A recent Wall Street Journal blog post included this surprising statement:
“Amid a rise in office gossip, researchers are disagreeing over whether it is fundamentally good or bad.”
Pardon? Dictionaries are unanimous in defining gossip as “idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others.” That’s pretty clearly unethical, wouldn’t you say?“Idle” suggests that those engaging in gossip are doing so instead of more productive endeavors, such as job responsibilities. “Rumor” means that they may be spreading lies; that’s dishonest. “Personal or private affairs of others” suggests that the idle talk is without the consent or approval of the subjects of the conversation, and will be kept secret from him or her. That’s an impressive amount of unethical conduct–irresponsible, disrespectful, unfair, possibly destructive—-packed into only thirteen words.
Of course office gossip is “bad.” All gossip is bad. It spreads misinformation, is hurtful, wastes time, and violates the Golden Rule. It was inevitable that some in our culture would begin to make attempts to validate it, since gossip is bigger business than ever before, with the internet and formerly legitimate news organizations engaging in it around the clock (the New York Times’ infamous front page story in 2008 about Sen. McCain’s aides’ “concern” about his relationship with a comely female lobbyist was a particularly blatant example). The post tries several transparent rationalizations, some originating from–surprise!—that gossip sheet, the New York Times:
- …”less malignant gossip that stops short of repeating lies or breaching confidences can serve as a source of understanding.” So “less malignant” is now the same as OK, is it? How exactly do half-truths lead to “understanding”? A usually rational and informed friend going through a spontaneous “I hate Sarah Palin” fit blurted out that Palin had killed Alaskan wolves. This was something she had heard from someone also having such a fit, perhaps in an office, and it is a half-truth. Did this lead to “understanding”? No, it led to a half-baked opinions, as “less malignant gossip” does.
- “Gossip helps us analyze the motivations of other people” The gossipers’ motivations, perhaps.
- “…and enables those low on the food chain, in particular, to understand how power is used in their organizations.” Let’s get this straight: secrets that involve withholding information employees have a right to know are not “private affairs of others,” and thus not gossip. Information that is being kept secret for a good reason (such as salary information) has destructive results if revealed, and therefore isn’t benign.
- “It is relaxing…” Well, so is having sex, though I wouldn’t call that appropriate office conduct.
- “… it brings people together” Yes, and so do cock fights.
- “… as a pastime it beats gambling, drinking or doing drugs.” Arrgh! This is the dreaded “It’s not the worst thing” rationalization! And as if that isn’t bad enough…
- “It’s a universal practice…” Da-DA! The Golden Rationalization: “Everybody does it”!
Stop, please. We don’t need to forget a lesson well and wisely learned centuries ago. The Bible understood it; Shakespeare understood it; and when George Washington’s “110 Rules” warned against spreading “flying reports” (Rule 50), it didn’t mean UFO’s.* Gossip of all kinds is unethical. We know it. We need to do less of it, not more, and regard the news and entertainment media’s efforts to justify their wallowing in gossip for profit as another one of their self-serving efforts to deceive, and maybe make their paid gossip-mongerers feel less slimy than they deserve to.
Gossip can only be ethical if the information passed on is first verified as true, if it isn’t secret or private, and if the people the gossip involves are not harmed or embarrassed in any way.
But then it wouldn’t be gossip, would it?
____________________________________
* Also germane to gossip is Rule 89: “Speak not evil of the absent, for it is unjust.”
Ethics Alarms 
This goes beyond ethics. It is interesting that the Wall Street Journal wouldn’t know that an increase in gossip is bad for business. They may not care if it is unethical, but they should know it is bad. If gossip is about other employees’ private lives, it creates dissention in the workforce and lowers productivity. If gossip about management decisions is increasing, it is an indicator of poor communication or a widening credibility gap. None of these are good. Is this really further proof that business schools aren’t doing their job?
As far as salary information, I have worked at places where salary information was confidential and places where it wasn’t (salaries published on a website). There were a lot more problems when salary information isn’t readily available. The only reason I can see for keeping it confidential is if the salary differences can’t be justified (nepotism, cronyism, etc).
Boy, your experience with salary info is different than mine: I’ve found that salary info just causes resentment and jealousy, because everyone just knows that they are better than the other guy. I never wanted to know what my colleagues salaries were.
If the salary figures for everyone are published, then they have to be justifiable and usually follow a formula that depends on position, years of service, and performance. Everyone knows who the superstars are in their area and if they don’t, they will find out rather quickly. Giving the idiot nephew a large salary doesn’t fly well with this system. Substantial gender or race-based salary and raise discrepancies also are easily noticed.
Yes, there is always grumbling, but it isn’t the “Hey, did you know that all of the boss’s worthless buddies got huge pay raises and no one else did?” kind of grumbling.
But sometimes knowing others’ situations — personal and professional — can enable us to take helpful action. “Sharing” vs. “gossiping”.
If only the people who “share” knew when to stop gossiping. In my experience, that’s a distinction most people can’t make.
I have to agree with Lianne — I think this is a more gray area than otherwise. Maybe it’s because I work in an industry where many of my colleagues are also my friends … many of us free-lance, and work with each other on multiple projects for multiple companies. But whatever the reason, lots of these folks are people with whom I also socialize, to some extent or another. So it makes the lines less clear.
For example, quite recently one of my colleagues was going through a rough time at home. I shared a (shortened and simplified) version of the situation with several of our colleagues … the person involved often drives us all a little crazy, but NOBODY deserves the situation he’s dealing with, so I hoped letting folks know a little of what was going on might encourage them to be more patient than usual with him.
I don’t see any way in which this was unethical, or malicious, or irresponsible — it was an attempt to smooth things out for him a little at a time when a lot of his road was pretty rocky.
I use this as one recent example — but I can think of lots of others. A month or so ago a married couple that we occasionally work with got a rather ugly divorce that caused them both a lot of pain. Is it wrong, when I know we’re going to see one of them, to mention quietly to a few people that have been out of the loop that this has happened, so that they don’t inadvertently say something hurtful?
I guess it comes down to this: when someone you work with is likely to be in pain, I don’t see it as harmful — or unethical, or irresponsible — to give people enough information about the matter so that they can avoid accidentally causing further pain.
Elizabeth, those are both great examples of using, properly and appropriately, a workplace information chain. But it wasn’t “idle,” and the information passed had the presumed consent of those involved. It has the form and substance of gossip, perhaps, but not the spirit or motive.
Thanks for the clarification. Those incidents certainly lacked the motive of gossip, if we define gossip to be malicious by nature. But I think it’s often hard to judge when it’s right to pass something like this on to others, and when it’s not.
BTW, this is quite an interesting blog! I’m glad to have run across it. And the world is apparently awfully small — I just now noticed, in reading your “About Ethics Alarms,” that you’re the Jack Marshall of TACT. The free-lance industry I mentioned in my comment was in fact DC theatre; I designed the set for Eccentricities of a Nightingale for TACT in 2008.
My wife, Grace, uses Elizabeth as her handle on the blog, so its good to keep them straight! That was a show where I was out of commission for most of it, and we never got to do more than say “hi”—I’m glad we could connect in my “other world.” Theater, of course, is unusually dependent on gossip, since it has a shifting workplace with short-term relationships and a large, fluid network in which social and professional relationship are sometimes indistinguishable. It isn’t exactly an exception, but it certainly is an anomaly.