Abstract
The social practice of workplace gossip has many implications for organizations and members. By using LMX theory, this study investigated positive and negative gossip types and their association with relational quality with supervisors and coworkers. Patterns of findings suggest a contagious quality of both forms of workplace gossip, such that positive supervisor gossip is highly related to positive coworker gossip; meanwhile, negative supervisor gossip is highly related to negative coworker gossip. Additionally, this study demonstrated a positive relationship between LMX and positive gossip as well as a positive relationship between perceived LMX injustice and negative gossip. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Gossip in the workplace has many functions. Gossip can ruin reputations and relationships, but it can also help to forge alliances; gossip can betray trust, but it can also be a means through which chronically bad actors are identified and avoided (i.e., the whisper network). Workplace gossip is a complex organizational communication phenomenon with important consequences for members and organizations. Contrary to popular belief, gossip can be both negatively and positively valenced (Brady et al., 2017). Scholarship demonstrated empirically that positive gossip can lead to improved work atmosphere (e.g., Alshehre, 2017), group relationships, and stress reduction, while negative gossip is associated with divisiveness, loss of face, and morale degradation (Michelson & Mouly, 2004).
Workplace gossip is particularly relevant in the context of leader-member relationships. Strong relationships between workplace leaders and subordinates can have many fruitful outcomes. High leader-member exchange (LMX) quality, one measure of such relationships, can lead to higher task performance, citizenship performance, and lower counterproductive work behaviors (Martin et al., 2016). From a communication perspective, high-LMX employees tend to use more competent dissent strategies (e.g., prosocial dissent; Okafor et al., 2021) while low-LMX employees tend to avoid voicing their dissent (Kassing, 2000). The relationship between communication and LMX relationships is strong, given the foundational role communication plays in relational development (Brown, 2022).
This research contributes to literature on gossip and workplace relationships in the following ways. First, we demonstrate the contiguous quality of workplace gossip. Second, we explore a (leadership) relational context out of which positive workplace gossip emerges. Third, we explore a relationship context that predicts the emergence of negative gossip. This article is one of the first of this kind in organizational communication to study workplace gossip in terms of both negative and positive forms—an innovation only recently made possible with the validation of the Workplace Gossip Scale (Brady et al., 2017). The following section provides an overview of the literature relevant to the present study.
Workplace Gossip
Gossip is widespread in life and an omnipresent social phenomenon. At times, gossip was stereotyped as connected to women’s conversations (Rysman, 1977), which is a bias—men gossip, too. Recently, Brady et al. (2017) defined workplace gossip (WG) as “informal and evaluative (i.e., positive or negative) talk from one member of an organization to one or more members of the same organization about another member of the organization who is not present to hear what is said” (p. 9). This definition contains two dimensions—valence and subject (Brady et al., 2017). As WG is an evaluative behavior, evaluations can be positive or negative (i.e., valence). Positive WG expresses recognition of an individual’s social behaviors or reputation (Brady et al., 2017; Taylor, 2005), such as praise evaluations. Negative WG involves unacceptable social behaviors or negative reputations (Brady et al., 2017; Taylor, 2005). Gossip subject refers to the individual gossiped about in the conversation (Brady et al., 2017). In an organizational context, gossip often occurs among supervisors and coworkers, which is the focus of this study.
Conceptually, integrating the dual dimensions of valence and subject yields four types of WG: positive about supervisors, positive about coworkers, negative about supervisors, and negative about coworkers. WG has been analyzed from broad perspectives, including its effects on organizational culture (Kuo et al., 2013), employee morale (Tebbutt & Marchington, 1997), and leadership dynamics (Kuo et al., 2018). Notably, there is a discernible gap in the literature regarding the nuanced interrelationships among these four types of WG. Therefore, we posit the following:
Research Question 1: What are the relationships between the four forms of workplace gossip?
Leader-Member Exchange
LMX theory is a relationship-based framework that emphasizes the development of individualized relationships between leaders and their subordinates (Graen & Uhl Bien, 1995). Rather than treating all subordinates uniformly, LMX theory posits that leaders form unique, dyadic relationships with each member of their team. Importantly, these relationships vary in quality.
The positive outcomes of high-quality LMX relationships are well documented. Employees who experience high LMX tend to demonstrate lower turnover intentions (Joo, 2010; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), higher organizational commitment (Duchon et al., 1986; Tremblay et al., 2017), and greater job satisfaction (e.g., Volmer et al., 2011). Strong exchanges between leaders and followers contribute to a cohesive and supportive work environment, where employees are more likely to engage in positive interpersonal interactions, including favorable workplace gossip.
On the other hand, low-quality LMX relationships can have markedly negative effects on both organizational performance and interpersonal dynamics. Employees in low-LMX relationships may feel marginalized, unsupported, and excluded from important workplace decisions, which leads to frustration and dissatisfaction. Kuo et al. (2018) indicates that poor LMX relationships can act as significant stressors for employees, leading to feelings of supervisor ostracism and strained interactions with coworkers. Consequently, employees may resort to negative gossip as a means of expressing their discontent, particularly about supervisors or coworkers who are perceived to benefit from high-quality LMX relationships, further reinforcing feelings of inequity and exclusion. The first hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived LMX is positively associated with positive workplace gossip about (a) supervisors and (b) coworkers, and negatively associated with negative workplace gossip about (c) supervisors and (d) coworkers.
LMX Injustice
Organizational justice serves as an important barometer for assessing the fairness of treatment received by employees in organizations (Moorman, 1991). In this article, we focus on the perception of fairness, specifically whether leaders provide equitable treatment across all employees. This perspective is crucial, as perceived disparities in LMX can profoundly affect reputations and relationships, influence the formation of alliances, and shape the interpretation of people and events within the workplace, for better or worse.
Nonetheless, and according to LMX theory, differentiation in leader-member relationship quality is an inescapable reality, potentially giving rise to perceptions of injustice among employees. These perceptions become particularly pronounced when leaders are perceived to exhibit favoritism toward certain employees over others. Gossip, functioning as an informal but effective channel of communication, often acts as a means through which employees express their perceptions and sentiments regarding the nuances of workplace dynamics. This mechanism allows for the identification of persistently problematic individuals within what is colloquially known as a “whisper network” (Wang et al., 2014). When employees discern injustice in the interactions between leaders and members, discussions pertaining to supervisors or colleagues tend to adopt a negative tone. In contrast, when leaders are perceived to uphold a sense of fairness within the LMX dynamics, workplace gossip is likely to carry a more positive tone, reflecting a general sense of satisfaction and equity among employees. Consequently, the hypotheses proposed are as follows:
Hypothesis 2: Perceived LMX injustice is positively associated with negative workplace gossip about (a) supervisors and (b) coworkers, but negatively associated with positive workplace gossip about (c) supervisors and (d) coworkers.
The following section details the methods used to conduct this research.
Method
Participants
This study comprised 236 participants (N = 236), whose ages ranged between 19 and 78 years (M = 40.86, SD = 12.39). With regard to gender, 47.9% (N = 113) identified as female and 50.8% (N = 120) as male, and 1.3% (N = 3) identified as other. In terms of racial and ethnic composition, the breakdown was as follows: 179 participants identified as White, 28 as Black or African American, 18 as Latino/Hispanic, 4 as Asian/Asian American, 2 as Native American, and 5 as other. The detailed distribution of educational attainment was as follows: some high school (N = 1; 0.4%), high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) equivalent (N = 34; 14.4%), some college (N = 54; 22.9%), associate’s degree (N = 18; 7.6%), bachelor’s degree (N = 80; 33.9%), some graduate school (N = 3; 1.3%), master’s degree (N = 39; 16.5%), and doctorate’s degree (N = 7; 3.0%). Participants were adults who are employed at an organization with levels of management that include coworkers and supervisors. The average work experience was 18.03 years (SD = 12.27 years). Supervisory experience ranged from 0 to 35 years (M = 5.42 years, SD = 6.98 years).
Procedures
The study was first approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB 15372). Participants were recruited through Prolific in the United States with two criteria. The first criteria required participants to work for a company with levels of management in which participants have a supervisor and coworkers. This criterion ensures participants are in settings conducive to workplace gossip. The second criterion required participants to be native speakers in order to fully understand certain slang and idioms in the questionnaire. Participants provided informed consent prior to participation. Completion time averaged 12 minutes, with compensation set at $12.00 per hour. Participants who failed to accurately respond to the attention check questions were excluded from the study. Additionally, data entries showing clear inconsistencies between participants’ age and reported years of work experience were eliminated from the data set. For instance, entries indicating an age of 49 years paired with 94 years of work experience with a supervisor were deemed implausible and subsequently removed.
Measures
Workplace gossip
WG was assessed using Brady and colleagues’ (2017) 20-item scale with 10 items each for supervisors and coworkers. Among the 10 items, 5 focus on positively valenced gossip, with sample questions such as “questioned a coworker/supervisor’s abilities while talking to another work colleague” and “criticized a coworker/supervisor while talking to another work colleague.” The remaining 5 items explore negatively valenced gossip, with sample items such as “defended a coworker/supervisor’s actions while talking to another work colleague” and “said something nice about a coworker/supervisor while talking to another work colleague.” Responses were captured on a 7-point frequency scale ranging from 1 = never, 2 = once a month, 3 = 2-3 times a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = 2-3 times a week, 6 = once a day, 7 = more than once a day). The reliability for the 5 negative coworker gossip questions is α = .91, 5 positive coworker gossip questions is α = .89, and the overall 10 coworker related questions is α = .89. For the supervisor related items, the 5 positive questions’ reliability is α = .96, 5 negative questions’ reliability is α = .95, and all 10 supervisor related items is α = .88. The overall 20-item scale is .92.
Leader-member exchange
LMX was measured through the established multidimensional 12-item scale developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998). The responses were measured with a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include “My supervisor defends my work actions to a supervisor, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question,” and “I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of and competence on the job.” The first author added a 13th item: “I don’t mind working my hardest for my supervisor.” The measure is used widely and has a strong record of reliability and validity (Carter et al., 2013; Laschinger et al., 2009; Robert & Vandenberghe, 2021). For this study, Cronbach’s alpha is .96.
LMX injustice
Participants completed an original measure of LMX injustice designed to capture the degree to which they perceived their coworkers’ working relationship with their boss to be unfair. The original measure was to some degree inspired by Vidyarthi and colleagues’ (2010) measure of leader-member exchange social comparison (LMXSC), which measures how much participants’ subjective rating of their own LMX compared to coworkers’ LMX. Our measure adds the element of injustice to those subjective perceptions. Items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Please see Appendix for a list of items. Cronbach’s alpha was .881.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of LMX Injustice
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the reliability of the LMX Injustice scale. The initial questionnaire included nine items (please see Appendix), divided into two categories: Items 1 to 5 measure employees’ perceptions of unfairness, while Items 6 to 9 assess understanding of supervisors’ decisions. The initial model failed to achieve a satisfactory fit based on established criteria. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤.08 and a comparative fit index (CFI) ≥.95 and, per Browne and Cudeck (1992), a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) below .10 indicates acceptable fit. In the initial model, χ²(26, N = 236) = 194.1, p = .0000, RMSEA = .166 (90% CI = .144 –.188), CFI = .896, and SRMR = .105. The RMSEA, CFI, and SRMR values did not meet minimum fit criteria, warranting further model modifications.
To improve model fit, items with the lowest factor loadings (Items 4, 6, and 7) were removed iteratively. Error covariance was introduced between Item 3, “One or more of my coworkers are NOT very good at their job, but they seem to have a close working relationship with my boss anyway,” and Item 5, “One or more of my coworkers are NOT very trustworthy, but they seem to have a close working relationship with my boss anyway,” based on theoretical justification. The revised model demonstrated a reasonable fit: χ²(7, N = 236) = 21.913, p = .0003, RMSEA = .095 (90% CI = .052–.141), CFI = .987, and SRMR = .033. The revised model was thus adopted for further hypothesis testing.
Results
This study first sought to elucidate the interrelationships among four forms of workplace gossip: negative gossip about supervisors, negative gossip about coworkers, positive gossip about supervisors, and positive gossip about coworkers. There is a positive relationship between negative supervisor workplace gossip and negative coworker workplace gossip (r = .662, p < .001), indicating that individuals who engage in negative gossip about their supervisors are also likely to engage in negative gossip about their coworkers. A weak correlation was found between negative supervisor gossip, positive supervisor gossip (r = .129, p = .047), and positive coworker gossip (r = .259, p < .001). Furthermore, the results indicated a weak but significant correlation between negative coworker gossip and positive supervisor gossip (r = .257, p < .001) and a moderate positive relationship with positive coworker gossip (r = .431, p < .001). A positive correlation was found between positive supervisor gossip and positive coworker gossip (r = .640, p < .001). Here, notice the strong relationships between negative-negative and positive-positive forms of gossip, which suggests a contagious quality to gossip valence. Negative gossip about bosses is associated with negative gossip about coworkers and vice versa. Meanwhile and encouragingly positive gossip about bosses is associated with positive gossip about coworkers.
Hypothesis 1 posited the relationship between perceived LMX and the four forms of workplace gossip. Correlation analysis showed that perceived LMX is positively associated with positive workplace gossip about supervisors (r = .439, p < .001) and coworkers (r = .228, p < .001). Hypotheses 1c and 1d proposed that there was a negative relationship between perceived LMX and negative workplace gossip about supervisors and coworkers. The correlation analysis revealed that perceived LMX was negatively associated with negative workplace gossip about supervisors (r = −.459, p < .001) and coworkers (r = −.165, p = .011). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported.
Hypothesis 2 concerned the relationship between perceived LMX injustice and the four types of workplace gossip. Hypotheses 2a and 2b were confirmed, as the results showed that perceived LMX injustice is positively associated with negative workplace gossip about supervisors (r = .480, p < .001) and coworkers (r = .340, p < .001). Hypotheses 2c and 2d proposed perceived LMX injustice is negatively associated with positive workplace gossip about supervisors and coworkers. Hypothesis 2c is supported with the correlation result (r = −.240, p < .001). However, Hypothesis 2d did not receive empirical support, with a nonsignificant beta coefficient (r = −.035, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. Please see Table 1 for a correlation matrix.
Correlation Matrix.
p < .05. **p < .001.
Discussion
Theoretical Implications
This study revealed the dynamics of four forms of WG (i.e., negative and positive gossip about supervisors and coworkers). The significant positive correlation between negative gossip about supervisors and coworkers indicates a generalized propensity for engaging in negative gossip among certain individuals. This suggests that negative gossip, rather than being situation specific, may be part of some individuals’ common communicative behavior in the workplace. However, it is critical to note that engagement in negative gossip does not preclude individuals from participating in positive discussions. Our findings reveal that individuals who engage in negative gossip about their supervisors also participate in positive gossip, though it is infrequent and limited. Conversely, those who engage in negative gossip about coworkers demonstrate a more pronounced tendency to engage in positive conversations, indicating a differential pattern of gossip behavior based on the subject (supervisors vs. coworkers). Moreover, individuals who engage in positive gossip about supervisors are also inclined to engage in positive discussions about coworkers.
Secondly, the findings resonate with the work of Kuo et al. (2018), which found that supervisor gossip influences LMX. By examining the relationship between perceived LMX and various forms of workplace gossip, the current research confirmed the relationship in a similar direction. When employees perceive their relationship with the leader as strong and supportive, they are more likely to engage in positive gossip, such as complements (Ellwardt et al., 2012; Lance Frazier et al., 2010). This reinforces the notion that high-quality LMX contributes to a more positive and supportive communication environment within organizations, contributing to positive organizational outcomes. By contrast, the negative association between perceived LMX and negative gossip about supervisors and coworkers highlights the detrimental effects of poor leader-member relationships on organizational communication. This aspect of our findings resonates with the work of Duffy et al. (2002), which found that negative interpersonal relations could lead to adverse organizational outcomes, including increased conflict and reduced job satisfaction. The present study extends these findings by explicitly linking lower quality leader-member relationships with the propensity to engage in negative gossip, which can contribute to negative organizational outcomes.
Perceived LMX injustice and negative gossip about both supervisors and coworkers underscores the critical role of perceived equity in shaping organizational discourse. This suggests that perceptions of injustice within leader-member relationships may act as a catalyst for negative gossip. The support for Hypothesis 2c, indicating a negative relationship between perceived LMX injustice and positive gossip about supervisors, further emphasizes the impact of LMX dynamics on gossip. Conversely, the lack of empirical support for Hypothesis 2d, with a nonsignificant relationship between perceived LMX injustice and positive gossip about coworkers, suggests that the determinants of positive gossip about coworkers may be less influenced by perceptions of LMX injustice.
Practical Implications
This study contains a number of practical implications for the workplace. First, given the finding that positive workplace gossip is associated with perceptions of strong LMX relationships, leaders should take care to cultivate good relationships with their employees. Not only may this increase positive gossip, but through this study, we have demonstrated that it can mitigate negative gossip. Negative gossip is associated with perceptions of injustice in LMX. Therefore, leaders should attempt to intervene on these perceptions through practices such as regular contact, fostering a climate of receptivity to feedback, and equal treatment of employees. Negative gossip can be mitigated through the above practices, as well as repudiation with factual support, facilitating strong team relationships, and encouraging positive talk in the workplace (Attiah & Alhassan, 2022).
Limitations and Conclusion
This study has several limitations. First, it is important to acknowledge that this study does not account for gossip about subordinates, which could also be a significant aspect of workplace gossip. Second, the study did not address who individuals were gossiping with, which could affect the nature and interpretation of the gossip. Third, while this study focuses on perceptions of fairness within LMX, it does not address other forms of organizational justice, such as procedural justice, distributive justice, or interactional justice (Colquitt, 2001). These dimensions of justice also contribute to employees’ overall sense of fairness and are important considerations for future research.
Leader-member relationships are consequential. The present study builds on extant research by confirming the validity of the LMX Injustice scale. Additionally, this study revealed (1) a positive relationship between LMX and positive gossip and (2) a positive relationship between perceived LMX injustice and negative gossip. Though gossip is sometimes viewed as a gendered, frivolous activity (Rysman, 1977), our research demonstrates that these conversations can have a measurable effect on leader-member relations. Workplace gossip—either positive or negative—warrants the attention of organizational leadership.
Footnotes
Appendix
LMX Injustice Scale.
| LMX Injustice | |
|---|---|
| Name | Item |
| Injustice01 | One or more of my boss’s employee(s) do NOT deserve to be as close as they are with him/her. |
| Injustice02 | I CANNOT understand why my boss has a close working relationship with some of my coworkers. |
| Injustice03 | One or more of my coworkers are NOT very good at their job, but they seem to have a close working relationship with my boss anyway. |
| Injustice04 | My boss’s “inner-circle” of employee(s) seems totally unjust. |
| Injustice05 | One or more of my coworkers are NOT very trustworthy, but they seem to have a close working relationship with my boss anyway. |
| Injustice06 | I totally understand why my boss’s closest employees have his/her trust. |
| Injustice07 | The employees my boss chooses to maintain strong working relationships with makes sense. |
| Injustice08 | I completely understand who gets to be my boss’s “go-to” subordinate. |
| Injustice09 | I completely understand who gets to be my boss’s “right hand” employee. |
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
