Despite decades of research from other academic fields arguing that gossip is an important and potentially functional behavior, organizational research has largely assumed that gossip is malicious talk. This has resulted in the proliferation of gossip items in deviance scales, effectively subsuming workplace gossip research into deviance research. In this paper, the authors argue that organizational research has traditionally considered only a very narrow subset of workplace gossip, focusing almost exclusively on extreme negative cases which are not reflective of typical workplace gossip behavior. Instead of being primarily malicious, typical workplace gossip can be either positive or negative in nature and may serve important functions. It is therefore recommended that workplace gossip be studied on its own, independent of deviance. To facilitate this, the authors reconceptualize the workplace gossip construct and then develop a series of general-purpose English- and Chinese-language workplace gossip scales. Using 8 samples (including qualitative, multisource, multiwave, and multicultural data), the authors demonstrate the construct validity, reliability, cross-cultural measurement invariance, and acceptable psychometric properties of the workplace gossip scales. Relationships are demonstrated between workplace gossip and a variety of other organizational variables and processes, including uncertainty, emotion validation, self-esteem, norm enforcement, networking, influence, organizational justice, performance, deviance, and turnover. Future directions in workplace gossip research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Forgiveness is a valuable conflict management strategy that has numerous benefits in workplace settings (e.g., for employees, team dynamics, dyadic relationships, and organizations). However, important conceptual questions have emerged, especially as scholars have begun to examine forgiveness in the workplace. To better understand these issues, we conduct a critical review and analysis of the extant literature to identify key conceptual issues that are creating challenges for the study of forgiveness in organizational behavior. Building on these insights, we propose that conceptualizing forgiveness as a special case of emotion regulation can provide a strong conceptual and theoretical foundation that can address these challenges. Moreover, we outline how this approach can create exciting new research avenues that can enhance our theoretical understanding of forgiveness (e.g., distinguishing between the processes underlying forgiveness; identifying points of intervention to promote forgiveness; exploring the role of time in forgiveness; examining how context impacts forgiveness). We also identify how this approach can provide novel practical insights into how forgiveness can be facilitated and effectively managed in the workplace.

Summary Unfair situations are a reality of organizational life. Although managers are typically advised to enact justice (i.e., adhere to justice rules) to mitigate negative employee reactions to unfair situations, the subjective nature of fairness suggests that employees may still react negatively to managers, regardless of managers' adherence to justice rules. Integrating fairness theory with social role theory, we propose that prescriptive gender stereotypes can differentially influence employees' reactions toward female (versus male) managers in the aftermath of unfair situations. Across two studies, female (versus male) managers were especially likely to experience diminished legitimacy in the aftermath of unfair situations, regardless of their adherence to justice rules. Moreover, these effects were especially likely to emerge for situations that reflected isolated versus ongoing issues. In turn, diminished legitimacy prompted negative employee behaviors that can detract from managerial effectiveness (e.g., withdrawal of manager‐directed citizenship behaviors, enhanced negative gossip about the manager, and increased resistance behaviors). Theoretical and practical contributions include recognizing the importance of broadening focus beyond adherence to justice rules to understand employees' reactions and managers' experiences, acknowledging the impact of gender in the context of fairness, and highlighting that upward‐directed gender bias may contribute to the (un)intentional undermining of female managers.

What motivates managers to deliver bad news in a just manner and why do some managers fail to treat recipients of bad news with dignity and respect? Given the importance of delivering bad news in a just manner, answering these questions is critical to promote justice in the workplace. Drawing on appraisal theories of emotions, we propose that people with higher core self-evaluations may be less likely to deliver bad news in an interpersonally just manner. This is because these actors are more likely to appraise the delivery of bad news as a situation in which they have high coping potential and are therefore less likely to experience anxiety. However, we propose that anxiety can be important for propelling the enactment of interpersonal justice. We test our predictions across three studies (with four samples of full-time managers and employees). Theoretical and practical contributions include enhancing our understanding of who is motivated to enact interpersonal justice, why they are motivated to do so, and how to enhance justice in the workplace. Our findings also challenge the assumption that negative emotions are necessarily dysfunctional for the enactment of interpersonal justice and instead highlight the facilitative role of anxiety in this context.

No abstract