`You didn't hear it from us but ...': towards an understanding of rumour and gossip in organisations.

Abstract:

This paper investigates an important topic in organisational behaviour that hitherto, has not received enough attention--informal communications, including grapevine activity, rumour and gossip. We show how this topic can illuminate potential new insights in a range of related areas in organisational behaviour. We further outline an agenda for research on rumour and gossip in organisations, paying careful attention to a number of individual-level and organisational-level variables. Finally, methodological issues and ways of collecting data are considered; we suggest that many research techniques can be usefully employed in the study of rumour and gossip.

Keywords:

RUMOUR ; GOSSIP; ORGANISATIONS; THEORY; METHODOLOGY.

1. Introduction

   `Have you heard the latest about the new manager?'
   `No, but do tell.'
   `Well, apparently, and you must keep this to yourself, I've heard
   that she intends to
   change our current work methods in an attempt to reduce staffing
   levels.'
   `What! That's shocking. Just because her husband left her for
   another woman.'
   `Now where did you hear that?'

Scenarios such as these are played out on an almost daily basis in organisations. Individuals regularly exchange information that may not strictly be termed as formal communication or public discourse. Often termed grapevine activity, rumour or gossip, these forms of exchange are regarded as an inevitable part of organisational life (Davis 1969). Although rumour and gossip span a number of disciplines including psychology, sociology, anthropology and communications, interest in the phenomena by organisational researchers has been almost negligible (Noon & Delbridge 1993). This is surprising given that rumour and gossip have the potential to harm organisations through the transmission of inaccurate information and innuendo. In addition, rumour and gossip can lower morale and undermine productivity (DiFonzo et al. 1994; Baker & Jones 1996; DiFonzo & Bordia 2000). However, not everything about rumour and gossip is negative. There are potential benefits to be gained as well. For example, managers who use the organisational grapevine are often well placed to measure the early effects of new policies and procedures by gauging employees' reactions to them (see Mishra 1990).

The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to highlight a widespread, yet remarkably under-researched practice in organisational behaviour--informal communications, which include grapevine activity, rumour and gossip. We intend to showcase the potential that an in-depth examination of rumour and gossip processes offers researchers. The structure is as follows. We first identify the possible linkages between rumour and gossip and other related topics in organisational behaviour including group dynamics, romance at work, conflict, bullying, power and politics, stress, and leadership. The following section then examines current thinking on rumour and gossip in organisations, and reveals the lack of empirical studies on this topic. This section further outlines ways to advance scholarship on rumour and gossip by presenting a series of research propositions. We conclude the paper by considering a number of methodological issues.

2. Establishing Links with Related Topics

While our main concern is to highlight the potential of undertaking research on rumour and gossip, this section seeks to briefly conceptualise the topic by exploring its relationship with other issues in understanding organisations. In other words, we contend that this is fertile terrain on which new insights about related topics might also be found.

It is not difficult to see how rumour and gossip processes can contribute to a better understanding of other subjects of interest to organisational behaviourists. Informal communication, gossip in particular, tends to take place between friends or within particular functional groupings within organisations. In turn, this reinforces the social bond of the participants, thus helping to preserve group solidarity (see Noon & Delbridge 1993). However, the role played by gossip in binding group members together may be eroded in a climate characterised by job insecurity (Tebbutt & Marchington 1997). Thus, new directions in studies of group behaviour and group dynamics could emerge from the inclusion of this issue. Moreover, this contains implications for social identity theory.

Rumour and gossip contain further implications for other areas of study as well. Awareness of any sexual liaisons or romances between organisational members invariably (and rapidly) disseminates through informal channels of communication. Sometimes this buttresses existing power structures in the organisation. For instance, women are more likely than men to be the subject of sexual gossip (Mishra 1990, p. 219). There is an inference that such rumours and gossip are of a malicious nature; this can stem from a perception that women are prone to be romantically involved with other organisational members for the primary purpose of advancing their careers (see Pierce, Byrne & Aguinis 1996, p. 23). Rumours and gossip in this and other contexts therefore, might engender interpersonal conflict. The study of informal communication processes is also not unrelated to the topic of workplace bullying and harassment, an issue which has attracted recent scholarly attention. Here, some contend that the regular and widespread transmission of malevolent rumours is one means by which organisational members are `bullied' (see McCarthy, Rylance, Bennett & Zimmermann 2001).

Building on the previous theme but applying it to a somewhat different area, rumour and gossip might also be utilised as a weapon in organisational politics. The deliberate transmission of incorrect information on the grapevine could damage the professional position of opponents and concomitantly reinforce one's own standing. In addition, negative information designed to smear personal reputations can quickly become established as `fact' if it is repeated often enough.

While rumours have been found to increase in environmental settings where individuals feel anxious (Anthony 1973; Walker & Blaine 1991), gossip might be one vehicle through which individuals relieve tension and anxiety. In turn, this could enhance knowledge about both the antecedents and remedies of stress. Finally, it might also be useful to explore the extent, the circumstances and the ways in which rumour and gossip are actually used by managers. This could present new avenues for research on organisational leadership.

What this section has attempted to illustrate are the range of possible linkages between rumour and gossip and other topics of relevance to organisational behaviourists. The following section continues to establish the general theme of the paper. Here, we examine the extant literature on rumour and gossip in organisations before presenting an agenda for further work.

3. An Agenda for Research

3.1 Research on Rumour and Gossip: A Brief Review

Interest in rumour and gossip processes has been evident for some time now in a number of disciplines including anthropology (e.g. Gluckman 1963; Gilmore 1978), psychology (e.g. Rosnow & Fine 1976; Jaeger, Anthony & Rosnow 1980; Rosnow 1991), sociology (e.g. Bergmann 1993) and communications (e.g. Suls 1977; Walker & Blaine 1991). Such research has revealed numerous insights into the purpose, nature and function of rumour and gossip in social settings. One of the more significant of these insights is the moral dimension. Underlying one's participation in receiving and transmitting rumour and gossip can be frequently deep-seated feelings of guilt and ambivalence. Such feelings might be reflected, for example, by the following expressions: `I don't like to gossip but ...' or `You haven't heard this from me ...' Despite these reservations, evidence still suggests widespread involvement by individuals in such practices. In other words, there appears to be a discrepancy between the collective public denunciation and the collective private practicing of these communication forms (Bergmann 1993, p. 21). Acquiring and disseminating information at a more subterranean level (`discreet indiscretion') arguably overshadows the whole rumour and gossip process.

Other insights to emerge have included how obtaining information through gossip can be used by individuals to make social comparisons (Suls 1977). This suggests, consistent with social identity theory, that gossip provides an important self-appraisal role. Rosnow and Fine (1976) have further shown how rumour and gossip are bounded by temporal limits; once an event has occurred or some issue become irrelevant, interest in the particular rumour and gossip tends to dissipate. This implies that rumour and gossip might need to be analysed in terms of a lifecycle model. Notwithstanding the important theoretical lessons provided by these other disciplines, rumour and gossip have attracted little attention from management and organisational behaviour researchers. This might stem from its relatively `hidden' nature within organisations. The majority of studies on communication tend to concentrate on formal or officially-sanctioned methods only. Indeed, there have been very few empirical studies of rumour and gossip in organisations. In part, this could be a function of accurately measuring and tracing both the processes and effects of rumour and gossip (see also the discussion on methodological issues below).

The limited amount of management-oriented research on rumour and gossip can be broadly categorized into two types. First, there have been studies written largely for a practitioner audience (e.g. Zaremba 1988; Baker & Jones 1996; Crampton, Hodge & Mishra 1998). Often based on assertion rather than evidence, these studies are characterised by rather simplistic notions espousing either the virtues or harm of rumour and gossip for organisations. Second, there has been research that has attempted to better conceptualise the dynamics of these phenomena by integrating knowledge from other fields. For example, Michelson and Mouly (2000) sought to establish the general parameters of rumour and gossip research in organisations, while Kurland and Pelled (2000) generated a series of research propositions about the largely positive effect of gossip on gossipers' expert, referent, reward and coercive power. The latter study is consistent with resource dependence theory in that the internal control over particular resources--in this case, information--gives some organisational members more power than other members. Notwithstanding these more rigorous endeavours, the topic nonetheless remains at an embryonic stage with the number of empirical studies still few and far between.

Having identified the relative paucity of rumour and gossip research in the fields of management and organisational behaviour, the remainder of the paper seeks to establish new directions for future research. Practical implications and methodological issues are also considered.

3.2 New Research Directions

Rumour and gossip have multiple theoretical underpinnings suggesting that research in this area will need to move beyond operating within a traditional set of ideologies and paradigms (Waddington & Fletcher 2001). With this in mind, a number of hypotheses are offered which seek to advance understanding of rumour and gossip in organisations.

First, it is not entirely transparent whether rumour and gossip are in fact independent or mutually dependent phenomena. Was the scenario described at the outset of the paper an example of rumour, gossip, or both? There are both similarities and differences between the two forms of communication. Both rumour and gossip are characterised by spontaneity; seldom are such communication forms planned. Both also deal with topical information and typically require the hearer to `believe' the message even if they harbour some doubts as to its authenticity. These structural elements help maintain interest in and reliance upon the rumour or gossip. For example, one important study that examined the vicissitude of stock trading behaviour found that rumours, even if not trusted, were still relied on in trading decisions as they helped individuals `make sense' of otherwise ambiguous events (DiFonzo & Bordia 1997). Such behaviour is significant in the context of cognitive dissonance theory.

However, there are some differences between rumour and gossip. The basis of a rumour is unsubstantiated information while there is typically some presumption of `factuality' surrounding gossip. Moreover, the parameters of rumour tend to be wider than gossip since its message attracts more universal interest; gossip is more likely to occur in a context of `privacy' and through and with friends or trusted acquaintances (Michelson & Mouly 2000, pp. 340-1). Clarifying and operationalising the terms `rumour' and `gossip' is a necessary first step in developing uniformity in any research program. Elsewhere, we have treated them as synonyms and defined them as `informal communication transmitted to another person or persons, irrespective of whether or not the communication has been established as fact' (Michelson & Mouly 2000, p. 341).

We also urge future research to more systematically explore the advantages and disadvantages of rumour and gossip for individuals and organisations alike. While there is literature which identifies both beneficial and harmful consequences, much of this is based on conjecture, or is anecdotal at best. Rather than starting from an assumption that all such forms of communication should either be encouraged or eliminated by managers, we believe that a more progressive approach in both theoretical and practical terms is to examine first what motivates individuals to engage in rumour and gossip. For example, they might be a means of acquiring information, of exerting influence through the control of information, or simply because individuals find them pleasurable or satisfying activities (Michelson & Mouly 2000). Only through understanding and modelling the motives of participants in rumour and gossip can researchers begin to draw more accurate conclusions about their effects. Here, we submit the following hypothesis for testing:

H1: Differences in rumour and gossip motives are associated with different individual and organisational consequences.

Previous research suggests that while certain demographic characteristics such as age, gender and organisational position are unlikely to reveal much about the propensity to engage in rumour and gossip or the nature of such processes (for gender, see Michelson & Mouly 2000), examination of a range of individual-level variables--including affective reactions and personality--and organisational-level variables, offers fruitful directions for research. For instance, the level of anxiety experienced helps account for an increase in rumour transmission (Jaeger et al. 1980; Rosnow 1991), while the reputation and power of gossipers in organisations might be enhanced by the provision of accurate information to others (Kurland & Pelled 2000). At the contextual or organisational level, rumours tend to increase in settings where members have little or no control over events (see Festinger et al. 1948) such as downsizing programs, or where there is a poor internal climate since employees are likely to mistrust formal communication channels (Crampton et al. 1998). Some of these aspects, including strategies to limit employee uncertainty during organisational change, can be influenced by managerial actions (see DiFonzo & Bordia 2000). For its part, gossip might be more likely in situations where there are high levels of intra-organisational competition between members. In sum, we believe that both the organisational context and a range of individual variables are significant factors that help explain rumour and gossip.

H2: Both individual-level and organisational-level factors are important predictors of rumour and gossip activity in organisations.

A further line of inquiry might explore the role played by technology in rumour and gossip. While e-mail and electronic bulletin boards have emerged as widespread forms of communication in recent years, to what extent are rumour and gossip channelled through these mediums? While the overarching moral dimension of rumour and gossip would, among other factors, predict that individuals will resist any recording of their utterances, we cannot be entirely sure about this. It could follow that the frequency, structure and dynamics of rumour and gossip are simply manifested differently in contexts other than face-to-face settings. This would need to be empirically tested. Recent research suggests that there may be both similarities (Bordia & Rosnow 1998) as well as differences (Harrington & Bielby 1995) in computer technology and face-to-face informal communication networks.

H3: The method or mode of information transmission influences the nature, structure and dynamic of rumour and gossip in organisations.

Together, we argue that a complex range of factors needs to be incorporated in modelling rumour and gossip in organisations. Along with the method of information transmission, these include exploring the range of possible motives, individual-level variables, and the organisational contexts in which these phenomena all take place. Only in doing so will the intended and unintended effects of rumour and gossip be more confidently explained and understood.

3.3 Methodological Issues

The interdisciplinary and complex nature of rumour and gossip suggest that a sufficiently robust framework is needed to capture both the variations and subtleties of these communication forms (Davis 1953). Given that an element of `trust' between the respondents is normally a prerequisite for participating in gossip, we believe that one way of studying the gossip process is through participant observation techniques. Here, the researcher, as an insider, can witness even the unplanned exchanges of information. Such data can be analysed, for example, through social network analysis (see Wasserman & Faust 1994). Some studies have sought to interview individuals about the reasons and frequency with which they gossip (e.g. Festinger et al. 1948; Waddington & Fletcher 2001). However, this assumes that individuals can consciously and accurately recall the nature of their casual conversations. We question this assumption and believe that the investigator may need to be a member of `the group' through which information flows (this requirement is less pressing in the case of rumour). Other ways of overcoming recall biases might entail diary methods of data collection.

Laboratory studies have been relatively common in studies of rumour (e.g. Anthony 1973; DiFonzo & Bordia 1997). These have revealed many interesting findings that could be further explored in actual organisational settings. Still other research has employed cross-sectional surveys in their normal work contexts to collect data (Sutton & Porter 1968). What does appear most crucial are research designs that allow investigators to focus on rumour and gossip flows over time. In this regard, the issue of sampling will emerge as an important consideration. This is because it is highly unlikely that researchers will be able to collect data about all rumour and gossip concerning an item of interest. This situation is particularly problematic in large organisations (Davis 1953). Here, the utilisation of computer technology (e-mail and electronic bulletin boards) to study informal communications may be advantageous. Research has shown that such technologies can facilitate data collection and transcription in a natural and unobtrusive way (Bordia 1996). We are not suggesting that such technologies are the only means of collecting data about rumour and gossip. Indeed, sometimes the technology and the social context in which it occurs can alter the nature of gossip processes (see Harrington & Bielby 1995). In addition, non-verbal reactions towards the rumour or gossip cannot be detected by electronic modes of information transmission. We therefore argue for a variety of techniques to explore facets of rumour and gossip.

H4: A combination of research techniques (e.g. laboratory studies, surveys based on computer technology, diary methods and participant observation) enhances understanding of the antecedents and consequences of rumour and gossip in organisations.

We further believe that by combining methods from positivistic and interpretative paradigms, researchers will be able to get richer data.

As the opening scenario between two employees implies, rumour and gossip through the organisational grapevine is an organic and typically unwieldy practice. Linear models of communication therefore, with their assumption of a passive receiver, seem less relevant for examining such `small talk'. More dynamic models and theories which capture the relationships among participants and the highly iterative nature of such communication processes, for instance, appear more appropriate. In this context, learning to better understand rumour and gossip will allow us to appreciate more fully an integral aspect of organisational life.

The authors thank Sharon Parker, Robert Wood and the two anonymous referees for their very helpful and constructive comments.

References

Anthony, S. 1973, `Anxiety and rumor', Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 89, pp. 91-8.

Baker, J.S. & Jones, M.A. 1996, `The poison grapevine: how destructive are gossip and rumor in the workplace', Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 75-86.

Bergmann, J.R. 1993, Discreet Indiscretions: The Social Organization of Gossip, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Bordia, P. 1996, `Studying verbal interaction on the internet: The case of rumor transmission research', Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 149-51.

Bordia, P. & Rosnow, R.L. 1998, `Rumor rest stops on the information highway: Transmission patterns in a computer-mediated rumor chain', Human Communication Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 163-79.

Crampton, S.M., Hodge, J.W. & Mishra, J.M. 1998, `The informal communication network: Factors influencing grapevine activity', Public Personnel Management, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 569-84.

Davis, K. 1953, `A method of studying communication patterns in organizations', Personnel Psychology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 301-12.

Davis, K. 1969, `Grapevine communication among lower and middle managers', Personnel Journal, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 269-72.

DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. 1997, `Rumor and prediction: Making sense (but losing dollars) in the stock market', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 329-353.

DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. 2000, `How top PR professionals handle hearsay: corporate rumors, their effects, and strategies to manage them', Public Relations Review, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 173-90.

DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P. & Rosnow, R.L. 1994, `Reining in rumors', Organizational Dynamics, vol. 23, pp. 47-62.

Festinger, L., Cartwright, D., Barber, K., Fleischl, J., Gottsdanker, J., Keysen, A. & Leavitt, G. 1948, `A study of a rumor: Its origin and spread', Human Relations, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 464-86.

Gilmore, D. 1978, `Varieties of gossip in a Spanish rural community', Ethnology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 89-99.

Gluckman, M. 1963, `Gossip and scandal', Current Anthropology, vol. 4, pp. 307-16.

Harrington, C.L. & Bielby, D.D. 1995, `Where did you hear that? Technology and the social organization of gossip', Sociological Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 607-28.

Jaeger, M.E., Anthony, S. & Rosnow, R.L. 1980, `Who hears what from whom and with what effect: A study of rumor', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 6, pp. 473-8.

Kurland, N.B. & Pelled, L.H. 2000, `Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace', Academy of Management Review, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 428-38.

McCarthy, P., Rylance, J., Bennett, R. & Zimmermann, H. 2001, Bullying: From Backyard to Boardroom, 2nd edition, Federation Press, Sydney.

Michelson, G. & Mouly, S. 2000, `Rumor and gossip in organizations: A conceptual study', Management Decision, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 339-46.

Mishra, J. 1990, `Managing the grapevine', Public Personnel Management, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 213-28.

Noon, M. & Delbridge, R. 1993, `News from behind my hand: gossip in organizations', Organization Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 23-36.

Pierce, C.A., Byrne, D. & Aguinis, H. 1996, `Attraction in organizations: a model of workplace romance', Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 5-32.

Rosnow, R.L. 1991, `Inside rumor: A personal journey', American Psychologist, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 484-96.

Rosnow, R.L. & Fine, G.A. 1976, Rumor and Gossip: The Social Psychology of Hearsay, Elsevier, New York.

Suls, J.M. 1977, `Gossip as social comparison', Journal of Communication, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 164-8.

Sutton, H. & Porter, L.W. 1968, `A study of the grapevine in a governmental organization', Personnel Psychology, vol. 21, pp. 223-30.

Tebbutt, M. & Marchington, M. 1997, `Look before you speak: Gossip and the insecure workplace', Work, Employment and Society, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 713-35.

Waddington, K. & Fletcher, C. 2001, `Interdisciplinary scholarship in the investigation of the functions of gossip at work: theoretical and methodological considerations', Paper presented to the British Psychological Society (Occupational Psychology) Conference, Winchester, January.

Walker, C.J. & Blaine, B. 1991, `The virulence of dread rumors: A field experiment', Language and Communication, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 291-7.

Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. 1994, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Zaremba, A. 1988, `Working with the organizational grapevine', Personnel Journal, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 38-42.

(Date of receipt of final transcript: February, 2002. Accepted by Sharon Parker and Robert Wood, Special Issue Editors.)

Grant Michelson ([dagger])

V. Suchitra Mouly ([section])

([dagger]) Work and Organisational Studies, School of Business, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006. Email: [e-mail]

([section]) Management and Employment Relations Department, The University of Auckland, Private Bag, Auckland, New Zealand. Email: [e-mail]

Grant Michelson is a Senior Lecturer in Work and Organisational Studies, at the School of Business at the University of Sydney. He received his PhD in industrial relations at the same institution in 1988. His work has appeared in number of journals including the Journal of Management Studies and the British Journal of Industrial Relations. Dr Michelson's current research interests include organisational and management taboos and informal communication processes.

V. Suchitra (Suchi) Mouly is and Associate Professor in the Department of Management and Employment Relations at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. She received her PhD in organisational studies from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, In addition to a book published by Sage, Dr Mouly has authored numerous articles in journals such as Leadership Quarterly, Organizational Studies and the Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. Her current research interests include group dynamics, R&D management and qualitative methology.