BEING THE TARGET OF NEGATIVE GOSSIP: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEGATIVE GOSSIP AND INDIVIDUAL WORK PERFORMANCE, MEDIATED BY TEAM INCLUSION, AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF GOSSIP ACCURACY

(1)

BEING THE TARGET OF NEGATIVE GOSSIP: THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEGATIVE GOSSIP AND

INDIVIDUAL WORK PERFORMANCE, MEDIATED BY

TEAM INCLUSION, AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF

GOSSIP ACCURACY

Master Thesis, Msc Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 05.2016 Mira Skrimova Morgensterlaan 390, 9742 CV Groningen (31) 682 250 213 m.a.skrimova@student.rug.nl Student number: 3000265

(2)

Abstract

Gossip is an evaluative conversation about a third absent party and its influence on social networks has been studied for a long time. Little, however, is known about what is the effect of gossip on targets’ behavior if they accidentally hear it. We argue that negative gossip decreases the target’s work performance. We specifically examined the relationship between negative gossip and target’s feeling of team inclusion and how the reduced feeling of inclusion affects the target’s individual work performance. In addition to that, this research investigated if gossip accuracy strengthens or weakens this relationship. The hypotheses were tested with a sample of 79 employees, by using online questionnaires. Results indicate that the more negative gossip targets hear, the better their work performance is. 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 and work performance is not moderated by gossip accuracy.

(3)

Research shows that people spend more or less 65% of their speaking time talking about social topics and gossip is one of the most widespread activities within organizations (Dunbar, 2004). Gossip is considered to be one of the most effective ways to strengthen informal relationships in organizations (Ellwardt, Labianca and Witteck, 2011). Gossip as a mechanism for creating trust and building relationships between gossipers and receivers has been largely investigated in the last two decades. However, very little has been mentioned on what is the effect of gossip on a target’s behavior if the object hears that others have been gossiping about him or her. This is an important topic to investigate as the perception of negative or positive information about oneself can affect the performance by stimulating practice improvement (Sargeant, Mann, and Ferrier, 2005) or by eliciting strong negative reactions in targets of the negative information, such as lower task performance or citizenship behavior due to decreased feelings of self-worth (Krings, Jacobshagen, Elfering, and Semmer, 2015). The purpose of this research is to explore what are the reactions of targets, how hearing gossip about themselves influences their job performance.

In order to define how targets react when hearing gossip about them, we need to distinguish negative and positive gossip. In a study of Feinberg, Willar, Stellar, and Keltner (2012, p.1015) negative gossip is defined as “sharing of negative evaluative information about a target”, therefore, positive gossip might be considered as sharing a positive evaluative information about a target. We suggest that both positive and negative gossip would impact targets’ behavior, as hearing positive gossip is similar to being praised by others which results in having favorable reputation and feeling of belongingness and increases job performance (Ellwardt et al. 2011). Hearing negative gossip may lead to opposite results, such as less feeling of belongingness and decreased job performance. This study will only investigate the consequences of negative gossip, as negative gossip is likely to focus the target’s attention on the self which may reduce performance both in terms of task performance and extra-role behavior (Krings et al. 2015). As we assume that decreased target’s work performance would be harmful for an organization, we focus on investigating the consequences of negative gossip, and possibly find solutions to prevent them.

(5)

anger and defiant opposition. As gossip is evaluative conversation (Foster, 2004) the effects of negative gossip could be very similar to those of negative feedback.

When examining the relationship between negative gossip and target’s performance, the mediating role of the target’s feeling of inclusion should be taken into account, as team inclusion is essential for the overall well-being of the individual. Hearing gossip affects the target’s feeling of belongingness which is crucial for feeling of inclusion (Jansen et.al., 2014). Commonly, team inclusion is defined as the extent to which an employee believes that he or she belongs to the team. Gossiping negatively about one may significantly reduce his or her feeling of belongingness as it might damage the relationship between the target of gossip and the other two parties, as according to Baumeister and Leary (1995) gossip causes effects similar to victimization. Having strong and trusting relationships is crucial for one’s feeling of inclusion, because “the need to belong is the motivation to form and maintain strong and stable relationships with other people” (Jansen, 2015 p.24). In turn, the feeling of exclusion will most likely reflect in negative outcomes, such as lack of motivation and low job satisfaction, which are damaging for the individual’s performance (Koustelios and Bagiatis, 1997; Argyle, 1989; Wright, 2008; Zelenski et al., 2002).

Accuracy of the information that a gossip contains is another factor that impacts the effect of negative gossip on target’s performance. As researchers have found, employees’ reactions differ, in accordance with how accurate the evaluation of their behaviour is (i.e. is the information valid, are there any biases) (Brett and Atwaten, 2001; Blader and Tyler, 2005; Leung et al., 2001), this study will also focus on whether the accuracy of the gossip will reduce or enhance its effect on performance and feeling of team inclusion.

As employees’ performance is crucial for the survival of organizations this study would be both theoretically and practically important. Theoretically, because it will extent the body of literature, as target’s reactions have barely been investigated. This research will provide better insight on how negative gossip influences targets’ behaviors and work performance. Practically, because this study may help managers and employees understand and control social interactions, in the form of gossip, which may be harmful for individual and consequently organizational performance. Therefore, they will be able to improve their policies regarding gossip if necessary.

On the basis of these arguments, the leading research question is:

(6)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Gossip and team inclusion

In general the term gossip refers to “informal and evaluative talk in an organization about another member of that organization who is not present” (Kurland and Pelled, 2000: p.429). The definition itself suggests that gossip can be positive or negative (Ellwardt, 2011). Shaw, Tsvetkova and Daneshvar (2011, p.45) defined negative gossip as “an exchange of information that strengthens the relationships between all gossipers but weakens the relationships between each gossiper and the victim of gossip”. This might be the case, because numerous researchers have proved that gossip creates trust between the gossiper and receiver (Ellwardt, 2011; Dunbar, 2004). However, we suggest that this may not be the case with targets, as they could feel victimized (Ellwardt et al., 2012). Acquino and Thau (2009, p.717) define victimization as “acts of aggression perpetrated by one or more members of an organization that cause psychological, emotional, or physical harm to their intended target”. In their study they argue that workplace victimization occurs when fundamental psychological needs of the target are thwarted and these needs include the need to belonging and the need to be able to trust others. Jansen (2015) argues that having strong and stable relationships with other team members satisfies the need to belonging and increases the feeling of team inclusion. Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggest that being an object of negative gossip can significantly reduce the feeling of belonging as gossiping negatively is similar to victimization (Ellwardt et al., 2012). Thus, we suggest that targets of victimization may feel like they are not appreciated, hence not included in the team. As a further matter, Burt (2005) found in his study of bankers that those who have been targets of negative gossip (victims) find it harder to build trust and cooperative relationships with colleagues than those who do not have negative reputation (Ellwardt et al., 2011).

(7)

workplace between the parties involved (Duffy et al., 2002), and we suggest that consequently it decreases target’s feeling of inclusion.

On the basis of the presented arguments and research evidence it is hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 1: Negative gossip decreases feelings of inclusion for targets.

Team inclusion and target’s performance

Researchers have found that when the need for belonging is thwarted, individuals may experience cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and health problems. If an individual feels like he or she is excluded from the team, he or she is not going to be able to satisfy the need of belongingness, which will reduce the job satisfaction and well – being of this individual. (Jansen et al., 2014).

According to Koustelios and Bagiatis (1997) the degree of employee’s job satisfaction reflects in variety of behaviors such as productivity, absenteeism, and turnover rates which are indicators of work performance. Therefore, based on Jansen’s (2014) argument that exclusion reduces job satisfaction, we would argue that if employees do not feel included they would be less satisfied with their job, which may reflect in less productivity and higher levels of absenteeism and decreased work performance.

(8)

their conclusion I would propose that lack of motivation as a result of decreased well-being will impair work performance.

Furthermore, there is strong evidence that people who do not feel like they belong to a team and do not have supportive, strong and reliable relationships experience more stress in comparison with those who do, because of loss of social bonds and lack of people who support them (Baumeister and Leary,1995). Many studies have been conducted on the effect of stress on work performance and there is considerable evidence that high levels of stress impair performance (Friend, 1982), which may stem from the fact that the substantial efforts required to deal with stressful situation will make one less able to cope with subsequent demands (Cohen, 1980). Westman and Eden (1996) also concluded in their study that there is negative relationship between stress and job performance, that is if job stress increases, job performance decreases. Employees who experience high levels of stress are poorly motivated and less productive, because stress tends to weaken effort-to-performance and performance-to-reward expectancies (Arshadi and Damiri, 2013). Therefore, we argue that decreased feeling of inclusion has a negative impact on individual’s work performance.

In this line of reasoning it is hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 2: The extent to which the target feels included in the team is positively related to his or her work performance.

The moderating role of gossip accuracy

(9)

they are treated fairly, their attitudes towards work and work outcomes would be more positive (Moorman, 1991). Thus, we suggest that if the gossip is accurate it may improve the target’s performance but if it is perceived as inaccurate, it may decrease it.

In addition to that, Baron (1998) states that when people receive unspecific and inaccurate negative information about their performance, they report more negative feelings, and avoid the source of the criticism, which thereby results in weaker interpersonal relationships. Based on this argument we propose that inaccurate negative gossip would decrease the target’s feeling of inclusion as he or she will no longer have strong relationship with his or her teammates. Moreover, Morris, Su and Leung (2001) suggest in their study that if the information received is inconsistent and inaccurate one would more likely consider it as a reflection of the biased perspective of raters (e.g. jealous peers) rather than actual reflection of his or her behavior. However, if he or she perceives it as fair, it would induce variety of favorable reactions from the recipient (Leung et al., 2001).

Based on these arguments, we propose that if a target of a gossip hears negative gossip and judges it as accurate, the gossip might have a positive impact on his or her performance. However, if it is inaccurate, he or she might ignore it or become defensive (e.g. refuse to develop and improve performance). In addition to that, we suggest that inaccurate negative gossip decreases feelings of inclusion. Therefore, it is hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 3: The negative relationship between negative gossip and team inclusion is stronger when gossip accuracy is low rather than high.

(10)

Figure 1: Conceptual model

METHOD

Sample and procedure

We conducted a survey among respondents from different companies, industries, as well as nationalities. The requirements for the participants were minimum tenure in the current organization – 6 months, and minimum working hours per week – 25 hours. The respondents were found by a group of students from the University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business, and each of them received a detailed explanation regarding the survey. The employees were asked to fill in an online questionnaire about workplace communication. The questionnaire was anonymous and participation voluntary. Respondents were able to withdraw from the study any time they wished. The necessary time to fill in the questionnaire was approximately 20 minutes.

The sample originally consisted of 178 people, meaning 178 respondents started the survey. In the beginning of the questionnaire participants were asked to recall a specific situation in which a colleague said something about their work performance behind their back, and write what exactly did he or she say. However, only 87 of them managed to recall a situation in which they heard negative gossip about them. Moreover, some of those people did not finish the survey, which resulted in a usable sample of 79 employees. They were

Gossip accuracy

Individual work performance Team inclusion

(11)

approximately equally divided between men (36) and women (43). In terms of age, the sample ranged between 17 and 67 (M = 35, 87; SD = 13.7). Regarding the level of education, the results showed that most of the participants had a University or higher level of education. In addition to that, on average people have held their current position for approximately 8 years (M = 8. 69; SD = 9. 29), and the mean number of employees working in their department (people they have direct contact with) was 6.37. Finally, 46% of the participants were from Germany. The rest were almost equally divided between Dutch (21.8%) and Bulgarians (29.9%) with several exceptions from other countries (2.3%). Due to the high diversity of nationalities the questionnaire was translated into four different languages, namely English, Bulgarian, German and Dutch. Some of the various sectors noted were Education, Security, Bank Sector and Health.

Measures

The measures of the study are gossip, gossip accuracy, team inclusion and individual performance. The items were evaluated on a seven point scale, ranging from 1 “strongly agree” to 7 “strongly disagree”.

To measure negative gossip we used a modified version of Cayanus & Martin (2008) scale. Sample items are: “My colleague’s description of me, on the whole, is more negative than positive.”, “My colleague disclosed negative things about me” and “My colleague has told some unflattering stories about me”. The Cronbach’s coefficient for this scale was 0.78 which indicated that the scale was reliable.

The measure of accuracy was used to describe the target’s perception of the accuracy of the message, meaning whether or not they perceive the message as accurate evaluation of their performance. In order to measure the accuracy of gossip we used an adapted version of Tonidandel et al. (2002) scale used by Anseel and Lievens (2009). The two items which were used were “The information shared by my colleague was an accurate evaluation of my performance” and “I do not agree with the opinion shared by my colleague while I was absent”. Internal consistency for this scale was -0.25, therefore, the second item was reverse coded but the scale remained unreliable (0.2). As a result, we excluded the second item and only the first, positive one was used for the data analysis.

(12)

scale. Typical sample items are: “This group gives me the feeling that I belong”, “This group gives me the feeling that I fit in” and “This group appreciates me”. Participants have to respond to eight items. The scale reported a high reliability with an alpha coefficient of 0.95.

Individual work performance was measured by using a modified version of Moorman, R.H., Blakely, and Gerald (1995) scale. The scale consists of four items evaluating individual performance. In order to adapt the scale to our goal we asked the participants what was their reaction after hearing gossip about them. Sample items are: “...I rarely missed work even when I have a legitimate reason for doing so”, “…I performed my duties with unusually few errors”, “…I performed my duties with extra special care” and “I met deadlines at work”. The Cronbach’s coefficient for this scale was 0.83.

As control variables we added several demographic and job characteristics that could co-vary with analyzed variables. Such characteristics were gender, age, job tenure length, size of organization and department, working hours, and nationality.

Data analysis

We first assessed the reliability of all scales; all Cronbach’s alphas, but the one of gossip accuracy scored > 0.60. Furthermore, we ran a correlation analysis. To test the main effect, moderating effect and mediating effect we ran a regression analysis using PROCESS by Andrew F. Hayes (2013).

RESULTS

After excluding 25 of the cases that were not relevant to this study, because participants could recall only positive, or neutral but not negative gossip and 8 more because they did not respond to all items, we ran the analysis with 79 participants.

Descriptive statistics

(13)

Table 1: Mean, Standard deviation, Person correlation coefficient Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 1.Negative Gossip 2.Team Inclusion 3.Work Performance 4.Accuracy of gossip 3.75 5.11 4.78 2.55 1.53 1.38 1.61 1.80 - -,07 - ,35** ,12 ,13 ,00 - ,22* -

Note. N=79; *Correlation is significant at 0.05 level; **Correlation is significant at 0.01 level

The results presented in the table show significant correlation effect between negative gossip and work performance (r = .35, p <0.01), which is an indicator for a direct effect of negative gossip on work performance. However, contrary to what we expected, the effect is not negative, which indicates that the more the negative gossip, the better the work performance of gossip targets. In addition to that, there was no significant correlation between negative gossip and team inclusion, as well as between team inclusion and work performance. These results designate that negative gossip does not reduce feeling of target’s inclusion and team inclusion has no effect on target’s work performance. Moreover, the other results we also not in line with our expectations. We expected that accuracy would moderate the effects of negative gossip and team inclusion but no significant correlation was found between gossip accuracy and feelings of inclusion (r = 0.009, ns). Significant correlation effect was found only between accuracy and work performance (r = .22, p = .04). This indicates that the accuracy of gossip increases the target’s work performance.

Hypotheses testing

(14)

Table 2: Moderated mediation analysis

Dependant Variable Team Inclusion

Variables ß T Ci[…] P Negative Gossip -.09 -.51 [-0.48; 0.29] 0.61

Accuracy .12 .13 [-1.68; 1.93] 0.89

Negative Gossip x Accuracy -.005 -.01 [-0.1 ; 0.09] 0.92

Gender 0.48 1.52 [-0.14 ; 1.11] 0.13

Dependant Variable Work Performance

Variables ß T Ci[…] P Team Inclusion .19 1.54 [-0.06; 0.44] 0.13

Negative Gossip .38 3.45 [ 0.16; 0.61] 0.00

Effect Moderation Low -.02 [-0.14; 0.04]

Effect Moderation High -.02 [-0.13; 0.02]

Gender -.59 -1.74 [-1.27; 0.09] 0.09

Note. N=79, Ci = 95% confidence interval. p > 0.05; Gender: Female=1, Male=2

The regression analysis showed that there is no significant relationship between negative gossip and team inclusion (b = -.09, ns), which does not support our hypothesis 1, predicting that negative gossip decreases feelings of inclusion for targets.

(15)

Furthermore, the analysis showed no significant relationship between accuracy and team inclusion (b = .12, ns). This indicates that regardless the extents of accuracy, feelings of team inclusion are not affected by negative gossip. These results disconfirm hypothesis 3, predicting that the negative relationship between negative gossip and team inclusion is stronger when accuracy is low rather than high. In addition to that, no significant conditional indirect effect on work performance through team inclusion was observed neither for high level of accuracy (b = -.02, Ci [-.13; .02]) or low level (b = -.02; Ci [-.14; .04]).

Additionally, as we found correlation between gossip accuracy and work performance, we ran another analysis, using process, in order to examine whether accuracy could be a moderator of the negative gossip – work performance relationship. The results, however, indicated that both negative gossip and gossip accuracy have significant effect on work performance (b = 0.61, p = 0.001; b = 0.5, p < 0.05) but their interaction effect was not significant (b = -0.8, ns).

Finally, we suggested that targets who hear negative gossip about them would perform worse at the workplace. The most fundamental finding of our research was that results indicate the opposite. The regression analysis showed that there is a strong significant relationship between negative gossip and work performance but targets that have been gossiped about, have better work performance (b = 3.45, p < 0.001). In addition to that, after including gender as control variable in the analysis, results showed that there is marginally significant relationship between gender and work performance (b = -0.59, p = 0.09) which indicates that women tend to perform better than men after hearing negative gossip.

DISCUSSION

The main goal of this study was to investigate how targets would change their work performance after hearing negative gossip about them. We hypothesized that negative gossip will decrease work performance through lower feelings of team inclusion, and this will be moderated by the level of gossip accuracy.

(16)

Findings

To begin with, we expected that hearing negative gossip about the self will significantly affect one’s feelings of belonging to the team. More specifically, we hypothesized that negative gossip decreases feelings of inclusion for targets. However, the results of our study do not indicate a significant relationship between negative gossip and feelings of inclusion. Therefore, our expectation was not supported. A potential reason for this could be that the participants have not been completely honest when filling in the questionnaire, as some people may indicate how they think should act rather than how they actually act after hearing gossip about them. For instance, participants may perceive that feeling excluded after hearing gossip is a sign of weakness, thus they may not be willing to indicate responses that will make them look weak even if they, in fact, feel excluded.

Hypothesis 2 that the extent to which the target feels included in the team is positively related to his or her work performance was also disconfirmed. The notion that reduced feeling of inclusion decreases one’s job satisfaction and happiness, and therefore, their work performance was not supported by the results. A possible explanation for this could be the difference in participant’s personality traits. For instance, inclusion may not be so important for people who are self-centered and do not need trusting relationships in order to perform well.

The results for hypothesis 3 were also not in line with our expectations. The proposition that the negative relationship between negative gossip and team inclusion is stronger when gossip accuracy is low rather than high was not supported. An explanation for this could be the lack of significant relationship between negative gossip and team inclusion. Negative gossip does not have any effect on the feelings of inclusion. Therefore, it is not unexpected that its accuracy has no effect as well.

(17)

Theoretical implications

Our findings set the ground for several theoretical implications and add to the literature of negative gossip by taking the target’s perspective, which to our knowledge has not been examined yet.

Our prediction that negative gossip will decrease the target’s feeling of inclusion because it can be associated with social undermining and victimization (Ellwardt et al., 2011), was not supported. The results indicated that no significant relationship exists between negative gossip and team inclusion. This outcome could be explained by Foster’s (2004) article, in which he argues that gossip also serves as a kind of informal policing device through which one can learn how to behave, and it can have positive impact on the group as a whole. Taking these arguments into account, it can be thought that targets may not perceive the negative gossip as social undermining but rather as an indicator that they need to improve their behavior or performance. Thus, there is a positive relationship between negative gossip and target’s work performance.

In addition, we hypothesized that low feelings of team inclusion would decrease work performance, as they reduce employees’ job satisfaction and well-being. However, this proposition was also disconfirmed. A possible explanation is that reactions to team inclusion may differ according to personality traits. This is in line with De Dreu and Nauta (2009) proposition that group-level attributes such as group climate could be predictors of individual performance when the individual is high in other-orientation and low in self-concern. Thus the target’s satisfaction and well-being would most likely not suffer if he or she is less included in the team when self-concern is higher than other-orientation. Consequently, work performance would also not be affected by team exclusion.

(18)

Practical implications

The insights of our study will help organizations develop a better understanding of how negative gossip could influence employees’ behaviors and work outcomes. It is important for managers to stay connected to informal social network within the organization as by doing so they could learn many things that they otherwise would not know. For instance, as we proposed gossip is somewhat similar to feedback, therefore managers could learn from it and get a better insight of how their employees perform.

Our main finding that negative gossip increases targets’ performance indeed is positively related to the overall organizational performance. However, managers should be careful with some issues that may arise from the effect of negative gossip on targets’ work performance. If targets perceive the gossip as negative feedback, and are constantly trying to put more efforts in order to improve their performance, they may become overloaded and exhausted. According to Maslach and Leiter (2001) exhaustion and work overload lead to job performance burnout which results in lower productivity and effectiveness at work, and higher levels of absenteeism and turnover. Thus, managers should find a way to imply policies and practices which allow them both to control negative gossip and to benefit from it.

Limitations and future research

Several limitations of this study should be taken into account when interpreting the results. The first limitation is related to the way the data was collected. We used an online survey, which allowed participants to fill it in at home where they may have been distracted and not paying enough attention to the essence of the questions.

Another limitation that could distort the relationship between variables is social desirability. Social desirability refers to “the need of social approval and acceptance and the belief that it can be attained by means of culturally acceptable and appropriate behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003, p.881). That is, participants are trying to present themselves in a favorable light, and their responses indicate what they think they should do rather than what their true feelings and actions are.

(19)

performance and it cannot be completely attributed to the negative gossip. However, for the purpose of this study this was the best possible way of formulating the questions.

Furthermore, we had small (N=79) and relatively homogeneous sample in terms of culture and education. We had participants from many different countries but the vast majority of respondents were Western Europeans who have graduated from University. Therefore, for future research on this topic, we would recommend the usage of larger and more diverse sample, in order to obtain more accurate information.

As respondents had to recall a specific situation, memory bias is also a limitation of our study. That is participants may not clearly remember what the exact situation was, or what were their exact feelings and reactions after hearing negative gossip.

Finally, the last limitation that we will refer to is that the reverse-coded item about accuracy that we used in our questionnaire was not interpreted in the right way by most of the respondents. Thus, we were left with a one item measure. Possible explanation is that negatively formulated item could lead to more difficulties in understanding the item. Moreover confusion

may arise due to the way the scale is formulated. For instance, for the item “I do not agree with

the opinion shared by my colleague while I was absent” participants may have clicked “Not at all” indicating that they do not agree with this opinion at all rather than disagreement with the item. For future research we would recommend the avoidance of reverse-coded items when possible.

Future research

Our study has found that negative gossip has positive effects on the target’s work performance. However we did not examine what are the causes for this outcome and under which conditions it occurs. Therefore, for future research it would be interesting to further investigate this relationship, and inspect, for instance, whether or not it is mediated or moderated by the desire of self-improve, which we previously mentioned as a possible explanation.

(20)

Another avenue of inquiry is whether team inclusion and the feeling to belonging to the group are related to the target’s work performance in cultures other than the Western, where people are more relationship oriented. Moreover, it would be interesting investigate if this relationship would occur for people who are more other-oriented rather that self-concerned.

CONCLUSION

(21)

REFERENCES

Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2009). The mediating role of feedback acceptance in the relationship between feedback and attitudinal and performance outcomes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(4), 362-376.

Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target's perspective. Annual review of psychology, 60, 717-741.

Argyle, M. (1989). Do happy workers work harder? The effect of job satisfaction on work performance. How harmful is happiness.

Arnocky, S., Stroink, M., & DeCicco, T. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 255-264.

Arshadi, N., & Damiri, H. (2013). The relationship of job stress with turnover intention and job performance: Moderating role of OBSE. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 706-710.

Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 199.

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.

Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930.

Cederblom, D., & Lounsbury, J. W. (1980). AN INVESTIGATION OF USER ACCEPTANCE OF PEER EVALUATIONS1. Personnel Psychology, 33(3), 567-579.

Cohen, S. (1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: a review of research and theory. Psychological bulletin, 88(1), 82.

Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (2001). When a" happy" worker is really a" productive" worker: A review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(3), 182.

De Dreu, C. K., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 913.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of management Journal, 45(2), 331-351.

(22)

Ellwardt, L. (2011). Gossip in organizations: A social network study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen).

Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G. J., & Wittek, R. (2012). Who are the objects of positive and negative gossip at work?: A social network perspective on workplace gossip. Social Networks, 34(2), 193-205.

Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Stellar, J., & Keltner, D. (2012). The virtues of gossip: reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(5), 1015.

Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 78.

Friend, K. E. (1982). STRESS AND PERFORMANCE: EFFECTS OF SUBJECTIVE WORK LOAD AND TIME URGENCY1. Personnel Psychology, 35(3), 623-633.

Jansen, W. S. (2015). Social inclusion in diverse work settings (Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen).

Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., Zee, K. I., & Jans, L. (2014). Inclusion: Conceptualization and measurement. European journal of social psychology, 44(4), 370-385.

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H. C., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Measuring Individual Work Performance-Identifying and Selecting Indicators. Individual Work Performance.

Krings, R., Jacobshagen, N., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2015). Subtly offending feedback. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(4), 191-202.

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.

Leung, K., Su, S., & Morris, M. W. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations, 54(9), 1155-1187.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 397-422.

Michelson, G., Van Iterson, A., & Waddington, K. (2010). Gossip in organizations: Contexts, consequences, and controversies. Group & Organization Management.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of applied psychology, 76(6), 845.

(23)

Sargeant, J., Mann, K., & Ferrier, S. (2005). Exploring family physicians' reactions to multisource feedback: perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Medical education, 39(5), 497-504.

Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. Advances in experimental social psychology, 29, 209-269.

Shaw, A. K., Tsvetkova, M., & Daneshvar, R. (2011). The effect of gossip on social networks. Complexity, 16(4), 39-47.

Stone, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (1984). The effects of multiple sources of performance feedback and feedback favorability on self-perceived task competence and perceived feedback accuracy. Journal of Management, 10(3), 371-378.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1143-1158.

Vinokur, A. D., & Van Ryn, M. (1993). Social support and undermining in close relationships: their independent effects on the mental health of unemployed persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 350.

Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1996). The inverted-U relationship between stress and performance: A field study. Work & Stress, 10(2), 165-173.

Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (1998). Gossip in organizations. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 4(2), 189-204.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of occupational health psychology, 5(1), 84.

(24)

APPENDIXES Items in Scales:

Scale items used to measure negative gossip (Cayanus & Martin, 2008)

1. My colleague’s description of me, on the whole, is more negative than positive. 2. My colleague revealed “bad” feelings about me.

3. My colleague revealed undesirable things about me. 4. My colleague disclosed negative things about me.

5. My colleague has told some unflattering stories about me.

Scale items used to measure gossip accuracy (Anseel and Lievens, 2009) 1. The information shared by my colleague was an accurate evaluation of my

performance.

2. I do not agree with the opinion shared by my colleague while I was absent.

Scale items used to measure team inclusion (Jansen, Otten and Jans, 2014) 1. I feel like I belong to this group.

2. I feel like I am part of this group. 3. I feel like I fit in.

4. I feel like an insider.

5. I feel that the group likes me. 6. I feel that the group appreciates me. 7. I feel that the group is pleased with me. 8. I feel that the group cares about me.

Scale items used to measure work performance (Moorman, R.H., Blakely, and Gerald, 1995)

After hearing what my colleague said about me…

1. ...I rarely missed work even when I have a legitimate reason for doing so. 2. ...I performed my duties with unusually few errors.

BEING THE TARGET OF NEGATIVE GOSSIP: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEGATIVE GOSSIP AND INDIVIDUAL WORK PERFORMANCE, MEDIATED BY TEAM INCLUSION, AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF GOSSIP ACCURACY