The Zero Opportunity-Cost Illusion: How to Avoid and Use It
It is the illusion that, given the opportunity, choosing or being chosen will entail no comparable or greater opportunity cost or any opportunity cost whatsoever.
That is to say, when our attention-and-desire is suddenly intensely focused upon or grabbed by or as something especially attractive, any appreciation, evaluation or mere awareness of associated opportunity costs (what will be forsaken if it is chosen) tends to vanish or at least seriously dwindle.
Although I can’t prove it, I believe it and am going to offer evidence for the existence and power of this “zero opportunity-cost illusion”. Consider what happens the moment a carthusiast falls in love with the gleaming silver coupe in the BMW showroom, or the moment of a first kiss or even a first hand-in-hand walk along a secluded beach for two (horses optional).
Then there’s that floppy puppy in the window that your kids beg to take home. These are like “love is blind” (to opportunity cost) moments. In its simplest terms, such close and closing proximity can and does, I believe, fuel “only you”, “only me” zero-opportunity cost feelings.
Perhaps even likelier is the “only me” feeling: that because I have your undivided proximity, attention, interest and enthusiasm, not only are you oblivious to any opportunity costs,but also, in fact, there are none—not even smaller ones, because the concept of opportunity cost has, for the moment, been banished from consciousness or all such costs, were they to filter into awareness, would, from vanity or delusional conceit, be set to zero, like the odometer in that irresistible brand-new BMW silver coupe to be shipped to you from the factory.
Does something like this illusion occur in recruiting —in the psyches of recruiters and/or candidates? If so, in what circumstances and with what likelihood, risk or use? (More on this, below.)
How Hollywood, Pet Shops, Show Rooms, Job Interviews and Couples Capitalize on the Illusion
To the extent that the delusional or illusory experience of zero opportunity costs is an illusion (as opposed to phenomenally, incredibly, fantastic good luck in being able to choose something that renders all opportunity costs, great or small, utterly invisible), it is delicious and cunningly exploited by the likes of Hollywood movie makers creating and filming romantic scenes, auto showroom and pet store salesmen closing in to close the deal, and the blissful couple slowly strolling, fingers and hearts entwined, along the beach.
Manifestations in recruiting are not hard to imagine: You’re the job candidate, alone in an office with the interviewer. You have a great rapport and see yourself as irresistibly attractive as a job match. After all, you’re the focus of very positive attention, the interviewer seems as sincere as he seems pleased, perhaps even delighted, and, perhaps above all, there is neither any rival in the room, any waiting outside the door, nor one mentioned.
It’s like a candlelit dinner at romantic Luigi’s Italiano—at least with respect to the illusion created by a temporary monopoly on the attention and space of the Other. That situational, “proxemic” monopoly also monopolizes your mind and excludes any synaptic awareness or appreciation of alternatives to you.
The Power of Proximity and Monopoly
Proxemics is the science that deals with the use and impact of physical space and proximity on our relationships. I’m pretty much convinced that the combination of very close proximity and monopoly of space and time is a proxemic recipe for the zero opportunity-cost illusion.
If you re-read the previous sentence, you’ll see it can serve as a crisp and enlightening statement of the axiomatic Hollywood formula and use of that illusion to create romantic and other bonds—including the bond between the audience and the characters on the screen, through close-up face shots of intense, e.g., tearful, moments.
Are recruiting interactions exempt from that kind of tug, despite (in general) not being in the least romantic? Is it not possible, if not likely, that proximity-plus-monopoly may nudge the mind(s) of an interview’s participant(s) toward the edge of the illusion and succumbing to it?
Consider this in connection with expressions like “I feel so close to you” and “We’re drifting apart”. The pull of proximity-plus-monopoly is just like that of gravity, although the psychological illusion probably doesn’t strictly follow an inverse square law — the strength of its pull probably does not vary inversely with the square of the distance between the two participants or participant and object.
Now look at the illusion from the recruiter side: The very strong, indeed, perfect candidate is, to your delight or relief, clearly enthusiastic about the job, your company and your interaction. She’s behaving as though she “only has eyes for you” (which. despite the popularity of that song, grammatically really should be “has eyes only for you”–otherwise it would exclude her lips, arms and feet—which may take her to another job interview after yours).
While you are entranced like that, specific or abstract opportunity costs (namely, yours or hers) may very well be the farthest thing from your mind and exiled along with the very concept of opportunity cost, as cost obliviousness descends on you and your gaga state of mind.
What can happen to candidates and recruiters alike is seizure by a categorical epiphany—”You’re the one!” or “I’m the one!” moment that gets out of hand, denies the reality that all decisions carry opportunity costs, distorts the perception and estimates of any that manage to leak into awareness by minimizing them, or, in the extreme, expunges the concept itself from awareness and comprehension.
You don’t have to be a Freud, Spielberg or a CIA operative to realize that the zero opportunity-cost illusion can be exploited and that you should take care to avoid becoming the exploitee.
Being in any situation that combines very close proximity, attractiveness and monopoly can make all concerned vulnerable. However, the one who understands the illusion may very well be tempted to create it, e.g., through the manipulation of the proxemics and orchestration of the monopoly. The first step to avoiding being ensnared and deluded by it is simply to become aware of it. Naming it is the preliminary step; and that’s what I’ve done.
As I said, I’m convinced that the existence of the illusion and my explanation of its dynamics are pretty much indubitable. Nonetheless, even though I have (created) the advantage of having proximity to and monopoly of your eyes focusing on my very appealing article, there is one concession I shall make.
You don’t have to “only have eyes” for this article.
There are lots of other good ones here at Recruiter.com.