Office Gossip and Minority Employees in the South African Workplace 9819926904, 9789819926909

Citation preview

Nasima M. H. Carrim Editor

Office Gossip and Minority Employees in the South African Workplace

Office Gossip and Minority Employees in the South African Workplace

Nasima M. H. Carrim Editor

Office Gossip and Minority Employees in the South African Workplace

Editor Nasima M. H. Carrim Department of Human Resource Management Sciences Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa

ISBN 978-981-99-2690-9 ISBN 978-981-99-2691-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2691-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

I dedicate this book to my dad Mohamed Hoosen Carrim, my late mom Farida Moti (nee Abdulla) and my late brother Mukhtaar Hoosein Carrim. Thank you all for being pillars of strength in my life, and for supporting and encouraging me to be the best version of myself. Nasima M. H. Carrim

Preface

Office gossip is a ubiquitous phenomenon that organizational employees are exposed to. Whether it takes on a negative or a positive form, employees will at some point in their careers encounter office gossip. Some employees will encounter the phenomenon more than other employees. Research relating to office gossip impacts employees at all occupational levels and across all demographic groups. The topic of office gossip has been researched from diverse perspectives. Nevertheless, there are areas that scholars have not touched on in their exploration of office gossip. One such area is the experiences of marginalized employees and their encounters related to office gossip in the workplace. Since not much is known about the experiences of communities of colour in the workplace regarding office gossip, the aim of this book is to fill in some of the gaps in the extant literature. The experiences of diverse communities of colour regarding office gossip are addressed in the current book. The list of marginalized employees’ experiences is explored in the current book and is not exhausted, leaving room to address more marginalized groups’ experiences related to office gossip in diverse contexts in the future. This book therefore sets the scene and impetus for future research on the experiences of marginalized employees in the workplace within diverse contexts. Pretoria, South Africa

Nasima M. H. Carrim

Acknowledgements I wish to thank the National Research Foundation (NRF) in South Africa for the funding for the project on office gossip. The funding assisted in providing support for some of the office gossip chapters in the South African context. I also want to thank the staff at Springer for their support.

vii

Contents

1

Office Gossip and Minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nasima M. H. Carrim

2

A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model for Studying Workplace Gossip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kirk Chang

9

Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nasima M. H. Carrim, Lisa Gerber, and Bronwyn Menne-Jooste

33

Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arun Vijay Subbarayalu and Ajayan Kamalasanan

59

3

4

1

5

Gossip in Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nicole Cindy Joubert, Nasima M. H. Carrim, and Jan Alewyn Nel

87

6

The Experiences of Black African Managers on Office Gossip . . . . . 121 Tebogo Mokwebo and Nasima M. H. Carrim

7

The Experiences of Black African Gays and Lesbians Regarding Office Gossip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Baipidi Morakile, Nasima M. H. Carrim, and Juan A. Nel

8

Workplace Gossip and the Experiences of Foreign Nationals . . . . . . 175 Hilma Negonga, Eunice Mwabi, and Nasima M. H. Carrim

9

Oh no They Didn’t! Dishing the Dirt on Office Gossip Stemming from Envy and Jealousy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Nasima M. H. Carrim

10 Workplace Gossip Among Dog Trainers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Lebogang Mongale and Nasima M. H. Carrim

ix

x

Contents

11 The Effect of Gossip on Marginalised Sportswomen in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Marle Scholtz and Nasima M. H. Carrim 12 “Yes, Gossip is Good!”: Competition and the Performance of Camaraderie in a University Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Julaina A. Obika and Martha Kibukamusoke

Editor and Contributors

About the Editor Nasima M. H. Carrim is an Associate Professor at the Department of Human Resource Management at the University of Pretoria. Her research focuses on gender in management, culture, religion and minorities in the workplace from an intersectionality and identity perspective. She has published research in international and South African journals. She has also published chapters in international books. She has also co-authored the first South African textbook entitled Managing Diversity in the South African Workplace. In 2017, Prof. Carrim received the 2016 Best Junior Researcher in Management Sciences in the Economic and Management Sciences Faculty at the University of Pretoria. Professor Carrim is a C2 NRF-rated researcher. She is the Chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Interest group at the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology in South Africa (SIOPSA). She is also the chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Committee at the Economic and Management Sciences Faculty at the University of Pretoria. She is on the Editorial Review Board of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) journal as well as is the Section Editor for the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP).

Contributors Nasima M. H. Carrim Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Kirk Chang University of East London, London, UK Lisa Gerber Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Nicole Cindy Joubert Human Resource Department, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa xi

xii

Editor and Contributors

Ajayan Kamalasanan Deanship of Quality and Academic Accreditation, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Martha Kibukamusoke Institute of Peace and Strategic Studies, Gulu University, Gulu, Uganda Bronwyn Menne-Jooste Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Tebogo Mokwebo Human Resource Management Department, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Lebogang Mongale Human Resource Management Department, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Baipidi Morakile Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Eunice Mwabi Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Hilma Negonga Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Jan Alewyn Nel Human Resource Department, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Juan A. Nel Department of Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa Julaina A. Obika Institute of Peace and Strategic Studies, Gulu University, Gulu, Uganda Marle Scholtz Human Resource Management Department, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Arun Vijay Subbarayalu Deanship of Quality and Academic Accreditation, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Chapter 1

Office Gossip and Minorities Nasima M. H. Carrim

1.1 Office Gossip: Definition, Theory and Measurement It is important to understand the aspect of gossip in organizations due to its ubiquitous presence in the social lives of organizations. The concept of gossip has been studied from diverse perspectives in the workplace. Most of this research is however focused on the positive and negative aspects of office gossip. Gossip when positive can have a valuable and functional purpose but a detrimental effect when it is negative leading to absenteeism, high staff turnover and stress. However, within the literature scholars have mainly focused on the experiences of the majority of employees within organizations. In a few cases, the voices of women who have marginalized presence in the workplace came through related to office gossip. There is therefore a dearth regarding the experiences of marginalized employees within organizations and their experiences regarding office gossip.

1.2 Definition Seminal work around gossip started appearing in anthropological scholarship research during the 1930s (Paine, 1967). From the 1940s onward, sociologists and psychologists started including gossip in their research (Klukhohn & Mower, 1944). However, the definition of gossip in this period was underdeveloped. Paine (1967) for example indicated that the definition of gossip focused on its informational aspect. In the 1960s, research on gossip took root in organizational studies. During this period, some scholars fleetingly mentioned office gossip as a by-product of everyday

N. M. H. Carrim (B) Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 N. M. H. Carrim (ed.), Office Gossip and Minority Employees in the South African Workplace, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2691-6_1

1

2

N. M. H. Carrim

social interactions at work (St. John, 1969), while other scholars conducted indepth research on the topic (Triandis et al., 1966). During this early period, gossip was defined as a form of informal communication and a method of protecting and advancing a person’s self-interests (Paine, 1967). Over time the definition of office gossip evolved. Tebbutt (1995) asserted in her book, Woman’s Talk? A social history of “gossip” in working-class neighborhoods, 1880–1960, is that when a third party was talked about in the past there was a hierarchy of judgment, which ranged from casual comments to inflated talk. She also asserted that the content of the gossip was concentrated more often on “real characters”; that is, that it focused on those individuals who were the subject of affection, amusement or admiration of others within a specific community. Gossip was often linked to the gender and literacy of individuals. All humans understand the term gossip. However, identifying, defining and measuring the phenomenon is an intricate exercise although it is ubiquitous in the workplace (Foster, 2004). It is fairly problematic to define the term gossip owing to the immense range of opinions and perceptions associated with the concept and therefore a contested topic. Additionally, the negativity of the concept is contingent on the “insider” customs of those who gossip, the situation at hand, a private joke shared among colleagues and the discussant’s tone (Wert & Salovey, 2004). Foster (2004) has stated that the context in which gossip takes place plays an important role in determining whether gossip is taking place or not. Therefore, the understanding of gossip differs across individuals, contexts and groups. Also, organizational scholars have defined the concept from various perspectives. For instance, Noon and Delbridge (1993, p. 25) define the concept as “the process of informally communicating value-laden information about members of a social setting”. This definition focuses on the types of conversation that relate to gossip (Michelson & Mouly, 2004). Therefore, harmless information is rejected as it is believed that information that is communicated should have some impact on targets (Michelson & Mouly, 2004). Gilmore (1978, p. 92) views gossip as “critical talk about third parties”. Spacks (1982, p. 20) defines the term as tantamount to “women’s talk”. Michelson and Mouly (2004) point out that the inclusion of value-laden information in the definition of gossip is limiting as it ignores the different functions and purposes that gossip may serve. Kniffin and Wilson (2010, p. 4) argue that the reason for inconsistent definitions of gossip lies in the fact that the concept arises coincidentally in the investigation of other phenomena in the workplace and not as an explicit attempt by organizational researchers to study the concept (Carrim, 2019). Gossip is every so often regarded as tantamount to female talk (Eckert, 1990; Foster, 2004; Spacks, 1982), whereas men’s talk is often regarded as “killing time together” or “shop talk” (Fine & Rosnow, 1978; Foster, 2004). Gossip tends to involve what others do and their place within a group (Carrim, 2016). Some scholars regard gossip as a discussion that takes place in the presence of the target (Rosnow & Fine, 1976), and other researchers define the act as taking place in the absence of the target (Besnier, 1989). With the increase of research on the topic of office gossip, the term has been theorized in diverse ways, causing misunderstandings across contexts and studies

1 Office Gossip and Minorities

3

(Dores Cruz et al., 2021). However, the majority of studies define office gossip as communication between senders, receivers and targets (Altunta¸s et al., 2014; Carrim, 2016; Dores Cruz et al., 2021). Moreover, the definitions also point out that gossip occurs in the absence of the target (Carrim, 2019; Ellwardt et al., 2012a, 2012b). Thus, office gossip is defined as communication between a gossiper to a gossippee about an absent target (Dores Cruz et al., 2021; Smith, 2014; Kanteti, 2015).

1.3 Nature of Gossip Much research has been conducted regarding workplace gossip in recent years (Farley et al., 2010; Grosser et al., 2010; Kanteti, 2015). Most of the research conducted on office gossip has focused on malicious gossip experienced by employees (McAndrew, 2014). Malicious gossip focuses on gossip that is intended to hurt another individual (Kiss et al., 2014; McAndrew, 2014; Smith, 2014). Some research has been conducted on positive gossip which assists in facilitating group membership and information transmission (Kuo et al., 2015). Past research indicates that women as a marginalized group have been targets of malicious gossip (Crothers, et al., 2009; McAndrew, 2014). However, there is an opinion that women as a marginalized group are also viewed as the main source of gossip (Crothers et al., 2009; McAndrew, 2014). In his study, Kanteti (2015) was able to prove that female employees between the ages of 41–55 years gossip more than male employees. Women use gossip as a mechanism to confirm their power in an organization (Farley et al., 2010). Shallcross et al. (2013) also stated that women in most cases are more likely to spread acts of mobbing, especially to other women. There are however diverse groups of marginalized employees that become targets of office gossip. However, the literature is silent on these groups. For example, Carrim (2016) conducted a study on Black African men and women who were targets of negative gossip in predominantly white-majority organizations. Another study that recently focused on office gossip and has made some contributions to management studies by focusing on managers as minorities indicated that employees’ gossip related to managers was positive (Ellwardt et al., 2012a, 2012b; Kniffin & Wilson, 2010). Despite the importance and ubiquitous nature of positive and negative gossip for organizations and employees, limited research has been conducted on who the objects of gossip are, especially for those who are part of formal work groups and those in informal social status groups who may interact in an informal manner. Nevertheless, research on marginalized employees related to office gossip is still lacking. This book therefore takes both positive and negative elements of office gossip as it relates to marginalized employees.

4

N. M. H. Carrim

1.4 Theory Office gossip has been studied from various theoretical frameworks. For example, Carrim (2016) used Social Identity and Contact theories when investigating marginalized employees. Some of the theories used in other research on office gossip include, for example, focus theory (Ravi Shankar et al., 2019), social exchange theory (Bashir et al., 2020), conservation of resource theory (Liu et al., 2020), attribution theory (Lee & Barnes, 2021) and social learning theory (Bai et al., 2019). There are many other theories that have been used by organizational theorists in exploring the phenomenon of office gossip. The study of this phenomenon thus lacks an overarching theory, making it a flexible phenomenon to investigate. Sun et al. (2022) argue that in the absence of a unifying theory, researchers of office gossip do not know what they are aware of and what they do not know, thus making theoretical progress very difficult.

1.5 Aim of the Book and Brief Chapter Outlines There is a lot of potential in exploring diverse topics in the field of office gossip. One area that this book fills is the experiences of some marginalized employees in the workplace. The current book has explored the experiences of many marginalized employees in the workplace. The aim is to unpack their experiences and build on the field. The aim of the book is therefore to create awareness in managers, human resource practitioners and studies on the impact of office gossip on marginalized employees. This chapter provides a brief introduction to the concept of office gossip. Chapter 2 focuses on the experiences of Black Africa, white, colored and Indian male and female racial groups’ experiences regarding office gossip. The chapter compares and contrasts their experiences and highlights that their experiences differ. Chapter 3 explores the experiences of employees in the Saudi Arabian context. The authors explore the reluctance of employees to engage in office gossip. Chapter 4 highlights the experiences of employees in a fast-paced work environment. The study draws attention to the fact that even in such an environment where there is very little time for employees to engage in gossip, this phenomenon still takes place. Chapter 5 deals with the experiences of Black African managers and how they deal with office gossip. In many organizations, Black African managers are still a marginalized group within the South African context. Chapter 6 points to the experiences of gays and lesbians and how they have been targeted in certain South African organizations. The chapter underscores how they handle being targets of gossip and how they overcome negative gossip in their respective workplaces.

1 Office Gossip and Minorities

5

Chapter 7 features the experiences of foreign employees. Foreign employees claim that they have not been the targets of office gossip and their experiences have been positive within South African workplaces. Chapter 8 highlights the positive aspects of gossip in an academic setting. The authors point out that not all gossip is negative after all. Chapter 9 focuses on dog trainers who are rarely found in formal organizational settings and their experiences of office gossip. The study spotlights how dogs together with their trainers are impacted by office gossip. Chapter 10 stresses the negative impact of office gossip on an underrepresented group of sportswomen. The chapter highlights how they cope with being targets of gossip. Chapter 11 focuses on envy and jealousy as it relates to office gossip in the workplace. The chapter narrates the stories of three marginalized employees in diverse workplace sectors and their experiences of office gossip from envious and jealous colleagues. Chapter 12 focuses on office gossip and suggests a model for researching and dealing with this phenomenon in the workplace.

References Altunta¸s, S., Altun, O. S., & Akyil, R. C. (2014). The nurses’ form of organizational communication: What is the role of gossip? Contemporary Nurse, 48(1), 109–116. Bai, Y., Wang, J., Chen, T., & Li, F. (2019, July). Learning from supervisor negative gossip: The reflective learning process. In Academy of Management Proceedings (2019(1), pp. 16331). Academy of Management. Bashir, M., Shabbir, R., Saleem, S., Abrar, M., Saqib, S., & Gill, S. H. (2020). Job-related and nonjobrelated gossips among low-ranked employees in unionized service organization. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 994–1023. Besnier, N. (1989). Information withholding as a manipulative and collusive strategy in Nukulaelae gossip. Language in Society, 18(3), 315–341. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Carrim, N. (2016). ‘Shh…quiet! Here they come.’ black employees as targets of office gossip. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(2), 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2016.116 3912 Carrim, N. M. H. (2019). Minorities experiences of workplace gossip. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45(1), 1–10. Crothers, L., Lipinkski, J., & Minutolo, M. (2009). Clique, rumours and gossip by the water cooler: Female bullying in the workplace. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12(2), 97–110. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10887150902886423 Dores Cruz, T. D., Nieper, A. S., Testori, M., Martinescu, E., & Beersma, B. (2021). An integrative definition and framework to study gossip. Group & Organization Management, 46(2), 252–285. Eckert, P. (1990). Cooperative competition in adolescent “girl talk.” Discourse Processes, 13(1), 91–122. Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G., & Wittek, R. (2012a). Who are the objects of positive and negative gossip at work? A social network perspective on workplace gossip. Social Networks, 34(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.11.003

6

N. M. H. Carrim

Ellwardt, L., Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (2012b). Talking about the boss: Effects of generalized and interpersonal trust on workplace gossip. Group & Organization Management, 37(4), 521–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112450607 Farley, S. D., Timme, D. R., & Hart, J. W. (2010). On coffee talk and break-room chatter: Perceptions of women who gossip in the workplace. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(4), 361–368. Fine, G. A., & Rosnow, R. L. (1978). Gossip, gossipers, gossiping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 161–168. Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 78–99. Gilmore, D. (1978). Varieties of gossip in a Spanish rural community. Ethnology, 17(1), 89–99. Grosser, T., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A social network analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group & Organization Management, 35(2), 177–212. Kanteti, V. (2015). Demographic differences in workplace gossiping behaviour in organizations-an empirical study on employees in SMEs. Asia Pacific Journal of Research, 1(34), 72–76. Kiss, P., De Meester, M., Kristensen, T., & Braeckman, K. (2014). Relationships of organizational social capital with the presence of “gossip and slander”, “quarrels and conflicts”, sick leave, and poor work anility in nursing homes. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 87(8), 929–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-014-0937-6 Kluckhohn, C., & Mowrer, O. H. (1944). Culture and Personality: A conceptual scheme. American Anthropologist, 46, 1–29. Kniffin, K. M., & Wilson, D. S. (2010). Evolutionary perspectives on workplace gossip: Why and how gossip can serve groups? Group & Organization Management, 35(2), 150–176. Kuo, C. C., Chang, K., Quinton, S., Lu, C. Y., & Lee, I. (2015). Gossip in the workplace and the implications for HR management: A study of gossip and its relationship to employee cynicism. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(18), 2288–2307. Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 428–438. Lee, S. H., & Barnes, C. M. (2021). An attributional process model of workplace gossip. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 300–326. Liu, X. Y., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2020). Introverts maintain creativity: A resource depletion model of negative workplace gossip. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(1), 325–344. McAndrew, F. (2014). The “sword of a woman”: Gossip and female aggression. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 19(3), 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.006 Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. (2004). Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning, antecedents and consequences of rumour and gossip in organisations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9(3), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280410551114 Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(1), 23–36. Paine, R. (1967). What is gossip about? An alternative hypothesis. Man, 2(2), 278–285. Rosnow, R. L., & Fine, G. A. (1976). Rumor and gossip: The social psychology of hearsay. Elsevier. Ravi Shankar, A., Fernandez-Marquez, J. L., Pernici, B., Scalia, G., Mondardini, M. R., & Di Marzo Serugendo, G. (2019). Crowd4Ems: A crowdsourcing platform for gathering and geolocating social media content in disaster response. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 42, 331–340. Shallcross, L., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Severe workplace conflict: The experience of mobbing. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(3), 191–213. https://doi.org/10. 1111/ncmr.12011 Smith, E. (2014). Evil acts and malicious gossip: A multiagent model of the effects of gossip in socially distributed person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(4), 311–325. Spacks, P. M. (1982). In praise of gossip. The Hudson Review, 35(1), 19–38. St. John, E. (1969). Private life and public office. The Australian Quarterly, 41(2), 28–40.

1 Office Gossip and Minorities

7

Sun, T., Schilpzand, P., & Liu, Y. (2022). Workplace gossip: An integrative review of its antecedents, functions, and consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1–21 https://doi.org/10.1002/ job.2653 Tebbutt, M. (1995). Women’s talk? A social history of “gossip” in working-class neighbourhoods, 1880–1960. Scolar Press. Triandis, H. C., Vassiliou, V., & Thomanek, E. K. (1966). Social status as a determinant of respect and friendship acceptance. Sociometry, 396–405. Waddington, K., & Michelson, G. (2007). Analysing gossip to reveal and understand power relationships, political action and reaction to change inside organisations. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference in Critical Management Studies, Manchester, 11–13 July. Manchester Business School. Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 122–137.

Nasima M. H. Carrim is an Associate Professor at the Department of Human Resource Management at the University of Pretoria. Her research focuses on gender in management, culture, religion and minorities in the workplace from an intersectionality and identity perspective. She has published research in international and South African journals. She has also published chapters in international books. She has also co-authored the first South African textbook entitled Managing Diversity in the South African workplace. In 2017, Prof. Carrim received the 2016 Best Junior Researcher in Management Sciences in the Economic and Management Sciences Faculty at the University of Pretoria. Prof. Carrim is a C2 NRF-rated researcher. She is the Chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Interest group at the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology in South Africa (SIOPSA). She is also the chair for the Diversity and Inclusion committee at the Economic and Management Sciences Faculty at the University of Pretoria. She is on the Editorial Review Board of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) journal as well as the Section Editor for the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP).

Chapter 2

A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model for Studying Workplace Gossip Kirk Chang

Abstract Drawing on multi-disciplinary literature, the current chapter provides a conceptual review of workplace gossip and contributes to the literature in four specific ways. Firstly, we argue that workplace gossip should be separated from general gossip in the literature, and we develop an integrative conceptual model to support the argument. Secondly, we examine the similarities and differences among major workplace gossip constructs. We analyze five emerging types of workplace gossip and explain their unique characteristics. Thirdly, we examine both empirical and literature-based studies that have been conducted on gossip. We then develop a conceptual model that integrates the important characteristics of the gossipers, victims, moderators, mediators, and consequences of workplace gossip. Finally, we critically discuss the important areas where future research may be needed. It is our hope that this chapter provides an in-depth look at the phenomenon of workplace gossip and inspires future research. Implications of the research findings are informative to the personnel management, helping reduce the problems associated with workplace gossip too.

2.1 Introduction Gossip seems trivial and unattended in the workplace, but this viewpoint has started to change. Virtually, all employees find themselves involved with gossip in different ways, such as producing, hearing, and otherwise participating in evaluative comments about someone who is absent from the conversation (Ellwardt et al., 2012a, 2012b; Kuo et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2022). Workplace gossip has been described as idle talk about other colleagues who are not present at the scene (Chang & Kuo, 2021), and we argue that workplace gossip is more prevalent than most imagine. Cole and Dalton (2009) claim that up to 14% of the work chats (e.g., coffee break chats) is actually gossip, and roughly 66% of general conversion between colleagues is related K. Chang (B) University of East London, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 N. M. H. Carrim (ed.), Office Gossip and Minority Employees in the South African Workplace, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2691-6_2

9

10

K. Chang

to social topics concerning talk about other employees; although not always precise, workplace gossip provides employees a channel of informal communication and knowledge sharing. Given that workplace gossip results in dysfunctional outcomes for employees and their organizations (Fan & Dawson, 2021; Grosser et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2015), research in the realm of workplace gossip has gradually increased in the last decade. A variety of umbrella terms, such as gossip valence (Grosser et al., 2010), group gossip (Ben-Ze’ev, 1994), gossip evolution (Ellwardt et al., 2012a, 2012b), gossip power (Kurland & Pelled, 2000), peer communication (Ditmarsch et al., 2020), sensemaking gossip (Fan & Dawson, 2021), negative gossip (Babalola et al., 2019), gossip triad and distance (Michelson et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2022), and job-related gossip (Kuo et al., 2015) have been used to reference the overarching construct comprised of various forms of workplace gossip. Although prior studies have brought valuable insights into gossip, the understanding of gossiping behavior and its consequence to employees and their organizations remains unclear (Spoelma & Hetrick, 2021; Wu et al., 2018). Although previous research has made advances to gossip literature, we lack a unifying conceptual model that depicts the antecedents, consequences, moderators, and processes involved in workplace gossip. For the same reason, researchers have begun to voice concerns about the definitional, conceptual, and measurement overlap of key constructs in workplace gossip research (e.g., Grosser et al., 2012; Kurland & Pelled, 2000; Spoelma & Hetrick, 2021; Wu et al., 2018). Despite some nuanced differences, the current research argues that the process by which workplace gossip arises and impacts employees and their organizations is fundamentally the same. Therefore, the current research aims to make a contribution by critically examining the conceptual and empirical studies on the antecedents and consequences of workplace gossip, and by developing an integrative conceptual model that organizes previous research and provides researchers with a launching point for future research.

2.1.1 The Development of a Process Model Given the abundance of overlapping constructs that fall under the broad notion of workplace gossip, the primary goal of our conceptual model is to integrate existing research. Our integrative conceptual model illustrates the major factors and the overarching process of workplace gossip, regardless of the specific form the gossip takes. As shown in Fig. 2.1, this model lays out the process through which gossiping behaviors occur and ultimately impact employees, work groups, and their organizations. We begin with an overview of environmental factors and managerial factors. We prudently examine the aforementioned factors and explain how these factors turn into the antecedents of workplace gossip; we also discuss various gossiping constructs and identify sub-constructs of workplace gossip by considering their valence, job

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model … Gossiper’s views

11

Victim’s views

Consequences Antecedents Environmental factors *. Instrumental ties *. Expressive ties *. Structural embeddedness Managerial factors *. Psychological contract violation *. Abusive supervision *. Competent employees

Workplace gossip (Sub-constructs) *. Generic workplace gossip *. Job-related-gossip *. Job-unrelated-gossip *. Manager’s positive gossip *. Manager’s negative gossip

Mediators *. Victim’s self-esteem *. Victim’s commitment towards gossiper *. Victim’s relationship with manager

Levels and Consequences *. Individual level *. Work-group level *. Organizational level Valence and Consequences *. Positive outcomes *. Negative outcomes

Moderators Character-specific moderators *. Credibility of gossiper *. Job-relatedness Context-specific moderators *. Work ethos *. Gossiper-listener interaction

Fig. 2.1 An integrative conceptualization of workplace gossip and its consequences

relevance, and manager’s engagement. Views from gossiper(s) and victim(s) are compiled and analyzed. Next, although we focus on the overall process of workplace gossip, we argue that the distinctive features of various gossip constructs may affect how gossiping behaviors develop and the outcomes that follow. Thus, we review the literature to identify moderating factors that affect workplace gossip, as well as mediating processes that help to explain how workplace gossip occurs. Finally, we examine organizational and individual outcomes as results of workplace gossip. It is our hope that this integrative conceptual model provides a better understanding of the process by which gossiping behaviors arise in the workplace and the outcomes that can follow. In the next sections, we first explain our philosophy underlying the model development. We then examine the various conceptualizations of workplace gossip and proceed to discuss the model in more detail.

2.1.2 Philosophy of the Model Development Two model-development approaches have drawn our attention. These are linear approach and convergence approach. The former favors a step-by-step style in addressing the relationship of research variables, whereas the latter prefers an interactive style in explaining the relevance of research factors (Pearce et al., 1984; Rogers & Kincaid, 1981). Our observation is that a linear approach tends to adopt a sequential style in analysis, so its interpretation is often left-to-right or one-way oriented. Different from the linear approach, a convergence approach focuses on the interplay of research factors, so its interpretation is usually narrative and multi-phased. As both approaches have their merits, therefore, we propose a hybrid approach to build up the current research model, with the following rationale.

12

K. Chang

To begin with, the linear approach has its constraint, as the gossiper–victim relationship is not always straightforward and one-way oriented (cf. see social-networkoriented gossip in Ellwardt et al., 2012a; Grosser et al., 2010). We are also concerned about the convergence approach, as its analytic scope could be immense and difficult to follow; likewise, the practical value may be compromised if the scope of analysis is indefinite (Smeltzer & Leonard, 1994). Second, a hybrid approach has the capacity to accommodate diverse perspectives (Pearce et al., 1984), which is imperative to the current research; to be exact, we plan to discuss gossip from both the gossiper’s and victim’s viewpoints, and under different environmental conditions. We plan to adopt a sequential route to explain the components of gossiping behavior, such as gossiper, content of gossip, moderator, mediator, and victim. Finally, Rogers and Kincaid (1981) indicate that a hybrid approach helps balance the simplicity of the linear approach with the complexity of the convergence approach. Our model merges the merits of linear- and convergence approaches. Like linear models, our model lays out the process through which gossiping behaviors occur and ultimately impact employees, work groups, and their organizations. Moreover, with our model we improve on traditional linear models by paying more attention to the different roles of gossiper and victim, which are often ignored in gossip-related studies. Like convergence models, our model focuses on the construct of various types of workplace gossip, explaining when antecedents form gossip, how gossips affect employees/organization, and how these effects are moderated or mediated by other factors. With our model, more importantly, we are keen to advance the literature by clarifying the interplay between gossiper and victim, which is found to be important to the formation as well as interpretation of workplace gossip. Overall, it is our hope that our hybrid approach addresses enough components, so that mangers can relate their experiences and practices to the model, providing good insights into the gossip management.

2.1.3 The History and Construct of Workplace Gossip The word gossip originates from Old English, assuming the meaning of a person, mostly a woman, who delights in idle talk. Yet, the definition of gossip is constantly evolving, and there is no clear consensus on females’ tendency to gossip engagement (see review in Dunbar, 2004). Gossip has an unpleasant history. Take the fourteenth century for example, Britain had laws against gossiping behavior and sanctioned gossiper severely (Emler, 1994); and until the sixteenth century, gossip was still regarded as newsmonger and tattler (Ben-Ze’ev, 1994). Serendipitously, the religions also warn against gossip in their doctrines, for instance: Gossip stopped by the wise (Xunzi, Da-Lue: BC168); Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (Ten Commandments, Exodus: 20–16); and,

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model …

13

Do not concern yourself with things about which you have no knowledge: Verily, your hearing, sight, and heart – all of them will be called to account (Qur’an: 17–36).

Although Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam have different interpretations of gossip, they all convey a message that gossiping is not encouraged, as people shall validate their sources of information and not engage in conjecture. Perhaps for the same reason, gossiping behavior has often been the victim of various punishments, such as social condemnation and penalties (Dunbar, 2004). Despite the dark history of gossip, however, the evaluation of gossip seems to have changed recently. Scholars have started to re-evaluate the construct of gossip and divided gossip into two broad categories. These are general gossip and workplace gossip. Both general gossip and workplace gossip are informal forms of communication, but they differ in nature. Compared to general gossip, workplace gossip is more valence-specific. For instance, Chang and Kuo (2021) indicate that a manager’s positive gossip is related to a subordinate’s commitment to the manager, revealing the merits of a manager’s positive gossip. From the social network perspective (Ellwardt et al., 2012a; Spoelma & Hetrick, 2021), human beings are a social species, and their behaviors often operate in the principle of reciprocity. Thus, when managers recognize their subordinates through positive gossip (which contains a sense of positiveness and appreciation), subordinates know that they are valued and respected by managers. Chang and Kuo (2021) also advise that, following the reciprocal principle, subordinates may thank for manager’s recognition by offering support and good interaction in return, such as demonstrating commitment toward managers; in contrast, a manager’s negative gossip does not contain any sense of recognition, so there is no motive for subordinates to act reciprocally. Compared to general gossip, workplace gossip is more context-oriented and pertinent to the job. For instance, Kuo et al. (2015) examine gossip’s influence by comparing job-related gossip (e.g., performance-related gossip) against jobunrelated gossip (e.g., family-related gossip). They discover that only job-related gossip affects employees’ perceptions and behavior in the workplace. According to their analysis, job-related gossip is greatly associated with job characteristics, colleagues, and the organization, and all these associations are related to employees’ perception at work (for instance, am I being treated fairly, am I satisfied with the job, and do I receive sufficient support from my manager?), which in turn influences employees’ behavior. Interestingly, scholars have also found that employees tend to regard job-unrelated gossip as a trivial thing (or simply ignore it), so its influence on behavior remains relatively low (Kuo et al., 2015). Compared to general gossip, workplace gossip is more victim-specific. General gossip is disseminated in the absence of the victim, making it difficult if not impossible for the victim to identify its source (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). General gossip often has a broad construct, and the distance between gossiper and victim is usually unidentifiable (Foster, 2004). However, workplace gossip tends to have a much clearer gossiper–victim relationship and closer distance, because both parties are sharing the same social network (Ellwardt et al., 2012a, 2012b). Following this

14

K. Chang

logic, our proposition is that workplace gossip is traceable, as the shared environment usually has explicit boundaries (e.g., a building, an office), and its membership is usually fixed (e.g., a department has three teams, or a team has five members). With explicit boundaries and fixed membership, we believe that the victims are more likely to locate the source of gossip. Additionally, scholars have attempted to link workplace gossip to three contextual conditions. These are (i) Privacy-proof (Noon & Delbridge, 1993): When privacyproof is provided, workplace gossip may emerge. Employees may not engage in gossiping if they cannot avoid accountability; yet, when privacy-proof becomes available, gossip is more likely to develop in the workplace; (ii) Frames of reference (Kurland & Pelled, 2000): Colleagues from the same workplace are likely to exchange and share with each other’s values. They may share similar frames of reference or develop similarities in their thinking styles. Following this logic, when the conformity between employees is developed and their consensus forms, the likelihood of workplace gossip engagement may rise; and, (iii) Level of socializing (Rosnow, 2001): Only when two or more colleagues have formed a congenial relationship via socializing is gossip more likely to occur; in contrast, when the level of socializing is scarce, workplace gossip barely occurs. In view of what has preceded, we have learnt that workplace gossip is unique and different from general gossip, and that workplace gossip should be separated from general gossip in the literature. There is also a need to clarify the role of workplace gossip and understand its influence on employees, managers, and their organizations. Following this logic, we have therefore integrated prior studies by reviewing their main arguments in Table 2.1, in which general gossip and workplace gossip demonstrate unique constructs and characteristics, respectively. For the sake of clarity and research purposes, we have categorized general gossip into three subconstructs (i.e., generic gossip, negative gossip, and positive gossip), and workplace gossip into five sub-constructs (i.e., generic workplace gossip, job-related gossip, job-unrelated gossip, manager’s positive gossip, and manager’s negative gossip; we understand such categorization may not satisfy all perspectives, so we will review its implication and limitation later on). As presented in Table 2.1, general gossip tends to have surreptitious and negative connotations, whereas workplace gossip seems more balanced, enclosing both positive and negative connotations. General gossip has a wider and abstract construct, whereas workplace gossip is often valence-specific, context-oriented, victim-specific, and subject to contextual conditions. Finally, we would like to propose a concise and precise definition of workplace gossip, as it benefits the model development and supports readers’ understanding of our model. As such, we have consolidated previous definitions of gossip (e.g., Chang & Kuo, 2021; Ellwardt et al., 2012a, 2012b; Kurland & Pelled, 2000) and defined workplace gossip as an idle talk between colleagues, because it occurs when one colleague engages in informal and evaluative communication with other colleague(s) about the absent colleague(s). Following the newly developed definition of workplace gossip, this article now turns to discussing its potential antecedents.

Workplace gossip

Broad construct Causes embarrassment and discomfort to gossip victims and ruins victims’ reputation Releases pent-up emotions

Negative gossip: A sensitive and stealthy form of gossip (Dunbar, 2004), which requires expressive ties for its transmission (Babalola et al., 2019; Grosser et al., 2010)

Subordinates oriented, which implies a sense of recognition to subordinates Maintains job satisfaction and enforces group values

Manager’s positive gossip: Manager’s positive gossip is a form of workplace gossip that contains positiveness and appreciation (Chang & Kuo, 2021)

(continued)

Context-specific gossip in the workplace Could be positive, negative or neutral in nature Gossip triad affects the outcome of gossiping behavior Excludes gossip that occurs outside the organization or workplace

Generic workplace gossip: An informal and evaluative talk in an organization, usually among no more than a few individuals, about another member of that organization who is not present (Kurland & Pelled, 2000) Gossip depends on the interaction across gossiper, listener and target. (Gossip triad: Michelson et al., 2010)

Positive gossip: Broad construct A content-positive and less sensitive form of gossip, which can be easily transmitted via social Fosters interpersonal intimacy network (Ellwardt et al., 2019; Fan & Dawson, 2021; Grosser et al., 2012) Provides intellectual stimulation Communicates information

Abstract construct Negative connotation (e.g., vicious, subjective, improper and malicious outcomes) Unwelcomed by religious writings

General gossip: Idle chatter, chi-chat and evil tongue (Bok, 1984; Gluckman, 1963); The distance between gossiper and target is usually unidentifiable (Foster, 2004; Sun et al., 2022)

General gossip

Distinguishing characteristics

Sub-construct

Construct

Table 2.1 Constructs comparison: General gossip versus workplace gossip

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model … 15

Construct

Distinguishing characteristics Subordinates oriented, which implies a sense of unrecognition to subordinates Decreases self-esteem at work and reduces job satisfaction Context-specific and job-related gossip Stimulates employee cynicism and mediates employee’s perception of psychological contract violation Workplace oriented but not-job-oriented gossip, which does not produce negative influence on employee’s experience and behavior in the workplace

Sub-construct

Manager’s negative gossip: Manager’s negative is a form of workplace gossip that encloses negativeness and depreciation (Chang & Kuo, 2021)

Job-related-gossip: Gossip occurs at work and the nature of gossip is job related (Kuo et al., 2015)

Jon-unrelated-gossip: Gossip occurs at work but the nature of gossip is not job related (Kuo et al., 2015)

Table 2.1 (continued)

16 K. Chang

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model …

17

2.2 Antecedents of Workplace Gossip Workplace gossip is ubiquitous in all kinds of organizations, and scholars are keen to investigate how and why it occurs (e.g., Brady et al., 2017; Fan & Dawson, 2021; McAndrew et al., 2007; Michelson et al., 2010). To continue this line of research, the current research therefore conducts a critical review of gossip-themed literature (e.g., Chang et al., 2021; Ditmarsch et al., 2020; Grosser et al., 2010; Kuo et al., 2015; Lincoln & Miller, 1979; Sun et al., 2022). We first analyze gossiping antecedents and discuss their potential influence in the context of the workplace. Next, we scrutinize the overlap and distinctiveness among a variety of antecedents; specifically, we rearrange antecedents into two categories, subject to their characteristics. Antecedents that are included in our review are based on two criteria: (a) they must fall under our definition of workplace gossip, and (b) they must have been recognized as gossip antecedents by other researchers. These two categories are labeled as environmental factors and managerial factors, respectively. Finally, we discuss the characteristics of these factors and explain how factors become antecedents of workplace gossip. Details follow.

2.2.1 Environmental Factors We identify three factors in this category. These are expressive ties, instrumental ties, and structural embeddedness. This chapter now turns to explaining the factors and their characteristics. The social relationship of the employees matters, as it plays a crucial role in shaping people’s attitudes and behaviors (Ellwardt et al., 2012a, 2012b). Yet, scholars have different views about such relationships, and two particular views have drawn our attention. These are expressive ties and instrumental ties. The former involves a commitment to the other person, arising perhaps out of friendship, kinship, shared similarity, or feelings of love, whereas the latter involves cooperation merely in order to achieve shared goals (Umphress et al., 2003). More specifically, instrumental ties are often formed between colleagues, aiming to deliver common goals, such as organizational targets. Once the goals are achieved, instrumental ties fade out (Zagenczyk et al., 2008). Compared to instrumental ties, expressive ties last longer and remain stronger, as their development contains both social and emotional components; expressive ties exist outside the workplace and help to explain why colleagues may still gather together for social activities after work (Lincoln & Miller, 1979; Sun et al., 2022). In a similar vein, Grosser et al. (2010) indicate that expressive ties (e.g., the expressive friendship ties between one employee and another) are correlated with both positive and negative gossip; yet, instrumental ties (e.g., the instrumental workflow ties between one worker and another) are only correlated with positive gossip.

18

K. Chang

Additionally, structural embeddedness is like a measure of overlapped social relationships and cohesiveness between two individuals, such as two co-workers. According to Scott and Marshall (2015), structural embeddedness can be seen as a degree of shared interpersonal relationships between one person and another, and it facilitates communication, common goals, trust, and cohesion between the pair. Take the context of friendship for example, friends who share a high degree of structural embeddedness (i.e., friends who have many mutual friends in common) should share an additional layer of trust, because their relationship is embedded in a broader web of friendship. Similarly, scholars claim that colleagues with high levels of structural embeddedness are correlated with more engagement in negative gossip; that is, structural embeddedness offers trust and cohesion between the colleagues, so they feel more confident in the gossip engagement (Fan & Dawson, 2021; Grosser et al., 2010).

2.2.2 Managerial Factors This category includes three factors. These are psychological contract violation, abusive supervision, and competent subordinates. This chapter now turns to explaining the factors and their characteristics. Psychological contracts can be seen as employees’ perception of what they should contribute to the organization, and what they could receive in return, namely an unwritten set of expectations of the employment relationship (Robbins & Judge, 2012). Rousseau (1995) defines psychological contract as an individual’s beliefs, shaped by the organization regarding the terms of an exchange between an individual and the organization. As the perception of a psychological contract is subjective and related to the management policies, the organization and employees may interpret the contract dissimilarly; thus, should any dissimilarity emerge, one party may easily believe that the other has violated the terms of the contract and the outcomes could be damaging to both parties (Robinson, 1996). Robinson and Morrison (2000) describe this phenomenon as a psychological contract violation and list several sample outcomes, for instance, poor manager–subordinate interaction, reduced job satisfaction, low organizational commitment, and less citizenship behavior. Similarly, when the organization (e.g., policy makers and managers) violates its obligations, employees may feel frustrated and behave against the organization, in which employees use gossip to vent out their negative feelings about the organization (Kuo et al., 2015). The second factor is abusive supervision. Different from the psychological contract violation that is related to an evaluation of the organization, abusive supervision is more related to personal experience and perception toward immediate managers, such as team leaders and line managers. Tepper (2000) defines abusive supervision as sustained displays of non-physical forms of hostility perpetrated by managers against their direct subordinates, and sample cases include, public derogation, undermining, threatening, and explosive outbursts. Scholars also indicate that,

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model …

19

when abusive supervision occurs, subordinates may denigrate their organizations and refrain from pro-social behavior (Zellars et al., 2002). Abusive supervision causes employees both stress and disappointment; consequently, employees use gossip to cope with their negative emotions and feelings about their organizations (Kuo et al., 2015). The third factor is pertinent to competent employees. Competent employees are great assets to the organization, as they facilitate teamwork and contribute to organizational success (Robbins & Judge, 2012). Although competent employees are well respected and valued by the organization, a different viewpoint has emerged. Compared to the average employees, competent employees experience more job stress and poorer workplace relationship (Ismail & Abidin, 2010), as well as more covert forms of victimization from colleagues (Jensen et al., 2014). Scholars interpret this phenomenon through different perspectives, such as social comparison (Dai & Xiao, 2016), threats to career opportunities (Ismail & Abidin, 2010), and ostracism (Ferris et al., 2015). Following this logic, we argue that employee competence may cause gossip, and two studies have offered preliminary credence to our argument. Firstly, during the appraisal of employee performance, Grosser et al. (2010) discover that a manager’s evaluation is negatively related to an employee’s gossiping activity, i.e., a manager’s negative evaluation is related to more employee gossiping activity. Secondly, some managers regard subordinates’ competence as a challenger and thus develop a feeling of insecurity about their career opportunities, which then converts into the motive for ostracizing competent subordinates. Consequently, the subordinates who feel ostracized by managers show less commitment and confidence in the workplace, engaging in negative gossip about their managers (Chang et al., 2021). To sum up, scholars have proposed diverse perspectives to analyze the precursors of workplace gossip, and their findings have enriched the understanding of gossiping behavior; based on our literature review, we also have learnt that both environmental and managerial factors are potential gossip antecedents, and that their unique characteristics are important to the formation of workplace gossip. To continue this line of research, we now turn to discuss workplace gossip from both gossipers’ and victims’ views.

2.3 Views of Workplace Gossip: Gossiper Versus Victim Scholars propose that gossiper and victim may view gossip differently, and whether gossip is severe depends on who evaluates it (Burt & Knez, 1996; Ditmarsch et al., 2020). Although this view is plausible, there is a paucity of empirical research that investigates the perception of gossip in the workplace context (see exception in Wu et al., 2018). Following this line of research, therefore, we are keen to analyze how gossipers and victims interpret gossip. In order to ensure the clarity of analysis, we adopt Kurland and Pelled’s (2000) analytic framework. To our knowledge, such framework is the most applicable and relevant to the current research, as it not only

20

K. Chang

discusses the context of the workplace but also describes the interaction between gossiper and victim. Specifically, Kurland and Pelled argue that workplace gossip can be very serious depending upon the amount of power that the gossiper has over the victim, which in turn affects how the gossip is interpreted. Kurland and Pelled’s argument is developed from French and Raven’s (1959) typology of power, in which five specific types of power are identified between one individual (whom we label X) and another individual (whom we label Y). These types are (i) Reward power is the power that emerges from Y’s belief that X can provide him or her with the desired outcomes; (ii) Coercive power is the power that emerges from Y’s belief that X has the ability to punish him or her; (iii) Expert power is the power that emerges from Y’s belief that X has special knowledge or expertise that Y needs; (iv) Referent power is the power that emerges from Y’s attraction for and desire to be associated with X; and, finally, (v) Legitimate power is the power that emerges from Y’s perception that X has a legitimate right, based on their position in the organization, to influence him or her. However, the current research does not adopt legitimate power to analyze the gossip–power relationship, because legitimate power is based on hierarchical status (such as ranks of position; French & Raven, 1959), which does not help explain the gossiper–victim interaction. Therefore, we believe it is sensible to exclude legitimate power from the analysis and discussion. Based on Kurland and Pelled’s framework, we have reviewed different the literature and summarized our findings in Table 2.2, with the following two steps. Firstly, we adopt the aforementioned framework to link four types of power to diverse gossip scenarios. By doing so, we can understand how power difference affects gossipers and victims. Secondly, for each scenario, we analyze the views of the gossiper and victim, respectively. By doing so, we can observe the interplay between gossipers and victims in the workplace. With these two steps in mind, we are keen to understand the views of workplace gossip, particularly in the eyes of gossipers and victims. Table 2.2 has presented three important messages. These are (i) gossipers and victims tend to interpret workplace gossip differently, so the outcome of gossip often differs. In the eyes of a victim, the valence of workplace gossip decides the outcome, i.e., positive workplace gossip brings benefits to the victim, whereas negative workplace gossip damages the victim. Yet, in the eyes of a gossiper, the valence and benefits are irrelevant; (ii) workplace gossip manipulates the power distribution between gossiper and victim; to be exact, positive workplace gossip increases the gossiper’s reward power over the victim, negative workplace gossip increases the gossiper’s coercive power over the victim, and generic gossip in the workplace enhances gossiper’s expert power over the victim; and, finally, (iii) the outcome of workplace gossip may depend on social circles and gossiper’s identity. For instance, if the work ethos is against gossip, workplace gossip may rarely occur. If a gossiper talks gossip all the time, the impact of gossip on the victim may become limited. Overall, the findings in Table 2.2 have brought new insights into the workplace gossip literature, clarifying the views of gossipers and victims. The findings also help explain how different variables affect gossip directly. Having said this, however, we shall not underestimate the impact of indirect variables on workplace gossip. As such,

When gossiper tells negative information of victim to the third party, victim Negative gossip at work has assumes that gossiper may spread negative information about himself/herself implicit threats of negative as well information against victim Negative workplace gossip increases gossiper’s coercive power over victim

When gossiper possesses crucial or exclusive knowledge to the organization, victim assumes that gossiper may help facilitate information exchange, e.g., sharing information of the organization, work environment, employees or other aspects of organizational business Generic workplace gossip enhances gossiper’s expert power over victim

Whether workplace gossip affects gossiper and victim depends on the following situations: Social circles: When gossiper and victim share different social circles (e.g., different branches), gossiper’s referent power may increase; yet, when gossiper and victim share different social circles (e.g., same department), gossiper’s referent power may increase slightly but remains unchanged when victim starts to resent gossiper; Gossiper’s identity: When gossiper talks incessantly about others in the workplace, the gossip’s influence remains limited. That is, gossiper is seen as a yenta (big-mouth), and his/her gossiping behavior is regarded as time-wasting and unethical. Gossiper’s referent power may decrease along with his/her reputation

Coercive power

Expert power

Referent power

Victim’s view

Whether workplace gossip affects victim depends on the work ethos and ethical standpoint (or policy) in the organization

Gossiper is seen as a source of information, as he/she has sufficient knowledge of workplace (e.g., business, clients or colleagues)

Note Table 2.2 has consulted the following references: Ben-Ze’ev (1994), Brady et al., (2017), Burt and Knez (1996), Chang and Kuo (2021), Ditmarsch et al., (2020), Dunbar (2004), Ellwardt et al., (2012a, 2012b), Emler (1994), Fan and Dawson (2021), French and Raven (1959), Grosser et al., (2010, 2012), Heath (1994), Kurland and Pelled (2000), Levin and Arlukee (1987), Noon and Delbridge (1993); Smith (1996), Spoelma and Hetrick (2021), Wax et al. (2022)

Workplace gossip is like a double-edged sword, which may increase or decrease gossiper’s credibility and social status in the organization

Workplace gossip spreads information via informal channels such as social chats and network activities

Negative gossip at work affects victim, e.g., damaging victim’s reputation and career, and feeling threatened

Positive gossip at work has Positive gossip at work benefits explicit ability to distribute victim, e.g., enhancing victim’s desired outcomes toward victim reputation and career, and feeling valued

When gossiper tells positive information of victim to the third party, victim assumes that gossiper may spread positive information about himself/herself as well Positive workplace gossip increases gossiper’s reward power over victim

Reward power

Gossiper’s view

Gossip scenarios in the workplace

Type

Table 2.2 Analysis of workplace gossip

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model … 21

22

K. Chang

this chapter now turns to discuss the indirect variables, which are also important to the understanding of workplace gossip.

2.4 Moderators and Mediators Unlike the independent variable that affects the dependent variable directly, both moderator and mediator affect the dependent variable indirectly, so they are also known as indirect variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Karazsia & Berlin, 2018). In plain language, a moderator is a variable that influences the strength of a relationship between two other variables, whereas a mediator is an intermediary variable of causal chain effect; for instance, a variable X affects a second variable M (mediator), which in turn affects a third variable Y (see further discussion of moderator–mediator distinction in Chow & Lindström, 2022). Simply put, a moderator regulates the strength of a relationship, whereas a mediator acts as a potential mechanism, intervening in the process through which an effect occurs (Dawson, 2014). In the current research, we propose gossip antecedents as independent variables and workplace gossip as dependent variables; to be exact, we define moderators as variables that regulate the strength of the relationship between antecedents and workplace gossip. We also define mediators as variables that intervene in the processes between gossip and its consequences. This chapter now turns to explaining the rationale underlying the aforementioned definitions. Details follow.

2.4.1 Moderators Prior research has offered mixed views of gossiping moderators, challenging the amalgamation of gossip literature. To overcome such a challenge, two broad types of moderators are outlined below. These are character-specific moderators and contextspecific moderators. Character-specific moderators (e.g., credibility of gossiper, job-relatedness): Workplace gossip is a type of informal communication, and the role of communicator matters. According to Rogers and Kincaid (1981), whether the communicator (such as a gossiper) is credible often affects the outcome of communication (such as gossip’s influence). When a gossiper is credible, people are more likely to accept his/her message; but if the credibility of the gossiper is scarce, people become reluctant to recognize it. Similarly, Noon and Delbridge (1993) suggest that gossip victims may undervalue the gossip or ignore its influence, if the gossiper lacks credibility. Job-relatedness is crucial. Compared to job-unrelated gossip, job-related gossip has a salient influence. When the nature of gossip is irrelevant to the job, people do not treat such gossip seriously; people tend to disregard job-unrelated gossip, and victims may not vehemently respond to gossiper either (Kuo et al., 2015); however,

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model …

23

when job-related gossip occurs, people realize that it is related to their job, so more relevant and important to themselves (Chang & Kuo, 2021; Kuo et al., 2015). Simply put, job-related gossip is more influential and receives more attention too. Context-specific moderators (e.g., work ethos, gossiper–listener interaction): Work ethos is a set of moral principles and attitudes that employees adopt in their workplace (Robbins & Judge, 2012). Work ethos encloses employees’ shared values (e.g., what matters or not) and norms (e.g., what is correct or wrong), affecting employees’ attitudes and behaviors (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). If work ethos does not welcome informal communication (such as workplace gossip), employees may constrain their use of gossip in spreading information (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Similarly, traditionality (part of work ethos) is found to moderate the relationship between workplace gossip and emotional exhaustion (Wu et al., 2015). Following this logic, we believe that ethos may regulate the development of workplace gossip; that is to say, if formal communication is encouraged and informal communication discouraged, the chance of gossip shall dwindle. The interaction between the gossiper and listener is vital to workplace gossip. For instance, an amicable interaction between the two parties facilitates the development of workplace gossip; however, if the interaction is superficial and lacks mutual trust, gossip barely emerges (Rosnow, 2001). Grosser et al. (2012) explain that negative gossip tends to emerge when there is a trusted and agreeable relationship between the gossiper and listener. These prior studies infer that an amicable interaction between the gossiper and listener helps increase the development of workplace gossip.

2.4.2 Mediators As discussed in the literature review, the formation of gossip is subject to the relationship among the gossiper, listener, and victim (cf. Gossip triad: Brady et al., 2017; Michelson et al., 2010). Following this line of research, several scholars have attempted to enlarge the triad by proposing victim-oriented mediators. This article now turns to introduce the proposed mediators and discusses their characteristics. Details follow. Victim’s self-esteem: Leary et al. (1995) indicate that self-esteem is crucial to both attitude and behavior, as people tend to behave consistently with their self-perception and values. Similarly, Anthony et al. (2007) state that self-esteem serves as a behavioral principle, guiding people to make the best decision and behave accordingly. Wu et al. (2018) indicate that negative gossip adversely influences a victim’s self-esteem, which in turn reduces his/her citizenship behavior at both individual and organizational levels. That is, the victim’s self-esteem has a potential buffering role, regulating gossip’s impact on the engagement of citizenship behavior. Whether victims may or may not show citizenship behavior is probably down to their own self-esteem.

24

K. Chang

Victim’s commitment toward gossiper: Scholars have found that a manager’s positive gossip is correlated with the subordinate’s commitment to the manager, which in turn affects the subordinate’s well-being and perception of job embeddedness (Chang & Kuo, 2021). From a different but relevant perspective, scholars indicate that some managers regard competent subordinates as potential challengers and hence ostracize them; in return, the ostracized subordinates show less commitment toward their managers and talk negative gossip about their managers (Chang et al., 2021). Although different in nature, prior studies have highlighted the role of commitment and clarified its subtle influence on gossip. That is, the victim’s commitment toward the gossiper acts an intermediary variable, intervening in the process through which gossip emerges and how the victim receives the outcome. Victim’s relationship with manager: Having a good relationship with managers is advantageous to the subordinates, as it helps subordinates to define themselves and feel a sense of organizational inclusiveness (Robbins & Judge, 2012), to experience a stronger feeling of teamwork (Shah et al., 2004), and to perceive more group cohesiveness (Jackson et al., 2006). Similarly, gossip victims that have better relationships with managers can better cope with gossip and feel less ostracized at work (Kuo et al., 2018). With a good relationship with managers, victims feel more support from managers, which serves as a psychological buffer and helps vent out negative emotions; consequently, victims are less affected by gossip and do not fight against the gossiper (Kuo et al., 2018). That is, a good relationship with the manager is valuable to the victim, as it helps victims to alleviate the impact of gossip and maintain a more positive emotion in gossip coping.

2.5 Consequences of the Workplace Gossip Every story has two sides, and so does gossip. Although workplace gossip is defamed for its detrimental outcomes, recent studies have actually discovered that workplace gossip benefits employees, managers, and their organizations (e.g., Chang & Kuo, 2021; Fan & Dawson, 2021; Kuo et al., 2018), and that the valence of workplace gossip is crucial to its consequences (e.g., Babalola et al., 2019; Wax et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2018). To further analyze and discuss the consequences of workplace gossip, we have proposed three broad categories. These are individual level, work-group level, and organizational level. Details follow.

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model …

25

2.5.1 Individual Level Workplace gossip may harm or support individuals, subject to its content and valence. On the one hand, gossip can erode the victim’s working morale and confidence (Dunbar, 2004), generating a feeling of discomfort or embarrassment (Foster, 2004). Negative gossip can damage a victim’s reputation and self-esteem (Cole & Dalton, 2009), resulting in a negative mood and poor performance (Babalola et al., 2019). On the other hand, however, workplace gossip does have merits. It helps employees to collect information and strengthen their group values (Grosser et al., 2012), which in turn helps individuals to better understand their teams and organizations (McAndrew et al., 2007). Manager’s positive gossip facilitates a healthy relationship between managers and subordinates, reducing subordinates’ perceptions of ostracism (Kuo et al., 2018). In a similar vein, scholars reveal that positive gossip from the team leaders sends a positive signal to the members, boosting their perception of well-being and job embeddedness (Chang & Kuo, 2021; Spoelma et al., 2021).

2.5.2 Work-Group Level Workplace gossip may undermine teamwork and group dynamics; for instance, Kniffin and Wilson (2010) indicate that gossip can bring misunderstanding and distrust to the group members, affecting their communication, cooperation, and overall performance. Kuo et al. (2015) reveal that job-related gossip causes employee cynicism, influencing both victims and non-victims in the same group. Despite its negative impression, workplace gossip still has benefits. It helps foster interpersonal intimacy and maintain group values and norms (Grosser et al., 2012). Gossip acts as an evaluative sense-making process, encouraging members to critique decisions and shape future directions (Fan & Dawson, 2021). Manager’s positive gossip is also positively correlated with subordinates’ perception of team empowerment; as a result of positive gossip, employees are more willing to engage in prosocial behavior, such as going the extra mile and helping out their team members (Chang & Kuo, 2021; Sun et al., 2022).

2.5.3 Organizational Level At the organizational level, the consequences of workplace gossip are many and vary. On the one hand, gossip often transmits both correct and incorrect information to the employees, causing misunderstanding and miscommunication in the organization (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). Scholars have also found that miscommunication affects the organization in several ways, such as frequent employee turnover (Cole & Dalton, 2009), reduced productivity and competitive advantages (Foster, 2004), and less

26

K. Chang

citizenship behavior in the workplace (Wu et al., 2018). On the other hand, however, managers and their organizations may benefit from workplace gossip, if it is properly managed. Scholars argue that workplace gossip deserves more attention, as it is part of the organizational communication network; for instance, it offers managers a good opportunity to explore the organization (e.g., values, ethos, culture) and collect information in an informal but authentic manner (Foster, 2004; Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Workplace gossip is like a diagnostic tool for managers, acting as an early warning device that alerts attentive managers to potential problems, such as conflicts within work teams or trust issues between managers and their subordinates (Grosser et al., 2012; Wax et al., 2022). To sum up, we have analyzed and critically discussed the diverse consequences of workplace gossip through three different levels. These are individual level, workgroup level, and organizational level. Through the analysis and discussion, we have noticed that scholars’ viewpoints are sometimes inconsistent or even opposite to each other, challenging the amalgamation of gossiping literature. To break through this challenge, we propose that workplace gossip’s valence should be considered during the evaluation of gossip’s consequences. Based on the outcomes of the aforementioned 3-level analysis, we have found that the valence of workplace gossip is crucial to its consequences. Specifically, positive gossip helps managers and subordinates to maintain amicable interaction in the workplace, which in turn facilitates positive outcomes for the employees and their organizations. On the contrary, negative gossip has no merits but causes trouble for both employees and their managers; as a result, the entire organization suffers from a gossip-rampant workplace. To our knowledge, our findings have opened a new avenue to evaluate the consequences of workplace gossip, hence bringing valuable insights into the workplace gossip literature.

2.5.4 Feedback Loop Following the consolidation of prior research findings, we have developed an integrative conceptual model (Fig. 2.1), clarifying the major factors and the overarching process of workplace gossip. The model commences from antecedents, through different components, and ends at the consequences. Although the model looks linear and one-way driven, it is vital to add a “feedback loop” to connect the consequences to the antecedents, with the following three reasons. To begin with, as explained in the literature review that positive gossip enhances colleagues’ relationships and facilitates positive behaviors (Foster, 2004), we therefore link consequences to environmental factors. Our proposition is that a workplace with more positive gossip may lead to more positive employee behaviors, and a workplace with more positive behaviors shall lead to more instrumental and expressive ties (Umphres et al., 2003). Next, as negative gossip is associated with detrimental outcomes to both employees and their organizations (Cole & Dalton, 2009; Wu et al., 2018), we therefore link consequences to managerial factors. Our view is that when the workplace is

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model …

27

full of negative gossip, employees’ working morale and confidence could be undermined (Dunbar, 2004), affecting how employees perceive their workplace. Similarly, scholars have found that employees are keen to negotiate what they must do to satisfy their side of the bargain, and what they can expect in return. A healthy give-and-take relationship makes employees satisfied in the workplace (Chang, 2020; Cheng et al., 2022; Fan & Dawson, 2021; Rousseau, 1995). Following this logic, if employees perceive the workplace negatively, their psychological contract with the organization may be breached, leading to more negative evaluations of their managers, leaders, and the whole management teams. In addition, it is also necessary to consider the manager–subordinate relationship during the discussion of the feedback loop. Earlier studies indicate that negative gossip damages a victim’s reputation and credibility (Cole & Dalton, 2009) and provides a sense of negativeness and depreciation (Chang & Kuo, 2021; Itegboje & Chang, 2021; Sun et al., 2022). Following this logic, when hearing a manager’s negative gossip, subordinates may feel that they are not valued and respected by managers. Due to the fact that human beings are a social species and their behaviors often operate in the principle of reciprocity (Robbins & Judge, 2012), subordinates may interpret the manager’s depreciation by reducing support and behaving against managers, which are precursors to psychological contract violation (Robinson, 1996) and abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000).

2.6 Discussion This research provides a conceptual review of workplace gossip, a complicated phenomenon. In order to fully understand the process through which types of workplace gossip are triggered and how victims react, a number of factors must be taken into consideration. In this paper, we have attempted to provide an integrative conceptualization of the workplace gossip process. As shown in Fig. 2.1, characteristics of the gossip antecedents, moderators, mediators, and gossiper’s and victim’s views all play a role in predicting whether workplace gossip will take place and the types of consequences that will occur. Despite the fact that a great deal of research has been conducted on gossiping behavior at work, there remain several opportunities for future research. It is our hope that the review of the literature and integrated model presented in this paper will provide researchers with a launching point. First, we understand our categorization of gossip may not satisfy all scholars, but we believe such categorization still has merits. To be exact, we have helped researchers to discriminate between constructs that are frequently studied in isolation from one another. We have prudently compared different types of gossip and proposed that workplace gossip differs from general gossip in several ways (cf. Table 2.1. Constructs comparison). Future research may take our views on board, so researchers can explore workplace gossip and understand its influence more precisely. Next, we have identified five types of workplace gossip and clarified their respective constructs, thus contributing to the knowledge of gossiping behavior. These

28

K. Chang

are generic workplace gossip, job-related gossip, job-unrelated gossip, manager’s positive gossip, and negative gossip. Nevertheless, the relationship between various types of workplace gossip is under-researched, and whether one type of workplace gossip overrides another is not clear either (Wax et al., 2022). Due to the ubiquity of gossip (Chang & Kuo, 2021) and gossip having social functions (Ellwardt et al., 2012a, 2012b; Spoelma & Hetrick, 2021), we assume that different types of workplace gossip may exist concurrently. Examining this relationship between types of workplace gossip shall provide more insights into gossip intervention strategies. The third area in need of research is the constraint of data collection. Methodologically, workplace gossip studies have almost exclusively relied on self-rated data from general employees using a cross-sectional design; as such, the relationships between research variables must be analyzed with caution, as the causality of variables could not be affirmed (Chang et al., 2023; Dawson, 2014). One way to break through the constraint is to collect data from multiple sources at different time intervals (Chow & Lindström, 2022) which shall help provide a more in-depth understanding of the different factors that lead to workplace gossip. Further, research examining why gossipers continue to gossip is still in its infancy stage (Ditmarsch et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022). Can gossipers get benefits by gossiping about others? If so, what might be the underlying mechanism, and what benefits can they receive? Are there any factors that need to be considered when analyzing why employees engage in gossiping behavior? Are these factors related to organizational factors (e.g., workplace ethos, policies), individual factors (e.g., position ranks, self-esteem), or managerial factors (e.g., guidance or support from managers)? More investigations on these factors would provide more insights into the gossiping literature. Finally, based on our model, we researchers shall remember that the ultimate goal is not only to understand workplace gossip but also to provide practitioners (e.g., managers, leaders) with the tools necessary to do something about it. A more finegrained understanding of the predictors that lead to workplace gossip could provide organizations with an indication of the initiatives they might need to follow in order to alleviate gossip’s impact.

2.6.1 Chapter Summary (Conclusion) The current chapter provides a conceptual review of workplace gossip and contributes to the literature in four specific ways. Firstly, we argue that workplace gossip should be separated from general gossip in the literature, and we develop an integrative conceptual model (Fig. 2.1) to support our argument. Secondly, we examine the similarities and differences among major workplace gossip constructs. We analyze five emerging types of workplace gossip and explain their unique characteristics. Thirdly, we examine both empirical and literature-based studies that have been conducted on gossip. We then develop a conceptual model that integrates the important characteristics of the gossipers, victims, moderators, mediators, and consequences of workplace

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model …

29

gossip. Finally, we critically discuss the important areas where future research may be needed. It is our hope that this chapter provides an in-depth look at the phenomenon of workplace gossip and inspires future research.

References Anthony, D. B., Wood, J. V., & Holmes, J. G. (2007). Testing sociometer theory: Self-esteem and the importance of acceptance for social decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 425–432. Babalola, M. T., Ren, S., Kobinah, T., Qu, Y. E., Garba, O. A., & Guo, L. (2019). Negative workplace gossip: Its impact on customer service performance and moderating roles of trait mindfulness and forgiveness. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80(A1), 136–143. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1994). The vindication of gossip. In: R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 11–24). University of Kansas Press. Bok, S. (1984). Secrets: On the ethics of concealment and revelation. Vintage. Brady, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Liang, L. H. (2017). Moving beyond assumptions of deviance: The reconceptualization and measurement of workplace gossip. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(1), 1–25. Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. (1996). Trust and third-party gossip. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 68–89). Sage. Chang, K. (2020). Artificial intelligence in personnel management: The development of APM model. Bottom Line, 33(4), 377–388. Chang, K., & Kuo, C. C. (2021). Will subordinates benefit from manager’s gossip? European Management Journal, 39(4), 497–507. Chang, K., Kuo, C. C., Quinton, S., Lee, I. L., Cheng, T. C., & Huang, S. K. (2021). Subordinates’ competency: A potential trigger for workplace ostracism. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(6), 1801–1827. Chang, K., Lasyoud, A. A., & Osman, D. (2023). Management accounting system: Insights from the decision making theories. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8, 100529. Cheng, K. T., Chang, K., & Tai, H. W. (2022). AI boosts performance but affects employees’ emotion. Information Resources Management Journal, 35(1), 1–18. https://www.igi-global.com/article/ ai-boosts-performance-but-affects-employee-emotions/314220 Chow, J. C., & Lindström, E. R. (2022). Leveraging moderation and mediation to examine individual differences in special education research. In T. W. Farmer, E. Talbott, K. McMaster, D. Lee, & T. C. Aceves (Eds.), Handbook of special education research (Vol. I, Chap. 12, p. 13). Routledge. ISBN: 978-1003156857. Cole, J. M., & Dalton, J. (2009). Idle women’s chat? Gender and gossip. Social section. In The annual conference of the British psychological society. University of Kent. Dai, L., & Xiao, R. (2016). The influence of social comparison on job performance. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4(7), 147–151. Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19. Difonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumors influence: Toward a dynamic social impact theory of rumor. In: A. R. Pratkanis (Ed.), The science of social influence: Advances and future progress (pp. 271–295). London: Routledge. ISBN: 978-1138006157. Ditmarsch, H., Hoek, W., & Kuijer, L. B. (2020). The logic of gossiping. Artificial Intelligence, 286, 103306.

30

K. Chang

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 100–110. Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G. J., & Wittek, R. (2012a). Who are the objects of positive and negative gossip at work? A social network perspective on workplace gossip. Social Networks, 34(2), 193–205. Ellwardt, L., Steglich, C., & Wittek, R. (2012b). The co-evolution of gossip and friendship in workplace social networks. Social Networks, 34(4), 623–633. Emler, N. (1994). Gossip, reputation, and social adaptation. In: R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 117–138). University of Kansas Press. Fan, Z., & Dawson, P. (2021). Gossip as evaluative sensemaking and the concealment of confidential gossip in the everyday life of organizations. Management Learning, 53(2), 146–166. Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., & Morrison, R. (2015). Ostracism, self-esteem, and job performance: When do we self-verify and when do we self-enhance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 279–297. Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 78–99. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. Gluckman, M. (1963). Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology, 4(3), 307–316. Grosser, T., Kidwell-Lopez, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A social network analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group & Organizations Management, 35(2), 177–212. Grosser, T., Kidwell-Lopez, V., Labianca, G., & Ellwardt, L. (2012). Hearing it through the grapevine: Positive and negative workplace gossip. Organizational Dynamics, 41(1), 52–61. Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication: From interpersonal contacts to external affairs. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ismail, R., & Abidin, S. Z. (2010). Impact of workers’ competence on their performance in the Malaysian private service sector. Business and Economic Horizons, 2(2), 25–36. Itegboje, J., & Chang, K. (2021). Agency workers and their equivocal roles—Wandering employees. Labor History, 62(2), 115–133. Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 884–899. Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Raver, J. L. (2014). Is it better to be average? High and low performance as predictors of employee victimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 296–309. Karazsia, B. T., & Berlin, K. S. (2018). Can a mediator moderate? Considering the role of time and change in the mediator-moderator distinction. Behavior Therapy, 49(1), 12–20. Kniffin, K. M., & Sloan Wilson, D. (2010). Evolutionary perspectives on workplace gossip: Why and how gossip can serve groups. Group & Organization Management, 35(2), 150–176. Kuo, C. C., Chang, K., Quinton, S., Lu, C. Y., & Lee, I. (2015). Gossip in the workplace and the implications for HR management: A study of gossip and its relationship to employee cynicism. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(18), 2288–2307. Kuo, C. C., Wu, C. Y., & Lin, C. W. (2018). Supervisor workplace gossip and its impact on employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(1), 93–10. Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 428–438. Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518– 530. Levin, J., & Arluke, A. (1987). Gossip: The inside scoop. Plenum. Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. (1979). Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 181–199. Michelson, G., Iterson, A. V., & Waddington, K. (2010). Gossip in organisations: Contexts, consequences and controversies. Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 371–390.

2 A Review of Workplace Gossip: The Development of a Process Model …

31

McAndrew, F. T., Bell, E. K., & Garcia, C. M. (2007). Who do we tell and whom do we tell on? Gossip as a strategy for status enhancement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7), 1562–1577. Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(1), 23–36. O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 157–200). JAI Press. Pearce, C., Figgins, R., & Golen, S. (1984). Principles of business communication: Theory, application, and technology. Wiley. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2012). Organizational behavior (15th ed.). Pearson. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21(5), 525–546. Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks. Free Press. Rosnow, R. L. (2001). Rumour and gossip in interpersonal interaction and beyond: A social exchange perspective. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviours in interpersonal relationships (pp. 203–232). APA. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations understanding written and unwritten agreement. Sage. Scott, J., & Marshall, G. (2015). A dictionary of sociology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0199533008. Shah, J. Y., Brazy, P. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Promoting us or preventing them: Regulatory focus and manifestations of intergroup bias. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 433–446. Smeltzer, L. R., & Leonard, D. J. (1994). Managerial communication: Strategies and applications. Irwin. Smith, B. (1996). Care and feeding of the office grapevine. Management Review, 85(2), 6. Spoelma, T. M., & Hetrick, A. L. (2021). More than idle talk: Examining the effects of positive and negative team gossip. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(5), 604–618. Sun, T. J., Schilpzand, P., & Liu, Y. H. (2022). Workplace gossip: An integrative review of its antecedents, functions, and consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Ifirst. https:// doi.org/10.1002/job.2653 Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. Umphress, E. E., Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., Kass, E., & Scholten, L. (2003). The role of instrumental and expressive social ties in employees’ perceptions of organizational justice. Organization Science, 14(6), 738–753. Wax, A., Rodriguez, W. A., & Asencio, R. (2022). Spilling tea at the water cooler: A meta-analysis of the literature on workplace gossip. Organizational Psychology Review, 12(4), 453–506. Wu, L. Z., Birtch, T. A., Chiang, F. F. T., & Zhang, H. (2018). Perceptions of negative workplace gossip: A self-consistency theory framework. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1873–1898. Wu, X., Kwan, H. K., Wu, L. Z., & Ma, J. (2015). The effect if workplace negative gossip on employee proactive behavior in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(4), 801–815. Zagenczyk, T. J., Gibney, R., Murrell, A. J., & Boss, S. R. (2008). Friends don’t make friends good citizens, but advisors do. Group & Organization Management, 33(6), 760–780. Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organisational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068–1076.

32

K. Chang

Kirk Chang is university professor of employee management and technology. He has worked in both academic and consulting fields for nearly three decades. Prof. Chang’s research investigates issues of personnel management and scrutinizes the implication of technology (AI, Digitalization) on employee behavior, group dynamics, teamwork, competitive advantage and organizational performance.

Chapter 3

Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip Nasima M. H. Carrim , Lisa Gerber, and Bronwyn Menne-Jooste

Abstract Office gossip can have a detrimental effect on the workplace and is often perceived negatively when such behavior occurs. However, what is not currently known is the experiences of diverse groups of employees of this phenomenon. Since sparse research exists on this topic, this chapter aimed to explore the findings of a study orientated toward establishing the perceptions of diverse racial and gender groups regarding office gossip. The qualitative study was conducted within a single organization and sampled eight participants. The findings indicated that diverse groups do indeed define and perceive gossip differently, relating to its nature (that being whether and when it is perceived as healthy or harmful), antecedents, as well as consequences (for the individual, group, and organization in its entirety) as such. Gossip was also further explored in terms of speaking in vernacular languages, as microaggression, and how it was perpetuated through the media. Furthermore, the findings pointed to distinct racial and cultural differences that underlie perceptions of gossip. Implications for this research are that organizations should be aware of the differing perceptions of gossip, as this may need to be addressed within a uniform workplace policy.

3.1 Gossip in Diverse Groups Most organizations and managers would shudder if they knew their employees were engaging in office gossip, associating this phenomenon with mostly negative outcomes. Nevertheless, most employees do in fact gossip due to its relentless nature and its integral role in our daily social interactions and bonding rituals (Carrim, 2016). Gossip, according to Wert and Salovey (2004), refers to the informal talk (or elementary genre of conversation) that takes place between members of a social group regarding the evaluation of another member who is not present. The terms “office gossip” or “workplace gossip” (terms which will be used interchangeably N. M. H. Carrim (B) · L. Gerber · B. Menne-Jooste Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 N. M. H. Carrim (ed.), Office Gossip and Minority Employees in the South African Workplace, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2691-6_3

33

34

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

throughout this chapter), therefore, would refer to this phenomenon taking place within a workplace-based setting. According to McAndrew (2014), gossip often relies on fuelled speculation, false impressions, and the disintegration of trust between members. Gossip is prevalent in the office setting and is pervasive. According to Ellwardt et al. (2012), office gossip comprises over 60% of employees’ conversations in day-to-day interactions, clearly indicating that much time is spent discussing the “hot” social issues of the day. These topics can be directed at an individual or organizational level and include the evaluation of loyalties, conflict, prejudicial remarks regarding race or gender, issues of control, humor, status, and general liking or disliking of another person (Smith, 2014). Categorized as either malicious or nonmalicious (Smith, 2014), gossip has the potential to advance or slander an individual’s reputation within the workplace. Most research to date has focused on malicious or negative gossip as experienced by employees (McAndrew, 2014). However, that is not to say that gossip is always entirely a negative process. In fact, according to Kuo et al. (2014), gossip can play a fundamental role in forming and strengthening group bonds and facilitating group membership. The pervasiveness, outcomes, and ability to manage workplace gossip have received considerably more attention within research than the possible antecedents and causes of gossip. Regarding the tendency of employees to engage in gossip and the perceptions of gossip in the workplace, it appears that research is seemingly lacking in the area of perceptions of a culturally diverse cohort. Furthermore, it seems that there is inconclusive research available on gender-specific perspectives of gossip and the likelihood that one gender may engage in gossip to a greater extent than another. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to provide a concise yet detailed account of the perceptions that exist surrounding workplace (office) gossip, especially those which are held by diverse groups within the organization. This study intends to address the following research questions: How is gossip defined within the workplace by those from diverse backgrounds? What perceptions are held by those from diverse backgrounds regarding office gossip? What characteristics are attributed to gossip by those who come from diverse backgrounds to differentiate between malicious and non-malicious gossip? To address these questions, the aim of the study, and by implication, this chapter, in particular, is to provide insight into the multi-faceted nature of workplace-based gossip and, in so doing, explore the influence of diversity regarding culture, gender, and race. Not only is this chapter intended to add to the body of organizational literature on office gossip, but to provide management with realistic and effective means to curb negative forms of gossip from occurring in the workplace in the first place. Given that previous organizational research and publication have focused mostly on the experiences of workers in general concerning office gossip, this leaves room to explore this phenomenon within the context of worker diversity. Further research is

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

35

needed when considering the following observations of existing literature: (1) There is very little research conducted on the phenomenon of gossip in the uniquely rich and diverse African context and within African workplaces. (2) Furthermore, research is needed on how to manage and control the negative consequences associated with gossip. (3) Given the importance placed on this phenomenon in influencing social cohesion, further research on how gossip is perceived by differing racial, generational, and gender groups would yield greater insight into its manifestation and ability to influence groups of a diverse nature. Following this introduction, the remainder of this chapter will reveal the detailed unpacking of the perceptions of office gossip and the themes contained within and a review of existing literature. Lastly, conclusions on the phenomenon of office gossip and recommendations for going forward will be provided.

3.2 Theoretical Frameworks: Social Identity and Contact Theories According to Carrim (2019), it is recommended that gossip be further explored from two potential theoretical frameworks—the Social Identity Theory and Contact Theory. These two underlying theoretical frameworks will be discussed below, including their potential relevance to gossip in the workplace.

3.2.1 Social Identity Theory as a Framework According to Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), people tend to engage in the practice of classifying themselves, and by notion, others as well, into different and distinct social categories. These categories for example are based on one’s gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, and so on. Social identity theory is considered a grand theory and has inspired many papers being written within various contexts exploring this phenomenon. One of the first notable papers on social identity theory and its presentation within an organizational setting was by Ashforth and Mael (1989). Through their research, they were able to establish three key components of social identification in the workplace: Firstly, social identification rests on the assumption of being the same or similar to a group of persons. Secondly, social identification is based on the categorization of individuals into groups. Lastly, to fully embody one’s group identity, certain activities take place that uphold and embody that identity.

36

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

Through this process, the social identity of the group is strengthened and reinforced (Carrim, 2020). This then has the potential to lead to organizational identification, through which intergroup conflict can occur. In their historical analysis of social identity theory, Hogg and Williams (2000) provided insightful commentary on the very nature of social identity theory as a grand theory. This is because there is a clear and defined distinction between social identity, which refers to the self-concept as defined by one’s membership to a particular group, and personal identity, which refers to idiosyncrasies and close personal relationships with others. According to Hogg and Williams (2000), “Group and inter-group behaviors, such as ethnocentrism, in-group bias, intergroup discrimination, conformity, normative behavior, stereotyping, and cohesion, occur only when social identity is contextually salient for self-conceptualization…” (p. 88). What is interesting is how these elements, as seen in this quote, lend themselves to the study of gossip as a phenomenon, including gossip in the workplace. Social identity and its presence in the workplace and intergroup relations have been studied extensively (Carrim, 2017, 2018). It has been researched in the context of work motivation and performance (Van Knippenberg, 2000); leadership and the garnering of support for prototypical leaders (Hogg et al., 2012); diversity and conflict management (Booysen & Nkomo, 2007; Carrim, 2021); trust and team identification (Dumitru & Schoop, 2016); as well as occupational dirty work, that being work that is considered tainted in some form or another (janitors, mineworkers, morticians, and so forth) (Kreiner et al., 2006). However, as per the purpose of this chapter, social identity theory may lend itself to the study of workplace gossip as well. Through Ashforth and Mael’s (1989) research, it could be deduced that gossip in the workplace potentially serves two purposes with social identity theory in mind. On the one hand, it could be used as a bonding activity in which social identification with one’s in-group is enhanced. On the other hand, it could be used as an activity in which the in-group is uplifted and separated from the out-group through the spreading of negative gossip about the out-group. Michelson and Mouly (2002) support these assumptions in their research on understanding gossip and rumors in organizations. Citing Noon and Delbridge, Michelson and Mouly (2002) state that informal communication, and gossip, in particular, tends to take place between those who know each other well and aids in reinforcing social bonds between group members. This in turn preserves and enhances the solidarity of the group. This solidarity is perhaps a result of gossip being used as a basis for making social comparisons, in which the in-group judges their behavior (as potentially superior) to that of the out-group. According to Wert and Salovey (2004), social comparisons lie at the heart of gossip. According to Carrim (2019), the use of social identity theory can indeed enhance the understanding of workplace gossip and co-worker relations within the organizational setting. For example, the author asks “Are there certain minorities who become part of the in-group and are not ostracised through [the use of] malicious gossip?” (p. 8).

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

37

3.2.2 Contact Theory as a Framework Providing a brief overview of Contact theory, according to Pettigrew et al. (2011), the 1930s and 1940s saw social psychology become a popular field. In particular, the study of intergroup contact developed an interest as racial tensions flared across the U.S. As a result, and over further decades of research, the contact hypothesis was eventually developed by Gordon Allport. The contact hypothesis, as described by Allport (1954), is said to envisage that deep-rooted hostilities between groups can be reduced and mediated through ongoing contact with members of the differing group. Intergroup contact theory grew and developed as a result, with mixed conclusions eventually being presented. Pettigrew et al. (2011) found that although intergroup contact has the potential to reduce hostilities between groups, it is a far more complex arrangement and process than originally thought. For example, the setting in which contact takes place as well as the groups and the individuals that make up the groups have an impact on the efficacy of intergroup contact. Contact theory is purposed to be more effective under certain conditions. For example, through the reduction of uncertainty and the exposure of certain groups to others over time, the positive effects of contact are enhanced. The same goes for the promotion of cross-cultural friendships, where friendship usually results in self-disclosure, and self-disclosure results in bonding (Pettigrew et al., 2011). Citing Amir, Cook, and Pettigrew, as well as Rothbart and John, Novak et al. (2010), identified several strategies that enhance and improve the positive impact of contact on intergroup relations. These include the following: The creation of opportunities for different groups to interact. This is intended to create intimate and meaningful relationships between individuals and groups. These opportunities should be frequent and meaningful. The perception of equal status must be present between the in-group and outgroup. This is to reduce the possibility of feelings of inferiority as a result of out-group stereotypes and prejudice which naturally arise. Contact under the perception of equal status is aimed at reducing these prejudicial ideas. The idea is that the differentiated groups are working toward a common goal or outcome, as this engenders solidarity. This creates feelings of mutual dependency and is instrumental in bringing groups in contact with one another. Lastly, and quite notably, the support and encouragement of an authority figure or figures (for example, an employer) in bringing groups together and into contact with one another aids in the goal of integration and establishes norms of “acceptance, equality, and tolerance” (p. 33). Since contact theory’s original conception, it has been used as a means of interpretation and explanation across various fields and within various settings. Of particular interest, especially due to the nature of this chapter, contact theory within the workplace requires mentioning. Using intergroup contact theory, Novak et al. (2011) conducted a study on the social integration of those with disabilities in the workplace. Findings indicated that co-workers were generally more accepting of those

38

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

with disabilities if they had the chance to get to know that there were common goals for both parties to achieve together, and the employer made provisions and support diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. Other notable studies using intergroup contact theory include ageism and multi-generational workplaces (Lagacé et al., 2019); the prediction of inter-ethnic friendships within the workplace, both in terms of quantity and satisfaction (Hashim et al., 2012); as well as mental health and the reduction of stigma among social workers (Zamansky, 2013). However, how does contact theory play a role in understanding gossip as a process? Carrim (2019) posited that contact theory is used to further investigate and define gossip as a process. Workplaces provide ongoing, persistent, and constant opportunities for intergroup relations to be formed and sustained, and yet gossip continues to exist as a means to maliciously undermine others (as will be explored further in this chapter). It is here then that wider organizational context and social norms be taken into consideration as a potential means to either spur negative gossip or instead create healthy, open, and transparent communication channels. As a last note, Hughes (2007) stated that since such social contact will most likely not take place in isolation from the wider social context within which the groups are situated, social norms should be used as a method of further understanding how discrimination and hostility are reduced in the face of persistent contact. What one should also consider in this regard is that persistent contact does not and will not necessarily lead to the breaking down of systemic issues leading to discrimination and bias. In this way, the organization (and wider society) as a whole will need to be taken into consideration so that discrimination and bias do not disappear when trying to reduce intergroup conflict.

3.3 Literature Review This next section sees the perceptions of office gossip explored in the context of four distinct yet interrelated themes: Gossip Explained; Gossip within the South African Context; Gossip in the Workplace; and lastly, Differentiating Between Forms of Gossip. For each theme, the findings of the study on which this chapter is based will be elaborated on in conjunction with the relevant extant literature. It should also be noted that while this chapter intends to focus and elaborate on the latest research on this topic of interest, it will be necessary to briefly delve into some of the older studies on gossip as a form of communication as well as the socio-historical background of South Africa and its diverse populations to provide the context where necessary.

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

39

3.3.1 Gossip Explained: The Diversity of Definitions and Processes The introduction to this chapter provided a brief overview of gossip and how it is defined within the literature. However, these definitions, their similarities, as well as differences will be expanded and elaborated on further in this chapter.

3.3.1.1

Defining Gossip as a Concept

Gossip can relate to the discussion of any topic; whether it is a truth or falsehood or appears inconsequential. Often, personal information about someone—the intended target or topic of the gossip—may not even be of relevance to those participating in gossip. In other cases, gossip is often also related to the current events or activities occurring within the work environment and how they are perceived (that being, either favorably or unfavorably). Most notably, the disclosure of such information during a “gossip session” among colleagues is often found to lead to negative consequences for the workplace, creating a situation in which organizational reputation is questioned; differences and conflict are exposed among employees; individual career trajectories and current positions are jeopardized; and negative feelings or states are often experienced by those who found themselves as the ill-fated targets of the gossip. Definitions of gossip date back several decades, and yet it remains a concept struggling to be operationalized, especially when occurring within the workplace (Carrim, 2019). Office gossip is a complicated construct to define, and by implication, to investigate. It is multi-faceted and complex (Levin & Arluke, 2013). It consists of various participants; it can occur in various situations and at various levels; while usually negative in nature, this may not always be the case; and it can have far-reaching consequences for any number of parties involved, either directly or indirectly. What research does indeed agree upon is that gossip consists of information centered on a particular person or context and is spread without their knowing. It is not intended to be broadcast but to remain private and closely held among the gossipers. Furthermore, the result of gossip is almost always entirely undesirable (Carrim, 2016).

3.3.1.2

Defining Gossip as a Process

Given the power differentials seen in workplaces between those who might come from marginalized or diverse groups and others, gossip can and is often used as means to share information as a way of protecting or enhancing one’s power (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). In this way, according to O’Farrell (2005), should a marginalized employee (or out-group member) choose to intentionally or unintentionally share

40

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

inaccurate information during gossip, then he or she may be perceived as untrustworthy and further push onto the boundaries of marginalization and exclusion. Thus, by not sharing particular information with others, an individual has the potential to retain some of his or her power within the workplace. In another look at the relationship between power and gossip, Grosser et al. (2012) found how women in lower-level positions within the workplace can exert an impressive amount of influential yet informal power through the transmission of gossip. Carrim’s (2016) study on minorities and gossip within a historically white educational institute saw how gossip was used as a means to undermine managers who come from marginalized employee groups. Lastly, Duffy and Sperry (2007) saw how the use of mobbing (a group activity in which an individual is relentlessly targeted with malicious gossip) can result in damaging consequences such as loss of dignity, loss of reputation, and in some cases, even the loss of one’s job.

3.4 Gossip Within the South African Context From a social-theoretical perspective, there are some studies on the phenomenon of gossip, particularly relating to the participants in and targets of gossip; the prevalence of gossip in day-to-day workplace conversations; the nature, perceptions, and functions served by gossip; and the role that technology has to play in gossip. While the literature cited above is quite obviously diverse, it is not derived from examining the perceptions of those coming from diverse backgrounds. South Africa presents a unique context in terms of diversity. For decades preceding our democratization in 1994, society was forcibly segregated by the introduction of apartheid by the National Party, a predominantly White Afrikaans, right-wing government. Over the last 400 years and more, our population has come to represent four main different racial groupings—that being White Africans (descending from Europe); Black Africans (indigenous to Southern Africa); Indian Africans (descending from India); and Colored African (descending from White European and Black African) (Carrim, 2021). As a result of South Africa achieving democracy in 1994, different races, cultures, and ethnicities are able and free to mingle and interact with one another within the wider society. Looking beyond race, however, South Africa is also diverse in its various cultures (and subcultures), classes, and language groups. However, with diversity comes the complexity of prejudice, racism, and bias as well as the damaging effects these have on all members of society. Such is human nature. According to De Backer (2005), implicit social biases can be expressed in ways that include the exclusion of certain individuals and groups within society and communication networks, as well as targeting these individuals and groups as gossip fodder. Although such diversity in South Africa (and beyond) should be celebrated for its ability to construct rich, creative, and beautiful communities and workplaces, those who are seen as “different” may very well be seen as targets of gossip. Furthermore, those who are different from one another in terms of gender, class, race, and culture

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

41

(as well as other categorizations) may also perceive gossip differently—attaching their unique meanings to such a phenomenon.

3.5 Gossip in the Workplace: The What, Who, Why, and How If researchers continue to dismiss gossip as essentially idle, malicious talk about unfortunate individuals, they may overlook some of its most important and valuable functions. Baumeister et al., (2004, p. 120)

Does the above quote highlight the need for further organizational research into workplace gossip, but the question is, why? Why should research on gossip in the workplace be of interest to scholars, managers, and employees alike? Perhaps this question can be better understood, as well as its importance thereof, through exploring the mechanisms through which gossip takes place. Office gossip (or gossip in the workplace) can be understood and explored in terms of the characteristics that make up its nature, those who engage in gossip, and for what reasons, as well as the impact and resulting consequences of gossip. Stated differently, this section will review workplace gossip by referring to four broad questions surrounding the phenomenon of gossip—the what, who, why, and how.

3.5.1 The What: Characteristics of Workplace Gossip Assumptions, falsification, and speculation, covert and private, as well as gender differences. These characteristics appear to define the nature of gossip when considering the perceptions of diverse groups in conjunction with extant literature. As found by Matthews (2007), workplace gossip is usually how false (or at the very least, somewhat inaccurate) information is disseminated among organizational members for any number of reasons. Van der Merwe (2005) added to this phenomenon by referring to “classic gossip” which entailed commenting on another person’s looks, personality, or actions without them knowing about such (typically criticizing instead of commending). Perhaps most interesting to note in this regard are the views that gossip, and its very nature, is often used as a means of manipulation. In this way, the spreading of false, speculative, or inaccurate (either wholly or only partially) information in an evaluative manner can be used to change the views of others (either for better or worse)—this according to Sommerfeld et al. (2007). Privacy and the ability to keep information sharing as a discreet activity is perhaps one of the most alluring aspects of participating in gossip—“being let on in a secret.” Indeed, if gossip were to be stated out in the open then by its very definition, it would no longer be gossip. In fact, through their study, Fan and Grey (2021) distinguished a form of workplace gossip known as confidential gossip. This includes the addition of

42

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

informal secrecy. While the boundaries between gossip, rumors, and now confidential gossip certainly become blurred, confidential gossip appears to have a strong enough foundation on which to stand and be identified on its own. This implies that should gossip be classified as confidential within an organizational setting, it has significant power to shape and mold organizational and group norms without being questioned. The last defining characteristic of gossip to be explored here has to do with the differences in gossiping patterns seen among genders. The assumption that men tend to talk more about factual information while women tend to engage more in conversations centered around others, particularly speculative, has found standing in research to date. For example, De Backer (2005) found what could be seen as an assumption nestled within an assumption—that being, most people tend to assume women engage in more ill-intended gossip than men do. Research does show that there are differences in what men and women tend to talk about. However, the content of such talk requires further investigation. Watson’s (2012) studies on gossip and gender differences in establishing friendships and the quality of such saw closer bonds being formed by men who shared in gossip, especially if it was positive and achievement orientated. Given that status and the use of information for power are more prevalent among men, this finding does indeed make sense. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to talk about the physical appearances of others; however, since this tends to be more evaluative (and potentially critical by nature), it is also less likely to result in close bonds among female gossipers. Watson (2012), however, makes an important note in this research and that is that cross-cultural investigation would be highly beneficial given the differences in expectations across individualistic and collectivistic societies and groups (an additional avenue of research proposed would be how workplace relations are influenced by gender differences in gossip).

3.5.2 The Who: Role-Players in Workplace Gossip 3.5.2.1

The People Who Gossip

Given this chapter concerns the perceptions of diverse groups on workplace gossip, it would be pertinent to explore exactly who it is that participates in the activity itself. Given that the gender differences like gossip were addressed above, both males and females engage in gossip-like activities within the workplace. However, we can expand this beyond gender and include a review of age, race, and cultural background as well. Literature on the topic supports the findings that both men and women actively engage in gossip (Van Der Merwe, 2005; Watson, 2012), as per the section above on the differentiation in gossip content between such genders. However, is there a particular age, racial or cultural group that is more likely to engage in workplace gossip? Findings suggest that people hold split views on whether a particular age group is more likely to participate in gossiping-like behavior. This is supported in the research

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

43

to date. For example, Van Der Merwe (2005) found that people of all ages are likely to engage in gossip, while contrary to this, Nevo et al. (1993) found that females tend to gossip more as they age. This research is notably outdated—given that it is over 25 years old. Interestingly enough, when searching for age differences in gossip-related behavior, very few studies have taken place post the early 2000s (De Backer, 2005; Van Der Merwe, 2005). So, while we might not know exactly what age our most prolific gossipers are, is it possible to establish if a particular racial or cultural group is more or less likely to participate in such banter? Given that this chapter is based on the findings of a study that made use of a diverse sample in terms of race, it can be posited that all races are susceptible to participating in gossip. However, when searching for literature to substantiate such a claim, we again fell short in finding meaningful and substantive research on such. Referring back to Watson’s (2012) study, specific recommendations are made to conduct further cross-cultural research. Very similar and strongly urged recommendations are made by Carrim (2016, 2019). One interesting exception found by Wu et al. (2015) saw an investigation into traditionality as being a moderating factor in gossip. Although China has seen rapid changes in values and social norms in recent years toward more Westernized ideals, the element of traditionality remains a fundamentally strong influence for many, thus creating an interesting climate in which gossip, its effects, and those whom it affects can be explored further.

3.5.2.2

The People Who Are Gossiped About

It would also be pertinent here to discuss not only who engages in gossip, but include who the targets of gossip are, and examine if there are indeed any differences in demographics in this regard. The importance of taking note of diversity and its role in gossip cannot be emphasized enough. Previous research, according to Carrim (2016), found that those in marginalized groups often face the brunt of negative and malicious gossip. A person is more likely to be targeted as gossip fodder if he or she meets any of the following criteria, as proposed by Kieffer (2013): the person in possession of traits that are privately envied by others yet publicly rejected; the person displays vulnerability; the person is weaker than others and possibly disabled; or lastly, the person threatens the power held by those who are gossiping. Essentially, the result is ostracism faced by this individual, who is furthermore unlikely to retaliate due to a lack of lateral and upward social support (Ellwardt et al., 2012). Carrim (2016) noted that more often than not, such gossip about black colleagues was openly conducted during meetings in their absence as well as in private spaces, such as offices and hallways (an interesting yet contradictory finding, given that most assume gossip is always covertly conducted). As a result, black employees are intentionally shunned in the workplace as a means to uphold the unequal and persistent power relations that continue to exist between themselves and the white gossipers. Considering that being the target of office gossip is more likely to result in lower organizational citizenship behaviors and social inclusion (Martinescu et al., 2021), this should be of interest to organizational research scholars, managers, and

44

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

employees alike. Yet, as noted by Carrim (2019), there is most certainly insufficient research and literature being conducted from the perspectives of those who come from diverse backgrounds. For example, given South Africa’s multicultural context, how would gossip be interpreted within more traditional societies and social circles? Furthermore, it is not only those who come from traditional backgrounds that may find themselves falling into the category known as “diverse” but also those who find themselves as minorities situated in a society that often overlooks their perceptions on such topics. For example, gossip can and should be examined from the perspectives of LGBTQIA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex) individuals. This would most certainly be an interesting avenue for further research, given their unique experiences and the assumption that they have often been the targets of (usually negative or malicious) gossip.

3.5.2.3

The Why: Antecedents to Workplace Gossip

There are many widely held assumptions as to why people engage in gossip-like behaviors. For example, it provides us with a sense of comfort and social acceptance and may very well just be a part of our evolutionary nature. Or perhaps it is because we do not want the focus on us, instead highlighting aspects of others’ lives, even more, interesting if it is negative or better yet, scandalous. It could be that it acts as a means of simply sharing information and demonstrating our feelings about a particular person or topic. At the very least, it may be because it is an enjoyable pastime, a real “water-cooler” moment, and breaks taken during our busy work days. The paragraph above highlights the findings which inspired this chapter and demonstrates that individualistic motives for gossiping, as opposed to the collective uses of gossip, were emphasized far more within the workplace. Keep in mind that this encapsulates the perceptions of a diverse group of individuals. Indeed, these findings are supported to a large degree by existing research, although the majority of this research appears to be somewhat out of date. One of the more recent studies conducted by Beersma and Van Kleef (2012) found that gossip serves a variety of morally neutral (perhaps even positive in some cases) reasons as to why we engage in gossip. For example, information gathering and sharing, validation of information, and face-checking, as well as enjoyment as a social activity to pass the time. Interestingly, the patterns of gossip changed tremendously during the COVID lockdown. O’Connell (2021) indicates that workers pointed out that discussions during the lockdown were replete with online Zoom and MSTeam meetings, leaving no time for gossip. Employees at a Boston law company indicated that they were missing out on gossip as there was no personal contact between staff. 61 percent of respondents at this law firm indicated that they miss the in-person chit chat. Furthermore, as we saw above in the study conducted by Carrim (2016), gossip can be motivated by the desire to protect and uphold our group’s norms and discourage those from violating such. In this case, the motives would be morally questionable, at least to those who form part of the out-group(s). The extent to which it is in our nature to gossip is supported by research (Wert & Salovey, 2004) and would make

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

45

sense if one takes into consideration the instinctive nature to protect our group from outsiders and norm-violators. From the perspective of the organization, Scott and Mitchell (as cited in Robbins, 2005) found there are four functions of organizational communication. These include to control and manipulating the behavior of employees; motivating desired behaviorstates and actions; enabling employees to share and express their feelings as well as participate and interact with others; and lastly, facilitating and aiding the process of decision-making, this being done through the provision of factual information and allowing employees the opportunity to consider alternative solutions in making decisions. Concerning this chapter, the third and fourth points are supported by the finding that people gossip because it facilitates the sharing of information and the demonstration of personal feelings and emotions. When we want to get the focus off of ourselves, what better method is there than to cast a negative light on the reputation of others? Van der Merwe (2005) indicated that when people engage in what is known as “classic gossip,” they intentionally and vigorously speak ill of others, spreading rumors or falsified information that tend to spread like wildfire. This abovementioned finding supports what was claimed by De Backer (2005) where reputational gossip was emphasized as a means to manipulate and influence the target’s reputation.

3.6 The How: Impact and Consequences of Workplace Gossip Reputational damage for both the person and the organization; conflict, division, and dissent; and negative feelings and emotions. These are framed as the obvious negative consequences experienced by diverse groups in comparison to the existing literature on workplace gossip. These negative consequences are experienced across all levels—that being, the individual, the group, and the organization.

3.6.1 Organizational Impact First and foremost, an organization’s reputation could be at stake should gossip within and of the workplace become out of control. This finding was consistent with that of Bishop (2019) as well as Matthews (2007), who furthermore found that should an organization suffer severe reputational damage or lie on the verge of complete disruption, employees may very well face anxiety and worry over losing their jobs. In addition, Bishop (2019) found that gossip may very well lead to higher rates of staff turnover and in so doing, the loss of institutional knowledge and human capital. It should be questioned as well what reputational damage is incurred on behalf of the gossipers—an assumption being that those who engage in gossip perhaps cannot

46

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

be trusted as a team member and their moral integrity cast into doubt (this could be particularly problematic in certain fields, such as those who are regulated by the Health Professions Council of South Africa and are therefore bound to a code of ethical conduct and the expected requirement of confidentiality).

3.6.2 Group Impact At the group level, there is most definitely the potential for conflict, dissent, and division to occur between group members working with and for each other within the workplace. As noted by Carrim (2016), there were clear and divisive lines drawn between those of different racial groups, and gossip was often used as a means to add fuel to the fire. While on the one hand, gossip acts as a means of bringing people closer and results in the formation of social bonds (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012), on the other hand, gossip is used to further alienate those who may not find themselves in the in-group (Holland, 1996).

3.6.3 Individual Impact Lastly, on a more personal or individual level, it is not only the organization’s reputation at stake but that of the individual—the target of the gossip. A person’s career or position held within the company may be in jeopardy if his or her integrity, work ethic, or ability are questioned in the frame of gossip. In addition to this, it may further undermine one’s authority, cause severe feelings of unease and discomfort, see rewards being unfairly held back or distributed, and ultimately result in the resignation of good talent. Taking a closer look at the negative feelings experienced by the targets of gossip, if experienced on an ongoing basis, gossip is said to lead to a loss of self-esteem and self-confidence (Holland, 1996). Should gossip be used in a manner to victimize the target, he or she will likely experience lowered morale and see a severe breakdown in trust (Sun et al., 2022).

3.7 Differentiating Between Forms of Gossip: Healthy Versus Harmful The theme of understanding gossip as a general form of communication as well as the theme of understanding it in terms of being healthy or harmful are both closely linked since to examine both in detail, we observe the line which is drawn to distinguish between healthy (normal) conversations and non-healthy (malicious) gossip. Understanding gossip as a general form of communication refers to the findings on gossip

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

47

across situations, including the media and the use of speaking in a foreign language, and not necessarily limited to the workplace. Understanding gossip in terms of being either healthy or harmful relates to the findings of a card-sorting exercise, in which participants were asked to distinguish between types of gossip and their utility. The sections below will see further detail discussed on both.

3.7.1 Understanding Gossip as a Form of Communication 3.7.1.1

Gossip and the Media

“Did you hear that Brad and Angelina are getting divorced?” “I think Bill Gates must have cheated on Melinda. Why else would they split up after 27 years of marriage?” “Britney is suing her father?! Only in Hollywood…”

The above are just a few examples that should appear quite familiar to the average reader, even if one does not read the weekly gossip magazines that line the shelves near the check-out aisle of the local supermarket. The above fodder has been mentioned on the radio, via social media, and yes, even perhaps during a coffee break with colleagues. Celebrity gossip is just that—gossip. By its very nature, it is speculative in that we—the non-celebrities who tend to devour this kind of scandalous information—will never be certain exactly what is going on in the lives of the rich and famous. The key word here is speculative—a defining feature of gossip (Fox, 2001; Matthews, 2007; Van der Merwe, 2005). Interesting research conducted by De Backer and Fisher (2012) on gossip as it relates to the media reflects that topics related to fitness (across both genders) tended to garner a higher readership. These fitness-focused topics were centered on celebrities, royalty, and to a lesser extent, unknown individuals. Furthermore, when it came to assessing the content of gossip, topics surrounding celebrity wealth as well as life-threatening events involving unknown individuals were by far more prevalent and treated as newsworthy. While the fact that this kind of information could be contested as mass-media rumors instead of being labeled as gossip (De Backer & Fisher, 2012), perhaps context should be taken into consideration. Imagine, for example, that two colleagues meet for lunch and begin to discuss Brad and Angelina’s divorce (for those who might not know, Brad and Angelia are both famous actors who were once married to each other). Each colleague adds to the conversation, debating speculated reasons as to why they are getting divorced, how the finances will be split, and how the children will be impacted. The conversation begins to contain more and more speculative, inaccurate, and possibly falsified information. Thus, what may have started as a mass-media rumor certainly has transformed into “classic gossip.”

48

3.7.1.2

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

Speaking in Foreign Languages as a Means to Gossip

Many would concur that if they were in the presence of a group of people who intentionally spoke in a language that was not understood by all, that this would be offensive and possibly even question if they were indeed the subject of the discussion being held. This is a particularly interesting finding, given the multicultural context in which South Africa is situated and where we have eleven official languages. Language barriers possibly create the conditions in which people might find themselves either gossiping about others in their presence, or being gossip about in the presence of others. Very little research was found on this topic; however, Hoijer (1954, as cited in Jandt, 2010, p. 66) said that “…to the extent that languages differ markedly from each other, so should we expect to find significant and formidable barriers to crosscultural communication and understanding.” The findings above are in support of this statement, seeing that language can be used to create suspicions, doubts, and barriers to cross-cultural understanding. However, this can be taken a step further and explored as a particular form of racism, that being microaggression.

3.7.1.3

Gossip as a Form of Microaggression

While blatant forms of discrimination, including gender or racial bias, appear to be on the decline both in the workplace and wider society, it should be noted that discrimination is not necessarily disappearing, but rather changing into a much more covert, subtle, and ambiguous form. Thus, understanding how diverse groups are affected by discrimination is critical for discrimination to be adequately identified and addressed, especially in the workplace (Basford et al., 2013). Sue et al. (2007) define microaggressions as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward marginalised employees” (p. 271). Furthermore, Sue et al. (2007) have extended this definition to other forms of discrimination, including that of gender. Thus, referring to the definitions of both gossip and microaggressions, it appears that gossip can indeed be deduced as a form of microaggression targeted at another who is different and which seeks to undermine legitimacy within the workplace. Gossip as a form of microaggression can thus possibly include speaking ill of another person in a language that he or she does not understand while he or she is present or undermining, mocking, stereotyping, questioning, or evaluating a person of another race or gender’s capabilities behind their back. Racial microaggression, the experiences, and coping strategies of black women working in Corporate America were investigated by Holder et al. (2015). Results which could be related to and include gossip-like behaviors showed the use of stereotyping (such as questioning black women’s intelligence, highlighting their purposed aggressive tendencies, assuming criminal behavior, and seeing them as caretakers), as well as invisibility and exclusion (such as ignoring, dismissing, or outright excluding

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

49

black women from social and professional meetings). Carrim (2016) saw similar findings in researching black employees as a target of gossip in a historically white higher education institute.

3.8 Healthy Versus Harmful Workplace Gossip “Classic gossip,” “self-serving gossip,” “good gossip,” and “negative gossip.” These terms appeared as distinguishable within the findings. Should the content of the gossip contain information surrounding a person’s personal and home life, then this would be seen as “none of the group’s business” and should be avoided. In this way, gossip violates a person’s right to privacy. Gossip which may lead to negative or poor outcomes for the target of the gossip is seen as “classic gossip,” as defined by Van Der Merwe (2005), and should also be avoided. However, not all gossip is created equal, and the findings demonstrate that “good gossip” can and does exist. This would then be equated to healthy gossip, which does not impose harm on others, and is used in a way which bonds the gossipers and involves the enjoyable sharing of harmless, trivial information. For example, Van Der Merwe (2005) described “good gossip” as light-hearted and idle chatter about another person or situation for the sake of satisfying interest and discussed out of harmless curiosity (say, for example, “Did you see Sarah’s new handbag? I wonder if her husband got it for her as a birthday present.”). A word of caution in this regard is that whether gossip is perceived as positively or negatively is perhaps in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, in the eye of the target of the gossip. What one person may perceive as harmless may appear to be quite the opposite of another. In this way, individual preferences as well as the social norms and culture of the team and workplace would most likely dictate what would be seen as healthy or malicious gossip fodder.

3.9 Results and Discussion 3.9.1 Cultural Diversity and the Perceptions of Workplace Gossip: Exploring the Findings of a South African Study Throughout this chapter so far, the literature has highlighted the ways in which gossip can function as a means to disintegrate or enhance social bonds, with a particular focus on the workplace as context. However, there is most definitely a lack of scholarship and literature on the ways in which cultural differences influence the perception and definitions of gossip. This chapter has been based on a study that attempted to bring

50

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

further attention to this very topic, and thus, it would be imperative that we focus on this in greater depth.

3.9.2 Background to the Study The study focused on the perceptions of gossip through the eyes of a diverse group of participants, which included two Whites, two Indians, two Black Africans, and two Colored persons. For each racial grouping, both male and female were included. As a method of gauging their perceptions on gossip, a card-sorting exercise was made use of which required participants to order and sequence a number of minicase studies from most to least like gossip. Additionally, participants were asked to share their criteria used to sequence the case studies, as well as provide a rating on a scale which examined the extent to which the case study should be perceived as “not gossip” to “very much gossip”.

3.9.3 The Case Studies The following are the mini-case studies used by the researchers in ascertaining the participants’ views on gossip: A. “Marie, a 32-year-old, single, heterosexual woman, is a top insurance broker who has been working her way up the corporate ladder. It’s taken many years and hard work to get to her current position. The other day, on the way to the photocopy room, she overheard some colleagues talk about her sex life over coffee and doughnuts. As the discussion about her sexual preference continued, someone remarked: ‘I know she is a dyke for sure’.” B. “In the weekly meeting between John and his boss, the boss let it slip that the company was in trouble and that retrenchment was inevitable. All positions would be in jeopardy. John’s boss asked him to keep this confidential until top management decided to bring it to light. During lunch in the canteen, John couldn’t help but tell his colleagues what he had heard.” C. “While sipping on their coffee, Jessica remarks to Brett that the boss is very late for work as it is already 10:00 am and there is no sign of him anywhere. Brett tells Jessica that their boss probably wouldn’t be at work due to the loss of his mother the previous evening. One week later while Brett is at his table doing some work, the boss calls him into his office and says, ‘Brett, I would appreciate it if in future, you keep quiet about my personal life instead of sharing it with the entire office’.” D. “Jake, a 57-year-old factory worker, walks into the building on Monday morning with a big smile on his face. When you ask him why he is smiling, he tells you that his oldest daughter got engaged over the weekend. During the

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

51

day, someone remarks that Jake looks really happy. You tell them that it’s because of his daughter’s engagement.” E. “Sam overheard Lyn (a colleague) mention to her husband over the phone that their daughter, Mary, was not accepted into university. During the tea break someone mentions their child’s academic achievement. Someone else says: ‘I know Lyn’s daughter was also waiting to see if she got into university … I wonder if she made it?’ Having heard the conversation earlier between Lyn and her husband, Sam speaks up and says ‘no, unfortunately, Mary did not get in’.” F. “There are two managers at the store where you work. You are good friends with one of the managers Joan. You heard from a reliable source that the other manager and some employees are not registering certain items on the cash register in order to pocket the money. You know that if head office finds out, both managers will be dismissed regardless of who is responsible. Over lunch you mention the situation to Joan.” G. “Matthew’s secretary is going through a messy divorce. As a result, her work performance has decreased. Although she has told him about her divorce, she asked that he not mention it to anyone. Matthew is in a meeting with his manager, Mary a few days later. She remarks that it has come to her attention that Matthew’s secretary is ‘slacking’ in her performance, not getting to work on time, taking too many days off and failing to meet deadlines. Matthew mentions the fact that he is worried about her and that her lack of performance is due to a pending divorce.” H. “The boss and the new manager are having an affair. Paul knows this for a fact because he saw them kissing. While everyone is having tea and talking about Days of Our Lives, Paul mentions the company’s very own scandal.” I. “Jan had been working in a position for some time, and put in extra effort because of a promotion she was keen to get as executive manager. To her surprise, a colleague’s daughter who has just finished matric got the position. Jan is disappointed and angry. When everyone is convened around the coffee machine during lunch, she mentions her disappointment. She heard some time ago that her boss and colleague were romantically involved, and she mentions to the group that that may be the reason for her colleague’s daughter getting the position.” J. “It’s apparent that money and stock have gone missing from the cosmetic store where Sarah works. Some make-up went missing on Saturday. Sarah and her team were working over the weekend. When she walked into the storeroom, she saw Jack packing containers. She tells the supervisor that he may be responsible for the missing stock.” K. “Alex, an administration officer, is photocopying documents. A document catches his eye while sorting through some forms. The document stipulates that due to a loss incurred by the company, the employee pension funds will be decreased by 35%. When Alex returns to his desk, he shares the information with the other administration officers.”

52

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

3.10 A Summary of the Findings from the Study Most of the participants, with the exception of the Black African participants, felt the first card was most definitely an example of gossip. The Black African participants both only considered this an example of minor gossip. Those who felt it most definitely was an example of outright, or at the very least, mostly gossip explained that it was because it contained very personal and sensitive information (that being, regarding another’s personal sexual orientation). Interestingly, the Black African participants felt that talking about such was a normal occurrence in day-to-day conversations and should therefore not be considered gossip. The views of the fourth case study were definitely more divisive. The Black African and Colored participants felt the discussion of a colleague’s family’s good news (that being the engagement of one’s daughter) should be seen as a slight example of gossip, but seen so in a positive light. Most of the participants viewed the ninth case study (that being the romantic relationship between a manager and employee) as definitely a gossip-type conversation, yet the two Black African participants saw it as a less-gossip-like, and not harmful at all. Lastly, the majority of the participants felt that the eleventh case study should not be construed as gossip. The exception being the two Black African respondents and the Colored female regarded the disclosure of financially sensitive information as most definitely being gossip. A rudimentary analysis of the above could suggest that Black Africans are more likely to see the disclosure of personal information as being less like gossip, while other groups are more likely to see the disclosure of organizational information as being less like gossip. Nevertheless, it does indeed shed light on the fact there may be a relationship between culture and the perception of gossip, its nature, functions, utility, and consequences. It could be suggested then that a person’s cultural or racial background has an influence on his or her views of what is regarded as appropriate or healthy workplace gossip, versus what is not. Furthermore, this would then additionally demonstrate where that line between “healthy” and “harmful” gossip is, based on one’s racial or cultural background.

3.11 Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to explore gossip and the differences in perceptions of diverse individuals from varying racial groups, cultures, and genders regarding workplace gossip. The lack of available research on the diverse perceptions of workplace gossip in South Africa created the need to delve into this topic in more detail. In-depth research on gossip within the workplace, and especially focusing on the narratives of individuals coming from diverse groups, remains in its infancy.

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

53

Gossip can be used as a medium for healthy, harmless chit chat among co-workers, or it can be used with malicious intent. In some instances, we have seen that it can be used to perpetuate racial and cultural differences, hinder the progress of diversity, and cause damage to the individual, the group, and the organization. It is these negative consequences of gossip which should be of concern to the organizational scholars, Human Resource Managers, Organizational Psychologists, and leadership within an organization. This concern should not only drive further interest in research, but the development of sound and inclusive policies which address gossip in the workplace as well. The studies presented in this chapter have provided an interesting and informative insight into how gossip is perceived in the diverse workplace. Although to a large extent, gender differences in gossip and gossip-like behavior have appeared in research, this chapter elaborated on the concept of diversity by exploring racial and cultural differences in this phenomenon. This chapter presents an initial effort in capturing the essence of gossip in a multicultural context and the hope is that will have spurred and inspired the reader to carry the torch in lighting the way for further investigation into this topic.

3.12 Future Research Gossip, if not managed correctly, can very well have a detrimental effect on an organization. It would almost be impossible to completely eliminate gossip altogether from occurring in the workplace, however, with a greater understanding of how gossip is perceived, defined, and utilized by diverse groups, gossip can be controlled for. Malicious gossip, as seen within the study on which this chapter is based as well as additional research literature, can be incredibly harmful—not only for the target of the gossip, but at individual, group, and organizational levels. Thus, the following practical implications have been identified, based on what was explored throughout this chapter thus far. The fact that very few studies exist on such a topic—that being, the perceptions of diverse groups surrounding gossip—provides an indication that more research into this would be of benefit, not only for scholarship but for organizations as well. Human Resource Managers and Practitioners, Organizational Psychologists, as well as top management, should be made aware of the importance and implications of gossip in the workplace, and this can only be achieved if research is sufficiently and adequately generated in order to bridge the science-practitioner gap so often seen in our field. There were a number of themes explored throughout this chapter, which demonstrates just how intricate and complex the phenomenon of gossip truly is. Most researchers are unable to simply agree on exactly how gossip should be defined and to what extent gossip exists. The generation of further research could (and should) lead to the spirited debating of this topic and, hopefully, the further delineation of such, including further insights into its nature, antecedents, and consequences.

54

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

Purely from an organizational perspective, employers should be encouraged to take a stronger proactive stance to controlling for and managing gossip within the workplace. It was addressed within the study that organizations which take the necessary steps to create a healthy culture in which communication is as open and transparent as possible would perhaps minimize the likelihood of (particularly malicious) gossip from spreading in the first place. In addition, not only should the organization create and maintain such a culture, but the individuals within the organization should maintain a sense of transparency. Thus, it is advised that formal channels of communication are used as effectively as possible in an attempt to prevent employees from needing to “fill in the gaps” themselves. Having an organization that values employees reduces the challenges faced by human resource practitioners in accommodating diverse workers and differences (Carrim & Senne, 2019). Having a more defined and comprehensive understanding of gossip, and in particular, malicious gossip, would allow organizations to better develop well-refined policies regarding communication and gossip within the workplace. Such a policy should not be aimed at reforming informal communication among employees (as this could be seen in quite a critical or controlling light), but rather be used as a means to highlight the dangers of spreading rumors and speculative or falsified information. As was seen in the previous section, it is very likely that those who come from different cultural and racial backgrounds may very well perceive gossip and its content differently. Thus, a policy establishing what the organization deems as gossip and why it is detrimental would assist in shaping the necessary and desired behaviors surrounding communication. As a last note on the practical implications to be considered, it is clear that gossip can (and in fact, has) be used as an attempt to undermine other racial groups different from one’s own. This in itself is a concerning finding and warrants further research and organizational action to be taken. We are all working in a very sensitive period, with racial relations and discrimination flaring not only within workplaces but across the world. It is key that those working in Diversity and Inclusion as well as those interested in researching such further investigate gossip as a form of microaggression, the use of language in a culturally sensitive manner, and detriment that can be avoided by encouragement of healthy communication rather than malicious gossip.

References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999 Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. S. (2013). Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the Workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313511420 Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.111

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

55

Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why people gossip: An empirical analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(11), 2640– 2670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00956.x Bishop, S. (2019). Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media & Society, 21(11–12), 2589–2606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819854731 Booysen, L. A., & Nkomo, S. (2007). The Tea Incident case study: Lessons in social identity tensions, diversity and social identity conflict management. The International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities, and Nations: Annual Review, 7(5), 97–106. https://doi.org/10. 18848/1447-9532/cgp/v07i05/39481 Carrim, N. M. (2016). ‘Shh … quiet! here they come.’ Black employees as targets of office gossip. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(2), 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2016.116 3912 Carrim, N. M. H. (2017). Entering a new world: The identity work of older South African Indian male entrepreneurs in the digital era. In N. Zakaria & L. A. Kaushal (Eds.), Global entrepreneurship and new venture creation in the sharing economy (pp. 169–190). IGI Global Publishers. Carrim, N. M. (2018). Behind the mask: Hybrid identity work of Indian women managers in Corporate South Africa. African and Asian Studies, 17(4), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 15692108-12341396 Carrim, N. M. H. (2019). Minorities’ experiences of office gossip. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v45i0.1562 Carrim, N. M. H. (2020). Work in progress: Organisational and occupational identity work of South African employees after firm acquisition. In N. Zakaria, A. N. Abdul-Talib, & A. Amelinckx (Eds.), Transcending cultural frontiers. Practices, challenges, and strategy for international business (pp. 13–36). Springer. Carrim N. M. H. (2021). Sandwiched between groups: Upward career experiences of South African Indian women. South African Journal of Business Management, 52(1), a2150. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/sajbm.v52i1.2150 Carrim, N. M. H., & Senne, Y. (2019). Life context model, intersectionality, and black feminist epistemology: Women managers in Africa. In E. T. Pereira & P. Paoloni (Eds.), Handbook of research on women in management and the global labor market (pp. 136–155). IGI Global Publishers. De Backer, C. (2005). Like Belgian chocolate for the universal mind: Interpersonal and media gossip from an evolutionary perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ghent University. De Backer, C. J., & Fisher, M. L. (2012). Tabloids as windows into our interpersonal relationships: A content analysis of mass media gossip from an evolutionary perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(3), 404–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099244 Duffy, M., & Sperry, L. (2007). Workplace mobbing: Individual and family health consequences. The Family Journal, 15(4), 398–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480707305069 Dumitru, C. D., & Schoop, M. A. (2016). How does trust in teams, team identification, and organisational identification impact trust in organisations? International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 3(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.32.16-007 Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G. J., & Wittek, R. (2012). Who are the objects of positive and negative gossip at work? A social network perspective on workplace gossip. Social Networks, 34(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.11.003 Fan, Z. & Grey, C. (2021). Everyday secrecy: boundaries of confidential gossip. Culture and Organization, 27(3), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2020.1799213 Fox, K. (2001). Evolution, alienation and gossip. The role of mobile communications in the 21st century. Retrieved April 11, 2009, from http://www.sirc.org/publik/gossip.shtml Grosser, T., Lopez-Kidwell, V., Labianca, G., & Ellwardt, L. (2012). Hearing it through the grapevine: Positive and negative workplace gossip. Social Science Research Network, 41(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.12.007 Hashim, I. H. M., Mohd-Zaharim, N., & Khodarahimi, S. (2012). Factors Predicting Inter-Ethnic Friendships at the Workplace. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 6(2), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v6i2.100

56

N. M. H. Carrim et al.

Hogg, M. A., & Williams, K. D. (2000). From I to we : Social identity and the collective self. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4. 1.81 Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 258–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2012.741134 Holder, A. M. B., Jackson, M. A., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2015). Racial microaggression experiences and coping strategies of Black women in corporate leadership. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000024 Holland, M. G. (1996). What’s wrong with telling the truth? An analysis of gossip. American Philosophical Quarterly, 33(2), 197–209. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009858 Hughes, J. (2007). Mediating and moderating effects of inter-group contact: Case studies from bilingual/bi-national schools in Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(3), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830701234533 Jandt, F. E. (2010). An introduction to intercultural communication. Identities in a global community (6th ed.). Sage. Kieffer, C. C. (2013). Rumors and gossip as forms of bullying: Sticks and stones? Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 33(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.764697 Kreiner, G. E., Ashforth, B. E., & Sluss, D. M. (2006). Identity dynamics in occupational dirty work: Integrating social identity and system justification perspectives. Organization Science, 17(5), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0208 Kuo, C. C., Chang, K., Quinton, S., Lu, C. Y., & Lee, I. (2014). Gossip in the workplace and the implications for HR management: A study of gossip and its relationship to employee cynicism. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(18), 2288–2307. https://doi. org/10.1080/09585192.2014.985329 Lagacé, M., Van de Beeck, L., & Firzly, N. (2019). Building on intergenerational climate to counter ageism in the workplace? A cross-organizational study. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 17(2), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2018.1535346 Levin, J., & Arluke, A. (2013). Gossip: The inside scoop. Springer. Martinescu, E., Jansen, W., & Beersma, B. (2021). Negative gossip decreases targets’ organizational citizenship behavior by decreasing social inclusion: A multi-method approach. Group & Organization Management, 46(3), 463–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120986876 Matthews, V. (2007). Spotlight on handling failure. Personnel Today, pp. 31–33. McAndrew, F. T. (2014). The “sword of a woman”: Gossip and female aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(3), 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.006 Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. S. (2002). ‘You didn’t hear it from us but…’: Towards an understanding of rumour and gossip in organisations. Australian Journal of Management, 27(1_suppl), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289620202701s07 Nevo, O., Nevo, B., Zehavi, A. D., & Milton, M. J. (1993). Gossip and counselling: The tendency to gossip and its relation to vocational interests. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 6(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515079308254117 Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069301400103 Novak, J. A., & Rogan, P. M. (2010). Social integration in employment settings: Application of intergroup contact theory. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 31–51. https:// doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-48.1.31 Novak, J., Feyes, K. J., & Christensen, K. A. (2011). Application of intergroup contact theory to the integrated workplace: Setting the stage for inclusion. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(3), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-2011-0573 O’Connell, B. (2021, June 2). Is the decline of office gossip a plus or a minus for managers? Retrieved November 02, 2022, from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/peoplemanagers/pages/decline-gossip-remote-work.aspx O’Farrell, C. (2005). Michel Foucault. Sage.

3 Exploring the Perceptions of Diverse Groups Regarding Workplace Gossip

57

Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001 Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organizational behavior. International edition. Pearson Education Inc. Smith, E. R. (2014). Evil acts and malicious gossip. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(4), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530515 Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H. J., Semmann, D., & Milinski, M. (2007). Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(44), 17435–17440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704598104 Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.62.4.271 Sun, T., Schilpzand, P., & Liu, Y. (2023). Workplace gossip: An integrative review of its antecedents, functions, and consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 311–334. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall. Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A Social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00020 Van der Merwe, G. S. (2005). Skinder as Gespreksgenre. Literator, 26(1), 117–136. Watson, D. C. (2012). Gender differences in gossip and friendship. Sex Roles, 67(9–10), 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0160-4 Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.122 Wu, X., Kwan, H. K., Wu, L. Z., & Ma, J. (2015). The effect of workplace negative gossip on employee proactive behavior in China: The moderating role of traditionality. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(4), 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3006-5 Zamansky, A. (2013). Social workers with mental illness: Coming out in the workplace. Unpublished Masters dissertation. Smith College School for Social Work.

Nasima M. H. Carrim is an Associate Professor at the Department of Human Resource Management at the University of Pretoria. Her research focuses on gender in management, culture, religion and minorities in the workplace from an intersectionality and identity perspective. She has published research in international and South African journals. She has also published chapters in international books. She has also co-authored the first South African textbook entitled Managing Diversity in the South African workplace. In 2017, Prof. Carrim received the 2016 Best Junior Researcher in Management Sciences in the Economic and Management Sciences Faculty at the University of Pretoria. Prof. Carrim is a C2 NRF-rated researcher. She is the Chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Interest group at the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology in South Africa (SIOPSA). She is also the chair for the Diversity and Inclusion committee at the Economic and Management Sciences Faculty at the University of Pretoria. She is on the Editorial Review Board of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) journal as well as the Section Editor for the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP). Lisa Gerber is a senior human resource manager. Her research interests focus on office gossip and diversity management. Bronwyn Menne-Jooste is a registered Industrial Psychologist who consults in industry.

Chapter 4

Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi Arabia Arun Vijay Subbarayalu

and Ajayan Kamalasanan

Abstract Office gossip is a social phenomenon that affects people’s thoughts, actions, and behaviors. It can have both positive and negative impacts on employees and organizations. This chapter focuses on revealing the hidden perceptions of higher education and healthcare sector employees about office gossip in Saudi Arabia. A cross-sectional research design was adopted to study how diverse employee groups view gossip regarding gender, nationality, and the type of industry they belong to. Most of the Saudi Arabian workforce never or rarely gossip on matters related to office and did not enjoy gossiping either as a victim or a part of it. Participants expressed that less than 20% of gossip at the workplace is fact-based. The majority of the participants never or rarely have an idle talk about their colleagues’ physical appearance and clothes/dress; however, less than 30% of office gossip revolved around the growth and accomplishments of co-workers, their work performance, and academic qualifications and salary. There is no significant association between gender and nationality regarding office gossip, where females are more likely to gossip than males, and Saudi nationals are less involved in gossip than non-Saudi employees. Further, higher education and healthcare sector employees both perceive office gossip similarly.

4.1 Introductory Overview of Gossip Gossip is a universal feature of human life (Robbins & Karan, 2020; Emler, 2019; Dunbar, 2004), which can be observed in different cultures and social institutions. The behavior of gossiping among humankind ranges from the period of huntergatherer tribes to modern-day enterprises (Besnier, 2019; Mills, 2010). It is part A. V. Subbarayalu (B) · A. Kamalasanan Deanship of Quality and Academic Accreditation, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia e-mail: [email protected] A. Kamalasanan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 N. M. H. Carrim (ed.), Office Gossip and Minority Employees in the South African Workplace, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2691-6_4

59

60

A. V. Subbarayalu and A. Kamalasanan

of the conversation, where workplace chit-chat is the most common place to share accurate but often untrue or exaggerated information, leading to complex scenarios. Further, gossiping can be a perplexing organizational phenomenon that can be positive or detrimental simultaneously, depending on whether the gossip is viewed from the employee’s or the organization’s perspectives. Studies demonstrated that a vast majority of employees (90%) gossip in the work environment, mainly about the managers who supervise the employees or the relationships between the employees (Hassona, 2022; Grosser, 2012). That means the behavior may often lead to interpersonal conflict and hostile relations within the organization, which may adversely affect the work environment. However, from another perspective, these conversations could also benefit the organization, which can be considered a positive aspect of office gossip. Before we dig into it, let us look at the existing definitions of gossip, its implications, and the targeted employees to be studied in this chapter.

4.2 What is Gossip? Though there exist different studies on gossip, there is no consensus on the definition of gossip because it needs more conceptual clarity. This indicates that there is no universally agreed-upon definition of gossip. The various definitions of gossip by different authors are illustrated here. Bosson et al. (2006) and Dores et al. (2021), define gossip as “an exchange of personal information about absent third parties that can be either evaluatively positive or negative,” and Mesoudi et al. (2006) outline gossip as “information about intense third-party social relationships.” While Kurland and Pelled (2000) defined it as “informal and evaluative talk in an organization, usually among no more than a few individuals, about another member of that organization who is not present.” Office gossip is a phenomenon that occurs in the office and can range from pleasant chit-chat to malevolent back-channel chats between co-workers. However, office gossip or workplace gossip is a naturally existing psychological construct that impacts the human minds, behaviors, and feelings of those involved (Kong, 2018; Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012). Kurland and Pelled (2000) defined workplace gossip as “informal and evaluative discourse in an organization, usually among a few employees, and about another member of the organization who is not available.” Irrespective of the type of industry, gossip is a widespread practice among the workforce across the globe. However, more information is needed about its impact on employees and the work environment.

4 Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi …

61

4.3 Implications of Gossip Gossip can be either positive or negative (Fine & Rosnow, 1978; Giardini & Wittek, 2019; Haften, 2004). It serves as a medium for unofficial interaction and exchange of information, even if the information presented through gossip may not always be correct or comprehensive. People may wish to hurt someone by disseminating information that makes him or her appear bad, causing others to have a negative opinion of that person. However, defamation of the target’s character is not the primary purpose and could even be immaterial in many circumstances (Baumeister et al., 2004). Seldom gossip is advantageous for organizations, groups, and gossipers; it usually negatively impacts the target employee (Chandra & Robinson, 2009; Kong, 2018). Negative workplace gossip is a type of abuse that promotes one individual while disempowering someone else (Ellwardt et al., 2012; Grosser et al., 2012). Further, people tend to start distrusting each other in an environment where negative workplace gossip is rampant. As a result, the employees may endure psychological and physiological manifestations such as emotional anguish and despair (Carrim, 2016; Liu et al., 2020; Chandra & Robinson, 2009). Subsequently, employees tend to withdraw psychologically from workplace affairs to conserve their psychological resources, which can jeopardize their performance (Bakker et al., 2004). If adequately supervised, the managers and leaders can easily monitor the formation of gossip and respond effectively to mitigate any adverse effect on employee performance if they better understand the determinants of gossip and their correlation with employee behavior. In such cases, to eliminate gossip, the practicing managers should be educated on the importance of eradicating workplace gossip and perhaps even the strategies for doing so (Chapman & Sharkey, 2009; Liff & Wikström, 2021). Since gossip is a natural human behavior that will never be entirely eradicated from the workplace, it may be controlled to a certain extent. However, if this seemingly harmless informal chat is not effectively monitored and dealt with, it could have disastrous implications at work.

4.4 Employees of Higher Education and Healthcare Sector of Saudi Arabia According to the preliminary data for 2022, the overall number of employees in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is 14,169,763, with 11,583,514 men and 2,586,249 women. Saudis made up 3,638,144, while non-Saudis or expatriates made up 10,531,619 (General Authority for Statistics, 2022, Second Quarter). Though the workforce is spread across diverse employment sectors, this book chapter is trying to exemplify the perception of employees working in the higher education and healthcare sector of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The higher education industry of KSA is on steady growth since the Saudi educational system attempted to satisfy world-class educational standards by producing

62

A. V. Subbarayalu and A. Kamalasanan

high-quality, creative programs and activities that ensure students’ performance and help them become successful members of society (Shafai, 2018). The governance attempt is demonstrated through the Saudi Vision 2030, which prioritized integrating higher education outcomes with labor market demands. It is noteworthy that the Saudi government is engaging with the private sector to ensure that higher education accomplishments conform with the demands of the labor market (Patalong, 2016). As a result, thirty-nine state universities and 38 private universities and colleges in Saudi Arabia offer post-secondary education with a wide range of academic programs in a diverse discipline (Ministry of Education, 2022). Another workforce highlighted in this chapter is the employees from the healthcare sector, who are critical in fulfilling the demands of Saudi Arabia’s growing population, changing demographics, and rising chronic disease burden (Bell, 2018). To satisfy the expanding need for its growing and aging population, a significant increase in the supply of healthcare professionals is required, which the Kingdom meets over time. The Saudi government is expected to employ 710,000 healthcare workers by 2030, representing an increase of 360,000 healthcare professionals over what it presently employs. To achieve the goals of Saudi Vision 2030 and the National Transformation Program (NTP) 2020, a substantial proportion of Saudi nationals must be employed in the healthcare industry (Al-Hanawi et al., 2019), which the Kingdom is committed to attaining. Though studies on workplace gossip exist in the Saudi Arabian context, there is limited research exploring the perception of diverse employee groups in KSA, especially from the academia and healthcare industry. Hence, this chapter focuses on how the diverse employee groups of both genders define and perceive gossip at the workplace and its implications on the office environment. Thus, the findings of this study would contribute to the existing body of knowledge on office gossip based on the shared perceptions of diverse employees in Saudi higher education and healthcare sectors.

4.5 Theoretical Framework Theoretical frameworks are a type of intermediate theory that attempts to connect to all aspects of the problem under investigation (e.g., problem definition, purpose, literature review, methodology, data collection, and analysis). It acts like a map that gives coherence to empirical inquiry. In this chapter, we explored various empirical studies and theories that focus on office gossip to ascertain the job environment where it occurs, viz., the reasons why gossip occurs, key topics for gossip, its impact on the organization, the proportion of employees involved, including gender-specific participation and the time spent by them on gossip, and their opinion about the truthfulness of gossiped information. Secondly, we captured those studies that established the voice of employees about gossip, how they perceive it, whom they prefer to gossip, and how it influences their behavior in the office. Thirdly, we gathered earlier literature to study the tendency adopted by the employees to gossip with specific

4 Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi …

63

reference to a person’s physical appearance, achievements, social information, and sublimated gossip. Fourthly, we come across studies that reveal possible motives for gossip among diverse employees across the globe. Lastly, we attempted to secure information about the employee’s ability to distinguish between healthy communication and malicious gossip. Based on those dimensions mentioned above, which is a complex process with no “one-size-fits-all,” we have developed a comprehensive framework covering all five factors influencing office gossip among diverse Saudi employee groups. Further, the number of studies conducted on gossip concerning Saudi Arabia is none or often limited. So, the authors conducted an intensive literature search to build a unique model based on published theories and empirical studies across the globe. The office gossip conceptual model (Figure 4.1) that we developed in this chapter is grounded in several theories and empirical studies, and they are narrated below. Factors influencing employees opinion about Office gossip

Gossip associated with the job

Employees’ tendency to gossip Employees of Higher Education and Healthcare Sectors in Saudi Arabia

Employees motIves for gossip

Impact of Gossip on Job Performance

Employees’ ability to distinguish between healthy communication and malicious gossip

Overall opinion of employees about gossip

Demographic Variables (Modifying Factors) 1. Gender 2. Nationality 3. Type of industry

Fig. 4.1 Conceptual model for studying the Employees’ perception of Office Gossip in Higher Education and Healthcare Sectors in Saudi Arabia

64

A. V. Subbarayalu and A. Kamalasanan

4.6 Job-Related and Non-Job-Related Gossip Considering the role of gossip on employee behavior, it shall be categorized into Job-Related Gossip [JRG] and Non-Job-related Gossip [NJG] (Kuo et al., 2015). Some of those constructs studied under JRG include colleagues’ or co-workers’ job performance, attention and devotion to work, reliability in work roles and experience, excellent interpersonal skills, and display of job morality. Similarly, a coworker’s unsatisfactory work performance, neglect, lack of work commitment, inexperience and inadequate work knowledge, poor interpersonal skills, and inability to demonstrate job morality are those constructs presented under JRG. On the other hand, the constructs of Non-Job-related Gossip [NJG] include a colleague’s recent cheery life events, such as buying a home or vehicle, a co-worker’s recent grieved life events, such as sickness or automobile accident, a colleague’s new bond or a love affair, colleague’s lying to or dishonesty of their partners, colleague’s communication with children, office colleague’s breakup, divorce, and marital enigmas, a co-workers’ engagement or getting married, and colleague’s association with family (Kuo et al., 2015). It has been proposed that both JRG and NJG vary in their relationship with employees’ behavior for many reasons (Kuo et al., 2015). For example, suppose the gossip per se is not associated with the job and focuses on other social factors such as in connection with a girlfriend or boyfriend or an employee’s children’s problem at school or college. In that case, the gossip victim, gossiper, and the organization may not consider it seriously in the workplace and may not intensively react to the origin of gossip, such as co-workers or the organization. Secondly, DiFonzo and Bordia (2007) described gossip as redundant and unimportant as it intends to relax and cheer. By adhering to this logic, if the gossip per se is not linked to the job but someone’s private life, such as huge debts or drug habits, an employee may not certainly connect the stress of that gossip to their co-workers or Office. At the individual employee level, the impact of NJG may be less evident at work than those arising out of job-related factors. Finally, gossip at work may influence the perceptions of rank, authority, and esteem (Kong, 2018; Rosnow, 2001). Therefore, JRG shall have more potential to determine an employee’s behavior since it is directly connected with the job, associates, and/or the Office.

4.7 Positive Versus Negative Gossip Gossip is a way of knowledge exchange and informal talk, even if the information is accurate or complete (Kuo et al., 2015). Workplace gossip occurs when one employee of an organization (“the gossiper”) involves in informal and evaluative conversation with another employee(s) (“the gossip recipient”) about an absent third employee (i.e., “the target for gossip”) (Carrim, 2019; Foster, 2004; Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Such personal and social behavior can be either positive (e.g., discussing a co-worker’s success) or negative (e.g., discussing a co-worker’s bad performance)

4 Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi …

65

(Fine & Rosnow, 1978; Haften, 2004). To be precise, negative workplace gossip is a destructive action, and it is a negative evaluation of a person behind their back who is not in that environment, which can be in the form of a complaint. In contrast, positive workplace gossip links to the positive evaluation of others that can enhance their commitment to the organization, such as recognition of a colleague’s promotion (Kıral et al., 2021; Xiaolei et al., 2020; Bianca & Gerben, 2012). In exploring the literature, some researchers have discussed gossip negatively (Fine & Rosnow, 1978; Grosser et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2020), whereas others have reviewed it positively (Alshehre, 2017; Foster, 2004; Kurland & Pelled, 2000; Litman & Pezzo, 2005; Michelson & Mouly, 2000). Hearing positive gossip helps employees develop their skills, whereas negative gossip aids them in becoming more skilled at work to avoid being a victim of gossiping (Zabell, 2014). As a recipient of positive gossip, employees are endorsed or supported by others, similar to earning social support that promotes positive interpersonal relationships (Dores et al., 2020; Duffy et al., 2002; Dunbar, 2004). Such feelings of togetherness and a friendly workplace atmosphere have enhanced their productivity and job satisfaction (Zhenjing, 2022; Morrison, 2004; Sparrowe et al., 2001). On the other hand, being a victim of negative gossip leads to victimization, in which a deceived employee habitually finds it challenging to cognitively manage their social context and believe others (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Xie et al., 2020). Such social undermining inhibits establishing and sustaining positive interpersonal bonds and a favorable reputation for those targeted in the gossip. Several other authors have classified gossip based on personal-organizational factors (Xiaolei et al., 2020; Luna et al., 2013) and individual employees’ attitudes toward gossip, considering physical appearance, social information, achievement, and sublimated gossip (Filippo, 2015; Nevo et al., 1993).

4.8 Individuals’ Attitude Toward Gossip Litman and Pezzo (2005) indicated that gossip attitudes are multidimensional and reveal thoughts, emotions, and opinions about gossip’s social and moral value, and there is evidence that there are individual variations in attitude among people about gossip. Several tools are in place to assess the individual’s attitude toward gossip and one such scale is the “Tendency to Gossip Questionnaire” (TGQ) (Nevo et al., 1993). TGQ is a reliable and credible measure of attitudes and self-evaluations concerning gossip transmission, and it evaluates individual variations in thoughts and attitudes concerning gossip. It comprises items that ask how often respondents spread gossip and their pleasure in gossiping activities (Nevo et al., 1994). In addition, many items in the TGQ tool speculate interpersonal curiosity and collect valuable information to ascertain the respondents’ future gossip-sharing attitude (e.g., “I like reading biographies of famous people”). TGQ consists of a 7-point scale of 19 items that appraises the content of discussions regarding four dimensions: physical appearance, achievement, social information, and sublimated gossip. The physical appearance dimension talks about others’ general and physical appearance, clothes, and posture, whereas the

66

A. V. Subbarayalu and A. Kamalasanan

achievement dimension incorporates people’s conversations about others’ success, qualifications, career positions, and popularity. The social information dimension has included speech about people’s relationships with others and their societal standings. Finally, sublimated gossip dimension includes the situation that is somehow changed, is adopted from society, is not thought of as gossip, and has become a part of natural life. Therefore, in sublimated gossip, the spoken issue is gossip, but it has not been thought of as gossip due to a person’s position in society. Further, in addition to capturing the tendency of the employee to gossip, the authors have attempted to study the knowledge of the employees about the motives underlying gossip by adopting the Social-Motivational Approach to Gossip, which highlights four social motives underlying gossip that have already been discussed in the literature (e.g., Foster, 2004; Rosnow, 1977). These four motives consist of (a) to influence others negatively, (b) for information gathering, (c) to enjoy socially, and (d) to maintain group norms (Bianca & Gerben, 2012).

4.9 Motives for Gossip The first motive for gossiping is that people can influence others and manipulate their views negatively, leading to gossip’s negative reputation (Foster, 2004). Such gossip is referred to as indirect aggression (Richardson & Green, 1997), and it is also strongly related to relational aggression, which is a covert aggressive behavior intended to harm someone by hurting or manipulating their relationships with others (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). The next motive for gossip is primarily involved with information gathering and validation. To fulfill this motive, a person could acquire new information about another person they gossip about or verify whether others share their viewpoint (Bianca & Gerben, 2012). Foster (2004) also indicated that gossip is an efficient and only way to locate information. The third motive for gossip is social enjoyment, through which an individual can have joy and distract himself and others from monotonous activities, and such gossiping is driven by the urge to have a pleasant time with others. An earlier study also indicated that people gossip merely for satisfaction and entertainment (Alshehre, 2017; Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012; Rosnow, 1977; Spacks, 1982). The last and fourth motive for gossip is to preserve the group norms against harmful behavior (Imada, 2022; Gluckman, 1963) and to “remind” group members against others who infringe group norms (Dunbar, 2004), and insiders frequently use such motive to eliminate outsiders (Dunbar, 2004; Sun et al., 2022). Even though several studies have discussed these motives in the literature, there is no empirical research on the social motives for gossip among higher education and healthcare sector employees in Saudi Arabia; through this chapter, the authors examined how these four motives for gossip are felt by these employees in Saudi Arabia.

4 Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi …

67

4.10 Gossip and Job Performance According to the social comparison theory, individuals naturally relate to gossip content while engaging in workplace gossip (Sun et al., 2022). Therefore, to keep their behavioral performance compatible with the gossip goal or even exceed them, employees are strongly motivated to improve their behavior, enhance their performance, and create strong work enthusiasm (Grosser et al., 2010). The social comparison theory consists of upward and downward comparison theories (Joshua et al., 2018). Specifically, the downward comparison theory relates to others who are inferior to oneself (Zhang Bao et al., 2008). For example, when negative gossip exists in a particular organization, employees frequently get negative information, which holds employees in a downward comparative environment for an extended time. In such a scenario, where an employee finds his current situation superior to others, they may feel proud of their internal advantages or characteristics (Grosser et al., 2010). Further, a long-term downward comparison will make employees too optimistic about their prevailing situation and lead to overconfidence (Liu, 2020). This pride and overconfidence will make employees superior, reducing work initiative and enthusiasm. Furthermore, there is an influence of superior’s gossip on employees’ job performance. Positive gossip from a superior positively influences employee job engagement, enhancing employees’ work motivation and improving employee job performance (Liang & Qian, 2021). On the other hand, negative gossip from a superior had a positive but insignificant effect on employee job engagement (Dlamani et al., 2018). Positive supervisor gossip includes supervisors’ remarks about their subordinates regarding accomplishing a problematic job-related task, an upcoming promotion, exemplary workplace behavior, conduct, and workplace achievement (Brady et al., 2017). Conversely, supervisor negative gossip occurs when supervisors discuss their subordinates concerning their decline in job performance, lethargic workplace attitudes and interpersonal relations, and their level of organizational citizenship behavior (Wu et al., 2016). Thus, supervisor gossip, whether it is positive or negative, positively impacts employee job engagement and job performance, signifies that gossip is entirely instrumental in organizational communication, and accordingly, managers should harness positive outcomes associated with it (Dlamani et al., 2018).

68

A. V. Subbarayalu and A. Kamalasanan

4.11 Methodology 4.11.1 Study Design and Participants A cross-section study design was adopted. All the employees working in higher education and healthcare sectors were considered the population of this study. Employees in the higher education sector include lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors, professors, and administrative staff working in Saudi universities. In contrast, those belonging to healthcare sectors consist of physicians, nurses, and other clinical staff, including pharmacists, dentists, physiotherapists, lab technicians and radiology technicians, nutritionists, and other administrative staff belonging to selected Ministry of Health (MOH) hospitals and academic medical centers located in the eastern province in Saudi Arabia. The authors adopted a purposive sampling approach to recruit the samples to participate in this study, and efforts were taken to cover samples from all employee categories. With purposive sampling, the aim was to focus only on those categories of employees belonging to these two diverse occupational setups. Accordingly, 250 samples were targeted in each occupational group, thus constituting a total sample of 500. Informed concern was obtained, and anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed before gathering data from the participants.

4.11.2 Instrumentation A content-validated Office Gossip Assessment (OGA) tool was developed to cover several facets of gossip. All the factors and the related variables are set based on the extensive review of literature considering the working environment of Saudi higher education and healthcare sectors. Thus, the OGA tool comprised 40 items, of which the first section captures participants’ demographic data (10 items). The following 30 items were structured in a manner to reveal seven dimensions from the voice of employees, namely Gossip associated with the job (14 items), Gossip outside the office but associated with work (1 item to capture its incidence), Overall opinion of employees about gossip (5 items), Factors that induce an employee’s tendency to gossip (4 items), Possible motives for gossip (4 items), Employee’s ability to distinguish between healthy communication and malicious gossip (1 item), and Impact of gossip on their job performance (1 item). Since the questionnaire is a semi-structured one, few of the responses are recorded in the form of a check box, binary scale, and most of the items were recorded using a five-point Likert scale [(1) Newer, (2) Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4) Usually, and (5) Always]. Items about capturing the motives of gossip, the ability to distinguish

4 Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi …

69

between healthy and malicious gossip, and the impact of gossip on job performance are captured through the following five-point Likert-scale options: [(1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree, (4) Agree, and (5) Strongly agree]. The reliability-internal consistency of the OGA tool was measured through Cronbach’s alpha reliability test (Cronbach, 1951). Further, confirmatory factor analysis was carried out to assess the dimensionality of the OGP tool through the principal axis analysis using the SPSS package version 20.0. The study observed the internal consistency of the OGA tool with the overall alpha coefficient value of 0.90, where the variables that measured the concept of this questionnaire can be rated “excellent” (George & Mallery, 2003). Factor analysis extracted five factors that conjointly explained 64.56% of the variance in employee perception of office gossip existing in the higher education and healthcare sectors in Saudi Arabia.

4.11.3 The Data Collection Procedure A survey link was created using the QuestionPro application and sent to selected employees through email. Utmost efforts were taken to get 80% of responses from each occupational discipline. All the participants were invited to respond after filling out the informed consent form. The questionnaire was kept open for a pre-determined period, and all the participants were given frequent reminders to respond to the survey. Out of the total samples included in the sampling frame (N = 500), 410 completed questionnaires were received, demonstrating a response rate of 82% (Table 4.1).

4.11.4 Analytical Methods The employees’ perceptions about those seven dimensions of office gossip were analyzed using a simple percentage technique based on their responses to each item in the OGA questionnaire. Data were interpreted using the participants’ responses to survey questions (either 4 or 5, or 1 or 2 on the Likert scale, depending upon the nature of the question) to predict the employee’s perception of office gossip. A chi-square statistic was adopted to study whether there is any association between the type of industry to which the employee belongs (Healthcare/Higher education), gender (male/female), and nationality (Saudi/Non-Saudi) concerning the five significant factors of office gossip perceived by the employees of higher education and healthcare sectors in Saudi Arabia.

70 Table 4.1 Biographical data of the participates

A. V. Subbarayalu and A. Kamalasanan

Variables

Categories

Frequency (%)

Gender

Male

228 (55.6)

Female

182 (44.4)

Saudi

171 (41.7)

Non-Saudi

239 (58.3)

Public

289 (70.5)

Private

121 (29.5)

Nationality Type of organization Industry they belong to Overall working experience (Years)

Higher education 241 (58.8) Healthcare

169 (41.2)

1–5

66 (16.1)

6–10

84 (20.5)

11–15

112 (27.3)

16–20

65 (15.9)

>20

83 (20.2)

Educational background of Undergraduate the employees Graduates PhDs

77 (18.8) 178 (43.4) 155 (37.8)

4.12 Major Research Findings 4.12.1 Gossip Associated with Job The findings reveal that a notable proportion (64%) of the Saudi higher education and healthcare sector employees usually gossip with their Colleagues, whereas 13% of them expressed that they often gossip with someone at the supervisory level, and very few of them (6%) tend to gossip with their subordinates. The amount of time spent on gossip is substantially less among the employees in which 87% of the respondents expressed that they spent less than 20% of their office time in gossip, whereas 10% of them indicated they were involved in gossip between 20 and 40% of their office time. Further exploration was made to study the extent of the involvement of employees in gossip. 23% of the respondents expressed their opinion that over 50% of their workforce is involved in gossip. Notably, 29% of respondents expressed that less than 10% of the workforce is involved in gossip at their offices. Even though 62% of the respondents expressed that gender does not play a role in gossiping activities, 27% felt females gossip more than males. Concerning the trustworthiness of the gossiped information, a considerable percentage (39%) of the respondents registered that less than 20% of gossip which occurs at the workplace is fact-based; contrarily, only 3% of the respondents recorded their opinion that gossip prevalent in their office is 80–100% fact-based.

4 Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi …

71

The next issue explored was gossip’s key area of focus and how it is perceived at the individual and organizational levels. Among the respondents, 44% indicated that workplace gossip revolves around their office work, whereas 30% felt that it is related to personnel matters, and 26% of gossip focused on social issues. Even though 31% of the respondents felt that gossip was not taken seriously by the organization, 56% of the respondents expressed their concern that their firm took it seriously, which negatively impacted them. Further, 48% of the respondents feel guilty or embarrassed of negative gossiping either as a victim (i.e., target) or gossiper of the situation. Furthermore, participants in this study were asked about the central theme of gossip at their workplace and how often they were involved. Most participants (69%) responded that they were never or very rarely engaged in gossip about their subordinates, colleague, or supervisors’ performance. Similarly, over 65% of them reported that they never or very rarely gossip about their subordinates, colleague, or supervisors’ work involvement and integrity (honesty). In addition, 72% of the respondents indicated that they were never or very rarely involved in gossiping about their subordinate’s or colleagues’, or supervisors’ lack of knowledge and/or experience. The findings also uncover that 50% of the participants gossip outside their office on matters related to work, and 38% of them usually gossip with friends, whereas 34% gossip with their colleagues outside office hours. Further, 34% expressed that they typically have an idle talk about what happened in the office at their home. Likewise, 31% of gossip-related discussions occurred in the restaurant/coffee shop, and 29% expressed such idle talk often held at friends’ or relatives’ homes.

4.12.2 Employees’ Tendency to Gossip The findings of this study add value to the existing literature by uncovering the tendency adopted by higher education and healthcare employee groups to gossip with specific reference to a person’s physical appearance, achievement, social information, and sublimated gossip. Most participants (81%) never or rarely consider a person’s physical appearance as a tendency to gossip. Further, 80% of the employees in Saudi Arabia never or rarely discuss the clothes/dress of their colleagues with co-workers, and such discussion is not a part of gossip. On the other hand, there is a tendency among employees to gossip about the achievement made by others, and this study reported that only 24% of Saudi healthcare and higher education employees’ gossip revolved around the growth and accomplishments of their colleagues or co-workers and 31% usually have an idle talk about how other co-workers have done well at work. Considering all the gossip, around 13% of the discussion was related to other people’s academic qualifications, and 11% was related to their colleagues’ salaries. 21% of all the gossip-related discussions focused on those colleagues who left the organization for good. Concerning the employees’ tendency to gossip, which explicitly focuses on social information about a person, only 10% of the employees give exciting details in

72

A. V. Subbarayalu and A. Kamalasanan

conversation about individuals, and 63% never discuss the interests of other coworkers with their colleagues. Furthermore, even though 15% of the respondents believed that office gossip is usually related to other people’s problems with coworkers, 78% of the participants expressed that these discussions never or rarely focused on the personal affairs (extra-marital relations/love affairs) of a colleague or co-worker. Interestingly, 79% of the participants never or rarely read newspaper gossip columns.

4.12.3 Employees’ Motives for Gossip The current study also examines why employees belong to Saudi Arabia Gossip, whether they gossip for different reasons in different situations, or they can identify between different types of Gossip. The findings of this study bring out the motives of these employees for gossiping, and less than 10% of employees gossip to damage reputation and create a negative image of the individual targeted in the gossip discussion. Even though 68% of the employees never considered Gossiping an enjoyable activity, 11% of them usually gossip for time passing or to kill time, and 9% expressed that they get involved in Gossiping to have fun with others. Another motive behind Gossip is to gather information or validate the collected information. The findings reveal that only 14% of the employees usually gossip to confirm their views about the person targeted in the gossip discussion, and 15% gossip to verify whether the person they are talking to agrees with them to ensure the correctness of their assumption. Another interesting finding of this study is that 69% of the Saudi higher education and healthcare sector employees agreed to distinguish between healthy communication and malicious Gossip. This finding implies that employees of these above two service sectors are wise enough to handle information received at their workplace and not become gossip victims.

4.12.4 Employees’ Overall Opinion About Gossip Among the respondents, 29% reported that Gossip is destructive and malicious, whereas 8% expressed that it is constructive and healthy. Further, 18% felt that office gossip is informative, and 20% stated it helps relieve work tension. It is noteworthy that 20% perceived Gossip as just time passing. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that a significant proportion of respondents (43%) did not take Gossip seriously, and 82% expressed that they did not enjoy gossiping either as a victim or a part of it. Also, 29% of respondents prefer the same sex to Gossip, whereas 71% do not have any sexual preference. It is also observed that 42% of the respondents felt that office gossip positively or negatively influences their behavior.

4 Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi …

73

4.12.5 Impact of Gossip on Job Performance An earlier study demonstrated a link between Gossip and its effect on employee job performance (Dlamani et al., 2018; Brady et al., 2017). The findings of this study also indicated that 72% of the employees agreed that if they were the victim of office gossip, such incidents would have a detrimental impact on their job performance. On the contrary, 15% of the participants expressed that Gossip does not impact their job performance.

4.12.6 Association Between Factors Influencing Office Gossip and Gender, Nationality as Well as the Diversity of Employees’ Group in Saudi Arabia Besides gender, the authors classified the nationality of the employees into Saudi and Non-Saudis. An attempt has been made to study the association between the five factors influencing office gossip and three independent variables (i.e., gender, nationality, and type of industry where employees belong) using the chi-square statistic. The findings imply a significant association between the five factors influencing office gossip and the type of industry (i.e., healthcare or higher education sector) (χ2 = 9.856; p < 0.05). Thus, employees from both higher education and healthcare sectors perceive office gossip in the same way. The study findings reveal that there is no significant association between gender concerning the five factors influencing office gossip, indicating both males and females perceive it differently (p < 0.05). 63% of male employees never or rarely be victims or a part of gossip closely associated with their office work, whereas 58% of females never engaged in office job-related gossip. Our findings contradict the previous studies by Eyal and Batia (2019), and Van (2005), who established that gossip is a universal phenomenon and both women and men engage in the same amount of gossiping activity of all ages. The observed difference might be due to the nature of the participants, where the earlier study covers employees from all the industries, and this study focuses on the healthcare and higher education sectors. Regarding the tendency adopted by male and female employees to gossip, our findings reveal that 63% of female employees never or rarely have those tendencies to gossip, considering all four factors together, such as the physical appearance of a person, their achievement, social information, and sublimated gossip. On the contrary, 67% of male does not have those tendencies to gossip. Concerning the motives behind the employees for gossiping, our results indicate that 75% of females never or rarely have motives behind gossiping, whereas 62% of male employees have such motives. The findings of this study reveal that there is no signification association between gender about their ability to distinguish between healthy communication and malicious gossip (χ2 = 11.534; p = 0.061). Specifically, 71% of males could distinguish

74

A. V. Subbarayalu and A. Kamalasanan

between healthy communication and malicious gossip, whereas only 64% of female employees could. However, exploring the reasons behind the difference in perception between gender is beyond the scope of this study, and further research is warranted. The findings of this study also demonstrated no significant association between nationality (Saudi/Non-Saudis) about the five factors influencing office gossip, indicating that both Saudi and Non-Saudi nationals perceive it differently (p < 0.05). Specifically, 63% of Saudi employees are never or rarely a victim or a part of gossip closely associated with their office work, whereas 59% of non-Saudis never or rarely engaged in office job-related gossip (χ2 = 4.686; p = 0.321). Regarding the tendency adopted by the Saudi and non-Saudi employees to office gossip, no significant association was observed between the two employee groups (χ2 = 3.5444; p = 0.471). 66% of Saudi employees never or rarely tend to gossip, considering all four factors together, such as a person’s physical appearance, achievements, social information, and sublimated gossip. On the antithesis, 53% of non-Saudis do not have those tendencies to gossip. About the motives behind the employees’ gossiping, no significant association was observed between Saudis and Non-Saudis (χ2 = 5.902; p = 0.116). 69% of Saudis never or rarely have motives for gossiping, whereas 66% of non-Saudi employees do not have any reasons for gossiping. Similarly, 65% of Saudi and 70% of non-Saudi employees could distinguish between healthy communication and 33 malicious gossips. This study also reveals that there is no significant association between Office gossip perceived by the employees and its impact on job performance. Thus, Saudi and Non-Saudi nationals and males and females perceived it differently (p < 0.05). Specifically, 74% of non-Saudis felt gossip is detrimental to their job performance, whereas 62% of Saudis agreed that gossip impacts their office performance. In addition, 72% of females agreed that if they were the victim of office gossip, such an incident would have a detrimental impact on their job performance; however, 67% of males agreed that office gossip impacts their job performance.

4.13 Discussion Though gossip is researched in the Saudi context, none of the studies captured employees’ views in the higher education and healthcare industry. Accordingly, the authors studied the perception of those employees working in service sector organizations in Saudi Arabia, such as higher education and healthcare industries. In this section, the authors tried to substantiate the findings with the existing literature and the knowledge pool across various literature outside Saudi Arabia.

4 Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi …

75

4.13.1 Perception of Employees About Office Gossip in Saudi Arabia The study’s findings demonstrated that a higher number of employees (87%) spend only up to 20% of their office time gossiping. In comparison, a few believe they engage in gossip and consume 20–40% of their office time. Irrespective of the human tendency to gossip, the findings illustrate that a vast majority spend less time gossiping because many cultures and religious regulations consider gossip sinful and unethical (Wang et al., 2021; Esther, 2019; Morgan & Martin, 2006; Van Eck, 2012). Further, people usually do not consider themselves gossipers and do not want to be labeled (Hartung & Renner, 2013). The study reveals that most employees gossip with their colleagues (64%) and supervisors (13%). It is human nature that they tend to form friendships and social groups where gossip is also a tool for building informal relations in organizations. The findings of Lea et al. (2012), Asami and Tessei (2022) support the evolutionary perspective, indicating that gossip between two people enhances the likelihood of forming a friendship in the future. Positive gossip favors receiver-target friendships, whereas negative gossip hinders such friendships (Estévez et al., 2022). Furthermore, the behavior of gossiping is not only limited to the work environment, but it extends outside the organization, and a vast majority of employees provided their feedback that they gossip outside the office (50%) with their friends and colleagues at home, restaurant/coffee shop, and other places. To verify the veracity of our findings, we looked for studies on office gossip stretching to the outside environment, but limited or no research in this area. The authors presume that this behavior might prevail and that the employees would like to continue the gossip subject to discuss further outside the office if the subject has a severe connotation. The findings also illustrated the trustworthiness of gossip, where a considerable number of employees (39%) in our study believe that only 20% of the gossip is factbased. Of course, gossip can also be grounded on facts, and it often is, but it almost always includes an element of value with some exaggeration. In conformance with our findings, Peters and Fonseca (2020) demonstrated that lies make up a significant proportion of gossip and are twice as expected when gossiper competition occurs. However, they also observed no noticeable effect on trust levels. Further, most respondents (69%) opined that they never or very seldom gossiped about their subordinate’s, colleagues’, or supervisors’ performance. In addition, (81%) never or rarely consider a person’s physical appearance as a tendency to gossip. A significant number (79%) of the participants are interested in something other than reading newspaper gossip columns. The strikingly significant observations are that 82% of employees did not enjoy gossiping either as a victim or a part of it, and 67% of males and 63% of females does not have the tendency to gossip. These observations may be because no one likes to portray themselves as a gossiper (Hartung & Renner, 2013) or religious norms and culture, which considers a sin (Morgan & Martin, 2006; Van Eck, 2012; Wang et al., 2021). Nevertheless, another reason for this opinion among employees may be that gossip has long been regarded

76

A. V. Subbarayalu and A. Kamalasanan

as a negative attribute, and the literature revealed gossip as an evil entrenched in the patriarchal past and often derived from religions. Surprisingly, a significant number of employees (68%) never considered gossip enjoyable. However, contrary to the findings, several studies demonstrate circumstances in which people gossip solely for the mere satisfaction and enjoyment it provides (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012; Rosnow, 1977; Spacks, 1982). Our observation of not considering gossip enjoyable demonstrates the respondent’s cultural identity. A further intriguing finding of this study is that 69% of Saudi higher education and healthcare employees acknowledged that healthy communication and malicious gossip are distinct. The observation indicates that employees in the two service sectors mentioned above are competent enough to handle information received at work and avoid becoming gossip victims. According to the multiagent paradigm developed by Smith (2014), employees can prevent themselves from being influenced by malicious gossip aimed at defaming specific targets. It is worth mentioning that most of the employees (42%) accepted that office gossip influences their behavior, either positively or negatively. According to Leaper and Holliday (1995), most gossip negatively affects employees’ behavior, and such negative workplace gossip potentially harms employees (Kong, 2018). Employees subjected to negative workplace gossip are more prone to incorporate unfavorable feedback from others into their self-evaluation, negatively impacting their conduct (Ye et al., 2019; Fleith et al., 2010). Our study also observed that most employees (72%) believe that if they fall victim to office gossip, it affects their productivity. The experts justify this finding that negative office gossip is a social undermining for employees (Kong, 2018; Duffy et al., 2002) and emotional cancer that damages the sense of well-being (Vajda, 2007). The victims view negative workplace gossip as unpleasant interpersonal communication that leads to negative appraisal, psychological stress, and uneasiness. The employees who experience psychological stress and insecurity out of gossip also have been demonstrated in studies to harm their job habits (Probst et al., 2007).

4.13.2 Gossip and Gender Regarding gender and gossip at the office, most employees (62%) in our study believe that gender does not play a role in gossiping, but few (27%) of the employees feel that female gossips more than males. The findings are justified by the conclusions drawn from several other studies, which demonstrate no difference in gender and gossip (Brennan, 2009); in offices, both genders gossip at the same intensity but on different topics (Berkos, 2003). Grosser et al. (2012) indicate that men and women gossip at the same rate, but the substance of the gossip can differ significantly. Another research reveals that amidst the widely held and established stereotypic belief that women are primarily involved in originating and spreading workplace rumors and gossip, a review of the evidence contradicts this assertion (Michelson & Mouly, 2000). Contrary to those studies, this research addressing the employees (27%)

4 Perceptions of Office Gossip Among Diverse Employee Groups in Saudi …

77

working in the two Saudi industrial sectors elucidates that both genders perceive gossip differently (p < 0.05 level), and these include (i) tendency toward gossip, (ii) motives for gossip, (iii) amount of time spent on gossip, and (iv) relevance of the topic of gossip. Our findings agree with the earlier study by Adam et al. (2018), where girls and women likely initiate gossip more often than boys and men in crosssex groups to gather valuable social information and derogate rivals. Dunbar et al. (1997) observed that males spent 55% of conversation time and female participants spent 67% of conversation time on the discussion of socially relevant topics. Likewise, earlier studies have indicated a gender difference concerning the relevance of the topic of discussion, where women gossip more about social relationships and physical appearance than men (Eyal & Batia, 2019). In conformity with our study, several other shreds of evidence also produce consistent results, demonstrating that, in general, women folk spend more time gossiping than male (Almenara-Niebla et al., 2020; Tekin, 2012; Dunbar et al., 1997).

4.13.3 Gossip and Diversity of Employees’ Group The studies that focus on ascertaining gossip among diverse employee groups, such as higher education and healthcare, are scary, and studies have yet to be found in the Saudi Arabian context. Our findings imply that higher education and healthcare sector employees in Saudi Arabia perceive office gossip similarly, indicating an association between both groups (χ2 = 9.856; p < 0.05). 59% of healthcare employees never or rarely experienced gossip at the workplace, whereas 63% of employees of higher education sectors never get involved in gossip either as a victim or a part of gossip in their organization. Such similarity observed between both employee groups might be due to the nature of the working environment and the existence of strict rules and regulations prevalent in Saudi Arabia. As per Saudi laws, to counter cybercrime, employees are not allowed to produce, prepare, send, or save any unauthorized content or rumors inside and outside the workplace (Deema Al-Khudair, 2020). More recently, in Saudi Arabia, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Nazaha) has issued a raft of new regulations declaring various behaviors at work as “corrupt acts”, including gossiping, making personal calls, reading irrelevant material, and not adhering to office hours (Arab News, 2014). Further, all the organizations have formal policies restricting gossip, and these policies explicitly state that it is not limiting employees’ right to talk about wages, hours, or working conditions; instead, it focuses on gossip about non-work-related issues (Dana, 2021). Nevertheless, despite regulations to streamline employees’ behaviors in Saudi Arabia, our findings show that a substantial proportion of employees (