Managers can limit workplace gossip through solid and timely information

During a recent workshop I facilitated in Uganda, the participants started complaining about gossip. As the discussion developed they had a go at defining what gossip is.

I turned to the Internet for help and found this helpful one-liner: “Gossip is idle talk or rumour, especially about the personal or private lives of others.”

The word derives from the old English godsibb, the term for godparents. Female relatives and neighbours, I learned, would gather around the scene of a birth for a women-only social event at which they would chatter together, giving rise to the verb that was first used by Shakespeare.

Until today, rightly or wrongly — gossip is associated with women. Workplace gossip has unambiguously negative connotations.

At best it is a time-waster, and more often than not it is downright disruptive — if not malicious. It is everywhere, and all but a few stoics love nothing more than to indulge in it.

Many places have their “office gossips”, who built their reputation by seeking and spreading sensational stories about their colleagues.

It is their core competence, and a dangerous one at that. For much as everyone loves to hear juicy tittle-tattle from such people about their colleagues, they are probably aware that they too are likely to be the subject of the gossip’s gossip.

As it is said, once they stop talking to you they start talking about you. Why would you be the only exception? Gossip is far more prevalent in some workplaces than others.

It thrives in untrusting cultures, where cliques form and manoeuvre, and where insiders scheme to outwit “opponents” and “competitors”.

These may come from another ethnic or racial group, they may be from another department, or perhaps they are a manager — or management as a whole.

In his recently published memoirs Damian McBride, the spin doctor to former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, confessed that he used to “lie without lying” to discredit and destroy those he perceived to be against his boss. No wonder this professional gossip was known as McPoison.

Often it is the managers themselves who relish hearing gossip, priding themselves on “having their ear to the ground”, and being up to speed on what’s being transmitted “on the grapevine”.

For, as I know from my own experience, otherwise the boss is typically the least likely to know what mischief is going on! As for the quality of the information they access from their internal sources, well that’s another matter.

The key is the motive of information whisperers. As they pass on their intelligence, is it to further some personal or factional cause, at the expense of other individuals or groups?

Or is it objective, and helpful to resolving problems? What are the credibility and reputation of the gossipers?

In assessing the quality of gossip, it’s helpful to observe what happens in the game of Chinese Whispers, in which a message is whispered along a line of people until the last player announces it to the group.

Distortions accumulate in the retellings, so the statement made by the last player differs dramatically from the one sent by the initiator.

Some managers over-rely on gossips, and then rush to impulsive action on the basis of the last person to feed them with a sensational piece of breaking news.

Indeed, gossips know how to stimulate the response they seek. They are expert at generating emotions of sympathy or outrage, portraying the subjects of their story as either villains or victims, and being experienced at the game they are only too credible.

Whether we are leaders or followers we must be aware of the choices available to us when confronted with gossip. We can discourage it, or even block it and rise above it; we can listen to it, store it and test it; we can buy it wholesale, and sell it on to others.

If we do so we may dilute it or strengthen it; send it on as we heard it or twist it; just treat it as news or attach our editorial comment.

It is for each of us to know the difference between responsible and irresponsible behaviour, and to make the right decision — knowing how tempting it is to “pass on something you like about someone you don’t”.

May be powerful

Gossips may be sought out, and they may be powerful. Yet to be branded one — particularly as a spreader of negative gossip — is never helpful to one’s reputation. You may be useful to some individuals or groups, but you will not be trusted or liked, and not taken entirely seriously.

You must equally beware of developing a reputation for being over-reliant on gossips as the source of information, or for allowing their input to be unduly significant when making decisions.

Finally, how do leaders create an environment in which gossip finds limited space? It is by providing solid, comprehensive and timely information that allows less scope for rumour and speculation.

In open societies it is hard for conspiracy theories to gather momentum, or for their promoters to gain credibility.

Yet many leaders fail to create such environments. They are scared to share too much about what’s happening because they fear it may be misunderstood or misused.

They also justify their meanness with information by saying it’s unnecessary or too time-consuming. But while such concerns are understandable, they fail to take account of the unintended consequences of the resulting information vacuum.

It is the space that is filled by gossips, who rejoice in their freedom to invent and speculate, relishing the mischief and the malice. Don’t tell me I didn’t warn you.