ABOUT WHOM WE GOSSIP: THE EFFECT OF GOSSIP ON PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS FOR MALES AND FEMALES.
Master thesis, Msc, specialization Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 14th, 2019
IMKE KOETSIER Student number: 2362139 Rembrandt van Rijnstraat 5
9718 PH Groningen Tel.: +31 (6) 46680794 email : I.J.koetsier@student.rug.nl Supervisor Prof. Dr. B. A. Nijstad B.A.Nijstad@rug.nl
1 ABSTRACT
Gossip is omnipresent in organizations, 66% of the conversations between employees are about other people. Additionally, gossip can have positive or negative effects in organizations. Considering the frequency of gossip and the consequences for organizations, it is important to understand the consequences for leaders. This study examined the relationship between gossip and perceived leadership effectiveness, moderated by gender, and explored the role of credibility in the relationship between gossip and perceived leadership effectiveness. Hypotheses were tested through an experimental survey among undergraduates from a Dutch university. Results showed that gossip is associated with perceived leadership effectiveness, such that positive gossip led to higher perceived leadership effectiveness than negative gossip. Moreover, positive gossip was perceived as more credible, compared with negative gossip. Finally, positive gossip is more strongly associated with perceived leadership effectiveness through credibility for females than for males. These results suggest that gossip can effects perceived leadership effectiveness.
2 INTRODUCTION
Psssst…... did you hear? Gossip occurs in all kinds of organizations, especially during a coffee break, when 66% of the conversations between employees are about other people (Cole & Dalton, 2009; Kuo, Chang, Quinton, Lu & Lee, 2015). Workplace gossip can be defined as “an informal and evaluative talk in an organization, usually among no more than a few
individuals, about another member of that organization who is not present” (Kurland & Pelled, 2000, p. 429). Gossip is not only important due to the high frequency within
organizations, but also because gossip implies the exchange of information, which can have positive or negative effects. Positive gossip can enhance reciprocity, trust and reputation (Sommerfeld, Krambeck & Milinski, 2008), and supports knowledge sharing and group dynamics for employees (McAndrew, Bell & Garcia, 2007). Negative gossip can lead to emotional exhaustion and emotional distress among gossip targets (Chandra & Robbinson, 2009) and ultimately can decrease firm performance (Campbell, 1994). However, negative gossip may also be functional as it can be used to increase the intimacy of workgroups (Bosson, Johnson, Niederhoffer & Swann, 2006) and prevent freeriding (Baumeister, Zhang & Vohs, 2004; Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012). To conclude, considering the frequency of gossip within organizations and the consequences for organizations, it is important to understand the consequences of gossip.
3 Gurven, 2006; Dunbar, 2004). Thus, it is likely that positive gossip can affect certain aspects of the perceived effectiveness of the leader. However, what we still do not know is how positive and negative gossip about a leader influences the perception of the effectiveness of leaders by subordinates.
To address this gap in the literature, we will examine how positive and negative gossip about a leader influences the perception of leader effectiveness, which is important for three reasons. First, gossip is often about high-power people (leaders) (Dijkstra, Beersma & van Leeuwen, 2014; Ellwardt, Wittek & Wielers, 2012). Second, negative gossip can create damage to the reputation of professionals (Sitzman, 2006). Third, perceptions of leadership effectiveness are important for a manager, because it has an impact on their future prospects (Michelson & Mouly, 2000). To conclude, we will examine how positive and negative gossip about a leader influences the perception of leader effectiveness. In particular, we will examine for whom and when negative gossip about leaders is likely to lead to lower perceptions of leader effectiveness.
In order to examine for whom and when negative gossip about leaders is likely to lead to lower perceptions of leader effectiveness, gender of the leader is taken into account as a moderating variable. The reason is that gossip often reinforces stereotypes (Robbinson, 2016) and according to the role contiguity theory of Eagly and Karau (2004), the stereotype of women does not correspond with the stereotype of leaders. Thus, negative gossip about women will reinforce the idea that they may not be good leaders. Considering leader
4 will not weaken this perception. In contrast, gossip about female leaders will influence their perceived leader effectiveness, because people are uncertain about the leadership skills of women and one gossip message will influence more easily the perception.
In addition, in order to explore why negative gossip is likely to lower perceptions of leader effectiveness, the mediator and moderator effect of credibility is taken into account. It might be that gossip only affects perceived leadership effectiveness when it is credible (Turner, Mazus, Wende & Winslow, 2003). Thus, it is interesting to explore the moderating role of credibility. Besides of that, positive gossip might be more credible than negative gossip, because recipients may perceive that the gossiper is attempting to mislead the recipients in case of negative gossip (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Moreover, it is possible that negative gossip about female leaders is perceived to be more credible than positive gossip, because gossipers can boost the credibility of the message when it is consistent with stereotypes (Bergmann, 1993) and stereotype of women does not correspond with the stereotype of leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2004). Thus, it is interesting to explore the role of credibility in the relationship between gossip and perceived leadership effectiveness.
5 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Gossip is inevitable in social settings, especially in the workplace, and occurs in all kind of organizations (Dunbar, Marriot & Duncan, 1997, Foster, 2004; Kniffin & Wilson, 2010). Kurland and Pelled (2000) defined gossip as “an informal and evaluative talk in an organization, usually among no more than a few individuals, about another member of that organization who is not present” (p. 429). Gossip is important because it can have several functions within an organization. It can be used for sharing information about others (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell & Labianca, 2010), influence others (Noon & Delbridge, 1993), supports socialization of individuals (Bosson et al., 2006), creates critical thinking (Bok, 1982), and enables learning aspects about social guidelines and norms within a group (Martinescu, Janssen & Nijstad, 2017).
6 In the current study, we examine the consequences of gossip for perceptions of leader effectiveness. Leaders are effective when individuals in leadership positions are able to influence a group to perform their tasks with positive organizational outcomes (Dhar & Mishra, 2001; Lord & Maher, 1991; Lussier & Achua, 2009). It therefore includes both the success of the individual leadership career and the faith of the employees and organizations in the leader. However, the perceptions of leadership effectiveness are not the same as the actual effectiveness.
Considering the literature on leadership effectiveness, there is no clarity in which traits or behaviors contributes to leadership effectiveness (Avolio, 2007; Bennis, 1959). Regarding to the trait approach, individual characteristics, skills and abilities are seen as traits which can predict leadership effectiveness (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007). Regarding to the behavior approach, initiating structure and considerations are seen as behaviors which can predicts leadership effectiveness (Hemphill & Coons, 1977; Stogdill, 1963). In this study, we focus on perceived leadership effectiveness of subordinates, instead of actual leadership effectiveness. Perceptions of leadership effectiveness can be defined as the interpreted experiences by subordinates about the effectiveness of leaders (Otara, 2011). In addition, according to social-cognitive theory, the perceptions of leadership effectiveness can be seen as cognitive categories which are represented by a stereotype (Bandura, 2001).
Gossip and Perceived Leadership Effectiveness
7 effectiveness.
Based on this, target may benefit from positive gossip, because it signals social support and sympathy towards the target (Burt & Knez, 1996; De Backer & Gurven, 2006; Dunbar, 2004). In addition, when the gossip target is presented as a reliable partner for social exchange within the network, a favorable reputation is built (Morission, 2004). Thus, it is likely that positive gossip positively effects the perceptions of leader effectiveness. Compared with positive gossip, there are two reasons why negative gossip is likely to reduce perceptions of leader effectiveness. First, negative gossip can create damage to the reputation of
professionals (Sitzman, 2006), which ultimately can result in disciplinary measures. Because damage in leadership reputation is related to decreased perceived leadership effectiveness (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005), we expect that negative gossip is associated with lower perceived leadership effectiveness. Secondly, negative gossip can hinder a person's performance, and reduces work-related success and satisfaction (Burt, 2005; Campbell, 1994; Michelson & Mooly, 2000). Because low performance of a person is related to decreased perceived leadership effectiveness (Lussier & Achua, 2009), we expect that negative gossip is associated with lower perceived leadership effectiveness, compared with positive gossip. Therefore, we expect the following;
Hypotheses 1. Negative gossip about a leader is associated with lower perceived leadership effectiveness than positive gossip.
The Moderating Role of Gender
"Think male, think manager" has been a global belief in the past decades (Schein, 1973). This belief can be explained by the social role theory and indicate that women are in essence suitable in subordinate or care positions and men in management positions
8 example, people expect that women will take care of the children while men need to work (Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Based on these social roles, the female gender role is described as more relations-oriented, caring and communal than the male gender role, while the male gender role is more likely to be autonomous, assertive, and agentic as compared to the female gender role (Schein, 1973).
The congruence between gender roles and leaderships roles can be explained by the role contiguity theory, which is based on the social role theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002). The theory suggests that a group is perceived as positive if the characteristics of a group are in line with the typical social roles of that group (Eagly & Diekman, 2005). Considering the stereotypes of females, women are expected to meet with more disapproval in leadership positions than men because of the violation of gender roles (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Besides, women are thought to be more skilled in nurturing, power sharing, interpersonal relations, and inclusiveness of follower leadership characteristics, while men are expected to be more directive, task focused and have lower emotionality (Vecchio, 2002; Yukl, 2002). An inconsistency occurs when women have a leadership role because the characteristics related to the female stereotype are not in line with typical leadership characteristics. Moreover, according to the research of Heilman, Manzi and Caleo (2018), females are perceived as less competent than males and people have more negative performance expectations about females as compared to males.
9 likely to lower results in a perceived leadership effectiveness value for women than positive gossip. Thus, we expect that negative gossip will lower result in a perceived leadership effectiveness value for women than positive gossip.
Considering leader positions, the characteristics of men are consistent with traditional stereotypes of leaders (Schein, 1973). Moreover, research of Eagly, Makhijani and Klonsky (1992), showed that men are perceived as more effective leaders than women. Also, subordinates are more uncertain about the leadership qualities of women as compared to men (Szymanska & Rubin, 2018). Consider, for example, a news article stating that subordinates do not think that women can be placed in top positions due to their qualifications: ‘‘ There aren’t that many women with the right credentials and depth of experience to sit on the board - the issues covered are extremely complex’’ (Davies, 2018). It displays that subordinates perceived more uncertainty about female leadership qualities compared with characteristics of male leaders (Szymanska & Rubin, 2018). Therefore, we expect that information such as gossip, will have a larger effect on the perceived leadership effectiveness of women and such information will be discounted as less relevant for the perceived leadership effectiveness of men.
10 To conclude, negative gossip about women will reinforce the idea that they may not be a good leader; this is less the case for men and positive gossip will not affect the perceived leadership effectiveness of men and women (figure 1, conceptual model). Therefore, we expect the following;
Hypothesis 2. Negative gossip valence (compared with positive valence) is associated with lower perceived leadership effectiveness for women compared with men but gossip valence is not associated with perceived leadership effectiveness for men.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model
Exploring the role of credibility
One important characteristic of gossip is the credibility of the message (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Appelman and Sundar (2016) define message credibility as a multidimensional construct which consists of three dimensions; accurate, authentic and believable. Appleman and Sundar (2016) found that messages that exist of these dimensions are more likely to influence others. When the credibility of the gossip is high it reinforces the assessment of the target (Turner et al., 2003). Thus, it is likely the perceived leadership effectiveness increases or decreases when the gossip credibility is high, depending on the gossip valence (positive or negative). When the credibility of the gossip is low it is likely that it will not influence perceived leadership effectiveness. The reason is that recipients may perceive that the gossiper is attempting to mislead the recipients (Kurland & Pelled, 2000) and therefore will not value the gossip as credible. Based on this, it might be interesting to explore the
moderating role of credibility on the relationship between gossip and perceived leadership effectiveness.
Gossip valence Perceived leadership effectiveness
11 Besides that, research of Turner et al. (2003) showed that negative gossip can be perceived as the least credible, compared with positive gossip. The reason is that recipients may perceive that the gossiper is attempting to mislead the recipients (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). In contrast to positive gossip, individuals are likely to believe positive gossip about a target because it functions as sympathy or trust towards the target (Dunbar, 2004; Burt & Knez, 1996). Based on this, it might be interesting to explore the mediating role of credibility in the relationship between gossip and perceived leadership effectiveness.
Moreover, gossipers can boost the credibility of the message when it is consistent with stereotypes (Bergmann, 1993) and when the credibility is high it reinforces the assessment of the target (Turner et al., 2003). Thus, it is likely that negative gossip about women will reinforce the idea that they may not be good leaders; this is less the case for men. The reason is that gossip about female leaders is perceived to be more credible because it is consistent with stereotypes (Bergmann, 1993). Therefore, we also want to explore a conditional indirect effect such that the relationship between gossip valence and credibility is moderated by gender. Additionally, it is expected that gossip valence has an indirect effect on perceived leadership effectiveness through credibility. Negative gossip about female leaders is perceived to be more credible because it confirms the stereotype that women are not effective leaders. However, for men, no effect of gossip (positive or negative) on perceived leadership
12 METHOD
Participants and Design
The research was conducted at a Dutch university among 203 undergraduates who participated in exchange for course credit or a small amount of money. After excluding 23 participants, our final sample contained of 180 (Mage = 22,03; SDage = 2,78, 120 female, 1 unspecified). Although the majority of the participants were from Europe (125 participants, 45 participants were Dutch), 45 respondents were originally from Asia and the rest were from other continents (America, Australia, Afrika). Furthermore, the majority of the participants were students (N = 178), and on average half (46,1 %) obtained as the highest level of education a University bachelor. Moreover, a minority of the students (37,2 %) currently had a (side) job and worked mainly in food service (24%), retail (12%) and other areas (education, marketing, public sector). The study had a 2 (gossip valence; positive vs. negative) x 2 (leader gender: female versus male) design. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions: positive (N = 91), negative (N= 89), gossip valence, and female (N= 90), male (N= 90), leader gender.
Procedure
Upon arrival, participants filled in an informed consent and agreed to participate in this research. Participants were seated in separate cubicles and were informed that the participants participated in research about informal communication. First of all, participants started with questions about demographics (such as age, gender, income, graduation level) and completed some personality scales. After that, participants read a scenario and imagined that they had a part-time job at a call center of a health insurance company and had been working there for about six months. The job of the participants was to provide customers with information about fees and declarations and provide customers with other information
13 Gender manipulation
After the introduction was given, the participants read a neutral scenario about their
female or male supervisor: “You get along with your supervisor Petra/Piet fine, but you do
not have contact with her/him very often. Petra/Piet has worked in the call center for several years, and you have not experienced any problems with her/him. It seems that as long as you do your job, Petra/Piet will stay off your back, which is fine with you’’.
Gossip manipulation
After the scenario, participants received gossip from their colleague at the coffee-machine which was either positive or negative about their supervisor: ''Did you hear that our supervisor, has/did not help us out last week? We had to take on so many extra tasks and we did not know what to do and how to handle it. The supervisor gave us comments and advice which increased/decreased our motivation. Finally, we finished the task on time. I'm/not so happy with our supervisor!''
Manipulation checks
Participants were asked to indicate whether the heard gossip was positive or negative. Participants could choose between (1) the information colleague A told me about supervisor B
is positive and (2) the information colleague A told me about supervisor B is negative. Next,
the participants were asked to summarize the information they heard. Participants also have to indicate whether the supervisor was a male or female. Afterward, the participants were asked to indicate why they thought it will be a male or female.
Dependent measures
For all dependent measures, we used 7-point Likert response scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
14 about the competences of my leader’’ and “my leader is very capable to perform the tasks’’ (α = 0.92).
Credibility. The message credibility of the participants was measured by means of four items (Dennis & Schnabel, 1996). Examples items are “ I am not sure I completely believe
everything that my colleague contributed’’ and “I am convinced that all the information contributed was accurate’’ (α = 0.83).
Control Variables. Participants’ nationality was considered as the first covariate by asking the participants: “What country are you originally from?’’. We provided participants with a slider scale on which they could indicate their country. Next, we recoded the countries on individualist or collectivistic culture based on the research of Hofstede (2011). Moreover, participants work experience was considered as a second covariate, by asking the participants: “In total, how many years of work experience do you have?’’. We provided participants with a 1-100 slider scale on which they could indicate their work experience in years. Participant’s nationality and work experience were considered as possible covariates as previous research showed that they can influence the perceptions of leadership effectiveness (Pauliene, 2012). Individualistic cultures experience a higher rate of perceived leadership effectiveness, when the financial performance outcome of the leader is high, while collectivistic cultures
experience a higher rate of perceived leadership effectiveness when the leader affording employees security and direction (Pauliene, 2012). Furthermore, work experience was considered as the second control variable. Murphy and Cleveland (1995) noticed that
15 RESULTS
Pre-liminary Analyses
Data cleaning. Two participants skipped more than six questions and were deleted for further analysis because of missing values. Further, nine participants were deleted because they indicated that they did not complete the questionnaire honestly. The nine participants
responded ‘’no’’ when asking: ‘’ To your honest opinion, should we use your data?’’, with the explanation ‘’ I might have been incorrect in answering one of the questions’’ or ‘’I answered
some question as unjustified. As I thought just from the given information, it is not sufficient to judge anyone’s working behavior’’. In total 11 participants were excluded from further
analyses.
Manipulation checks. One participant in the positive gossip condition and eleven participants in the leader gender condition incorrectly indicated the overheard information. One
participant in the positive gossip condition incorrectly indicated the overheard information. Seven participants in the male gender condition incorrectly indicated the gender and four participants in the female gender condition incorrectly indicated the gender. 12 participants failed manipulation checks and were excluded from further analyses. Thus, in total 23 participants were excluded from further analyses.
Outlier analysis. To examine whether there are outliers in the data, the data was standardized in Z-scores. The outliers of the research are the respondents who scored greater than three or less than minus three. In total, one outlier was identified with regard to perceived leadership effectiveness. Excluding this outlier did not alter the pattern of the results or influence substantive conclusions; therefore, the analysis is done with outliers.
Descriptive statistics. Table 1 present means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations for all variables. In accordance with Table 1, gossip valence and perceived leadership
16 perceived leadership effectiveness correlate (r = .36, p = .00), however, the moderator leader gender and perceived leadership effectiveness are not correlated (r = .06, p = .62). Moreover, some interesting correlations of the covariates are found. First of all, credibility and gossip valence are strongly positively correlated (r = .67, p = .00). Secondly, work experience and perceived leadership effectiveness are negative correlated (r = -.33, p = .00). Thirdly, nationality (individualistic or collectivistic) and perceived leadership effectiveness are negatively correlated (r = -.20, p =.00).
To conclude, table 1 shows that all the covariates are significant with the dependent variable perceived leadership effectiveness, therefore these covariates were included within the main analysis.
TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Work experience 4.40 11.805 - 2. Nationality .26 .460 .52** - 3. Gossip valence .51 .50 .30** -.03 - 4. Leader gender .50 .50 -.11 .00 .10 - 5. Credibility 2.87 1.01 -.02 .15* .67** .04 - 6. Perceived leaderhip effectiveness 5.44 .66 -.33** -.20** .36** .06 .36** -
N = 180; *p<.05; ** p <.01; *** p<.001; gender was coded 0 for males and 1 for females; gossip valence was coded 0 for negative condition and 1 for positive condition.
Main Analysis
17 leadership effectiveness was lower with negative gossip (M = 5.20, SD = .70), than with positive gossip (M = 5.68, SD = .61). Disconfirming hypothesis 2, the analysis showed no main effect of leader gender on perceived leadership effectiveness or an interaction effect.
TABLE 2
Means and standard deviation for perceived leadership effectiveness
Dependent variables Positive gossip Negative gossip
Male Female Male Female
Perceived leadership effectiveness 5.62 (SD = .54) 5.73 (SD = .61) 5.22 (SD = .61) 5.18 (SD = .69)
Credibility 3.58 (SD = .79) 3.50 (SD = .90) 3.58 (SD = .79) 3.50 (SD = .57)
Exploratory Analysis
To explore the role of credibility, a regression analysis was conducted, by using Hayes’ macro in SPSS. The analysis was conducted withoutcovariates1. The regression
analysis is found in Table 3 and Table 4.
We expected that gossip is associated with perceived leadership effectiveness and that the effect is moderated by credibility, such that perceived leadership effectiveness increases or decreases when the gossip credibility is high. To text or prediction, we conducted a regression analysis using Hayes macro in SPSS. We conducted a regression analysis with perceived leadership effectiveness as the dependent variable, gossip valence as the independent variable and credibility as the moderator. The regression analysis of Hayes macro demonstrated a
18 main effect of credibility, b = .16, p<.01, on perceived leadership effectiveness. However, disconfirming our expectation, the analysis did not demonstrate an interaction between gossip valence and credibility on perceived leadership effectiveness, b = .13.
Moreover, we expected that gossip is associated with perceived leadership
effectiveness and that the effect is mediated by credibility, such that negative gossip can be perceived as the least credible, compared with positive gossip. To provide an initial test and description of effects we conducted a two-way ANOVA. We conducted a two-way ANOVA with gossip valence, leader gender as independent variables and credibility as the dependent variables. The results are displayed in Table 2. The ANOVA analysis yielded a main effect of gossip valence on credibility, F (1, 176) = 145.85, p<.001. In line with our expectation, credibility was higher with positive gossip (M = 3.54, SD = .85), than with negative gossip (M = 2.18, SD = .64), b = .23. In addition, to test or expectation, a regression analysis was conducted, with perceived leadership effectiveness as the dependent variable, gossip valence as the independent variable and credibility as the mediator. The results are displayed in Table 3. The regression analysis of Hayes macro showed that gossip valence was related to
credibility, b = .68, p<.01 and credibility was related to perceived leadership effectiveness, b = .20, p<.05. Confirming our expectation, credibility mediated the effect of gossip valence on perceived leadership effectiveness (indirect effect = .14, 95% CI [.01; .27].
19 Table 4. Credibility value was higher in the positive gossip condition (M = 3.54, SD = .85), than in the negative gossip condition (M = 2.18, SD = .63), b = .68, p<.01. However, there was no main effect of leader gender on credibility, b = -.03, and no interaction effect of gossip valence and leader gender on credibility, b = -.01. In addition, credibility was related to
perceived leadership effectiveness, b = .20, p<.05, and credibility mediated the effect of gossip valence on perceived leadership effectiveness (indirect effect = .14, 95% CI [.01; .27]. Moreover, the interaction effect of leader gender and credibility (Figure 1), b = .17, p<.05, showed that the effect of gossip valence on perceived leadership effectiveness through credibility was found for females, b = .02, p<.05 but not for males, b = .24. In sum, only positive as compared to negative gossip raised higher credibility and perceived leadership effectiveness for female supervisors (not for males).
FIGURE 1
Graphical representation of the interaction effect
TABLE 3
Mediation Analysis without covariates Credibility B t CI Gossip valence .68*** 12.08 .57; .79 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Low Credibility High Credibility
20 Dependent Variable Models
Perceived Leadership Effectiveness
B t CI
Gossip valence .23* 2.46 .01; .05
Credibility .20* 2.14 .02; .38
Indirect effects
Credibility .14* .01; .27
N = 180; *p<.05; ** p <.01; *** p<.001; gender was coded 0 for males and 1 for females; gossip valence was coded 0 for negative condition and 1 for positive condition.
TABLE 4
Moderation-Mediation Analysis without covariates Credibility B t CI Gossip valence .68*** 12.08 .57; .79 Leader gender -.03 -.54 -.14; .08 Gossip valence x Leader Gender -.01 -.13 -.12; .10
Dependent Variable Models
Perceived Leadership Effectiveness
B t CI Gossip valence .23* 2.46 .01; .05 Credibility .20* 2.14 .02; .38 Leader gender .03 .45 -.10; 17 Credibility x Leader gender .17* 2.41 .03; .30 Indirect effects Male -.03 -.12; .18 Female .34** .07; .39
21 DISCUSSION
The aim of this research was to examine the relationship between gossip about a leader and perceived leadership effectiveness, moderated by gender. In addition, we explored the role of credibility in the relationship between gossip and perceived leadership effectiveness. Previous studies did not examine the implications of gossip for leaders. Hypotheses were tested through an experimental survey among 180 undergraduates from a Dutch university.
The present research findings contribute to the theory of gossip and perceived leadership effectiveness and confirm that gossip is associated with perceived leadership effectiveness. Our research showed that leaders are perceived as more effective when positive gossip is heard, compared with negative gossip. In agreement with previous research proposed by Burt and Knez (1996), De Backer and Gurven, (2006), and Dunbar (2004), positive gossip may benefit the target, because it signals support and sympathy towards the target. Compared with positive gossip, negative gossip may harm the perceived leadership effectiveness because it can create damage to the reputation of professionals and hinder a person’s performance (Burt 2005; Campbell, 1994; Michelson & Mooly, 2000; Sitzman, 2006). Together with previous research (Burt, 2005; Burt & Knez, 1996; Campbell, 1994; Dunbar, 2004; De Backer & Gurven, 2006, Sitzman, 2006; Michelson & Mooly, 2000), the present finding thus highlight that positive gossip is higher associated with perceived leadership effectiveness, compared with negative gossip. Additionally, we expected that the relationship between gossip and perceived leadership effectiveness was moderated by gender. However, we did not find evidence for the prediction that male or female leaders are different perceived as effective through gossip. Future research is needed to investigate this effect .
22 Individuals are likely to believe positive gossip about a target because it functions as
sympathy or trust towards the target (Burt & Knez, 1996; De Backer & Gurven, 2006; Dunbar, 2004). Besides, negative gossip can be perceived as less credible, compared with positive gossip (Turner et al., 2003), because recipients may perceive that the gossiper is attempting to mislead the recipients (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Additionally, credibility is positively related to perceived leadership effectiveness. Together with previous research ( Burt & Knez, 1996; De Backer & Gurven, 2006; Dunbar, 2004; Turner et al., 2003); the present finding thus highlights that positive gossip has a higher credibility value, compared with negative gossip and credibility is associated with perceived leadership effectiveness. Besides, it could be that gossip only affects when it is credible. However, we did not find evidence for the prediction that gossip is associated with perceived leadership effectiveness when the gossip is credible. Future research is needed to investigate this matter.
The interaction effect of gender and credibility showed that positive gossip is credible, but only has an effect for women (not for men), whereas the effect of negative gossip is not credible and therefore has no effect for men and women. It was expected that gender affects the relationship between gossip and credibility, while the results indicate that gender affects the relationship between credibility and perceived leadership effectiveness. Also, it was expected that the perceived leadership effectiveness of females leaders would be more negatively affected by negative gossip, while the results indicated that positive gossip is credible and only has an effect on women. Our findings were not in line with our
expectations, while they might confirm that the perceptions of the leadership effectiveness of female leaders are more depending on gossip and the perceptions of the leadership
effectiveness of males not. These findings can be explained in several ways.
23 were positively influenced by gossip and perceptions of males not. This can be explained by the role contiguity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2004), males are perceived as more effective for leadership roles. Therefore, gossip will not have an impact on this perception, because one gossip message will not weaken the expectation that males are effective leaders roles. Conversely, for women, those expectations do not exist and subordinates perceived more uncertainty about female leadership qualities compared with characteristics of male leaders (Szymanska & Rubin, 2018). Therefore, gossip about female leadership effectiveness influenced perceptions of female leaders and not male leaders. To summarize, the present finding thus highlights that positive gossip is associated with higher perceived leadership effectiveness through credibility for females, but not for males.
Another explanation of the effect of credibility for females was perhaps because the positive gossip in the study was about a stereotype (cooperation) that fits with female leadership characteristics. Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell and Ristikari (2001) stated that the characteristic cooperation can be perceived as an effective characteristic of leadership in the current society. They stated that: ''Leadership now, more than in the past, appears to
24 Theoretical Implications
The present study contributes to the theory of gossip by providing empirical evidence that gossip (either positive or negative) affects perceptions of the effectiveness of a leader. Our research might shift the perception that gossip only influences employee behaviors in an organization, because this research showed how gossip within the organization influences how leaders are perceived. Moreover, the results indicate that the valence of gossip influences the way subordinates perceive leaders as effective. When the gossip is perceived as positive, subordinates will perceive the leader as more effective, compared with negative gossip.
Furthermore, our research adds the role of credibility to the literature of gossip. While the literature on gossip only focused on the credibility of the source of the gossip, we found evidence about the credibility of the message. This research indicates that positive gossip results in a higher credibility value than for negative gossip and that a high credibility of the message (gossip) results in a higher value of perceived leadership effectiveness.
Finally, our results indicate a growing acceptance of female leaders as our results provide encouraging evidence of changing attitudes towards female leaders. Moreover, the results indicate that gossip had more impact on the perception of the leadership effectiveness for females than for males. These results indicate that the female leadership role is still not stable, as we seen that judgments about female leaders are more easily influenced.
Practical Implications
25 do gossip often about high-power people (Dijkstra, Beersma & van Leeuwen, 2014; Ellwardt, Wittek & Wielers, 2012). Our results showed that positive gossip (compared with negative gossip) can help to increase the perceived leader effectiveness. Thus, our research may help managers and employees understand how positive and negative gossip about leaders
influences the perception of leader effectiveness. Also, these findings suggest that leaders should be aware of gossip and see it as a social process that needs to be understood and strategized. The challenge for leaders is to find ways to be aware of the gossip, so that the gossip valence can be assessed. Therefore, managers should seek to be connected to the conversations that occur in the workplace, and (based on our results) only intervene when negative gossip occurs. Negative gossip occurs for example during periods of organizational change (Houmanfar & Johnson, 2004). Change situations are related to uncertainty and ambiguity (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007) and both gossip an rumor fill the lack of information and compensate for formal communications perceived shortcomings. Based on this, managers should focus on decreasing negative gossip by clearly communicating goals during periods of change (Mills, 2010).
In addition, organization members could become more aware of the content of the gossip as well, as our research showed that positive gossip (compared with negative gossip) is more credible and higher gossip credibility results in higher ratings of perceived leadership effectiveness. Therefore, it is strongly advised that organizations create an environment where people do not distribute non-credible information. Companies with highly competitive
26 Finally, the belief that women are most suitable in subordinate or care positions and men mostly in management positions, is changing in the current society: “Leadership now, more than in the past, appears to incorporate more feminine relation qualities such as
sensitivity, warmth and understanding'' (Koenig et al., 2001, p. 634). Our results may provide evidence of the effects of gossip on the acceptance of female leaders and changing attitudes towards female leaders. Deutsch (2007) argued that in the future the characteristics crucial for effective leadership will not depending on the gender, but more seen as gender neutral.
Therefore, HR managers and other supporting services could adjust their selection procedures or training programs, in a way that the character traits of both male and female leaders are objectively assessed and developed, for example, by use selection test that have no adverse impact.
Limitations and Future Directions
This research is not without limitations. The first and most important limitation is about our experimental design. The experimental research was based on non-realistic situations that do not always represent real-life situations. In addition, the perceived leadership effectiveness is measured instead of the actual leadership effectiveness. To increase the validity of our findings, future research should use qualitative methods such as observations or interviews to obtain information about the real behavior of the participants.
27 satisfaction with a leader, group performance, follower job satisfaction and individual
leadership effectiveness (Yukl, 2006).
The second limitation is the possibility of socially desirable answers. Perhaps
participants gave socially desirable answers because the participants wanted to respond in in favour of others (Nederhof, 1985). However, when questionnaires assure anonymity, as our research did, socially desirable answers tend to be minimized (Nederhof, 1985). In future research is it advised to strictly guarantee anonymity to prevent socially desirable answers.
The third limitation is about the sample source. In total 125 participants have a European nationality and are undergraduates of a Dutch University. This includes that the majority of the participants were members of European nationality, which might explain the negative association with perceived leadership effectiveness. This negative association can be explained by Pauliene (2012), effective leadership in individualistic cultures is normally perceived as the action of producing superior financial results, and is more focused on the outcomes flowing from behavior than the behavior itself. Collective cultures perceive effective leadership as a durable objective germinating which stems from leaders affording employees security and direction (Pauliene, 2012). Because the gossip in the scenario was about the behavior of the leader, instead of the financial outcomes, it can be argued that members from collectivistic cultures rate the perceived leadership effectiveness higher, compared with individualistic cultures. Because the sample was not cultural equally
28 A final limitation emerges from the sample size of the research. In total 180
respondents participated in the research, which could be seen as a small sample and could influence the generalizability of the results. For future research, it will be better that a larger and more diversified sample is used to investigate the matter.
Furthermore, suggestion for future research is to further examine what influences the valence of gossip, as our results showed that positive gossip (compared with negative gossip) can help to increase perceived leadership effectiveness. According to the research of
Carpenter, Matthews & Schrim (2010) is it likely that the culture or values of a company influences the gossip valence. They stated that companies with highly competitive cultures, create fewer incentives for cooperation and increase sabotage (Carpenter, Matthews & Schirm, 2010) and non-credible information between the employees (Brehm & Gates, 1999), while a more open culture may help credible information between employees. Thus, further research should be undertaken to investigate the influences of the valence of gossip within organizations.
29 CONCLUSION
The present research shows that gossip is associated with perceived leadership, such that positive gossip led to higher perceived leadership effectiveness than negative gossip. Moreover, our study revealed that positive gossip can be perceived as more credible,
30 REFERENCES
Appelman, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59-79.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building.
American psychologist, 62(1), 25.
Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Yan, T. T., & Jeon, G. (2018). Gender and
leadership emergence: A meta‐analysis and explanatory model. Personnel Psychology,
71(3), 335-367.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of
psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of
general psychology, 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.
Bergmann, J. R. (1993). Discreet indiscretions: The social organization of gossip (J. J.
Bednarz, Trans.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. (Original work published 1987).
Bennis, W. G. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problem of
authority (Vol. 4). Ardent Media.
31 Bosson, J. K., Johnson, A. B., Niederhoffer, K., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2006). Interpersonal
chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others.
Personal Relationships, 13, 135–150.
Brehm, J. O., & Gates, S. (1999). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to
a democratic public. University of Michigan Press.
Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. (1996). Trust and third-party gossip. Trust in organizations: Frontiers
of theory and research, 68, 89.
Campbell, D. T. (1994). How individual and face-to-face group selection undermine firm selection in organizational evolution. Evolutionary dynamics of organizations, 23-38. Carpenter, J., Matthews, P. H., & Schirm, J. (2010). Tournaments and office politics:
Evidence from a real effort experiment. American Economic Review, 100(1), 504-17. Carruthers, P. (2018). Valence and value. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97(3),
658-680.
Central Bureau for Statistics. (2018, November 11). Statistics Netherlands: Loonverschil tussen mannen en vrouwen iets kleiner. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/nl- nl/nieuws/2018/47/loonverschil-tussen-mannen-en-vrouwen-iets-kleiner
Chandra, G., & Robinson, S. L. (2009). They’re talking about me again: The impact of being the target of gossip on emotional distress and withdrawal. In Academy of Management
Conference. Chicago.
Cole, J. M., & Dalton, J. (2009). Idle women’s chat? Gender and gossip. Social Section. In The Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, University of Kent,
Kent, UK.
32 De Backer, C. J., & Gurven, M. (2006). Whispering down the lane: The economics of
vicarious information transfer. Adaptive Behavior, 14(3), 249-264.
Dennis JR, J. E., & Schnabel, R.B. (1996). Numerical methods for unconstrained optimization
and nonlinear equations (Vol. 16). Siam
Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & society, 21(1), 106-127.
Dhar, U., & Mishra, P. (2001). Leadership Effectiveness. Journal of Management Research,
1(4).
DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor, gossip and urban legends. Diogenes, 54, 19-35. Dijkstra, M. Beersma, B., & van Leeuwen, J. (2014). Gossiping as a response to conflict with
the boss: alternative conflict management behavior?. International journal of conflict
management, 25(4), 431-454.
Dunbar, R. I. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of general psychology, 8(2), 100-110.
Dunbar, R. I., Marriott, A., & Duncan, N.D. (1997). Human conversational behavior. Human
nature, 8(2), 231-246.
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport, 19-35.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological review, 109(3), 573.
Eagly, A.H. & Karau, S.J. (2004). Few women at the top: How role incongruity produces prejudice and the glass ceiling. Identity, leadership and power, 79-93.
33 Eagly, A. H., Makijani, M.G., & Klonsk, B. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. Handbook of theories in social
psychology, 2, 458-476.
Ellwardt, L., Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (2012). Talking about the boss: Effects of generalized and interpersonal trust on workplace gossip. Group & organization management,
37(4), 521-549.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review
of general psychology, 8(2), 78.
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.
Heilman, M. E., & Caleo, S. (2018). Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 725-744.
Helgesen, S. (1995). The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership. Crown Business. Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1977). Development of the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire. Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, OH,
USA: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 6-38.
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(4), 22-42.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of general
34 Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online
readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.
Houmanfar, R., & Johnson, R. (2004). Organizational implications of gossip and rumor.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23(2-3), 117-138.
Kayworth, T. & Leidner. (2006). A review of culture in information systems research:
Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS quarterly, 30(2), 357-399.
Kniffin, K.M., & Wilson, D. (2010). Evolutionary perspectives on workplace gossip: Why and how gossip can serve groups. Group & Organization Management, 35(2), 150-176.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristkari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin,
137(4), 616-642.
Kuo, C. C., Chang, K., Quinton, S., Lu, C. Y., & Lee, I. (2015). Gossip in the workplace and the implications for HR management: A study of gossip and its relationship to
employee cynicism. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 26(18), 2288-2307.
Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of management review, 25(2), 428-438.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Cognitive theory in industrial and organizational psychology. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2, 1-62.
Lussier, R. N., Achua, C. F. (2009). Leadership: Theory, application, and skill development.
35 Martinescu, E, Janssen, O. & Nijstad, B. (2017). Why We Gossip: A Functional Perspective
on the Self-relevance of Gossip for Senders, Receivers and Targets. University of
Groningen.
McAndrew, F. T., Bell, E. K., & Garcia, C. M. (2007). Who Do We Tell and Whom Do We Tell On? Gossip as a Strategy for Status Enhancement 1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 37(7), 1562-1577.
Michelson, G., & Mouly, S. (2000). Rumour and gossip in organisations: a conceptual study.
Management Decision, 38(5), 339-346.
Mills, C. (2010). Experiencing gossip: The foundations for a theory of embedded organizational gossip. Group & Organization Management, 35, 213-240. Morrison, R. (2004). Informal relationships in the workplace: associations with job
satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions. New Zealand Journal
of Pscyhology, 33, 114-128.
Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(2), 154-166.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social,
organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Sage.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European
journal of social psychology, 15(3), 263-280.
Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip in organizations.
Organization studies, 14(1), 23-36.
Otara, A. (2011). Perception: A guide for managers and leaders. Journal of Management and
36 Pauliene, R. (2012). ‘Transforming leadership styles and knowledge sharing in a multicultural
context’, Business Management and Education, 10(1), 91-109.
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender
stereotypes. Psychology of women quarterly, 26(4), 269-281.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social issues, 57(4), 637-655.
Robbinson, B. (2016). Character, caricature, and gossip. The Monist, 99(2), 198-211.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of applied psychology, 57(2), 95.
Sitzman MS, R. N. (2006). Reducing negative workplace gossip. Workplace Health &
Safety, 54(5), 240.
Sommerfeld, R.D., Krambeck, H.J., & Milinski, M. (2008). Multiple gossip statements and their effect on reputation and trustworthiness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 275 (1650), 2529-2536.
Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire-Form XII:
An experimental revision. Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and
Administration, Ohio State University.
Szymanska, I. I., & Rubin, B. A. (2018). Gender and relationship differences in the
perceptions of male and female leadership. Gender in Management: An International
Journal, 33(4), 254-281.
37 Vecchio, R. P. (2002). Leadership and gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6),
643-671.
Wu. J., Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P.A. (2015). When does gossip promote generosity? Indirect reciprocity under the shadow of the future. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 6(8), 923.
