When is the “gossip” at work and when “sharing information”? It depends who does it

When two junior employees throw each other on the corridor and begin to discuss how to overload their manager, it is usually considered gossip. But what happens when two managers have a record capture to discuss a performance employee?

Both scenarios fulfill the traditional definitions of gossip – the shared information is about other people, the people they are absent, the information is shared in a way that throws judgment on these people and is informal. However, the two situations are viewed very differently.

What matters that gossip is much more slippery than we might think. and revised 184 academic items To understand what really constitutes gossip at work.

The key, I discovered, is not a set of objective criteria, but rather the shared agreement of the people according to which a situation matters as gossip.

This understanding of gossip helps us understand “The paradox of gossip at work” – The idea that gossip can be considered both a reliable source of social information (” inner word “) and a source of insecure information (” only gossip “).

Also, my work provides information on how companies can manage gossip before becoming a scandal.

Knowledge is power – but power controls knowledge

How helps us recognize the sliding of the gossip to understand the paradox at work? The answer is related to the role of power in legitimizing information.

Leaders and managers need information to justify the action. If a manager is investigating a sexual harassment request, he cannot do this based only on a beating. It has to hear from this.

If the victim of sexual harassment directly complains to their manager, an investigation is automatically justified. But if the manager hears about indirect and unofficial harassment (for example, through “gossip”), with the complication added that the alleged perpetrator is another manager?

If the manager does something about what they have heard and the source turns out to be uncertain, they could face negative consequences to act on what was essentially “gossip”. But if they do not act, and the information proves to be credible, they could face repercussions to ignore the “word inside”.

There is evidence that such paradoxical situations are played quite often in the jobs in the real world. For example, interior information about negligence to patient safety In the medical assistance settings she was rejected in the past as “only gossip” until she caused a public scandal. The same thing happened in a university where The gossip shared through a “whisper network” Finally it was corroborated by a independent investigation. In this case, the investigation found that the official complaints were ignored.

One Case study in the United States The managers found had the tendency to keep an ear for the information that passes through the vines and to use it selectively to continue their own interests.

If the gossip threatened their power, they repressed it as “only gossip”. But if the gossip provided “useful” information – ammunition against a subversive employee, for example – management has legitimized gossip as “official information”.

How to manage the paradox of gossip at work

To avoid scandals that come from the moment when the gossip is ignored, managers could consider the “co-opt” gossip, bringing it to official communication channels.

But there is a problem with this approach. The gossip gains their credibility as an interior word, because it takes place outside the official communication channels. Therefore, if managers try to co -opt the gossip in the formal management processes, it is likely to have the unwanted consequence to discredit the shared information.

Instead, “gossip management” requires a better understanding of its functions and motivations.

A function is to reduce uncertainty. Research Often suggest gossip to complete the information gaps. For example, people could speculate on the salary of a manager, gossiping about their expensive car or vacation.

Such a gossip is likely to be exaggerated and counterproductive. However, it could simply be managed by transparent on staff salaries, completing the information gap before making gossip.

Another key function of gossip is to warns against antisocial behaviors like bullying. But if employees feel comfortable talking about such behavior – even when perpetuated by those with official power – managers will not face the dilemma if they will act on the information that can be “just gossip”.

Gossip is a slippery and paradoxical form of communication. Some would say it is unduly. But what can be managed are work in the workplace and hierarchical relationships in which the gossip loves to sink their teeth.

– This story originally appeared on conversation.

* James Greenslade-yeats is a management research colleague, Auckland Technology University