Master Thesis
MSC Human Resource Management
‘Does power lead to less gossip? The role of power legitimacy and job
satisfaction and how this may lead to gossip in organizational settings’
By
Sjoerd Kooistra
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
2
ABSTRACT
Gossip is present in every-day communication and is widespread within organizations. However, it is rather surprising that there is limited research about what motivates employees to gossip in a negative way about their colleagues. The aim of this study is to make a
contribution to the existent literature by examining the relationship between power position, power legitimacy and level of job satisfaction and whether this could have an effect on the amount of negative gossip in organizations. It was expected that the effect of power on job satisfaction and negative gossip is moderated by legitimacy. In other words, it was assumed that people low in power will have lower job satisfaction and will therefore gossip more negatively than people high in power, especially when the power position is perceived to be illegitimate. Using data from an online survey among 116 employees from various
organizations, results showed that people low in power are not more prone to spread negative gossip than people high in power; hence, the moderating effect of power legitimacy was not supported. Furthermore, people who have lower levels of job satisfaction do not seem to be more inclined to gossip in a negative way about others. The relationship between power and job satisfaction is confirmed.The limitations, implications and suggestions for future research are further discussed in this study.
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ... 2 INTRODUCTION ... 4 Workplace gossip ... 4 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7
Power position and negative gossip ... 7
The mediating role of job satisfaction ... 9
Moderating effect of power legitimacy ... 11
METHODOLOGY ... 14
Sample and procedure ... 14
Measures ... 15 Data analysis ... 16 RESULTS ... 18 Descriptive statistics ... 18 Hypotheses testing ... 21 DISCUSSION ... 23 Findings ... 23 Theoretical implications ... 24 Practical implications ... 25
Limitations and recommendations for further research ... 26
Conclusion ... 27
REFERENCES ... 28
4
INTRODUCTION
Talking about others in an evaluative way is one of the most common human activities. Virtually every person finds him or herself in the position of either, conversing, hearing, or in another way taking part in evaluative comments regarding someone who is not physically present. According to several studies, as much as two thirds of conversation time is about people who are absent (Dunbar, Duncan, & Marriott, 1997; Emler, 1994). Gossip is defined by Wert and Salovey (2004) as an evaluative talk among people who are familiar with one another, whereby the personal matters of a third person who is not present are discussed. According to Michelson and Mouly (2004) the broad functions of gossip are to inform, influence and entertain. The first function represents an attempt by individuals to understand their social environment better since gossip can be a way of acquiring information that is otherwise difficult to obtain. The influence function is primarily addressing the extent to which the information exchange can be utilized to the individuals’ benefit. Being the purveyor of important information, may enhance the gossiper’s status and power within a group, as gossipers are seen as the gate-keepers of important information that can undermine gossip target’s reputation (Grosser, Lopez-kidwell & Labianca, 2010). Finally, gossip may have entertainment or recreational value; engaging in gossip generates pleasure, interest and satisfaction whereby gossipers are not focused on the results but enjoy the activity (Ben-Ze’ev, 1994). This (informal) exchange of evaluative information about absent third parties (Michelson, Van Iterson, & Waddington, 2010) seems to be an unavoidable product of socially interconnected people (Dunbar, 2004), making gossip part of just another day at the office.
Workplace gossip
5
information that can enhance the status of the gossiper or at the same time, threaten a target’s reputation.
The strength of gossip is that it is an easy way of spreading negative information because it is constituted through informal interaction (Wittek & Wielers, 1998) and can threaten managers and other organizational stakeholders, as it is almost impossible to regulate and control. Besides, negative gossip has a larger influence on people than positive gossip, because negative information is of higher interest to people and generally has a larger impact. Since negative information can have unpleasant consequences which may harm individuals (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer & Vohs, 2001). Furthermore, negative gossip questions legitimate goals and actions, undermines formal authority and implicitly challenges
managerial power (Clegg & van Iterson, 2009; Waddington & Michelson, 2007). As a result, talking negative about others who are not present could not only function as a critical
utterance to management but also serve as a tool to increase power of the gossiper and change his or her position on the hierarchical ladder.
The phenomenon of the low-power individuals rising up to gain power is still relevant and raises questions as to why, how and when low-power individuals may oppose and engage in power struggles. We propose that the perceived legitimacy of power can be a key
determinant of how and when low-power individuals rise up and engage in power conflicts. Whereby legitimate power is defined as ‘a relational construct where the person low on
power acknowledges high power individual the right to exert power over him, hereby accepting the role of the follower’ (French, Raven & Cartwright, 1959). Furthermore, past
research has shown that power position can have a significant effect on how positive people experience their job and that job level (rank) is an important predictor for the level of job satisfaction of employees (Oshagbemi, 1997; Miles, Patrick & King, 1996). Moreover, Kifer, Heller, Perunovic & Galinsky (2013) stated that having power, increases overall well-being of individuals. As a consequence, low power people are motivated to increase their power
position in order to satisfy important individual needs. These are mainly social needs, such as; interaction with others, as well as praise and recognition of people in higher power positions (Maslow, 1943). We argue that when power is illegitimate the behavioural approach
6
relation between possession of power and the amount of negative gossip that is spread by individuals. Furthermore, the level of legitimacy may have a moderating effect on the relationship between the power position and the level of satisfaction of an individual.
This study has three goals. The first aim is to find out what the influence of power and legitimacy of power could have on the overall feeling of job satisfaction. The second one focuses on the influence of power and legitimacy of power on the amount of negative gossip in organizations. The third goal examines the relationship between job satisfaction and negative gossip. These three goals lead to the following research question that will be central within this study: What is the role of power and power legitimacy in generating feelings of job
satisfaction? How may this lead to negative gossip in organizations? The present study gives
an insight in the understanding of causes of negative gossip, as well as in which way the level of power and the perceived legitimacy of that power can contribute to negative gossip.
Additionally, this research will provide more information about how power could influence the level of job satisfaction of people and how this may affect negative gossip in
7
LITERATURE REVIEW
Power position and negative gossip
Power can be defined as the control one has over other people’s outcomes (Depret & Fiske, 1993). Possessing power in and by itself fundamentally influences individuals’
information-processing and behaviour (Fiske, 1993; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Power hierarchies create social order and stability. Having power gives individuals control over one’s environment and resources to survive and prosper. Along these lines, people who have and value high power may become afraid of losing their power position. While
powerless individuals face the urgency of gaining power in the prospect of realizing greater security (Higgins, 1997).
Those with power are aware that they can influence others and act at will without interference of fear of serious consequences (Emerson, 1962; Fiske, 1993; French, Raven & Cartwright, 1959). Whereas people low in power are less effective in succeeding what they want when formal modes of influence and communication are used. Henceforward, people low in power often experience little influence in the decisions that affect their work or even lives (Suls, 1977).
8
by those in weak positions to use the power of informal knowledge against those in formal positions (De Sousa, 1994).
Negative gossip provides a mechanism for the gossiper to indirectly influence a target’s behaviour, by ruining reputation and threaten a target’s position, with the potential to increase their own (informal) power level (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell & Labianca, 2010). A gossiper who provides work-related information about others is very likely to be used as an information source and seen as an expert within the organization (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Gossip can serve as a form of power, in particular for people low in power who have little or no formal means of communication at their disposal but can, due to gossip, exert real
influence on the decision making processes in organizations.
We expect that the need for power applies for both high and low power individuals. However it is more likely that negative gossip will be used by low power people due the fact that they often lack resources for direct influence. Through gossip people low in power are able to acquire information about people in high power positions without the embarrassment of face-to-face confrontation (Wert & Salovey 2004). As a consequence gossip entails social comparison and could be used for self enhancement and the prospect of gaining power (Wert & Salovey 2004). Possessing power provides access to material resources along with social resources like friends, respect, praise and admiration (Cummins, 1998; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989; Sadalla, Kenrick & Vershure, 1987).
In summary, power gives powerful individuals the resources necessary to foresee their needs and accomplish their plans and goals, individuals who are high in power are therefore less dependent on others (Copeland, 1994). As a result, lack of power leads to a feeling of discomfort and stress (Pfeffer, 1992) due to their dependence on high-power individuals to obtain valued resources (Emerson, 1962; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). By means of
communication through gossip, people can influence the shaping of power structures in organizations. Negative gossip provides a mechanism for the gossiper who is low in power to influence a target’s behaviour. This allows the gossiper to fulfil his or her control needs and obtain more informal power, when direct demands are too risky (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell & Labianca, G. 2010). Taking the above arguments into consideration I present the first hypothesis in this research:
9
‘People low in power gossip more negatively about targets than people high in power’ The mediating role of job satisfaction
Previous research argued that power has transformative effects on people’s
psychological state. The powerful are considered to be more confident, self-assured, assertive, more sensitive to rewards and, pay more attention to positive and rewarding information (Keltner & Haidt, 2003; Fast, Sivanathan, Mayer & Galinsky, 2012). Possessing power gives people access to several material and social resources. As a result, powerful people are happier, healthier, less stressed and more satisfied with their job (Marmot, 2004; Oshagbemi, 1999; Robie, Ryan, Schmeider, Parra, & Smith, 1998).
Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are defined as “a function of the perceived
relationship between what one wants from one’s job and what one perceives it as offering or entailing” (Locke, 1969). Mottaz (1986) described that overall satisfaction is positively
related to occupational level in organizations. He stated that in order to make generalizations about job satisfaction with regard to employees, it is essential to distinguish low level and high level workers. Hoppock (1935) strongly suggested a positive and linear relation between job level and job satisfaction, whereby low (unskilled) level workers reported the lowest mean job satisfaction and managers (high skilled) the highest job satisfaction. In relation to this it is found that job satisfaction increases as the level of the job increases within an organizational hierarchy (Adams, 1977; Smith & Brannick 1990).
As previously mentioned, having power means having control over valued resources, being in a position where your actions have an impact on the outcomes of other people, being able to influence others or having the chance to enforce one’s own will against the will of one’s counterparts. In contrast to low power individuals who do not possess any of those characteristics or on a significantly lower level than people high in power. As a consequence, people who have a low power position will be less satisfied with their jobs compared to people high in power because they are not in control of resources and therefore often dependent on others.
Altogether, the above research studies indicate that, people low in power are less satisfied with their job due to the missing characteristics powerful people overall do possess. Therefore, the second hypothesis states as follows:
10
‘People low in power will have a lower level of job satisfaction compared to people high in power’
Michelson and Mouley (2004) give a clear overview of the impact of gossip. Some of the positive effects assigned to gossip are that it reduces stress, fosters solidarity and intimacy, raises cohesiveness and socialization. Through gossip, group members can influence a target’s social reputation and can accordingly paint an image of a person as trustworthy and likable, or, in contrast, make a target look selfish and immoral. Moreover, it could be that when someone is unsatisfied with an individual or situation that this particular person is prone to engage in gossip in order to change their own satisfaction level by sharing their frustration with a third party (Beersma and van Kleef, 2011).
There are two theories that are especially relevant to understanding the relationship of job satisfaction and negative gossip. These are the social exchange theory (Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). The social exchange theory predicts that employees who feel that they are not fairly treated and supported by their supervisors are more likely to feel angry, vengeful, and dissatisfied. This generally involves people low in power. Reason being, that people low in power often lack formal mode of influence and communication. Secondly, they have little or no access to valuable information compared to those in higher power positions. This evokes a sense of discontent which could lead to some of the emotions described above. Consistent with the norms of reciprocity, when individuals are dissatisfied with the organization or their boss, they may reciprocate with negative work behaviours such as withholding effort, arriving late at work but also gossip negatively about others. In addition, individual may exchange their dissatisfaction with their boss or/and co-workers by engaging in counterproductive behaviours (Mount, Ilies & Johnson, 2006).
11
entertainment through gossip implies a freedom and closeness between parties (Fine & Rosnow, 1978).
Furthermore, when employees experience a lack of influence, support and the means at hand to generate information they will be more prone to react against the existing situation. Through gossip employees can express their dissatisfaction whereby people low in power will be more likely to gossip negatively about others, especially about people high in power, to enhance their influence within an organization. Therefore the level of job satisfaction experienced by a person has been revealed as a further variable that helps to predict the transmission of gossip. As people who are unhappy will be prone to gossip about others to cope with their unsatisfying feelings. Because gossip can be used as a tool to inform and influence others by spreading information that is otherwise difficult to obtain and may enhance the gossiper’s status and power within a group. Thereby changing the way how people feel and think about themselves.
Therefore, we suggest that people who have low of job satisfaction will more often gossip in a negative fashion about others in order to raise their own feeling of happiness. Whereas people high in power who are often already satisfied with their job will have less the desire to gossip in order to raise their level of job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3:
‘People who are dissatisfied with their job will gossip more negatively’. Thus, job
satisfaction mediates the relation between power and gossip.
Moderating effect of power legitimacy
People high in power generally experience higher levels of job satisfaction than people low in power (Oshagbemi, 1999; Robie, Ryan, Schmieder & Smith, 1998). Legitimacy is hereby an important factor that should be taken into account when power is further analyzed. Power is often seen as changeable and perceived as unstable by leaders due to events that threaten the legitimacy of those in power (Maner & Mead, 2010). As prior mentioned, power legitimacy involves the acceptance of a relational construct, whereby individuals low in power
12
Past research (Kipnis, 1972) has shown that possessing or lacking power can transform the psychological state of individuals. Power is generally seen as a desirable state and as a result, people will strive to either attain or maintain their power position. However, research has shown that the effects of power differ, depending on whether the power position within the hierarchy is considered legitimate or not. Especially people low in power have difficulty accepting the role of the follower in a constructed system whereby they perceive the
individual in the powerful position as illegitimate. The reason being, that low power people perceive the situation as unfair. As a consequence, low power people will come into action to decrease the power distance between themselves and the powerful. Power that is acquired or granted illegitimately could alter the psychological and emotional state of low-power
individuals which can result in expressed feelings of anger and hostility (Nugier, Niedenthal, Brauer & Chekroun, 2007). These feelings may increase low-power individuals’ perception of their own power bases (Martorana, Galinsky, & Rao, 2005), which causes them to focus on the resources they do control, such as gossip, in order to change the situation (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). Thus, when the powerless perceive power to be illegitimate, they may not wait for directions from the powerful, but rather make an effort to change the situation. Illegitimacy signals the possibility of change. Hence the powerless will realize that the hierarchy’s power differences are unjustified and as a consequence become more focused on taking action to decrease the power distance between themselves and the powerful (Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn & Otten, 2008). On the other hand, when individuals perceive their power position as legitimate, powerful people will become more action-oriented, use flexible strategies to attain their goals and act often confident in the face of obstacles compared to powerless individuals (Willis, Guinote & Rodriguez-bailon, 2010).
When powerful people perceive their power to be illegitimate, they may not act
because they are reluctant to exert undeserved power or because they are anxiously protecting their position of power (Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn & Otten, 2008). As a consequence, we propose that low power individuals who experience high illegitimate power in an organization will be even more dissatisfied with the situation compared to low power people who
experience legitimate exerted power over them.
13
high in power will hardly be influenced by the level of power legitimacy, because they are not dependent on others in order to satisfy their own needs (Saguy & Kteily, 2014). As described above, when power is low there will be an effect of legitimacy on the level of satisfaction. Therefore, we propose the next hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4:
‘The effect of power on job satisfaction and negative gossip is moderated by legitimacy.; people low in power will have lower job satisfaction and gossip more negatively than people high in power, especially when power is perceived as illegitimate rather than legitimate’.
In light of the arguments mentioned above we predict a pattern of moderated mediation, in which power position, legitimacy of power and job satisfaction will have an effect on the amount of negative gossip in organizations. In order to give a good impression of what is going to be analyzed in this research paper a conceptual model is created; see Figure 1.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Negative Gossip Level of Job Satisfaction
Power Position
14
METHODOLOGY
In this research the influence of power legitimacy on the relationship between power position and the level of satisfaction of employees and what effect this will have on gossip will be further investigated.
Sample and procedure
In order to test the hypothesis a survey was conducted among respondents from different companies. Dutch employees, working at different organizations were invited face-to-face, by phone, or by email to participate in this research. The respondents were found through my own network and the content and purpose of the research was explained to each employee. The employees were asked to fill in an online anonymous questionnaire,
containing statements about the following items; power position, legitimacy of power, level of job satisfaction and gossip. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with all the items on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (=’strongly disagree’) to 7 (=’strongly agree’). The online questionnaire was developed with the use of Qualtrics Survey Software; a software tool that facilitates online data collection and analysis of online surveys. Potential respondents were provided the link of the online questionnaire, participation was voluntary and participants received no compensation. Respondents were able to withdraw from the study any time they wished. The necessary time to fill in the questionnaire was around fifteen minutes. Furthermore, participants were given the opportunity to receive a report of the results after the completion of the study.
The sample originally consisted of 168 participants; however, some participants had to be dropped because of missing data, which resulted in a usable sample of 116 people. The sample consisted of 50.9% men and 49.1% women. In terms of age, the sample ranged from 17 to 72 years old (M = 38.26, SD = 13.80). As far as the type of employment contract is concerned, the majority (61.2%) of the study population was employed in permanent positions. Concerning the level of educations, respondents were asked to choose between three levels of the national educations system. High school or lower, college (Dutch
15
Measures
Power position. To measure power we used four different measures. First, we measured subjective power by asking participants to indicate on a continuous scale whether they felt to be at the bottom or the top of the power hierarchy. This is a simple but robust measure of perceptions of power and has been used in previous research by Lammers, Stoker, Jordan, Pollmann, and Stapel (2011). Specifically, participants were asked to indicate their position in their organization’s power hierarchy by clicking with their mouse on the appropriate point along the horizontal line. This ranged from 0 ‘power bottom’ on the left to 100 ‘Power top’ on the right side of the (horizontal) line (M=49.35, SD 28.84). Secondly, consistent with a
definition of power as control over outcomes (De´pret & Fiske, 1993; Emerson, 1962), we measured participants’ level of control by asking the respondents what kind of position they have within the organization where they work. 66 respondents had a non-management position (56.9%), 19 a lower-management position (16.4%), 25 a middle-management position (21.6%) and 6 a top management position (5.2%) out of the 116 people in total. Thirdly, consistent with a definition of power as potential influence over others (Cartwright, 1959) we measured power as the number of respondents’ subordinates, on a 6 point scale, between: No subordinates (61.2%), 1–5 subordinates (20.7%), 6– 10 subordinates (10.3%), 11–15 subordinates (2.6%), 16–20 subordinates (0.9%), and more than 20 subordinates (4.3%). Lastly, sense of power was measured trough 6 items derived from previous power research (Anderson, John & Keltnet, 2012). These items assess various beliefs individuals hold regarding domains of power. Such as, for example, beliefs about their ability to make decisions in the organization (‘If I want to, I get to make the decision’), to influence the other person’s behaviour (‘I can get others to do what I want’) and opinions and beliefs (‘My ideas and opinions are often ignored’ reversed-coded), and to satisfy their own desires and wishes in the context of the relationship (‘My wishes do not carry much weight’ reversed coded). Respondents were asked to indicate how much sense of power (on a 7-point Likert scale, between (1) Not at all like me and (7) Just like me) they experiences in the organization (M=5.04, SD=0.82). A higher score indicates higher sense of power. The Cronbach’s coefficient was .69, indicating its internal consistency.
16
assessment questionnaire (OAQ), giving a global indication of worker satisfaction with a job. Responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 "strongly disagree" to 7 "strongly agree. The two-item scale reported an alpha coefficient of 0.74.
Gossip. This variable was measured by four items develop by Beersma and van Kleef (2008). The items that were used in this gossip questionnaire were about negative gossip. Responses on the gossip questionnaire were given on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘Never’ to 7 ’very often’. All items started with ‘I talk to people at work about others who are not present in order to….’. An example question was: ‘To say negative things about the person we talk about’. The scale reported a high reliability with an alpha coefficient of 0.94.
Power legitimacy. In order to evaluate the respondents’ degree of power legitimacy within the organization I used a questionnaire of Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn & Otten (2008). It consists of questions about the perceived legitimacy of employees. The items question the perceived entitlement and whether they deserve a higher position within the company. A high score on the measurement indicates that people consider their position as illegitimate. The measure contains two items about power legitimacy or characteristics that strongly affect this process. Participants were asked to specify the extent to which they agreed with the different items on a 7-point Likert scale (1=Strongly disagree, 7=Strongly agree). The two items that measure perceived legitimacy look further into the experienced match between the qualities and the position people have in an organization. The items are ‘Given my qualities, I would actually earn a higher position’ and ‘Given my qualities, I would really deserve a better position’. A high score on the two items indicate that people consider their position rather illegitimate. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is 0.97.
Control Variables. Several relevant demographics and job characteristics that could co-vary with analyzed variables namely gender, age, job, tenure length and working hours were added as control variables.
Data analysis
Eisenhardt (1989) stated that the first important step of data analysis is gaining familiarity with the data. This implies that the outcome of the surveys is analyzed and
interpreted. Next, within-case analysis as well as cross-case analysis will be executed to get a better understanding of divergent views and discover the differences and similarities.
17
respondents who could not be used due to missing data. Moreover, some contradicting
18
RESULTS
In this study we compared different aspects that play a role in organizations such as power, power legitimacy, overall job satisfaction and whether these different aspects have an effect on the amount of negative gossip in organizations. We expected that the power position of employees and perceived legitimacy of their position influences the overall level of job satisfaction. As a consequence, employees will express negative gossip in various ways and with different frequencies.
Descriptive statistics
Analysis was performed in order to test the association between variables. Table 1 shows the different means, standard deviations and the Pearson correlations between the four variables that are used in this research. We measured power using the Lammers, Stoker, Jordan, Pollmann and Stapel (2011) scale. Contrary to what we expected, the level of power (M = 49.35, SD = 28.84) did not show a significant relationship with negative gossip (r = .15, ns). However, other results are in line with our expectations as there is a significant negative relationship between the power position and the perceived level of power legitimacy (r = -0.26, p < 0.01) and a significant negative correlation between perceived power legitimacy (experienced entitlement) and level of job satisfaction (r = -0.29, p < 0.01), suggesting that people who feel entitled to a higher position have low job satisfaction. The entitlement measure also known as illegitimacy is negatively correlated with power, suggesting that employees who have low power experience low legitimacy (they believe they are entitled to a higher power position).
Furthermore, the most remarkable effect found is the high correlation between the amount of power in an organization and the overall level of job satisfaction (r = 0.38, p < 0.01). This indicates that people with a high amount of power in an organization are more likely to experience higher levels of job satisfaction compared to those low in power. Other noticeable correlations, related with power position, is the sense of power (r = .36, p< 0.01) and the management position of employees with job satisfaction (r = .19, p< 0.05).
19
20 Table 1 Correlations and descriptive statistics
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Level of Job Satisfaction 5.47 1.17 ----
2 Power Legitimacy 3.62 1.72 -.29** ----
3 Negative Gossip 2.05 1.03 .44 .14 ----
4 Power Position 49.35 28.84 .38** -.26** .15 ----
5 Management position
(Control over outcomes)
1.75 0.97 .19* -.08 .13 .57** ----
6 Number of subordinates
(Potential influence over others)
1.74 1.24 .109 -.04 .22* .41** .65** ----
7 Sense of power 5.04 0.82 .36** -.18 .06 .50** .39** 0.33** ----
21
Hypotheses testing
To test our hypotheses, a regression analysis was performed trough PROCESS for SPSS developed by Andrew F. Hayes (2013). To test the conceptual model, model 7 (Andrew F. Hayes, 2013) and 5000 bootstraps were used. Furthermore, the results of the moderated mediation model were analyzed with power position as an independent variable, level of job satisfaction as a mediator, power legitimacy as a first stage moderator and negative gossip as dependent variable. Results are shown in Table 2.
It was expected that the power position would have a significant effect on negative gossip. In a way that low power people would be more prone to gossip in a negative sense compared to people high in power. However, results showed that there is no significant effect of power position on negative gossip, b= .006, p=.12, ns, 95% CI [-.002 ‒ .013]. Thus,
hypotheses 1 suggesting that people low in power gossip more negatively about targets than people high in power was not confirmed.
Hypotheses 2 stated that the level of power would be positively related with job satisfaction. Results showed that people in high power positions experienced more job satisfaction compared to people low in power, b= .013, p= <.01, 95% CI [.006 ‒ .20]. As a consequence low power people will have a lower level of job satisfaction compared to people high in power and therefore hypotheses 2 is supported.
Next, hypotheses 3 predict that people who have low levels of job satisfaction are more inclined to gossip in a negative way about others. However, results showed a non significant effect of job satisfaction on negative gossip, b= -.014, p= 0.88, ns, 95% CI [-.19 ‒ .16]. Therefore, the level of job satisfaction does not predict an increase in negative gossip in organizations. Hence the mediating effect was not supported. Thus, there was no evidence that individuals who are dissatisfied with their job will gossip more negatively.
22 Table 2 Moderated Mediation Analysis
Dependent variable Level of Job Satisfaction
Variables β T Ci [….] P
Power Position .013 3,704 [0.006, 0.203] .00**
Power Legitimacy (Entitlement) -.133 -2.214 [-0.252, -0.014] .03*
Power Position x Power Legitimacy -.001 -0.556 [-0.005, 0.003] .58
Dependent variable Negative Gossip
Variables β T Ci [….] P
Power Position .006 1.5486 [-0.002, 0.013] .12
Level of Job Satisfaction -.014 -.1541 [-0.190, 0.163] .88
Effect moderation High -.00 [-0.002, 0.002]
Effect moderation Low -.00 [-0.003, 0.003]
23
DISCUSSION
This final section discusses the results of the study and its implications. First, a short overview of the research is presented. Next, a summary of the findings and the theoretical implications is discussed, followed by the limitations of this research and possibilities for future research. Then, the practical implications will be elaborated upon and finally, a short conclusion will sum up this research.
Findings
First of all, we expected that the power position an employee holds, would have a significant impact on the frequency of spreading negative gossip in organizations. Whereby low power people will spread more negative gossip compared to people high in power. In light of the results however, there is little to no connection to be found between power position and the distribution of negative gossip. None of the four power measures used, showed a significant relationship between people low in power and the tendency of spreading negative gossip. Therefore this assumption was not supported. An explanation for this finding could be because the majority of the respondents were low in power. As a result, the
proportion of respondents who were low and high in power was skewed and therefore not normally distributed. Secondly, it is possible that people with low power perceive their current position in an organization as fair due to their lack of education and needed qualities.
As expected, the characteristics of power position were related to the experienced level of job satisfaction. A strong relationship was found between the power level an employee holds within an organisation and the level of job satisfaction, suggesting that people high in power tend to be more satisfied with their job in contrast to people low in power. In
accordance with previous research, the findings show that power has a significant influence on a person’s level of satisfaction, which states that high power increases well-being (Kifer et al., 2013). This is in correspondence with our research findings which suggests that
24
legitimacy did not have a significant impact on the distribution of negative gossip within organizations. Hence, the moderating effect of power legitimacy was not supported.
Theoretical implications
The findings described above set the ground for several theoretical implications and add further information to the literature regarding negative gossip. Although people with low power experience little influence in the decision making process that affect their work or live (Suls, 1977) it is, according to this research, not a reason to gossip more about others in order to raise their influence. Thus, the relation between power and gossip is not supported by the results and deviates from what is mentioned previously in the theory. This could be caused due to the small and skewed group of respondents. Secondly, it is found that people tend to gossip in informal settings where there is a sense of trust, as there is private information disclosed (Merry, 1997). This type of information is presumably more often shared with friends or family rather than colleagues. Furthermore, communication in a workplace is mainly in a formal manner. Taking these arguments into account, it can be thought that the tendency to gossip in formal or informal environments differs from one another and should therefore be approached from different perspectives.
In addition, this research reinforced the arguments that people high in power
experience higher levels of job satisfaction. This is in line with the literature stating that the level of management explains differences in job satisfaction (Forgionne & Peeters, 1982). Since job satisfaction levels of workers at managerial levels are generally higher than those of workers at other levels in an organization (Quinn & Weinberg, 1974). Furthermore, this research showed that people who have a high perceived level of power legitimacy experience higher levels of job satisfaction compared to individuals with low levels of perceived power legitimacy. One explanation could be that individuals high in power who have high levels of perceived power legitimacy, are more secure about their position in the organization
25
between job satisfaction and negative gossip. It indicates that people with low levels of job satisfaction do not feel the need to express their dissatisfaction through gossip. It may be that people, despite the useful features of gossip such as inform, influence and entertain still see negative gossip as something immoral and too hazardous for their further career in the organization.
Practical implications
This study is a preliminary step towards a better understanding in the nature and function of gossip within organizations. With means of this study, organizations can more easily identify why and under which power conditions employees spread negative gossip For HR departments it is important to know that power can have a significant impact on the perceived happiness of employees. An HR manager who acknowledges the impact of power on job satisfaction is able to control positive organizational outcomes better, including organizational citizenship behaviours, individual and organizational performances.
Additionally, employees who are satisfied will generally have a greater positive contribution to an organization compared to people who experience lower levels of job satisfaction. Whereas people who experience low levels of job satisfaction will be more inclined to show counterproductive behaviour (Katzell, Barrett & Parker 1961).
It is recommended to pay attention to the relationship between power and overall job satisfaction of employees. HR managers should be alert and signal factors which could give rise to negative gossip. This could be accomplished by pursuing a greater job satisfaction for the employees. Creating a culture, whereby employees know that their opinion matters, that they can in some manner influence the decision making process, and that each individual employee contributes to an overall better performance of the organization. Furthermore, establishing ways whereby workers can express their perspectives and feelings about job satisfaction and reflect on their perceived (il)legitimacy of power. HR should promote or in some form stimulate to think and communicate about the aspects mentioned. This could be realized in for example, regularly hold interim evaluations. These options may not only have a positive impact on the state of mind of employees, but generates the concept or mode that it is not necessary to rely on gossip in order to make a difference. Additionally, the insight
26
Limitations and recommendations for further research
Several limitations should be taken into account when the present results are interpreted. A first limitation of this study is the way that the data is collected. An online survey including self-report scales is often subjected to common-method bias. This means that variance is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the construct the measures represent. For instance, the state of mind of individuals, as the current emotional state of participant influences their responses and can distort the results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). However, recent study of Spector (2006) has argued that common method variance is not that troublesome as one might expect in studies such as the current one. This research showed that potentially biasing variables such as social desirability, negative affectivity and acquiescence (the tendency to agree with items independent of their content) do not systematically inflate correlations between self-reported variables.
Nevertheless, in order to avoid common method variance, future research on power, job satisfaction and negative gossip should be aware of possible threats of using an online survey that includes self-reports. Another limitation, is our relatively small (n =116) and rather homogeneous sample. Considering that the vast majority of respondents were occupied in permanent positions, together with a relatively low mean age and a high level of education. Furthermore, when it comes to power, the respondents of the survey were not evenly distributed, considering that the vast majority of the respondents were low in power. This might have caused restriction of range in some variables and potentially threatens the
generalizability of our findings. Therefore, it is recommended using a larger sample in future research. Additionally, it would be advised to gather a group of respondents that is more normally distributed, whereby there is an equal number of people high and low in power. These above suggestions could be initiated in future research and may contribute in obtaining more reliable results. However, the manner in which this sample is distributed can also be considered as an accurate reflection of reality when it comes to the division of power. As it gives a realistic overview of the number of people who have high and low power positions within an organization. Another limitation is the fact that most of the reversed items in the questionnaire about power legitimacy were not interpreted the right way. A possible
27
As a consequence we were forced to delete several reversed items in order to protect the internal reliability of the test that was used. Thus, it is important that future research tests the questionnaires in detail prior to the start of the survey. Finally, it should be recognized that the possibility to generalize the present findings is limited and that complementary studies of other population segments, such as more people high in power, are necessary to confirm the observed results. Hence, a longitudinal data collection in future research where people high and low in power are evenly divided is advisable to verify the present findings.
Conclusion
This research showed, through an online survey, that people in high power position tend to experience higher levels of job satisfaction compared to low power people. However, job satisfaction did not mediate the influence of power on negative gossip. Additionally, people with low power are not more prone to spread negative gossip compared to people high in power. Furthermore, even though that people with high levels of perceived power
28
REFERENCES
Adams, E. F. (1977). An investigation of the influence of job level and functional specialty on job attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(3), 335.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of
personality, 80(2), 313-344.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of general psychology, 5(4), 323.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line: Gossip increases contributions to the group. Social psychological and personality science, 1948550611405073.
Ben-Ze'ev, A. (1994). The vindication of gossip.
Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative science quarterly, 518-539.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods,
measures, and practices, 71, 138.
Cartwright, D. (1959). A field theoretical conception of power.
Clegg, S. R., & van Iterson, A. (2009). Dishing the dirt: gossiping in organizations. Culture
and Organization, 15(3-4), 275-289.
Copeland, J. T. (1994). Prophecies of power: Motivational implications of social power for behavioral confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 264.
29
Dépret, E., & Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and power: Some cognitive consequences of social structure as a source of control deprivation. In Control motivation and social
cognition (pp. 176-202). Springer New York.
De Sousa, R. (1994). In praise of gossip: Indiscretion as a saintly virtue.In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 25-33). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Dunbar, R. I. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of general psychology, 8(2), 100.
Dunbar, R. I., Marriott, A., & Duncan, N. D. (1997). Human conversational behavior. Human
Nature, 8(3), 231-246.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Ellwardt, L. (2011). Gossip in organizations. A Social Network Study.
Ellwardt, L., Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (2012). Talking about the boss: Effects of generalized and interpersonal trust on workplace gossip. Group & organization management,
1059601112450607.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American sociological review, 31-41.
Emler, N. (1994). Gossip, reputation, and social adaptation.
Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 249-260.
Fine, G. A., & Rosnow, R. L. (1978). Gossip, gossipers, gossiping.Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 161-168.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American
30
Forgionne, G. A., & Peeters, V. E. (1982). Differences in job motivation and satisfaction among female and male managers. Human Relations, 35(2), 101-118.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review
of General Psychology, 8(2), 78.
French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. (1959). The bases of social power.Classics of
organization theory, 311-320.
Georgi, H., Quinn, H. R., & Weinberg, S. (1974). Hierarchy of interactions in unified gauge theories. Physical Review Letters, 33(7), 451.
Gnanadesikan, R. (2011). Methods for statistical data analysis of multivariate
observations (Vol. 321). John Wiley & Sons.
Gould, S. (1979). An equity-exchange model of organizational involvement.Academy of
Management Review, 4(1), 53-62.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.American
sociological review, 161-178.
Greer, L. L., & van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1032.
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.
Herzberg, F. (1986). One more time: How do you motivate employees. New York: The Leader
Manager, 433-448.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist,52(12), 1280.
31
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Jones, J. M., Engelman, S., Turner Jr, C. E., & Campbell, S. (2009). Worlds apart: The universality of racism leads to divergent social realities. Intergroup Misunderstandings:
Impact of divergent social realities, 117-133.
Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American
sociological review, 124-143.
Katzell, R. A., Barrett, R. S., & Parker, T. C. (1961). Job satisfaction, job performance, and situational characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,45(2), 65.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological review, 110(2), 265.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), 297-314.
Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The good life of the powerful the experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective
well-being. Psychological science, 24(3), 280-288.
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 37(1), 87-108.
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 24(1), 33.
32
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19(6), 558-564.
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., Jordan, J., Pollmann, M., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases infidelity among men and women. Psychological Science,22(9), 1191-1197.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 81(1), 146.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative science quarterly, 370-390.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction?. Organizational behavior and human
performance, 4(4), 309-336.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.
Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: when leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 99(3), 482.
Marmot, M. (2005). Social determinants of health inequalities. The Lancet,365(9464), 1099-1104.
Martorana, P. V., Galinsky, A. D., & Rao, H. (2005). From system justification to system condemnation: Antecedents of attempts to change power hierarchies. Research on managing
groups and teams, 7, 285-315.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review,50(4), 370. Merry, S. E. (1997). Rethinking gossip and scandal. Reputation: Studies in the voluntary
33
Michelson, G., & Suchitra 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.
Michelson, G., Van Iterson, A., & Waddington, K. (2010). Gossip in organizations: Contexts, consequences, and controversies. Group & Organization Management.
Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as a systemic variable in
predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,69(3), 277-292.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of
management review, 22(4), 853-886.
MottazI, C. (1986). Gender differences in work satisfaction, work-related rewards and values, and the determinants of work satisfaction. Human relations, 39(4), 359-377.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel
psychology, 59(3), 591-622.
Nugier, A., Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., & Chekroun, P. (2007). Moral and angry emotions provoked by informal social control. Cognition and Emotion,21(8), 1699-1720.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997). The influence of rank on the job satisfaction of organizational members. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(8), 511-519.
Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Academics and their managers: a comparative study in job satisfaction. Personnel Review, 28(1/2), 108-123.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California management
34
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
Robie, C., Ryan, A. M., Schmieder, R. A., Parra, L. F., & Smith, P. C. (1998). The relation between job level and job satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 23(4), 470-495.
Rosnow, R. L. (1977). Gossip and marketplace psychology. Journal of
Communication, 27(1), 158-163.
Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 730.
Saguy, T., & Kteily, N. (2014). Power, negotiations, and the anticipation of intergroup encounters. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 107-141.
Smith, C. S., & Brannick, M. T. (1990). A role and expectancy model of participative decision‐making: A replication and theoretical extension.Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 11(2), 91-104.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 505-535.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend?. Organizational research methods, 9(2), 221-232.
Suls, J. M. (1977). Gossip as social comparison. Journal of Communication,27(1), 164-168.
Waddington, K., & Michelson, G. (2007). Analysing gossip to reveal and understand power relationships, political action and reaction to change inside organisations. In 5th Critical
Management Studies Conference, Manchester.
Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General
35
Willis, G. B., Guinote, A., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2010). Illegitimacy improves goal pursuit in powerless individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 416-419.
Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (1998). Gossip in organizations. Computational & Mathematical
36
APPENDICES
Questionnaire
1. Scale items used to measure power position
Control over ourcomes Lammers, Stoker, Stapel (2010).
At work, the position I have is a: Non-management position Lower management position Middle management position Top management position
De positie die ik op het werk heb is: Geen management positie
Lager-management positie Middel-management positie Top-management positie potential influence over others Lammers et al, 2010
Please indicate the number of subordinates you have at work: No subordinates
1–5 subordinates 6– 10 subordinates 11–15 subordinates 16–20 subordinates more than 20 subordinates
Geef aan over hoeveel mensen u leiding geeft binnen het bedrijf waar u werkt: geen werknemers
1-5 werknemers 6- 10 werknemers 11-15 werknemers 16-20 werknemers meer dan 20 werknemers
Sense of power, Anderson et al, 2012
To what extent do the following sentences describe how you are at your job?
1.Not at all like me 7.Just like me
I can get others to listen to what I say.
My wishes do not carry much weight. (r)
I can get others to do what I want.
My ideas and opinions are often ignored. (r)
I think I have a great deal of power. If I want to, I get to make the decisions.
In welke mate geven de volgende
uitspraken weer hoe u doorgaans bent op uw werk?
1.Helemaal niet 7.Heel erg
Ik kan anderen zover krijgen dat ze luisteren naar wat ik te zeggen heb. Mijn wensen worden over het algemeen niet serieus genomen. (r)
Ik kan anderen zo ver krijgen dat ze doen wat ik wil.
Mijn ideeën en suggesties worden regelmatig genegeerd. (r)
37
Power position Lammers et al, 2011
The Graph below represents the power hierarchy in your
organization. Please indicate your position in your organization’s power hierarchy by clicking on the appropriate point on the horizontal line.
Power top Power bottom
Onderstaande lijn geeft de hiërarchische ladder in uw organisatie weer. Geef alstublieft een indicatie van uw positie binnen uw organisatie door te klikken op het juiste punt op de horizontale lijn.
Hoog in hiërarchie Laag in hiërarchie
2. Scale items used to measure perceived power legitimacy
Legitimac y Lammers, Stoker, Stapel (2010).
Please indicate how you feel about your position in your organization.
1. Strongly disagree 7. Strongly agree
Perceived Legitimacy
Given my qualities, I would actually earn a higher position.
Given my qualities, I would really deserve a better position.
In de volgende reeks vragen verzoeken wij u aan te geven hoe u zich voelt over uw positie binnen de organisatie. 1. Sterk mee oneens
7.Sterk mee eens
Waargenomen Legitimacy
Gezien mijn kwaliteiten zou ik eigenlijk een hogere positie verdienen.
Gezien mijn kwaliteiten zou ik eigenlijk een betere positie verdienen.
3. Scale items used to measure job satisfaction
Job satisfactio n
Cammann et al, 1983
The next set of questions we will ask you some questions about your level of satisfaction with your job. 1.Strongly disagree
7.Strongly agree
All in all, I am satisfied with my job In General, I like working here
In de volgende vragen verzoeken wij u aan te geven in hoeverre u tevreden bent met het werk dat u doet.
1.Sterk mee oneens 7.Sterk mee eens
38
4. Scale items used to measure negative gossip
Negative Gossip intro
Sometimes at work people talk informally about the performance or contribution of others who are not present at that moment.
In the next set of questions we will ask you to think of such informal conversations you may have at work about colleagues who are not there.
Het komt zo nu en dan voor dat mensen op het werk op een informele manier over de prestaties of bijdrage van collega’s praten die op dat moment niet aanwezig zijn.
Bij de volgende reeks vragen willen we u verzoeken te denken aan dergelijke (informele) gesprekken die u onlangs op het werk heeft gehad.
Please indicate how often you informally talk to other colleagues about the performance or
contribution of someone else who is not present, for the following
reasons:
I talk to people at work about others who are not present in order to… 1.Never
7.Very often
Negative influence:
To say negative things about the person we talk about.
To negatively influence the image that the person I talk with has of the person we talk about.
To put the person I talk about in a negative light.
To discuss negative characteristics of the person we talk about.
Geef alstublieft aan hoe vaak u informeel met een collega praat over de prestaties of bijdrage van een andere collega die op dat moment niet aanwezig is en om welke redenen dat zou kunnen zijn: Ik praat op het werk over andere collega’s die op dat moment niet aanwezig zijn...
1.Nooit 7.Zeer vaak
Negative influence:
Om negatieve dingen te zeggen over de persoon waarover we praten.
Om het beeld van de persoon waarmee ik praat over de persoon waarover ik praat negatief te beïnvloeden.
Om de persoon waarover ik praat in een kwaad daglicht te zetten.
