7/31/2019 RM Final Report
1/42
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement iii
Abstract iv
Chapter 11: Introduction 11.1 Rationale 2
1.2 Significance 2
1.3 Research question 3
Chapter 22. Literature Review 4
2.1 Gossip 4
2.2 Trust 5
2.3 Outcomes of conflict resolution 6
2.4 Theoretical Framework 7
2.5 Schematic Diagram 8
Chapter 33. Study One 9
3.1Development of scale 9
3.1.1tems and Scales 10
3.2 Method 10
3.3 Purpose of study 11
3.4 Validity of scale 11
Chapter 44. Study Two 12
4.1 Details of Study 124.1.1 Research Design 12
4.1.2 Setting 12
4.1.3 Unit of Analysis 12
4.1.4 Location 12
4.1.5 Extent of Researcher Involvement 12
4.1.6 Time Horizon 13
4.1.7 Data Collection Method 13
4.2 Sampling Design 13
4.2.1 Sample size 13
4.2.2 Approaches of Data Collection 14
4.2.3 Administering the questionnaires 14
4.3 Hypothesis 15
4.4 Purpose of Study 15
4.5 Operational Definitions 15
4.5.1 Gossip 15
4.5.2 Relationship 15
4.5.3 Group solidarity 15
4.5.4 Trust 15
4.6 Sample Information 16
Chapter 5Results 17
i
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
2/42
Chapter 6Discussion 22
Chapter 7
Conclusion 24Recommendations 24
Limitations 25
References
List of Annexures: x
Annex. I Descriptives xi
Annex. II Gossip Reliability vii
Annex. III Outcomes of Conflict Resolutions Reliability xii
Annex. IV Trust Reliability xiii
Annex. V Gossip Correlations xiii
Annex. VI Correlations of outcomes of Conflict resolution xiv
Annex. VII Trust Correlations xvAnnex. VIII Correlations of Computed variables xvi
Annex. IX Reliability of all three variables xvi
Annex. X Summary Item Statistics xvi
List of Table:
4.1 Pie Chart on Sample Information
5.1 Reliability Statistics of all variables
5.2 Reliability Statistics of gossip
5.3 Reliability Statistics of outcomes of conflict resolution
5.4 Reliability Statistics of trust
5.5 Descriptive Statistics of computed values
5.6 Correlations
5.7 Model Summary
5.8 ANOVAc
5.9 Coefficients
ii
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
3/42
Acknowledgement
First of all we are grateful to the blessings of Almighty ALLAH who gave us ability to
complete the project in an appropriate manner.
We also gratefully acknowledge the immense help of our respected and extremely encouraging
course Instructor, Dr. Basit B. Tayyab, who remained crucial in the process of preparation of
this report. We acknowledge her guidance, help and cooperation, without her cooperation this
research work would not have been possible. She made our concepts clear about the project as
well as about the course Research Methods and Report Writing. We would like to express
our gratitude to all those who gave us the possibility to complete this Research. We want to
thank all those organizations, especially the Ministry of Interior and Mobilink GSM,
Islamabad, which cooperated with us at their fullest and helped us in providing the right and
relevant information. We also thank the appreciation and guidance of our parents who gave us
encouragement, whenever we faced any difficulty in the way of academic life and particularly
for the accomplishment of this project.
We expect and wish that the data generated through this research paper will help students of
administrative sciences and also contains its implications in organizations HR policies. We
conclude by thanking all referees and respondents for providing the required information in an
insightful manner.
Syeda Atiya Rahat
Moudassir Habib
Ali Iqbal
Qaiser Iqbal
Bilal Ilyas
(December 31, 2010)
iii
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
4/42
ABSTRACT
Generally Workplace Gossip hasnt been the core focus by researchers and is often criticized
by managers. Workplace gossip is considered having both positive and negative consequences
in the organization.
This article discusses the positive impacts of gossip in workplace. Gossip plays a very positive
role in communicating and sharing of information, socialization, reinforcing the social bond of
the participants and in maintenance of relationship within and between individuals and
groups. A workforces total gossiping activity is positively related to group solidarity (which is
an outcome of conflict resolution), of the workgroups existing within an organization. This
report will show that how a commonly occurring phenomenon gossip proves to be helpful in
gaining the conflict resolution outcomes through gossips without incurring additional costs of
hiring mediators or adopting other costly methods of conflict resolution.
Key words: Gossip, Work Relationship, Conflict Resolution and its Outcomes.
iv
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
5/42
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Virtually all people are frequently found producing, hearing, or otherwise participating in
evaluative comments about someone who is not present in the conversation. It is often
considered valuable to be part of such conversation.
According to Jorfi (n.d) man is a social animal, so the people usually are more involved in the
informal communication (Gossips) in order to establish relationship with others to enjoy
welfare and a better life. Human nature is a complex nature and to work efficiently in the
complex interpersonal environment, human requires knowledge of surroundings and as social
interconnections are so complex and it is difficult to be present at every primary exchange of
information so got it from the third parties. This whole phenomenon is called gossip.
In everyday life, almost everyone is involved in gossips one-way or the other. People do gossip
at homes, at streets, in markets, and as well as in offices. Although gossip is widespread,
seldom has it been a topic of management research. A limited body of knowledge exists
regarding workplace gossip. Michelson & Mouly (2000) sought to establish the general
parameters of rumour and gossip research in organizations, while Kurland and Pelled (2000)
generated a series of research propositions about the largely positive effect of gossip on
referent, reward and coercive power.
Gossips at offices i.e. workplace gossip is a very important factor existing within an
organization. Practical studies of gossip have been mostly conducted in other disciplines like
psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics etc. But it is now felt important to study the
role of gossip i.e. workplace gossip in an organization. Gossip is seen as malicious, destructive
and not humane. Books on business management present gossip as a threat to organization's
health and stability because it downs morality and waste employees time. Many nonprofit
organizations warn managers that gossip is dangerous and also offer advises on how to control
1
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
6/42
it. But in other researches like in the work of Michelson & Mouly (2000), some positive
aspects of gossip are also revealed. In the age of Information technology (reducing distances,
increasing the communication & interaction) and due to increasing pace of Globalization trend
(which continuously increasing work place diversity), it is important to study work place
gossips, the concept, in what contexts does it occur? Why does gossip occur, and what are its
outcomes?
Rationale
By having a literature survey on several research articles on the topic of Workplace gossips, it
is observe that in the previous researches, workplace gossip is considered having both positive
and negative consequences in the organization. Here, only positive definition will be
considered, as it doesnt Imply in the discussion the personalized criticisms usually
literature/research associate with gossip. So, on basis of that definition, in this article the
positive impacts of gossip in workplace are going to be discussed. As gossip plays a very
positive role in communicating and sharing of information, expressing and managing stress
work, building entity, socialization, reinforcing the social bond of the participants and in
maintenance of relationship within and between individuals and groups, so here a gap was
found in the earlier researches i.e. conflict resolution as a positive consequence of workplace
gossips.
Significance
From this important factor of anxiety it is implied that the Gossips may consequently leave a
positive impact on work relationships by reducing the levels of anxiety/stress. This stress could
be of any type domestic or workplace stress may have felt by some because of work burden,
deadline fear, responsibility fear, authority (accountability), or due to a conflict. So gossips
2
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
7/42
may lead to situate a very positive effect on conflict resolution. This important consequence of
Gossip at workplace may not be ignored. There is a dire need of doing research in this
particular area that would be contributing very certainly and significantly towards the studies of
Conflict Management.
The study would be a very valuable addition to the earlier researches done in the field of
workplace gossips. Conflict can be defined as a disagreement through which the parties
involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Engaging in conflict can have
positive effects on relationships and organizations. Conflict has advantages, but also has
0disadvantages as well, which may cover all of its advantages. So, it is very important to
resolve the conflict arose at workplace in a timely and effective manner. This study will be
helpful in knowing that how a commonly occurring phenomenon i.e. gossip affects conflict
resolution by gaining the mediators or adopting other costly methods of conflict resolution.
Thus this research is being conducted with an objective of bridging this gap.
Research Question
What is the impact of workplace gossips on outcomes of conflict resolution in an
organization?
3
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
8/42
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Rumours and Gossips in many research studies are taken interchangeably as particularly in the
work of Brown & Napier (2004) and Michelson & Mouly (2000). Michelson (2000) believes
that both rumor and gossip are same because base of both is unauthenticated piece of
information and also having a common characteristic that is the suspension of disbelief.
Sometimes it is impossible to separate rumor from gossip (Rosnow, 1988). One of the
interesting features of both rumour and gossip is that they are derivative in the sense that
information is received third hand (Suls, 1977).
2.1. Gossip
The term gossip derives from the Old English godsibb, meaning god-parent. The term gets its
current meaning from its previous references to the female friends of a childs mother who
were present at the childs birth and idly chattered among themselves (Rosnow & Fine,
1976). These relatively innocuous roots lead one to wonder whether gossip must always be a
negative activity. Indeed, scholars point out that gossips valence does not necessarily have to
be negative (Grosser,kidwell,labianca,2010). Soeters and van Iterson (2002) differentiate
blame gossip from praise gossip and predict that both forms will occur in differentiated
organizational cultures. Ben-Zeev (1994) suggests that an even distribution exists between
negative and positive information in gossip exchanges and he further argues that contrary to its
popular reputation, then, gossip is not basically concerned with detraction, slander, or character
assassination. Negative information may be remembered better, and hence the illusory
impression of its dominance.
Baumeister, Zhang, and Vohs (2004) also note that gossip is not only about negative
instances of rule breaking; it can be about positive instances of rule strengthening. Rosnow
4
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
9/42
(1977) argues that gossip serves three fundamental functions: to inform, to entertain, and to
influence.
Gossip is primarily stimulated by personal ego and status needs in a social context
(Rosnow and Fine, 1976). Evolutionary social scientists have studied the typical content of
gossip, the relevance of social context, and the importance of individual- and group serving
interests (De Backer, Nelissen, Vyncke, Braeckman, & McAndrew, 2007; Dunbar, Duncan, &
Marriott, 1997, McAndrew & Milenkovic, 2002). For gossip to occur, the interacting parties
must want to develop or maintain a friendly, congenial relationship (Almirol, 1981, Morreall,
1994, Rosnow, 2001, Rosnow & Georgoudi, 1985). Gossip serves as a way for people to get to
know one another. In this way, two people can gather information about each other in an
indirect, comfortable manner, thereby establishing trust in the relationship (Levin & Arluke,
1987). Gossip takes place between individuals who are in special relationship with each other
(Abraham's, 1970).
2.2. Trust
In order to establish the linkage between quality of relationship and gossip, Tse and
Dasborough (2008), articulated that low-quality relationships are associated with low levels of
trust, respect, and teamwork or cooperation. They argued that, given the personal nature of the
content of gossip, the associated risks of gossiping in a work setting and individuals reported
reluctance to acknowledge that they engage in gossip, low-quality relations could be assumed
to be less likely contexts for gossip than high-quality relations which are characterized by
mutual respect and trust.
Brian Tracy (2009) is of the point of view that trust is a key aspect of relationships, but
it is used and abused in the business world. He further adds that no relationship can exist for
any significant period of time if there is not at least some degree of trust.
5
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
10/42
Boon and Holmes (1991) defined trust as a state involving confident positive
expectations about anothers motives with respect to one- self in situations entailing risk.
Trust is a precondition for the transmission of sensitive gossip (Burt & Knez, 1996) because
privacy is a crucial factor in the exchange of this type of gossip: a gossiper could find it costly
or embarrassing if others were to learn about the exchange (Rosnow, 2001). Interpersonal trust
has both cognitive and affective foundations (Lewis & Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1995).
Cognition-based trust refers to a judgment based on anothers competence and reliability,
which is most likely to develop in instrumental workflow ties (Chua, Ingram, & Morris, 2008).
Affect-based trust refers to a deeper level of trust that derives from an emotional bond between
individuals, which is more likely to develop only in close expressive friendship network ties
(Chua et al., 2008; Tse & Dasborough, 2008).
2.3. Outcomes of Conflict Resolution:
Individuals tend to share gossip with allies (e.g., relatives, friends) versus sharing it with people
considered to be non-allies, such as acquaintances or strangers (McAndrew, Bell, & Garcia,
2007). On individual level of analysis, gossip can be seen as an activity that is attention
seeking, promoting self-interest and self-image through social comparison and the discrediting
of others (Iterson & Waddington, 2010). According to Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell & Labianca
Grosser (2010), gossip may appear to be a purely negative activity from an individual
perspective, but it may serve a positive function at the group level in that this information can
potentially protect the group from harmful behavior. Ellicksons (1991) findings suggest that
gossip at workplace can be an important tool that can contribute to the social management of
individual behavior.
Michelson & Mouly (2002) identified the possible linkages between gossip and few
other related phenomena like group dynamics, romance at work, conflict, bullying, power and
politics, stress, and leadership. Mills (2010) have revealed gossip as a positive factor existing in
6
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
11/42
an organization as it provides a mechanism for socialization into a group or workplace,
maintenance of relationship within and between individuals and groups, socialization, building
entity, expressing and managing stress work. Gossip tends to take place between friends or
within particular functional groupings within organizations. In turn, this reinforces the social
bond of the participants, thus helping to preserve group solidarity and collective social control
(Michelson & Mouly, 2002). Moreover, Noon and Delbridge (1993) also posit that gossip helps
preserve group solidarity and formal structures at work. Gossip can also contribute to the
maintenance of group norms and group cohesion during times of uncertainty and ambiguity
(Besnier, 1989; Gluckman, 1968).
Our minds strive to eliminate chaos and uncertainty. The reason gossiped information
circulate is that they explain things and relieve the tensions of uncertainty (Rosnow and Fine,
1976).
Hence, the role played by gossip in maintenance of relationship within and between
individuals and groups, socialization, building entity, expressing and managing stress, in
preserving group solidarity and binding group members together, may open a door of research
on how gossips puts impact on outcomes of conflict resolution.
2.4. Theoretical Framework:
This research is intended to assess the relationship between two variables:
1. Gossip
2. Outcomes of conflict Resolution
3. Trust
Here Gossip is the independent variable, which is affecting the outcomes of conflict
resolution, a dependent variable. The more the intensity of gossip takes place in an
organisation, the more it will lead to produce outcomes of conflict resolution. The relationship
between variables can be shown with the diagram as below:
7
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
12/42
2.5. Schematic Diagram
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
CHAPTER 3
Gossips Outcomes of
Conflict Resolution
Moderating
variable
Trust
8
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
13/42
STUDY ONE
3.1 . Development of Scale:
There were three scales used in this research, one for gossip, one for conflict resolution and one
for trust. The researcher measured the intensity of gossip through strength of working
relationship between the workgroup. The strength of relationship is directly related with the
intensity of gossip. Then different elements of relationship were found. On the basis of those
elements the scale (survey instrument) was in order to measure the strength of work
relationship existing among the workforce.
Researchers then developed a scale for measurement of outcomes of conflict resolution. This
variable was measured through the existing group solidarity in the work groups of an
organization. Here, again the group solidarity is function of various elements. So, by
considering all these things a scale was developed.
Strength of
Relationship
Interdependence Persuasion CommitmentCommunication
TimeTrust
9
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
14/42
There is a moderating variable i.e. Trust. A scale was developed to measure trust among the
workgroupmates by considering its elements.
3.1.1 Items and Scales:
Questionnaire consists of 19 items in total, 7 relating to gossip, 7 of outcomes of conflict
resolution and 5 related to trust. 5 point Lickert scale is used to measure the magnitude of
differences in each variable of the respondents.
3.2. Method:
Group
Solidarity
Group normsCommonality
Of individual
interests
Match of
members
expectations
& actual gain
Satisfaction
of individual
needsCompliance Inspiration
Trust
Reliance Integrity Confidence Competency Truthfulness
10
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
15/42
The researchers used the questionnaire method for data collection. The sample was selected
from workforce of various organizations located in Islamabad. The survey instrument got filled
mainly from telecom sector, government organizations and an academic organization.
3.3. Purpose of Study
The purpose of this pilot study was to check the validity of the scales.
3.4. Validity of scale:
The content, criterion and construct validity of all the three scales i.e. of gossip, outcomes of
conflict resolution and trust, was measured by using various statistical tools. The data
consisting of 30 cases was analyzed from various perspectives in software i.e. Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Intra item correlation was calculated to check the validity
of a scale, all the values of intra item correlation of all three scales were positive and within a
acceptable range, which is illustrated in the tables (annex V,VI & VII), and those lead the
researcher to interpret that the scale are satisfying the content, criterion and construct validity.
11
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
16/42
CHAPTER 4
STUDY II
4.1. Details of Study
4.1.1. Research Design:
The research design used in this study was a casual research design. According to Hair, Bush
and Ortinau (2000), a causal research design is a Research designed to collect raw data and
create data structures and information that will allow the researcher to model cause-and-effect
relationship between two or more market (or decision) variables"
4.1.1. Setting:
The study on the proposed topic was done in a natural setting.
4.1.2. Unit of Analysis
For the proposed study the unit of analysis was the workforce of various public and private
organizations. The workforce approached was selected from different levels of management i.e.
top, middle and lower level that made us able to capture a complete picture and the researcher
came to infer effective results.
4.1.3. Location
Data was collected from various public and private sector organizations located in Islamabad
only, due to time and resource constraints.
4.1.4. Extent of Researchers involvement
The study was conducted with a negligible extent of the researcher involvement. All the
inferences were drawn on the basis of facts coming to the front by virtue of the research.
12
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
17/42
4.1.6. Time Horizon
The study was a cross sectional study with the reason of limited time and resources.
4.1.7. Data-collection method
In order to assess the relationship between the aforementioned variables, data was collected
from the sample by administering questionnaires personally to avoid any error regarding
confusion or biasness. On the basis of sampling design, researchers approached the individuals
working in the targeted organizations.
4.2. Sampling Design:
The proposed research question is:
What is the impact of workplace gossips on outcomes of conflict resolution in an
organization?
As the population is very large, its impossible to study every person of the population, so an
appropriate sample would be used. The sampling technique used will be a type non-random
sampling i.e. purposive sample on judgmental basis.
Reason of using Judgmental Sampling:
As the research is about the impact of gossip on outcomes of conflict resolution, so the
researcher would choose those organizations which encourage team work. The reason behind is
that as the conflict arises where the team work is functional and also because the conflict
resolution affects the team performance. The judgmental sample can be useful in this regard
and may produce insightful qualitative work and good analysis.
4.2.1. Sample Size:
13
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
18/42
By keeping in view the population on which the research is being conducted, the purposes of
study and the resources available to the researcher, the size of sample selected would be 100,
i.e. n= 100.
4.2.2. Approaches of data collection:
The survey research method of data collection will be used in the research. This will be of
Questionnaire method.
Reason:
Large number of respondents is easy to obtain through this method.
This method permits collection of data from a large number of respondents:
in relatively short periods.
At relatively low costs.
Using this method of collection of data, the researcher obtains extensive and detailed
information from a representative sample.
This method can be used to obtain information about past experiences of the respondents.
In survey by questionnaire the respondent may
consult with others
review records
think about a question before answering
If the respondent is convinced that the questionnaire is anonymous, he/she can freely report
attitudes and behaviors without any fear.
4.2.3. Administering the Questionnaires:
In data collection (the distribution and collection of questionnaire), there was used two
strategies:
The questionnaires delivered by hand to the individual respondents.
14
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
19/42
Also self-administered questionnaires filling was adopted in few cases (mostly for upper level
of management).
The respondents of the research was consisting of workforce of all levels of management of
various public and private sector organizations, located in Islamabad.
4.3. Hypothesis:
There is a positive impact of workplace gossip on outcomes of conflict resolution.
4.4. Purpose of study:
This study was conducted to accept or reject the aforementioned hypothesis. Through this study
the researchers determined the relationship between the mentioned variables and also to
determine the direction of that relationship. The intention was to prove the study to be helpful
for other research.
4.5. Operational Definitions:
4.5.1. Gossip:
Gossip is any informal communication among interactive colleagues in a group for intentions
of providing, getting & disseminating, positive information and entertainment.
4.5.2. Relationship:
Relationships are the connections existing between interacting members in a group, who are
interdependently dealing with each other. It is based on mutual trust, respect and team work
cooperation that leads to commitment.
4.5.3. Group solidarity:
Group solidarity is the integration among interactive colleagues and binding them with some
common group norms and satisfaction of individual as well as group needs.
15
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
20/42
4.5.4. Trust:
Trust is glue that holds the relationship among interactive colleagues and is based on reliance,
belief and integrity. Trust is both emotional and logical act.
4.5. Sample Information:
The sample used for conducting the research on the propsed topic was consisting of 102
questionnaires were collected from various public sector and private sector organizations
belonging to different industries. The respondents approached were from different managemnt
levels. The percentage of respondents from various groups i.e. management level, is shown in
the following chart.
Fig: 4.1 Sample Information Groping according to Management Level
16
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
21/42
Chapter V
RESULTS
In this chapter the researchers will outline whole reliability among variables use for accepting
hypothesis, the instruments reliability that is use in measuring the variables. In this research,
one independent variable is taken, which is intensity of gossip among work group. The other
one is independent variable which is outcomes of conflict resolution. In this research a
moderating variable is also taken, which is trust among the work group members.
Reliability
The value of Cronbachs alpha in the research came out to be 0.797 which is greater than .600.
this means that these variables are significantly positive correlated with each other.
Table 1: Reliability of All variables
5.1 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha No. of Items
.797 19
Reliability of Gossip
Gossip is taken as independent variable in the research. In the research the intensity of gossip
among work group members was measured through the strength of relationship among them. In
the study, there were developed 7 items for the measuring the intensity of gossip. Cronbachs
alpha reliability for the gossip is .603 which is greater than .600 which means that the scale
instruments is positive correlated with the measuring the intensity of gossip related with the
strength of relationship among work group members.
Table 2: Reliability of Gossip(Independent variable)
17
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
22/42
5.2 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha No.of Items
.603 7
Reliability of Outcomes of Conflict Resolution:
The researchers have taken the outcomes of conflict resolution as dependent variable and
measure this through the group solidarity among the work group members. For measurement
there were developed 7 instruments. Cronbachs alpha reliability for outcomes of conflict
resolution in the study is .667 which is greater than .666. hence it shows that the items in this
scale instruments is positive correlated with the outcome of conflict resolution related with the
group solidarity in a work group member.
Table 3: Reliability of Outcomes of conflict resolution(Dependent variable)
5.3 Reliability StatisticsCronbach's Alpha No. of Items
.667 7
Reliability of Trust
The researchers in this research has taken the trust as a moderating variable which have some
impact on the relationship between the upper two dependent and independent variables.
Cronbachs alpha reliability for the trust is .668 which is greater than .600 which shows that the
scale instruments are positively correlated with measuring the trust.
Table:4 Reliability of Trust(Moderating variable)
5.4 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha No. of Items
.668 5
18
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
23/42
Descriptive of computed values of variables
Descriptive statistics of the variables show that the mean of gossip is 28 while that of outcomes
of conflict resolution is 27 and trust is 19. The standard deviation of gossip as a whole is 2.98,
outcomes of conflict resolution have 3.22 and that of trust has 2.86. it show that the standard
deviation of outcomes of conflict resolution is high so the responses is very sided means low
and very high from the mean.
Table 5: Descriptive of computed values of Variables
Correlation
Correlation not only shows the strength but also show the direction of relationship in both
dependent and independent variable. In the research the Pearson correlation between gossip and
conflict resolution is positive so it shows a positive relation ship between these variables. Also
the Pearson correlation between gossip and trust is positive. The correlation coefficient
between outcomes of conflict resolution is also positive so it also show positive relationship
between them.
Table:6 Correlation among variables
5.5 Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Gossip 102 16.00 19.00 35.00 28.4118 2.98960
Conflictresolution 102 16.00 19.00 35.00 27.7843 3.22622
trust 102 12.00 13.00 25.00 19.4020 2.86066
Valid N (listwise) 102
19
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
24/42
5.6 Correlations
Gossip Conflictresolution trust
Gossip Pearson Correlation 1 .501** .316**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001
N 102 102 102
Conflictresolution Pearson Correlation .501** 1 .474**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 102 102 102
trust Pearson Correlation .316** .474** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000
N 102 102 102
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Regression
Regression analysis will show the effect of change in independent variable over the dependent
variable. The model summary table show the R square value and the Annova table show the
value of F-test while the coefficient table show the standardized coefficients for both dependent
and independent variable.
5.7 Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .501a .251 .244 2.80603
2 .601b .362 .349 2.60350
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gossip
b. Predictors: (Constant), Gossip, trust
20
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
25/42
5.8 ANOVAc
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 263.875 1 263.875 33.513 .000a
Residual 787.380 100 7.874
Total 1051.255 101
2 Regression 380.211 2 190.106 28.047 .000b
Residual 671.044 99 6.778
Total 1051.255 101
5.9 Coefficientsa
ModelUnstandardizedCoefficients
StandardizedCoefficients T
Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 12.423 2.668 4.656 .000
Gossip .541 .093 .501 5.789 .000
2 (Constant) 8.150 2.682 3.039 .003
Gossip .421 .091 .390 4.609 .000
trust .395 .095 .351 4.143 .000
a. DependentVariable:Conflictresolution
21
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
26/42
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
The data was collected from 102 respondents. The items measured the intensity of gossips
occurring within an organization and its impact on outcomes of conflict resolution resulting in
group solidarity
The pearson correlation matrix obtained from the three variables show that gossip in workplace
is positively correlated with the outcomes of working conflict resolution resulting group
solidarity among the group members because the value of Cronbachs alpha is .696 which is
greater than .600. The researchers conclude that group solidarity factor among the group
members is directly linked with the intensity of gossip among the working group members. The
correlation table also shows that the gossip is also positively correlated with trust among the
working group members. If the group members trust each other then the intensity of gossip is
high. From the correlation table the researcher also conclude that trust is also positively
correlated with the outcomes of conflict resolution resulting group solidarity among the
working group members. The more the trust among the working group members the more the
solidarity in that concerned group. The researchers also conclude from the correlation table that
the outcome of the conflict resolution i.e group solidarity among the group members is
22
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
27/42
positively correlated with trust among them. High level of trust among the working group
members has a positive impact on the group solidarity.
From the regression analysis of the variables helps in conclusion that the 25% of the
variance(R-square) in outcomes of conflict resolution are explained by intensity of gossip
among the working group and the strength of relationship among the working group members.
The researchers also conclude that about 36% of the variance(R-square) in outcomes of conflict
resolution is explained by the strength of relationship among the work group members and trust
among that work group members. Increasing intensity of gossip and trust among work group
members have a great impact on the group solidarity but the fact that about 61% variance in
group solidarity is significantly explained by these variables so other variables are not
considered in this study and hence further study is required in this regard.
From the table of Coefficients gossip has a high standardized beta value which helps in the
conclusion of researchers that the gossip has a significant affect on the outcome of conflict
resolution ie group solidarity. While trust among the work group has also significant affect on
group solidarity among work group members.
23
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
28/42
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion:
The research conducted gives us a strong evidence of the relation ship between gossip in work
team and group solidarity in a work team. As in organizations it is perceived that gossip has
only negative impact on the behavior of employees but in this research it is concluded that it
has also some positive aspects. Keeping the research focused, the human resource manager of
an organization can develop a way not only to block the bad impacts of gossip on employees
but also create a balance way to foster the gossip among employees for this positive approach.
This research also concluded that group solidarity can also be foster through the intensity of
gossip in a work team which can be affective in achieving the organizational target in a more
effective and efficient way.
Recommendations:
The above research can be helpful for future research in this field keeping in view the above-
mentioned limitations. The researchers have found the relationship among only three variables
having one the moderating variable but apart from that the independent variable which is
24
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
29/42
outcomes of conflict resolution have also relationships with other variables such as
commitment, ethics etc and hence more elaborative research is required in this field of study.
In the study gossip as independent variable have also some dependency on some variables such
as social relationship, behaviors of group members etc, so for the evaluation of intensity of
gossip in an organization require some more intensive study.
Limitations:
During conducting this research the researchers came across various problems, which pose a
limitation on the study. First of all is the time constraint. Due to this issue the researchers
couldnt get enough data so that to generalize the result. The second is the sample size. The
sample size is very less and hence the result of the research cannot be generalized. In getting
data from various organizations researchers faced some problems, for example some employees
dont want to fill the questionnaire because of the policies of their concerned organizations, so
results cant be applied on all organizations.
25
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
30/42
REFERENCES
Axup,J., & Viller, S. (2005). Augmenting travel gossip: Design for mobile communities.
Australasian CRC for Interaction Design (ACID).
Ayim, M. (1994). Knowledge through the grapevine. Group & OrganizationManagement, 22
(5).
Baker, J. S., & Jones, M. A. (1996). The poison grapevine: How destructive are gossip and
rumor in the workplace.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7.
Berman, E. M., West, J. P. & Richter, M. N. (2002). Workplace relations: Frienship patterns
and consequences (according to managers).Public Administration Review, 62 (2).
Bordia, P., Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan. V. J., & DiFonzo, N. (2006). Management Are
Aliens! : Rumors and Stress during Organizational Change. Group & Organization
Management, 31(5).
Burns, M. W., George A.D., & Wallace, B. A. (2000). Simulative Performance Analysis of
Gossip Failure Detection for Scalable Distributed Systems.High-performance
Computing and Simulation (HCS) Research Laboratory, University of Florida, 18.
Burt, R. S. (1997) Entrepreneurs, Distrust, and Third Parties: A Strategic Look at the Dark Side
of Dense Networks.Journal of Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, 77.
Byron, K. (2008). Differential effects of male and female managers non-verbal emotional
skills on employees ratings.Managerial Psychology,23(2).
Dunbar, R. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective.Review of General Psychology, 8.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in
humans.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16.
Fine, G. A., & Rosnow, R. L. (1978). Gossip, gossipers, gossiping.Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(1).
v
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
31/42
Francis, H.W. S.(1982).Gossips, Eavesdroppers, and Peeping Toms.JournalofMedicalEthics,
8.
Gabriel, Y. (1995). The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies and subjectivity.
Organization Studies, 16.
Georgiou, C., Kowalski, D.R., & Shvartsman, A.A. (2005). Efficient gossip and robust
distributed computation. Theoretical Computer Science, 347.
Hallett, T., Harger, B., & Eder, D. (2009). Gossip at Work: Unsanctioned Evaluative Talk in
Formal School Meetings. Contemporary Ethnography, 38(5).
Haviland, J.B. (1998). Thirty years gossip at in a Chiapas Village. Journal of Reeds College.
Iterson, A.V., & Clegg, S.R. (2008). The politics of gossip and denial in inter organizational
relations. Human Relations 61.
Kniffin, K.M., & Wilson, D.S. (2010). Evolutionary Perspectives on Workplace Gossip: Why
and How Gossip Can Serve Groups. Group & Organization Management, 35(2).
Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M.V. (2004). Individual differences in attitudes towards gossip.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38.
Mannheim, Bruce, & Vleet, K.V. (1998). The Dialogic of Southern Quechua Narrative,
American Anthropologist100(2)
Marcus, George, E., & Fischer, M. (1986). Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An
Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Mazzei,_A._(2009).-Promoting-active-communication-behaviours-through-internal-
Communication. Institute of Economics and Marketing, IULM University of Milan,
Milal, Italy.
Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Dunbar, R. (2006). A bias for social information in human cultural
transmission. The British Psychological Society, 97.
vi
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
32/42
Michelson, G., Iterson, A.V., & Kathryn. (2010). Gossip in Organizations: Contexts,
Consequences, and Controversies. Group&OrganizationManagement, 35(4).
Michelson, G., & Mouly, S. (2004). Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning, antecedents and
consequences of rumour and gossip in organisations. Corporate Communications, 9.
Michelson, G., & Mouly, S. (2000). Individual differences in attitudes towards gossip.
Management Decision, 38(5).
Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. S. (2004). Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning, antecedents and
consequences of rumour and gossip in organisations.Management Decision, 9(3).
Michelson, G.,Iterson, A. V., & Waddington, K. (2008). Special Issue on Gossip in/around
Organizations. Group & Organization Management, 33(4).
Michelson, G., & Mouly, V.S (2002). Towards an Understanding of Rumour and Gossip in
Organisations.Australian Journal of Management, 27(1).
Mills, C. (2010). Experiencing Gossip: The Foundations for a Theory of Embedded
organizational gossip. Group & Organization Management, (35): 213.
Nothhaft, H. (2010). Communication management as a second-order management function:
Roles and functions of the communication executive results from a shadowing study.
Communication management,14(2).
Prothmann, T.M. (2006). Social Network Analysis: A Practical Method to Improve Knowledge
Sharing. Group & Organization Management, (30): 195.
Reis, H., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Studying social interaction with the Rochester interaction
record, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24.
Reynolds, S., & Briner, R. (1996), Stress management at work: with whom, for whom and to
what ends. Stress Management and Counselling: Theory, Practice, Research and
Methodology, Cassell, London.
Rosnow, R. L.(2001). Rumor and Gossip in Interpersonal Interaction and Beyond: A SocialExchange Perspective.Behaving Badly: Aversive Behaviors in Interpersonal
vii
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
33/42
Relationships.Washington, D.C.
Rosnow, R. L., & Fine, G. A. (1976). Rumor and Gossip: The Social Psychology of
Hearsay. New York: Elsevier.
Sarkar, R., Zhu, X., & Gao, J. (1998) Stony Brook University, 21.
Serrat, O. (2009). Building Trust in the Workplace.Knowledge Solutions, 57.
Sousa, R. (1994). In praise of gossip: Indiscretion as a saintly virtue. Good gossip.
Spacks, Meyer, P. (1985). Gossip. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Stirling, R. B. (1956). Some Psychological Mechanisms Operative in Gossip. Social
Forces 34.
Straheim. J (2008). Relevance theories of communication: Alfred Schutz in dialogue with
Sperber and Wilson.JournalofPragmatics, 42.
Taylor, & Gabriele. (1994). Gossip as Moral Talk.Good Gossip, University of Kansas.
Tedlock, Dennis. (1995). Interpretation, Participation, and the Role of Narrative in Dialogical
Anthropology, in Dennis Tedlock and Bruce Mannheim (eds) The Dialogic Emergence
of Culture, 87.
Tholander, M. (2003). Pupils' gossip as remedial action. Discourse Studies, (5): 101.
Vleet, K. V. (2005). Partial theories: On gossip, envy and ethnography in the Andes.
Ethnography, 4(4).
Vleet,-K.-V. (2003). Partial Theories: On Gossip, Envy and Ethnography in the Andes.
Ethnography, 4(1)
Waddington, K., & Fletcher, C. (2005). Gossip and emotion in nursing and health-care
organizations.Health Organization andManagement, 19(4/5).
Wertz, E.K., & Kim.S. (2010). Cultural issues in crisis communication: A comparative study of
messages chosen by South Korean and US print media. Cultural issues inCrisis
communication, 14(1).
viii
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
34/42
ix
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
35/42
ANNEXURES
Annex I Descriptives
x
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
36/42
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
G1 102 2 5 4.49 .656
G2 102 2 5 4.32 .662
G3 102 1 5 4.01 .838
G5 102 1 5 3.86 .965
G6 102 2 5 3.94 .755
G7 102 2 5 3.85 .737
G8 102 2 5 3.93 .836
CR1 102 2 5 4.15 .737
CR2 102 2 5 4.15 .825
CR3 102 2 5 3.96 .783
CR5 102 2 5 3.97 .802
CR6 102 2 5 3.79 .825
CR9 102 2 5 3.98 .783
CR11 102 1 5 3.78 .828
T2 102 1 5 3.83 .857
T3 102 2 5 3.66 .906
T4 102 1 5 3.90 .862
T5 102 1 5 4.02 .867
T8 102 1 5 3.99 .873
Valid N (listwise) 102
xi
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
37/42
Annex. II Gossip Reliability
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 102 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 102 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.603 7
Annex. III Outcomes of Conflict Resolutions Reliability
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 102 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 102 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.667 7
Annex. IV Trust Reliability
xii
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
38/42
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 102 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 102 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.668 5
Annex. V Gossip Correlations:
xiii
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
39/42
Correlations
G1 G2 G3 G5 G6 G7 G8
G1 Pearson Correlation 1 .292** .063 .201* .258** .007 .044
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .528 .043 .009 .943 .661
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
G2 Pearson Correlation .292** 1 .155 .395** .256** .038 .184
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .121 .000 .009 .708 .065
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
G3 Pearson Correlation .063 .155 1 .271** .314** .275** -.027
Sig. (2-tailed) .528 .121 .006 .001 .005 .785
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
G5 Pearson Correlation .201* .395** .271** 1 .247* .111 .025
Sig. (2-tailed) .043 .000 .006 .012 .268 .803
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
G6 Pearson Correlation .258** .256** .314** .247* 1 .251* .182
Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .009 .001 .012 .011 .068
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
G7 Pearson Correlation .007 .038 .275** .111 .251* 1 .289**
Sig. (2-tailed) .943 .708 .005 .268 .011 .003
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
G8 Pearson Correlation .044 .184 -.027 .025 .182 .289** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .661 .065 .785 .803 .068 .003
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Annex. VI Correlations of outcomes of Conflict resolution
xiv
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
40/42
Correlations
CR1 CR2 CR3 CR5 CR6 CR9 CR11
CR1 Pearson Correlation 1 .355** .388** .259** .213* .074 .166
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .009 .031 .462 .095
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
CR2 Pearson Correlation .355** 1 .592** .485** .205* .204* .148
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .039 .040 .137
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
CR3 Pearson Correlation .388** .592** 1 .345** .233* .176 .155
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .019 .076 .120
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
CR5 Pearson Correlation .259** .485** .345** 1 .200* .251* .139
Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .000 .000 .043 .011 .162
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
CR6 Pearson Correlation .213* .205* .233* .200* 1 .070 .094
Sig. (2-tailed) .031 .039 .019 .043 .482 .348
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
CR9 Pearson Correlation .074 .204* .176 .251* .070 1 -.052
Sig. (2-tailed) .462 .040 .076 .011 .482 .601
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
CR11 Pearson Correlation .166 .148 .155 .139 .094 -.052 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .095 .137 .120 .162 .348 .601
N 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Annex. VII Trust Correlations:
xv
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
41/42
T2 T3 T4 T5 T8
T2 Pearson Correlation 1 .461** .326** .218* .262**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .028 .008
N 102 102 102 102 102
T3 Pearson Correlation .461** 1 .273** .349** .484**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .005 .000 .000
N 102 102 102 102 102
T4 Pearson Correlation .326** .273** 1 .321** .117
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .005 .001 .241
N 102 102 102 102 102
T5 Pearson Correlation .218* .349** .321** 1 .039
Sig. (2-tailed) .028 .000 .001 .694
N 102 102 102 102 102
T8 Pearson Correlation .262** .484** .117 .039 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .000 .241 .694
N 102 102 102 102 102
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Annex. VIII Correlations of Computed Variables
xvi
7/31/2019 RM Final Report
42/42
trust Gossip Conflictresolution
Trust Pearson Correlation 1 .316** .474**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000
N 102 102 102
Gossip Pearson Correlation .316** 1 .501**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000
N 102 102 102
Conflictresolution Pearson Correlation .474** .501** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 102 102 102
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Annex IX Reliability of all three variables
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
.797 .796 19
Annex. X Summary Item Statistics
Mean Minimum Maximum Range
Maximum /
Minimum Variance N of Items
Item Means 3.979 3.657 4.490 .833 1.228 .038 19
Item Variances .662 .431 .931 .501 2.163 .015 19
Inter-Item Correlations .170 -.092 .592 .684 -6.436 .015 19