The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm

IJOA
25,3
Gossip: a channel for the
development of personal
reputation
516 Robert Zinko, Charles Tuchtan and James Hunt
Faculty of Business and Law, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
Received 9 July 2016
Revised 23 October 2016 James Meurs
18 January 2017
Accepted 24 January 2017
University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Christopher Furner
East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA, and
L. Melita Prati
Department of Management, East Carolina University, Greenville,
North Carolina, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to empirically test the extent to which gossip plays a role in
individual reputation development in the context of contemporary organizations. This study answers the
continuous calls to integrate theory across fields by exploring the theoretical links between these two
constructs.
Design/methodology/approach – This study provides a conceptual analysis and general review of the
literature on gossip and reputation. The relationship between these two constructs is investigated through a
two-study package (lab and field) yielding convergent results.
Findings – The findings of this study are that gossip contributes to organizational identity in that it
reinforces the social norms of groups and that gossip serves as an important enabler of reputational
development. This study provides empirical evidence that gossip serves a more significant role in the
development of personal reputation than more formal methods of communication.
Practical implications – As organizations and individuals attempt to develop and capitalize on the
effects of individuals’ reputations, this study provides practical insights into the knowledge that needs to be
built regarding the method by which this development can occur. This study points to the practical value of
gossip in the creation of personal reputation.
Originality/value – The theoretical framework in this study highlights the centrality of gossip as a
primary enabler of reputation development in contemporary organizations. Reputation theory is advanced by
studying a segment of the construct that has, until now, been excluded from consideration in this field.
Keywords Gossip, Personal reputation
Paper type Research paper

Gossip is an integral part of our lives. Not only does it serve as a key component of our
daily entertainment (Tal-Or and Hershman-Shitrit, 2015; Boon and Lomore, 2001), but
gossip also often reveals the “behind the scenes” insights into the lives of others
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis (Sender, 2015). Although it’s often seen as problematic, gossip may aid us in
Vol. 25 No. 3, 2017
pp. 516-535
understanding the norms and values of society (McRobbie, 2008).
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1934-8835
Gossip is a long-standing and prevalent feature of organizational life and communication.
DOI 10.1108/IJOA-07-2016-1041 Emerging streams of research on this topic indicate that there may be several beneficial
outcomes relating to gossip, including the potential to socialize individuals to organizational Personal
culture, a way of providing emotional support or even serving as a coping mechanism in reputation
stressful environments (Waddington, 2005). This study aims to further our understanding of development
gossip by revealing its positive qualities, and by demonstrating that it may actually be a
necessary component of reputational development, both within and beyond a single
organizational environment. In doing so, we or scholars answer the call to advance our
understanding of personal reputation (Ferris et al., 2003), as the majority of reputation 517
studies focus on the impact of reputation (Laird et al., 2009), not how reputation is formed and
transferred. This study addresses this issue by providing information that will allow an
organizational scholar to better understand the interaction between an individual’s
reputation and today’s organizational.

The nature of gossip

Anthropologists state that gossip is one way in which those in organizations relate to each
other to form a closer community (Dunbar, 1996). Predominant theory in this field suggests
that those who engage in disseminating gossip do so to either form social bonds with the
listener, or/and because they feel the listener would find the information valuable
(Baumeister et al., 2004). Gossip is so common place that it is readily accepted as a part of
organizational life (Ben-Ze’ev, 1994). Given the prevalence of gossip in the workplace, it is
natural to assume that such widespread and commonplace communication among
coworkers will have an impact on individual reputations.

The negative side of gossip

Regardless of how ubiquitous gossip seems to be, it is frequently viewed in a negative light,
and is often seen as destructive to the individual who is the subject of the emerging
gossip-based narrative. Additionally, negative gossip is generally weighted more heavily
than positive gossip (Farley, 2011). Typically, gossip is perceived to involve misinformation
(Levin and Arluke, 1987) and can be considered as an indirect form of aggression, frequently
cast as an aspect of bullying (Ayoko et al., 2003; Al-Nasser and Behery, 2015). Gossip is often
viewed as disruptive to productivity, damaging to organizations (van Iterson and Clegg,
2008), promoting a climate of mistrust and poor morale (Baker and Jones, 1996) and leading
to highly consequential behavior (Herbert, 2005). Despite the overwhelming negative
connotation associated with gossip, it remains common in contemporary organizations, and
serves as an important part of the communicative social structure embedded in the fabric of
modern organizations (DiFonzo et al., 1994).

The beneficial side of gossip

While the majority of published research, as well as anecdotal evidence, tend to show gossip as a
negative feature of social interaction, it has been acknowledged to have some positive effects as
well. Indeed, even if the gossip is negative, it may benefit the person who is spreading the rumor
in question (Kurland and Pelled, 2000). As gossip can often come from a trusted colleague, the
information is typically seen as reliable and valuable (Emler, 1984). As such, the individual
sharing the news can gain reward power over those who are the recipients of this narrative
(Grosser et al., 2010). This process is consistent with theories of intraorganizational power (Astley
and Sachdeva, 1984), in which an individual with unique knowledge possesses specific power as
a result of that knowledge. In the case of organizations, those providing the gossip may become
central in communication networks, and may, therefore, be effectively positioning themselves to
reap the benefits associated with network centrality.
IJOA Additionally, it has been suggested that a large portion of an organizations’ culture may
25,3 be absorbed and understood, at least in part, through member gossip (Baumeister et al.,
2004). The use of gossip by audiences and individuals goes beyond simply understanding
one’s environment. Research suggests that the information transferred in this informal form
of communication is used in several different ways: Rosnow (1991) proposed that gossip
exists to fill gaps about a situation when perfect knowledge does not exist. This is consistent
518 with Berger and Calabrese (1975) uncertainty reduction theory, where individuals will adopt
active (i.e. asking others) and/or passive (i.e. observation) strategies to fill information gaps.
When information is not known, individuals search for information to better understand
their environment and gossip is often instrumental in filling this void.
Personal reputations are spread via gossip to others who are not always able to witness actual
events. Direct observers of these incidents report them to interested audiences, and the audiences
discuss the event among themselves, attempting to not only make sense of the event (e.g. reconcile
the event in the context of norms and what is known about the person), but also to come to an
agreement concerning the meaning of the event (Morand, 2014). In doing so, gossip becomes not
only a means by which individuals may develop a reputation, but also a way in which
organizational culture is shared and disseminated. The stories of deviations by members of the
organization may become part of the tales and narrative that constitute the very identity of the
organization itself (Baumeister et al., 2004; Polya et al., 2005).
Gossip has been proposed as a mechanism to reinforce the social norms of groups,
strengthening social intimacy (Dunbar, 2004). Individuals may fear negative discussion of their
behaviors by others if they behave in an “inappropriate manner” that may contravene established
norms. To prevent such negative discussion about themselves, individuals may attempt to
behave in a manner conforming to group norms, in the hope that others will speak positively
about their acts (Baumeister et al., 2004; Ybarra et al., 2012). For example, Feinberg et al. (2014)
showed that after gossip was used to ostracize uncooperative partners, the ostracized individuals,
subsequently, became as cooperative as those who were not ostracized. In the development of
personal reputation, individuals will simultaneously observe feedback about others, along with
feedback about their own actions. This feedback will be based on the social norms of the
organization (Suls, 1977). As gossip is a mechanism for communicating those norms, individuals
developing reputations may be able to use this information to enact and refine specific behaviors
that they believe will be reported to others in a positive manner.

The messenger of gossip

In the organizational context, those gossiping about work-related topics (e.g. an individual’s
professional reputation at work) are seen in a better light than those who gossip about more
personal topics, such as divorce and plastic surgery. As a result, work-related gossip is not
only more acceptable to others, but also more likely to be passed on to others. Current theory
suggests that positive gossip may actually strengthen the reputations and advance the
careers of those spreading that gossip (Kurland and Pelled, 2000). When observers witness a
deviation from the norms, they will first attempt to evaluate the meaning of the event. This
is the same sense-making that will occur with all audiences (Weick, 1995). These observers
will make two critical judgments: first, they consider if others will find the information
interesting or useful (Haidt and Baron, 1996). Observers will evaluate those around them,
considering the norms of the group, and decide who would find the information of
significance (Michelson and Mouly, 2000). If an individual does not value or is unaware of the
norms that were deviated from, or if indeed the individual is unaware of the norms in the first
place, they will have no interest in hearing about the event (e.g. often spouses will attempt to
tell their significant other about an unusual event at their workplace, but if the deviation
being recounted is based on organizational norms, the story will carry less significance to the Personal
spouse). reputation
Second, observers will evaluate the effects that the dissemination of the gossip may have
on them as the messenger. Individuals are not only driven to spread gossip to others because
development
they find it interesting, or wish to be the individual who is in the know (Bergmann, 1993), but
also because sharing relevant, constructive information to an interested audience may have
positive effects on the messenger. As show in Figure 1, this drive to share information with
an interested audience may be an important and necessary component of reputation 519
development.

Reputation
A positive reputation can be beneficial for both individuals (Zinko et al., 2016) and also
organizations (Coombs and Holladay, 2002; Blombäck and Botero, 2013). Generally
understood as an identity that is formed from the collective perceptions of others (Ferris et al.,
2003), reputations are typically based upon actions of an individual (Bromley, 1993).
Nevertheless, it is the reporting of these actions to larger groups, and the subsequent
discussion of these actions by individuals within these groups which leads to the
development of the actual reputation. Indeed, without an audience to appraise these actions,
an agreed upon assessment of the individual (i.e. their reputation) would not develop (Zinko
et al., 2007).
Viewing reputation as performance-based trust, Colclough and Sitaraman (2005) showed
how an individual may develop social capital networks based on reputation alone. Such
individuals may never meet face-to-face, but are nevertheless willing to transfer resources (in
the form of information) across the network. Furthermore, one’s status in the network is
based upon that person’s reputation for adequately performing as a part of that network.
Regarding reputation in the context of modern technology, both Lee (2006) and also Huffaker
(2010) have shown the level of importance that many who have a presence on the Internet
place on developing a positive reputation. Although this is particularly the case when that
reputation is directly linked to an individual’s professional career, these researchers have
shown that the desire for a positive reputation exists, regardless of whether the individual is

Based upon Individual Behaviors

feedback and performs observed by
group norms, behaviors that others
individual assess deviate from
standing in group norms

Reputation is Audience Observer(s)

assigned by assesses the of report the
audience meaning of action(s) to an
action interested
audience

Via Gossip Figure 1.

Process model
IJOA using their real name, or a pseudonym. These technologically enmeshed individuals
25,3 regularly practice online reputation management (Berkelaar, 2014).
In the workplace, a positive reputation has been shown to increase power, autonomy and
career advancement (Zinko et al., 2012a). In addition, the benefits of a good reputation have
even been shown to cascade beyond those linked to individual advantages. For instance,
Walker (2010) notes that stock prices and employee morale often increase after the
520 appointment of a new CEO with a positive reputation. Although the value of reputation is
well-known, studies on reputation have centered almost exclusively on the individual with
the reputation. Extant scholarship largely omits the role of the observers who make the
judgments through which a reputation is developed.
For the past 40 years, personal reputation literature has drawn attention to the impact of
behaving in a way that will make an individual “stand out” (i.e. deviating from expected,
role-based norms; Zinko et al., 2007; Tsui, 1984), while giving very little attention as to the
processes by which personal reputation is spread (Haviland, 1977; Tsui, 1984; Jones, 1996;
Ferris et al., 2003; Zinko et al., 2012b). Yet, for a reputation to form, individuals need
audiences to form agreed upon impressions of their actions in relation to accepted norms of
behavior and subsequently communicate their judgments to others (Bromley, 1993). For
instance, one may accomplish great feats beyond what is expected of that individual, but if
there are no observers to communicate those accomplishments to others, a reputation will not
develop (Elmer, 1984). Similarly, if an individual engages in what may be deemed inept or
improper behavior and it is not observed by others, a negative reputation is also unlikely to
ensue.
A number of fields of study have recognized that others’ perceptions of an individual
constitute reputation. For example, socioanalytic theory (Hogan and Holland, 2003) argues
that people form an impression of an individual’s personality based on that person’s past
behavior. Thus, other-rated personality can be viewed as reputation (Hogan and Shelton,
1998). Likewise, when dealing with issues of libel (i.e. written defamation) and slander (i.e.
verbal defamation), the legal field sees reputation is as status in a community, which can be
assessed and altered by that community (Fenton and Lawrimore, 1992). This theme is
consistent with Pfeffer (2009), who linked personal reputation to power stating that
individuals who have a reputation for being powerful often become more powerful as their
reputation spreads to others in the organization. Indeed, although reputation may be based
upon actions, it is an audience’s assessment of those actions that creates reputations (Ferris
et al., 2014; Zinko et al., 2012a, 2012b; Ranft et al., 2006; Emler, 1994; Tsui, 1984; Elmer, 1984).
Despite overwhelming theory which contends that an assessment by others is necessary
in developing reputation, existing research regarding individual reputation has primarily
focused on two areas:
(1) The first of these areas is the individual antecedents of reputation development (e.g.
individual political skill; Blass and Ferris, 2007).
(2) The second of these areas focuses on the outcomes flowing to the individual who has
achieved the reputation (e.g. career advancement; Zinko et al., 2012a).

Although these complementary streams have garnered valuable insight into the
development of personal reputation from the perspective of the focal actor (Foste and Botero,
2012), an important perspective is missing in reputation research: how an individual’s
reputation develops and spreads within a community of observers. This examination builds
upon existing theory in exploring the notion that gossip is a primary enabling vehicle by
which reputation is developed and spread.
 This study answers the continuous calls to integrate theory across fields. We incorporate Personal
communication theory, signaling, social contagion, sense-making and role identity theory to reputation
present a model explaining how personal reputations are created and which captures the
crucial role that gossip plays in this process. In doing so, we add to the small yet growing
development
body of literature that states that gossip may be beneficial to organizations (Grosser et al.,
2010; Feinberg et al., 2014). We show how gossip, normally perceived as a negative construct,
can not only be legitimately viewed as beneficial, but can also unequivocally play an
essential role in the creation of personal reputation. 521
Furthermore, we advance reputation theory by studying a segment of the construct of
personal reputation that has, until now, effectively been excluded from consideration in this
field (Zinko et al., 2012a; Hochwarter et al., 2007; Blass and Ferris, 2007). This work is of
significant value, precisely because the majority of studies into personal reputations theorize
the construct to be predicated on actions (as opposed to falsified rumor; Zinko et al., 2007).
However, to simply ignore the remainder of the reputation-building process (i.e. the
spreading and evaluating of information by audiences) would leave the organizational
sciences without a full understanding of the construct.

Gossip and reputation

Considered to be the informal and evaluative talk about an individual by others (Kurland and
Pelled, 2000), gossip has been noted to carry a decidedly negative semantic connotation
(Fritz, 2002; Mumby, 2005). Despite this, we contend that gossip plays a crucial role in the
dissemination of reputation in organizations. This necessity of gossip goes beyond simply
sharing the information, rather it is used by the audience as a means by which to converge on
opinions and expectations of a subject (Suls, 1977; Haviland, 1977). Perception research
shows that individuals evaluate information in a variety of ways, even when the information
is presented in objective, concrete form (Loftus, 1980). In the case of personal reputation,
research has demonstrated that audience members are able to form similar opinions of
subjects at a significantly high rate, typically reaching correlations around 0.90 (Zinko et al.,
2012a, 2012b).
As illustrated in Figure 1, if an individual is perceived as deviating from norms to a large
enough extent by an audience, those who observe the action(s) may find the deviation(s) from
the norms a topic of interest and may share this information with others. This sharing occurs
for two reasons. First, individuals enjoy discussing events they find interesting with others
for the purpose of social bonding (Bergmann, 1993). Additionally, sharing occurs because
observers attempt to understand and evaluate the magnitude of the deviation in the context
of what the audience knows about the individual actor to calibrate their judgments and
subsequently decide what action, if any, to undertake (Weick, 1995).
As gossip constitutes about two-thirds of all work place communication (Dunbar, 2004;
Emler, 1994), it remains underemphasized in prior studies of this construct, yet it is a very
pervasive and efficient means of disseminating judgments throughout an organization
(Kniffin and Wilson, 2010). If gossip is so important, we need to understand the associated
processes/mechanisms so it can be managed to create value for individuals and
organizations. Indeed, as organizations and individuals attempt to develop and capitalize on
the effects of individual’s reputations (Ranft et al., 2006; Ferris et al., 2007), knowledge needs
to be built regarding the method by which this development can occur. To simply “do good
work” will not necessarily produce a positive reputation. The actions of the individual must
not only be unusual enough to be considered of interest to others, there must be others around
to report the behavior to larger audiences, who will discuss the unusual behavior (Zinko et al.,
2007), in an effort to better understand the meaning of the actions (Weick, 1995). This
IJOA formation of agreement by an audience regarding the subject is a necessary component of
25,3 reputation (Zinko et al., 2012a; Ferris et al., 2014; Tsui, 1984; Emler, 1994; Haviland, 1977).
Thus, although this construct has yet to be fully explored in the context of personal
reputation, gossip is a necessary component to the development and maintenance of the
construct. This study aims to explore this gap in the literature by offering and testing
hypotheses that are built upon existing theory, in an effort to more fully understand how
522 gossip influences personal reputation development. To accomplish this, a two-study
package (lab and field) with convergent results is presented.

Hypothesis development
Role theory
If effective, behaviors will deviate from the expected role of the subject sufficiently for others
to notice that a variation is occurring. Role theory presumes that individuals hold social
positions, and those positions dictate expectations of them by others. Essentially, behaviors
of individuals can be predicted, depending on their respective social identities and the
situation (Biddle, 1961). These “roles” are components of a larger, stable social system that
constitutes the organization – they are understood by all participants in the system (Bates
and Harvey, 1975).
However, individuals do not always act according to these role expectations. Deviations
from these roles can come in a variety of forms. Often it is the case, that one will excel at their
role, above others in the organization (i.e. and, therefore, the expectations of the role). Such a
deviation can lead to a reputation for excellence (Tsui, 1984). This may often be the case when
one “signals” to others their ability to perform a task, by repeatedly exceeding expectations.
On other occasions, the deviations may be negative, or simply “unusual” (Zinko et al., 2007).
Regardless of the deviation being positive or negative, such divergence from roles causes
observers to take interest in the actions (Berlyne, 1954). As these actions are not the norm for
the role, observers will attempt to make sense of the variation in behavior (Weick, 1995). A
portion of this sense-making behavior is discussion with others (Waddington, 2005), often
times communicated in the form of gossip (Zinko et al., 2007).
The deviations, or signals, need to be considered in the context of the norms and values of
the audience. An audience must not only be able to understand the deviations, but also be
able to internalize and assess the deviations. Therefore, the individual must be privy to the
norms and values of the group to deviate from those norms. Deviating from norms that are
not familiar to the group will not produce a discussion or assessment of the behaviors due to
a lack of frame of reference (Emler, 1994):
H1. When an individual deviates from familiar social and role-based norms, they may
become the subject of gossip.

Direct observation vs reported behaviors

As Figure 1 shows, when an individual deviates from role-based norms, others may be
present to observe these behaviors. If so, these direct observers may be motivated to report
those behaviors to others in the organization (Wert and Salovey, 2004; Dunbar, 2004).
However, each of these two groups (i.e. direct observers and audiences who have the
behaviors reported to them) may process the information differently.

Direct observation
Research has shown that when multiple individuals observe an occurrence, several unique
observations will be reported when different individuals are asked about the event (Loftus,
1980). This is due to such phenomena as attitudes and expectations (Kassin et al., 1989), and
the cross-race bias (Meissner and Brigham, 2001), which both affect how an individual may Personal
view a target. Likewise, post-event information (McCloskey and Zaragoza, 1985), the reputation
forgetting curve (Squire, 1989) and time (Ouellette and Wood, 1998), may also introduce
recall error after the incident has been observed by another. Therefore, when an individual
development
behaves in a way that demonstrates a deviation from role-based norms, those who are able to
directly observe the deviation may each come to unique conclusions about what they
witnessed.
Additionally, those who are able to directly observe an individual on a daily basis will feel 523
they have less of a need to look to others for assessment of the deviation. Anti-inference bias
(Zamir et al., 2014 for an overview of anti-inference bias) is, essentially, the concept that
seeing is believing. In other words, when individuals “see” the actions of a subject, they are
less likely than those who were simply told about the deviation to alter their assessment of
what occurred. Furthermore, research suggests that although sense-making (i.e. the drive to
understand the deviation from the role-based norms; Weick, 1995) does come into play, it will
not be as prevalent for direct observers as for others. The motivation behind sense-making is
that individuals are dealing with unexplained behavior. Those who are in daily contact with
the subject (and, therefore, more likely to be the ones who observe the behavior) will still
recognize the behavior as a deviation from norms, but because they are likely to see the
individual more often than audiences who have the information reported to them, direct
observers have an increased knowledge of context and therefore can more easily understand
the motivation behind the behavior (i.e. they know the person better, so they better
understand the behavior better; Zinko et al., 2007).
In summary, those who directly observe behaviors are not only less likely to believe that
they saw the same thing as others, but will be less likely to feel a need to discuss the event.
Even when confronted with a different opinion, they will be less likely to accept the other
opinion, because it is “not what they saw”.

Reported behaviors
As shown in Figure 1, those who directly observe deviant behaviors will report them to
audiences, where the behaviors are scrutinized and analyzed by the group. As is often the
case, more than one direct observer may report to the audience. Therefore, external audiences
may often get varying “stories” relating to what has occurred. Besides all the potential
distortions that were noted above, communication theory dictates that noise (Stern, 1994)
and bias (DePaulo et al., 1997) may affect the perception of the receiver of the information.
This would render the messages delivered to audience members by direct observers even
more diverse. Nevertheless, regardless of how disjointed the information that is being
received is, audiences will still arrive at a consensus regarding the individual in question.
The reasoning behind this unusual social occurrence can be illuminated by social contagion
theory, groupthink and group polarization.
Social contagion theory proposes that individuals adopt the attitudes or behaviors of
others in the social network to which they belong. Intent to influence, or even an awareness
of influence, is not required; there only needs to be communication between individuals in the
network for the influence to take place (Scherer and Cho, 2003). This phenomenon has been
shown to affect such things as the hiring practices of top firms (Williamson and Cable, 2003),
progress of innovation (Rogers, 2010) and the purchasing behaviors of markets (Iyengar
et al., 2011). The communication of ideas through social contagion typically occurs through
gossip (Marsden, 1998).
Groupthink is the mistaken belief that consensus exists when it does not (Janis, 1982).
This is often the result of group members not feeling they are able to fully express their
IJOA doubts about an issue. Instead, individuals emphasize the areas in which members are in
25,3 agreement to increase the cohesiveness of the group. Wert and Salovey (2004) postulated that
this seems especially likely in gossip circles, as contradictions appear to be infrequent.
Likewise, Bergmann (1993) found that the message in gossip tends to be similar, regardless
of who is telling the story. Therefore, individuals may come away from a gossip session
falsely believing that the group was in agreement with respect to the topic of discussion.
524 Group polarization occurs when an initial tendency of a group member toward a specific
finding is reinforced by group discussion (Myers and Lamm, 1976). Myers (1975) evaluated this
phenomenon empirically showing that a group of moderately pro-feminist women will be more
strongly pro-feminist following group discussion. A similar study, in a business context,
was repeated by Liu and Latane (1998), resulting in comparable findings. The results of both
studies support the notion that after an issue has been discussed among a group, individuals’
judgments become more extreme (Myers and Lamm, 1976). Regarding gossip and reputations,
deviations from the norms are being evaluated. Group polarization theory suggests that those
within the group who feel that the deviation is not that extreme will concede their views to those
who feel that the violation of norms warrants a stronger reaction (Isenberg, 1986).
Therefore, those who are able to observe actions directly will be able to do so in the
context of their knowledge of the individual and are less likely to form a unified opinion,
while those who have the behavior reported to them are more likely to discuss the behavior
and come to a unified conclusion. As by definition (Zinko et al., 2007) this unified conclusion
is the basis of personal reputation, we hypothesize the following:
H2. Opinions based on direct observation will vary significantly more than opinions
based on reported behaviors.

The legitimacy of gossip

The phenomena of gossip provides an opportunity for individuals in an organization to
communicate their intentions and beliefs through action, and thereby develop a reputation
(Carroll et al., 2003). The process cannot occur, however, unless the individual in question
deviates from the behavioral norms of the organization. Such actions are inconsistent with
what the audience expects from the individual because these actions depart from the
expected behaviors that are characteristic of a particular role-set assigned to that in
individual by those within the organization (Zinko et al., 2010).
An example of this process can be seen when individuals focus on a specific skill or trait
for which they desire to acquire a reputation. These individuals attempt to convince others of
their abilities. If they are successful, they will gain a reputation for that particular trait, and
consequently, individuals outside of their immediate sphere of influence (e.g. those above
their immediate supervisor) will know them for their positive reputation and may render
decisions solely based upon the strength and pervasiveness of the individual’s reputation.
The dispersing of information throughout an organization can occur through formal
means such as memos and announcements, or through informal means such as gossip. Both
means of transmission are instrumental in forming reputation. However, research suggests
that the diffusion of information through informal means is often more readily believed than
that disseminated formally. When individuals receive information, they assess the source
of that information for credibility. As informal communication such as gossip often comes
from those in one’s peer group, the assessment of the messenger of that information results
in what is considered to be a more trusted source. Furthermore, informal means of
reputation-building are typically based upon deviations from norms. Information derived
from these deviations is normally discussed more often and with more speculation than
information received via “formal” channels (Emler, 1994).
 The deviation from norms prompts gossip, which allows the group to increase social Personal
bonds (Dunbar, 2004), helping to preserve the group’s solidarity by holding an agreed upon reputation
interpretation of social events (Noon and Delbridge, 1993). Unlike formal communication,
gossip is often less complete, requiring more interpretation. As such, it will often involve
development
more discussion among the group to assess how the new information may affect the
individual in question. Sharing gossip can also enhance the standing of the messenger by
demonstrating his/her ability to provide informal, yet accurate, information that is not
readily available via “normal” communication channels (Kurland and Pelled, 2000). 525
Additionally, because information spread via gossip requires more discussion from a group
than does formal information, gossip should provide a better vehicle for spreading and
developing a reputation:
H3. Although information will be collected from a variety of sources, gossip will serve a
more significant role in the development of personal reputation than will more
formal methods of communication.

Plan of research
We present a two-study research package, designed with the goal of testing our hypotheses.
Study 1 is a scenario-based experiment, using work-place vignettes to test H1 (i.e. when an
individual deviates from familiar social and role-based norms, they may become the subject
of gossip.) as well as H3 (i.e. although information will be collected from a variety of sources,
gossip will serve a more substantial role in the development of personal reputation than will
more formal methods of communication). We elect to use a scenario-based experiment in
Study 1, because doing so permits us to manipulate relevant constructs (e.g. the extent to
which individuals deviate from norms) while controlling for the influence of situational
factors (such as organizational culture; Kirk, 1969). This approach is consistent with
numerous organizational behavior and communication studies (DiPaola and
Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Lind and van den Bos, 2013):
Likewise, an observational field study was able to give us the best results for H2 (i.e.
opinions based on direct observation will vary significantly more than opinions based on
reported behaviors.) as we were able to ask about opinions about individuals from those who
saw them on a daily basis and opinions of those who were not able to directly observe the
subject (i.e. but rather had to hear about them from others).

Study 1
Procedure
Data were collected from 142 “working adults” in the eastern USA. MBA students were
offered credit to identify suitable subjects for the study. The measurement instrument was
posted online. Consistent with numerous studies in the organizational sciences (Furner and
George, 2012; Kruikemeier et al., 2013), this study uses a scenario-based experiment for H1
and H3. This allows the researcher to present a variety of scenarios to subjects and, in doing
so, manipulate the constructs of interest. Two of these hypotheses would be extremely
difficult to produce in a field study, as the participants would need to have experienced each
situation in the recent past. Furthermore, if the events were naturally occurring, controls
could not be applied to the study and as such excessive noise would be present.
In reading the four vignettes, the subjects were asked to consider the information
provided in the context of a “typical” US organization. As reputations are based upon the
norms of the association, it was necessary for the participants to hold similar ideas as to what
a “typical” organization might be. Therefore, the subjects for the study were all working
adults who were part-time MBA students at a large university in the eastern USA. This
IJOA ensured a degree of similarity of thought regarding the norms and values of working
25,3 organizations (i.e. something that could not occur as assuredly with an international sample).
A control question was asked “are you a permanent resident or citizen of the Unites States?”
to assure that the mental framework of the subject was consistent with what others in the
study would consider a “typical” US organization.

526
Measures
Appendix 1 shows the four narratives that were presented. The narratives were similar in that
they identified the performance of each individual at work, their hobbies and home life. The four
scenarios presented a low-deviation control (i.e. the person in the scenario grew up in Iowa and
rides motorcycles on the weekends), a medium deviation (i.e. four times in the past three years, a
sheriff has come to your work to serve this person papers to appear in court. Your colleague tells
you that these appearances are always because this person’s neighbor argues with him about
their property line and keeps suing him) and two high deviations. These high-deviation scenarios
consisted of one which was repeated (i.e. this person often shows up to work wearing the same
clothes as the day before, his breath smelling of alcohol) and a high deviation that is not repeated
(i.e. several years ago, the brakes on this person’s car failed and he drove through the front
window of the company building).
Each scenario contained several small pieces of unrelated information (e.g. the individual’s
favorite sports team and clubs that they may belong to), in addition to the deviation manipulation.
The subjects were first asked to identify which elements of the narrative they felt were worth
talking about (i.e. the deviations from norms and the sports team preference). Next, upon
completion of each scenario, the subjects were given a series of statements pertaining to the
individual who was the subject of each scenario (e.g. this person would be a frequent topic of
discussion by others) and asked to rate their agreement on a Likert scale from 1 to 7. Possible
responses ranged from strongly disagree ⫽ 1 to strongly agree ⫽ 7.

Data analysis
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS 20 was conducted to show variation between
the different scenarios.

Results
This study examined the role that the audience plays in the building of an individual’s
reputation, via the mechanism of gossip. Tables I and II present the results for H1 and H3.
Table I shows those portions that were picked to be deviations by our panel were also picked
by the participants (i.e. showing up smelling of alcohol, as opposed to being single). We
included a high deviation in the control that was not in the context of a “typical USA
organization”. That is to say, we included the person as being a “star” in their church choir.
Although this is a deviation, it is not a deviation in the context of most American workplaces,
and as such, although some thought that the person would be known in the workplace for
this external deviation, half the subjects felt the control would “not be known for anything
special”. Additionally, Table II presents the frequency of deviation and shows that a single
incident, while talked-about, is not as highly discussed as deviations that are consistent. Both
H1 and H3 were supported by the data.
Table III shows the positive results of H3, suggesting that although information will be
collected from a variety of sources, gossip will play a stronger role in how an individual is
viewed by a group than more formal methods of communication.
Possibilities choices Response rate (%)
Personal
reputation
Low deviation (John) development
I do not feel this person would be known for anything special 47
He grew up in Iowa 2
He rides motorcycles in the weekends 21
He is a star singer in the choir of his church 30
527
Medium deviation (Richard)
I do not feel this person would be known for anything special 7
Four times in the past three years, a sheriff has come to your work to serve 75
Richard papers to appear in court
Richard’s neighbor argues with him about their property line and keeps suing 7
him
In his spare time, he runs marathons 11
Last month he bought a new car 1
High (single occurrence) deviation (Sam)
I do not feel this person would be known for anything special 15
A few years ago, the breaks on Sam’s car failed and he drove through the front 73
window of the company building
His favorite baseball team is the Atlanta Braves 4
He is active in the Rotary club 7
High (multiple occurrences) deviation (George)
I do not feel this person would be known for anything special 4
He often shows up wearing the same clothes as the day before, his breath 93 Table I.
smelling of beer Outcome of subject
He is unmarried and drives a truck 2 choices for what
Last summer he went to Tijuana for two weeks on vacation 1 would be known

This person would be a

frequent topic of discussion This person would be very
by others well known by others
Parameter B Standard error B Standard error

Intercept 3.50** 0.108 4.45** 0.106

George (vs John) (Smelling of beer) 2.14** 0.152 0.63** 0.149
Sam (vs John) (Car crash thru window) 0.37** 0.153 0.37** 0.150
Richard (vs John) (Legal troubles) 1.84** 0.153 0.55** 0.149
R-squared 0.37 0.04
df 3 3 Table II.
F 96.34** 7.05** Level of deviation as it
relates to interest of
Notes: N ⫽ 118, ** ⫽ ⬍ 0.01 audience

Study 2
Procedure
To validate H2, a field study was developed that measured the reputation of 123 working
adults. MBA students were offered credit to find subjects for the study. Each subject was
rated by three raters who saw them on a daily basis and three raters who saw them three
times or less a month. Each subject was asked to provide a list of potential raters. These
IJOA raters were suggested by the subject, then contacted by email and asked to participate in the
25,3 study. All responses were collected electronically.

Measures
Each rater was asked to complete the 12-item Hochwarter et al. (2007) reputation scale. This
scale consisted of items such as “I am regarded highly by others” and “If people want things
528 done right, they ask me to do it” (items were re-worded when gathering other-reports).
Possible responses ranged from strongly disagree ⫽ 1 to strongly agree ⫽ 7. Hochwarter
et al. reported a reliability of 0.92.

Data analysis
An inter-rater reliability analysis (Mathisen et al., 2006) was conducted on the two different
groups (i.e. those who saw the subject on a daily basis vs those who saw the subject three
times or fewer a month) using SPSS 20.

Results
For those who saw the subject on daily basis, a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75 was calculated. For
those who saw the subject three times or less a month, an alpha of 0.87 resulted. A t-test
showed these results to be significantly unique. Both findings are significant in that they
support H2, which states that opinions based on direct observation will vary significantly
more than opinions based on reported behaviors.

Discussion
The data supported all hypotheses in that when individuals deviated from familiar social
and role-based norms, they became the subject of gossip. Likewise, opinions based on direct
observation varied significantly more than opinions based on reported behaviors. Finally,
although information about individuals will be collected from a variety of sources, gossip
will serve a more significant role in the development of personal reputation than will
information garnered from more formal methods of communication. The affirmation of these
hypotheses suggests that gossip is a critical part of the development of personal reputation.
Without this mechanism, audiences have no viable way of forming a unified opinion of an
individual.

Contributions to theory and research

The desire to build a positive personal reputation is, for the most part, universal. This drive
may exist because reputation, whether positive or negative, is what makes an individual part
of a community and that reputation is used to manipulate people as a means to an end (Ferris
et al., 2003). As reputation is an agreed upon evaluation of the individual in question, one

Mean of those who change

Mean of impression % who changed impression impression after
Parameter from gossip after newsletter newsletter t

Richard 2.8 64 5.16 ⫺25.20**

George 2.83 68 3.81 ⫺2.80**
Sam 3.04 51 5.67 ⫺27.74**
Table III. John 3.33 68 5.84 ⫺31.45**
Gossip vs formal
communication Notes: N ⫽ 118, ** ⫽ ⬍ 0.01
must be talked-about by others for this evaluation to occur. Researchers across fields agree Personal
that for reports of events to be disseminated throughout groups, those events must be reputation
interesting, meaning they must deviate from established norms. Individuals who fail to
engage in activities outside of the ordinary will not have these activities discussed by others
development
via gossip (Haviland, 1977; Levin and Arluke, 1987), and, therefore, they will not develop or
maintain a strong reputation.
Based upon these assumptions, this study attempts to improve and extend our
understanding of the transference of information that leads to the development of an 529
individual’s reputation. The results presented here suggest that reputation is developed
through communal observation and informal communication (i.e. gossip) as opposed to
formal dissemination of information. This contention is also consistent with current theory
(Zinko et al., 2007) by suggesting that for individuals to develop reputations, they must
deviate from social norms: the greater the deviation, the stronger the development of
reputation via gossip.
By conducting both a field study and a scenario based examination, we have shown that
those who deviate from norms will be talked-about by groups and that those groups tend to
agree as to which specific behaviors qualify as deviations. Furthermore, we have shown that
attempts to build a reputation by more formal means (i.e. in this case via accomplishments
expressed in a company newsletter) may not be as effective as more informal means of
communication (i.e. gossip).

Practical implications
For an individual to build and maintain a reputation, they must consider several aspects of
their environment. First, the individual in question must have an understanding of the norms
and values of the organization. For a deviation to elicit gossip, the norms deviated from must
be ones that the group accepts as their own. Violating norms of a different group will not
garner any sort of discussion related to the individual in question. Gossip is not only relevant
for the transfer and development of reputation, but it also provides norm-based feedback.
This feedback can be useful for better understanding and evaluating the proper norms and
values of an organization.
Second, individuals attempting to build a positive reputation must be able to deviate from
the norms in a productive way. To simply stand out for being “weird” or “different” is not
productive. Not only should those deviations be seen as positive, but their deviations must be
ones that are worth talking about by others via gossip. Indeed, the control scenario had a
significant deviation for a different group (i.e. being a star singer in a local choir), but did not
provide a strong deviation from the norms of the organization in question. Oppositely,
individuals must also avoid deviating from norms in a negative or detrimental way as the
results imply that any deviation from organizational norms will affect ones reputation when
such deviation is the subject of gossip.
Next, those deviation must be repeated their actions. To simply excel at one’s workplace
task a single time will not aid in reputation building. Such behaviors must be repeated for
others to take notice. Once the behavior occurs on a regular basis, others may use those
actions to predict future behaviors.
Finally, individuals building a reputation must be certain that there is an audience to
witness the deviation. Although it is not necessary for all parties to be there, at least one
observer needs to be present and record the deviation and engage in gossip about the
deviation. This party must also carry the information (i.e. via gossip) to the larger audience
for assessment of the information. Deviating from a task in a positive way, with no
observation of the deviation will not result in the development of a positive reputation.
IJOA Furthermore, there is the consideration of the audience. Those who witness the deviations
25,3 must not only be willing to tell others, but also much be seen as a credible source of
information. Proper audience selection when considering deviating from norms is vital.

Limitations and future research directions

This investigation was performed using both an experimental study, and also a field study.
530 Indeed, although the manipulations presented do capture variations in norms and values,
they only supply a starting framework within which to examine the effects of individuals
deviating from norms. Furthermore, as we continue to examine deviations from norms and
the results of such actions, we must further explore how both negative and positive
deviations will influence the perceptions of others. All too often, negative behaviors are
remembered over positives actions. In the case of reputations, there is a need to investigate
whether a single negative behavior can effectively negate all other actions that an individual
performs?
Additionally, little is known about those who are messengers of reputation-building
gossip. Individuals sharing gossip can often gain reward power over those who are receiving
it (Grosser et al., 2010). Accordingly, the following questions are worthy of consideration.
Could those attempting to build a reputation surround themselves with those who are
motivated to share their reputation-building deviations? If so, what other skills may be
necessary to facilitate this sharing of knowledge. Indeed, political skill has been shown to aid
in a subject’s ability to craft the reputational message to the immediate audience (Zinko et al.,
2012a), but what particular aptitudes and characteristics might the carrier of the message to
a secondary, larger audience possess?
Finally, this sample for this research was collected in the USA. One cannot simply assume
that such results are applicable the world over. Indeed, societies that are more collective may
react in a different manner to gossip. It could be argued that “standing out”, even for positive
deviations, may result in undesirable outcomes. Likewise, individuals who create deviations
may not only negatively affect their own reputation, but that of the group. Further research
is needed regarding the outcomes in other cultures.
In considering these questions, we have outlined a starting point from which to better
understand how gossip plays a role in the development and maintenance of personal
reputation. As individuals deviate from the norms of organizations, they are talked-about by
audiences. These audiences develop the reputation of that individual, based on
interpretations of that person’s actions; a continuation of such examinations is necessary to
better understand the construct that is personal reputation.

Conclusion
A study has been presented that explores the relationship between gossip and reputation in
a meaningful way. Building upon the existing theory, we have shown that deviating from
norms will not only cause others to assess those deviations for relevance, but also discuss
their interpretations and opinions with others. These findings will add to the growing body
of work surrounding the developing field of personal reputation. In doing so, we are looking
beyond characteristics that an individual may possess to successfully build a reputation for
their audience, in an effort to better understand the robust construct that is personal
reputation.

References
Al-Nasser, A. and Behery, M. (2015), “Examining the relationship between organizational coaching and
workplace counterproductive behaviours in the United Arab Emirates”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 378-403.
Astley, W.G. and Sachdeva, P.S. (1984), “Structural sources of intraorganizational: power: a theoretical Personal
synthesis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 104-113.
reputation
Ayoko, O.B., Callan, V.J. and Härtel, C.E. (2003), “Workplace conflict, bullying, and counterproductive
behaviors”, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 283-301.
development
Baker, J.S. and Jones, M.A. (1996), “The poison grapevine: how destructive are gossip and rumor in the
workplace?”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 75-86.
Bates, F.L. and Harvey, C.C. (1975), The Structure of Social Systems, Gardner Press, New York, NY.
531
Baumeister, R.F., Zhang, L. and Vohs, K.D. (2004), “Gossip as cultural learning”, Review of General
Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 111-121.
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1994), The Vindication of Gossip, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Berger, C.R. and Calabrese, R.J. (1975), “Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a
developmental theory of interpersonal communication”, Human Communication Research,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 99-112.
Bergmann, J.R. (1993), Discreet Indiscretions: The Social Organization of Gossip, Transaction
Publishers, Piscataway, NJ.
Berkelaar, B.L. (2014), “Cybervetting, online information, and personnel selection new transparency
expectations and the emergence of a digital social contract”, Management Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 479-506.
Berlyne, D.E. (1954), “A theory of human curiosity”, British Journal of Psychology. General Section,
Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 180-191.
Biddle, B.J. (1961), The Present Status of Role Theory, Social Psychology Laboratory, Columbia.
Blass, F.R. and Ferris, G.R. (2007), “Leader reputation: the role of mentoring, political skill, contextual
learning, and adaptation”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 5-19.
Blombäck, A. and Botero, I. (2013), “Reputational capital in family firms: understanding uniqueness
from the stakeholder point of view”, in Poutziouris, P., Smyrnios, K. and Goel, S. (Eds), Handbook
of Research on Family Business, 2nd ed., Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton.
Boon, S.D. and Lomore, C.D. (2001), “Admirer-celebrity relationships among young adults”, Human
Communication Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 432-465.
Bromley, D.B. (1993), Reputation, Image and Impression Management, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,
NJ.
Carroll, A., Green, S., Houghton, S. and Wood, R. (2003), “Reputation enhancement and involvement in
delinquency among high school students”, International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 253-273.
Colclough, G. and Sitaraman, B. (2005), “Community and social capital: what is the difference?”,
Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 474-496.
Coombs, W.T. and Holladay, S.J. (2002), “Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets initial
tests of the situational crisis communication theory”, Management Communication Quarterly,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 165-186.
DePaulo, B.M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J.J. and Muhlenbruck, L. (1997), “The
accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception”, Personality and Social Psychology
Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 346-357.
DiPaola, M. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014), “Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its
relationship to school climate”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 424-447.
Dunbar, R. (1996), Gossip, Grooming and the Evolution of Language, Faber and Faber, London.
Dunbar, R. (2004), “Gossip in evolutionary perspective”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 100-112.
Elmer, N. (1984), “Differential involvement in delinquency: toward an interpretation in terms of
reputation management”, Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol. 13, pp. 173-239.
IJOA Emler, N. (1994), “Gossip, reputation, and social adaptation”, in Goodman, R. and Ze’ev, A.B. (Eds), Good
Gossip, Kansas University Press, KS.
25,3
Farley, S.D. (2011), “Is gossip power? The inverse relationships between gossip, power, and likability”,
European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 574-579.
Feinberg, M., Willer, R. and Schultz, M. (2014), “Gossip and ostracism promote cooperation in groups”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 656-664.
532 Fenton, J.W. and Lawrimore, K.W. (1992), “Employment reference checking, firm size, and defamation
liability”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 30, p. 88.
Ferris, G.R., Blass, F.R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R.W., Treadway, D.C. and Greenburg, J. (2003),
“Personal reputation in organizations”, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State
of the Science, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 211-246.
Ferris, G.R., Harris, J.N., Russell, Z.A., Blass, F.R., Ellen, B.P. and Martinez, A.D. (2014), “The role of
reputation in the organizational sciences: a multilevel review, construct assessment, and
research directions”, in Buckley, M.R., Halbesleben, J.R.B. and Wheeler, A.R. (Eds), Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management (Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, Volume 32), Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 241-303.
Ferris, G.R., Perrewé, P.L., Ranft, A.L., Zinko, R., Stoner, J.S., Brouer, R.L. and Laird, M.D. (2007),
“Human resources reputation and effectiveness”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 117-130.
Foste, E.A. and Botero, I.C. (2012), “Personal reputation effects of upward communication on
impressions about new employees”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 48-73.
Fritz, J.M.H. (2002), “How do I dislike thee? Let me count the ways constructing impressions of
troublesome others at work”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 410-438.
Furner, C.P. and George, J.F. (2012), “Cultural determinants of media choice for deception”, Computers
in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1427-1438.
Grosser, T.J., Lopez-Kidwell, V. and Labianca, G. (2010), “A social network analysis of positive and
negative gossip in organizational life”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 177-212.
Haidt, J. and Baron, J. (1996), “Social roles and the moral judgement of acts and omissions”, European
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 201-218.
Haviland, J.B. (1977), Gossip, Reputation, and Knowledge in Zinacantan, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Herbert, I. (2005), Vigilante Violence: Death by Gossip, The Independent, London, pp. 12-13.
Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R., Zinko, R., Arnell, B. and James, M. (2007), “Reputation as a moderator of
political behavior-work outcomes relationships: a two-study investigation with convergent
results”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, p. 567.
Hogan, J. and Holland, B. (2003), “Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: a
socioanalytic perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 100-112.
Hogan, R. and Shelton, D. (1998), “A socioanalytic perspective on job performance”, Human
Performance, Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 129-144.
Huffaker, D. (2010), “Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online communities”, Human
Communication Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 593-617.
Isenberg, D.J. (1986), “Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 1141-1151.
Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C. and Valente, T.W. (2011), “Opinion leadership and social contagion in new
product diffusion”, Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 195-212.
Jones, O. (1996), “Human resources, scientists, and internal reputation: the role of climate and job Personal
satisfaction”, Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 269-294.
reputation
Kassin, S.M., Ellsworth, P.C. and Smith, V.L. (1989), “The ‘general acceptance’ of psychological research
on eyewitness testimony: a survey of the experts”, American Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 8,
development
pp. 1089-1098.
Kirk, R. (1969), Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.
Kniffin, K.M. and Wilson, D.S. (2010), “Evolutionary perspectives on workplace gossip: why and how
gossip can serve groups”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 150-176.
533
Kruikemeier, S., van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R. and de Vreese, C.H. (2013), “Getting closer: the effects of
personalized and interactive online political communication”, European Journal of
Communication, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 53-66.
Kurland, N.B. and Pelled, L.H. (2000), “Passing the word: toward a model of gossip and power in the
workplace”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 428-438.
Laird, M.D., Perryman, A.A., Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R. and Zinko, R. (2009), “The moderating
effects of personal reputation on accountability-strain relationships”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 70-83.
Lee, H. (2006), “Privacy, publicity, and accountability of self-presentation in an on-line discussion
group*”, Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Levin, J. and Arluke, A. (1987), Gossip: The Inside Scoop, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Lind, E.A. and van den Bos, K. (2013), “Freeing organizational behavior from inhibitory constraints”,
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33, pp. 79-95.
Liu, J.H. and Latane, B. (1998), “Extremitization of attitudes: does thought-and discussion-induced
polarization cumulate?”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 103-110.
Loftus, E.F. (1980), “Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness
identification”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 1, p. 9.
McRobbie, A. (2008), “Pornographic permutations”, The Communication Review, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 225-236.
Marsden, P. (1998), “Memetics and social contagion: two sides of the same coin”, Journal of
Memetics-Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 171-185.
Mathisen, G.E., Torsheim, T. and Einarsen, S. (2006), “The team-level model of climate for innovation:
a two-level confirmatory factor analysis”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 23-36.
Meissner, C.A. and Brigham, J.C. (2001), “Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for
faces: a meta-analytic review”, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 3.
Michelson, G. and Mouly, S. (2000), “Rumour and gossip in organisations: a conceptual study”,
Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 339-346.
Morand, D.A. (2014), “Using politeness to model the psychosocial dynamics of power in organizational
interaction”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 247-273.
Mumby, D.K. (2005), “Theorizing resistance in organization studies a dialectical approach”,
Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 19-44.
Myers, D.G. (1975), “Discussion-induced attitude polarization”, Human Relations, Vol. 28 No. 8,
pp. 699-714.
Myers, D.G. and Lamm, H. (1976), “The group polarization phenomenon”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 83
No. 4, p. 602.
Noon, M. and Delbridge, R. (1993), “News from behind my hand: gossip in organizations”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
Ouellette, J.A. and Wood, W. (1998), “Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by
which past behavior predicts future behavior”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 54-62.
IJOA Pfeffer, J. (2009), “Understanding power in organizations”, in Tjosvold, D. and Wisse, B. (Eds), Power
and Interdependence in Organizations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25,3
Polya, T., Laszlo, J. and Forgas, J.P. (2005), “Making sense of life stories: the role of narrative perspective
in perceiving hidden information about social identity”, European Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 785-796.
Ranft, A.L., Zinko, R., Ferris, G.R. and Buckley, R.M. (2006), “Marketing the image of management: the
534 costs and benefits of CEO reputation”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 279-290.
Rogers, E.M. (2010), Diffusion of Innovations, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Rosnow, R.L. (1991), “Inside rumor: a personal journey”, American Psychologist, Vol. 46 No. 5,
pp. 484-499.
Scherer, C.W. and Cho, H. (2003), “A social network contagion theory of risk perception”, Risk Analysis,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 261-267.
Sender, K. (2015), “Reconsidering reflexivity: audience research and reality television”, The
Communication Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37-52.
Squire, L.R. (1989), “On the course of forgetting in very long-term memory”, Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 15 No. 2, p. 241.
Stern, B.B. (1994), “A revised communication model for advertising: multiple dimensions of the source,
the message, and the recipient”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 5-15.
Suls, J.M. (1977), “Gossip as social comparison”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 164-168.
Tal-Or, N. and Hershman-Shitrit, M. (2015), “Self-disclosure and the liking of participants in reality TV”,
Human Communication Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 245-267.
Tsui, A.S. (1984), “A role set analysis of managerial reputation”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 64-96.
van Iterson, A. and Clegg, S.R. (2008), “The politics of gossip and denial in interorganizational
relations”, Human Relations, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 1117-1137.
Waddington, K. (2005), “Using diaries to explore the characteristics of work-related gossip:
methodological considerations from exploratory multimethod research”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 221-236.
Walker, K. (2010), “A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: definition, measurement,
and theory”, in Johnson, J.A. and Briggs, S.R. (Eds), Corporate Reputation Review, Academic
Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 357-387.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wert, S.R. and Salovey, P. (2004), “A social comparison account of gossip”, Review of General
Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 122-130.
Williamson, I.O. and Cable, D.M. (2003), “Organizational hiring patterns, interfirm network ties, and
interorganizational imitation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 349-358.
Ybarra, O., Park, H., Stanik, C. and Lee, D.S. (2012), “Self-judgment and reputation monitoring as a
function of the fundamental dimensions, temporal perspective, and culture”, European Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 200-209.
Zamir, E., Ritov, I. and Teichman, D. (2014), “Seeing is believing: the anti-inference bias”, Indiana Law
Journal, Vol. 89, p. 195.
Zinko, R., Gentry, W.A. and Laird, M.D. (2016), “A development of the dimensions of personal
reputation”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 634-649.
Zinko, R., Ferris, G.R., Blass, F.R. and Laird, M.D. (2007), “Toward a theory of reputation in
organizations”, in Martocchio, J.J. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management (Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 26), Emerald
Group Publishing, pp. 163-204.
Zinko, R., Furner, C.P., Royle, T. and Hall, A. (2010), “Self-perceptions of our personal reputations: the Personal
mediating role of image in the development of organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
International Management Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 1-9.
reputation
Zinko, R., Gentry, W.A., Hall, A. and Grant, G.L. (2012b), “Reputational change among managers”,
development
Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 9-26.
Zinko, R., Ferris, G.R., Humphrey, S.E., Meyer, C.J. and Aime, F. (2012a), “Personal reputation in
organizations: two-study constructive replication and extension of antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, 535
pp. 156-180.

Appendix
Low deviation
John is a division manager at your organization. According to your long-time colleague, he grew up in
Iowa and rides motorcycles on the weekends. He is a star singer in the choir of his church.
Medium deviation
Richard is a division manager at your organization. According to your long-time colleague, four times
in the past three years, a sheriff has come to your work to serve Richard papers to appear in court. Your
colleague tells you that these appearances are always because Richard’s neighbor argues with him
about their property line and keeps suing him. In Richard’s spare time, he runs marathons. Last month
he bought a new car.
Infrequent, high deviation
Sam is a division manager at your organization. According to your long-time colleague, several years
ago, the brakes on Sam’s car failed and he drove through the front window of the company building (no
one was hurt). His favorite baseball team is the Atlanta Braves and he is active in the Rotary club.
High, repeated deviation
George is a division manager at your organization. According to your long-time colleague, in his five
years of service, he often shows up wearing the same clothes as the day before, his breath smelling of
beer. He is unmarried and drives a truck. Last summer, he went to Tijuana for two weeks on vacation.

Corresponding author
Robert Zinko can be contacted at: robert.zinko@newcastle.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.