• No results found

WHO IS GOSSIPING: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TASK SATISFACTON AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF INTRINSIC MOTIVATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POWER AND NEGATIVE GOSSIP

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "WHO IS GOSSIPING: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TASK SATISFACTON AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF INTRINSIC MOTIVATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POWER AND NEGATIVE GOSSIP"

Copied!
30
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

WHO IS GOSSIPING: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TASK

SATISFACTON AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN POWER AND NEGATIVE GOSSIP

Peng Juan

Master thesis Human Resource Management

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor: Elena Martinescu

(2)

ABSTRACT

(3)

INTRODUCTION

People like and even enjoy gossiping or talking about someone else when they are absent. Research has shown that people devote approximately 65% of their speaking time to social topics and third parties (Dunbar, 1997; Dunbar, 2004; Emler, 1994). Research regarding gossip conducted by McAndrew, Bell and Garcia (2007) indicated that individuals’ gossip behavior is mainly influenced by the amount of social control they have in groups and, in addition, that social control leads to less negative gossip content. Furthermore, the research of Kurland and Pelled (2000) showed that the individuals who have the power to control relevant resources that are important to others tend to gossip less negatively, because they want to maintain their reward power over others. Research conducted by Tebbut and Marchington (1997) also indicated that an increase in autonomy leads to a decrease in cognitive resistance against assigned work and workplace negative gossip. In fact, social control of people, control of relevant resources and autonomy are the exact constituents of power (Pfeffer, 1992; Kurland & Pelled, 2000; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). On this basis, there is a possible negative relationship between power and gossip. In addition, Wert and Salovey (2004) indicated that negative gossip is the focus of gossip behavior study, because negative social information grabs more attention from the gossip recipients in a gossip conversation (Pratto & John, 1991). Therefore, this research is focused on the effect of power on negative gossip.

(4)

1993). Hence, I will introduce task satisfaction to examine its mediating effect in the relation between power and negative gossip in this paper.

As aforementioned, people with a high level of power generally have a relatively high level of task satisfaction. However, not all high-power people show definite high level of task satisfaction. In the cognitive model from Thomas and Velthouse (1990), people who are empowered and intrinsically motivated are more stimulated to continue striving to excel in the task. As a result, higher task satisfaction is generated. Moreover, self-determination theory provided by Gagne and Deci (2005) explains that people who have high power are simultanteously intrinsically motivated. Their engagement in an activity is wholly volitional, and thus a high level of task satisfaction is generated. Meanwhile, task satisfaction is generated from the intrinsically motivated task engagement (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Therefore, it is expected that there will be a strengthened effect of intrinsic motivation on the relation between power and task satisfaction.

Through applying task satisfaction and intrinsic motivation respectively as mediator and moderator, the relationship between power and negative gossip will be researched more comprehensively. Thus, the research question of this study will be: what is the influence of task

satisfaction and intrinsic motivation on the effect of power on negative gossip? This study will

provide more information regarding the effect of power on negative gossip, which currently lacks adequate empirical study. In practice, this study contributes further insights to assist organizations in formulating strategic development plans and the creation of an employment environment that has an understanding of the relation between power and gossip behavior.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Concepts of power and negative gossip

(5)

autonomy (Pfeffer, 1992; Kurland & Pelled, 2000; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). This is the definition that will be used in this research- power as personal control, possession and access to resources, autonomy, and the influence on decisions and outcomes.

Next to that, negative gossip is another concept that should be defined. It can have consequences similar to victimization, such as limiting work-related success and thwarting the fundamental psychological need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Therefore, negative gossip is categorized as a form of social undermining (Duffy et al., 2002).

The effect of power on negative gossip

Power, as the magnitude of influence possessed by individuals, provides people with confidence, status-related legitimacy and freedom to do what they want (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). And individuals’ recognition and confirmation of their legitimate control and influence lowers the levels of social comparison behavior by relating their own characteristics to those of others (Buunk & Gibbons, 2000). Moreover, social comparison theory provided by Wert and Salovey (2004) explains that people gossip especially negatively when it serves the purpose of social comparison. However, high power people are enfranchised with formal modes of influence and communication, and as a result they do not need to seek a back road to perform social comparison in order to have a say in important decision-making processes (Wert & Salovey, 2004). That is to say, high power people gossip negatively less.

Moreover, individuals who have high power are more likely to feel security, and to value the social networking influence they have upon others and the organization (Levin & Arluke, 1987). That results in high levels of self-satisfaction being generated from the fulfillment of within-group needs including trust, which further makes individuals feel no need to negatively gossip to bond with others (McAndrew, Bell & Garcia, 2007; McAndrew & Milenkovic, 2002; McDonald et al., 2007).

(6)

Burt (2008). Meanwhile, high power people value reputation more particularly within a closed network than people with low power (Burt, 2008). As the foundation of creating reputation, seeking common interests tunes the tone of the conversation (Merry, 1984; Burt, 2008), as a result they are more careful about how negative they sound in their conversations about others, in particular they engage themselves in less negative gossip (Foster, 2004; McAndrew, 2008).

Therefore, I present the first hypothesis in this research:

Hypothesis 1: People with high power, spread less negative gossip than people with low power.

Mediating effect of task satisfaction

The power of control has been proved to link to the perceptions of satisfaction (Greenberger, Strasser, & Dunham, 1989; Miller & Monge, 1986). Considering the antecedent of satisfaction, task satisfaction is more specific, which indicates people’s positive feelings and attitudes towards assigned tasks (Douthitt & Aiello, 2001, Stanton & Barnes-Farrel, 1996). In research conducted by Douthitt and Aiello (2001), the manipulation of computer monitoring is used to study the influence of individual control power by comparing 3 situations where participants had or did not have the control over computer monitoring during online task accomplishment. Participants who had the total control over the computer monitoring, and thereby had more power in their tasks, did have the highest task satisfaction. This is an example that shows that the power to control leads to increased task satisfaction (Douthitt & Aiello, 2001). Next to that, high power people have more control over important and relevant resources in solving their tasks, and therefore are more likely to engage in task-solving activities (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), and as a result are likely to have more task satisfaction (Douthitt & Aiello, 2001). So these demonstrate a possible positive relationship between power and task satisfaction (hypothesis 2a).

(7)

(Ellwardt, 2011). Moreover, research indicated that the more task satisfaction and other positive emotions people have towards their tasks the lower the level of engagement in negative gossip, since negative gossip is considered as a catharsis for negative emotions (Fine and Rosnow, 1978; Foster, 2004; e.g., Noon and Delbridge, 1993). Generated from the above explanation, I expect to see a negative relationship between task satisfaction and negative gossip (hypothesis 2b).

All in all, the theoretical evidence above shows that individuals who have more power tend to have a higher level of task satisfaction, and a higher level of task satisfaction indicates less engagement in negative gossip from individuals’ perspective. Therefore, accordingly, I will present my second hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Task satisfaction has a mediating influence on the relation between power and negative gossip.

Moderating effect of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between power and task satisfaction

That high power people tend to have more task satisfaction has been stated above. Self-determination theory (SDT) from Ryan and Deci (2000) further indicates that motivation is an important factor in high power, leading to feelings of satisfaction towards tasks. To further explain the importance of motivation, cognitive evaluation theory (CET) from Gagne and Deci (2005) is introduced here. It suggests that high power that people have in an interpersonal setting conduces towards satisfied feelings (Gagne & Deci, 2005). And this relation can be enhanced by intrinsic motivation, since intrinsic motivation means doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions (Ryan & Deci, 2000). That means people have high power and are also intrinsically motivated have higher levels of task satisfaction than people who only have power.

(8)

engage in the tasks willingly than high people who are not intrinsically motivated (Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004), therefore more task satisfaction is generated. Thus, intrinsic motivation strengthens the relation between power and task satisfaction.

Again, job characteristics theory provided by Hackman and Oldham (1980) indicates that individuals’ satisfaction with their tasks is dependent on the power they have from their tasks. More importantly, they also explain that initiatives and the internal interests of the individuals influence this relation, because the more initiatives and internal interests that high power individuals have, the more satisfied they feel about their tasks (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Furthermore, initiatives and internal interests indicate intrinsic motivation in people (Ryan & Deci, 2000). As a result, high power people who are also intrinsically motivated are more satisfied with their tasks than high power people who are not intrinsically motivated.

Additionally, research conducted by Deci et al. (1994) presented important findings from a group study in which self-interest and initiative integration are studied. The findings say that there is a positive influence of self-interest and initiative integration on the amount of subsequent actions and self-reports of satisfied feeling and task valuing. Thus, intrinsic motivation has an effect on task satisfaction as well.

In light of the arguments above, I expect to find that intrinsic motivation strengthens the relation between power and task satisfaction. And below I give my third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Intrinsic motivation has a positive moderating influence on the positive relationship between power and task satisfaction.

The conceptual model is graphically depicted in figure 1. Its components and relations are based on the previous sections.

(9)

METHODOLOGY

Sample of the participants

Participants were from University of Groningen. The number of participants included in this research was 128, of which 48 were males and 80 were females, with the overall mean age of 22.24 (SD = 2.85), ages ranged from 18 to 34 years old.

Design and Procedure

In order to test my hypotheses, I used a 2×2 factorial designed experiment in which power of the gossip receivers and senders was manipulated. Experiment was conducted in the lab of Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB) of University of Groningen. We conducted experiment as groups of three people. In order to manipulate experimentally the gossip senders’ power, participation of two confederates was structured by collaborating in the group task where participants had to imagining attempting to survive on the moon. All of the procedures in the experiment were standardized. The experiment contained three parts: 1. The first part of the study contained a questionnaire measuring the intrinsic motivation, 2. The second part of the study was about group work according to the power manipulation following the conditions, 3. And the final part of the study was about filling in the rest of the questionnaire about the group task feedback (task satisfaction).

In the first instance the participant came to the FEB lab. Next, the participant read the consent paper and she or he was asked to sign on the consent paper if she or he had no problem with it. Then the experimenter set up computer for her/him. The participant was taken to the cubicle to fill in the first part of questionnaire. Moreover, they would also read information about the group task on the computer screen after filling in the first part of questionnaire and

(10)

being assigned to different roles according to the power manipulation. She or he would then be told to label herself/ himself participant “C” while s/he was told that the other two “ participants” were assigned to be participant “A” or “ B” by the computer. Actually the two confederates were assigned to the roles of “A” and “B”.

Afterwards, the participant was asked to do a group task with two other “participants” (the two confederates) after which the experimenter would randomly assign roles- “crew member” was a role that was supposed to have low power, and “officer” was a role that was supposed to have high power. The role designation was the outcome of power manipulation based on the four conditions as following as showed in Table 1.

Table 1 Role designation and power manipulation according to the conditions

Conditions Role designation and power manipulation 1 None of the three had power.

2 Participant A (confederate A) had power, and was assigned to be officer. 3 Participant C had power, and was assigned to be officer.

4 Confederate A and participant C had power, and were both assigned to be officer.

The group task, surviving on the moon, was about choosing items and then categorizing the 15 items into three categories- 5 items as “vital”, 5 items as “potentially useful” and 5 items as “leave behind”. The role of two confederates (A and B) in the group task of the experiment was to create a standardized atmosphere for participant’s possible gossip behaviors. Confederate A played the role of gossip receiver, while confederate B played gossip target part. Confederates’ reactions during group tasks under different power manipulation conditions were standardized.

(11)

long way, so we will die anyway’, ‘I don’t know, I am not an expert anyway… it doesn’t matter, I don’t care’.

Then confederate A joined them. Three of them worked together for three minutes right after the experimenter explained the power manipulation to the officer(s) (if there was none, then this step was eliminated)- officer(s) could have extra information about 5 items out of 15 and could arrange them anywhere the officer(s) wanted. Officer(s) were also informed that they had the power to evaluate three of the items after group task, and also that officer(s) had the power to divide 50 Euros bonus money amongst the three of them. In the meantime, the experimenter also explained the purpose of the interruption by saying ‘we are also interested in the influence of interruption on group performance. So after three minutes’ three of you working together, I will randomly pick one of you to go out with me.’ Then participant C and confederates A and B worked together for three minutes. During these three minutes, confederate A followed the script relating to the power manipulation. If confederate A had power, she would say ‘I think water, oxygen and food are very important, so we will definitely take them. So what else do you think?’ If confederate A did not have power, she would say ‘ I think maybe… can be helpful, what do you think?’ Thus, confederate A played a more cooperative role in this way. Even though we manipulated power of gossip receiver (confederate A) and power of gossip sender (participant C), however only the power of gossip sender (participant C) was paid attention to in this research. It was because this research was to study influence of people’s possession of power on their gossip behaviors.

(12)

should play along by agreeing with him/her, saying ‘ oh, really?’ to make the gossip continue. Gossip time lasted around two and half minutes.

After gossip time, interruption was over, and confederate B was back. The three of them were supposed to finish the task in three minutes, maximum 4 minutes.

After the group task, participants were asked to fill in the rest part of the questionnaire about task feedback. All in all, each participant would take 35 minutes to finish the questionnaire and group task.

Measure

The power was measured by the power manipulation according to the 4 conditions as described above. The power received by participants was measured with a 4-item measure with a 7-point Likert scale. Items were measured in the last questionnaire, such as “How much were you in charge of directing the task?” The reliability test result of scale items for power check was .88 (Cronbach’s Alpha=. 88), which meant the items were reliable.

Gossip was measured by the footage recording of the group task work and coding based on the content of the gossip (if there was no gossip during the task, then there would be no gossip coded). Two groups, of which each had two experimenters, conducted the coding separately without interrupting each other by rating the measures for negative gossip, for example, the one that I chose to measure negative gossip was how evaluative and descriptive from 0 (no evaluation or description) to 3 (high) the gossip content was. To check the consistency of the two coding results, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was introduced and the average measure ICC was .90. Therefore, the coding from the two groups was consistent and the eventual gossip measure was the average of the two coding. The reliability test result of the measuring scale items for gossip coding was .91 (Cronbach’s Alpha=. 91), which meant the items were reliable.

(13)

motivation was measured in the first part of the questionnaire. The reliability test result of the measuring scale items for intrinsic motivation was .91 (Cronbach’s Alpha=. 91), which meant the scale of items was reliable.

I used scale items prepared by Mason & Griffin (2005) to measure task satisfaction. The participants rated the items with a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). One of the items, for instance, was: ‘I am happy with the way we worked together as a group solving this survival task.’ Task satisfaction was measured in the questionnaire after the group task. The reliability test result of the measuring scale items for task satisfaction was .73 (Cronbach’s Alpha=. 73), which meant the scale of items was reliable.

Data analysis

According to Gnanadesikan (2011), exclusion of unrelated and useless samples before analysis is crucial for the purpose of reducing the biases. Therefore, before I started to use the data collected from the experiment, I excluded 34 participants where I could not use the data provided by them. 34 participants were excluded for following reasons:

5 participants were excluded for figuring out confederate participation and due to confusion about power manipulation. 5 participants were excluded due to confusion about power manipulation and of poor English skills. 3 participants were excluded due to confusion about power manipulation. 13 participants were excluded for the reason of misunderstanding of roles A and B. 6 participants were excluded for the reasons of misunderstanding of roles A and B and of confusion about power manipulation. 2 participants were excluded for the reason of figuring out confederate participation.

I tested the hypotheses with the help of SPSS. Before I tested the hypotheses, I computed the items of intrinsic motivation and task satisfaction. Before I tested the main effect of power, I checked the correlation of all the variables. To test my main effect, moderating effect and mediating effect I used PROCESS by Andrew F. Hayes (2013), model 7.

RESULTS

(14)

were assigned to be “officers”. One- way ANOVA was used to check function of power manipulation through analyzing perceived power by participants according to predicted power in condition 3 and 4. With its result, F (1, 92)=266.20, p< .05, power manipulation functioned. Specifically, by comparing means, it showed how much influence of power manipulation had on perceived power by participants. The results showed that assigned high power was also perceived high power, M high power = 6.24, SD high power = .55; similarly, predicted

low power was also perceived low power, M low power = 2.97, SD low power = 1.31. Therefore,

power manipulation was successful.

Correlations and descriptive statistics Table 2 shows means, standard deviations and the Pearson correlations between the four variables used in this research. The table shows that in agreement with the prediction there is a negative relation between power and negative gossip with a correlation of r = - .31, p = <. 01, suggesting that people with more power gossip negatively less. Next to that, in line with the prediction, a positive relation between intrinsic motivation and task satisfaction is showed with a correlation of r = .28, p =. <. 01

Table 2 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 1 Negative gossiping 1.09 1.00 2 Power** .13 1.00 -.31** 3 Intrinsic motivation 5.42 1.17 .14 .03 4 Task satisfaction 4.64 .96 -.07 .15 .28** N = 94. **p < .01.

Hypotheses testing. To test my hypotheses, I conducted PROCESS procedure for SPSS by Andrew F. Hayes (2013). To use PROCESS to test my model, model 7 and 5,000 bootstraps were used. Results are shown in Table 3.

It was expected that high power leads to less negative gossip. According to the result showed in the table 3, high power led to less negative gossip, b=-.30, p=. <.01, 95% CI [-.50 – -.10]. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was confirmed.

(15)

more satisfaction with their tasks. In fact, high power did not necessarily lead to high task satisfaction, b=-.37, p= .42, ns, 95% CI [-1.28 – .54]. According to the analysis, people who were intrinsically motivated had more task satisfaction, b=. 20, 95% CI [.03 – .36] and p=. 01. However, the interacting effect of power and intrinsic motivation on task satisfaction was disproved by the result of b= -.09, p=. 26, 95% CI [-.07 – .25], which means people with high power and were intrinsically motivated did not necessarily have high task satisfaction, disproving hypothesis 3.

Moreover, people who had high task satisfaction did not gossip less negatively according to the result showed in table 3, b=. -02, not significant, p= .80, 95% CI [-.23 – .18], therefore hypothesis 2 was disproved also. Consequently, the indirect effect of power on the negative gossip through task satisfaction moderated by intrinsic motivation was not significant for participants with low intrinsic motivation (indirect effect) b=. 00, 95%CI [-.08 – .03], neither for participants with high intrinsic motivation (indirect effect) b=.00, 95%CI [-.03 – .02].

Table 3. Moderated mediation analysis

Dependent variable Task satisfaction

Variables B T Ci [….] P

Power -.37 -.80 [-1.28 - .54] .42

Intrinsic motivation .20 2.43 [.03 - .36] .01* Power x intrinsic motivation -.09 1.12 [-.07 - .25] .26

Dependent variable Negative gossip

Variables B T Ci[….] P

(16)

Task satisfaction -.02 -.24 [-.23 - .18] .80 Effect Mod. High -.00 [-.08 - .03]

Effect Mod. Low -.00 [-.03 - .02]

N=94. *= p< .05 **= p<.01.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Discussion

This research studied the influence of power on people’s gossip behaviors, especially negative gossip, as well as the mediating effect of task satisfaction and moderating effect of intrinsic motivation. The results of this research supported the prediction that power has influence on negative gossip, which means people who have high power tend to gossip negatively less. Control and influence that high people have make them feel secure and thus there is no need to negative gossip, and a result high power people gossip negatively less. However, the predicted mediating influence of task satisfaction was not supported, which means high power possessed by people doesn't really make people feel more satisfied with their tasks. Therefore, power to control that people have over their tasks do not increase task satisfaction. Moreover, task satisfaction did not decrease negative gossip about others. Therefore, satisfied feelings towards tasks do not decrease usage of negative gossip as a catharsis for negative emotions. In light of the results, however, people who are more intrinsically motivated for the tasks enjoy a higher level of task satisfaction. But acoording to the result, the interaction of intrinsic motivation and power did not have influence on task satisfaction according to the results. Therefore, moderating effect of intrinsic motivation on the relation between power and task satisfaction was not supported.

Theoretical implications

(17)

communication to conduct social comparison. Therefore, they don’t need to seek a back road to perform social comparison in order to have a say in important decision. It is also consistent with the reputation theory from Burt (2008) explaining that high power people gossip less because they want to maintain their reputation. Similarly, it is consistent with the research from Levin and Arluke (1987) that suggested that high power people gossip negatively less because they feel secure and maintain a good social network. They explained that gossip, especially negative gossip, is a sign of seeking security and making efforts to maintain social networking (Levin & Arluke, 1987), thus there is no need for high power people to gossip negatively to gain security and to maintain social networking.

Results from present study confirm that intrinsic motivation has influence on task satisfaction. It is consistent with the research finding of Deci et al. (1994) explaining that intrinsically motivated people show high task satisfaction from engagement in activities, through self-reports of satisfied feeling and task valuing.

(18)

combined (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, in this research, the motivation factor only concerns intrinsic motivation instead of the combined influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Consequently, this could be a reason why the results are not consistent with theoretical support provided above.

Moreover, this research did not find a mediating effect of task satisfaction on the relation between power and negative gossip. It indicates that people who have high power do not really feel satisfied with their tasks and that satisfied people do not really gossip negatively less. It may be because people who have high power also have more responsibilities. The stress from taking responsibilities reduces their satisfaction with their tasks (Ramirez, A. J., et al., 1996). Therefore, having more power does not automatically lead to higher levels of task satisfaction. Next to that, if people are more satisfied with their task, they feel more secure with their social status and have more trust in interpersonal relationships (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). And according to the studies from Ellwardt, Wittek and Wielers (2012) and Ellwardt (2011), when there is more security and trust in interpersonal relationships, the spreading negative gossip is more likely. Therefore, having more task satisfaction does not really lead to less negative gossip.

Practical implications

(19)

research shed light on addressing this issue in organizations. Specifically, this research indicated that people tend to gossip negatively less, if they are endowed with more autonomy and personal control over their work. That is to say, by increasing employees’ power in the organizations, negative gossip and thus the side effects of negative gossip will be decreased. In this way, validity of management and efficiency of organizational operation can be improved (Houmanfar & Johnson, 2004).

Moreover, this research also found it that intrinsic motivation does have positive influence on individuals’ satisfaction towards tasks. It is also very useful for organizations, since task satisfaction has important influence on task performance (de Dreu &Weingart, 2003), which means more task satisfaction leads to better task performance. It is useful for organizations that want to improve the task satisfaction of their employees and further to ultimately improve task performance to bear it in mind that they should choose candidates who are more intrinsically motivated for the job in designing and implementing recruitment and selection strategies and processes.

Limitations

To begin with, the experiment was conducted in the lab, and students were the participants. Among the sample after exclusion, 18 participants took part in the similar experiments before, and 50 participants had lab experiment experiences. Therefore, they might have behaved themselves less naturally than they would have normally done. In addition, participants might have tried to predict what the research was aiming at and thus behaved accordingly, which could reduce the reliability of the experiment.

Second, the experiment was conducted with the participation of confederates. Confederates were also researchers in this experiment. Therefore they could induce biases because confederates wanted to get the results they desired to so. They might unconsciously behave differently towards high power people from low power people, and thus participants’ performance would be influenced.

(20)

standardized, there is still reason to believe that the result could be different from that in organizations, because average age of employees in most organizations is much older. Therefore, considering that, this lab experiment with students is not very realistic for the organizations.

Future research

As listed above, experienced participants have the possibility to influence the reliability of the experiment. The average age in this experiment is not really realistic in organizations. Therefore, in the future study, a field study can be introduced to study the relation between power and negative gossip more thoroughly. In addition, in experimental setting, unconscious influence of confederates who were also a part of the research could induce experimental biases. Therefore, in the future study, if experiments with confederates are still used to study the relation between power and negative gossip, it is better not to choose researchers to be confederates. It is better to choose and train people to be confederates who are not a part of the research.

The moderating effect of intrinsic motivation on the relation of power and negative gossip was not confirmed in this research. The possible reason is that single motivational influence of intrinsic motivation is not sufficient in itself to explain the relation. Therefore, in the future research, the other kind of motivational influence of extrinsic motivation regarding task especially the combined influence of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation on the task should be studied.

Moreover, mediating effect of task satisfaction on the relation between power and negative gossip was also disconfirmed. It could be that people who have high power have more responsibilities and thus more stresses engendered, which reduces the task satisfaction people have (Ramirez, A. J., et al., 1996). Therefore, in the future research, the influence of task responsibilities and stresses on task satisfaction should be taken into consideration.

Conclusion

(21)

gossip. Even though people are intrinsically motivated show more task satisfaction, yet the hypothesized influence of intrinsic motivation on the relation between power and task satisfaction was not supported.

REFERENCES

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497.

Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Review of Economic

Studies, 70(3), 489-520.

(22)

gestion.

Buunk, B. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2000). Toward an enlightenment in social comparison theory. In Handbook of Social Comparison (pp. 487-499). Springer US.

Clark, L., Leedy, S., McDonald, L., Muller, B., Lamb, C., Mendez, T., ... & Schonwetter, R. (2007). Spirituality and job satisfaction among hospice interdisciplinary team members.

Journal of palliative medicine, 10(6), 1321-1328.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: the self-determination theory perspective. Journal of personality, (62), 119-42.

De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology,

88(4), 741.

Douthitt, E.A. & Aiello, J.R. (2001). The role of participation and control in the effects of computer monitoring on fairness perceptions, task satisfaction, and performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86(5), 867-874.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.

Academy of management Journal, 45(2), 331-351.

Dunbar, R. I., Marriott, A., & Duncan, N. D. (1997). Human conversational behavior. Human

Nature, 8(3), 231-246.

(23)

Ellwardt, L., Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (2012). Talking about the boss: Effects of generalized and interpersonal trust on workplace gossip. Group & Organization Management, 1059601112450607.

Ellwardt, L. (2011). Gossip in organizations: a social network study. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.

Emler, N. (1994). Gossip, reputation, and social adaptation.

Farley, S.D. (2011). Is gossip power? The inverse relationships between gossip, power, and likability. European Journal of Social Psychology,42, 574-579.

Fine, G.A., & Rosnow, R.L. (1978). Gossip, gossipers, gossiping. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 161-168.

Foster, A. (2004). A nonlinear model of information-seeking behavior. Journal of the

American society for information science and technology.55(3), 228-237.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

Gibbons, R. (1998). Incentives in organizations (No. w6695). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). The impact of personal control on performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human

(24)

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Houmanfar, R., & Johnson, R. (2004). Organizational implications of gossip and rumor.

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23(2-3), 117-138.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.

Psychological review, 110(2), 265.

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.

Lazear, E. P. (2000). The power of incentives. American Economic Review, 410-414.

Levin, J., & Arluke, A. (1987). Gossip: The inside scoop. Plenum Press.

Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2005). Group Task Satisfaction The Group’s Shared Attitude to its Task and Work Environment. Group & Organization Management, 30(6), 625-652.

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 Enhancement1. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 37(7), 1562-1577.

McAndrew, F. T., & Milenkovic, M. A. (2002). Of Tabloids and Family Secrets: The Evolutionary Psychology of Gossip1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(5), 1064-1082.

(25)

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of management Journal, 29(4), 727-753.

Newey, W. K., & McFadden, D. (1994). Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing.

Handbook of econometrics, 4, 2111-2245.

Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip in organizations.

Organization Studies, 14(1), 23-36.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Harvard Business Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of management, 22(2), 259-298.

Pratto, F., & John, O.P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 380-391.

Ramirez, A. J., Graham, J., Richards, M. A., Gregory, W. M., & Cull, A. (1996). Mental health of hospital consultants: the effects of stress and satisfaction at work. The Lancet,

347(9003), 724-728.

Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 152-156.

(26)

new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of organizational Behavior,

25(3), 293-315.

Stanton, J.M., & Barnes-Fraell, J.L. (1996). Effects of electronic performance monitoring on personal control, task satisfaction, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

81(6), 738-745.

Tebbutt, M., & Marchington, M. (1997). 'LOOK BEFORE YOU SPEAK': GOSSIP AND THE INSECURE WORKPLACE'. Work, Employment & Society, 713-735.

Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its value for organizational psychology research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du

comportement, 41(4), 213.

Thomas, K.W., & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic motivation. Academy of management review, 15(4), 666-681.

Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General

Psychology, 8(2), 122.

Weick, M., & Guinote, A. (2008). When subjective experiences matter: power increases reliance on the ease of retrieval. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(6), 956.

(27)

reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The Journal of Educational

Research, 97(6), 299-310.

APENDIX

1. Scale items used to measure gossip in coding.

Trigger questions before gossip 0-no gossip

1-gossip with triggers

2-initiated by participant her/himself How evaluative and descriptive the gossip

content was

0-no evaluation or description 1-medium

2-high To what extent the content of gossip was about

motivation, ability, personality and situational factors like time pressure

(28)

How intensive the emotion was when participants were gossiping.

0-low 1-medium 2-high Nonverbal behavior of participants 0-closed

1-open

2-mimics gossip target Other issues (interruption from the

confederate, English ability of the participants, etc.)

0-no 1-yes

2. Measuring scale for intrinsic motivation:

Using the scale below, please indicate to what extent each of the following items corresponds to the reasons why you are willing to take part in this survival game

Does not correspond at all Corresponds moderately Corresponds exactly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. I am very interested in the topic of surviving in difficult situations.

2. I derive much pleasure from learning new things about survival in extreme situations. 3. I experience satisfaction from taking on survival challenges.

4. I experience satisfaction when I am successful at doing survival tasks.

The original questions from the paper are:

Why do you do your work? 1. Because I derive much pleasure from learning new things.

2. For the satisfaction I experience from taking on interesting challenges.

3. For the satisfaction I experience when I am successful at doing difficult tasks. Question scales come from the paper showing below:

(29)

3. Measuring scale for task satisfaction:

Using the scale below, please indicate to what extent each of the following items corresponds to how you feel about this survival task

Does not correspond at all Corresponds moderately Corresponds exactly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. I am happy with the way we worked together as a group solving this survival task. 2. I experienced frustration when trying to work with my group solving this survival

task.

3. I experienced dissatisfaction because of the conflict with group members solving the survival task.

4. I am satisfied with the resources available for the solvation of the survival task. 5. I am satisfied with the rewards I received from the survival task.

6. I find this survival task stimulating.

7. I think I get a lot out of the survival task (new experience and new knowledge).

The original questions from the paper are:

Group task satisfaction (GTS)—Our team is happy with the way we work together as a group. GTS—Our team experiences frustration when trying to work together (reversed).

GTS—Our team experiences dissatisfaction because of conflict among group members (reversed).

GTS—Our team is satisfied with senior managers of this organization.

GTS—Our team is satisfied with the level of support from other groups within this organization.

GTS—Our team is dissatisfied with the resources available for the team (reversed). GTS—Our team is dissatisfied with the rewards it receives (reversed).

(30)

GTS—Our team feels it gets a lot out of its work.

Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2005). Group task satisfaction. Group &.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

researches on the relationship between task conflict and team performance as well as look at the effect of team hierarchy centralization (i.e. team hierarchy centralization’s

The indirect effect of gossip negativity on cooperation through social bonding did not differ at higher levels of the condition variable (target vs. receiver)

However, the findings suggest that target’s feeling of team inclusion does not mediate this relationship, and the effect of negative gossip on both team inclusion

Even though negative gossip is socially undesirable (Litman &amp; Pezzo, 2005) behavior and can destroy gossiper’s relationship with the target, it will bring

Therefore, I expect that social dominant individuals, gossip more negatively than people with low Social dominance orientation in order to promote their superiority

In particular, I proposed that receiving negative gossip as well as possessing a high level of anxiety lead to lower mastery and performance approach goals, but lead to higher

Therefore, the third hypothesis which stated that the interaction between gossip valence and gossip targets’ level of self-esteem would have weakened the indirect

manipulations can be called successful.. 11 Descriptive statistics and correlations of the dependent and independent variables are reported in Table 1. So there was no direct