Gossip in organizations as a “weapon of the weak”.

Gossip in organizations as a “weapon of the weak”.

MICHELLE ALICE VAN BREEMEN-SCHNEIDER University of Groningen

Abstract

On the basis of past research, we know that gossip has subversive effects on organizations. Negative gossip creates conflict between managers and employees, and intragroup conflict within teams. In this study we investigate if employees gossip to reduce anxiety. The aim of this paper is therefore to research the motive of employees to gossip. Furthermore to find the effect of power on gossiping behavior. We expect that employees with low power gossip negatively because low power is associated with anxiety. Anxiety here, is the motive

Introduction

People have an innate need to feel powerful. We all seek anything that gives us a greater sense of power and prestige. And anything that makes us feel powerless is a destructive force (Denton, 2011). Power is the potential ability to influence behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things that they would otherwise not do (Pfeffer, 1992).

Power makes it more likely to achieve desired outcomes, because power is the basic energy needed to initiate and sustain action, or the capacity to translate intention into reality and sustain it (Pfeffer, 1992). A lack of it makes it more likely that desired outcomes are thwarted or redirected by those who have power (Conger & Kunango, 1988). This implies that

especially those who lack power, have the need to feel more powerful. As a result, they will seek anything to get a greater sense of power.

An environment where power differences are omnipresent are organizations. In most

organizations power is unequally distributed and therefore one employee has more power in comparison to the other. Within an organization power is often a critical asset to employees, because power transforms employees’ interests into coordinated activities that lead to valuable ends, such as resources, decision responsibilities, independence, recognition and prestige, since power creates the opportunity for employees to build, to create, and to nudge the development of the organization in a different direction (Pfeffer, 1992).

Communication is found to shape power structures in organizations as well as society (Berger, 1994; Giddens, 1984; Mumby, 1988). Through communication, information is spread. This information is critical in making the mind decide consciously or unconsciously of the identification or establishment of the power relationship between people involved. Power in relations are largely constructed in people’s minds through communication processes. In fact, the shaping of minds is a more decisive and lasting form of domination than violence (Castells, 2013). One form of communication is gossiping. Gossip is defined as "the process of informally communicating value-laden information, statements that impart a personal value of the speaker based on personal opinions, about members of a social setting" (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Gossiping itself has two functions, a genre of informal

formalities. Second it can be a device intended to forward and protect individual interests (Paine, 1967), such as increasing power. Since gossip is a form of communication, gossip could also enable the shaping of power structures in organizations and societies. This would imply that in organizations, employees could gain power through gossiping. For example, an employee who engages in work-related gossip has a greater ability to influence rewards and punishments in the workplace, than does an employee who engages in gossip about other topics (Kurland &Pelled, 2000). Rewards can be influenced through gossip, by sharing news about another worker, recipients may infer that the gossiper could also spread information about them. Because such information can damage or strengthen reputations and or careers, gossip therefore shows the ability to distribute (albeit indirectly) desired or undesired outcomes (Kurland & Pelled, 2000).

A lack of power leads to a feeling of discomfort and stress (Pfeffer, 1992). Stress is an unpleasant emotional feeling with elements of fear and anxiety (Motowidlo, Packard & Manning, 1986). Therefore a specific bad feeling of people who lack power could be fear or anxiety. Anxiety is usually conceived as an emotional state, accompanied by expectations of bad outcomes or concerns about how terrible those outcomes could be (Beck, 1976). The level of anxiety experienced by a person has been revealed as a predictor of an increase in the transmission of rumor and gossip (Anthony, 1973; Jaeger et al., 1980, 1994; Walker and Blaine, 1991).

In an organization, gossip spreads through the informal network or the informal organization. The informal organization consists of spontaneous, emergent patterns that result from

individuals' discretionary choices (Stohl, 1995). Furthermore 96% of employees admit to engaging in gossip at work (Labianca, 2010).

stronger than good. Ignoring possible negative outcomes have worse results than ignoring positive outcomes, for example ignoring a threat or danger, might end in mutilation or death (Baumeister, Bratlavsky, Finkenauer & Vohs, 2001). Therefore negative gossip might have more effect than positive gossip in organizations, furthermore employees might have more effect by gossiping negatively than positively.

Some people get anxious more easily than others. The personality trait risk aversion triggers anxiety (Eisenberg, Baron & Seligman 1998). Risk aversion is the tendency to avoid options associated with uncertain outcomes that differ in their desirability (Baron, 1994). Persons who are naturally risk averse would feel therefore uncomfortable in uncertain situations. Persons in low power positions, perceive higher uncertainty than persons in high power positions, as reduced power increases the tendency to view the self as a mean to other’s ends or as the instrument of others’ goals and desires (Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). Furthermore one of the consequences of this self-objectification, is elevated anxiety (Fredrickson &

Roberts, 1997). Employees who are risk averse, who avoid uncertain outcomes, will therefore be more anxious when having a low power position. Moreover, the increased anxiety

associated with the personality trait risk aversion, will trigger low power employees to gossip more negatively, because individuals who are high in trait anxiety are more likely to pass on rumors in order to reduce anxiety (Jaeger et al., 1980). Moreover, individuals high in self-reported anxiety are more likely to be nominated by peers as frequent participants in gossip (Wert & Salovey, 2004).

The aim of this paper is to research the effects of the amount of power, on gossiping behavior. Expectations are that people who lack power will start gossiping, to resolve their anxiety. More specifically, expectations are that a low amount of power, will heighten the amount of negative gossip this person spreads. Furthermore the reason we expect, why low power employees gossip negatively, is the anxiety that people feel through having low power. Gossiping here, provides a way to self-enhance, which decreases the anxiety. Next to that, anxiety is triggered if the employee is naturally risk averse.

Therefore the research question of this paper is: Is there a relationship between the amount of

Theoretical background Power and gossip

Power makes people feel that they are in greater control of their environment (Inesi, Ena, Botti, Dubois, Rucker & Galinsky, 2011). In addition, low power is generally viewed as a psychological experience that is aversive and undesirable., people typically do not feel good about lacking power. In contrast, having power increases subjective well-being (Kifer, Heller, Qi, Perunovic & Galinsky, 2013).

By gossiping, individuals in low power may gain damaging information about superiors and, moreover, they may learn that they are in agreement in their lack of esteem for the ruling group. Insurrection and insubordination then become a possibility (Wert & Salovey, 2004). Moreover in a number of qualitative studies employees deliberately utilized negative gossip behavior to seek allies against managers and consequently undermine their managerial authority (Scott, 1985; Tebbutt and Marchington, 1997; Tucker, 1993).

There is also other evidence that gossiping increases power. Kurland & Pelled (2000), mention different types of power which can be obtained through spreading gossip, such as reward power, coercive power, expert power and referent power. In a work setting, especially negative gossip can enhance expert power. French and Raven (1959) found that a gossiper can gain expert power by providing work-related information about others and is therefore

especially likely to be used as an information source and seen as an expert in the workplace (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Gaining expert power, could compensate the lack of power of some employees.

A consequence of low power, being an uncomfortable state, is that the powerless have been found to seek out, acquire, or display power in some form (Horwitz 1958; Rucker & Galinsky 2008; Worchel, Arnold, & Harrison 1978). Power is alluring, since it is associated with

perceived efficacy, independence, freedom and control (Haidt & Rodin, in press; Kipnis 1972; Ng, 1980). Whereas reduced power is associated with increased, threat, punishment and social constraint and thereby activates inhibition-related negative affect, vigilant, systematic

cognition and situationally cognition (Keltner, Anderson, Gruenfeld, 2003). We expect that the attempt to gain power will be pursued in the form of gossiping, since gossiping is considered as a non-assertive action, gossiping is not directly saying what is on your mind comfortably or standing up for yourself which are considered as assertive actions (Alberti and Emmons, 1990).. This action, gossiping, will be taken by low power people because powerful people, on the other hand, take more assertive action because they psychologically experience a heightened sense of control (Fast, Gruenfeld & Sivanathan, 2009). Also they are less

worried what others think of them, because people who experience power are aware that they can act at will without interference or serious social consequences (Weber, 1947).

Hypothesis 1: The lower the amount of power is held by an employee, the greater the amount

of negative gossip this person will spread.

Power and anxiety

Research has established that power has influential effects on thought, perception, and

behavior (Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee 2014). Lack of power makes an employee feel doubtful and uncertain, because a lack of power is associated with increased inhibition. Less powerful individuals have less access to material, social and cultural resources (Domhoff, 1998) and are more subject to social threats and punishments. Thus, they are more sensitive to the

evaluation and potential constraints imposed by others (e.g. S.T. Fiske, 1993; Stelle & Aronson, 1995).

High power on the other hand, is correlated with increased resources. Powerful individuals live in environments with abundant rewards, food, physical comforts, beauty, and health as well as social resources, such as flattery, esteem, attraction, praise, and positive attention. (Keltner, et al, 2003). Also, the experience of power involves the awareness that one can act at will without interference or serious social consequences (Weber, 1947). Which means that powerful individuals do not have to worry about resources and consequences of their actions, and less worry predicts less anxiety (Sarason, 1984). Therefore powerful individuals perceive less anxiety, than those who lack power.

When people have low power they are subject to more social and material threats, especially the threat of losing favor among the powerful (e.g., Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Chance, 1967; Fiske, 1993; Hall & Halberstadt, 1994; Whitney & Smith, 1993), and they are acutely aware of the constraints the these threats place upon their behavior (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2005; Keltner et al., 2003). As a result of low power, employees will feel low in control about their environment (Inesi et al. 2011). And people who feel low in control, have a higher feeling of anxiety (Thompson, 1981). Moreover, both men and women with low

control at work have an increased risk of developing depression and anxiety (Griffin, Fuhrer, Stansfeld, & Marmot, 2002). An increase in power, decreases anxiety, because an increase in power results in a higher amount of perceived control which makes a person feel less

threatened and unsure and therefore less anxious (Keltner, Anderson & Gruenfeld, 2003). Therefore the second hypothesis in this research is:

Hypothesis 2a: The lower the amount of power held by an employee, the more anxious this

person will feel, compared to employees with higher power.

Anxiety and gossip

Studies found that anxiety leads to more gossiping. Individuals high in trait anxiety were more likely to pass on rumors, to express and thereby relief their anxiety (Jaeger et al., 1980). Moreover, Individuals high in self-reported anxiety are more likely to be nominated by peers as frequent participants in gossip (Wert & Salovey, 2004).

or news (Rosnow, 1980). The need to prepare for the worst case may focus this talk on the negative (Wert & Salovey, 2004).

Negative gossip can decrease anxiety, because it allows people to self-enhance. More specifically, negative gossip implies comparing oneself to someone else who oneself values less, therefore a evaluation is made, which leads to a better image of the self. The self-evaluation process serves a strategic self-enhancement function, since individuals can boost their self-concept positivity by making downward social comparisons, which are inherently present in negative gossip (Wert & Salovey, 2004). People are in the self-evaluation process motivated to draw favorable conclusions about themselves, because persons have a need for positive self-regard motivates (Kunda, 1990). Employees will therefore be motivated to conclude that they come out on top of their gossip target. This favorable conclusion drawn from the evaluation process, might not result in a completely accurate or consistent self-concept, but individuals need a positive and well-protected self-concept in order to cope with the world (Sedikides & Strube,1997). Furthermore positive feelings about yourself help to protect yourself against anxiety (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel, 2004).. Therefore employees who feel anxious, are motivated to gossip more negatively, because the gossiping allows to self-enhance, self-enhancement creates a positive feeling about the self and can therefore decrease anxiety.

Hypothesis 2b: The more an employee feels anxious, the greater the amount of negative

gossips this person will spread, compared to employees with lower anxiety.

Employees who lack power perceive anxiety, because of the decreased control and increased threat present in low power positions. Negative gossip can reduce this anxiety for employees in a low power position, due to its enhancement value. Individuals can boost their self-concept positivity by making downward social comparisons, which are inherently present in negative gossip (Wert & Salovey, 2004).

characteristics (Major, Testa, & Blysma, 1991; Smith, 2000), and therefore imaginary power is obtained.

We therefore believe that the motive of low power employees to gossip negatively is because they are anxious. Moreover research found that when a motive like anxiety become urgent, gossip provides a way out and may turn especially negative (Wert & Salovey, 2004).

Risk aversion and anxiety

Some people get anxious more easily than others, people who are naturally more risk averse are namely more anxious (Eisenberg, Baron & Seligman 1998). People who are more risk averse think that bad events are more likely and worse if they happen. However, risk averse people do not think that good events are not as good if they happen (Eisenberg, Baron & Seligman 1998). Anxious people state moreover the same about the chance of good and bad events. Butler and Matthews (1987), found that more anxious subjects gave lower

probabilities for good events and higher probabilities for bad events, therefore risk aversion reinforces anxiety.

The powerless focus more on the negative in their environment, low power positions are more sensitive for threats and punishments, whereas high power positions are focused on rewards (Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). A focus on possible negative outcomes, such as threats and punishments, in a low power position is most likely to have negative impact on risk averse people, because they especially want to avoid these bad outcomes.

Being risk averse, being sensitive to uncertain outcomes, will not affect powerful people;s worry about consequences of their acts, since the experience of power involves the awareness that one can acts at will without interference or serious social consequences (Weber, 1947). Worry about consequences of acts will therefore be higher for risk averse people in low power positions. Higher worry on their turn, is related to elevated anxiety (Gray, 1987).

People with high risk aversion, avoid risk, therefore they would like to control their

environment as much as possible to face as low as possible distress. Since the lack of power, makes people feel low in control of their environment (Inesi et al. 2011), they will feel more distress and therefore become more anxious. This anxiety is caused by the lack of power of an employee, but reinforced by a personality trait as risk aversion.

-

Figure 1: Conceptual model (Moderated mediation)

Method

Participants

One hundred twenty eight students participated in this study, and were recruited from the University of Groningen and Hanze Hogeschool Groningen, 62,5% of the participants were female, mean age was 23 (SD =2,85).

Design

A lab study was conducted to test the research question. In this experiment, a 2x2 factorial design manipulated power for two kind of roles, of one confederate and the participant. The participant was the gossip sender, the person who tells the gossip about another person to the gossip receiver(confederate A). The gossip receiver is the person who listens to the gossip, which is told by the gossip sender. Moreover negative gossiping was measured.

Procedure

Participants came to the lab, where the study was presented as a group study of three persons in a team. Furthermore it was presented that if your team is in the top 3 best performing teams, the team would win a 50 euro bonus. Though in reality two of the persons of the team were confederates, and only one was a real participant.

Amount of negative gossip Amount of Power

When the participants came into the lab an informed consent sheet was signed by the participants, and the participants started with filling in a battery of questionnaires in the cubicles of the lab. Here they filled in a questionnaire to measure their risk aversion. Participants received instructions for the team task after the battery of questions. The computer gave instructions that they as a team were the only survivors of a spaceship crew after their spaceship has crashed on the moon. At that moment, they had to imagine that they are lost on the moon. After the crash 15 items were still intact and during the team task the decision should be made as a team, which items to take with and which to leave behind. Furthermore in the end the computer said that it will assign this person an officer role or crew member role in the spaceship crew, based on the participant’s answers on the questionnaires. Though in reality the conditions were beforehand randomly entered in the computer by the experimenter, thus power was manipulated.

Power manipulation Power was manipulated by 4 conditions, where the gossiping target (confederate B) always had low power, but the level of power of the gossip receiver (confederate A) and gossip sender (participant) varied. High power was manipulated by giving a participant or confederate an officer role, total control over 5 of the 15 items, thus a right of veto, which means that this person could place these 5 items in any category he/she wanted to. The three categories were “leave behind”, “potentially useful” and “vital”. Also the person in high power had to evaluate the other team members and divide the possible 50 euro bonus among the team members on a sheet which was filled in afterwards, in the cubicles. Low power was manipulated by giving the person a crew member role, and relying on the whole team to decide where to place the 15 items. Persons in low power furthermore did not receive the sheet for evaluation of the team members and dividing the 50 euro bonus among the team members. For this paper analyses only investigated the effect of gossip sender power . Thus, analyses were collapsed over the receiver power conditions.

After they finished the first questionnaire and received the power positions, the participants were guided towards the video room, where the team task took place.

to the gossip (confederate A), which is told by the gossip sender. In this study the gossip sender was the real participant.

The team task. At first, instructions were given by the experimenter, who explained that the team members had to survive by identifying in which category the 15 items belong, which they managed to bring after their spaceship has cash landed on the moon. These categories were “vital”, potentially useful” and “leave behind”. Moreover, the experiment told that the gossiping target (confederate B) and gossip sender (real participant) have to work together on the survival task for 3 minutes. During these 3 minutes the gossip receiver (confederate A) “has to work alone on the task” and was taken out of the room, but will be back after the 3 minutes are over. In this time when the gossip sender and target worked together, the gossip target tried to irritate the participant by following a script, which consisted of not

cooperating, saying that the task is boring and that they are going to die anyway. The gossiping target (Confederate B) tried to propose 2 items, that are useless. When the first 3 minutes of the task passed, the confederate assigned to be gossip receiver came back to the room with the group and all three worked together on the task. During this time the

confederates, the gossip receiver and gossiping target (Confederate A and B) got in disagreement about the useless items the gossiping target proposes. After 3 minutes had passed by, the experimenter interrupted the team and said that she took “randomly” one of the participants out and they had to stop doing the task, to see how it affects their team

performance. In reality the gossiping target – confederate B - was always asked to leave the room, to provide the participant an opportunity to gossip about confederate B. Confederate A was instructed to first let the participant talk about anything they want. If the participant did not start gossiping by him or herself, confederate A said “This is an interesting task”. If the participant did not start gossiping after this comment, confederate A said “I actually thought it was a team task, but I was the newcomer so I had to work alone in the beginning, I think that the two of you must have had more ideas and more fun”. The next trigger to make the

she do or say that?” “Did she say anything else”? etc. This gossiping time took 2,5 minutes and afterwards the gossiping target was sent back so the team can finish the task.

After the task. After finishing the team task of categorizing all the 15 items, the participants went back to the cubicle to fill in another set of questionnaires on the computer. Here anxiety during the team task, and motives for gossiping were measured. In the end the purpose of the study was revealed, and the computer asked if the participant suspected that the other team members were confederates. Furthermore, participants were told that instead of winning a 50 euro bonus based on the performance of their team, they would enter a lottery with a 20 euro prize. When the participants were done with this questionnaires, they were thanked for their participation, and were paid 4 euros or given 2 research points for their courses.

Moreover, the confederates and experimenters were 4 female master students in Human Resource Management.

Measures

Negative gossip. During the gossiping time of the experiment, footage was recorded. This

footage of the negative gossip was rated by two pairs of coders independently, and measured the amount of triggers it took until the participant gossiped (∝= 0,99). This measure was recoded. Since the two sets of evaluations of these measures were high in reliability, the independent measured sets can be taken together.

Risk aversion. Risk aversion was measured using a 20-item Bis-Bas scale, which contains

Behavioral Inhibitory Scale (BIS), Behavioral Approach Scale (BAS) Reward

Responsiveness, BAS Drive, and BAS Fun Seeking. For this research only the Behavior Inhibitory Scale was essential to measure risk aversion (Bis α = 0,75). The participants were asked to rate each statement of this 7-item scale on a 7-point Likert-type scale with the anchors (1) just like me to (7) not at all like me , with questions such as “I have few fear compared to my friends” and “If something happens to me, I get pretty worked up”. Negative items were recoded.

Anxiety Anxiety was measured using the PANAS-X scale with a 3 item-scale (e.g. “Fear”, α =

Manipulation check. The power perceived by participants during the team task was measured

with a 4-item measure with a 7-point Likert scale. Items were asked, such as “How much were you in charge of directing the task?” and “How much were you in charge of allocating the 50 euro bonus?”.

Results

Before analyzing the data, 29 participants were excluded for the following reasons:

Eight participants were excluded because they told the gossip receiver that they suspected that the gossiping target had a special role or assignment. Ten participants were excluded, because they stated in the questionnaire that they knew for sure the other participants were

confederates. Eight of these participants were excluded, because their English was not good enough to understand the hints of the confederate or items of the group case. And eight participants were excluded because they did not understand the power roles of the team, the role of being an officer or crewmember.

Thus, 99 participants were included in the analysis.

Manipulation check. First it was examined if the manipulation of power was effective.

Specifically, if people who were assigned as officer (high power), felt powerful. And if people who were assigned as crew member crew, (low power), felt powerless. A one way ANOVA indicated that people who had an officer role indeed felt high in power (M=6,18, SD =0,51) and people who had a crewmember role felt low in power (M= 3,44, SD= 1,41; F =159,37; p < 0,001).

Descriptive statistics. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations,

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviation and Person r value correlations.

+

= p<0,10

Hypotheses testing. To test the hypotheses, a bootstrapping procedure was used for assessing

indirect and conditional effects (Preacher, Rucker, Hayes, 2007). One regression analyses was conducted with power of the participant as independent variable, risk aversion as moderator, anxiety as mediator and gossiping as dependent variable. For each of the following models, 5,000 bootstrap samples were used. Results are shown in table 2.

It was expected that risk aversion moderates the effect of the amount of power of the gossiper on anxiety, which means that when someone has the personality trait risk aversion, he or she will be more anxious if she or he holds a low power position. Anxiety was not higher for participants in low power positions means, SD than in high power positions M, SD, which does not confirm hypothesis 2a, b=0,18, p=0,67, t=0,42. Risk aversion led to more anxiety, but only marginally b=0,15, p= 0,08. Consequently the interaction effect of power and risk aversion on anxiety was not significant b= -0,05, disconfirming hypothesis 3.

It was expected that anxiety mediates the effect of power on the number of triggers before a participants gossips, and that this effect is moderated by risk aversion. Participants in low power gossiped after fewer triggers than participants in high power positions, b= 0,38, p = 0,04, which confirms hypothesis 1. Anxiety did not lead to gossiping after less triggers b= -0,26, ns, which disconfirms hypothesis 2b. Consequently the indirect effect of power on the number of triggers it took to make the participants gossip through anxiety moderated by high risk aversion was not significant for participants with low risk aversion (indirect effect low

risk aversion= b= -0,02, 95% CI [-0,10 – 0,01], neither for participants with high risk

aversion b= -0,005, 95% CI[-0,13-0,06]. Variable ∝ Mean SD 1 2 3 4 1. Behavioral inhibitory system 0,75 4,65 0,97 2. Fear 0,79 1,62 0,85 0,17

3. Negative gossip (n. trig) 1,73 1,91 -0,06 -0,08+

Table 2. Moderated mediation analysis

Dependent variable Anxiety

Variable B T Ci [….] P

Power of gossiper 0,18 0,42 [-0,66 – 1,03] 0,67

Risk aversion 0,15 1,73 [-0,02 – 0,03] 0,08

Power gossiper x Risk aversion -0,05 -0,58 [-0,23 – 0,12] 0,55

Dependent variable Negative gossip

Variable B T Ci P

Power of gossiper 0,38 2,01 [0,005 – 0,77] 0,04*

Anxiety - 0,26 -0,14 [-0,71 – 0,19] 0,25

Effect Mod. High - 0,005 [-0,13 – 0,06]

Effect Mod. Low - 0,03 [-0,10 – 0,01]

*= p<0,05.

Discussion

Our study supported our prediction that persons in low power gossip after fewer triggers than persons with high power. This means that people in low power are more inclined to talk negatively about another person, than high power people. These results indicate that in an organization, employees on the work floor, who have low power, would spread negative gossip faster than their supervisors or bosses would do.

to more anxiety in a low power position, and anxiety did not lead to more negative gossip in a low power position, consequently risk aversion also did not indirectly lead to more negative gossiping. This implies that people who are naturally risk averse will not feel more anxious in a low power position, than people in high power. Furthermore being naturally risk averse did not indirectly through anxiety, lead to gossiping negatively faster.

Theoretical Implications

The present study contributes to gossip research by providing empirical evidence that the tendency to gossip negatively is more by persons in a low power position, than persons in a high power position. Consistent with the idea that people in low power express themselves more through non-assertive ways (Fast et al. 2009), such as gossiping, we found that people in low power will express themselves about others, who are not present, faster than people in high power. Nonassertive expression involves a person does not feel comfortable to directly say what is on their mind or stand up for themselves to the concerning person, such as in gosisiping, where you do not directly speak to the gossiping target. Low power positions express themselves through non-assertive ways, because they psychologically experience a lower sense of control (Fast et al, 2009), and gossip is a democratizing force, which allows to express critique without being punished directly (Labianca, 2010).

Although gossip is widespread, and psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists have examined the nature and role of gossip in larger society, workplace gossip is still relatively unknown (Kurland et al., 2000). The present study contributes to readdressing the gap of understanding gossip in organizations better by providing empirical evidence of the tendency to gossip negatively is influenced by the amount of power someone possesses. Low power employees are more likely than high power employees to make downward comparisons, through negative gossip, because negative gossip results in self-enhancement. Making critical evaluations is a way of presenting oneself as smart (Amabile, 1983). Consistent with this idea that we found that persons in a low power position are more likely, after fewer triggers, to tell about the negative behavior of the gossiping target.

expectations, demands more planning, insights, expertise and skills. Furthermore in the end the leading positions feel more pressure and are held responsible on the results of the subordinates (Keltner et al, 2013). Another reason that low power did not lead to higher anxiety, might be because anxiety is hard to measure, because it is a complex state that includes cognitive, behavioral and bodily expressions. As Wine (1987) has pointed out it is not immediately obvious to identify the active or most active ingredients in this complex emotion. Also most people do not recognize it when they are anxious, the biggest trigger for anxiety is stress and most people do not recognize that this causes and is related to anxiety (Maiese, 2009).

Anxiety did not increase gossiping, because the perceived anxiety during the team task might have led to other behaviors such becoming more task-focused and feeling numb,

instead of gossiping. Anxious people feel tensed, stressed and have the feeling that something terrible might happen. A task focus can increase the chance of high results, and therefore reliefs this worry (Sarason 1984). During the team task, participants could therefore react to anxiety by becoming more task-oriented. Anxiety can also lead to a sense of panic which can express itself in being aghast (Watson, 2005). Therefore people who felt anxious during experiment might not be able to express their feelings at first, because they were upset and their first initial expressions was showing numbness. However another reason that anxious people did not gossip can be, because the gossip receiver was a stranger to them. Gossip involves sharing stories and disclosing private information about others, the sender signals intimacy and closeness, which requires friendship (Ellwardt, Steglich & Wittek, 2012). Whereas colleagues in the workplace, might know each other for a long time.

Risk averse people were marginally more anxious than people who are not naturally risk averse. The marginal result is probably due to the minimal sample size, therefore we would recommend to take a bigger sample size in future research.

Practical implications

This research shows that persons in low power positions are more inclined to spread negative gossip than people in high power positions, this implies that in organizations subordinates gossip, so gossip takes place on the work floor. This research shows organizations where gossip is happening, namely at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy.

It is important to know for organizations where gossip is happening, since negative talk undermines the organization’s ability to function. Negative gossip creates conflict between managers and employees, because gossip in general is a threat to the managers’ desire for complete control. Gossip can also cause conflict within teams, since it increases conflict and decreases morale (Labianca 2010). Negative gossip can thus have adverse side effects on organizations. This research contributes to improve organizational processes, by showing where to readdress negative gossip and where to implement solutions to reduce negative effects. Moreover this study shows that giving people more power, giving low power positions more control, would be a solution for organizations to decrease negative gossip in their organization.

Limitations and Future Research

First, in this study, all participants are students, furthermore, mostly females participated, 62,5%, however the results of this research should be replicable for an older and more general population, since we believe that low power leads to gossiping negatively faster for everyone. Second, the sample size contained 99 persons, where 43 participants had a high power position and 46 a low power position in the present study, however to test differences in behavior between groups, it is better to have a minimum sample size of 100 per group

(Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2011), for future research we would therefore recommend to have for both positions, high and low, representative sample sizes, with at least 100

participants for low power positions and 100 participants for high power positions.

unrealistic task participants might have had difficulty to imagine that they were a space ship crew who were lost on the moon. Lastly, participants are aware that the experiment should led to some kind of result, and participants therefore might try to find out the purpose of the experiment instead of focusing on the assignment that was given to them.

Fourth our study did not find that low power led to feeling anxious, though the power roles only lasted 15 minutes in the experiment, and the experience of anxiety is caused by a big event which signals the presence a potential threat, and promotes negative construal of ongoing and future events (Butler & Mathews, 1987) anxiety will not be built in 15 minutes, since participants will most likely perceive the experiment not as a big event, but as a way to earn money of credits.

Furthermore since the participants know the team task lasts 15 minutes, they will not feel as threatened and will not feel negative construal for future events. Whereas in a job, people cannot escape as easily from the situation, so anxiety has a better opportunity to be built in a person’s workplace. We would recommend to do future research, where anxiety is measured, in more realistic settings.

Fifth, since the gossip receiver was an experimenter as well, this person might be biased towards getting high results, which unintentionally can cause a different triggering between high power participants and low participants. This means that the gossip receiver unconsciously tried harder in triggering low power participants to gossip negatively, than in triggering high power participants to gossip negatively, which influences the results. For future research we would recommend to have independent confederates, who are not interested in high results and that the experimenter does not know beforehand which of the groups is in low power and which is in high power.

relationships reduces the risk of negative consequences. In environments of high trust, employees feel encouraged to share information that is negative: Quantitative research demonstrated an increased prevalence of negative gossip in organizational structures that constitute alliances (Wittek and Wielers, 1998). The more trust exists in an employee

network, the further negative gossip echoes (Burt, 2001). Employees have personal, affective relationships with particular others, e.g. their direct colleagues (Den Hartog, 2005), including feelings of mutual understanding and friendship. Which means that the motive for low power employees to gossip is not to enhance power, but to build friendships with colleagues.

Building friendships can help to sustain a pleasant work environment, which is important because people spend a significant portion of their lives at work (Nielsen, Jex & Adams, 2000). This argues furthermore that risk averse people might gossip, but only with persons who they have a close relationship with. For low power positions this implies that gossip will especially occur in high trust relationships.

Another recommendation for future research is to focus on high power people instead of low power people. Since we did not find a motive for low power positions to gossip more, it might be that high power people have motive to gossip less. We recommend in future research to examine the motive of high power people to gossip negatively less, because they do not pay attention as much as low power position people do. Fates of high power positions do not depend on others, therefore their attention is more superficial. Power furthermore decreases attention to others, therefore the powerful oversee subordinates, which interferes with careful attention (Goodwin & Fiske, 1993).

Conclusion

References

Alberti, R., and M. Emmons. 2001, Your Perfect Right: Assertiveness and Equality in Your Life and Relationships. 8th, New York: Impact Publishers.

Amabile, T. M., 1983. Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 19: 146–156.

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. 2002, The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 1362–1377.

Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D., 2005, The subjective sense of power: Structure and Antecedents. Manuscript in preparation.

Anthony, S., 1973, Anxiety and rumor. Journal of Social Psychology, 89: 91‐8. Baron, J., 1994, Thinking and deciding, 2nd, New York: Cambridge University Press. Beck, A. T., 1976, Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International

Universities Press.

Berger, C. R., 1994. Power, dominance, and social interaction. In M. L. Knapp & G. R, Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal comniunication: 450-507. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Blumberg, B., Cooper, D.R., & Schindler, P.S., 2011, Business Research Methods, 3rd ed.

Mcgraw-Hill Education – Europe.

Burt, R. S., 2001, Bandwidth and echo: Trust, information, and gossip in social networks. In A. Casella & J. E. Rauch (Eds.), Networks and markets: Contributions from economics and sociology 30-74. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Butler, G., & Mathews, A., 1987, Anticipatory anxiety and risk perceptions. Cognitive

Therapy and Research, 11: 551–565.

Castells, M., 2013, Communication Power, Oxford University Press.

Conger, J.A., Kunango, R.N., 1988, The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice, The Academy of Management Review, 13(3): 471-482.

Denton, K.D., 2011, Enhancing power, Industrial Management, 53(4):12-17.

Domhoff, G. W., 1998, Who rules America. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Dunbar, R. I. M., 2004, Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8: 100-110.

Eisenberg, A.E., Baron J., & Seligman M.E.P., 1998 Individual differences in risk aversion and anxiety. Psychological Bulletin.

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

Ellwardt, L., Steglich C., & Wittek, R. P. M., 2012, The co-evolution of gossip and friendship in workplace social networks, Social Networks, 34: 623-633.

Farley, S.D., 2011, Is gossip power? The inverse relationships between gossip, power, and likability. European Journal of Social psychology.

Fast, N.J., Gruenfeld D.H., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky A.D., 2009, Illusory Control: A Generative Force behind Power’s Far-Reaching Effects, Psychological Science, 20(4): 502–8. Fiske, S. T., 1993, Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American

Psychologist, 48: 621–628.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A., 1997, Objectification theory. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 21: 173–206.

French, J., & Raven, B., 1959, The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power, 150–165. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Giddens, A., 1984, The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Goodwin, F.A., Fiske, S.T., 1993, Impression formation in asymmetrical power relationships: Does power corrupt absolutely? Unpublished manuscript. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Gray, J. A., 1982, The neuropsychology of anxiety. New York: Oxford University Press. Griffin J.M., Fuhrer R., Stansfeld S.A., & Marmot M., 2002, The importance of low control at work and home on depression and anxiety: do these effects vary by gender and social class?

Social science & Medicine 54: 783-798.

Haidt, J., & Rodin, J. (in press). Control and efficacy as interdisciplinary bridges. Review of General Psychology.

Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G., 1994, ‘Subordination’ and sensitivity to nonverbal cues: A study of married working women. Sex Roles, 31: 149–165.

Horwitz, M., 1958, The Veridicality of Liking and Disliking, in Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior, ed. R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo, Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press, 165–83.

Inesi, M. Ena S., Botti S., Dubois, D., Rucker, D.D, & Galinsky A.D., 2011, Power and Choice: Their Dynamic Interplay in Quenching the Thirst for Personal Control, Psychological

Science, 22 (8): 1042–48.

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: 473–478. Jaeger, M.E., Skleder, A.A., Rind, B. & Rosnow, R.L., 1994, Gossip, gossipers, gossipees, in Goodman, R.F. and Ben‐Ze'ev, A. (Eds), Good Gossip, University Press of

Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 154‐68.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C., 2003, Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110: 265–284.

Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Qi, W., Perunovic, E., & Galinsky, A.D., 2013, “The Good Life of the Powerful: The Experience of Power and Authenticity Enhances Subjective Well-Being,”

Psychological Science, 24(3): 280–88.

Kipnis, D., 1972, Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24: 33– 41.

Kunda, Z., 1990, The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 480-498.

Kurland, N.B., Pelled, L.H., 2000, Passing the Word: Toward a Model of Gossip and Power in the Workplace, The Academy of Management Review, 25(2): 428-438.

Labianca, G., 2010, It's Not "Unprofessional" to Gossip at Work. Harvard Business Review, 88(9): 28-29.

Maiese, K., 2009, High anxiety: Recognizing stress as the stressor, Oxidative Medicine and

Cellular Longevity 2(2): 61-62

Major, B., Testa, M., & Blysma, W. H., 1991, Responses to upward and downward social comparisons: The impact of esteem-relevance and perceived control. In J. M. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research, 237–260.

Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R., 1986. Occupational stress - its causes and consequences for job-performance. Journal of Applied Psychology: 71, 618-629.

Mumby, D. K., 1988, Communicafion and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology, and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Nielsen, I.K., Jex, S.M., & Adams, G.R., 2000, Development and Validations of Scores on a Two-Dimensional Workplace Friendship scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(4):, 628-643.

Noon, M., Delbridge, R., 1993, News From Behind My Hand: Gossip in Organizations,

Organizations Studies, 14: 23-36.

Paine, R., 1967, What is Gossip About? An Alternative Hypothesis, MAN, 2: 278-285. Pfeffer, J., 1992, Understanding power in organizations, California Management review, 29-50.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F., 2007, Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 185-227.

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: 435-468.

Rosnow, R. L., 1980, Psychology of rumor reconsidered. Psychological Bulletin, 87: 578– 591.

Rucker, D.D., Galinsky, A.D., 2008, Desire to Acquire: Powerlessness and Compensatory Consumption, Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2): 257–67.

Sarason, I.G., 1984, Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: reactions to tests, Journal of

personality and social psychology, 6(4): 929-938..

Schachter, S., 1959, The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregariousness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Scott, J. C., 1985, Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

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. In M. P. Zanna

Smith, R.H., 2000, Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In J.M. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison:

Theory and research 173-200. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Stohl, C., 1995, Organizational communication: Connecters in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tebbutt, M., & Marchington, M., 1997, “Look before you speak”: Gossip and the insecure workplace. Work Employment and Society, 11: 713-735.

Thompson, S.C., 1981, Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple question, Psychological Bulletin, 90(1): 89-101.

Tucker, J., 1993, Everyday forms of employee resistance. Sociological Forum, 8, 25-45

Walker, C.J. and Blaine, B., 1991, The virulence of dread rumors: a field experiment, Language and Communication, 11(4): 291‐7.

Watson, D., 2005, Rethinking the mood and anxiety disorders: a quantitative hierarchical model for DSM-V, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(4): 522-536.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., 1994, The PANAS-X: Manual For the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form. Ames: The University of Iowa.

Weber, M., 1947, The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wert, S.R., Salovey, P., 2004, A social account of gossip, Review of General Psychology, 8(2): 122-137.

Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K., 1993, A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35: 3–25.

Worchel, S., Arnold, S.E., & Harrison, W., 1978, Aggression and Power Restoration: The Effects of Identifi- ability and Timing on Aggressive Behavior, Journal of Experimental

Appendix – Questionnaires Risk aversion, Behavioral Inhibitory Scale

1. If I think something unpleasant is going to happen I usually get pretty “worked up” 2. I worry about making mistakes

3. Criticism or scolding hurts me quite a bit

4. I feel pretty worried or upset when I think or know somebody is angry at me 5. Even if something bad is about to happen to me, I rarely experience fear or

nervousness

6. I feel worried when I think I have done poorly at something 7. I have very few fears compared to my friends