgments

• Published in: Journal of business ethics Vol. 161; no. 3; pp. 573 - 589
• Main Author: Arıkan, Andaç T.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer 01.01.2020; Springer Netherlands; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Behavior; Business and Management; Business Ethics; Contracts; Court decisions; Economic structure; Education; Ethics; Experiments; Governance; Management; Organization theory; Original Paper; Personality; Personality traits; Philosophy; Quality of Life Research; Victims; Active opportunism; Transgressor; Big 5; Relational; Opportunism; Trust; Attribution; Exchange; Discrete; Passive opportunism; Causal account; Judgment; Victim
• ISSN: 0167-4544; 1573-0697
• DOI: 10.1007/s10551-018-3873-7

Contractualist work in business ethics as well as in economic organization theory views opportunistic behaviors as problematic since they create economic harm and are often considered to violate ethical norms. Yet, much of the empirical literature on opportunism has adopted a rather simplistic definition of opportunistic behaviors as behaviors that violate formal and/or relational contracts and assumed that instances of opportunism can be unequivocally defined by simply referring to the content of contracts. The consequence of this assumption has been a disregard for factors other than the content of contracts that may influence whether exchange partners judge an unexpected behavior they face during exchange relationships as opportunistic or not. The present investigation explores the factors that shape exchange partners' subjective opportunism judgments through two vignette-based laboratory experiments. Results from the first experiment, where subjects were asked to take the perspective of a harmed party, show that opportunism judgments are influenced by the type of the behavior, type of the causal account provided for the behavior, perceived type of the exchange, and personality traits of the actor making the judgment. The second experiment, in which subjects were asked to take the perspective of the transgressor, demonstrates the influence of perspective. In particular, victims are more likely to assess a given unexpected behavior as opportunistic than transgressors, and their judgments do not relate to the underlying factors in the same way as the victims' judgments. I discuss implications in terms of the governance of interfirm exchange relationships.