Why gossip matters in the workplace

Dave Ramsey is famous for, among other things, his "no gossip" policy. According to his team, gossip is "discussing anything negative with someone who can’t help solve the problem." It's strictly forbidden in his company.

On the surface, this seems like a great rule. Getting stuck in problems is contrary to the aims of a solutions-oriented business. But my studies of abuse in Christian contexts gave me a different perspective.

In Christian contexts, the strongest corollary to the "no gossip" rule would be the "Matthew 18 rule." The rule comes from a section of Matthew 18 in the Bible:

"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.?But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’?If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

The rule seems intuitive. You should go directly to the source of a harm before complaining about it to anyone else.

But recent examinations of abuse and discrimination in Christian institutions show how this rule can be used to perpetuate harm. The abuse by Mike Bickle from the International House of Prayer is just one example among many. Bickle was able to perpetuate abuse, partly, because women who came forward were told that any harm they suffered should be handled through the "Matthew 18 process." The organization did not want to involve anyone until after the victim spoke directly with Bickle, and thereafter they argued that "Matthew 18" insisted that matters be handled internally. This has been a tactic for a number of organizations, including Mars Hill Church.

Institutions that leverage the "Matthew 18" or "no gossip" rule in this way are able to achieve a number of things. By insisting that victims not share what happened with anyone, victims are led to believe that what they experienced are isolated incidents. Victims are deprived of external resources who might help them process what happened. And they are unable to connect with others who may have experienced similar harm. In this way, organizations can control victims and broker any evidence or complaints in ways that protect abusers and the organization at large. Accusing individuals of "gossip" is one way that manipulators can prevent the dissemination of information that may help victims process, find support, and identify shared experiences with others. I've found this as I have personally helped men and women address abuse or discrimination they've experienced in their churches. In toxic church environments, these people are almost always accused of "gossip" when they try to talk openly about the harm they experienced.

So it might not be surprising that Ramsey's company faced lawsuits and public scrutiny over its alleged "cultlike" environment, and subsequently was dropped from Fortune's best places to work list. It turned out that the "no gossip rule" was a function of the toxic work environment.

So what can organizations learn from the problems created and maintained by the "no gossip rule" or "Matthew 18 rule"?

First, as a 2010 organizational study found, gossip can actually be beneficial to the workplace. The study found that "the more staff members gossiped, the better their understanding of their social environment and the higher their peers rated their influence." Joe Labianca from the Isenberg School of Management, who oversaw the study, noted:

"Gossip can be very helpful to people in organizations, especially when the flow of information from the top gets choked off, as often happens when companies are in crisis or undergoing change. If a few people know what’s really going on, gossip becomes the means of spreading that information to everyone else. What’s more, research shows that gossip often reduces individuals’ anxiety and helps them cope with uncertainty."

Gossip also helps teams identify who may be bullies in an organization or difficult to work with, enabling teams to adjust for successful outcomes and managers to diagnose issues. Gossip is, according to Labianca, "merely the exchange of information between two people about a third, absent person." And a large amount of "gossip" can actually be praise of others.

Second, pervasive "negative" gossip is usually not the core problem, and it can help identify problems. In one organization examined by the study, "The negative talk was undermining the organization’s ability to function. But the root problem was the conflict." Banning gossip won't help. According to Labianca, "Directives to halt gossip usually backfire and generate more gossip." Instead, "negative" gossip should be signs for managers to look out for underlying problems and address those.

If managers observe gossip and focus on gossip as the problem, we will fail to be true problem-solvers. This kind of gossip may be exposing a leadership problem, or cultural crisis starting to heat up. Gossip is a symptom, not the problem. To limit this kind of gossip, we can promote more transparency, accountability, and openness with our teams.

Finally, gossip itself may be a solution. Sometimes people may be having a hard time, and all that they need is to simply be heard. Sometimes when a person is struggling, they just need their concerns empathetically acknowledged in order to feel better and move forward. In these instances, "gossiping" may actually be the solution to the problem of an employee having a hard time. Creating safe spaces to share "negative" thoughts and emotions can be helpful for managers to support their employees and be part of cultural solutions. By allowing space for "gossip", managers can help employees get out of ruminating, offer support or alternative perspectives, and build connection. Of course, one should be thoughtful and discerning when engaging in gossip, but there are many instances in which it can be extremely helpful.

Gossip can be particularly helpful in allowing teams to gain valuable context and reframe perspectives. For example, Susan may complain in a conversation with Tom about Joe being very difficult to work with. In response, Tom might share (without betraying confidences) that Joe was going through some personal challenges and isn't usually like this. Here, gossip gave an opportunity for Susan to develop empathy and recognize that Joe may just be going through a temporary tough time, rather than being a generally "difficult" coworker.

What all of this means is that managers should think carefully about the role of "gossip" in the workplace. Gossip itself may be a sign of a healthy environment, while efforts to shut down gossip may be a sign of a toxic culture.