DOCSLIB.ORG

Workplace Gossip, Paranoia, and a Deviance Dilemma

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Workplace Gossip, Paranoia, and a Deviance Dilemma WORKPLACE GOSSIP, PARANOIA, AND A DEVIANCE DILEMMA: A WARNING FOR DEVIANCE/CWB RESEARCH by Daniel Brady A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2018 © Daniel Brady 2018 Examining Committee Membership The following individuals served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. The decision of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner M. Gloria González-Morales Associate Professor, Department of Psychology Supervisor Douglas J. Brown Professor, Department of Psychology Internal Member D. Ramona Bobocel Professor, Department of Psychology Internal-external Member Alan Webb Professor, School of Accounting and Finance Other member James W. Beck Associate Professor, Department of Psychology ii Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. iii Abstract Organizational research has long conceptualized workplace gossip as a form of deviance and included gossip in many measures of deviance and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). However, empirical evidence regarding the nature of workplace gossip is extremely limited. In this paper, five studies are performed with the goal of addressing three fundamental research questions: (1) is workplace gossip a form of deviance, (2) why is there so much confusion surrounding workplace gossip, and (3) how does treating workplace gossip as a form of deviance affect organizational research? Together, the research advances our theoretical and conceptual understanding of workplace gossip and deviance/CWBs. Further, it advances our understanding of paranoia, a construct which has an important, but previously overlooked relationship with workplace gossip and deviance/CWBs. Evidence from this research indicates that workplace gossip is not a form of deviance/CWB, and that paranoia uniquely affects perceptions of workplace gossip, making workplace gossip appear more like a form of deviance/CWB than it otherwise would without the influence of paranoia. Importantly, the long-standing practice of treating workplace gossip as a form of deviance/CWB can have a significant, and potentially very misleading, effect on organizational research. Specifically, including workplace gossip in deviance/CWB measurement can result in false discoveries of deviance/CWBs and systematic measurement contamination which significantly biases relationship estimates between deviance/CWB and other commonly-studied variables. Overall, treating workplace gossip as a form of deviance/CWB clouds our understanding of deviance/CWBs and can dramatically increase the probability of Type I/II errors in deviance/CWB research. Implications, recommendations, and future research directions are discussed. Keywords: workplace gossip, measurement, deviance, CWB, paranoia iv Acknowledgments This research was made possible through the support of many people. I am grateful for my time at the University of Waterloo. Its culture of support and research excellence has been vital to my research, and has given me the opportunity to develop my skills as a researcher and enabled my quest for knowledge of organizational psychology. I would specifically like to thank my advisor, Doug Brown, for his feedback and mentorship throughout my time in graduate school. He has provided me with the rare balance of autonomy and support that I needed to pursue the research that I was passionate about. Graduate school is hard, and Doug was both a mentor and friend. I truly appreciate the time that I have spent as his student. I would also like to thank the faculty in the I/O Psychology department for their advice and feedback on my research. In particular, I would like to thank Ramona Bobocel for pushing me to be a better researcher. Her passion for psychometrics and research methods invigorated my interest in measurement, and helped lay the groundwork for much of my subsequent research. I would also like to specifically thank James Beck, whose patience and training helped me to reach new heights as a researcher. When I teach, I find myself repeating his words to my students. Finally, I would like to thank Laurie, Shaggy, and Charlie. It was Laurie’s passion for learning which drew me to graduate school, and academia more broadly. Without her love, support, and patience, this research would not have been possible. v Table of Contents Examining Committee Membership .............................................................................................. ii Author’s Declaration ..................................................................................................................... iii Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Workplace Deviance/CWBs ............................................................................................... 4 Workplace Gossip and the Deviance Categorization .......................................................... 5 Is Workplace Gossip a Form of Deviance? ........................................................................ 8 Why is There so Much Workplace Gossip Confusion? .................................................... 14 What is the Effect of Treating Workplace Gossip as Deviance? ...................................... 17 Phase/Study Preview ......................................................................................................... 21 Phase 1: Testing if Workplace Gossip is a Form of Deviance ..................................................... 23 Study 1 – Examining Social Control Influences ............................................................... 23 Participants and Procedure .................................................................................... 23 Analysis and Results ............................................................................................ 26 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 30 Phase 2: Testing Why There is so Much Confusion Surrounding Workplace Gossip ................ 33 Study 2 – Examining Threat and Paranoia ....................................................................... 33 Participants and Procedure .................................................................................... 33 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 35 Phase 3: Testing the Effect of Inaccurately Treating Workplace Gossip as Deviance ................. 41 Study 3 – Identifying Workplace Gossip Items in Deviance Measurement ..................... 41 Participants and Procedure ................................................................................... 44 Results and Discussion .......................................................................................... 45 Study 4 – Verifying that the Identified Items Assess Typical Workplace Gossip............ 50 Participants and Procedure ................................................................................... 51 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... 52 Study 5 – Experimental Study of the Effect of Treating Workplace Gossip as Deviance 55 Participants and Procedure ................................................................................... 56 Measures ............................................................................................................... 57 Analysis and Results ............................................................................................ 58 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 62 Follow-up Analysis of Item-Context Effects ....................................................... 67 General Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 71 Recommendations and Research Agenda ......................................................................... 72 Practical Implications........................................................................................................ 78 Strengths and Limitations ................................................................................................. 81 vi Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 84 References ....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How to Recognize Workplace Bullying and Harassment
    How to recognize Workplace bullying and harassment The Workers Compensation Act explains the rights and responsibilities of employers and workers as they relate to workplace health and safety. These obligations include preventing and addressing workplace bullying and harassment, as outlined in WorkSafeBC’s Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) policies D3-115-2, D3-116-1, D3-117-2. Under these OHS policies, employers must train supervisors and workers to recognize the potential for bullying and harassment in the workplace. Examples of bullying and harassment Definition Not all inappropriate, offensive, or disrespectful WorkSafeBC’s OHS policies use the conduct is bullying and harassment. The phrase “bullying and harassment” as a behaviour must be humiliating or intimidating single term, which: to be considered bullying and harassment. The (a) includes any inappropriate conduct following are some examples of behaviour or or comment by a person towards comments that might suggest bullying and a worker that the person knew or harassment is taking place: reasonably ought to have known • verbal aggression or insults; calling someone would cause that worker to be derogatory names humiliated or intimidated, but • vandalizing personal belongings (b) excludes any reasonable action taken • sabotaging someone’s work by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of • spreading malicious gossip or rumours workers or the place of employment. • engaging in harmful or offensive initiation practices Intent does not determine whether the behaviour • physical or verbal threats (this could also is bullying and harassment. A person cannot constitute “violence” or “improper activity or excuse their behaviour by saying he or she did behaviour” under the Occupational Health and not intend it to be humiliating or intimidating.
    [Show full text]
  • Whistleblower Protection Act
    WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ProtectedProtected WhistleWhistle BlowingBlowing • An employee, former employee, or applicants for employment • Makes a disclosure which he/she reasonably believes evidences: – A violation of a law, rule, or regulation – Gross mismanagement – Gross waste of funds – Abuse of authority – Substantial and specific danger to public health or safety • To a supervisor, high ranking agency official or the Inspector General – Fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement must be reported to the Inspector General Reprisal/RetaliationReprisal/Retaliation • Whistleblower Protection Act also prohibits acts of reprisal or retaliation for making a protected disclosure (see previous slide) • Reprisal or retaliation can include but are not limited to imposing or unreasonably refusing the following: – Adverse action or disciplinary action – Detail or reassignment – Appointment – Promotion – Decisions concerning pay, benefits or awards – Performance evaluations (positive or negative) • Act of retaliation should be reported to the OIG and/or EAC management – OIG can protect employees against retaliation and reprisal ProtectedProtected DisclosuresDisclosures • Violation of any law, • Gross mismanagement rule or regulation – More that a difference of – Need not involve a specific opinion type of waste, fraud or – Not simple negligence or abuse wrongdoing – Can include violations of – Management action or agency policy or procedure inaction that creates a – Must be a substantive
    [Show full text]
  • Workplace Incivility: What Do Targets Say About It?
    Workplace Incivility: What Do Targets Say About It? Priyanka V. Doshy Texas A&M University Jia Wang Texas A&M University Every year millions of people fall prey to workplace incivility. Although current literature attempts to discuss the nature of workplace incivility, its impact, outcomes, and solutions, researchers stated that further work is required to understand this complex phenomenon. Thus, the purpose of this paper was to understand how workplace incivility is manifested in organizations and ways in which targets cope with uncivil behaviors. Findings suggest that power dynamics, perpetrators intentions and personality, and lack of organizational policies play a huge role in inhibiting workplace incivility that result in targets facing detrimental consequences. Implications for research and practice are provided. INTRODUCTION Workplace incivility is steadily rising with the changing nature of work in the new millennium (Estes & Wang, 2008; Roscigno, Hudson, & Lopez, 2009). Every year millions of people fall prey to workplace incivility. Pearson and Porath (2009) reported that about one-fourth of the workers they polled in 1998 received rude treatment once or more in a week. By 2005 that number had risen to nearly half; about 95 percent reported experiencing incivility from their coworkers (Pearson & Porath, 2009). It is terrifying yet a reality that incivility prevails in all types of organizations, ranging from Fortune 500 companies, medical firms, government agencies, to national sports organizations, academia, and many other for-profit and non-profit organizations (Person & Porath, 2005). Researchers have conceptualized workplace incivility in various ways with an attempt to capture the complexity and intensity of the phenomenon. For instance, Rau-Foster (2004) described workplace incivility as “subtle rude or disrespectful behavior that demonstrates lack of regard for others” (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Is It Harassment? Workplace Gossip Is No Joking Matter
    425-454-4233 sebrisbusto.com Employment Law Note March 2019 Is it Harassment? Workplace Gossip Is No Joking Matter By Jillian Barron, [email protected] locked her out, then discussed the rumor during the Few workplaces are entirely free from gossip meeting. When Parker sought to discuss the rumor with and rumors. Employers typically consider such Moppins, he blamed her for bringing the situation to the chatter an annoying but inevitable part of workplace. He said he had had “great things” planned for social interactions among their employees, something to her, but he could no longer recommend her for promotions be ignored if possible. Supervisors sometimes join in the or higher-level tasks and would not allow her to advance discussions of other employees’ personal lives. They may further because of the rumor. In a later meeting he told even pass on rumors themselves. As a recent federal Parker he should have terminated her when she began appeals court case demonstrates, however, gossip can “huffing and puffing about this BS rumor,” and he began perpetuate discriminatory stereotypes and, if left screaming at her. The rumor continued to spread, resulting unchecked, lead to an unlawful hostile work environment. in Parker being treated with resentment and disrespect by The problem is compounded when supervisors accept or other employees. contribute to a rumor instead of putting a halt to it. Parker filed a sexual harassment complaint against Moppins and Jennings with Human Resources (“HR”). The Case: Parker v. Reema Consulting Jennings then submitted his own complaint with HR, Services (4th Cir. 2019) alleging Parker was creating a hostile work environment for him.
    [Show full text]
  • Gossip, Exclusion, Competition, and Spite: a Look Below the Glass Ceiling at Female-To-Female Communication Habits in the Workplace
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2013 Gossip, Exclusion, Competition, and Spite: A Look Below the Glass Ceiling at Female-to-Female Communication Habits in the Workplace Katelyn Elizabeth Brownlee [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Organizational Communication Commons Recommended Citation Brownlee, Katelyn Elizabeth, "Gossip, Exclusion, Competition, and Spite: A Look Below the Glass Ceiling at Female-to-Female Communication Habits in the Workplace. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2013. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1597 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Katelyn Elizabeth Brownlee entitled "Gossip, Exclusion, Competition, and Spite: A Look Below the Glass Ceiling at Female-to-Female Communication Habits in the Workplace." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Communication and Information. Michelle Violanti, Major Professor We have read this thesis
    [Show full text]
  • Employees' Reactions to Their Own Gossip About Highly
    BITING THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU: EMPLOYEES’ REACTIONS TO THEIR OWN GOSSIP ABOUT HIGHLY (UN)SUPPORTIVE SUPERVISORS By JULENA MARIE BONNER Bachelor of Arts in Business Management and Leadership Southern Virginia University Buena Vista, VA 2007 Master of Business Administration Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 2012 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 2016 BITING THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU: EMPLOYEES’ REACTIONS TO THEIR OWN GOSSIP ABOUT HIGHLY (UN)SUPPORTIVE SUPERVISORS Dissertation Approved: Dr. Rebecca L. Greenbaum Dissertation Adviser Dr. Debra L. Nelson Dr. Cynthia S. Wang Dr. Isaac J. Washburn ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The road to completing this degree and dissertation has been a long, bumpy one, with plenty of ups and downs. I wish to express my gratitude to those who have helped me along the way. Those who provided me with words of encouragement and support, those who talked me down from the ledge when the bumps seemed too daunting, and those who helped smooth the path by taking time to teach and guide me. I will forever be grateful for my family, friends, and the OSU faculty and doctoral students who provided me with endless amounts of support and guidance. I would like to especially acknowledge my dissertation chair, Rebecca Greenbaum, who has been a wonderful mentor and friend. I look up to her in so many ways, and am grateful for the time she has taken to help me grow and develop. I want to thank her for her patience, expertise, guidance, support, feedback, and encouragement over the years.
    [Show full text]
  • Incivility, Bullying, and Workplace Violence
    AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION POSITION STATEMENT ON INCIVILITY, BULLYING, AND WORKPLACE VIOLENCE Effective Date: July 22, 2015 Status: New Position Statement Written By: Professional Issues Panel on Incivility, Bullying and Workplace Violence Adopted By: ANA Board of Directors I. PURPOSE This statement articulates the American Nurses Association (ANA) position with regard to individual and shared roles and responsibilities of registered nurses (RNs) and employers to create and sustain a culture of respect, which is free of incivility, bullying, and workplace violence. RNs and employers across the health care continuum, including academia, have an ethical, moral, and legal responsibility to create a healthy and safe work environment for RNs and all members of the health care team, health care consumers, families, and communities. II. STATEMENT OF ANA POSITION ANA’s Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements states that nurses are required to “create an ethical environment and culture of civility and kindness, treating colleagues, coworkers, employees, students, and others with dignity and respect” (ANA, 2015a, p. 4). Similarly, nurses must be afforded the same level of respect and dignity as others. Thus, the nursing profession will no longer tolerate violence of any kind from any source. All RNs and employers in all settings, including practice, academia, and research, must collaborate to create a culture of respect that is free of incivility, bullying, and workplace violence. Evidence-based best practices must be implemented to prevent and mitigate incivility, bullying, and workplace violence; to promote the health, safety, and wellness of RNs; and to ensure optimal outcomes across the health care continuum.
    [Show full text]
  • A Researcher Speaks to Ombudsmen About Workplace Bullying LORALE IGH KEASHLY
    Journal of the International Ombudsman Association Keashly Some Things You Need to Know but may have been Afraid to Ask: A Researcher Speaks to Ombudsmen about Workplace Bullying LORALE IGH KEASHLY ABSTRACT In the early 1990’s, I became interested in understand- ing persistent and enduring hostility at work. That Workplace bullying is repeated and prolonged hostile interest was spurred by a colleague’s experience at mistreatment of one or more people at work. It has the hands of her director. He yelled and screamed tremendous potential to escalate, drawing in others at her (and others), accusing her of not completing beyond the initial actor-target relationship. Its effects assignments, which she actually had. He lied about can be devastating and widespread individually, her and other subordinates. He would deliberately organizationally and beyond. It is fundamentally a avoid when staff needed his input and then berate systemic phenomenon grounded in the organization’s them for not consulting with him. At other times, he culture. In this article, I identify from my perspective was thoughtful, apologetic, and even constructive. My as a researcher and professional in this area current colleague felt like she was walking on eggshells, never thinking and research findings that may be useful for sure how he would be. Her coworkers had similar ombudsmen in their deliberations and investigations experiences and the group developed ways of coping as well as in their intervention and management of and handling it. For example, his secretary would these hostile behaviors and relationships. warn staff when it was not a good idea to speak with him.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Negative Workplace Gossip on Knowledge Sharing
    sustainability Article The Influence of Negative Workplace Gossip on Knowledge Sharing: Insight from the Cognitive Dissonance Perspective Xiaolei Zou, Xiaoxi Chen * , Fengling Chen, Chuxin Luo and Hongyan Liu * School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China; [email protected] (X.Z.); [email protected] (F.C.); [email protected] (C.L.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (X.C.); [email protected] (H.L.) Received: 4 March 2020; Accepted: 15 April 2020; Published: 17 April 2020 Abstract: Increasing attention is drawn to the effect of workplace gossip on the organization. Negative workplace gossip is a negative evaluation of others behind their back in the workplace. Based on the cognitive dissonance theory, the study explored the relationship between negative workplace gossip and knowledge sharing, through the mediation of organizational trust and the moderation of self-efficacy. The regression results of a two-stage questionnaire survey on 173 Chinese employees suggested that negative workplace gossip negatively influenced employees’ knowledge sharing through organizational trust. Additionally, findings also showed that self-efficacy moderated the mediation of organizational trust in the relationship between negative workplace gossip and knowledge sharing. This research provided a new theoretical perspective on the impact of workplace gossip, which has management implications for informal communication and team-building. Keywords: workplace gossip; knowledge sharing; organizational trust; self-efficacy 1. Introduction Workplace gossip is defined as informal conversation or evaluation (i.e., positive or negative) about a member beyond the person’s hearing [1], typically involving unproven details. Just as a famous proverb says, ‘Good news never goes beyond the gate, while bad news spreads far and wide’, gossip spreads rapidly and influences broadly.
    [Show full text]
  • Gossip, Slander, and Talebearing Parashat Va-Yeishev, Genesis 37:1-40:23 | by Mark Greenspan
    Worse than Sticks and Stones: Gossip, Slander, and Talebearing Parashat Va-yeishev, Genesis 37:1-40:23 | By Mark Greenspan “Gossip, Slander, and Talebearing” by Benjamin Kramer (pp. 582) in The Observant Life Introduction According to Rabbi Kramer, the ability to express ourselves in words is central not only to our humanity but to the divine image in which we are created. Just as God created the world through language, we have the power to create or destroy worlds and lives by the way we use words. As soon as we begin to speak, we reveal to the world our true character. It is for that reason that the sages placed so much emphasis on the ethics of language. Yet where does one draw a line between good and bad words? Few people would argue with the suggestion that slander and defamation of character are wrong; yet it‟s hard to resist the temptation to engage in a tasty bit of gossip. Simple straight-forward words can sometimes be destructive in ways we never anticipated. We also live in a time when the destructive or constructive power of words is amplified by digital and social media. What type of ethic should we have for the means and goals of communication at the beginning of the twenty-first century? The ethics of language plays an important role in Jewish life. The Talmud devotes a good amount of space to this topic and Maimonides codified the laws of lashon ha-ra in the Mishneh Torah. And yet there can be no simple or obvious rules for „good talk‟ and „bad talk.‟ While we can easily identify „bad talk‟ it is not easy to know what type of conversation is appropriate and inappropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Mobbing in the Workplace and an Overview of Adult Bullying
    1: Introduction to Mobbing in the Workplace and an Overview of Adult Bullying Workplace Bullying Clinical and Organizational Perspectives In the early 1980s, German industrial psychologist Heinz Leymann began work in Sweden, conducting studies of workers who had experienced violence on the job. Leymann’s research originally consisted of longitudinal studies of subway drivers who had accidentally run over people with their trains and of banking employees who had been robbed on the job. In the course of his research, Leymann discovered a surprising syndrome in a group that had the most severe symptoms of acute stress disorder (ASD), workers whose colleagues had ganged up on them in the workplace (Gravois, 2006). Investigating this further, Leymann studied workers in one of the major Swedish iron and steel plants. From this early work, Leymann used the term “mobbing” to refer to emotional abuse at work by one or more others. Earlier theorists such as Austrian ethnologist Konrad Lorenz and Swedish physician Peter-Paul Heinemann used the term before Leymann, but Leymann received the most recognition for it. Lorenz used “mobbing” to describe animal group behavior, such as attacks by a group of smaller animals on a single larger animal (Lorenz, 1991, in Zapf & Leymann, 1996). Heinemann borrowed this term and used it to describe the destructive behavior of children, often in a group, against a single child. This text uses the terms “mobbing” and “bullying” interchangeably; however, mobbing more often refers to bullying by more than one person and can be more subtle. Bullying more often focuses on the actions of a single person.
    [Show full text]
  • Abusive Supervision and Workplace Deviance and the Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Beliefs
    Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 92, No. 4, 1159–1168 0021-9010/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159 Abusive Supervision and Workplace Deviance and the Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Beliefs Marie S. Mitchell and Maureen L. Ambrose University of Central Florida In this study, the authors examine the relationship between abusive supervision and employee workplace deviance. The authors conceptualize abusive supervision as a type of aggression. They use work on retaliation and direct and displaced aggression as a foundation for examining employees’ reactions to abusive supervision. The authors predict abusive supervision will be related to supervisor-directed deviance, organizational deviance, and interpersonal deviance. Additionally, the authors examine the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. They hypothesized that the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance would be stronger when individuals hold higher negative reciprocity beliefs. The results support this hypotheses. The implications of the results for understanding destructive behaviors in the workplace are examined. Keywords: abusive supervision, workplace deviance, reciprocity In the last decade, there has been increased interest in harmful standing employee reactions. From a justice perspective, employ- or destructive behaviors in organizations. Much of this research ees react to the perceived unfairness of the abusive supervisor’s focuses on deviant behaviors of employees. (See Bennett & Rob- behavior. When employees feel they are treated unfairly, positive inson, 2003, for a review.) However, recently, research has exam- attitudes and behavior suffer (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 1998). ined destructive behaviors managers commit—specifically, abu- Researchers also have used reactance theory as a foundation for sive supervision (e.g.
    [Show full text]