Artículo del mes en Ingles

1. * Acad&my of ManagemeTit Review
200D. Vol. 25, No. 2. 428-438.
NOTE
PASSING THE WORD: TOWARD A MODEL OF
GOSSIP AND POWER IN THE WORKPLACE
NANCY B. KURLAND
LISA HOPE PELLED
University of Southern California
Although gossip is widespread, seldom has it been a topic of management research.
Here we build a conceptual model oi workplace gossip and its eifects on the power oi
employees who initiate it. After defining and distinguishing among different kinds o(
workplace gossip, we develop propositions about Ihe effect of that gossip on gosslp-
ers' expert, referent, reward, and coercive power. We then suggest how moderators
may shape those effects and discuss implications of the model.
As early as the Hawthorne Studies (Roethlis- its definltion^despite Noon and Delbridge's
berger & Dickson, 1943), management scholars (1993) call for research on the topic. Thus, it is
recognized the existence of the informal organi- important to begin redressing this gap. In this
zation. Unlike the formal organization, which article we draw on writings from multiple disci-
appears in organization charts and reflects pre- plines to offer a definition and theoretical model
scribed patterns for officially sanctioned mes- of workplace gossip and its consequences.
sages, the informal organization consists of Models of general communication typically
spontaneous, emergent patterns that result from have been of two kinds. The first, most common
individuals' discretionary choices (Stohl, 1995: kind is the linear model (e.g., Berlo, 1960;
65). This informal network, also called the Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957; Shannon &
grapevine (e.g., Baird, 1977; Daniels, Spiker, & Weaver, 1949), in which the researcher treats
Papa, 1997), has received considerable attention communication as a "left-to-right, one-way" pro-
in the years since its discovery (e.g., Davis, 1953; cess (Rogers & Kincaid, 1981: 33). Key compo-
Katz & Kahn, 1978; Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993; nents of linear models are the source (person
Podolny & Baron, 1997). Still, there is a need for who initiates communication), message (content
closer examination of its specific components— of the communication), channel (transmission
for example, rumor, "catching up," and gossip medium), and receiver (person receiving the
(Goldsmith & Baxter, 1996). Accordingly, in this message; Ruch, 1989). Communication is viewed
article we explore one such component: work- as a process by which a message is transferred
place gossip. from an active source, through a channel, to a
Although psychologists (e.g.. Fine & Rosnow, passive receiver.
1978), sociologists (e.g., Eder & Enke, 1991), and The second kind of general communication
anthropologists (e.g., Dunbar, 1996) have exam- model is the convergence model (Rogers & Kin-
ined the nature and role of gossip in larger so- caid, 1981). In convergence models (e.g., Kincaid,
ciety, scholars have yet to develop a conceptual 1979; Pearce, Figgins, & Golen, 1984) researchers
model of workplace gossip—or even agree on treat communication as a two-way process. Sug-
gesting that participants in the communication
process are simultaneously sending and receiv-
We are grateful for comments Chris Earley and three ing messages, researchers developing these
anonymous reviewers provided. We also thank Tom Cum- models make less distinction between sender
mings, Janet Fulk, Bill Gartner, Mike Kamins, Peter Kim, and receiver. Instead, they delve into the rela-
Peter Monge, Nandini Rajagopalan, Kathleen Reardon, and
Patti Riley for their helpful comments and suggestions. tionships among communication participants,
Both authors contributed equally; our names appear in the larger social networks in which those rela-
alphabetical order. tionships exist, and the dynamic nature of com-
42S

2. 2000 Kurland and Felled 429
munication (e.g., how communication changes eration and impact of gossip (Burt & Knez, 1996;
its participants). Jaeger, Skelder, & Rosnow, 1998). Indeed, re-
To ensure practical value in communication searchers (Martin, Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin,
models, researchers may need to balance the 1983; Martin & Siehl, 1983) have observed that
simplicity of linear models with the complexity even an ostensibly minor story about one em-
of convergence models. As Smeltzer and Leo- ployee can ultimately transform a corporate cul-
nard have suggested, a communication model ture, if that story is shared by many organiza-
should "contain enough elements so that users tional members.
can relate their personal experiences and train- A complete network analysis of gossip is be-
ing to the model. But it must not become so yond the scope of our model, for as Burt and
complex that practitioners find it impossible to Knez note, even "a minimal assumption of active
understand" (1994: 32). Thus, our model lies be- third parties creates enormous complexity for
tween the linear and convergence categories. theoretical analysis" (1996: 72). Nevertheless, at
Like linear models, its primary emphasis is on several points in this article, we touch on how
the flow of a message (gossip) from source (gos- such networks play a role in gossip-power link-
siper) to receiver (gossip recipient).' However, ages.
with our model we improve on traditional linear
models by paying greater attention to the com-
munication context—specifically, the culture in KEY CONCEPTS IN THE PROPOSED MODEL
which gossip occurs. Also, the receiver in our
model has a more active role than in strict linear Definition and Types of Gossip
models: we consider the interplay between As prior researchers have noted (Jaeger et al.,
source and receiver—that is, how the relation- 1998; Schein, 1994), gossip traditionally has been
ship between gossiper and recipient moderates defined as idle chatter, chitchat, or the eviJ
the effects we propose. Additionally, we incor- tongue. These negative connotations largely
porate the receiver's reaction to the message in arose from religious writings (e.g., Exod. 23 : 1;
our model's dependent variable: the source's Lev. 19 :16; Prov. 25 :18). Many authors (e.g., Bok,
power over the receiver. The receiver's interpre- 1984) continue to treat gossip as improper and
tation of the gossip largely determines how overly subjective. Some, however, recently have
much power the source gains. offered neutral definitions, such as "evaluative
Power is the dependent variable in our model talk about a person who is not present" (Eder 8E
for several reasons. First, social scientists (e.g., Enke, 1991: 494) and "the process of informally
Berger, 1994; Giddens, 1984; Mumby, 1988) have communicating value-laden information about
suggested that communication in general tends members of a social setting" (Noon & Delbridge,
to shape power structures in organizations as 1993: 25). Unlike their negative counterparts,
well as society. Second, in extant writings on these more even-handed definitions allow for
gossip, scholars have hinted at linkages to gossip's functional as well as dysfunctional side
power (e.g., Emler, 1994). Third, power is a mul- (e.g., Dunbar, 1996; Tebbutt, 1995). Here, we draw
tidimensional construct (French & Raven, 1959; upon and adapt these neutral conceptualiza-
Hinkin & Schriescheim, 1989); as such, it has tions, defining workplace gossip as iniormal
sufficient breadth to capture a variety of work- and evaJuative talk in an organization, usually
place gossip effects. Finally, power is often a among no more than a few individuals, aJbouf
critical asset to employees (Pfeffer, 1992). another member of that organization who is not
Although the focus of our model is the gossiper- present.
recipient dyad, it is important to keep in mind Although laypersons and academics (e.g.,
that such dyads are embedded in social net- Ayim, 1994) occasionally may suggest that gos-
works. Mutual friends and acquaintances of the sip encompasses informal communication
gossiper and recipient can influence the prolif- about objects or events—not just people—our
treatment focuses on talk about other persons.
We delimit our definition in this manner for two
reasons. First, in scholarly writings on gossip in
' The source may be either a supervisor, subordinate, or
peer of the recipient. That is, the direction of gossip may larger society (e.g., Eder & Enke, 1991; Harris,
either be upward, doivnwfaid, or lateral. 1993; Rosnow & Fine, 1976), researchers predom-

3. 430 Academy oi Management Review April
inantly treat the concept as communication tential ability to influence behavior, to change
about people. Second, the American Manage- the course of events, to overcome resistance,
ment Association (AMA) recently asserted that and to get people to do things that they would
the grapevine may include a wide range of in- otherwise not do" (1992: 30). Finkelstein has re-
formal communication, whereas gossip focuses ferred to power as "the capacity of individual
solely on information about people (Smith, 1996). actors to exert their will" (1992: 507). Based on
lust as there are distinctions between gossip these writings and the writings of others (French
and other forms of informal communication, & Raven, 1969; House, 1988; Shackleton, 1995), we
there are important distinctions among different define power here as the ability to exert one's
kinds of gossip. A review of relevant literature will, influencing others to do things that they
points to three dimensions useful for making would not otherwise do. In the model we specif-
these distinctions: sign, credibility, and work- ically focus on the gossiper's power over gossip
relatedness. Following writings on feedback recipients.
(e.g., Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979), we define The multidimensionality of power is well rec-
sign as the positivity or negativity of the infor-
ognized. French and Raven (1959) advanced a
mation being related. When gossip consists of
typology of power that remains popular (e.g.,
favorable news about others—for example, stat-
ing that "Mary received a raise"—its sign is Atwater, 1995; Davis & Schoorman, 1997; Hinkin
positive. When gossip consists of unfavorable & Schriesheim, 1994), distinguishing among five
news about others, its sign is negative.^ kinds of power that one individual (whom we
call Person A) can have over another individual
Credibility is the extent to which the gossip is
believable—that is, it is seemingly accurate and (whom we call Person B): coercive power, reward
truthful. Message credibility has been the sub- power, legitimate power, expert power, and ref-
ject of considerable research in the fields of erent power.^ Although organizational scholars
communication, marketing, and social psychol- have offered other power typologies (e.g.,
ogy (e.g., Boehm, 1994; McCroskey, 1969; Slattery Finkelstein, 1992; Yukl & Falbe, 1991), French
8f Tiedge, 1992). A recent review attests to its and Raven's original classification is the most
importance as a communication feature (Self, widely accepted and adopted. Their typology is
1996). particularly useful for describing individual-
Consistent with prior literature (e.g.. Morrow, level power, which is the focus of our model.
1981; Tushman, 1979) in which authors have dis- Hence, our propositions pertain to four of these
tinguished between work-related and non-work- power types (coercive, reward, expert, and refer-
related communication, we distinguish among ent) that we expect gossip to influence. (We do
work-related (professional) and non-work- not consider legitimate power as an outcome
related (social) gossip. We define worfc-reJated- because it is largely based on one's position—
ness as the degree to which gossip is focused on that is, hierarchical rank—rather than on social
a subject's work life, such as job performance, processes.) Our predictions refer to the French
career progress, relationships with other organ- and Raven dimensions, but we draw from a
izational members, and general behavior in the range of power and influence writings to de-
workplace. velop those predictions.
Definition and Types of Power
Also essential to our model is the concept of ^ Coercive power is the power that emerges from Person
power. Pfeffer has described power as "the po- B's belief that Person A has the ability to punish him or her.
flewaid power is the power that emerges from Person B's
belief that Person A can provide him or her with desired
^ Within the categories of positive gossip and negative outcomes. Legitimate power is the power that emerges from
gossip, it is possible to make additional distinctions. For Person B's perception that Person A has a legitimate right,
example, gossip can be negative if it describes an unfortu- based on position in the organization, to influence him or
nate event that befell someone (e.g., a broken leg), but it can her. Expert power is the power that emerges from Person B's
also be negative if it describes unethical behavior. Here, we belief that Person A has special knowledge or expertise that
interpret gossip as negative when it constitutes a "smear" Person B needs. Finally, referent power is the power that
that could detract from a subject's reputation. Positive gos- emerges from Person B's attraction for and desire to be
sip, however, tends to enhance a subject's reputation. associated with Person A.

4. 2000 Kuiland and Pelled 431
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND relates negative news about a third party, recip-
HYPOTHESES ients may infer that the gossiper also could
Figure 1 presents our model. In the following spread negative information about them (Yerk-
sections we develop propositions about the il- ovich, 1977). Because such information can dam-
lustrated linkages. age reputations and/or careers (Emler, 1994;
Fine, 1977; Glazer & Ras, 1994; Tebbutt, 1995),
negative gossip may constitute an implicit
Linkages Between Gossip and Power threat by the gossiper. French and Raven (1959)
One main effect of negative gossip may be proposed that when Person B perceives that Per-
enhanced coercive power. When the gossiper son A can administer punishments. Person A
has coercive power over Person B. Along the
nGURE 1 same lines, other researchers (e.g.. Hunt &
Proposed Model of Gossip and Power Nevin, 1974; Tedeschi, 1972) have advanced the
notion that implicit and explicit threats can en-
hance power and influence.* Those who feel
Gossip features: threatened may comply in order to avoid retri-
- credibility
- work-relatedness
bution (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980).
Thus, negative gossip may give the gossiper
coercive power over recipients.
Reward
Proposifion i; 7n a wort seffing, nega-
power tive gossip will enhance the gossiper's
coercive power over gossip recipients.
Positive gossip, in contrast, is likely to affect
reward power. When a gossiper shares positive
news about another worker, recipients may infer
that the gossiper also could spread positive in-
Coercive formation about them. Because such information
power can strengthen reputations and/or careers, pos-
itive gossip shows the ability to distribute (al-
Positive beit indirectly) desired outcomes. French and
gossip
Raven (1959) suggested that when Person B per-
ceives that Person A has control over valued
outcomes. Person A has reward power over Per-
son B. Along the same lines, Etzioni (1961) pro-
posed that control of material and symbolic re-
Expert wards are a basis for power. Additionally,
Negatives power
gossip Emerson asserted that power "resides in control
'' There may be limits to the effectiveness ol implicit
threats (e.g., the threat of spreading negative information) in
attempts to gain power. First, if the gossiper has few con-
nections to others, recipients may be less concerned about
Referent the gossiper's ability to spread dark secrets. Second, some
power news—for example, information that is hard to remember—
may be especially difficult to spread (Zimbardo & Leippe,
t 1991), Third, as our Proposition 7 suggests, recipients may be
less afraid of the gossiper when they have a good relation-
ship with him or her. Moreover, those vrho do feel threatened
may strive to decrease their dependence on the person mak-
Context factors: ing the threat (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Tjosvold, 1995). As
- relationsh ip quality Bacharach and Lawler have noted, coercion "should be most
- organizati onal culture effective when the target is highly dependent on the user"
{1980: 177).

5. 432 Academy of Management Review April
over the things [another person] values In those who condemn gossip from an ethical
short, power resides implicitly in the other's de- standpoint will be especially hard pressed to
pendency" (1962: 32). Resource dependence the- find anything redeeming about negative gossip.
orists (e.g., Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977), too, have
advanced the notion that power comes from the Proposition 4a: In a work setting, gos-
control of relevant resources—resources that are sip will reduce the gossiper's referent
important to others. Hence, by revealing the gos- power over recipients. This effect will
siper's ability to control an important resource be stronger for negative gossip than
(reputation), positive gossip may give the gos- for positive gossip.
siper reward power over recipients. The competing argument is that gossip en-
Proposition 2: In a work setting, posi- hances referent power. As gossipers share
tive gossip will enhance the gossiper's news, they draw recipients into their social cir-
reward power over gossip recipients. cles (e.g., Dunbar, 1996; Eder & Enke, 1991). These
recipients, in turn, may appreciate being in-
Gossip in general, whether positive or nega- cluded. Moreover, through gossip, recipients
tive, is apt to influence expert power, for it can might realize that the gossiper is on the inside of
facilitate an exchange of data and help build a a social network. This realization is apt to make
knowledge base (e.g.. Code, 1994; Dunbar, 1996). recipients more interested in knowing and be-
When a gossiper shares information about oth- ing liked by the gossiper. Consistent with this
ers, the recipient may learn more about the or- notion, impression management scholars have
ganization's values. As Heath (1994) has ob- found that people can enhance their image by
served, stories shared by coworkers can help managing information about others with whom
employees understand principles by which their they are associated (Gardner & Martinko, 1988).
organization operates. Additionally, gossip can If gossip enhances referent power, this effect
reveal that the gossiper has relevant knowledge is apt to taper off at very high levels—that is, as
about persons in the work environment. As the the frequency of the gossip and the pool of re-
gossiper demonstrates such knowledge (an abil- cipients increase. As Levin and Arluke have ob-
ity that depends, in part, on the gossiper's net- served, a person who gossips too much "may
work centrality), the recipient may come to view become defined as a 'big mouth' or a 'yenta' who
the gossiper as a source of useful information, will 'talk to anyone about anything,' as a person
and the gossiper may thereby gain expert who cannot be trusted to keep a secret or to be
power. discreet with 'privileged information'" (1987; 16).
Proposifion 3: In a work setting, gossip Moreover, when gossipers talk incessantly
will enhance the gossiper's expert about others, they may become resented for us-
power over gossip recipients. ing so much of recipients' time. Thus, we offer
the following.
In the case of referent power, we expect gossip
to have competing effects. One possibility is Proposition 4b: In a work setting, gos-
that gossip reduces referent power, for gossip sip will have a curvilinear effect on
may be seen as a small or petty activity. As the gossiper's referent power over re-
mentioned earlier, in religious writings and cipients; it will enhance referent
other sources of guidance and education, gossip power until it reaches a very high
is often denounced as idle, immoral, or improper level, at which point it will detract
(Levin & Arluke, 1987). Socialized by such teach- from referent power.
ings, many persons perceive gossip as repre-
hensible, and they look down on those who en-
gage in the behavior. Gossip, therefore, may Moderators of Linkages Between Gossip and
detract from the referent power of the gossiper. Power
This effect is likely to be particularly pro- The strength of the above linkages may be
nounced when gossip is negative. As described influenced by characteristics of the gossip and
earlier, positive gossip can enhance the reputa- by contextual factors, including organizational
tion of its subjects, whereas negative gossip culture and the relationship between gossiper
tends to destroy subjects' reputations. Hence, and recipient.

6. 2000 Kmland and Pelled 433
Features of the gossip. As described earlier, perceive that the gossiper is attempting to mis-
one particularly relevant characteristic of gos- lead them. As Zucker (1986) has suggested, indi-
sip is its credibility. Upon reviewing a variety of viduals perceived as providing accurate infor-
empirical findings and conducting their own mation are more trusted than those who share
study. Slater and Rouner (1998) concluded that inaccurate knowledge.
message credibility has considerable influence
on judgments of source credibility.^ Thus, gossip Proposifion 5; The effects of gossip on
that lacks credibility can lead a recipient to coercive, reward, expert, and referent
view the gossiper as a noncredible source. Even power will be moderated by gossip
if the recipient's view of the gossiper is not credibility. Any tendency for gossip fo
widely held, he or she may assume that others enhance the four power types will be
share this view, for a common cognitive bias is stronger when credibility is high than
the faJse consensus effect: the tendency to over- when it is low. Any tendency for gos-
estimate the prevalence of one's own opinions sip to reduce referent power will be
or experiences (Kelley, 1967; Whitley, 1998). Ac- weaker when credibility is high than
cording to Fiske and Taylor, "Researchers con- when it is low.
sistently find that consensus information (i.e., Like credibility, the work-relatedness of gos-
the opinions or experience of others) is rela- sip may play a moderating role. Rewards (e.g.,
tively underutilized in the judgment process" high performance ratings and promotions) and
(1991: 93). They explain that those "who agree punishments in the organization (e.g., demo-
with us are more likely to come to mind when we tions and firings) are based largely on an em-
attempt to infer what others will believe" (1991: ployee's work-related behavior. It is, in fact, il-
75). Recipients, therefore, may infer that the gos- legal to take many personal events (topics of
siper also lacks credibility with others and will social gossip), such as marriage, a major illness,
not be believed when sharing negative or posi- or a change of housing, into account when de-
tive gossip. Hence, when gossip credibility is termining such rewards and punishments (Holl-
low, recipients are less likely to view the gos- witz, Goodman, & Bolte, 1995; Madison & Knud-
siper as someone with coercive or reward son-Fields, 1987). Although some managers still
power. consider those personal factors when allocating
In addition, credibility may affect the relation- resources, legislation (and the possibility of
ship between gossip and expert power. If recip- costly lawsuits) constrains their ability to do so.
ients believe that a gossiper's information is Thus, the employee who engages in work-
inaccurate, they may begin to question or doubt related gossip has a greater ability to influence
any future information the gossiper relays. As a rewards and punishments in the workplace than
result, that gossip will contribute less to, and does an employee who engages in gossip about
may detract from, the gossiper's expert power. In other topics.
line with this reasoning, Krackhardt (1990) has Work-related gossip is also particularly likely
found that employees with more accurate infor- to shape expert power. Fiske and Taylor (1991)
mation about the informal network have higher have pointed out that a given context can en-
reputational power than those whose informa- courage us to attend to some information more
tion is less accurate. than other information. Being in the workplace
Lack of credibility also may diminish any pos- makes employees particularly attuned to work-
itive link, and enhance any negative link, be- related information. When the recipient is in a
tween gossip and referent power. Recipients work context, "professional" topics such as a
may resent the gossiper who seems to relate person's salary, promotion, and recognition gen-
far-fetched or incorrect information, for they may erally have more relevance than do divorce,
plastic surgery, or other "social" topics. Thus, a
gossiper who provides work-related information
^ Although message and source credibility are conceptu- about others is especially likely to be used as an
ally distinct, they are often closely related. Indeed, credibil- information source and seen as an expert in the
ity is a complex feature, and that complexity may make it workplace.
more challenging to measure, compared to other features of
gossip. Those who test the proposed model should keep this In addition, the work-relatedness of gossip
caveat in mind. may diminish any negative link between gossip

7. 434 Academy ol Management fleview April
and referent power. Recipients are less likely to moderated by gossiper-recipient rela-
perceive the gossiper as wasting their time at tionship quality. Any tendency tor
the office when the gossip is relevant to that negative gossip to enhance coercive
setting. Hence, they will be less resentful of the power will be weaker when relation-
gossiper when the work-relatedness of gossip is ship quality is high. Any tendency for
high. positive gossip to enhance reward
power will be stronger when relation-
Proposition 6: The effects of gossip on ship quality is high.
coercive, reward, expert, and referent
power will be moderated by the work- Relationship quality also may shape gossip
relatedness of the gossip. Any ten- effects on referent power. Gossip is more likely
dency for gossip to enhance coercive, to enhance referent pow^er when the quality of a
reward, and expert power will be relationship is high. If the gossiper and recipi-
stronger when work-relatedness is ent have a close and trusting relationship, the
high. Any tendency for gossip to re- recipient is apt to view such gossip as appropri-
duce referent power will be weaker ate, for informal communication is characteris-
when work-relatedness is high. tic of high-quality relationships (Fairhurst, 1993;
Lee & Jablin, 1995). Consistent with this logic is
Gossiper-recipient relationship quality. Like "halo effect" research (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977),
the nature of the gossip, the context of that gos- which has revealed "a tendency to evaluate all
sip—specifically, the quality of the relationship components of a target person in the same way
between gossiper and recipient—may act as a once a general evaluation, positive or negative,
moderator. Relationship quality is the degree to is formed" (Fiske & Taylor, 1991: 256). Thus, in the
which a relationship is characterized by mutual context of a strong relationship, any positive
support, informal influence, trust, and frequent link between gossip and referent power will be
information exchange (Lee, 1998). Employees stronger. Also, when relationship quality is
who have a habit of gossiping with each other, high, recipients who frown upon gossip in gen-
for example, can be characterized as having a eral may be more forgiving of the gossiper.
high relationship quality. Much of the literature Hence, any negative link between gossip and
on relationship quality pertains to supervisor- referent power will be weaker.
subordinate dyads or leader-member exchange
theory (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975), but Proposition 8: The effect of gossip on
one can also characterize peer relationships in referent power will be moderated by
terms of relationship quality (Kram & Isabella, gossiper-recipient relationship qual-
1985). ity. Any tendency for gossip to en-
Negative gossip is less likely to enhance co- hance such power will be stronger
ercive power when relationship quality is high. when relationship quality is high. Any
If a recipient trusts a gossiper, that recipient tendency for gossip to reduce such
may believe the gossiper will avoid harming power will be weaJcer when reiafion-
him or her. Even if the gossiper is spreading ship quality is high.
negative news about others, the recipient may
be confident that his or her own dark secrets will Organizational culture. Another moderating
not be revealed by that gossiper. contextual factor may be organizational cuJfure:
Positive gossip, however, is more likely to en- the "system of shared values (that define what is
hance reward power when relationship quality important) and norms that define appropriate
is high. A recipient who is a close friend of a attitudes and behaviors for organizational
gossiper may believe that gossiper will try to members (how to feel and behave)" (O'Reilly &
help him or her when possible. Thus, if that Chatman, 1996: 160). In some organizations the
gossiper is spreading positive news about oth- culture advocates considerable formal commu-
ers, the recipient is especially likely to think the nication, while discouraging informal communi-
gossiper will do the same for him or her. cation (Smeltzer & Leonard, 1994). If there is a
cultural injunction against informal communi-
Proposition 7: The effect of gossip on cation, then employees will be constrained in
coercive and reward power will be their use of gossip to spread news about others.

8. 2000 Kurland and Pelled 435
Gossip recipients may recognize these con- refined conceptualization and specific predic-
straints and conclude that gossipers have few tions about the phenomenon. On the practitioner
opportunities to help or harm reputations. The side, the proposed framework illustrates that,
effect of gossip on reward and coercive power, contrary to the adage "small people talk about
therefore, will be weaker. other people," gossip can make a person quite
Also, when culture encourages formal commu- "large" in an organization. At the same time, the
nication and discourages informal communica- model shows conditions under which gossip
tion, organizational members may not look to may backfire. An understanding of such dynam-
gossip as a source of information. Evidence has ics of gossip is likely to help organizations and
shown that individuals refrain from an informa- their members capitalize on this widespread
tion-seeking strategy if they expect the strategy genre of informal communication.
to have high social costs (Miller & Jablin, 1991).
In an antigossip culture, seeking information
from a gossiper may have such costs. Conse-
quently, it may be difficult for the gossiper to REFERENCES
gain expert power via gossip. Atwater, L. 1995. The relationship between supervisory
The link between gossip and referent power, power and organizational characteristics. Group and
too, may be shaped by culture. An antigossip Organization Management, 20: 460-485.
culture may reinforce a recipient's belief that Ayim, M. 1994. Knowledge through the grapevine: Gossip as
gossip is wrong or immoral. Thus, any tendency inquiry. In R. F. Goodman 8t A. Ben-Ze'ev (Eds.), Good
gossip: 85-99. Lawrence: University oi Kansas Press.
for gossip to reduce referent power will be stron-
ger when the culture discourages such informal Bacharach, S, B., & Lawler, E. J. 1980, Power and politics in
orgranizafions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
communication.^
Baird, I. E. 1977. The dynamics o/ organizafionai communi-
Proposition 9: The effects of gossip on cation. New York: Harper & Row.
coercive, reward, expert, and referent Berger, C. R. 1994. Power, dominance, and social interaction.
power will be moderated by organiza- In M. L. Knapp & G. R, Miller (Eds.), Handbook of inter-
tional culture. Any tendency for gossip personal comniunication: 450-507. Thousand Oaks, CA:
to enhance coercive, reward, and ex- Sage.
pert power will be weaker when the Berlo, D. K. 1960. lilie process of communication: An introduc-
culture discourages informal commu- tion to theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, St
Winston.
nication. Any tendency for gossip to
reduce referent power will be stronger Boehm, L. E. 1994. The validity effect: A search for mediating
variables. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
when the culture discourages infor- 20: 285-293.
mal communication.
Bok, S. 1934. Secrets: On tJie ethics of concealment and rev-
elation. New York: Vintage.
CONCLUDING REMARKS Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. 1996. Trust and third-party gossip, In
R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations:
The proposed model contributes to both man- 68-89. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
agement research and practice. On the aca- Code, L. 1934. Gossip, or in praise oi chaos, ln R. F. Goodman
demic side, it is—to the authors' knowledge— & A. Ben-Ze'ev (Eds.), Good gossip: 100-106. Lawrence:
the first theoretical model of workplace gossip University of Kansas Press.
and its consequences. Noon and Delbridge (1993) Daniels, T., Spiker, B., & Papa, M. 1997. Perspectives on or-
took a significant step with their thought- ganizational communicaiion (3rd ed.). Madison, WI:
provoking discussion of gossip in organizations Brown and Benchmark.
and their call for research on the topic. Our Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. 1975. A vertical dyad
model takes their work a step further, offering a approach to leadership within formal organizations.
OrgranizafionaJ Beliavior and Human Performance, 13:
46-78.
Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1997. Toward a stewardship
^ It is possible that some employees will reject the values theory of management. Academy of Management Re-
of the dominant culture and appreciate the individual who
view, 22: 20-47.
goes against it (e.g., by gossiping in an antigossip culture).
These employees may respect that gossiper ior taking such Davis, K. 1953. A method of studying communication patterns
a risk. in organizations. Personnel PsychoJogy, 6: 301-312.

9. 436 Academy of Management Review April
Dunbar, R. 1S96. Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of lan- the Americans with Disabilities Act: Assessing the costs
guage. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press. oi reasonable accommodation. Public Personnel Man-
Eder. D., & Enke, J. L. 1991. The structure of gossip: Opportu- agement, 24: 149-157.
nities and constraints on collective expression among House, R. J. 1988. Power and personality in complex organi-
adolescents. American Sociological fleview, 56: 494-508. zations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Aesearch
Emerson, R. M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American in organizational behavior, vol. 10: 305-357. Greenwich,
Sociological Review, 27: 31-41. CT: JAI Press.
Emler, N. 1994. Grossip, reputation, and social adaptation. In Hunt, S. D., 8E Nevin, J. R. 1974. Power in a channel of distri-
R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze'ev (Eds.), Good gossip: 117- bution: Sources and consequences. Journal of Marketing
138. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. Research, 11: 186-193.
Etzionl, A. 1961. A comparative analysis of complex organi- Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. 1979. Consequences
zations: On power, involvement, and their correlates. of individual feedback on behavior in organizations.
New York: Free Press. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 349-371.
Fairhurst, G. T. 1993. The leader-member exchange patterns Jaeger, M. E., Skelder, A. A., & Rosnow, R. L. 1998. Who's up on
ol women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. the low down: Gossip in interpersonal relations. In B. H.
Communication Monographs, 60: 321-351. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close
relationships: 103-117. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Fine, G. A. 1977. Social components oi children's gossip. Associates.
Journal of Communication, 27(1): 181-18S.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organi-
Fine, G. A., & Rosnow, R. L. 1978. Gossip, gossipers, gossip-
zations. New York: Wiley.
ing. PersonaJit]r and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4:
161-168. Kelley, H. H. 1967. Attribution theory in social psychology. In
Finkelstein, S. 1992. Power in top management teams: D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium oa motivation, vol.
Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of 15: 192-240. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Managemenl Journal 35: 505-538. Kincaid, D. L. 1979. The convergence model of communica-
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognifion. New York: tion. Paper 18. Honolulu: East-West Communication In-
McGraw-Hill. stitute.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. 1959. The bases oi social power. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, L 1980. Intraorgani-
In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power: 150-167. zational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social way. /ournai of Applied Psychology, 65: 440-452.
Research. Krackhardt, D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape:
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. 1988. Impression management Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Ad-
in organizations. Journal of Management, 14: 321-339. ministrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342-369.
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the Krackhardt, D., & Hanson. J. R. 1993. Informal networks: The
theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review,
71(4): 104-111.
Glazer, I. M, & Ras, W. A, 1994.On aggression,human rights,
and hegemonic discourse: The case of a murder ior Kram. K, E., & Isabella, L. A. 1985. Mentoring alternatives:
family honor in Israel. Sex Roles, 30: 269-288. The role of peer relationships in career development.
Academy of Management Journal, 28: 110-132.
Goldsmith, D. J., & Baxter, L. A. 1996. Constituting relation-
ships in talk: A taxonomy of speech events in social and Lee, J. 1998. Maintenance communication in superior-
personal relationships. Human Communication fle- subordinate relationships: An exploratory investigation
search, 23: 87-114. of group social context and the "Pelz effect." Southern
Communication/ournai, 63: 144-159.
Harris, T. E. 1993. Applied organizational communication:
Perspectives, principles, and pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lee, J., 8t Jablin, F. M. 1995. Maintenance communication in
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. superior-subordinate work relationships. Human Com-
munications Researcli, 22: 220-257.
Heath, R. L. 1994. Management of corporate communication:
From interpersonal contacts to external affairs. Hills- Levin, J., & Arluke, A. 1987. Gossip: The inside scoop. New
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. York: Plenum.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. 1989. Development and Madson, R. B., & Knudson-Fields, B. 1987. The law and em-
application of new scales to measure the French and ployee-employer relationships: The hiring process.
Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Management Solutions, 32(2): 12-20.
Psychology, 74: 561-567. Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. 1983. The
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. 1994. An examination of uniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Adminis-
subordinate-perceived relationships between leader re- trative Science Quarterly, 28: 438-453.
ward and punishment behavior and leader bases of
Martin, J., & Siehl, C. 1983. Organizational culture and coun-
power. Human Relations, 47: 779-800.
terculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dy-
Hollwitz, J., Goodman, D. F., & Bolte, D. 1995. Complying with namics, 12(2): 52-64.

10. 2000 Kudand and Pelled 437
McCroskey, ]. C. 1969. A survey oi experimental research on Self, C. C. 1996. Credibility. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks
the effects oi evidence in persuasive communication. (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory
Speech Monographs, 55: 169-176. and research: 421-442. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. 1991. Information seeking during Associates.
organizational entry: Influences tactics, and a model of Shackleton, V. 1995. Business leadership. London: Routledge.
the process. Academy ol Management Review, B: 92-120.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. 1949. The mathematicaJ theory
Morrow, P. C. 1981. Work related communication, environ- ol communication. Urbana: University of Itlinois Press.
mental uncertainty, and subunit effectiveness: A second
look at the iniormation processing approach to subunit Slater, M. D., Si Rouner, D. 199B. How message evaluation and
communication. Academy of Management Journal 24: source attributes may influence credibility assessment
351-858. and belief change. Journalism and Mass Communication
QuarterJy, 73: 974-991.
Mumby, D. K. 1988. Communicafion and power in organiza-
tions: Discourse, ideology, and domination. Norwood, NJ: Slattery, K., & Tiedge, J. T. 1992. The effect oi labeling staged
Ablex Publishing. video on the credibility of TV news stories. Journal ol
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. 1977. The halo effect: Evidence Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 36: 279-286.
for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal ol Per- Smeltzer, L. R., & Leonard, D. J. 1994. Managerial communi'
sonality and Social Psychology, 35: 250-256. cation.- Strategies and applications. Boston: Irwin.
Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. 1993. News from behind my hand: Smith, B. 1996. Care and ieeding of the oifice grapevine.
Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14: 23-36. Management fleview, 85: S.
O'Reilly, C. A., Ill, & Chatman, I. A. 1996. Culture as social Stohl, C. 1995. OrganirationaJ communication: Connectod-
control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. In B. M. ness in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), flesearch in organization-
al behavior, vol. 13: 157-200. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tabbutt, M. 1995. Women's talk? A social history ol "gossip"
in working class neighborhoods, 1830-19B0. Brookiieid,
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaura, P. H. 1957. The VT: Ashgate.
measurement ol meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press. Tedeschi, J. T. 1972. The social influence process. Chicago:
Aldine-Atherton.
Pearce, C, Figgins, R., & Golen, S. 1984. Principles ot busi-
ness communication.- Theory, appJicaHon, and technoJ- Tjosvold, D. 1995. Effects of power to reward and punish in
ogy. New York: Wiley. cooperative and competitive contexts. Journal ol Social
Psychology, 135: 723-736.
Pieffer, J. 1992. Managing with power: Politics and influence
in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Tushman, M. L. 1979. Impacts oi perceived environmental
Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. 1997. Resources and relation- variability on patterns of work related communication.
ships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. Academy oi Management Journal 22: 482-500.
American SocioJogicaJ Review, 62: 673-693. Whitley, B. E. 1998. False consensus on sexual behavior
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. 1943. Management and among college women: Comparison oi iour theoretical
(he worier. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. explanations. Journal ol Sex Research, 35: 206-214.
Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. 1981. Comrounication networks. Yerkovich, S. 1977. Gossiping as a way of speaking. Journal
New York: Free Press. ol Communication, 27(1): 192-196,
Rosnow, R. I., & Fine, G. A. 1976. flumor and gossip: The Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. 1991. Importance oi different power
social psychology oi hearsay. New York: Elsevier. sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal oi
Ruch, W. V. 1989. JntemaHonaJ handhoolr of corporate com- Applied Psychology, 76: 416-423.
munication. Jefierson, NC: McFarland. Zimbardo, P. G., 8r Leippe, M. R. 1991. The psychology oi
Salancik, G. R., & Piefier, J. 1977. Who gets power—and how attitude change and social influence. New York:
they hold on to it: A strategic contingency model of McGraw-Hill.
power. Organizational Dynamics, 5(3): 2-21. Zucker, L. G. 1986, Production of trust: Institutional sources of
Schein, S. 1994. Used and abused: Gossip in medieval soci- economic structure, 1840-1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
ety. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze'ev (Eds.), Gfood gossip: Cummings (Eds.), flesearch in organizational behavior,
139-153. Lawrence: University oi Kansas Press. vol. 3: 53-111. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Nancy B. Kurland is an assistant professor oi management and organization in the
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, where she teaches
courses in organizational behavior, business ethics, and leadership. She received her
Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh. She researches gossip, telecommuting, gender
issues, the social impact of technology, and ethics and incentives.

11. Academy of Management Review April
Lisa Hope Pelled is an assistant professor of management and organization in the
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, where she teaches
courses in organizational behavior, managing interpersonal relations, and multicul-
tural management. She received her Ph.D. from Stanford University. Her research
areas include organizational demography, workplace emotions, communication, and
conflict.