Gossip in Organizations: Contexts, Consequences, and Controversies

Abstract

This article examines the key themes surrounding gossip including its contexts, the various outcomes (positive and negative) of gossip as well as a selection of challenges and controversies. The challenges which are highlighted revolve around definitional issues, methodological approaches, and ethical considerations. Our analysis suggests that the characteristics and features of gossip lend itself to a process-oriented approach whereby the beginning and, particularly, end points of gossip are not always easily identified. Gossip about a subject or person can temporarily disappear only for it to re-surface at some later stage. In addition, questions pertaining to the effects of gossip and ethical-based arguments depend on the nature of the relationships within the gossip triad (gossiper, listener/respondent and target). Keywords:gossip; organizations; process orientation; methodology; ethics.Gossip is a ubiquitous yet seemingly ephemeral type of informal talk, and much of what is currently known about gossip is diffused across social history, communication studies, anthropology, psychology and sociology. Gossip has received attention in relation to its role for

Gossip in the workplace and the implications for HR management: a study of gossip and its relationship to employee cynicism

“…Overall, the findings have enriched the understanding of the link between gossip and ECN over and above what we know from previous empirical studies of gossip (Kurland & Pelled, 2000;McAndrew et al, 2007). Compared to the previous studies which focused on the function of gossip (Foster, 2004;Michelson et al, 2010) and gossip influence (Cole & Dalton, 2009;DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007), our research has provided a further and more systematic perspective to interpret the gossip -ECN relationship.…”

“…In the workplace, gossip is often regarded as idle talk about other colleagues who are absent and, interestingly, researchers seem to have mixed views of how gossip actually gets started and the role it plays. Michelson, Iterson, and Waddington (2010) suggest that gossip is a dynamic process and the effects of gossip depend on the interaction between gossiper, listener/respondent, and target, i.e. the gossip triad.…”

Gossip as Social Control: Informal Sanctions on Ethical Violations in Scientific Workplaces

“…(For an exhaustive list of definitions of gossip in the literature, see Michelson, van Iterson, and Waddington 2010:379). For our purposes here, we adopt a broad definition used in recent research (e.g., Feinberg et al 2012;Foster 2004;Michelson, van Iterson, and Waddington 2010)-evaluative talk between two or more persons about absent third parties.…”

‘Gossiping’ as a social action in family therapy: The pseudo-absence and pseudo-presence of children

“…Problematically, however, although gossip can strengthen relationships between the gossiper and recipient, it has potential to damage relationships with the talked about third party (Michelson et al, 2010).…”

“…From this research a number of core features are consistently reported. For conversation to be considered gossip it should be triadic (Michelson et al, 2010), evaluative (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007), remedial (Guendouzi, 2001) and is typically (but not exclusively) negative (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). It is noted that the talked about other should be non-present (Foster, 2004) and that there are social sanctions for engaging in gossiping (McDonald et al, 2007).…”