BEING THE TARGET OF NEGATIVE GOSSIP WITHIN AN ORGANIZATION: THE IMPACT OF A HARMFUL MOTIVE ON RELATIONSHIP CONFLICTS AND
INDIVIDUAL JOB SATISFACTION
Master thesis, MscHRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
2
ABSTRACT
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 4
THEORY ... 6
Negative Gossip and Individual Job Satisfaction ... 6
Negative Gossip and Relationship Conflicts ... 7
The Influence of a Harmful Motive on the Relationship between Negative Gossip and Relationship Conflicts ... 8
Relationship Conflicts and Individual Job Satisfaction ... 9
Conceptual Model ... 10
METHOD ... 11
Participants and Procedure ... 11
4
INTRODUCTION
Human beings always exchange information in all kinds of environment, also at work. Dunbar (2004) notes that 66% of all conversations belong to an evaluative exchange of information about an absent third party, which can simply be called gossip. This indicates the high relevance of gossip as being part of everybody’s life. Gossip can either be positive or negative (Foster, 2004). Research already shows that positive gossip can have positive impact, e.g. improving the sender’s reputation by speaking positively about an absent person, defined as the target. (Gambetta, 2006). The existing literature usually focuses on the connection between the gossip sender, the person gossiping, and the gossip receiver, the person hearing the gossip from the sender. Most of the literature analyzes amongst other things the trust between these parties and indicates higher trust levels and bonding between sender and receiver (Den Hartog, 2005). However, little research is based on the gossip sender and the target and how the relationship between these two will be affected if the target becomes aware of the gossip. The target might be influenced by the gossip. Hence he/she is part of the organization, organizational outcomes might be influenced, e.g. effectiveness and performance. Therefore, research should focus on the target to analyze the effects of being the target of negative evaluative talking.
There is little information about the impact of negative gossip on the relationship between the involved parties, especially when the target has knowledge of those negative informal conversations about him-/herself. This might lead to negative side effects like relationship conflicts between the target and the sender. Relationship conflicts are defined as tensions between two or more parties due to real or perceived differences (De Dreu & Weingart, 2002). Real or perceived differences can appear when the target evaluates the gossip as untrue, unfair or harmful. Shaw, Tsvetkova and Daneshvar (2011) argue that gossip can reduce positive relations between sender and target. Disagreements about the content of the gossip might appear and result in a weakened relationship between sender and target. For this reason, it is relevant to analyze the impact of conflicts between target and sender on individual job outcomes.
Relational conflicts are likely to negatively influence the effectiveness and performance of an employee, since the parties involved are more occupied with their tensions than with their work (De Dreu & Weingart, 2002) Therefore, tensions can be possible reasons for a lower job satisfaction. Accordingly, I focus on individual job satisfaction, which is defined as a personal evaluative judgment about a job that can be either positive or negative (Weiss, 2002).
5
gossip: information, entertainment and influence (Rosnow, 1977). The information function seems to be less evaluative and the entertaining function more amusing, meaning that the influential function appears to have a more significant negative impact than the others. Therefore, this analysis focuses on the influence function of gossip. Rosnow (1977) argues that gossip is driven by the motivation to talk harmfully about the absent target. Harming the target has the function of influencing someone’s reputation badly (Baumeister, Zhang & Vohs, 2004). This research investigates the moderating impact of a harmful motive on the relationship between negative gossip, conflicts between target and sender, and how this influences the target’s individual job satisfaction.
However, only limited research had been conducted on the impact of negative gossip when the target becomes aware of the gossip, and on how this knowledge affects his/her relationship with the sender and the targets individual job satisfaction. Therefore, it is relevant to gather information in order to give theoretical and practical implications for the future and add understanding. This is particularly important in organizations, which might need more information about the influence of negative gossip in order to prevent possible negative consequences such as hostile work environments or decreasing overall performance.
6
THEORY
Negative Gossip and Individual Job Satisfaction
To understand the relationship between negative gossip and individual job satisfaction, it is important to remember that gossip can become more negative if the sender has negative intent (Foster, 2004). Additionally, job satisfaction is described as the individual’s evaluation of his/her job (Weiss, 2002). Tso, Lu and Li (2014) mention six factors of job satisfaction: colleagues’ care, individual suggestion by colleagues, communication within the organization, superior management ability, morality and attitude towards the job.
According to Grosser, Lopez, Labianca and Ellwardt (2012) the exchange of negative gossip is a possible predictor of social exclusion for the target. This seems to be strongly connected to (collegial) care. Leary’s and Baumeister’s (1995) underline the notion of the strong need to feel included. The target might feel less appreciated and a lack of belonging to the group when hearing the gossip. This is, because he/she might feel that the sender spreads the gossip in order to exclude the target. The feeling of exclusion has a very important impact on job satisfaction, since one feels less motivated to work with the sender or to work inside the organization (Wright & Copranzano, 2000). Wright and Copranzano (2000) note that satisfied workers always put more effort into their work compared to less satisfied employees. This has a significant impact on performance, because the target might decrease his/her effort for the job. Research has shown that performance and (job) satisfaction are positively related, meaning that a happy worker is more willing to work harder (Evans & Dion, 1991; Wright & Copranzano, 2000; Judge, Thoreson, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Politis, 2006). This underlines the relevance of the job satisfaction within an organization.
Additionally, negative gossip can break down trust and relationships through a higher conflict- and a lower morale level. This is, because people intend to harm others and tend to focus on their self-interest, causing them to think less about the consequences of their gossip. This could lead to employees refusing to work with the sender, creating an unhealthy work environment (Abbajay, 2008) and therefore to a negative evaluation of the work. Due to the fact that the work within an organization often relies on positive relationships, such as team work and helping each other out (Ferris et al.,2009), organizational effectiveness based on job satisfaction might be negatively affected by damaged relationships.
7
the sender, because the target might feel unjustifiably punished when he/she experiences the gossip as incorrect. This can have a negative impact on the individual’s job satisfaction, since the target could become unhappy and feels not liked.
These findings result in Hypothesis 1: Negative gossip has a negative impact on the target’s individual job satisfaction.
Negative Gossip and Relationship Conflicts
The target might be more likely to disagree with negative gossip spread by the sender if he/she feels unfairly treated, and consequently tensions between the sender and the target might increase resulting in relational arguments and conflicts. Tensions normally occur if two parties perceive things differently. Those discrepancies, between sender and target, can lead to relational conflicts (Jung & Lee, 2015). Negative thoughts and emotions in organizations, which emerge through tensions over differences, often end in arguments and disagreements between the involved parties (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
Abbajay (2008) argues that negative gossip tends to cause negative thoughts and emotions to arise more often and result in damaged relationships, because it breaks down trust levels between the target and the sender if it is perceived as very negative. Negative thinking leads to anger and temper issues (Brett & Atwater, 2001), which can lead to increased conflict between the attacked (target) and the attacking party (sender).
Gossip is typically seen as “an outlet for hostile aggression” (Stirling, 1956: 263) from the sender. Aggression usually tends to be irrational, because it is the result of feelings and emotions coming from non-elaborative thinking and therefore might cause fights between the target and the sender (Richardson & Green, 1997). Indirect aggression is part of relational aggression, which includes the intention to harm and destroy relationships with others, such as the sender trying to destroy his/her relationship with the target by gossiping negatively (Archer & Coyne, 2005). A damaged relationship, which is unhealthy for the work environment, can be a result of a conflict or result in adversarial situations.
Nevertheless, negative gossip is a socially destructive activity for the target and the sender, because it decreases the relationship quality and therefore increases the conflict potential between the involved parties (Grosser, Lopez- Kidwell, & Labianca, 2010).
8
The Influence of a Harmful Motive on the Relationship between Negative Gossip and Relationship Conflicts
Generally, the sender’s behavior can be based on different motives: punishment, ridiculing, harming the target, jealousy and passing on information (Beersma & van Kleef, 2012). Additionally, gossip has three basic functions: to entertain, to inform and to influence (Rosnow, 1997). Since this study focuses on the relationship between negative gossip and relationship conflicts, the attention will be given to the harmful aspect and to the influential function (Beersma & van Kleef, 2012). This is, because Rosnow (1977) argues that the influence function includes the sender’s intention to harm the target. In general, harmful motives can be defined as the intention to affect someone’s reputation negatively by spreading negative information about the target (Molenberghs et al., 2014).
Rosnow (1997) analyzes that the sender’s motivation to influence may be to manipulate the receiver or even the target by spreading negative gossip about the target to gain an advantage on one of the both. Meaning that the sender tries to ruin the target’s reputation to/or gain power over the target or receiver by talking maliciously about the target (Rosnow, 1997). This influence taking results often in indirect aggression and relational aggression, which is defined as the intention to harm someone (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Therefore, the negative impact of negative gossip might be stronger on the relationship conflict level with a harmful motive. This could possibly lead to a more aggressive work environment due to more tension and manipulation arising, which can end in increased conflict between the involved parties.
If the target knows the motive, and perceives it as harmful, a more negative relation between the two parties can be expected. The more negative the intention of the sender, the more the target experiences a feeling of unfairness and disappointment because the sender follows egoistic aims, such as gaining increased psychological and economic power, without considering the target’s situation. This results often in conflicts (Rosnow, 1977).
9
Relationship Conflicts and Individual Job Satisfaction
Collegial care, attitude and communication are factors that influence individual job satisfaction (Tso et al, 2014). Research shows that after disagreements on a relational level the two involved parties are less likely to work together. This is due to changes in their attitude and behavior, e.g. more aggressive towards the colleague and valuing the coworker less. When the parties involved care less about each other than before, individual job satisfaction will be negatively influenced by limiting the six essential functions of job satisfaction (Tso et al., 2014).
Conflicts have a negative impact on team cohesion due to decreasing communication (Tekleab, Quigley & Tesluk,2009). Team cohesion implies good relationships within the organization, meaning that everybody cares about each other and uses task-related or positive communication to improve those relationships. Communication represents one basic and important instrument of task fulfillment and problem solving. This is, when the target refuses to communicate with the sender after a conflict, the job satisfaction might be influenced negatively. Conflicts can even lead to lower trust levels, which has a proven impact on performance (Lee, Gillespie, Mann, & Wearing, 2010). Performance might be weaker with lower trust levels.
De Dreu and Weingart (2003) show a negative correlation between relational conflicts and satisfaction. This is due to the fact that the two parties involved, especially the target, could be affected or violated emotionally by the other party, which demonstrates the negative influence of relationship conflicts on individual job satisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). I expect job satisfaction to be influenced by negative gossip and interpersonal conflicts, since those factors are related to social exclusion, which has a negative influence on individual job satisfaction (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000).
Being successful and meeting organizational goals are important factors of an individual’s job satisfaction. There is a correlation between conflicts and meeting the required standards. Therefore, conflicts can harm the success of employees (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003).
10
Conceptual Model
The four hypotheses are summarized in figure 1 to show the connection between the different relationships and which influences can be expected.
11
METHOD Participants and Procedure
178 people were asked if they could recall a situation (critical incident) in which they have been the target of an informal conversation in their work environment and became aware about negative gossip. It was important that the participants work/have worked at least 20 hours weekly in the past six months, to be sure that social interaction at the workplace was possible. The sample included employees from all kinds of work, organizations and sectors (e.g. hospitals, constructions, police etc.). Since the study focuses on negative gossip within organizations, employees from all organizational levels were invited to participate, from the production to the managerial level. The research was conducted in form of an online, voluntary and anonymous questionnaire. The survey was distributed via mail and Facebook, with the snow balling technique. The respondents were able to fill in the 20-minute survey at any time. 18 respondents recalled a situation with positive gossip. 87 participants (Mage= 35,87; female=
48; male=39; Meducation =2,57) could recall a situation being the target of negative gossip and 81
participants, who mainly came from Bulgaria (29,9%), Germany (46%) and the Netherlands (21,8%) finished the survey.
Measures
Exact instructions were given at the beginning, and open and closed questions were used. In the open questions I asked the participants to describe the situation where they have been the target of gossip.
The participants ranked their responses on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The average scores of the items were used to analyze the variables.
Negative Gossip (Independent variable)
To measure the negativity of the gossip, the scale of Cayanus and Martin (2008) was used (α=.78). Hereby participants had to indicate to what extent they agree to five statements, e.g. “My colleague’s description of me, on the whole is more negative than positive.”.
Harming the Target (Moderating variable)
To measure the harmful motive, the items suggested by Beersma and van Kleef (2012) were used (α=.91). Participants had to indicate to what extent they agree on five statements, e.g. “The colleague who talked about me wanted to negatively influence the image that the receiver had about me”.
12
Based on the paper of Jehn (1995), participants were asked to indicate the extent of the level of interpersonal conflicts (α=.79), of four items, e.g. “How much non-work related tension is there among you and the person who talked about you?”.
Job Satisfaction (Dependent Variable)
The individual job satisfaction was measured in terms of being aware of the negative gossip (α=.73). The participants had to indicate how he/she felt about his work after receiving the negative message, e.g. “Hearing what my colleague said about me makes me pretty satisfied with my work” (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951).
Control Variables
13
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and the Pearson correlations of the four variables and the control variables. The number of participants decreased from 87 to 81 due to unfinished questionnaire. The standard deviations were >1 for the four variables which indicates a great variance of the answers between the participants. The variance was biggest for the harming gossip.
Negative gossip correlated with harming gossip (r=.54, p<.01), reflecting the association between gossip negativity and the perceived motive as harmful. Similar findings were observable for the relationship between relationship conflicts and negative gossip (r=.53, p<.01). Those findings suggest that the number of relationship conflicts increases with negativity of gossip. Relational conflicts correlated with harmful gossip (r=.47, p<.01). Meaning that when the negativity of the gossip increases or the motive is perceived more harmful, there will be more relational conflicts between the target and the gossip sender. Those findings indicate support for hypothesis 2 and 3, because a relationship between the relevant variables was found. There was no significant correlation between job satisfaction and negative gossip (r=-.14; ns), job satisfaction and harming gossip (r=-.13, ns) and job satisfaction and relationship conflicts (r=-.05, ns). In short, the dependent variable did not correlate with the other variables of the conceptual model, which leads to the conclusion that there is no effect of the three named variables on job satisfaction. Therefore, these results do not indicate support for hypothesis 1 and 4.
14
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1.Negative Gossip (N=86) 3.75 1.53 -- 2.Harming Gossip (N=84) 4.19 1.77 .54** -- 3.Relationship Conflicts (N=84) 2.92 1.38 .53** .47** -- 4.Job Satisfaction (N=81) 4.01 1.23 -.14 -.13 -.05 -- 5.Age (N=87) 35.87 13.70 .02 .07 .08 .35** -- 6.Gender (N=87) 1.45 .70 .07 -.10 -.11 .37** .15 -- 7.Level of Education (N=87) 2.57 .50 -.10 -.05 -.07 -.11 -.13 -.15 --
**p<.01; Gender (1=female; 2=male); Level of Education (1=low; 2=middle; 3=high)
Regression Analysis and Hypotheses Testing.
To test the hypotheses, I performed a regression analysis with Andrew F. Hayes’s (2013) tool PROCESS for SPSS. Therefore, model 7 and 5000 bootstraps were used and six cases were deleted due to missing data. The model was tested in three steps. A summary of the main findings is given in table 2 and 3.
In the first step, negative gossip was the independent variable and harming gossip the moderating variable. I expected the negativity of gossip to have a positive effect on relationship conflict. According to the second hypothesis, the level of relationship conflicts should increase with negative gossip. The analysis showed no significant effect of negative gossip on relational conflicts, β= .20, ns, 95% CI [-.28, .68]. Thus hypothesis 2 was not supported and relationship conflicts did not appear with negative gossip. Additionally, I hypothesized that the relationship between negative gossip and relationship conflicts will be stronger when the target has perceived the gossip as harmful. However, harming gossip did not have a significant impact on relationship conflict, β=.10, ns, 95% CI [-.25, .46]. This suggests that there is not more conflict between the target and the sender when the motive was harmful. In addition, there was no significant effect of interaction of negative gossip and harmful gossip on relationship conflicts, β= .03, ns, 95% CI [-.06, .12]. Hypothesis 3 is not supported, since no significant interaction effect was proven. The impact of the control variables, age (β= .01, ns, 95% CI [-.01, .03]) and gender (β= -.30, ns, 95% CI [-.82, .21]), was not significant for the moderation model.
15
significant negative effect of negative gossip on job satisfaction was found, β= -.18, p=.06, 95% CI [-.36, .01]. This indicates that gossip negativity decreases the individual job satisfaction of the target. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was confirmed to a 90% level. Furthermore, I expected that relationship conflicts between the target and the sender have a negative impact on the individual job satisfaction of the target. The analysis showed no significant effect of relationship conflicts on the individual job satisfaction β= .05, p=.62, ns, 95% CI [-.16, .26] and hypothesis 4 was not supported. The age and the gender had a significant influence on the job satisfaction, age: β=.03, p= .004, s, 95% CI [.01,.04]; gender: β= .85 p=.001, s, 95% CI [.35,1.34]. Those findings suggest that a higher age leads to a higher job satisfaction and that males are generally more satisfied with their work than females.
In the last step, the conditional indirect effect of negative gossip on job satisfaction with values of the moderator was analyzed for the mediator, β= .02, ns, 95% CI [-.05, .12]. Since the interval included zero, it can be assumed that the mediator, relationship conflict, has no significant impact on the relationship between negative gossip and individual job satisfaction when the gossip is harmful. Thus the overall effect of conceptual model has to be rejected.
16
TABLE 2
Moderated Mediation Analysis
Variables β T CI […] P
Dependent variable: Relationship conflicts
Negative Gossip (a) .20 .85 [-.28, .68] .40
Harming Gossip (b) .10 .57 [-.25, .46] .57
Interaction a*b .03 .63 [-.06, .12] .53
Age .01 1.06 [-.01, .03] .29
Gender -.30 -1.17 [-.82, .21] .25
Dependent variable: Job satisfaction
Negative Gossip -.18 -1.89 [-.36, .01] .06*
Relationship conflicts .05 .50 [-.16, .26] .62
Age .03 2.98 [.01, .04] .004**
Gender .85 3.41 [.35, 1.34] .001**
Conditional indirect effect:
Effect moderation low .01 [-.03, .10]
Effect moderation high .02 [-.05, .12]
N=81; CI= 95%; *=p<.1, **=p<.01; Gender: female=1; male=2
TABLE 3
Additional Regression Analysis
Variables β T P
Dependent variable: Relationship conflicts
Negative Gossip .47 .85 .000***
N=84; CI= 95%; ***=p<.001
FIGURE 2
Conceptual Model with Results
17
DISCUSSION Findings
In hypothesis 1, I expected that negative gossip will negatively influence the individual job satisfaction of the target. The results of this study showed a marginal significant effect and no significant correlation was found for negative gossip and individual job satisfaction. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was marginally supported, which means that hearing gossip about oneself has a negative impact on the target’s job satisfaction.
I hypothesized that negative gossip leads to more conflicts between target and sender. The correlation results demonstrated a strong relationship between the two variables. However, the second hypothesis was not confirmed by Process due to non-significant findings. Therefore, a linear regression was performed and the results suggested support for the hypothesis when the moderator is excluded. Meaning that hearing negative gossip about oneself leads to more relational conflicts between the target and the sender.
I hypothesized that the relationship, which was described in hypothesis 2 would be stronger when the motive of the sender was to harm the target. Harming gossip correlated with negative gossip and relational conflicts, which shows a relationship between the variables. Since the analysis showed no significant impact of negative gossip on relational conflicts when the motive is harmful, hypothesis 3 has to be rejected. This might be reasoned in the target’s character and the sensibility to gossip e.g. how the gossip is interpreted.
I assumed that relational tensions between sender and target will decrease the target’s satisfaction at work. The correlation analysis as well as the regression analysis did not indicate significant findings. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is not supported. This can be due to the level of relational conflicts indicated by the participants, the average of the variable was very low, which means that the participant did not experience relationship conflicts at work.
18
Theoretical Implications
The present study provides empirical evidence for the negative influence of negative gossip from the target’s perspective and adds new knowledge to the existing literature.
As expected, I found support for the hypothesis that hearing negative gossip about oneself leads to a lower jobs satisfaction. The support of the hypothesis increases the understanding by showing that negative gossip decreases the individual job satisfaction of the target. However, it is relevant to explain the decreased job satisfaction by the other five factors identified by Tso and colleagues (2014): individual suggestion by colleagues, communication within the organization, superior management ability, morality and the attitude towards the job. Individual suggestion, communication and morality are assumed to be decreased by gossip, since gossip is interpreted as having a poor moral and the reason for a mistrustfully work environment (Akande & Odewale, 1994; Burke & Wise, 2003). Individuals fear that others gossip about them, which is a result of poor management capabilities. This is, because negative gossip leads to a negative attitude towards the job of the target (van Iterson & Clegg, 2008; Michelson, van Iterson & Waddington, 2010). Negative gossip jeopardizes all factors of job satisfaction, which underlines the support for the first hypothesis. Nevertheless, by questioning the by gossip criticized behavior gossip can lead to changes in behaviour and to a higher job satisfaction, because the individual might increase this/her effort (Sedikides and Strube, 1997). This might explain why the first hypothesis was only marginally significant.
19
This is especially relevant, when taking the harming motive as an influence on the relationship between negative gossip and relationship conflicts into account. It is important that the intention of a harming motive is more negative than e.g. an informative motive (Molenberghs et al., 2014). Therefore, negative gossip with a harmful motive is the result of a negative expression of the sender’s emotions and thoughts about the target. Yang and Mossholder (2004) argue that those negative expressions increase the level of relational tensions between the involved parties when the motive is harmful. The interpretation of the motive could influence the level of conflicts according to the closeness between the involved parties, meaning the closer the relationship the higher the risk of tensions (Bono et al., 2002). The present study points out that the strength of the harmful motive might be an important influence factor to support the third hypothesis.
It was not supported, that relationship conflicts influence the individual job satisfaction of the target negatively. This might be due to two reasons. Firstly, Arnochy, Stroink and DeCicco (2007) argue that Western cultures do not value harmony and tight relationships within the organization as much as Eastern cultures. This research mostly had participants from the Western culture. Therefore, the individuals who are involved in a conflict might not be affected as much in a relationship conflict, which will not lower the individual job satisfaction of the individual. Secondly, a low level of relationship conflict was indicated by the participant. Thus, the findings might not be representative. Nevertheless, there might be some support for the fourth hypothesis, since relationship conflicts are connected to high levels of distrust. Trust is strongly associated with two factors of job satisfaction: collegial care and individual suggestions (Burke & Wise, 2003; Tso et al., 2014). For this study, not finding support for the fourth hypothesis means that the conceptual model needs to be changed, since it was not possible to find a connection between relationship conflicts and job satisfaction.
20
Practical Implications
This study is one of the first steps towards a better understanding for effects of gossip from the target’s perspective. With this study, organizations can understand why it is important to consider the target when it comes to negative gossip, since each individual can influence the organizational performance. This is, because individual job satisfaction has a notable influence on the individual work performance (Politis, 2006). The analysis indicated that the target is less satisfied when hearing negative gossip. Therefore, the organization should have the HR implement practices that could prevent the decreased job satisfaction. Such a practice should contain actions for the individual to overcome feelings generated by the gossip, like trainings that strengthen the ability for self-improvement and enhance behavioral change (Bandura, 1977. The target could develop immunity towards the negative and unjustified gossip or transform the emotions caused by the gossip into the aim to perform better. It is important that an organization is aware of the sender’s motive, because different practices might be needed. An informative motive, for example, could explain the lacking performance of an employee.
As explained before, gossip can be the result of poor management capabilities. The task of the management is to prevent the negative evaluative communication within the organization, since this could hinder the creation of a negative attitude of the target towards the occupation (Michelson et al., 2010).
After considering the reasons why relationship conflicts appear, it would be best for the organizations to held the relationship between and towards the employees as professional as possible, since it is known that close relationships are more likely to lead to distrust, social exclusion and conflict (Grosser et al., 2012; Burke & Wise, 2003).
21
Limitations and Future Research
Although this research adds some new understanding to the gossip literature, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. The first limitation is given by the relatively small and homogenous sample (n=81). The participants mainly came from Western cultures. Research already indicated that Western cultures value the relationships at work less than Eastern cultures (Arnochy et al., 2007). Therefore, it is expected that the findings could vary when comparing the Western with the Eastern cultures. Future research should analyze the impact of the nationality and culture on the presented conceptual model and use a different study design to find more participants, e.g. scenario study and experiment. Furthermore, confounding variables and manipulations could be minimized with another design.
Secondly, the design of the study limits the reliance on the findings, which could explain why some relationships were not significant. Only individuals who could recall such a situation were able participate in the study. It is problematic that the outcome variable was already phrased as a dependent variable of negative gossip. This implicated a relation with gossip but not with relationship conflict. It could explain why there was no support for the fourth hypothesis. Moreover, the participants were not chosen randomly and the distribution channel was critically, since people from every kind of organization and education level could attend.
Thirdly, the level of the relationship between target and sender was not defined. It was not described how close the target and the sender were. Explaining this relationship could reveal the impact of how gossip is perceived and explain why there might be more or less conflict among the involved parties. Future investigations should emphasize more on the description of this relationship, to analyze differences easily in the relationship in terms of their influences on the conceptual model. This should lead to qualitative assumptions about the relationship between the sender and the target.
Fourthly, some relevant influences were not measured in this research like the personality traits of the target, which could add more understanding of how these traits influence how gossip is perceived. To gather more information about that, future research might be needed.
Additionally, due to the missing correlation of the variables with job satisfaction another dependent variables should be used in future e.g. performance or bonding, in order to find more reliable and valuable findings.
22
be interesting to investigate the reasons for those differences in greater detail, e.g. why females are more affected by negative gossip than males. Moreover, being older might be connected to a developed emotion management.
Lastly, this study only focused on the impact of negative gossip. Clearly, an investigation concentrating on positive gossip as well as on all the other overlooked factors, e.g. the influential and entertaining function of gossip or the six factors of job satisfaction, would lead to a more comprehensive understanding of gossip in general and add valuable information to the existing literature.
CONCLUSION
23
REFERENCES
Abbajay, M. (2008). The danger of workplace gossip. Careerstone: Learn Today. Lead Tomorrow.
Akande, A., & Odewale, F. (1994). One more time: How to stop company rumours. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 15(4), 27-30.
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 212–230.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Baumeister, R.F., Zhang, L. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Gossip as Cultural Learning. Review of
General Psychology by the Educational Publishing Foundation, 8(2):111-121.
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.
Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. (2002). The role of personality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of personality, 70(3), 311-344.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of applied
psychology, 35(5), 307.
Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930.
Burke, L. A., & Wise, J. M. (2003). The effective care, handling and pruning of the office grapevine. Business Horizons, 46(3), 71-76.
Cayanus, J. L., & Martin, M. M. (2008). Teacher self-disclosure: Amount, relevance, and negativity. Communication Quarterly, 56(3), 325-341.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Curseu, P. L., Boros, S., & Oerlemans, L. A. (2012). Task and relationship conflict in short-term and long-short-term groups: The critical role of emotion regulation. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 23(1), 97-107.
24
Den Hartog, D. (2003). Trusting others in organizations: Leaders, management and
co-workers. The trust process in organizations: Empirical studies of the determinants and the process of trust development, United Kingdom: Cheltenham, 125-46.
De Wit, F. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360–390.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8,100-110.
Evans, C., & Dion, K. (1991): Group cohesion and performance a meta-analysis. Small Group
Research, 22 (2), 175–186.
Ferris G. R., Liden R. C., Munyon T. P., Summers J.K., Basik K. J., & Buckley M. R. (2009). Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management, 35, 1379–1403.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review
of General Psychology, 8, 78–99.
Gambetta, D., (2006). Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate. Princeton University Press, Princeton: NJ.
Grosser, T. J., 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.
Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., Labianca, G.J., & Ellwardt, L. (2012). Hearing it through the grapevine: Positive and negative workplace gossip. Organizational Dynamics, 41(1), 52-61. Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative science quarterly, 256-282.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 189–244.
25
Leung, K., Su, S., & Morris, M. W. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations, 54(9), 1155-1187.
Michelson, G., Van Iterson, A., & Waddington, K. (2010). Gossip in organizations: Contexts, consequences, and controversies. Group & Organization Management.XX(X) 1–20.
Molenberghs, P., Bosworth, R., Nott, Z., Louis, W. R., Smith, J. R., Amiot, C. E., ... & Decety, J. (2014). The influence of group membership and individual differences in psychopathy and perspective taking on neural responses when punishing and rewarding others. Human brain
mapping, 35(10), 4989-4999.
Politis, J. (2006): Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team performance: The mediating influence of job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27 (3), 203–216.
Richardson, D. R., & Green, L.G. (1997). Circuitous harm: Determinants and consequences of non direct aggression. R. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors. New York: Plenum, 171-188.
Rosnow, R. L. (1977). Gossip and marketplace psychology. Journal of Communication, 27, 158-163.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. Advances in experimental
social psychology, 29, 209-269.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intent to turnover. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 215-224.
Shaw, A. K., Tsvetkova, M., & Daneshvar, R. (2011). The effect of gossip on social networks.
Complexity, 16(4), 39-47.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of applied psychology, 85(1), 102.
Soeters, J., & van Iterson, A. (2002). Blame and praise gossip in organizations: Established, outsiders, and the civilizing process. In A. van Iterson, W. Mastenbroek, T. Newton, & D. Smith (Eds.), The civilized organization: Norbert Elias and the future of organization studies. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 25-40.
Stirling, R. B. (1956). Some psychological mechanisms operative in gossip. Social Forces, 34, 262–267.
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group and
26
Tjosvold, D., & Dreu, C. D. (1997). Managing Conflict in Dutch Organizations: A Test of the Relevance of Deutsch's Cooperation Theory1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(24), 2213-2227.
Tso, G. K. F., Liu, F., & Li, J. (2014). Identifying Factors of Employee Satisfaction: A Case Study of Chinese Resource-Based State-Owned Enterprises. Social Indicators Research, 1-17. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1143-1158.
Van Iterson, A., & Clegg, S. R. (2008). The politics of gossip and denial in interorganizational relations. Human Relations, 61(8), 1117-1137.
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27, 1029-1038.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of occupational health psychology, 5(1), 84.
27
APPENDIX Questionnaire: Items Gossip negativity
Variable Items
Gossip Negativity, Cayanus & Martin (2008)
My colleague’s description of me, on the whole, is more negative than positive.
1 (not at all) to 7 (very much)
My colleague revealed ‘‘bad’’ feelings about me. My colleague revealed undesirable things about me. My colleague disclosed negative things about me.
My colleague has told some unflattering stories about me. Harming Gossip,
Beersma & Van Kleef (2012)
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:
1 (not at all) to 7 (very much)
The colleague who talked about me wanted … …to damage my reputation
…to say negative things about me
…to negatively influence the image that the receiver had about me …to put me in a negative light
…to discuss negative characteristics of me Relational
Conflicts, Jehn (1995)
Hearing someone talking about you can have effects on your interaction with that person. Please answer the following questions 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much)
How much friction is there among you and the colleague who talked about you?
How much are personality conflicts evident between you and the colleague who talked about you?
How much non-work related tension is there among you and the colleague who talked about you?
How much emotional conflict is there among you and the person who talked about you?
Job Satisfaction, Brayfield & Rothe (1951)
Please think again about what your colleague said about your work performance.
To what extent do you agree with the following statements: 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much)
Hearing what my colleague said about me… …makes me enthusiastic about my work.
…makes me pretty satisfied with my current work. …makes my days at work never seem to end. …makes me really enjoy my work.
