8DeGouveia.qxd


Communication can take place in many forms, such as face to

face, telephonic, in newspapers, on television, and via email.

Albeit an essential component of every organisation,

communication has its limitations. Although it can confidently

be said that no business will ever survive without

communication, at some stage communication (in the informal

sense) can be construed as gossip. Office gossip and rumours

have for the most part been accepted as part of the work

environment with the areas containing the coffee machine and

the water-cooler providing seemingly perfect and comfortable

settings for gossip. Systems such as the Internet and email

facilitate the quick spreading of undesirable communication.

Greengard and Samuel (2001) state that in today’s malicious

society, the nature and intensity of gossip have become more

severe. Employees will always communicate facts, events and

occurrences around them, but when do they cross the line

between healthy communication and malicious gossip?

In a corporate world where transparency, honesty and openness

are encouraged in employees, one wonders to what extent these

workplace values could be misconstrued. To what extent are

employees required to display honesty? For example, if Tom, a

corporate manager, communicates to Margaret, his co-worker,

about an in-office affair between some senior managers, he is

clearly being open, honest and transparent in communicating

these facts to his co-worker. At some point, however, he may have

breached confidentiality or pried into someone’s personal life.

Values such as these clearly have boundaries. 

One could speculate on the connection between ethics and

workplace gossip. Rossouw and Van Vuuren (2004) explain that

ethics is concerned with what is good for the ‘self’ and the

‘other’. It can be said that gossip in the workplace could strain

ethical values such as trust, respect and care for others. If this

is so, codes of ethics that prohibit gossip would prove essential.

If codes of ethics are instruments that guide morally acceptable

behaviour in an organisation, the development of such codes

could raise the ethical awareness of the negative effects of

gossip in the workplace. In addition, codes could have the

capacity to prevent unethical behaviour such as that of gossip

in the workplace by encouraging desirable conduct. Therefore,

a clear understanding of this phenomenon and its parameters

could assist in the development of codes of ethics that

correctly identif y workplace gossip and similarly assist in 

the promotion of ‘healthy talk’ and the dissuasion of gossip in

the workplace. 

Furthermore, one needs to investigate the link between trust and

workplace gossip. Trust is the foundation of relationships and

should be a by-product of the decisions and actions of people

carrying out the business of their organisations (Reina & Reina,

1999). A lack of trust might foster suspicion in a variety of

circumstances. Such circumstances include situations where

perceivers have forewarnings that another might be insincere or

untrustworthy, or situations in which their expectations have

been violated. In addition to the above, circumstances in which

situational cues are recognised or possess contextual

information that suggests another person might have ulterior

motives could also lead to gossip breaking down trust in an

organisation (Kramer, 1999). 

Although the phenomenon of gossip is a familiar and obvious

part of everyday life, this construct is not necessarily

understood, especially in the work context. There is a need to

understand this phenomenon because organisations could

experience increased staff turnover, premature job resignations,

as well as the loss of efficient and effective employees, due to the

effects of gossip in the workplace. Furthermore, gossip could

also undermine an individual, a group or organisation, break

down trust between employees, and strain ethical values such as

openness, transparency and honesty. Consequences such as

these could decrease staff morale, motivation and interpersonal

respect between employees. The rationale behind this article is

to increase awareness in companies that gossip in the workplace

can be malicious and detrimental to work relationships, ethical

CM DE GOUVEIA

LJ VAN VUUREN

A CRAFFORD
Department of Human Resource Management

University of Johannesburg

ABSTRACT 
In today’s communication-driven world, informal communication can at some point be construed as malicious

gossip. Literature shows that certain areas of gossip are insufficiently studied, such as how gossip is defined in the

workplace, when communication is construed as gossip, and what characteristics highlight the parameters between

healthy communication and gossip. This research is of value because workplace gossip could have direct

implications on trust in workplace relationships, might undermine principles espoused by corporate governance and

could therefore lead to higher staff absenteeism and turnover. A qualitative research study was undertaken to explore

individual constructions surrounding this phenomenon. Data was collected from structured individual interviews

and the technique of card sorting, and a grounded theory analysis resulted in the formulation of a working

definition of the concept, the identification of its parameters as well as the development of a typology of gossip in

the workplace. The implications of the findings are discussed.

OPSOMMING 
’n Tipologie van skinder in die werkplek. Informele kommunikasie in organisasies neem soms die vorm aan van

kwaadwillige skinder. Dit word afgelei uit die literatuur dat die verskynsel van skinder – hoe dit in die werkplek

gedefinieër, wanneer kommunikasie as skinder beskou kan word, en die eienskappe wat die parameters van gesonde

kommunikasie teenoor skinder toelig – tot op datum ontoereikend bestudeer is. Die waarde van meer begronde

navorsing oor hierdie verskynsel is daarin geleë dat skinder in die werkplek direkte implikasies vir onder andere

vertroue in die werkplek mag hê (wat weer die beginsels van korporatiwe beheer mag ondermyn), en kan lei tot

afwesigheid en arbeidsomset. Kwalitatiewe navorsing is onderneem om individue se konstruksies van skinder as

verskynsel te verken. Data is versamel deur middel van gestruktureerde onderhoude en die tegniek van

kaartsortering, waarna begronde teorie in ’n werksdefinisie vir die konsep, die parameters daarvan, en ’n tipologie

vir skinder in die werkplek geresulteer het. Die implikasies van die bevindinge word voorgehou.

TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF GOSSIP IN THE WORKPLACE

Requests for copies should be addressed to: LJ van Vuuren, ljvv@rau.ac.za

56

SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 2005, 3 (2), 56-68

SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 2005, 3 (2), 56-68



behaviour and trust. By identif ying a clear and unambiguous

understanding of gossip and its parameters there can be general

consensus on what really constitutes gossip in the workplace,

and when communication is acceptable or unacceptable. The

specific outcomes of this article are to develop a working

definition for gossip in the workplace, identif y its parameters

and develop a typology of gossip in order to provide a bigger

and clearer picture of gossip within the realm of informal

communication. From a behavioural perspective, these

outcomes could prove essential in the scientific and empirical

understanding of this phenomenon.

Research in this area could contribute to better orientation,

training and development programmes that could aid managers

in identif ying, dealing with and ultimately preventing the

effects of gossip in the workplace. The extent to which

employees need to display work values such as honesty,

openness, fairness and transparency can also be established once

there is a clearer understanding of this phenomenon. Finally,

this research could aid in the development of future strategies to

counter gossip in the workplace. 

GOSSIP IN THE WORKPLACE

Communication systems consist of formal and informal

communication systems. The phenomenon of gossip falls under

informal communication systems. Therefore, for the purposes of

this article, only informal communication systems will be

highlighted. Figure 1 was developed by the authors to represent

informal communication systems graphically. Within informal

communication systems, there are grapevine communication

networks that consist of rumours and gossip. The grapevine is a

major informal communication medium in an organisation –

rumours are often a rapid form of grapevine communication

that spread quickly and uncontrollably, and once initiated are

difficult to stop (Crampton, Hodge & Mishra, 1998). Kurland and

Pelled (2000) explain that while the grapevine includes a wide

range of informal communication, gossip focuses specifically on

information about people. Figure 1 shows that rumours and

gossip can have both positive and negative effects. One would

ideally want to promote the positive effects and avoid the

negative ones.

Figure 1: A Pattern of Informal Organisational

Communication Systems

The concept of gossip has traditionally referred to idle chatter

and chit-chat (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). It was only due to

religious writings through the years that the concept acquired a

somewhat negative connotation. Readings from the Christian

Bible such as the following depict the negative connotation and

evil tongue associated with gossip: 

‘The godless man uses his mouth to destroy his neighbor but the

virtuous use their wisdom to save themselves. Gossip reveals secrets,

but the trustworthy man keeps a secret.’ (Proverbs 11: 9, 13)

The Koran also includes comments on gossip:

‘God has heard the speech of her who wrangled with you about

her husband, and complained to God; and God hears your gossip;

verily, God both hears and sees.’ (Koran Sura 58: The Pleader of

Madina)

Similarly, gossip in Hebrew is called ‘Lashon Harah’, which

means ‘the evil tongue’, and the Torah outlaws gossip, true or

false, about others or even oneself (Hecht, n.d). Below is a quote

from the Torah in this regard:

‘Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy

people.’ (Leviticus 19:16)

Kurland and Pelled (2000) explain that these religious writings

emphasised the immoral and improper aspects of gossip, and

many individuals began to look down upon those who gossiped.

More scientific and secular definitions of gossip include a

definition by Kurland and Pelled (2000) who define workplace

gossip as informal and evaluative talk in the organisation among

a few individuals about another member of the organisation

who is not present. Evaluative talk refers to the assessment of

individuals in terms of their work and personal life. A further

definition is provided by Barnhart and Barnhart (1994) who

define gossip as idle talk, which is not always true, about other

people and their affairs. For the purposes of this article, the term

‘gossip’ refers to the talk that takes place between employees in

a work environment (at any organisational/job level or within

any industry) about other people’s personal or non-personal

issues. This is the working definition of the concept - it may be

regarded as provisional until the research findings are discussed

in a later section.

Common aspects of gossip

Kurland and Pelled (2000) propose three dimensions for making

distinctions bet ween t ypes of gossip, namely the sign,

credibility and work-relatedness. The ‘sign’ refers to the

positivity or negativity of the information being related (refer to

Figure 1). To illustrate this point, assume you were told that a

colleague had just established that her daughter had been

accepted to university. This information is positively related.

However, if it was said that a colleague was getting divorced, this

information would be negatively related as it conveys negative

information. Credibility is the extent to which gossip is seen as

truthful, accurate and believable. The assumption here is that the

less reliable the information, the less it will be believed and the

more the gossiper will be seen as an unreliable source. The last

dimension is work-relatedness, which distinguishes between

work-related gossip and non-work-related gossip. Work-related

gossip is information that focuses on the subjects’ work life, job

performance and career progression, for example, obtaining a

promotion, or being fired or transferred. Non-work-related

gossip focuses on personal events such as marriage, illness or

divorce. It would appear that work-related gossip is typically

more readily believed than non-work-related gossip (Kurland &

Pelled, 2000). 

Waddell and Laing (2004) point out that in order to be

‘effective’, gossip needs to: (1) travel well, (2) meet the needs of

the gossiper, (3) create excitement, (4) appeal to fear, and (5)

reflect the wishes and feelings of staff. It is further important to

note that gossip could be a complete fabrication, slight variation

of the truth, mean spirited or a grotesque distortion of reality.

TYPOLOGY OF GOSSIP IN THE WORKPLACE 57



As Waddell and Laing (2004) explain, gossip is seldom pleasant,

especially if it is to be remembered for a long time. It can

therefore be said that gossip is detrimental to relationships, and

in this light negative gossip equals unethical behaviour because

it can create high levels of tension and emotional strain.

Effects of gossip in the workplace

The effects of workplace gossip are twofold. There are adverse

effects for both the organisation and the individual.

Effects on the organisation: Organisations that suffer the

consequences of gossip are generally unable to maintain the

status quo and control, and trust between employees is lacking

(Baker & Jones, 1996). Burg and Palatnik (2003) compare gossip

to a virus and indicate that it can affect the bottom line and

ultimately kill a business. They go on to say that the harm caused

by venomous ‘water-cooler’ talk works steadily and over time

affects morale and productivit y, resulting in sick days,

resignations and premature job searchers as victims of malicious

gossip feel alienated, hurt and embarrassed. 

Effects on the individual: Becoming the object of someone’s

ridicule means that victims of gossip suffer feelings of

victimisation, betrayal, degradation and embarrassment

(Greengard & Samuel, 2001). This hurt and anger mounts until

eventually there are consequences, for instance, productivity

decreases or the company loses a valuable employee. In their

hurt, victims could suffer depression and a lack of self-esteem,

and then lose the motivation to perform on the job.

Individuals’ job satisfaction decreases and in most cases work

relationships and trust bet ween employees break down,

resulting in a divided workforce.

Reflecting on the literature review

While the literature review provides some information on gossip

as far as it can be established, certain areas are not clarified,

namely what is gossip in the workplace, when is communication

construed as gossip, and what elements or characteristics

highlight the parameters between healthy communication and

gossip? This phenomenon needs to be understood better

because in addition to the effects of gossip mentioned above,

gossip in the workplace could (1) have direct implications on

trust in workplace relationships, (2) undermine principles

espoused by corporate governance, especially transparency, and

therefore (3) lead to higher turnover and the loss of efficient and

productive employees. Workplace gossip could also be linked to

the straining of ethical values such as respect and care. The grey

areas surrounding this phenomenon make further research

essential in order to understand the concept of gossip

scientifically. Qualitative research was believed to be an

appropriate way to yield such an understanding. 

RESEARCH DESIGN

In order to learn more about the phenomenon of gossip and

develop a definition and parameters for the concept, qualitative

research would be most appropriate as it would allow for the

scrutiny of gossip as a social phenomenon in the workplace. The

research was approached from a qualitative perspective because

this approach allows for research to take place within the natural

settings of the social sector, has a descriptive nature and aims to

understand and interpret the meaning and intentions that

underlie everyday human action (Mouton, 1988). A variety of

qualitative research paradigms exist such as the classic,

modernist and post-modernist traditions (Denzin & Lincoln,

1994). Since we believe that scientific rigour is important in

qualitative research, we opted for a modernist qualitative

research approach. This approach is characterised by the

interpretation of reality by means of formalised qualitative

methods and the understanding of rigorous data analysis, for

example grounded theory (Schurink, 2004). The approach

focuses on an interpretive perspective because people are

believed to construct meaning and interpret experiences from

their own unique perspective (Neuman, 2000). In this study, the

aim was to understand how people construct the phenomenon of

gossip in the workplace. Since not much has been written on

gossip in general and specifically gossip in the workplace, it was

decided that grounded theory would be used as a research

strategy. Grounded theory provides a consistent set of data

collection and analytical procedures aimed at developing theory

directly from the data and not from preconceived concepts or

hypotheses (Strauss & Corbin, 1997). This would allow one to

identif y the parameters of gossip and begin to develop and

expand on the theory of gossip in the workplace. Grounded

theory is primarily inductive, and beginning with individual

cases, incidents and experiences, it allows for the development of

more abstract conceptual categories. It allows the analyst to

synthesise, explain and understand the data, and to identif y

patterned relationships within it (Strauss & Corbin, 1997). For

the purposes of this article, the research design will be discussed

in five sections, namely data-gathering techniques, adhering to

quality concerns, research participants, research procedure and

analysis of data. Figure 2 depicts the research design graphically.

Figure 2: Research Design

Data-gathering techniques

Structured individual interviews as well as the technique of card

sorting were the qualitative methods used for this research. The

qualitative interview is a uniquely sensitive and powerful

method of capturing the experiences and ‘lived’ meanings of

subjects’ everyday world (Kvale, 1996). It was our belief that by

using interviews, we could arrive at the perspectives of how

participants create meaning within the realm of gossip. By

structuring the interviews, we were able to focus on specific

aspects aimed at developing theory on the topic. 

The card-sorting technique was used in conjunction with the

structured interview as a second data-capturing technique. Card

sorting is a type of structured question aimed at exploring the

organisation of an informant’s cultural knowledge, which leads

to the discovery and verification of certain terms and concepts

(Spradley, 1979). This provides a non-invasive way to find out not

only what people know, but also how they have organised

knowledge, and helps in the ‘unpacking’ of concepts to

understand them and their meanings better (Spradley, 1979). 

DE GOUVEIA, VAN VUUREN, CRAFFORD58



Adhering to quality concerns

To ensure trust worthy findings, objectivit y, reliabilit y and

validit y were considered. Although complete objectivit y 

can never be achieved in an interview, it can be realised 

to some degree and therefore researchers strive for 

scient ific object ivit y by developing their own value 

system. This is referred to as the Münchhausen Objectivit y

developed by Smaling (1989), which states that by developing

a value system, the researcher can decrease the degree of

subjectivit y. This was achieved in the research by allowing

the participant to speak and by listening actively in order 

to do justice to the object of the study. To ensure reliabilit y,

triangulation was used and included a structured interview, 

a card-sorting exercise and participant field notes (written

records of analysis related to the formulation of theory).

Careful consideration was given to issues of sampling

(discussed below) and in order to manage the volumes of 

data generated from the process of grounded theory, data-

gathering was spread over t wo months to avoid information

overload and researcher burnout. To ensure the validit y of 

the research findings, we remained within the framework of 

the quest ions posed and kept field notes to capt ure 

relevant events and the state of affairs. These were studied on

a regular basis.

In addition to the adherence of the above quality concerns,

theoretical sensitivity was considered during the analysis of the

data. Strauss and Corbin (1997) explain that this is the degree of

sensitivity that the researcher brings to the study based on

experience in the field and previous readings. The literature

review ensured theoretical sensitivity during the analysis, which

was further achieved through the use of questioning, the

analysis of words and phrases, and the use of the flip-flop

method of comparison (making a comparison at the extreme of

one dimension). Theoretical sensitivity was further ensured by

acknowledging and incorporating existing literature into the

research findings. 

Research participants

Purposive sampling was used for this research as it allowed

for the selection of participants based on the fact that they

could provide important information about the topic at hand

(Potter, 1996). The criteria used for the selection of the

research participants were threefold: firstly, participants were

selected from environments where they made direct contact

with fellow employees on an ongoing basis as this would

ensure that the participants might have been exposed to

informal communication systems such as gossip, rumours

and grapevine communication. Secondly, participants were

selected from several organisations and industries so as to

avoid the organisational culture of a particular setting from

swaying the research findings and to increase the

applicabilit y of the findings to various contexts and

participants. Strauss and Corbin (1990) explain that the more

widespread the sampling, the more conditions and variations

that will be discovered and built into the theory, and

therefore the greater generalisabilit y of the research findings.

Thirdly, a mix of people with regard to job positions and

careers, level of education, work experience, age, gender and

race was achieved. This was to ensure a variet y of views and

experiences with regard to gossip in the workplace. Fifteen

female and ten male participants were interviewed ranging

from the ages of 19 to 54 years. On average the participants

had six years working experience and came from various

industries such as financial, educational, retail, health and

beaut y, and medical sectors. 

In total, 25 part icipants, including t wo pilot st udy

participants, were interviewed. Potential participants were

personally contacted and invited to participate in the

research. A brief description was given of the research study

as well as what would be required of them. The participants

were assured that confidentialit y would be maintained

throughout the entire process and that the interview would

take no longer than an hour and a half. Of the individuals

approached, only one declined the offer to participate in the

research. Those who accepted were telephoned personally in

order to set a date and time most suitable to them. Interviews

took place over t wo months in venues selected by the

participants. All the interviews were audiotaped with the

permission of the participants.

Because confidentiality was assured, two agreements were

drawn up. The first was a confidentiality agreement stating

that the participants’ personal particulars such as name and

place of employment would remain confidential throughout

the entire research process. The second was a consent

agreement to audiotape the interview. The participants were

given the option of terminating the interview unilaterally at

any time and refraining from answering any questions with

which they were not comfortable. This right was exercised by

only one participant who asked for the recording to be

suspended while he gathered his thoughts. Two participants

asked that the interview be transcribed by the interviewer

personally due to personal and confidentially related details

revealed during the interview. The two agreements were

explained carefully to the participants before they were

required to sign them. 

Research procedure

An initial pilot st udy was conducted with the aim of

obtaining tentative ideas on what people assume gossip in the

workplace to be and to generate case studies to be used as part

of the card-sort ing technique during the individual

structured interviews. Seven participants were asked to share

their thoughts on gossip and to share experiences in which

they were either involved in gossip or were victims of gossip

in the workplace. These participants were interviewed for the

purposes of the pilot study only and were not used for the

research interview. The information obtained from the pilot

study was used in conjunction with on-line gossip stories off

the Internet and personal work experiences to develop 11

realistic case study scenarios involving the divulgence of

information that may or may not be construed as gossip. The

cases developed were used for the card-sorting exercise,

which is presented in Table 1.

After the development of the case studies and interview

questions, a second pilot study was conducted to assess whether

the interview structure would provide sufficient data for

understanding gossip in the workplace. During the individual

structured interviews, participants were asked to:

� perform a card-sorting exercise in which they read and briefly

studied 11 case studies;

� order the case studies in a sequence from ‘least’ like gossip to

‘most’ like gossip; 

� explain the criteria they had used to determine their

sequence; 

� rate each case on a scale in terms of the extent to which it

could be perceived to be gossip (the four-point scale

consisted of: ’not gossip’, ‘slight gossip’, ‘quite a bit of gossip’

and ‘very much gossip’); 

� answer questions pertaining to each individual case; and 

� provide a definition of gossip in the workplace. 

Questions pertaining to the authenticity and nature of the

information t ypically gossiped about were included, for

example: 

� What kind of information does gossip deal with?

� Is gossip always true, always false or both?

� Is Hollywood/tabloid information gossip?

Participants were also asked to describe the types of people that

gossip. Questions included:

� Demographically describe the type of people that gossip.

� What type of tactics do people use to gossip?

TYPOLOGY OF GOSSIP IN THE WORKPLACE 59



� What type of information do people gossip about?

� Why do people gossip?

The final questions asked of the participants were:

� How does gossip in the workplace affect the organisation?

� How would you go about preventing and dealing with gossip

in an organisation?

TABLE 1

CASE STUDIES AS PRESENTED TO THE PARTICIPANTS

DURING THE CARD-SORTING EXERCISE

CASE

A Marie a 32-year-old, single, heterosexual woman, is a top insurance

broker who has been working her way up the corporate ladder. It’s taken

many years and hard work to get to her current position. The other day,

on the way to the photocopy room, she overheard some colleagues talk

about her sex life over coffee and doughnuts. As the discussion about her

sexual preference continued, someone remarked: ‘I know she is a dyke

for sure’.

B In the weekly meeting between John and his boss, the boss let it slip that

the company was in trouble and that retrenchment was inevitable. All

positions would be in jeopardy. John’s boss asked him to keep this

confidential until top management decided to bring it to light. During

lunch in the canteen, John couldn’t help but tell his colleagues what he

had heard. 

C While sipping on their coffee, Jessica remarks to Brett that the boss is

very late for work as it is already 10:00 am and there is no sign of him

anywhere. Brett tells Jessica that their boss probably wouldn’t be at work

due to the loss of his mother the previous evening. One week later while

Brett is at his table doing some work, the boss calls him into his office

and says, ‘Brett, I would appreciate it if in future, you keep quiet about

my personal life instead of sharing it with the entire office’. 

D Jake, a 57-year-old factory worker, walks into the building on Monday

morning with a big smile on his face. When you ask him why he is

smiling, he tells you that his oldest daughter got engaged over the

weekend. During the day, someone remarks that Jake looks really happy.

You tell them that it’s because of his daughter’s engagement. 

E Sam overheard Lyn (a colleague) mention to her husband over the phone

that their daughter, Mary, was not accepted into university. During the

tea break someone mentions their child’s academic achievement.

Someone else says: ‘I know Lyn’s daughter was also waiting to see if she

got into university … I wonder if she made it?’ Having heard the

conversation earlier between Lyn and her husband, Sam speaks up and

says ’no, unfortunately, Mary did not get in’.

F There are two managers at the store where you work. You are good

friends with one of the managers Joan. You heard from a reliable source

that the other manager and some employees are not registering certain

items on the cash register in order to pocket the money. You know that if

head office finds, out both managers will be dismissed regardless of who

is responsible. Over lunch you mention the situation to Joan. 

G Matthew’s secretary is going through a messy divorce. As a result, her

work performance has decreased. Although she has told him about her

divorce, she asked that he not mention it to anyone. Matthew is in a

meeting with his manager, Mary a few days later. She remarks that it has

come to her attention that Matthew’s secretary is ‘slacking’ in her

performance, not getting to work on time, taking too many days off and

failing to meet deadlines. Matthew mentions the fact that he is worried

about her and that her lack of performance is due to a pending divorce.

H The boss and the new manager are having an affair. Paul knows this for a

fact because he saw them kissing. While everyone is having tea and

talking about Days of our Lives, Paul mentions the company’s very own

scandal.

I Jan had been working in a position for some time, and put in extra effort

because of a promotion she was keen to get as executive manager. To her

surprise, a colleague’s daughter who has just finished matric got the

position. Jan is disappointed and angry. When everyone is convened

around the coffee machine during lunch, she mentions her

disappointment. She heard some time ago that her boss and colleague

were romantically involved, and she mentions to the group that that may

be the reason for her colleague’s daughter getting the position.

J It’s apparent that money and stock have gone missing from the cosmetic

store where Sarah works. Some make-up went missing on Saturday. Sarah

and her team were working over the weekend. When she walked into the

storeroom, she saw Jack packing containers. She tells the supervisor that

he may be responsible for the missing stock.

K Alex, an administration officer, is photocopying documents. A document

catches his eye while sorting through some forms. The document

stipulates that due to a loss incurred by the company, the employee

pension funds will be decreased by 35%. When Alex returns to his desk,

he shares the information with the other administration officers. 

The second pilot study resulted in the refinement of the

interview. This was achieved through the re-wording of certain

questions and phrases, and the compilation of extra questions

and an extra case study (case K).

Data analysis

Interviews were transcribed and then analysed with the field

notes through the process of open coding. Strauss and Corbin

(1997) explain that coding in grounded theory is the process of

breaking down, conceptualising and grouping data together in

new ways in order to build theory, give the research vigour, and

help the researcher break through biases and assumptions.

During open coding analysis, comparisons were made between

interviews in order to identif y categories (themes) of gossip in

terms of their properties and dimensions. Different categories

emerged (for example, harmless information, venting/

tattletaling, harmful information, work-related issues and non-

work-related issues) through the analysis of the card-sorting

exercise. Each category was based on its own properties, for

example, harmful information/gossip results in negative

consequences and is divulged behind a person’s back. To

enhance trustworthiness, the categories emerging from the data

were subject to peer examination (in this case, the study

supervisors) and a comprehensive register of data was kept.

These categories aided in the development of a typology of

gossip (discussed below), which in turn aided in the

development of a working definition of gossip in the workplace

(discussed below). 

FINDINGS

The data obtained from the grounded theory analysis of the

interviews was used in conjunction with the literature review

in order to (1) develop a definition of gossip in the workplace,

(2) identif y the characteristics and criteria that highlight the

parameters of gossip, and (3) develop a typology of gossip in

the workplace. 

Gossip in the workplace: A working definition

Table 2 illustrates key concepts related to gossip which were

identified and defined by the participants throughout the

interviews and serve as a glossary of terms.

TABLE 2

KEY CONCEPTS RELATED TO GOSSIP IN THE WORKPLACE

Concept Definition

Tattletaling Not exactly gossip but the act of ‘telling on’ a person.

The information may be unjustified and have no fact

or evidence.  

Hearsay/overhearing/ The act of hearing information that is not told to you 

eavesdropping directly, and divulging this information. It is a type

of gossip.

Rumour Divulging information that leads to gossip.

Organisational/ When work-related information develops into gossip, 

office politics for example, a colleague is promoted (office issue),

and fellow colleagues mention that he/she was not

deserving of the promotion.

Grapevine Informal information that cannot be traced back to

the original source.

‘Skinder’ Afrikaans word equivalent to gossip.

DE GOUVEIA, VAN VUUREN, CRAFFORD60



Speaking out of turn The divulging of information that is not rightfully 

yours to divulge. You have no consent or licence to 

disclose the information.

Invasion of privacy/ Being inquisitive and poking your nose into someone 

prying else’s business.

Sensitive Information that is generally disappointing, 

information embarrassing or personal, for example, a daughter

who was not accepted into University or a grandfather

who is HIV positive.

Professional office The groups of people within every working  

gossipers/gossip and environment, who are friendly with everyone, know  

rumour mongers everyone’s stories and live off spreading these juicy 

bits after having blown them out of proportion.

Venting Day-to-day ‘blowing off steam’: the intention is not to

gossip but rather to get an issue off your chest/voice a

frustration. The consequences are not negative.

The most common definitions as identified by the participants

during the interviews were analysed in detail. It was found that

many definitions overlapped and held common themes. The

most common elements in the definitions included that gossip

information: (1) is disclosed behind the subject’s back, (2)

concerns matters that are private or sensitive to the subject and

(3) could lead to harm once they are disclosed. The general

opinion is that gossip is destructive, particularly so in the

breaking down of employee morale. Authenticit y and

distortion were also identified as important factors, the

implication being that if the source is reliable, the information

is more likely to be true. Distortion implies that the more the

message is distorted, the more hurtful it becomes and therefore

the more likely it will be construed as gossip. Table 3 depicts

the most common themes identified by the participants in

their definitions of gossip in the workplace. 

TABLE 3

THEMES IDENTIFIED FROM PARTICIPANT DEFINITIONS

OF GOSSIP IN THE WORKPLACE

Identified themes Ssupporting extract 

� Talking behind someone’s back ‘You know it’s gossip when the minute 

the person (you were talking about)

walks in and you quickly change the

topic to the weather.’

� Confidential, sensitive ‘Gossip is everything you wouldn’t bring 

information up in the boardroom.’

� None of your business

� Blown out of proportion ‘With gossip you start off with a small

(authenticity & distortion) bit of information. By the time it gets to

the last person, it’s got a head, tail, and

is fully clothed ... and all you did was

give it a nose ... but now it’s blown

completely out of proportion.’

� Spreads like wildfire

� Creates stress/uneasy working ‘Gossip is mostly bad. Someone always

environment gets hurt.’

� Negative consequences

� Making assumptions/fuelling 

speculation

� Creates false impressions ‘It’s talking about someone’s personal life 

without their consent, and adding your 

two cent’s worth when you don’t even 

know the person.’

� Prying, speaking out of ‘How reliable is the reliable source? Did 

turn, hearsay the source see it or did the source hear it 

from another reliable source?’

Two definitions of gossip in the workplace were provided in the

literature review. According to Barnhart and Barnhart (1994),

gossip is idle talk that is not always true about other people and

their affairs. Kurland and Pelled (2000) define workplace gossip as:

‘the informal and evaluative talk in the organisation among a few

individuals about another member of the organisation who is not

present’. These definitions are rather vague, and therefore the

above definitions were used in conjunction with all the

definitions presented by the participants, the common themes

identified (Table 3) as well as the typology of gossip (Figure 1),

Table 2 and the criteria used to determine gossip parameters to

develop a detailed working definition of gossip in the workplace.

The working definition of the concept is presented below.

Gossip in the workplace can be defined as:

� The spreading or sharing of information that could be

� Confidential

� True/false

� Handled incorrectly

� Exaggerated

� Positive/negative

� Personal/job related

� Traumatic 

� Scandalous

� Unrelated to the crucial functioning of the business (does

not affect the employee’s work performance, but adversely

affects the employee/others)

� Information that is disclosed:

� between two or more people;

� about a situation or a person they may or may not know;

� behind his/her back so that the subject is unable to defend

him/herself.

� Information that has no relevance to the gossiper/s

� Harmful because the disclosure of information could:

� have negative and harmful consequences for an

individual, group or organisation;

� spread like wildfire

� reach the wrong ears; and

� create uneasy, harmful and emotionally stressful working

environments.

� Knowledge that is not for public consumption and is based on:

� Speaking out of turn

� Second-hand information

� Assumption

� Rumours

� Hearsay

� Prying into people’s lives

� Derogatory/defamatory information

� Information that could lead to negative consequences such as:

� The undermining of an individual, group or organisation

� The breakdown of trust relationships

� The straining of ethical values

� Fuelled speculation

� The creation of false impressions 

The above definition is both detailed and specific. The following

is an abbreviated definition of gossip:

Gossip in the workplace is the spreading of information between

two or more people about a situation or person they may or may

not know, behind their back, regarding information that is of no

relevance to them. The content of the message is not for public

consumption and the disclosure of the information leads to

undesirable circumstances such as fuelled speculation, false

impressions and the breakdown of trust. 

Determining the parameters of gossip in the workplace:

criteria and characteristics

In the following section, the focus of discussion includes the

criteria used to determine the parameters of gossip in the

workplace, the characteristics of harmful gossip, the type of

information gossiped about and reasons for gossip as identified by

the research participants. Important to this research are the criteria

or parameters used to determine the extent to which information

can be construed as gossip. During the card-sorting exercise,

participants were asked to name and describe the criteria used to

determine the extent to which a particular case study was gossip.

Fourteen criteria were identified based on the trends that emerged

from the research. It is important to note that although not every

criterion needs to be considered in order for information to be

construed as gossip, some criteria are interrelated. 

TYPOLOGY OF GOSSIP IN THE WORKPLACE 61



The first criterion is that of authenticit y in which the

information is judged on the extent to which it is true or false.

When asked about the authenticity of gossip information, the

participants held different views. Some believed that gossip was

always false and that anything true could never be construed as

gossip as long as the disclosure of the information was not a

breach of confidentiality. The majority believed that the

information could be true and false, exaggerations of the truth

and edited or twisted information. Two participants said the

following, which was the general opinion of other participants

who were in accordance with the fact that gossip information

can be true:

‘Gossip is normally true. The information starts somewhere with

some truth to it but as it moves through the channels it becomes

less factual.’

‘I believe that gossip can be the truth … where there is smoke

there is fire!’

In terms of authenticity, how the information was made known

needs to be considered, i.e. did you see it yourself or did you

hear it from a reliable source? The reliability of the source is very

important. If the source witnessed the occurrence, the

information can be said to be first-hand information because the

information moves from the original source to the recipient. If

the reliable source hears it from another ‘reliable' source, this is

termed ‘hearing via the grapevine’ and is regarded as second-

hand information. Second-hand information cannot be verified

for authenticity because the origin of the information is

unknown and can be dubious. 

The intention is the next criterion used to determine the extent

to which information is gossip. This criterion refers to whether

the information was disclosed out of maliciousness, sympathy,

sincere concern or the need for the information. If the

information was divulged with a hidden agenda as opposed to

good intentions, it is more serious in terms of gossip. The context

in which the information was divulged and the tone in which the

information was disclosed also impact on the intention. The

context and tone can imply certain things. If, for example,

someone exclaims in a worried tone: ‘I wonder why the boss is

late’, it can be deduced that the intention is one of concern, but

if it is said in anger, the intention could be annoyance or to cause

harm. The consequence or outcome refers to the effect caused

by the dissemination of the information. In other words, did

anyone benefit from the information being disclosed or was it

harmful to the extent of altering people’s perceptions about a

certain person/situation and creating false impressions? This

criterion marks an important distinction between harmless and

harmful information. Most of the participants were of the

opinion that harmful information always has a negative

consequence even though the intention is not always to cause

harm. The measurement of the authenticity, intention and

consequences is a very important criterion. The participants

believed that the authenticity, intention and consequence need

to be quantified on a scale in terms of severity in order to

determine the extent to which the information is true/false and

causes harm. Therefore, the more serious the consequences, the

more harmful the intention, and the less the information can be

verified by evidence, the more it is seen as harmful gossip. The

above were the most common criteria identified by the

participants. 

Less common criteria include the relationship between the

gossiper and the subject who is being gossiped about. One

participant explained: 

‘If you like someone, whatever information you disclose about

them will never be nasty, and when someone else talks badly

about someone you like, you tend to turn a blind eye.’

Therefore, if the information comes from a friend of the person

being talked about, the information is less likely to be construed

as gossip than if the same information comes from a person who

is known to be on bad terms with the subject. 

The nature of the information is also a criterion of concern

when determining the extent to which the information is

harmful gossip. If the information is negative, for example,

about a person not deserving a promotion, then this

information is more quickly termed as nast y gossip than

information about a manager who received a bonus due to

his/her hard work and extra effort. Therefore, information

that is undesirable or negative is more easily construed as

harmful gossip than information that is desirable or positive.

Some part icipants also ment ioned the criterion of

considering the number of people who can or would be

affected by disclosing the informat ion. A lthough

information is equally harmful whether it causes harm to one

person or many people, it was mentioned that the seriousness

of the divulged informat ion increases if the effect is

collective. In other words, when work-related information

causes harm to all the employees of an organisation, the

implications are more severe than when information only

affects a single employee. For example, disclosing

confidential information about retrenchments to a group of

employees will cause organisation-wide panic. In certain

situations, who the information is disclosed to is a criterion

that should be considered as it was agreed that when

information is disclosed to the correct person, it is not gossip

but when information reaches the ‘wrong ears’, it is gossip.

Disclosing to the supervisor that money has gone missing

from the cash register during team A’s shift is not gossip

because the supervisor has the right to know this t ype of

information. However, if the employee first mentions this

informat ion to the employees in team B, which will

undoubtedly lead to speculation, then this is gossip because

the information has nothing to do with them in the first

place. Whether there is confidentialit y surrounding the

information or consent to disclose the information is another

point of consideration. Confidential information that is

disclosed is more easily construed as gossip than non-

confidential information. Confidential information in this

sense refers to information of any sort that is bound by some

form of confidentialit y (written or verbal) or when you 

are aware that the person concerned would not want 

the information to be divulged. One participant defined

confidentialit y as:

‘Making a promise to keep information to yourself. Provided the

information is not illegal, then the confidentiality should be

honoured.’ 

It is important to note, however, that confidentiality on its own

is not sufficient to determine the extent to which information

is gossip and should be considered together with criteria such

as the intention, the consequence and who the information is

disclosed to. Consider case G (Table 1), if the manager discloses

to the supervisor that the employee is having personal

problems (even though the employee asked that this remain

confidential), this would not be considered harmful gossip

because the intention is noble, i.e. to save the employee’s job,

and the information is disclosed to the correct source, i.e. the

supervisor who has the right to know. Furthermore, disclosing

information behind someone’s back without their consent is

not seen as harmful if the information is positive or has a

positive consequence.

The next criterion although important was identified by only

half of the participants: the extent to which the information

fuels speculation. A message that includes an open-ended

question, for example ‘why did she commit suicide?’ tends to

fuel speculation and therefore leads to gossip. The ‘why’

question in particular was emphasised by the participants

because this word almost always ‘opens a can of worms’. Two

participants explained:

DE GOUVEIA, VAN VUUREN, CRAFFORD62



‘The best type of gossip (most harmful) has open-ended questions

such as “is she pregnant?” because it allows for debate.’

‘The “why” question allows for everyone to get involved and offer

their “two cents’ worth” on their own version of the matter.’

It was also suggested that the sensitivity of the subject (person

being spoken about) is another criterion that needs to be

considered. If you know that a particular person is shy, reserved

or sensitive about a topic, then the information should not be

disclosed even if confidentiality is not mentioned. For example,

if an employee lost a close friend who had AIDS, it would be

inappropriate to share this information with someone else,

knowing that the employee is reserved when it comes to matters

in his/her personal life. Again, a criterion like this would be

considered in conjunction with criteria such as the nature of the

information, the intention and the consequence. 

The last three criteria should be considered together when

determining the extent to which information is gossip and

should further be considered in conjunction with the issue of

confidentiality. The first is the connection to the workplace,

which refers to the extent to which the disclosed information is

related to one’s work and could affect an individual’s career,

productivity, performance rating and company morale. The

consensus is that the most harmful gossip is the information

surrounding one’s personal life. This is not to say that work-

related information is never harmful, but work-related issues are

less likely to be construed as gossip if they affect one’s working

performance and are not disclosed with a malicious intent. A few

participants included the criterion of ‘whether the issue would

have to be handled by the Human Resource (HR) Department.

Issues that have to be referred to HR for resolution are termed as

more serious and can be viewed as harmful gossip, for example,

when an employee is falsely accused of stealing and lays a

grievance against the company. Closely related to this criterion is

the extent to which there are legal implications, for example, an

employee who has been falsely accused of theft can sue the

company for defamation of character, in which case it can be

said that the disclosure of this information is very harmful. From

the above, it can be seen that several criteria need to be

considered to determine the parameters of gossip. The

characteristics of harmful gossip and the type of information

with which gossip deals will now be discussed briefly, together

with the main reasons why people gossip. 

All 25 participants agreed that gossip is undesirable and deals

with negative information. Some went so far as to say that gossip

is never a good thing because it always has a negative outcome:

‘when you talk about people and their business behind their back,

they get hurt’. Still, a few believed that gossip could be harmless

in some cases, for example, talking about a wedding or

mentioning a colleague’s deserving promotion. The participants

were unanimous in saying that gossip concerns both personal

and work matters, especially matters of a scandalous nature. As

stated by one participant:

‘The juicier the gossip, the better.’

The majority agreed that personal matters were ‘juicier’ and

therefore easily construed as more serious gossip than non-

personal matters. But, when work-related issues have a negative

connotation such as an in-office affair, they are also seen as

serious gossip. A minority disagreed saying that work-related

issues could never be gossip because anything that affects one’s

performance at work needs to be communicated. Interestingly

enough, however, when it came to case H, about an office affair,

the same participants rated the case as ‘very much’ gossip. 

The participants were asked to provide characteristics of

harmful gossip. As identified by the participants, in order for

information to be construed as harmful gossip, the information

must be ‘juicy, exciting, entertaining, addictive and scandalous’.

The information also needs to leave room for assumption, i.e.

encourage ‘why’ questions. The information must be able to be

edited and adapted to suit the gossipers’ own story-telling style.

‘Sugar and spice’ are essential to give information enough

flavour to ensure that it ‘spreads like wildfire’. Finally, if the

information can provoke emotional arousal and curiosity, then

it is regarded as classic gossip. 

To summarise the above section, gossip is seen as information

that could be conveyed with positive or negative intention,

but generally leads to negative consequences because it causes

harm and is therefore seen as undesirable. Information could

be of a personal or work-related nat ure and the more

scandalous the information, the better it is in terms of

harmful gossip. Finally, gossip is seen as information that

could be factual, or lies, or variations of the truth with

modifications. In order for information to be construed as

gossip, it needs to be interesting and adaptable, and arouse

curiosity. Given the above, one area remains to be analysed:

the reason why people gossip.

The participants identified many reasons why people gossip,

the most common being that gossip is seen as an act of

socialising: the coming together of people to share information

over a cup of coffee. Gossip is also the basis of forming work

and social relationships. Furthermore, in the monotony of life

and work, participants were of the opinion that gossip brings a

sense of excitement to people’s lives. Therefore, the act of

gossiping is believed to be both exciting and entertaining.

While some people gossip because they seek popularity and

believe this to be a way to gain it, others do it out of jealousy

and retribution, and to point fingers. To a large extent, gossip

at the office is viewed as a weapon to sabotage someone,

normally someone in a higher career position. This form of

backbiting or causing harm has made gossip the malicious tool

that it is today. 

When asked to describe the type of people that gossip and the

tactics they use, the participants identified a term - Professional

Office Gossipers (POGs). One participant explained: 

‘POGs are the group of people within e ver y working

environment who are friendly with everyone, know everyone’s

stories and live off spreading these juicy bits after having blown

them out of proportion. For some unknown reason, people feel

the need to share their life stories with these people, which

makes them (the POGs) feel superior in knowing something

that others don’t know.’

Participants identified ‘gossip or rumour mongers’ as a synonym

for POGs. The participants were asked to describe these POGs in

terms of their demographics and the tactics they use to gossip.

One of the main distinctions highlighted was that of gender.

Fifteen participants believed that POGs are men and women

equally, eight participants were of the opinion that women

gossip more and one participant believed that men gossip more.

It was the belief of some participants that men and women POGs

gossip for different reasons and use different tactics. One

participant stated:

‘Women gossip to become friends while men establish a

friendship first and once there is a foundation for trust, 

they gossip.’

From the above, it can be said that women open up more easily

than men and are more willing to share information. It was the

belief of many participants that female friendships are formed

and based on office gossip conversation while men first establish

a friendship: speaking about cars, sport and motorbikes. Only

once the relationship is established and the men are sure that

they can trust each other do they start to share gossip

information. It was also mentioned that men and women POGs

gossip about different things. Men gossip about a single topic

while women can gossip about ‘anything and everything’. This

TYPOLOGY OF GOSSIP IN THE WORKPLACE 63



means that women will speculate about ‘who said what?’, ‘who

ate what for lunch?’ and ‘whose car is parked outside?’. Men on

the other hand talk about one thing only: namely anything with

a sexual connotation. One participant summed it up in the

following way:

‘When I hear about an office affair, it always comes from a

male. They are always the first to know because they enjoy

boasting about their conquests. It is really quite shocking to hear

the things that come out their mouths. They are not shy to ask

you personal questions and know more details than women.’

A few participants agreed with this statement, leaning towards

the notion that men do gossip as much as women, especially

when it comes to information of a sexual nature. But it was also

mentioned that women tend to be more malicious or nasty

when they gossip. One participant said: 

‘Women use gossip as a conscious tactic to undermine other

women in the office who are in higher positions while men use

other tactics to undermine. Although these tactics are still gossip,

men attack a person’s ability directly and to the person’s face

instead of behind their back.’

In opposition to the above, other participants mentioned that

men gossip just as much, but they are able to hide their

maliciousness better. This could be attributed to the fact that

women are supposedly more emotional and could therefore

find it more difficult to contain themselves in a bout of

vicious anger. 

Interestingly enough, the female participants were willing to

admit that there were cases where women gossiped more. Males

on the other hand either said females gossiped more or equally

as much as men, but they never mentioned that they themselves

could be the POGs or gossip mongers. This means that although

perceptions are changing, the common stereotype of women

being gossipers still holds even if this research article shows that

men and women gossip equally, but about different things. One

male participant explained that women gossip more for fun

while men do it more for information purposes, emphasising

that even when men gossip, they pretend that they are doing

something else. It is as if they really do not want to be labelled

as gossipers. To support this, a few female participants said that

when men gossip they tend to be more structured, rational,

logical and objective as if to mask what they are actually doing,

but ultimately they are still gossiping.

One of the outcomes mentioned earlier was the development of

a typology in order to provide a clearer picture of gossip within

the realm of informal communication. This typology will be

discussed in greater detail below. 

A typology of gossip in the workplace

Mouton and Marais (1990) define a typology as a conceptual

framework in which phenomena are classified in terms of

characteristics that they have in common with other phenomena.

Typologies are found in every discipline in the social sciences and

in this case a typology was developed in order to classif y gossip

into main and subtypes. Although the typology is discussed last

in this article, it was the first development to arise during the data

analysis phase and was used to develop the working definition of

gossip in the workplace. As mentioned, during data analysis the

process of open coding led to the identification of categories

(themes). As general trends emerged, a typology of gossip was

developed. The results of the card-sorting exercise also aided in

the development of the typology. Table 4 depicts the results of

the card-sorting exercise and how each case was rated by the

participants. A general sequence is presented below the table,

depicting the most common sequence for the card-sorting

exercise. The sequences were used to determine how information

is categorised into different types according to the properties

they possess. 

TABLE 4

PARTICIPANT RATINGS FOR THE CARD-SORTING EXERCISES

No. of participants rating the case:

CASE Not gossip Slight gossip Quite a bit Very much 

of gossip gossip

A 0 0 1 24

B 0 1 12 11

C 12 9 4 0

D 21 4 0 0

E 3 6 10 6

F 13 8 1 3

G 6 7 7 5

H 0 0 4 21

I 0 1 5 19

J 7 5 6 7

K 3 4 7 6

Sequence based on the above statistics from least to most gossip:

LEAST    D    F    C    J    G    E    K    B    I    A    H    MOST

Figure 3: Typology of Gossip in the Workplace

Information in the informal sense can be viewed in terms of

Figure 3. Information sharing can take place on t wo levels:

sharing informat ion that is harmless, and sharing

information that is harmful. Information that is harmless is

basically seen as ‘good gossip’ or information that is not

gossip. There was general consensus that fine and definite

lines are difficult to determine when it comes to information

that is ’not gossip’ and ‘good gossip’ as they seem to overlap.

In addition, ‘gossip’ and ’not gossip’ are also closely related

concepts that can vary on a scale in terms of their

maliciousness or seriousness. It was agreed that although

gossip is generally harmful and negative, there are grey areas

that yield to the divulgence of information being perceived as

less serious. 

DE GOUVEIA, VAN VUUREN, CRAFFORD64



Good gossip refers to the sharing of information that could have

a positive intention, is completely harmless in nature, generally

does not have negative consequences and is divulged because it

needs to be made known. The main criterion for harmless

information is that it does not cause harm. Within ‘good gossip’

there are four subtypes (as identified by the participants): (1)

information in the public domain, (2) situations that are part of

life, (3) ’need to know information’, and (4) day-to-day venting

and tattletaling. These will be discussed in more detail.

Information in the public domain refers to any information that is

available to everyone through the media. Examples include

international news such as the death of the Pope. It was enquired

whether Hollywood/tabloid information would fit into this

domain, and 15 participants believed that Hollywood

information was gossip and potentially harmful gossip. One

opinion is given below: 

‘You’re speculating on information which may not even be

factual. Reporters are known to make up stories and, at the end

of the day, it is still offensive and damaging to the person who is

being gossiped about.’

The nine participants who believed that Hollywood information

was not gossip or harmless gossip added that the information

was available and free to all. The people are not personally

known, and being victims of tabloid gossip comes with the

territory of being famous. Since this issue does not fall directly

into the domain of interest in this research, it was not studied

further, and is placed in the ’not gossip’ category purely because

it is information available to everyone via the media.

Situations that are part of life refer to two extremes: information

that is light-hearted in nat ure (engagements, weddings,

birthdays, births and promotions) and information that is

‘darker’ in nature (death and illness). Two cases, C and D (refer

to Table 1), fall into the category of situations that are part of

life. Case D was rated as ’not gossip’ by 21 participants, while the

remaining four participants rated the case as ‘slight/harmless

gossip’. The general reasoning was that the case depicted positive

and harmless information. A few participants even commented

that information of this nature could never be gossip and that it

is more difficult for positive information to be construed as

gossip (provided that the information is not edited). Case C was

rated as ’not gossip/slightly harmless gossip’ by 21 participants.

The agreement was that the intention in disclosing this

information was not harmful. It was explained that: 

‘The intention was not to gossip but rather to give an honest

account of the boss’s whereabouts.’

‘Death is rarely a source of gossip. People don’t speak badly about

people who have passed away.’

Those who classified the case as ‘quite a bit of gossip’ 

were unanimous in saying that the intention was not

malicious but that perhaps the employee should have asked

the boss’s permission to disclose the information, allowed the

boss to disclose the information himself or respected the fact

that he may not want anyone to know this information. When

asked if it was acceptable to disclose that the supervisor’s

mother was brutally murdered or had committed suicide, all

the participants were again unanimous in saying that this

t y pe of detail was completely inappropriate due to its

sensitive nat ure. In situations like this, the participants

believed that saying ‘she passed away’ was sufficient because

giving further details would lead to speculation and could

then develop into gossip. 

The above case also fits into the next subtype: ’need to know’

information. As the name states, this refers to information that

needs to be made known for reasons such as accommodating or

helping someone. It was suggested that in circumstances of

death in the family, the correct people at work such as colleagues

and managers have the right to know so that they can offer

support and re-delegate the work of the bereaved to others while

they are away. Knowing this type of information also ensures

that colleagues will not only understand the employee’s

behaviour, but will also respond sympathetically towards the

employee. Case G received mixed reactions: 13 participants

believed the case was ’not gossip/harmless gossip’, while 12

participants believed the case to be ‘quite a bit’ to ‘very much’

gossip. What was common, however, was that all the participants

were of the opinion that when a situation impacts negatively on

one’s work performance and can be detrimental to one’s

performance rating, the supervisor has the right to know in

order to be accommodating. Although the actual reason and

details need not be disclosed the supervisor is entitled to know

that the secretary is, for example, going through a difficult time

or is experiencing personal problems. For this reason, the case

was termed ’need to know information’. One participant

summed it up as follows:

‘How can you expect people to understand your behaviour and

to cut you some slack if you don’t explain to them what is

going on?’

The last subtype of harmless information is day-to-day venting

and tattletaling. Definitions for these terms are given in Table 1.

Although none of the cases were identified to fit into this

category, the participants identified that there were situations

where information sharing was not gossip but where the

dissemination was essential for pure venting purposes. Situations

falling into this category are generally seen as harmless because

the intention is more to vent frustration and not to cause harm

or deliberate gossip. An example would be to exclaim annoyingly

to a colleague that due to the heavy workload, you will have to

come to the office during the weekend and therefore miss out on

the weekend rugby on television. 

Harmful information, as the name states, is information that

once disclosed causes harm to an individual, a group of people

or an organisation. Therefore, although the intention of the

information disseminator may not be to harm, the consequence

is negative and leads to the altered perceptions of other people

towards the subject (person/s being gossiped about), ultimately

creating false impressions of that person or situation. Harmful

information was termed as classic gossip by many participants.

This type of information is characterised as being malicious and

scandalous, and creating speculation and assumption. The

information is gained through acts of eavesdropping

(overhearing), prying into people’s personal lives, rumour

mongering, speaking out of turn and hearing through the

grapevine (refer to Table 1 for concept definitions). This is the

domain of a group of people termed POGs or gossip/rumour

mongers, mentioned previously in the article. 

The classic/harmful gossip domain consists of two subtypes

namely work-related gossip and personal-related gossip. A common

characteristic of both types of classic gossip is that the

information is normally sensitive:

‘Information that is generally disappointing, embarrassing or

personal, for example, a daughter who was not accepted to

University, a rape in the family, or a family member who has

AIDS.’

Work-related gossip refers to sit uat ions such as

retrenchments, promotions and pension cuts, while personal-

related gossip refers to home or family sit uat ions.

Organisational/office politics falls within this spectrum of

gossip. One participant described office politics as ‘one of the

handshakes in gossip’, meaning that office politics goes hand

in hand with gossip in the workplace. For instance, when

someone is promoted, this is known as an office issue, but

the minute people start speculating about the employee not

being deserving of the promotion, then it becomes office

TYPOLOGY OF GOSSIP IN THE WORKPLACE 65



politics. Therefore, office politics results from office-related

talk, especially when this t ype of talk has negative outcomes.

Five of the 11 cases presented to the participants dealt with

work-related issues. 

Case B was rated as serious, harmful gossip by 23 participants.

The main issue was that confidentiality was broken, and that the

divulging of this information would affect the collective (all the

employees), and lead to unnecessary fear, panic and emotional

stress. This case was compared to case C, which was mentioned

under ’need to know’ information. What came through strongly

is that although both cases dealt with the disclosure of

confidential information, in case C, the information was

disclosed with a good intention and to save someone’s job or

performance rating. It was also stated that the information was

disclosed to the correct party, i.e. the supervisor. Therefore, this

case was not seen as classic gossip. Case B was different in that

the disclosure of the information affected a whole group of

people negatively. It was also mentioned that the company had

the right to disclose this type of information to the employees at

an appropriate time. 

Case K was viewed as less severe in terms of gossip because there

was no confidentiality agreement in place, but the majority still

rated it as harmful gossip because of the repercussions it would

have on the employees, i.e. it would cause panic and fear. Case I

was seen as extremely serious in terms of gossip. Although

nepotism is in no way supported, it was explained that it was not

right to disclose this type of information to a group of

colleagues as it led to a misperception of an employee and

would cause people to treat the employee differently. Another

issue of concern was the authenticity of the information because

it was based on hearsay information. Case F also concerns the

topic of authenticity. Overall, this case was rated as ‘good gossip’

because as an employee, it is one’s ethical responsibility to bring

these types of issues to light. The majority of the participants

said they would also have disclosed the information so that the

innocent manager would not lose his/her job. However, an issue

of concern was the reliability of the ‘reliable’ source. A

participant said the following, which reflects the views of the

other participants:

‘How reliable is the reliable source? Did the source see it or did the

source hear it from another reliable source?’ 

The opinion regarding the above case is that if the source

witnessed the event and you trust the source, then it is 

first-hand informat ion as opposed to second-hand

information, which is heard via the grapevine and could be

dubious, leading to incorrect assumptions. The last case

relating to work issues was case J. This was the most 

debatable case: the participants believed this information 

to be harmless and stated that because the sit uat ion 

impacted on the business, it was the leader’s responsibilit y 

to bring the issue to light. The same participants also said 

it was not gossip because the information was given to 

the correct source, i.e. the supervisor and not fellow

employees, in which case it would have been more serious

gossip. However, 13 participants believed this case to be

extremely serious due to the lack of evidence in the allegation

that the employee had stolen the stock. The participants

believed that this had far-reaching consequences as it was

defamatory to that employee’s character and could create

false impressions. From a legal perspective, if the employee is

not guilt y, he/she could sue for defamation of character,

making this case more serious.

Personal-related gossip may or may not impact on work

performance. Personal issues that do not impact on one’s work

performance are seen as the most malicious of all gossip and

tend to be scandalous in nature, for example, talking about

affairs (case H), speculating about someone’s sexual

preference (case A), or discussing that a colleague’s daughter

was not accepted to university (case E). These case studies

were rated unanimously as ‘very much’ gossip because they

were seen as not relating to the person’s individual

performance at work and was generally no one’s business. The

issues that could impact on work performance, such as

divorces (case G mentioned above), were only seen as serious

gossip if the information were disclosed to all the incorrect

people, such as fellow employees. However, when the

information was disclosed to a supervisor or manager, it was

less likely to be perceived as gossip, provided that unnecessary

details were not disclosed.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The research was conducted to develop a typology of gossip in

the workplace and to define and identif y its parameters. The

research also acquired additional findings such as a greater

understanding of the POGs, the tactics they use, the reason

they gossip and the type of information they gossip about.

Given the above, the following is a brief discussion on

recommendations for possible organisational interventions

for preventing and dealing with malicious gossip in the

workplace. Gossip can be very serious in an organisation to

the point that it can be detrimental: people leave their jobs,

motivation and staff morale decrease, causing serious harm to

the individual, group or company. Greengard and Samuel

(2001) are of the opinion that malicious gossip can be

controlled if a company nurtures a functional and positive

culture. Some individuals are of the opinion that as serious as

gossip is, it cannot be controlled because it is part of what

human beings do. Below is the response of one participant,

which was the general feeling of those who believed it could

never be controlled:

‘Gossip is part of human nature and Professional Office Gossipers

become smarter. They gossip when you are not around. It is hard

to give an incentive for people not to gossip.’

Other individuals believe that there are ways and means to

control gossip to a certain extent. One intervent ion

highlights the discussion and explanation of the negative

implications of gossip, and the penalisation of employees for

gossiping. In this way, a gossip-free working environment

with high moral values can be created. A gossip-free culture

would have to start with top management leading by example

and having an open-door policy for employees to raise issues

of concern so that they can be addressed prior to their

becoming gossip. Organisat ions that inst il values of

corporate governance such as fairness, transparency, open

communication and trust, can reduce the effects of office

polit ics and gossip. Telling the truth is of part icular

importance as it was mentioned that by telling the truth,

employees would not have anything to speculate about. The

‘honest y is the best policy’ theme coincides greatly with the

view of many that from a management point of view, certain

steps can be followed to ensure that information is not

misconstrued. This involves being cautious with whom

confidential information is disclosed and being consistent

with the delivery of messages. It is believed that when it

comes to work-related issues such as retrenchments,

restructuring and pension cuts, which affect the organisation

as a whole, the company should avoid telling groups of

people at a time and rather communicate them to all

employees simultaneously. This ‘tell everyone or tell no one’

policy ensures that information is not misconstrued and does

not develop into harmful gossip.

An ant i-gossip policy could be compiled to counter

workplace gossip. The development of such a policy could be

aided by clearly stating how the organisation defines gossip

and perhaps using the working definition derived in this

article. Other recommendations include the formulation of

DE GOUVEIA, VAN VUUREN, CRAFFORD66



codes of ethics, increasing awareness of the phenomenon

through communication campaigns and the development of

training and orientation programmes for new employees.

Depending on the severit y of malicious gossip in an

organisation, workshops dealing with the issues could 

also be used to educate employees on the possible 

serious consequences of gossip, for example, the erosion 

of trust, morale and interpersonal respect. However, to

believe that organisations would be willing to budget for 

such campaigns, training programmes and workshops is

unlikely, but the incorporation of gossip awareness as a

dimension of other training programmes and workshops

could be plausible. By including a sect ion on gossip

awareness into a team building workshop, ethical awareness

campaign or leadership programme, organisations could 

raise the awareness of the detrimental effects of malicious

gossip and educate employees on how to deal with and 

avoid it, without having to budget for it as a specific stand-

alone intervention.

Another way of discouraging and dealing with gossip is to 

use a procedure used by many organisations, namely

confidentialit y agreements. These agreements could be

extended to the governing of information that could

maliciously hurt employees and/or the company. It is also

recommended that HR innovate ways to incorporate this into

company policies and procedures. 

Coaching by managers and supervisors could also be used as a

device to counter workplace gossip. Coaching provides the

platform (open forum) for employees in an organisation to vent

their anger, frustrations and concerns to one person, the coach,

as opposed to people all over the office who could in turn spread

the information.

The new age movement of appreciative inquiry could be used

to mitigate gossip by using positive good-news stories.

Incorporating appreciative inquiry into organisational systems

and policies encourages people to focus on the positive and

that which is visionary, instead of the negative. It was

explained that:

‘Appreciative inquiry is a deliberate way to counter negative

stories by bringing people together to design a protocol with

positive questions so that people cannot talk about the negative

problems…people respect this and don’t undermine something

that’s positive. It takes people up a spiral where people start to

identify positive themes. If this continues it becomes part of the

work culture.’

As Mouton and Marais (1990) point out, any research

involving humans has shortcomings. We encountered the

following problems which could have impacted on the

research findings. Interviews were conducted in venues

chosen by the part icipants. Some of these venues,

particularly those in coffee shops were not conducive to

interviewing. The final adjusted interview schedule was 

only developed after the fifth interview therefore not 

every single participant received the identical interview

which could have impacted on the reliabilit y of the 

findings. Since the accounts presented by some 

participants could have been influenced by the fact that 

the interviewer knew them personally, validit y may have

been affected. On the other hand, those participants 

whom were not personally known might have not 

had complete trust in the interviewer and held back 

sensitive information.

Further studies in this domain could include inquiry into the

issues of gossip as it transcribes across gender and culture.

Researchers interested in the phenomenon could also test the

above recommendations in order to determine the most

effective ways of controlling gossip.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the research were generally consistent with the

literature review in terms of the definition of gossip and the

common aspects of gossip. However, the literature available on

gossip as far as it could be established was rather limited and

vague, and the research findings may have added more

substance. In addition, the definition of gossip in the workplace,

the identification of criteria essential to determine the extent to

which information could be construed as gossip, the

development of a typology for gossip in the workplace and a

better understanding of the POGs and the tactics they use have

complemented existing knowledge of the phenomenon. The

formation of the detailed definition of gossip in the workplace

could prove useful for organisations that wish to control gossip.

It was stated earlier in the article that gossip in the workplace

could be defined as ‘the spreading of information between two

or more people about a situation or person they may or may 

not know, behind their back, regarding information that 

is of no relevance to them. The content of the message is 

not for public consumption and the disclosure of the

information leads to undesirable circumstances such as fuelled

speculation, false impressions and the breakdown 

of trust’. Given the working definition, the formation of

anti-gossip policies could be useful in stating the parameters 

of gossip, thereby providing a more detailed under-

standing of when information can be construed as gossip

in the workplace. The working definition could 

further be used in the formulation of codes of ethics, 

which might in turn increase ethical awareness pertaining to

this phenomenon. 

REFERENCES
Baker, J.S. & Jones, M.A. (1996). The poison grapevine. How

destructive are gossip and rumors in the workplace? Human

Resource Quarterly, 7 (1), 75-86. 

Barnhart, C.L. & Barnhart, R.K. (1994). The world book dictionary

(Vol. 1). Chicago: World Book.

Burg, B. & Palatnik, L. (2003, January). The gossip threat. Security

Insider, p. 34.

Christian Community Bible. (2000). (29th ed). Quezon,

Philippines: Claretian.

Crampton, S.M., Hodge, J.W. & Mishra, J.M. (1998). The

informal communication network: Factors influencing

grapevine activity. Public Personnel Management, 27 (4), 

569-585.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). (Eds.). Handbook of

qualitative research (2nd ed). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Encyclopedia of the orient (n.d.). Retrieved on September 1, 2004

from World Wide Web: http://i-cias/e.o/texts/koran/

koran058.htm

Hecht, M. (n.d). What does the Torah say about gossip? Retrieved

September 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://

www.askmoses.com

Greengard & Samuel (2001). Gossip poisons business: HR can

stop it. Workforce, 80 (7), 24-34.

Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organisations:

Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review

of Psychology, 50, 569-598.

Kurland, N.B. & Pelled, L.H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a

model of gossip and power in the workplace. The Academy of

Management Review, 25 (2), 428-438. 

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research

inter viewing. California: Sage.

Mouton, J (1988). The philosophy of qualitative research. In

Ferreira, M., Mouton, J., Puth, G., Schurink, E. &

Schurink,W. Introduction to qualitative research: Module 3

(pp. 1-16). Pretoria: HSRC.

Mouton, J. & Marais, H.C. (1990). Basic concepts in the

methodology of the social sciences. Pretoria: HSRC.

TYPOLOGY OF GOSSIP IN THE WORKPLACE 67



Neuman, W.L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Potter, W.J. (1996). An analysis of thinking and research about

qualitative methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rossouw, D. & Van Vuuren, L.J. (2004). Business ethics (3rd ed.).

Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Schurink, W. (2004). Qualitative research: Introducing key features in

an interpretive approach to social science research. Pretoria: SSRC.

Smaling, A. (1989). Munchhausen Objectivity: A bootstrap-

conception of objectivity as a methodological norm. 

Speech and Lashon Harah (2004). Retrieved September 1, 2004

from the World Wide Web: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/

jewfaq/speech.html

Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic inter view. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). A basic qualitative 

research: Grounded theor y procedures and techniques.

California: Sage.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in action.

California: Sage.

Waddell, J.R. & Laing, R.D. (2004). You’ll never believe what I

heard. Super vision, 65 (2), p14. Retrieved on May 1, 2004

from the World Wide Web: http://search.epnet.com/direct.

asp?an=12121878&db=buh.

DE GOUVEIA, VAN VUUREN, CRAFFORD68