rm final report

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


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


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


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


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


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


7/42

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


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


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


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


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


12/42

2.5. Schematic Diagram

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

CHAPTER 3

Gossips Outcomes of

Conflict Resolution

Moderating

variable

Trust

8


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


22/42


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)


Cronbach's Alpha No. of Items

.668 5

18


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


34/42

ix


35/42

ANNEXURES

Annex I Descriptives

x


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


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


N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 102 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.667 7

Annex. IV Trust Reliability

xii


38/42


N %


Excluded

a

0 .0

Total 102 100.0


procedure.


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.668 5

Annex. V Gossip Correlations:

xiii


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 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Annex. VI Correlations of outcomes of Conflict resolution

xiv


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



Annex. VII Trust Correlations:

xv


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



Annex. VIII Correlations of Computed Variables

xvi


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


Annex IX Reliability of all three variables


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

rm final report

Documents