LITERATURE REVIEW

When organisations are going through a crisis or a change, such as a merger or reorganisation,
gossip is particularly rampant. Therefore, organisations are advised to communicate in a
transparent way and to adopt various policies to quash office gossip as much as possible.
However, is gossip not unavoidable? Is it always negative?
Definition of Gossip
Most researchers (Grosser et al., 2010; McAndrew, 2014; Foster, 2004) define gossip as
positive or negative information exchanged about an absent third party. Besnier (1989) also
claims that talk about absent third persons is enough to justify the label gossip (as cited in
Foster, 2004, p. 81). This definition is quite broad and far-reaching. As Truman Capote puts
it: All literature is gossip. Similarly, Barbara Walters said: Show me someone who never
gossips, and I'll show you someone who isn't interested in people. Journalism is also gossip,
according to this definition.
Gossip, Rumor and the Grapevine
According to Bertolotti and Magnati (2014), there is often confusion between gossip and
rumour. While some scholars use the terms interchangeably (such as Michelson & Mouly,
2000), for others, rumor is always speculative (Foster, 2004), and is talk that is
unsubstantiated by authority or evidence (Rosnow, 1988 as cited in Michelson & Mouly,
2000, p. 339). Gossip, on the other hand, usually carries with it the presumption of having
some basis in factuality (Noon & Delbridge, 1993, as cited in Michelson & Mouly, 2000, p.
339). Some (such as Tebutt and Marchington, 1997) consider rumour to be more public and
widespread than gossip, which usually occurs in a more private and intimate setting.
Moreover, Bertolotti and Magnati, (2014) claim that gossip should always be first hand, and
contain a lot of first hand testimony of the participant: what happened to them, what they saw,
what they heard. By contrast, no first-hand account of an event can be a rumor, though it
may later become one (p.4041).
Ayim (1994) and Foster (2004, p. 78) also state that rumor includes informal communication
about events or objects, rather than about people. However, researchers predominantly
consider gossip to be communication about people, according to Kurland and Pelled (2000).
Moreover, while the grapevine may include a wide range of informal communication topics,
gossip usually only focuses on information about people.
Types of Gossip
According to Kurland and Pelled (2000), there are major differences between different types
of gossip. They have distinguished between three types: sign, credibility, and workrelatedness. Sign is the valence of the gossip, or positivity or negativity of the information
being related (p.430). Credibility is the extent to which the gossip is believable, accurate and
true. Work-related gossip focuses on an individuals work life, such as performance,
relationship with colleagues and general behavior in the workplace, whereas non-work related

(or social) gossip would include information about someones marital problems or plastic
surgery, for example.
Similarly, Martinescu et al. (2014) have also broken down topics of gossip into several
categories: appearance, personality, peculiarities, or competence. They have focused on
competence-related gossip, and within this category, drawing from achievement goal theory,
have distinguished between mastery goals (that are focused on developing competence
through gaining knowledge and skills) and performance goals (that are focused on
demonstrating competence by outperforming others). Whether employees have a mastery or
performance goal orientation will influence the way they react to gossip. If employees are
genuinely interested in improving their skills, they will value positive gossip and welcome it
as an opportunity to learn. However, employees who are competitive and strive to outperform
their peers will find reassurance in negative gossip, as it has a self-promotion value.
Types of Rumours
According to Michelson & Mouly (2000), the literature distinguishes between four distinct
types of rumours:
The Pipe Dream or Wish Fulfilment
These rumours express the hopes of those who circulate them. One example may be one of
the rumours that spread while Putin was absent for ten days: that he was killed during a coup.
The Bogey or Anxiety Rumour
These rumors come out of anxiety and fear, and will make the recipients uneasy. Employees
claiming that their company will merge and may have to lay off a significant number of
employees, is an example of such a rumour.
The Anticipatory Rumour
These usually occur when people are faced with much ambiguity and uncertainty. When your
manager has been laid off, and you do not know who will be his / her replacement, for
example, rumours will flourish.
The Aggressive Rumour
These rumours occur when someone has the intention of harming the target. For example,
claiming that a female colleague has slept her way to the top is such an example. The authors
claim that women are particularly vulnerable to this type of rumour as they are more likely to
be the object of sexual gossip.
Michelson and Mouly (2000) claim that these types of rumours may just as well be considered
as gossip, as the distinction lies more in the degree of credibility. These examples of rumours
above could all potentially contain an element of truth. Therefore, the extent of factuality or
truth is hard to determine, whether speaking of gossip or of rumours.

Negative view of Gossip

According to Baumeister, Zhang and Vos (2004), psychologists generally have a negative
view of gossip and define it as an indirect form of aggression, a bit like teasing: the target is
depicted in an unflattering light. As Sharon Hearth (2007) puts it, gossip can often be a
cowardly avoidance of the bloody mess of conflict and open negotiation (p.7).
Foster (2004) states that gossip is also perceived negatively as many ethical condemnations
of gossip revolve around presumed rules of privacy (p. 78). By engaging in gossip,
individuals unavoidably violate a third persons right to privacy. Moreover, the potential for
transmitting misinformation is another negative aspect of gossip. Indeed, people often have
mixed feelings about engaging in gossipy conversations, and try to guard themselves against
the charge of indiscretion (p.79).
The word gossip is often linked with workplace bullying. However, while in some cases, it
may be the case, workplace bullying tends to include a greater variety of aggressive
behaviours. Rayner et al. (2002), define bullying as a situation where individuals persistently
over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from
one or several persons (p. 24). Bullying may consist of overt attacks such as constantly
teasing and insulting a person in public, but it may also consist of more subtle actions, such as
excluding people, ignoring them, or withholding crucial information which keeps them from
doing their job properly. Gossip often plays a major role in workplace bullying (See Riggios
article, Workplace Bullying: Applying Psychological Torture at Work in Psychology
Today, 2010), for example, by harming others by damaging their reputations.
In an article, New Managers: 5 Ways To Stop Negative Office Gossip, Forbes magazine
warns that allowing negative workplace gossip to flourish can lead to a culture of distrust,
affect productivity, morale, and engagement. New managers should act quickly unless
stopped, pervasive negative gossip can be like a disease that spreads, wreaking havoc
throughout a department (and even throughout a company).
As the online video Negative Effects of Office Gossip on the Work Environment illustrates,
many organisations warn employees to never gossip about their colleagues, and especially, to
ignore gossip that pertains to an upcoming change in their company. When we are gossiping
about that, sometimes the wrong information gets out, says Charles Galberth, a HR
professional on eHow. So often, employees already developed a negative attitude towards a
change, even before the actual truth was told.
If the amount of articles written on this topic is any indication, most managers will do their
utmost to try and prevent employees from gossiping: How to address Office Gossip as a
Manager, Managing: How to Stop employees from gossiping, Negative Effects of Office
Gossip on the Work Environment and How to Stop Office Gossip Once and for All.
Some employers have even tried to implement a no-gossip-policy at the workplace. Some
punish gossip by terminating employment and / or suing for civil damages. According to
Harry Gorken, a management consultant, many businesses simply have policies on office

gossip without an understanding how communication and processes either prevent and or
encourage gossip. (2007).
Indeed, many recognise that preventing gossip is just not possible and certainly not realistic.
Moreover, it is a mistake to always associate gossip with workplace bullying.
Elmer (1994) claims that up to two thirds of all conversations include some references to
third-party doings. According to Dunbar, (2004), on the content of every day conversation,
gossip accounts for approximately 65% of speaking time.
While gossip generally tends to have a bad reputation, several scholars have looked beyond
this traditional view, and recognised that gossip can be a valuable form of social
communication.
Mechanics of Gossip
Who we Gossip with
What actually causes gossip to take place? Are there certain conditions which make it more
likely to flourish? Wittek and Wieler (1998) examined the social patterns that could lead to
gossip. There are always three players involved: the gossipmonger (which they call ego), the
listener (called alter) and the person being discussed (called tertius). The authors found that
when the ego and alter have a good relationship with each other and they both know and
dislike the tertius, this will lead to more and juicier gossip. This is the coalition triad. They
have examined other forms of triads, such as the constraint triad, where ego knows tertius but
alter doesnt. Even if ego and alter have a good relationship, alter wont be as interested in
hearing gossip about tertius. In the closure triad, ego, alter and tertius all have good
relationships with each other, but although people do gossip about common friends, it is not
as interesting as when tertius is an enemy or rival. The authors conclude that it is not mutual
friends but mutual enemies that are the topic of most gossip. The authors found that within
organisations, supervisors are often targets for gossip. Since they have control and authority,
there is by definition a negative element in the relation between boss and workers. Workers
thus have a common interest in forming a coalition (p. 202).
Who we Gossip about
Gorden (2007) claims that management plays a huge role in determining whether gossip will
be prevalent or not in an organisation. The presence of gossip should be seen by
management as a reflection of their performance and organizational effectiveness. If
managers are insecure, and do not communicate effectively with their teams, employees will
tend to revert to gossip. Managers that give negative feedback rather than constructive
criticism and encouragement, create an atmosphere of jealousy and rivalry in their teams. If
they hole themselves up in their offices to avoid their employees, they will also create a work
culture that lets gossip thrive.

According to Ellwardt et al. (2011), employees of a subordinate status gossip more negatively
about managers than employees of management or supervisory status. Gossip is a weapon of
the weak, they claim, and is often a way of resisting change.
Indeed, Clegg and van Iterson (2009) describe gossip as background conversations that
provide the murmurs of discontent to which change projects are often a reaction. Lower order
members cool out those projects of the authorities that they find disagreeable, using the
resources of their background conversations to gossip, make mockery and show cynicism in
hidden transcripts of counter power. (p, 280). The authors compare this to tavern
conversations, carnivals, where the lower orders of social life mock and subvert the
dominant order and authorities.
By doing this, subordinates try to resist power, and push and probe for weak spots
Moments of resistance such as these will rarely if ever overcome the system, but these small
bursts of pleasure do serve to make domination more bearable and less injurious. (p. 280).
And while subordinates resist change by gossiping, they do so without immediately harming
their relationship with their boss. However, Ellwardt et al (2011) found that resistance to
change and rank alone were not the main factors contributing to negative gossip. More
importantly, lack of trust in management tends to not only increase resistance to change but
also increases negative gossip.
The ones who have it most difficult, according to the authors, are the middle managers. Even
if they did not make the decisions to change within the organisation, employees often blame
them, as they associate them with management in general. Unlike the subordinates, middle
managers are less likely to gossip about their managers, as it would not only harm their
superiors reputations, but also theirs
Propinquity
However, Clegg and van Iterson (2009) argue that gossipers generally tend to not be too
different from those gossiped about in terms of proximity. This is what Freud called the
narcissism of minor differences. We gossip about those whom we rub up against rather
more than those whom we spy from afar. For the latter, we allow others, who claim closeness,
to do it for us, giving rise to the whole industry of the gossip columnist and celebrity
magazines. (p. 281).
But generally, envy is more easily aroused by someone close to us that is slightly better off,
than by someone more distant who is much better off. The proximity effect is a result of
greater visibility of ones neighbour. Hence, envy can provoke more negative feelings, and
therefore, more gossip. Clegg and Iterson argue that propinquity (ie, nearness in time, place
and social relations) even increases the animosity of gossip. Since organizational members
work in close proximity with other members, they are more likely to experience this
narcissism of minor differences.
McAndrew (2014) also shows that, generally, people are most interested in gossip about
individuals of the same sex as themselves who also happen to be around their own age (p. 6).

For example, the author found that college students were not very interested in hearing about
(nor talking about) academic awards being given to one of their professors. However, the
same information about their friends or romantic partners was rated as being quite interesting
and likely to be spread around (p.6).
Gossip gender based?
The tongue is the sword of a woman and she never lets it go rusty. Chinese proverb.
People dont usually think of men when thinking about gossip. Indeed, at its origins, the term
gossip described a phenomenon strictly reserved to women. According to Heath (2007) the
word gossip is derived from the Old English godsibb, which means Gods sibling
referring to the spiritual bond between godparents and godchildren. The term refers to the
female friends of a childs mother who were present at the childs birth and idly chatted
among themselves (Grosser et al, 2010).
These friends were almost always women; the hours were passed in conversation and moral
support, and it was undoubtedly a strong bonding experience for those who were present
(Rysman, 1977, as cited in McAndrews, 2014). The concept of gossip and gossiping, at its
origins, already had a strong gender bias, but was not considered to be particularly negative.
But by the 1500s, the word had taken on a much more negative connotation. The word first
appeared in this negative light in Shakespeares Midsummer Nights Dream, and described a
woman of light and trifling character who is a newsmonger and a tattler (McAndrews,
2014, p. 2).
These women were not treated lightly, as gossiping was a serious offence. According to
McAndrew, from the 1500s to the 1800s, there was a persistent concern with clamping down
on the gossip of women (p.3). In Europe and colonial America, at that time, women who
gossiped were punished by being forced to wear the Scolds Bridle a heavy iron mask that
included a flat piece of iron. This piece of iron was sometimes spiked and it was thrust into a
womans mouth over her tongue. Needless to say, when wearing this Scolds Bridle, a
woman could not talk. This punishment was approved by the Church and local authorities,
and a husband was allowed to drag his wife around the village and subject her to ridicule and
humiliation. Another way to punish a gossiper was to strap her to a dunking stool, a chair
attached to a long beam, and to plunge her into a lake or pond. The amount of times dunked,
and for how long, was directly proportional to the severity of the gossip (Mc Andrew,
2014).
Today, there is still a strong perception that gossip is mainly a woman thing, and that men
would not normally engage in such petty activity (Rosnow & Fine, 1976, Bergmann, 1993,
Goodman & Ben-Zeev, 1994 as cited in Rabeau, 2008).
Moreover, Clegg and van Iterson, (2009), state that gossip has often been considered as a
feminine activity, especially open to female employees, such as secretaries, within
organizations. When gossip is seen as positive discourse, it is often being represented as
being masculine (p. 278). While women are often considered to engage in idle talk,

tattle, and run about, men shoot the breeze and talk about shop, according to
Michelson and Mouly (2000).
Interestingly, Farley et al. (2010) study how female gossipers are perceived in the workplace
(but do not discuss how male gossipers are perceived). The authors claim that while
stereotypical female social roles portray women as warm and nurturing, women who gossip
have a strong personality and are willing to take the risk of ruining relationships, hurting
someones feelings, or being seen as vindictive (p. 366). Hence, female gossipers are
perceived as less likable than female non-gossipers. The authors, however, do not explain
whether their findings would apply to men. This omission reinforces the stereotype about
women even more
However, according to Foster (2004), researchers have found very little empirical evidence
that women gossip more frequently than men (see Dunbar, 1993; Eckert, 1990; Foster, Nevo
et al., 1993, as cited in Foster, 2004). If there are any differences, the author claims, they are
not significant. Similarly, Luna and Chou (2013) and Michelson and Mouly (2000) also found
that gender was not a significant predictor of intention to gossip.
But while men and women may spend as much time gossiping, Rabeau (2008) and Watson
(2012) note that the differences lie more in terms of how they gossip: women tend to gossip
more about intimate matters of other people as well as physical appearance and clothing. The
underlying intent also differs: women are more prone to use gossip as a way to establish
group solidarity and make social comparisons (Rabeau, 2008, p. 6).
Similarly, Watson (2012) also found that men and women have different attitudes towards
friendship, and that these influence the way they gossip. In his study, friendship was
conceptualized according to two dimensions: communion and agency. Communion refers to
the intimacy or closeness needs that are met through friendship, whereas agency provides
individuation and power needs (p. 1). The author found that men are more agentic and
women more communal, and that therefore, mens tendency to gossip was strongly correlated
with their quality of friendship. According to Watson, men tend to be more interested in
achievement gossip, as the possession of knowledge and control of information is a method
of attaining status. Women on the other hand, are less self-focused, and tend to talk more
about others. Females emphasize building and maintaining social networks whereas men are
more concerned about display and status (p.2).
Mc Andrew (2014) even goes as far as to claim that women are more likely to use gossip in
an aggressive or socially destructive manner. While men may be interested in the doings of
other men, women are obsessed by the doings of other women. And that is not benign.
Women are more likely to use gossip to exclude and ostracize others. The motivation for this
relational aggression can be as trivial as simple boredom, but it more often transpires in
retaliation of perceived slights or envy over physical appearance or males. Women will try to
exclude competitors from their social groups, and damage their ability to maintain a reliable
social network of their own (McAndrew, 2014).

Scores of studies use evolutionary psychology and biology to show that it is in a womans
DNA to gossip and display bitchy behaviour, as she is competing for males and needs to
dismantle the competition (see for example, Tracy Vaillancourts study in the Journal
Aggressive Behaviour).
But as Soraya Nadia McDonald from the Washington Post observes, such studies are usually
based on flawed research. These claims arent just irresponsible because they reinforce sexist
and pernicious stereotypes about women. () Too many researchers merely end up
providing pseudo-scientific justification for the status quo.
Moreover, while men spend as much time gossiping as women, they also differ in where they
gossip. Gilmore (1978) showed for example, that in a rural Spanish community, women had a
tendency to gossip in public spaces such as marketplaces and street corners, whereas men tend
to do it in more private spaces such as barbershops and taverns (as cited in Michelson and
Mouly, 2000). Therefore, the difference also lies in the amount of visibility and the location
where the rumour or gossip activities take place.
Functions of Gossip
Why do people gossip? According to Mc Andrew (2014), gossip is central to the social life of
humans. Historical records and cross cultural studies show that gossip has been shared by
people of all ages, times, and cultures (p. 4). Gossip goes as far back as our prehistoric past,
and the author argues that it became a part of our evolutionary adaptation. People who were
fascinated with the lives of others were simply more successful than those who were not, and
it is the genes of those individuals that have come down to us through the ages (Barkow,
1992; Davis & McLeod, 2003; Humphrey, 1983, as cited in McAndrew, 2014).
Martinescu at al. (2014) also claim that gossip is essential, unavoidable and satisfies basic
human needs. Throughout the literature, it appears that there are four main social functions of
gossip: to gather information, to entertain, to maintain group norms and to influence.
To Gather Information
An important motive for gossiping is to gather information. By gossiping, one can find out
new information about a target person, or check whether others share our opinion about this
person. Gossip is an efficient way, and often the only way, to get access to information
(Foster, 2004; Giardini, 2012).
According to Foster, gossip is often described as an efficient and at times, exclusive means
of gathering information. He describes it as a type of currency, traded like any other, and
assessed for its value by the taker on the basis of timeliness, usefulness, and especially, rarity
(p. 84). Giardini (2012) states that gossip also allows us to test the competence and reliability
of informers (p. 465).
Indeed, Invancevich et al (2008) describe gossip and the grapevine as the speediest, most
efficient channel of communication in an organization (p. 369). Research indeed shows that
at least 75% of the gossip that travels through the grapevine is said to be true. Certain

managers use the grapevine as a part of their communications plan; as an early warning
system for example, already giving a hint of bad news to come, before officially making an
announcement. The grapevine can also allow managers to see how a new plan may be
received before actually implementing it. Basically, the grapevine is a bypassing
mechanism and in many cases, is a lot faster than the formal system it bypasses (p.370).
Since it is face-to-face, the grapevine is quite flexible and transmits information quickly.
The authors state that gossip can also play an important role in developing the companys
corporate culture. Via gossip, the company war stories and those stories that communicate
the firms values can be told (p. 369).
However, the authors point out that while 75% of the information communicated through the
grapevine may be accurate, 25% is not. As in the case of workplace bullying, false and
destructive rumors can cause stress, and diminish employees productivity and well-being.
Entertainment / Social Enjoyment
According to Foster (2004), another reason to gossip is social enjoyment. By gossiping, one
can simply have fun and distract oneself and others from routine activities. Many people
gossip at work because they are bored. This need thus explains the popularity of gossip
magazines and tabloids.
Yao et al (2014) have also found that the optimal conditions for gossip to occur are when
people come across stories about familiar targets involved in interesting, socially relevant
situations (p. 5).
To Maintain Group Norms
Another fundamental motive to gossip is to affirm ones own belonging to a group or a subgroup (Giardini, 2012), and to protect the group and its norms against harmful behavior
(Gluckman, 1963). Gossip is used to protect the group and warn group members against
others that violate group norms, and serves as a mechanism to control free-riding and social
cheating ( Beersma & van Klef, 2008, p.8).
Baumeister, et al (2004) claim that gossip is observational learning of a cultural kind. By
hearing about peoples negative experiences, we may be able to avoid their mistakes and
pitfalls. Therefore, gossip can be a potentially powerful and efficient means of transmitting
information about the rules, norms, and other guidelines for living in a culture. Not only does
it educate the listener about social norms, but it also affirms them. (p. 112). This not only
applies to culture as a whole, but also to corporate culture.
Employees can learn about their organisations policies towards relationships with colleagues,
for example. While in one American multi-national, having an affair with a colleague could
lead to immediate dismissal, in another Dutch organisation, the same affair would hardly
have any consequences. Rather than learning the hard way, employees prefer to find out via
the grapevine what happened to others in a similar situation.

Likewise, Keltner et al (as cited in Beersma and Klef, 2008) argue that gossip serves as a
mechanism to keep the behavior of (powerful) individuals in check by pressuring them to
adhere to prevailing social norms (Cox, 1970; Gluckman, 1983; Mc Andrew, 2014). When
gossip can serve the interests of the group as a whole, Mc Andrew argues, it is considered as
good gossip.
Moreover, according to Martinescu et al. (2014), gossip plays an important role in selfevaluation, and gives feedback as to how we function within a group. Gossip recipients tend
to use positive and negative gossip to improve, promote and protect the self. The authors
argue that positive gossip gives success stories which encourages people to compare
themselves to their peers, which leads to self-improvement. Negative gossip, on the other
hand, has a higher self-promotion value and raises higher self-protection concerns than
positive gossip. The authors stress that contrary to the general perception, gossip is not
intended to hurt the target, but to please the gossiper and the listener. Negative gossip can also
elicit feelings of self-protection as listeners can feel anxious and slightly threatened that they
too may be the subject of gossip and criticism.
To Influence
A less noble reason to gossip is to influence. By gossiping, people can influence others and
manipulate their opinions. Person A tries to get some kind of advantage over person C, by
trying to convince person B to revise his or her opinion about person C. This function of
gossip is self-serving and for instance aims at extending one's own power or destroying the
reputation of the target (Beersma & van Klef, 2008, p. 7). This type of gossip is usually used
for selfish or self-serving reasons. When it does occur as a result of competition between
people within the same social group, and when the goal is to boost up ones power or social
success, the gossiper is usually considered negatively (Mc Andrew, 2014).
Hierarchy of Functions
According to Beersma and van Klef (2008), these functions or motives for gossiping are not
of equal importance. For example, influencing others was considered as the least important
reason to gossip by the respondents of their study. Social enjoyment was more important, and
information gathering and validation were considered the most important. The authors also
made a distinction between whether the respondents were from the same group or not, and
whether the gossip was about group violations or not. Generally, when gossiping with a
colleague, people tended to gossip about norm-violating behavior, whereas when gossiping
with a friend, the difference between discussing norm violating and non-norm violating
behavior was not significant. The authors claim that people seem to be more likely to engage
in gossip when their group is endangered by norm violations and when they have the chance
to discuss this with a member from their own group.
However, the authors wonder how valid these conclusions are, as few people would admit
that they gossip for self-serving reasons, and that they are backstabbing their colleagues in
order to get ahead, for example

Credibility of Gossip
Several scholars have raised the question of how reliable is gossip, actually? Giardini (2012),
for example, claims that the reliability of gossip is linked to two factors: deterrence and
transmission. When spreading false information, the gossiper could potentially be punished by
the receiver as well as the target. For example, a gossip magazine spreading lies about a
celebrity will not only lose the credibility with its readers, but can also get sued by the
celebrity in question. According to Giardini, social punishment such as exclusion also
dissuades people to spread false gossip. This is called deterrence.
So why do people still engage in spreading false gossip? Giardini believes that gossipers are
able to use language in an effective way so they can avoid taking responsibility for what they
are saying. People can hide behind expressions like I have been told that, I have heard
People say , which allows them to transmit the information and maintain their social
bonds, without suffering from any of the consequences. This is transmission, and according to
Giardini, is one of the most underrated aspects of gossip. It is because of transmission that
gossip has survived throughout the ages
Intention to Gossip
While there are quite some studies on why people gossip, according to Luna and Chou (2013),
relatively few have examined the behavioral intention of an individual to gossip. In order to
identify the factors that influence someones intention to gossip, the authors apply Ajzens
(1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). According to this theory, an individual is
affected by his or her attitude toward the behavior, his or her subjective norms related to
performing the behavior, and his or her subjective norm related to performing the behavior,
and his or her perceived ease or difficulty in performing the behavior (p. 118). This model
has been used in various fields, therefore making it a valid tool to use in the case of gossip,
according to the authors.
Luna and Chou (2013) show that attitude has a positive impact on an individuals intention to
gossip: if someone feels positively about gossip, he or she will have high levels of intention to
gossip (and vice versa). Subjective norms also have a positive impact on an individuals
intention to gossip; therefore, if an individual perceives that people who are important to him
or her believe that engaging in gossip is a social norm, he or she will have high levels of
intention to gossip (p. 119).
The authors recommend to apply these findings to organizations; managers can minimize or
eliminate destructive gossip by changing an individuals attitude towards gossip (p. 124).
The authors recommend doing this by implementing disciplinary actions and policies to
develop and reinforce employees negative attitudes towards gossip. They recommend to
proactively and regularly convey clear expectations about the forbiddance of gossip; in this
way, managers may be able to minimize or eliminate employees subjective norms related to
gossip (p.125). Therefore, manipulating employees intention to gossip may be easier than
preventing the very act of gossiping (if, again, this were to be realistic and desirable).

Effects of Gossip
Perhaps Cole and Scriveners (2013) study would influence peoples intention to gossip; the
authors show that gossipers tend to suffer from a lower self-esteem right after giving negative
gossip about a target person. When they give positive gossip, their self-esteem does not
change. The authors asked their subjects to gossip positively and negatively about someone
they knew, and found that regardless of the valence of the gossip, they felt less good about
themselves right after the session. Cole and Scrivener believe that despite the negative
consequences, people still gossip because the immediate social bonding benefits afforded by
sharing gossip override any thoughts about potential negative consequences. (p. 258).
However, Spacks (1982) observes that gossip has the potential to be quite harmful, and that
gossipers cannot escape having mixed feelings when engaging in it. Few gossip without guilt
(). It seems that at times that gossip generates as much guilt as its production
simultaneously relieves (as cited in Foster, 2004, p.88).
Perception of Gossipers
Probably, the reason for feeling this guilt may also be due to the fact that many see gossipers
as not likeable, and gossiping as socially undesirable (Cole, J., Scrivener, H., 2013). However,
there are some distinctions to be made in terms of ways of gossiping and reasons for
gossiping. According to a study by Wilson (2000), participants judged the teller of gossip
harshly when the teller used gossip for self-serving reasons, whereas judgement about the
gossiper was more neutral when gossip was used to warn others of rule violations. Similarly,
Beersma and van Klef (2008) also found that when people were confronted with someone
who gossips about norm-violating behaviour, they saw this as more social and less immoral,
especially when they had the feeling that their colleague was protecting the group (p.21).
Participants showed less disapproval towards this form of gossip than to others gossiping to
influence others or for social enjoyment.
Baumeister et al. state that failing to gossip can even lead to negative consequences.
According to one study, an employee who did not pass along some gossip that could have
been beneficial to a colleague, was poorly evaluated.
Moreover, Grosser et al. (2010) also show that individuals who are highly active gossipers
benefit from higher levels of informal influence by their peers: they bond more easily with
their colleagues and enjoy stronger friendships. And friends are much more likely to exchange
negative gossip than two people who only share instrumental work ties. According to Turner
at al. (2003), if gossipers and listeners are not close, (or are strangers), gossiping may seem
awkward and unwarranted, thus decreasing perceptions of liking, trust, and expertise,
(p.131) especially if the gossip is negative.
However, Farley (2011) found that high frequency gossipers were a lot less popular than low
frequency gossipers, and that negative gossipers were less liked than positive gossipers. The
high frequency negative gossipers were most disliked of all. Despite the impression that
gossipers may have a lot of friends, she argues that this is just an illusion. Perhaps high

gossipers are individuals who are welcome into our social networks for fear of losing the
opportunity to learn information, but we tend to keep them at arms length (p.579).
In another study, Farley et al (2010) examine the perceptions of female gossipers in the
workplace, and find that high gossipers were perceived as having a greater need to control
others, but less need for others to control them, than low gossipers. High gossipers were also
considered less emotionally warm and generally less likeable than low gossipers.
According to Grosser et al. (2010), while managers may rely on gossip themselves, they do
not particularly value it from their employees. Managers feel insecure by gossip in general,
and do not make the distinction between positive and negative gossip. Therefore, the more a
person engages in gossip activity, the lower the supervisor rates that persons work-related
performance. Nonetheless, Avim (1994) shows that many managers at the top rely on gossip
to get crucial information that they would not normally get. Those who are left out of gossip
circles have a lot less power, eventually lose control, and are unable to remain at the top.
Indeed, Kurland and Pelle (2000) claim that there is a correlation between a gossiper and
power relations. The authors define power as the ability to exert ones will, influencing
others to do things that they would not otherwise do (p.430). The authors distinguish
between four types of power: coercive, reward, expert and referent power. Coercive power is
what emerges when person A believes that person B has the power to punish him or her. For
example, the authors claim that in a work setting, negative gossip will enhance the gossipers
coercive power over gossip recipients. However, positive gossip will affect reward power,
which means that when a gossiper shares positive news about another worker, recipients may
infer that the gossiper also could spread positive information about them, (p.431). Therefore,
when Person B perceives that Person A has control over valued outcomes, Person A has a
reward power over Person B. The authors also claim that gossip will give the gossiper more
expert power over gossip recipients, as he / she has relevant knowledge about persons in the
organisation and a good position within its network, which gives him / her quite some
authority. Finally, referent power refers to Persons B desire to be associated with Person A.
The authors note that gossip seems to have two competing or contradictory effects on referent
power: on one hand, for people who have a negative view of gossip, and see it as ethically
wrong, gossip will reduce the gossipers referent power over recipients. This will be even
stronger for negative gossip.
Similarly, Farley (2010) argues that high-frequency negative gossipers were perceived as
much less powerful than low frequency, positive gossipers. Although this contradicts the
notion and findings that information --and gossip-- is power, she argues that an explanation
could be that the relationship between gossip and social power is curvilinear. Individuals
may be at the low end of the gossiping spectrum because they are not socially attuned or
because they have been marginalised from the social network. (p. 579). Several researchers
have observed that not to gossip (or not to show a minimum of interest for gossip) is to be
quickly marginalised from the local social fabric. (Bergmann, 1973; Eggins & Slade, 1997,
as cited in Foster, 2004, p. 79). On the other end of the spectrum, people who gossip
frequently may also be marginalised, and be perceived as indiscriminate, unselective and

untrustworthy (Farley, p. 579). The author concludes that the optimal use of gossip probably
lies somewhere in the middle: socially successful people will use gossip selectively. Kurland
and Pelled (2000) also observe that gossip has a curvilinear effect on the recipients: it will
enhance likeability until it reaches a high level, and then will drop down again.
McAndrew (2014) observes that the few studies that have been conducted so far, have
simply looked at how often an individual does or does not participate in gossip, but no attempt
has been made to study gossipers based on the quality they provide or the skill with which
they conduct themselves in gossip situations (p. 8). The author insists that it is quality, not
quantity, that counts, and that people who know how to gossip in a skilful way will be more
appreciated by their peers, and exert more social power. Gossip is a social skill rather than a
flaw (p. 8). Therefore, successful gossiping is about being a good team player and sharing
key information with others in a way that will not be perceived as self-serving and about
understanding when to keep ones mouth shut (p. 8). Mc Andrews insists that future studies
need to work on developing a reliable way of assessing skill as gossiper.
Therefore, what exactly is the ideal way of gossiping? How much is too much? In which
context? What can you say to whom? If one were to reach the peak of the curvilinear graph,
what would that look like, concretely? Is there a sweet spot for gossip? How would that
change depending on culture?
Employees in an organisation would certainly benefit from knowing how to gossip
effectively. What is the etiquette? Should there be a code of conduct?

SOURCES
Baumeister, R., Vohs, K., Zhang, L. (2004). Gossip as Cultural Learning. Review of General
Psychology, Vol.8, no.2, p.111-121.
Beersma, B.,Van Kleef, G., (2008). Why People Gossip: Social Functions, Antecedents, and
Consequences. (Paper presented at EGOs conference, Amsterdam).
Bernardi, R. (2006). Associations between Hofstedes Cultural Constructs and Social
Desirability Response Bias. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 65, p. 45-53.
Bertolotti, T., Magnani, L. (2014). An epistemological analysis of gossip and gossip-based
knowledge. Synthese, Vol. 191, pp. 4037 4067.
Carmichael Lester, M. (n.d). Tear Down the Rumor Mill: Building a Gossip-Free Workplace
to Tame Office Politics. Retrieved from http://career-advice.monster.com/in-theoffice/workplace-issues/office-politics-tear-down-rumor-mill/article.aspx 27 Jan. 2015.
Clegg, S.R., van Iterson A. (2009). Dishing the dirt: gossiping in organizations. Culture and
Organization, Vol. 15, Nos 3-4, Sept. Dec. 2009, p. 257- 289.
Cole, J., Scrivener, H. (2013). Short Term Effects of Gossip Behavior on Self-Esteem, Curr
Psychol, Vol. 32, p. 252 260.
Ellwardt, L., Wittek, R., Wielers, R. Workplace gossip about managers as resistance to
authority, organizational change and distrust. Retrieved from
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/gmw/2011/l.ellwardt/03c3, 20 Jan. 2015
Farley, S. (2011). Is Gossip Power? The inverse relationship between gossip, power, and
likability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, p. 574-579.
Farley, S., Timme, D., Hart, J. (2010). On Coffee Talk and Break-Room Chatter: Perceptions
of Women who Gossip in the Workplace. The Journal of Social Psychology. 150 (4), p. 361368.
Foster, E. (2004). Research on Gossip: Taxonomy, Methods, and Future Directions. Review of
General Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 78-99.
Gervais, R., Merchant, S. (creators). (2010). The Office [Television series]. New York: NBC.
Giardini, F. (2012). Deterrence and transmission as mechanisms ensuring reliability of gossip.
Cogn. Process 13 (Suppl. 2), pp. 465-475.
Gorden, Harry. (2007). Office Gossip Management Creates or Prevents. Retrieved from
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Harry_Gorden, 6 Jan. 2015.
Green, A. (2014). Managing: How to stop employees from Gossiping. Retrieved from
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/human-resources/2014/01/managingstopping-gossip.html , 27 Jan. 2015.

Grosser, T., Lopez-Kidwell, V., Labianca, G. (2010). A Social Network Analysis of Positive
and Negative Gossip in Organisational Life. Group and Organization Management, June
2010.
Heath, S. (2007). Secret Agonies in Analytic Communities: Gossip, Envy, Secrecy and
Belonging. Journal of Jungian Theory and Practice, Vol. 9, No.1.
e-How: Negative Effects of Office Gossip on the Work Environment : Career Development,
Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKTtGyA-IU , 7 Oct. 2014.
Huffington Post. (2011). Gossip: Evolutionary Necessity? New Study suggests Yes,
Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/gossip-evolutionarynecessity_n_1020050.html , 1 April, 2015.
Ivancevich, J., Konopaske, R., Matteson, M. (2008). Organizational Behavior and
Management, 8th edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
Kurland, N., Pelled, L. (2000). Passing the Word: Toward a Model of Gossip and Power in
the Workplace. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr. 2000), pp. 428438.
Luna, A., Chou, S., (2013). Drivers for Workplace Gossip: An Application of the Theory of
Planned Behavior. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Vol. 17,
No. 1, 2013.
Martinescu, E., Janssen O., Nijstad, B. (2014). Tell Me the Gossip: The Self-Evaluative
Function of Receiving Gossip About Others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Oct.
2014, Sage Publications.
Mazur, M. (2013). How to stop Office Gossip once and for all. Retrieved from
http://www.drmichellemazur.com/2013/02/how-to-stop-gossip.html , 27 Jan. 2015.
Mc Andrews, F. (2014). How the Gossip became a woman and how Gossip became her
weapon of choice. The Oxford Handbook of Women and Competition. Online Publication
Date: Sep. 2014.
Michelson, G., Mouly, S. (2000). Rumour and Gossip in Organisations: a conceptual study.
Management Decision. 38/5, pp. 339 346.
Mintz, J. (1997). Carnival Song and Society: Gossip, Sexuality, and Creativity in Andalusia.
Oxford: Berg.
Quast, L. (2013). New Mangers: 5 ways to stop negative office gossip. Retrieved from:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2013/10/14/new-managers-5-ways-to-stop-negativeoffice-gossip/ , 21 Jan. 2015.
Rabeau, M. (2008). Guess What? Someone saw them having a drink together! Workplace
romance as a hot topic for organizational gossip. (Paper presented at EGOs conference,
Amsterdam).

Rayner, C., Hoel, H., Cooper, C. (2002). Workplace Bullying: What we know, who is to
blame, and what can we do? London, Taylor & Francis Inc.
Richards, F. (n.d). How to Address Gossip as a Manager. Retrieved from:
http://woman.thenest.com/address-office-gossip-manager-4933.html , 27 Jan. 2015.
Riggio, R. (2010). Workplace Bullying: Applying Psychological Torture at Work. Retrieved
from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201002/workplacebullying-applying-psychological-torture-work , 14 Apr. 2015.
Sprangers, R. (2011). Oorsprong van het carnival. IS Geschiedenis. Retrieved from:
http://www.isgeschiedenis.nl/nieuws/oorsprong_van_het_carnaval/ , 9 Feb.2015
Turner, M., Mazur, M., Wendel, N., Winslow, R. (2003), Relational Ruin or Social Glue? The
Joint Effect of Relationship Type and Gossip Valence on Liking, Trust, and Expertise.
Communication Monographs, Vol 70, No. 2, pp. 129-141.
Vaillancourt, T.& Sharma, A. (2011). Intolerance of sexy peers: Intrasexual competition
among women. Aggressive Behavior, 37, pp. 569-577.
Watson, D. (2012). Gender Differences in Gossip and Friendship. Springer Science and
Business Media, LLC 2012, pp. 1-8.
Wittek R.,Wielers R., (1998). Gossip in Organizations. Computational & Mathematical
Organization Theory 4:2 (1998): 189 -204. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Yao, B., Scott, G., McAleer, P., ODonnell, P., Sereno, S. (2014). Familiarity with Interest
Breeds Gossip: Contributions of Emotion, Expectation, and Reputation. PlOs ONE 9(8),
pp. 1- 6.