august, 2009 | 1 lea ellwardt university of groningen / ics joe labianca university of kentucky...
Post on 28-Mar-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
August, 2009 | 1
Lea EllwardtUniversity of Groningen / ICS
Joe LabiancaUniversity of Kentucky
Rafael WittekUniversity of Groningen / ICS
Who Are the Objects of Positive and Negative Gossip at Work?
| 2August, 2009
Why Study Gossip?
› Informal, sozializing ties affect organizational outcomes
› Workplace gossip as mechanism to reinforce solidarity and ostracism of colleagues from network
› Gossip = “informal evaluative talking about absent colleagues”
› Need to distinguish between positive and negative gossip
› To date hardly research on objects of gossip
| 3August, 2009
Gossip Triad: Who Are the Objects?
gossip object
gossip sender gossip receiver
| 4August, 2009
Main Propositions
Types of Gossip› Positive gossip as means for interpersonal affection
and solidarity› Negative gossip as means for social control and
ostracism
Gossip as Group Process› Employees simultaneously embedded in work groups
and organizational network› Group membership and social position in the broader
network determine likelihood of being gossiped about
| 5August, 2009
Group-level Hypotheses› Employees of a group are goal interdependent› Benefits of socializing within group› Costs of negative gossip high within groups
(solidarity norm), but much lower outside groups› Use negative gossip against rivaling groups for
social comparison, group identity, discrimination
H1: Positive gossip is about employees from the gossipers’ work group.
H2: Negative gossip is about employees outside the gossipers’ work group.
| 6August, 2009
Network-level Hypotheses
› Again, invest solidarity in important others: people high in social status (bask in glory, hope for reciprocity)
› High costs of negative gossip due to supporters and retaliation
› Low costs of negative gossip about low-status people → no defenders (“picking on the weak”)
H3: Positive gossip is about people high in social status. H4: Negative gossip is about people low in social status.
| 7August, 2009
› Negative gossip as means for norm enforcement and ostracism by the entire group
› Uneven distribution among colleagues, focus on single individuals (“picking on a few”)
› Social norm to dislike someone black sheep
H5: Negative gossip in organizational networks is concentrated on a small number of objects (“scapegoats” or “black sheep”).
Network-level Hypotheses
| 8August, 2009
Model
Ostracism
Negative gossip about an employee
Solidarity
Positive gossip about an employee
Solidarity
Positive gossip about an employee
-
+
+
-
Social status in the informal network
Centrality in friendship network
Social status in the informal network
Centrality in friendship network
Shared group membership
Formal work units in the organization
Shared group membership
Formal work units in the organization
Ostracism
Negative gossip about an employee
Ostracism
Negative gossip about an employee
H1
H2
H3
H4 H5
| 9August, 2009
Research Design
› Data collection in Spring 2008› One department in a medium-sized Dutch child
care organization› Population: mostly female social workers in part-
time› Flat hierarchy: one line-manager supervises all
others
› Computer-assisted questionnaire› Response rate = 83%› N = 30
| 10August, 2009
Measures› Dependent variables
Gossip about colleagues (negative and positive)› Independent variables
Formal work groupsSocial status = in-eigenvector centrality in
friendship network (UCINET VI)
› ControlsSocial relationships (valued network)Contact frequency (valued network)Job satisfaction (attribute)
| 11August, 2009
Peer-rated gossip about colleagues
› “Alter gossiped about object”
› Reduced biases of social desirability and self-serving attribution
› Reduced impact of non-response
› cf. research on bullying
object
ego(informant)
alter
| 12August, 2009
Method of Analysis
› Exponential Random Graph Modeling (ERGM), also called p* model
› Statistical package: SIENA-p* in STOCNET
› Two models: • Negative/mixed gossip network• Positive gossip only network overlap was eliminated
| 13August, 2009
Negative Gossip – Scapegoating
Circle sizes represent social status (in-eigenvector
friendships)
| 14August, 2009
Positive Gossip – broadly distributed
Circle sizes represent social status (in-eigenvector
friendships)
| 15August, 2009
Positive Gossip
About Colleagues Negative Gossip
About Colleagues
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE
Controls: Job satisfaction Objects -0.09 0.07 -0.17 0.11 Gossipers 0.10 0.06 -0.42** 0.14 Similarity 0.10 0.30 0.20 0.45
Dyadic relationships Shared group membership 0.78*** 0.20 0.58* 0.27 Relationship quality 0.14+ 0.07 -0.28** 0.11 Contact frequency 0.01 0.04 0.30*** 0.08
Social status in network Objects 0.07 0.10 -0.31* 0.13 Gossipers 0.26** 0.10 0.19 0.16 Similarity 0.06 0.29 0.08 0.40
Network statistics Alternating in-k-stars -0.12 0.38 1.04*** 0.27 Alternating out-k-stars 0.63* 0.30 0.47 0.30 Reciprocity 1.01** 0.34 1.03* 0.42 Transitive triplets 0.21*** 0.02 0.22** 0.08 3-cycles -0.44*** 0.09 -0.24 0.17 Alternating k-triangles 0.13 0.18 -0.11 0.21
ERGM Results
picking on the weak
scape-goating
| 16August, 2009
Conclusion & Discussion
› Choice of gossip object driven by group solidarity and social status
› Social status affects positive and negative gossip differently group picking scapegoats (bullying)
› Shared group membership leads to both positive and negative gossip showing and reinforcing solidarity within groups (social control) inderdependence creates any type of gossip
| 17August, 2009
Conclusion & Discussion
Limitations› Context specific findings› Cross-sectional design
Future research› Elaborate on outcomes of gossip:› Ostracism and integration of individuals over
time (structural holes vs. closure)
August, 2009 | 18
Thank you for listening!
…Questions or comments?
top related