High Threat, more Gossip? How Competitive Climate and Neuroticism Influence Gossip.
Natasja Postma S2202867
Msc Human Resource Management &
Msc Industrial and Organizational Psychology Supervisor: Elena Martinescu
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Human Resource Management & Organization Behavior Department Netelbosje 2, Postbus 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands
n.postma.4@student.rug.nl
January 2015
2 Abstract
In this research we investigated whether cooperative climate and competitive climate influence levels of anxiety and gossip. We expect that a competitive climate will lead to more anxiety than a cooperative climate due to the uncertainty that is created by employees who withhold information to increases their chances for better performance compared with their colleagues. We propose that anxiety leads to a higher degree of gossip transmission to reduce tension and collect information to get a better understanding of the situation. Neuroticism was included as a moderator because it is associated with anxiety and it was therefore expected that a highly competitive climate will lead to more anxiety and gossip especially when people are highly neurotic. The relationship between climate and situational anxiety was marginally supported, the relationship between situational anxiety and gossip was also found. The results are discussed and implications are explored.
3 Introduction
Gossip can be described as evaluative talk about people who are not present (Beersma
& Van Kleef, 2012; Kurland & Pelled, 2000). People gossip a lot, two thirds of the conversations consist out of gossip (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012). People can have different motivations to engage in gossip (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012). Gossip can be for positive motivations; it is a way in to gain information, it can protect group norms, develop relationships and it is often used for social enjoyment (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012).
However people can also gossip for negative motivations. People can gossip to promote their own reputation and to negatively influence the opinion of another people about a third person.
Negative gossip can have a negative impact on organizations. Colleagues can criticize each other by gossiping, and start creating negative opinions about each other (Ellwardt, 2011). Gossip can thereby ruin a reputation of a person by passing false information about this person. Gossip can damage relationships between employees and collaboration (Kurland
& Pelled, 2000). People will think that the person who initiated the gossip can also spread false information about them, this way the level of trust between employees decreases.
Moreover the victim of gossip levels of stress increases substantially (Thomas & Rozell, 2007). This person can react in an emotional manner, whereby conflict can occur and thereby disrupting teamwork and productivity. However positive gossip can build relationships (Dunbar, 2004) and thereby have a beneficial effect on collaboration and performance. To reduce these negative effects and increase the positive effects of gossip it is crucial for organizations to know what the antecedents of gossip are.
We will look at two different organizational climates, competitive and cooperative climate, because we expect big difference in gossip transmission between the two due to different stress levels and thereby influencing the anxiety levels. A key difference between a competitive climate and cooperative climate is that there is a lot more uncertainty and stress in
4 a competitive climate (Fletcher, Major & Davis, 2008). In a competitive climate employees have to perform as the best. Therefore employees strive to increases their chances for the best performance and decrease the performance of their colleagues by withholding information or may even spread false information. It is likely that employees will experience situational anxiety in a competitive climate. While in a cooperative climate employees work together and share information to reach shared goals. There is no stress, uncertainty and therefore no anxiety. We expect that a competitive climate will lead to more situational anxiety than a cooperative climate.
Rosnow (1980) defines anxiety as: ‘a negative affective state that is produced by apprehension about an impending potential negative outcome’. To reduce feelings of anxiety people can start look for information to better understand the situation and the potential negative outcome and to reduce their feelings of uncertainty. Indeed multiple studies found a positive relationship between gossip and anxiety (Jaeger, Anthony & Rosnow, 1980; Rosnow, 1980; Walker & Beckerle, 1987; Pezzo & Beckstead, 2006). In this research we will look at how anxiety influences gossip in a workplace setting and for which different motivations employees instigate gossip.
Everyone experiences an organization different due to differently personalities. People high in neuroticism are more likely to experience negative affect (Costa & Mccrae, 1992), and are therefore especially likely to experience a competitive climate (a stressful climate) as negative because people high in neuroticism have more severe affective reactions to these negative appraisals than people low in neuroticism (Gunthert, Armeli & Cohen, 1999). People high in neuroticism might therefore be more anxious than people low in neuroticism (Clark, Watson & Mineka, 1994), and this might moderate the relationship between climate and anxiety. People will experience a competitive climate as more anxious than a cooperative climate and this effect will be stronger when people are high in neuroticism.
5 Figure 1. Model. The positive indirect relationship between climate and gossip mediated by situational anxiety is stronger when a person scores high on neuroticism rather than a person scores low on neuroticism.
Practical & Theoretical relevance
Gossip is an important topic to investigate due to the negative impact it can have on organizations. Moreover gossip is a subject that is mostly overlooked in research (Foster, 2004), the frequencies are especially small relative time spent at gossip in our daily lives.
Most of the research that is done on gossip has looked at the social society, not at gossip in organizations (Foster, 2004). This research fills the gap of gossip research in organizations by looking at cooperative and competitive climate. Besides research in organizations little empirical research has been devoted to understanding the motivations why individual group members instigate gossip (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012). Insight into the different motivations underlying gossip is important for a better understanding of the phenomenon. Moreover there is little research about different personality traits associated with gossip (Ellwardt, 2011).
Neuroticism is included to look at the effects of this personality trait on situational anxiety
6 and the interaction of neuroticism and climate on anxiety and how this influence gossip. This way a better understanding of gossip can be reached.
A better understanding of gossip can be used by organizations manage gossip more effectively. With this extra information management can implement strategies to manage gossip and thereby increasing the positive effects of gossip and reducing or even eliminating the negatives effects of gossip.
Theory Organizational climate
A definition used for competitive climate is the degree to which employees perceive organizational rewards to be contingent on comparison of their performance against that of their peers (Fletcher et al, 2008). Different factors can contribute to a competitive climate:
perceiving competition from others, perceptions of differential reward distribution, frequent status comparisons and having performance compared to other individuals within a work unit.
It is likely that employees are not certain about their position in the company, they might feel that they can be replaced when their performance is not sufficient. Their performance is always observed and compared by the managers and there is little trust between employees, because they compete for the same rewards (Tjosvold, Yu & Hui, 2004). Employees might strategically withhold information about their appointed tasks and performance to their colleagues to increase their chances for better performances than their colleagues. It is possible that this competition and reduced information sharing will lead to stress and uncertainty (Fletcher et al, 2008; Ellwardt, 2011), because they do not know if their performance is sufficient compared with their colleagues. A possibility is that when performance is not sufficient they can get laid off. Even when an employee has a high performance measured with objectives scale, it is hard to ‘win’ in a competitive climate (Fletcher, 2008), because there can be other employees who performed better. We can expect
7 that people are anxious in a competitive climate due to reduced information sharing and high uncertainty and stress.
A cooperative climate can be defined as collaborative work relationships (Bogaert, Boone & Van Witteloostuijn, 2012). In this climate there is transparency about tasks, employees’ behaviours and future directions for employees and the organizations. Information is shared because employees work together to reach shared goals (Tjosvold, Yu & Hui, 2004).
Employees work together in ways that promote common goals and they resolve issues for mutual benefit. There is low uncertainty and therefore we expect minimum level of anxiety.
We expect that if employees experience the climate as highly competitive that they experience higher anxiety as if employees experience a cooperative climate (Hypothesis 1).
Anxiety
Rosnow (1980) defines anxiety as: ‘a negative affective state that is produced by apprehension about an impending potential negative outcome’. In others words anxiety is worrying about an uncertain potential negative event.
People strive to reduce uncertainty (Rosnow & Fine, 1976). Therefore people need information about this potential outcome to understand the situation (Jaeger, Anthony &
Rosnow, 1980). Indeed Beersma and Kleefsman (2012) found that information gathering and validation is the most important motive to instigate gossip. Gossip is particularly a good way to collect information when there are no formal channels of information available (Difonzo &
Bordia, 2004). Ways to collect information is by speaking to colleagues about the situation and ask what they know. By exchange of experiences and knowledge people try to piece all the information together to get a better picture of the situation, which reduces uncertainty and anxiety.
Besides information gaining there are more positive motivations to engage in gossip:
building social bonds, social enjoyment, saying something positive about another person and
8 group protection. Positive gossip, can reduce feelings of anxiety and create a sense of control (Rosnow & Fine, 1976). When a situation increases levels of uncertainty and anxiety, people experience a great discomfort. Gossip provides an outlet for these feelings and it provides an opportunity for emotions to be purged by acting out of inner tensions, thus affording relief with the expenditure of relatively little effort (Rosnow, 1980). Gossip is a tension releaser; the emotional stress developed by anxiety can be reduced by anticipating different outcomes of an event or situation, this way the situation or event is easier to bear. Gossip is a way in which feelings of anxiety can be reduced.
Gossip can also justify feelings of anxiety. Sometimes a person feels stress and anxiety, but is not sure why he feels this way. By gossiping people talk about their own experience and feelings and get a better understanding of their feelings (Tuner, 1994) and justify this way their feelings of anxiety. Moreover when a person has the feeling that someone listens to him and understand him, feelings of anxiety can be reduced. Gain information, create sense of control and justifying feelings were all motivations to engage in positive gossip in an anxious situation.
However there are also motivations to engage in negative gossip. These two motivations to engage in negative gossip are: to promote own reputation and to negatively influence others opinion about a third party who is not present. It is possible that employees in a competitive climate are anxious about their future by the organization due to possible layoffs for the employees with the lowest performance. Employees can by gossiping promote their own reputation, this way their performance can be perceived higher than that of their colleagues. Moreover by negatively speaking about the performance of others, the performance perceptions of others about other employees can also be negatively influenced.
People can perceive the performance of other employees lower than their real performance due to the gossip. The gossiper gets a better image of the self by promoting his own
9 performance and negatively influences the perception of the performance of others. By a better self-image feelings of anxiety can be reduced, because the gossipers worry less about their actual performance. Moreover a better image of the self leads to a better coping with anxiety (Pyszczynski et al, 2004).
Therefore we expect that high anxiety will lead to more gossip transmission (Hypothesis 2).
Neuroticism
Different people experience an organizational climate in different ways. It is possible that one person finds a competitive climate more stressful than another person. Therefore a personality trait associated with anxiety is included in the model namely; neuroticism.
Neuroticism is one of the five personality traits described by Costa and Mccrae (1992). Every personality trait consists out of different facets. The facets of neuroticism are: anxiety, angry hostility, depression, consciousness, impulsiveness and vulnerability. People high in neuroticism are more likely to experience negative affect (Costa & Mccrae, 1992), are therefore especially likely to experience a competitive climate (a stressful climate) as negative and stressful because people high in neuroticism have more severe affective reactions to these negative appraisals than people low in neuroticism (Gunthert, Armeli & Cohen, 1999). People high in neuroticism are likely to experience more stress and find this experience unsettling (Gunthert, Armeli & Cohen, 1999). People high in neuroticism will therefore be more anxious than people low in neuroticism (Clark, Watson & Mineka, 1994). It is likely that people high in neuroticism will especially react more negatively in a competitive climate than a cooperative climate, because the uncertainty and stress levels in a competitive climate is higher than in a competitive climate (Fletcher et al, 2008). Moreover there are more status comparisons in a competitive climate then in a cooperative climate and people high in neuroticism are more likely to experience these status comparisons negatively than people
10 low in neuroticism (Buunk, Van Der Zee & Van Yperen, 2001). Summing up people high in neuroticism are more sensitive in a competitive climate than in a cooperative climate and they are more likely to get anxious than people low in neuroticism. We expect that neuroticism will moderate the relationship between organizational climate and situational anxiety (Hypothesis 3).
At lasts we expect in this research a moderator-mediator effect. We expect that the positive indirect relationship between climate and gossip mediated by situational anxiety is stronger when a person scores high on neuroticism rather than a person scores low on neuroticism (Hypothesis 4).
Methodology
Participants en procedure
116 people participated ( Mage= 38.26 sd = 13.81. 59 male, 57 female) in an online survey. The participants were told that the research was about interpersonal communication at the workplace. First they got a questionnaire for neuroticism and climate. Next they got a set of unrelated questionnaires for a different research. After that they got a questionnaire about situational anxiety and as last the questionnaire for gossip. At the end the participants were asked to fill in their demographics (age, function, tenure, gender).
Measurements
In this research a questionnaire was used containing different scales for anxiety, organizational climate and neuroticism. The questionnaire was distributed in different organizations. For neuroticism the questionnaire of Goldberg (1992) was used, only the part of neuroticism. Participants got the following instruction: Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. Please indicate the extent to which each one applies to you. ‘I see myself as someone who is’. The following characteristics were included: ‘Tense’,
‘anxious’, ‘nervous’, ‘moody’ and ‘worrisome’. Participants can answer on a seven point
11 scale with 1 meaning ‘not at all like me’ and 7 ‘just like me’. This questionnaire had a reliability of α = .80.
For climate a questionnaire of Tjosvold, Yu & Hui (2004) was used (α = .86). An example question is: Our team members “swim or sink” together. The complete questionnaire can be found in appendix A. Participants can answer on a seven point scale with 1 meaning ‘I completely disagree’ and 7 ‘I completely agree’. The scores of the competitive climate items were reversed. The score 7 meant 1 (‘I completely disagree’), 6 meant 2 etcetera and 1 meant 7 (‘I completely agree’). This way a high score on climate means that a person experience the climate as competitive and a low score means that a person experience the climate as cooperative.
The tendency to gossip was measured with the motives to gossip questionnaire (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012). An example question is: ‘I talk to people at work about others who are not present in order to get to know whether the person I talk with has the same ideas as I have’. It contains 30 questions with a seven point scale. With 1 meaning ‘never’ and 7 meaning ‘extremely often’. The questionnaire can be found in appendix A (α = .94).
Anxiety was measured with the questionnaire of Perrewe, Kelly & Gerald (2004). The questionnaire is adapted to situational anxiety in the workplace (α = .85). It contains eleven questions. Participants have to answer on a seven point scale. With 1 meaning ‘never’ and 7 meaning ‘extremely often’. An example questions is: ‘I dwell on mistakes that I have made during work’. The complete questionnaire can be found in appendix A.
Results
First the correlations were explored, see table 1. The correlation between Climate and Situational anxiety is r = .18 and is marginal significant (p < .1). When people perceive the environment as competitive the situational anxiety increases, this is in line with hypothesis 1.
Correlation between Neuroticism and Situational Anxiety is r = .42 and is significant (p <
12 .01). When people score high on neuroticism they score higher on situational anxiety.
Correlation between neuroticism and gossip is r = .28 and is also significant (p < .05). People who score high on neuroticism gossip more. The correlation between Situational anxiety and gossip is r = .24 and is significant (p < .01). When situational anxiety is high, people are more likely to gossip, this is in line with hypothesis 2.
Correlations
Gossip Situational Anxiety
Neuroticism Climate
Gossip Pearson
Correlation 1 Situational
Anxiety
Pearson
Correlation .24** 1
Neuroticism Pearson
Correlation .28*** .42** 1
Climate Pearson
Correlation .00 .18* .05 1
N=116
* Correlation is marginal significant at the 0.1 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 1. Correlations
For the regression analysis the program Process was used. We first looked at the moderation effect of climate on situational anxiety moderated by neuroticism, results are reported in table 2. Climate has a marginal significant effect on situational anxiety (B = - .16, p < .1). When the employees perceive the climate as competitive, situational anxiety increases, this is in line with hypothesis 1.
Neuroticism has a significant influence on situational anxiety (B = .41, p < .05). When someone scores high on neuroticism, situational anxiety increases. There is no interaction effect. This means that the relationship between climate and anxiety is not strengthened by neuroticism. So it does not make a difference if a person scores high or low on neuroticism, or
13 if a person is in a competitive climate or cooperative climate for situational anxiety. The results in the different groups do not significantly differ from each other.
B Std. Error t Sig.
Climate .16 .08 1.88 .06
Neuroticism .41 .84 4.91 .00
Climate *
Neuroticism .02 .07 .31 .76
Table 2. Regression analysis, dependent variable: Situational anxiety.
Next Process explores the indirect effect of climate on gossip anxiety the results are in table 3. The model is significant (p < .05). Situational anxiety has a significant positive effect on gossip (p < .05). When situational anxiety increases gossip increases this is in line with hypothesis 2. Climate does not have a significant effect on gossip (B = .04, p > 0.05). So it does not make a difference is employees experience the climate as cooperative of competitive for gossip transmission.
B Std. Error t Sig.
Situational
anxiety .25 .09 2.66 .01
Climate .04 .09 .40 .68
Table 3. Regression analysis. Dependent variable: Gossip.
At last we looked at the whole model. We expected that the positive indirect relationship between climate and gossip mediated by situational anxiety is stronger when a person scores high on neuroticism rather than a person scores low on neuroticism (hypothesis 4), this was found. The indirect effect of climate on gossip mediated by situational anxiety was marginal significant (B = .04, CI = [-.00 - .13] ). This means that hypothesis 4 is supported.
Next we did the process analysis with the different motivations of the gossip
questionnaire. The first part of the analysis remains the same, because these variables stay the
14 same, only the dependent variable gossip changes. First we looked at positive gossip, for this we combined four motivations to gossip: ‘social enjoyment’, ‘group protection’, ‘to say positive things about a other person’ and ‘to develop and nurture relationships’ (α = .88), the results are presented in table 4.We found that situational anxiety has a significant effect on positive gossip (B = .22, p < .01). When the anxiety levels of employees increases, people will gossip more. There was no effect of climate on positive gossip (B = -.09, p < .01). So is does not makes a differences if employees experiences a climate as competitive or cooperative for positive gossip.
B Std. Error t Sig.
Situational
anxiety .22 .09 2.40 .01
Climate -.09 .09 -1.02 .30
Table 4. Regression analysis. Dependent variable: Positive Gossip.
Next we looked at the motivation ‘promote own reputation’ (α = .95), results are in table 5. We found that situational anxiety had a significant effect on this motivation of gossip (B = .25, p < 0.05). This means that when the anxiety levels increases people gossip more.
Moreover we found that when employees experience the climate as competitive they will gossip more to promote their own reputation (B = .41, p < 0.01).
B Std. Error t Sig.
Situational
anxiety .25 .09 2.66 .01
Climate .41 .84 4.91 .00
Table 5. Regression analysis. Dependent variable: Promote own reputation Gossip.
Next we looked at the motivation ‘to negative influence the opinion of another person about a third person’ (α = .84), results are in table 6. Results showed that situational anxiety has a significant effect on this motivation to gossip (B = .20, p < 0.05). This means when anxiety increases people will gossip more negatively influence others about a third person.
15 Climate did not have a significant effect (B = .05, p > 0.05). It does not make a difference if employees experience a climate as cooperative or competitive for this motivation of gossip.
B Std. Error t Sig.
Situational
anxiety .20 .09 2.07 .04
Climate .05 .09 .60 .54
Table 6. Regression analysis. Dependent variable: negative influence gossip
The last motivation we tested was the motivation ‘to gain information’ (α = .92), the results are presented in table 7. Situational anxiety had a marginal significant effect on the motivation to gain information of gossip (B = .18, p < 0.1). When employees experience anxiety they are gossiping more to gain information. Climate did not have a significant effect on gossip (B = .00, p > .05). The climate, cooperative or competitive, does not make a
difference in gossip transmission.
B Std. Error t Sig.
Situational
anxiety .18 .09 1.94 .05
Climate .00 .09 .02 .98
Table 7. Regression analysis. Dependent variable: Gossip, to gain information.
Discussion
In this research the relationship between organizational climate and gossip is explored.
We looked how situational anxiety mediates the relationship between climate and gossip and how the moderator neuroticism influenced the relationship between climate and situational anxiety.
First we expected that a competitive climate will lead to higher anxiety than a cooperative climate. This effect was marginally found. When someone experiences a climate as competitive they get more anxious. This is in line with the findings of Fletcher et al, (2008) that a competitive climate leads to more stress than a cooperative climate. Next we expected that high anxiety will lead to more gossip, this effect was found. This replicates the results of Rosnow, (1980), Walker & Beckerle, (1987) and Pezzo & Beckstead, (2006). When a person
16 experiences high levels of anxiety, this person is more likely to gossip. We found that people gossip for different motivations when there anxiety is high. If anxiety increases people gossip to gain information, to promote their own reputation, to negative influence others about a third person en for social enjoyment and develop and nurture relationship.
There was no interaction effect found between climate and neuroticism on situational anxiety. People high and people low on neuroticism did not score different in a competitive of cooperative climate on situational anxiety. It is possible that people high in neuroticism do not work in a competitive climate, because it is too stressful for them and therefore they are more likely to work in a cooperative climate where there is less uncertainty and more clarity.
At the end the mediation-moderator hypothesis was tested, we found that the positive indirect relationship between climate and gossip mediated by situational anxiety is stronger when a person scores high on neuroticism rather than a person scores low on neuroticism.
This means that when someone experiences a climate as competitive they will experience more situational anxiety. This relationship will be stronger when a person scores high on neuroticism. Moreover this high level of situational anxiety will lead to more gossip transmission.
We also found a direct effect of climate on one of the motivations to gossip,
“promoting own reputation”. For the other motivations only an indirect effect of climate on mediated by situational anxiety was found. This means that only in a competitive climate people are motivated to instigate gossip to promote their own reputation. This means that when an employee perceives their organizational rewards to be contingent on comparison of their performance against that of their peers they will promote their own reputation to have the highest performance.
The present study contributes to gossip research by providing evidence that climate has an indirect effect on gossip transmission. When situational anxiety increases due to a
17 competitive climate employees are more likely to gossip. This indirect relationship is stronger when someone scores high on neuroticism. Hereby we have a better understanding of gossip in the workplace and thereby fill a gap in gossip research (Foster, 2004). It is theoretical relevant to have a better understanding in which context gossip emerge to increase the understanding of gossip and how gossip work in different situations. With our findings we answered the question of Michelson en Mouley (2004), who were interested in the conditions where gossip emerges.
Moreover this research shows that gossip is not always detrimental for organizations.
We showed that people instigate gossip for different motivations and not all of these motivations are negative. People gossip for social enjoyment, to say positive things about another person and most important to collect information about the situation. These motivations are positive and will not have negative effects for organizations. However we did find that competitive climate and situational anxiety can lead to negative gossip for motivations like promoting their own reputation and negative influence colleagues can be harmful for social bonds and collaborating.
Moreover it is interesting to know how climate influences anxiety and how this influences gossip because in other researches anxiety was induced in lab settings (Rosnow, 1980). In this research was anxiety empirically tested and it showed that people in a competitive climate experience a higher level of anxiety than people in a cooperative climate.
Practical implications
Many organizations struggle with managing gossip. Attempts to prevent gossiping have failed (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012). While it is important to effectively manage gossip to reduce the negative effects like disrupting teamwork and performance. With our findings management will have a better understanding of situations that elicit gossip and the motivations of employees to engage in gossip. With this information an organization can
18 effectively manage gossip and thereby reducing the negative effects and possibly increase the positive effects. Our research showed that competitive climate leads to more gossip transmissions than a cooperative climate, so management can create a more cooperative and open climate instead of a competitive climate to reduce the negative effects of gossip. This way levels of uncertainty decrease and employees do not have the motivation to instigate gossip to gain information, because in a cooperative climate more information is shared.
Moreover employees do not feel the need to promote their own reputation or negative influence others because they work together to reach shared goals instead of working against each other to reached individual goals in a competitive climate.
An example to create an open communication system is to organize regular staff meetings, including open sessions for discussions of the latest gossip-mill items (Thomas &
Rozell, 2007). This way topics that normally are discussed through gossip can be discussed in an open session with the management and employees. In these staff meetings management can react accordingly the wishes of the employees and take away uncertainty and worries of the employees.
Limitations & Future research
One obstacle in studying gossip is that rumour and gossip is the hidden nature of rumour and gossip (Michelson & Mouley, 2004). Not a lot of people like to be seen as a gossiper and that they will give social desirable answers. Indeed a few people where offended by the questionnaire because they thought they did not engage in gossip. It is possible that these people recognized that they gossip a lot, and that this recognition was painful for them because they do not see themselves as gossipers. A way to reduce this problem is to use another setting. For example Beersma and Van Kleef (2012) used confederates who would instigate gossip with the participants and they would measure if the participants gossiped with the confederate. This way the bias was reduced and people engaged more in gossip.
19 Another limitation is that this research was an online survey and this reduces standardization. People could make this research at home on their phone, tablet of computer.
This means that everybody made the questionnaire under different circumstances. This reduces standardization and can thereby reduce reliability. Future research could use another setting (like the setting of Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012) would reduce this limitation.
A third limitation in this research is that we only focused on the psychological climate of the individual participants. This means we only measured how the employees individually experienced the climate, however the perceptions and attitudes of the employees can be influenced by the co-workers (Schulte, Ostroff & Kinicki, 2006). Organizational climate emerges from the multiple interpretations of co-workers in a group or unit share similar perceptions of the situation. This organizational climate might have a different outcome on situational anxiety and gossip than psychological climate. In future research both organizational en psychological climate should be taken into account.
We recommend future research also to look at more personality traits. In this research we did not look at the trait competitiveness. While trait competitiveness could have a big impact on the experience of an employee in a competitive climate. When someone score high on trait competitiveness, the person needs competitiveness to perform on a high level, while in contrast people low in trait competitiveness do not like competitiveness and perform on a low level in a competitive climate.
Conclusion
In this research we found an indirect effect of climate on gossip, mediated by gossip.
When employees experience a climate as competitive their anxiety levels increase and they will gossip more. With these findings we have a better theoretical understanding in which circumstances gossip emerges, for which motivations employees instigate gossip and how situational anxiety mediates these effects. Moreover it is practical relevant because
20 organization can now better adapt to the gossip by introducing a cooperative climate and reducing uncertainty and thereby anxiety and herby reducing gossip transmission. With this information management can effectively manage gossip.
21 References
Baumeister, R.F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning.
Review of General Psychology, 8, 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.
Bogaert, S., Boone, C., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2012). Social value orientation and climate strength as moderators of the impact of work group cooperative climate on affective commitment. Journal Of Management Studies, 49(5), 918-944. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2011.01029.x
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages:
The role of the 'strength' of the HRM system. The Academy Of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221. doi:10.2307/20159029
Buunk, B. P., Van der Zee, K., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2001). Neuroticism and social comparison orientation as moderators of affective responses to social comparison at work.
Journal Of Personality, 69(5), 745-763. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.695162
Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood and anxiety disorders. Journal Of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 103-116.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.103.1.103
DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational Dynamics, 23(1), 47-62. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(94)90087-6
Dunbar, R. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review Of General Psychology, 8(2), 100-110. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100
Ellwardt, L. (2011). Gossip in organizations, a social network study.
22 Fletcher, T., Major, D., & Davis, D. (2008). The interactive relationship between competitive climate and trait competitiveness with work place attitudes, stress and performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 29, 899-922.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions.
Review of General Psychology, 8, 78-99.
Gazzangia, M., Heatherton, T., Halpern, D. (2011). PsychologicalScience. W. W.
Norton & Company.
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 77(5), 1087-1100.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1087
Jaeger, M. E., Anthony, S., & Rosnow, R. L. (1980). Who hears what from whom and with what effect: A study of rumor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 473- 478.
Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Towards a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25, 428-438.
Michelson, G., & Mouly, S. (2004). Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning, antecedents and consequences of rumour and gossip in organisations. Corporate communications, 9, 189-201.
Pereira, C. M., & Gomes, J. S. (2012). The strength of human resource practices and transformational leadership: Impact on organisational performance. The International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 23(20), 4301-4318. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.667434
Perrewe, P. L., Kelly, L. Z., & Gerald R. F. (2004), Neutralizing job stressors:
Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict., Academy of Management Journal, 47, 141-152.
23 Pezzo, M. V., & Beckstead, J. W. (2006). A multilevel analysis of rumor transmission:
Effects of anxiety and belief in two field experiments. Basic And Applied Social Psychology, 28(1), 91-100. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2801_8
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004), Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 435-468.
Rosnow, R. L. (1980). Psychology of rumour reconsidered. Psychological bulletin, 87(3), 578-591. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.87.3.578
Rosnow, R. L., & Fine, G. A. (1976). Rumor and gossip: The social psychology of hearsay. Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Thomas, S. A. & Rozell, E. J. (2007). Gossip and Nurses, Malady or Remedy? The Health Care Manager, 26(2), 111-115.
Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z., Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative goals and problem solving. Journal of Management studies, 41(7), 0022-2380.
Walker, C. J. & Beckerle, C. A. (1987). The effect of state anxiety on rumor transmission. Journal Of Social Behavior & Personality, 2(3), 353-360.
Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General Psychology 8(2), 122-137.
24 Appendix A
Questionnaire for organizational climate (Tjosvold, Yu & Hui, 2004):
1. Our team members “swim or sink” together.
2. Our team members want each other to succeed.
3. Our team members seek compatible goals.
4. The goals of team members go together.
5. When our team members work together, we usually have common goals.
6. Team members structure things in ways that favor their own goals rather than the goal of other team members.
7. Team members have a “win–lose” relationship.
8. Team members like to show that they are superior to each other.
9. Team members’ goals are incompatible with each other.
10. Team members give high priority to the things they want to accomplish and low priority to the things other team members want to accomplish.
Anxiety scale (Perrewe, Kelly & Gerald, 2004) 1. I picture some future misfortune at my work.
2. During work I can’t get some thoughts out of my mind.
3. I dwell on mistakes that I have made during work.
4. When I am at work I think about possible misfortunes to my loved ones.
5. I cannot concentrate at a task or job without irrelevant thoughts intruding.
6. I keep busy to avoid uncomfortable thoughts.
7. At my work I can’t get some pictures or images out of my mind.
8. I imagine myself appearing foolish with a person whose opinion of me is important at work.
25 9. I am concerned that colleagues might not think well of me.
10. At my work I have to be careful not to let my real feelings show.
11. I have an uneasy feeling when I am at work
Gossip questionnaire (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012) Social enjoyment:
1. To engage in an enjoyable conversation.
2. To have a nice time with the person I talk with.
3. To engage in a fun activity with the person I talk with.
Gain Information:
4. To check whether the person I talk with thinks the same about the person we talk about.
5. To compare my ideas about the person we talk about with the person I talk with.
6. To get to know whether the person I talk with has the same ideas as I have.
7. To find out the person I talk with agrees with me.
Negative influence:
8. To say negative things about the person we talk about.
9. To negatively influence the image that the person I talk with has of the person we talk about.
10. To put the person I talk about in a negative light.
11. To discuss negative characteristics of the person we talk about.
Group protection:
12. To protect the person I talk with against the person we talk about.
13. To warn the person I talk with for the behaviour of the person we talk about
14. To prevent that the person I talk with would be exploited by the person we talk about.
26 Promote own reputation:
15. To make myself look good in the eyes of the person I talk with.
16. To gain the respect of the person I talk with.
17. To make the person I talk with appreciate me.
Positive:
18. To say positive things about the person I talk about 19. To give the person I talk about as a positive example 20. To praise the person I talk about
Develop and nurture relationships:
21. To seek some encouragement from the person I talk with.
22. To make friends with the person I talk with
23. To become more socially connected with the person I talk with.
Emotion Venting:
24. To express my excitement with the person I talk about.
25. To express my admiration with the person I talk about.
26. To express my happiness with the person I talk about.
27. To express my anger with the person I talk about.
28. To express my fear with the person I talk about.
29. To express my envy with the person I talk about.
30. To express my frustration with the person I talk about.
