Passing the Word: Toward a Model of Gossip and Power in the Workplace

Abstract

Although gossip is widespread, seldom has it been a topic of management research. Here we build a conceptual model oi workplace gossip and its eifects on the power oi employees who initiate it. After defining and distinguishing among different kinds o(workplace gossip, we develop propositions about Ihe effect of that gossip on gosslpers' expert, referent, reward, and coercive power. We then suggest how moderators may shape those effects and discuss implications of the model. As early as the Hawthorne Studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1943), management scholars recognized the existence of the informal organization. Unlike the formal organization, which appears in organization charts and reflects prescribed patterns for officially sanctioned messages, the informal organization consists of spontaneous, emergent patterns that result from individuals' discretionary choices (Stohl, 1995: 65). This informal network, also called the grapevine (e.g., Baird, 1977; Daniels, Spiker, & Papa, 1997), has received considerable attention in the years since its discovery (e.g., Davis, 1953; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993; Podolny & Baron, 1997). Still, there is a need for closer examination of its specific componentsfor example, rumor, "catching up," and gossip (Goldsmith & Baxter, 1996). Accordingly, in this article we explore one such component: workplace gossip. Although psychologists (e.g.. Fine & Rosnow, 1978), sociologists (e.g., Eder & Enke, 1991), and anthropologists (e.g., Dunbar, 1996) have examined the nature and role of gossip in larger society, scholars have yet to develop a conceptual model of workplace gossip-or even agree on We are grateful for comments Chris Earley and three anonymous reviewers provided. We also thank Tom Cummings,

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

“…This is often because members from the same or cognate groups are familiar with each other's values and ethics and share frames of reference. As the conformity and consensus between two parties increases, the likelihood to engage in gossip also rises (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Third, gossip may not necessarily become public information, therefore gossipers can avoid accountability and freely express their views without fear of discovery.…”

“…Virtually all employees find themselves producing, hearing or otherwise participating in evaluative comments about someone who is not present in the conversation. Gossip is often seen as informal, casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true (Foster, 2004;Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Scholars indicate that 14% workplace coffee-break chat is actually gossip and about 66% of general conversion between employees is related to social topics concerning talk about other people (Cole & Dalton, 2009).…”

“…The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted. the literature on gossip -cynicism is also limited, with the exceptions of Kurland and Pelled (2000) and Kuo (2010). Furthermore, from a human resource management perspective, there is a need to conduct further research on the role of gossip in the workplace, as through a better understanding of the antecedents of gossip and its relationship to employee behaviour, managers and leaders can monitor the formation of gossip and respond appropriately to alleviate any resulting negative impact on employees.…”

In Praise of Gossip: The Organizational Functions and Practical Applications of Rumours in the Workplace

“…In fact, these authors posit that, evolutionarily, this is the most important function of language in general and gossip in particular. Furthermore, co-workers learn what is expected of them by hearing stories holding high performers up to praise and low performers to shame; the "corporate culture" in an organization is commonly expressed this way in gossip stories (Kurland, Pelled, 2000;Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Baumeister et al (2004) present evidence that a primary function of gossip is cultural learning in a general form.…”

“…Organizational literature has paid little attention to gossip and, perhaps because of its complexity, management research surrounding gossip is scant (Hafen, 2004;Kurland & Pelled, 2000;Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Almost always, in this field of study, the term "gossip" has negative connotations, and some people consider it improper (Kurland and Pelled 2000).…”