Author: Paula Drouin, Founder and President of ADR International Group and ADR Learning Institute
Anyone who knows me knows that I have described gossip as the cancer in organizations. They have heard me say that employee’s dependence on the informal information pipeline, called gossip, could be damaging moral, undermining leadership, and causing harm. Gossip is cited as an example of disrespect in most modern Respectful Workplace Policies. So why would I write an article talking about the importance of gossip in an organization? Because, in my quest to become old and wise, not just old, I read topics to expose myself to ideas that are different from the ones I hold true.
I am currently reading Sapiens “A brief history of humankind” by Yuval Noah Harari. I have found it to be disturbing, challenging, exciting, and impactful. However, the contents could be so disturbing to some that I only recommend it be read by those who can do so with an open mind and a willingness to have their core belief system challenged.
What I found fascinating is what the author refers to as the tree of knowledge mutation theory to explain how we evolved to have linguistic abilities and an unprecedented way to communicate. 30,000 to 70,000 years ago we were able to move beyond simple danger words, to describing where we saw the possible danger and decide how to avoid it or hunt it. One theory is that it “evolved as a means of sharing information about the world……..our language evolved to enable gossiping.”(p.22)[1] The complexity of information tracking and storing required to maintain relationships with a handful of people is mind-boggling. Without the ability to gossip we would not be able to work cooperatively with more than a couple dozen people. “In the wake of the Cognitive Revolution, gossip helped Homo Sapiens form larger and more stable bands.”(p.26)[2] Gossip enables us to feel a bond with up to 150 people. Hearing gossip that the fellow in shipping and receiving is expecting his first child next month helps us feel a bond with him. Hearing gossip about how the Managers mother is going through medical treatments, help us feel a human to human connection with that Manager that can transcend the positional roles.
Apparently, as long as a group settles at less than 150 people, they are able to maintain a bond between themselves through intimate acquaintances and gossip. After that threshold is passed then the group requires a shared common vision, mission, or goal, to collaborate effectively together. Groups of millions can bond over being from the same country, or supporting the same sports team, or believing in the same religion, or the same political party. A shared belief makes it possible for us to cooperate with hundreds of strangers.
So, gossip can inform individuals about other individuals in their group and create a sense of belonging with the group. However, I’m sure you are screaming by now that there is the gossip that is negative, harmful, and damaging which can cause a group to unravel. I agree. This is the gossip that organizations put policies in place to prevent. It is the type of gossip that keeps mediators, investigators, and arbitrators in business. Or is it? Certainly, gossip contributes to the damaged relationship we are called in to restore, however, the other consequence of the Tree of Knowledge mutation is our ability to create fiction. We just make stuff up and believe it, as well as believing all the stuff other people make up. According to Harari “we can believe six impossible things before breakfast” (p.24) Our ability to collectively believe in the same thing, so we can cooperate with hundreds of strangers, can cause a world of grief when used to build a shared negative belief about a co-worker, leader, group, or policy direction. The fact that we make stuff up, believe it, convince others that it is true, and create an unmovable position around it, is actually what keep us all in business. As ADR professionals we are often expected to determine the probability of what is true, or be myth busters in the quest to have parties be open to understanding all perspectives.
What do about it? How can people within organizations balance the need for gossip and the creation of shared stories that enable large groups to bond and work collaboratively together; with the need to manage gossip in a way that it does not destroy a member or the entire group?
Since we are hardwired to gossip and make stuff up, stopping it is as likely as winning the war on drugs. What individuals can do is manage it by responding to gossip in a different way. Below are a couple of examples:
Examples of options on how to respond and the outcome you could expect:
If one person believes one of their co-workers is lazy and they mention it to another co-worker……
| Response Options | Outcome |
|---|---|
| The co-worker could agree with them. Which would result in both people believing what they are making up about their co-worker, and possibly checking to see if anyone else supports what they believe to be true. | Reinforces negative gossip |
| If on the other hand the co-worker disagrees with them, or even just mentions that they have never thought of the person as lazy, then not only does the gossip end, but it creates the possibility that there will be a shadow of a doubt cast into the mind of the complainer, which could keep the mind open and curious. | Could stall or stop gossip |
| The co-worker could respond by saying “are you asking for my help on how to approach them to provide some feedback?” or “Are you curious about why they work the way they do?” Invite them to clear the air with the other person. | Stop gossip |
If you are the leader in an area and someone comes to complain about someone else, you can acknowledge their concerns and demonstrate an understanding of their perception, without agreeing with it. Simply ask them what behaviours they are seeing that leads them to believe what they are telling you. Explore what else those behaviours may mean, and suggest they speak with the other person, or that you call the other person in so any assumptions being made can be clarified immediately.
Measuring a leader’s ability to encourage bonding gossip and discourage harmful gossip might need to be the next competency measurement of leaders. Just some food for thought!
[1] Harari, 2014
[2] Harari, 2014
