Our integrative review synthesizes and evaluates two decades of empirical research on well-being in the midwifery profession to reveal (1) how researchers have studied midwives’ well-being; (2) key findings of research on midwives’ well-being; (3) underlying assumptions of this research; and (4) limitations of this research. We find that research on midwives’ well-being is disproportionately focused on individual midwives, who are assumed to be largely responsible for their own well-being, and that well-being in the midwifery profession is generally equated with the absence of mental health problems such as burnout, anxiety, and stress. Researchers have largely taken a narrow and instrumental approach to study midwives’ well-being, focusing on work-related antecedents and consequences, and overlooking the influence of nonwork factors embedded in the broader socioeconomic and cultural environment. Drawing on more comprehensive and contextualized well-being frameworks, we propose a research model that (1) expands the well-being construct as it applies to midwives and (2) situates midwives’ well-being in broader social, economic, political, and cultural contexts. Although developed in the midwifery context, our proposed research model can be applied to a host of professions.
We review cross‐disciplinary research on gossip and integrate it with two streams of theoretical scholarship: paradox theory and the communicative constitution of organization (CCO) perspective. In doing so, we develop what we label a paradox‐constitutive perspective of organizational gossip. Our perspective holds that gossip does not merely reflect or reveal organizational paradoxes but contributes to constituting them. Drawing on an extensive narrative literature review (N = 184), we conceptualize organizational gossip as a socially constructed category of interpersonal communication that, paradoxically, is regarded as both an exceptionally reliable and exceptionally unreliable source of social information. In turn, we illustrate how this contradictory view of gossip engenders paradoxical tensions when gossip surfaces in organizational life, and we illuminate two specific tensions to which gossip contributes: resistance‐authority tensions and inclusion‐exclusion tensions. Our work has important implications for research on organizational gossip, paradox, and communication and suggests intriguing directions for future investigations.
Although preliminary research implies a tantalizing association between workplace gossip and interpersonal relationships, little is known about how gossip shapes relationships at work. Given that relationships are integral to employee wellbeing and to the development of social capital, it appears vital to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the psychological processes linking gossip and workplace relationships. To this end, we induce theory from qualitative evidence regarding the processes whereby workplace gossip shapes relationships in the workplace. Taking the under-researched perspective of the gossip recipient, our study draws on multi-source data to explore how recipients’ experiences of gossip incidents affect their dyadic relationships with gossipers and gossip targets. We find that recipients’ interpretations of gossipers’ intentions—prosocial, self-serving, or genuine—initiate three distinct processes that engender a range of relational outcomes, from decreased trust to the development of close interpersonal connections. In describing these nuanced processes and their associated relational outcomes, we provide insights that extend and enrich theory and challenge conventional assumptions about workplace gossip.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.