Posted on 06/08/2008 9:18:54 AM PDT by radar101
That Little Bit of Juicy News You Spread at Work Might Get You Fired
Just a year ago, the atmosphere in Sam Chapman's small public relations firm was often tense.
"We had information leaks, we had disgruntledness, we had competitors finding things out, and we had sniping about senior management policies," says Mr. Chapman, CEO of Empower Public Relations in Chicago. "People would stop talking when you walked by."
A life coach identified the problem: gossip. Determined to elevate the tone, Chapman took dramatic steps. He fired three employees for gossiping. He also established a strict policy, turning the whole office into a no-gossip zone.
In workplaces everywhere, gossip remains a daily fact of life. Around water coolers, behind closed doors, and in e-mails, employees whisper about everything from office romances to rumored mergers and layoffs. Defenders insist that this chatter is often harmless, giving workers a window on legitimate news. Critics charge that it can be insidious and malicious, lowering morale.
"Gossip can be a problem if unaddressed, or it can play a useful role," says Dennis Reina, author of "Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace." "It can be a beacon in letting leaders know that there are issues that need to be dealt with in appropriate, constructive ways."
Chapman defines gossip as "negative communications outside the presence of the subject of the communication." Calling it "a productivity killer," he adds, "It hurts the gossiper and the gossipee. Gossipers are wrecking their own reputation by talking about others. Gossipees are hurt because they're being maligned."
To quash such talk, Chapman devised a policy for his staff of 17: "If I hear you gossiping about somebody, we send you back to the person about whom you were gossiping and you tell what you said. That dispels all the false information."
He is not the only employer to fire people for allegedly gossiping. A year ago, four town employees in Hooksett, N.H., were dismissed for spreading rumors about a town official. The women denied the charges, and last month two of them settled lawsuits against the town.
Yet punishing workplace gossip is not the answer, some employment experts argue. Creating ways to deter it is.
"Gossip is a fixable offense, not a fireable offense," says Rachelle Canter, author of "Make the Right Career Move." "Firing someone for gossiping is an extreme measure and one that won't eliminate gossip but rather send it further underground, where it can do more harm."
In spite of its negative connotations, gossip can play an important role in policing behavior, notes David Sloan Wilson, a biology professor at Binghamton University in New York.
"Gossip is often highly moralistic and functions as a social control system," he says. "The first thing that happens when there's a social transgression is gossip. Often it's the only thing that needs to happen. We can use it to punish transgressions by social exclusion and shunning."
If employees are happy, they will tend to use gossip for benign purposes, Professor Wilson adds. "But if they perceive management as the enemy, they will gossip for their own interest. That will not be in the interest of management. The solution is not to end gossip but to make the company more equitable."
Yet Chapman defends his no-gossip policy, noting that the culture in his gossip-free office has changed markedly. Business has doubled in a year, he says. He is writing a book, "The No-Gossip Zone." He's even fielding calls from those in other professions. "I've had a lot of ministers reach out to me, trying to deal with gossip inside their congregations."
Calling gossip "an explosion of bad work energy," he says, "Think about the positive energy you replace it with."
Employers who identify gossiping as grounds for discipline and termination need to notify employees in advance, preferably in writing, says Craig Annunziata, managing partner of Fisher & Phillips, an employment law firm in Chicago.
Despite efforts to stop rumors, situations may still arise where termination is the only resolution.
"If gossip runs counter to your company values or creates a legal liability, you've got to act on that," says Bruce Clarke, president of Capital Associated Industries, a nonprofit employers association in Raleigh, N.C. "If one employee is defaming another and you don't take action to change the false story, in most states there's a potential claim."
Yet even Chapman makes exceptions for some forms of gossip. He emphasizes that his no-gossip policy applies only to interactions with colleagues and clients. "It's OK to talk about public figures," he says. "We still gossip about Britney Spears and Eliot Spitzer."
My thought was : WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIRST AMEMDMENT?
So when an edict comes down the chain of command to those doing the work, do as you are told and don't bitch about how things USED to be before the corporate takeover, I guess.
Just start rumors that co-workers are known homosapiens.
That should get things started.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Pssst. I know a secret.
“Life coaches” and writers of books about the “workplace” are full of BS and are gaming the system.
But don’t tell anybody I told you!
“Firing someone for gossiping is an extreme measure and one that won’t eliminate gossip but rather send it further underground, where it can do more harm.”
Yup exactly what happened in a place I worked at. They got all serious about people gossiping and it went underground and a whole lot more “effective” (if you could call it that) and nasty.
Is there nothing left anymore that control freaks don’t want to control?
Slander, libel, false witness, perjury, etc are not protected by the first amendment.
However a charge of unjust defamation of character must be leveled before you can punish someone talking about something.
I heard that my boss is a heterosexual.
What does the First Amendment have to do with the employer-employee relationship, especially when the employer is a private company?
That is what created the Press as a recognized institution of the state.
Consider the following:
"Yes, we have been sold but there are no plans to reduce staff".
(We have NOT been sold, but there are no plans to reduce staff.")
"Business has never been better".
"There are no plans to close this division".
..Etc.
Gossip is only welcome in an atmosphere of speculation, and this atmosphere more often than not is created by Management's refusal to communicate with the Little People.
My first encounter with it was in the 70's. The ONLY way we found out the division was closing was because someone there learned the practice of reading discarded IBM Typewriter ribbons. Management wanted to "Surprise us", and not have anyone flee till it was convenient for them, and denied anything was up. SO on Layoff Day, nearly everyone had jobs to go to as a result of evil gossip.
I have never worked in a well-run happy place where there was any detrimental gossip. Gossip exists in order to fill a vaccuum, and exists as a consequeunce of bad times, bad business, or bad management.
THAT is why they want to fire gossipers...They are damning proof their company is ****ed.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Want free speech? Find another job, or start your own company.
Is it possible to be a former thespian or is it impossible to change (careers)?
What is this, Russia?
It would be wise to limit your discussions to home telephones and office email. Unless so-called “company secrets” are involved, networking about comparative salaries and working conditions at other companies AT HOME would be protected under the First Amendment.
I think the most threatening thing to most employers is that a valuable and competent employee will leave and get a better salary somewhere else.
Oh man, starting rumors at work is a riot!
Wow. You and I must work for the same company!
Also, "gossip" is how you often find out about problems before lawyers gt involved. For example, if you are an employer and you hear "gossip" that an employee is stealing, harassing a co-worker, or doing drugs or drinking during working time, you might be able to take effective action (even avoid a costly termination) long before an "official" complaint would be lodged.
Companies are like Congress; they all too often try to legislate against human nature and it often leads to absurd results.
Ah, Jeeez, that's the Dixie Chick Whine.
The First Amendment protects your free speech rights in relation to the GUBMINT.
In your house, or in your company, or in your choice to boycott the Dixie Chicks or in Jim's house when he does not want to hear about how great Rudy Giuliani is, the First Amendment does not apply.
(If you don't believe me, ping that guy named "Admin Moderator" and write something that really pisses him off.)
I mean home email, avoid office email.
How the First Amendment applies here is beyond me. Do us all a favor and get a better understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights before posting.
I’ve seen workplace gossip lead to physical fights. I’ve got mixed feelings on the subject but I also understand why a company would want to keep it to a minimum.
In high school, I remember that we started a rumor that the principal was once seen ambulating with a dog.
Nothing
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The first amendment is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT abridging your rights, not your employer.
Of course an employer can tell someone to stop gossiping because it affects the workplace environment and productivity
I personally have written up people for gossiping because it was affecting the workplace and to protect myself from legal wrangling
ALL of these are predicated on the allegation that the informer presented the information as TRUE FACTS.
Gossip--is by its very nature--suppositions, "What if's", and "I heard's", always given with a "It might be false" ingredient
I still don’t see how networking at home on home phones and home email would not be protected under the First Amendment.
Saying that the First Amendment doesn’t apply is often the refuge of scoundrels.
Many companies also have government contracts that complicate this interpretation.
I once worked for a company that forbade employees from even TALKING at the lunch table. One has to wonder why such companies don’t completely move their operations to Russia or China.
This is exactly what I am going through in the company I currently work for. Gossip is RAMPANT and managment is so busy covering and protecting their own asses they won’t manage.
Actually, the best approach is to get some company letterhead and the boss’ signature on some memo. Write something that is believable but untrue, then affix a copy of the signature by physical or electronic means. Make a copy, then copy the copy. Leave a copy on the machine.
No, don’t do this if you have to log onto the machine!!!
The damn'd sicko was probably a philatelist as well.
Glad to hear it is past tense. I hope you dropped a match into a wastebasket on your way out. A Bad Job is like an abusive relationship....One does not really know how bad it was till it's over.
Loose lips-sink ships
There's a difference between discussing the work environment/management decisions, and starting false rumors.
I think that sums it up very well
Though I have met a few people who are only happy when there is something for them to be unhappy about
The wrong solution to the problem. Upper management at my company likes to complain about the gossiping too, of course upper management also likes to tell us “big changes are coming” and then doesn’t say anything for months. If you don’t like the rumor mill at your company give the people information, nature abhors a vacuum, if people don’t feel like they’re getting the whole picture (or at my company people are outright TOLD they’re not getting the whole picture) they’re going to try to fill in the blanks. That’s what gossip and rumors really are, people trying to get the whole picture, companies where upper management at least makes the employees FEEL like they have the whole picture don’t have this problem. All firing the gossipers does is make the gossipers go further away for lunch so they’re less likely to get caught.
The First Amendment never applies. The 1st ONLY stops the government from limiting your speech, it has no application to any private individual or company. If you’re having a conversation that’s in violation of company policy it doesn’t matter where or when you’re having it, at the office, at home, on the moon, during office hours, on vacation, doesn’t matter. If they find out about it they can fire you, period, not negotiable, not a violation of the 1st, not even related to the Bill of Rights in any way.
In reasonably happy and well-run places, an immune system effect usually rejects them, and they are either isolated or go somewhaere else, or become the object of humor.
I think it is like a Union campaign. A happy workforce in a well-run company has no reason for voting in a union. When I was in the workforce, I counted the presence of a union as a sign of severe management problems, and if the interview was not going well anyway, would ask, "So...Whatever did Management do to so alienate the employees?"
I had more than one interview where, when getting back to my car, the tailpipe was still warm. *Shrug* No loss.
Well isn’t that just special. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?
The First Amendement doesn’t mean anything, the Second Amendment doesn’t mean anything,...
Just let them try to enforce it outside work, though. And let it go to jury trial. You speak as an employer or attorney representing them, not for the majority of free thinkers here. Obama hasn’t been elected yet...
“My thought was : WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIRST AMEMDMENT?”
There is a Constitutional right to talk stupid. There is no Contitutional right to behave stupidly and keep your job in the private sector!
The firings will continue until morale improves.
And his sister is a thespian.
In high school, I remember that we started a rumor that the principal was once seen ambulating with a dog. “
Well, I guess I better get this out there before someone ELSE lets the cat out of the bag:
I, the one and only Nik Naym, masticate every day during my lunch break.
The First Amendment means plenty, it means the government can’t tell you to shut up. But no part of the Constitution nor Bill of Rights has any impact on the interactions of private citizens and private organizations, and that’s how it should be. Do you really think this would be a better country if somebody could put an Obama sign on your front yard and you couldn’t do anything about it?
I’ve seen it enforced. The CEO of the company I had my first real job at demanded 100% absolute loyalty, if he so much as heard a rumor that you were looking elsewhere wave bye-bye because you were gone. He was also really cheap and didn’t pay crap, this combination meant people (like me) had to be very discreet when it came time to leave his under priced employ. Then of course there’s non-disclosure agreements, anti-moonlighting rules, and watch out if you’re getting your insurance through work and you signed anything that said you don’t smoke. Some aspect of your outside of work behavior is governed by pretty much every employer in the country, and always has been.
I’m not speaking as an employer or attorney, I’m speaking the truth. The Bill of Rights limits the government and ONLY the government, that’s always been the case, we’ve got over 2 centuries of precedent on that. Private voluntary interactions, like those between individual people and those between companies and their employees are 100% not regulated by the Bill of Rights. And that’s a good thing, because the same thing that allows them to fire you for outside of work behavior allows you to keep those Obama signs off your property.
Your former employer sounds more like a slaveowner than a business owner. Then people wonder why people hate business owners and start unions. He sure doesn’t sound like any employer the vast majority of us would want to work for. If I had a boss like that, when I left I’d make sure that EVERYONE knew just exactly what he was like. But what goes around comes around, and I wouldn’t be surprised that a guy that that went out of business. He probably treated his customers the same way.
He was a jerk. Everybody in the software industry in Tucson already knew what a jerk he was. Of course his company was also a good place to start a career, because of the pay scale he had to be open to guys fresh out of college, good place to get those first couple of years of experience. And because of the turnover rate you got some good connections out of there, connections that have been useful to me for the decade plus of my career since.
He went out of business but not because of customers, he treated customers well. The business died because he sold to idiots, idiots who openly admitted they didn’t know how his company fit into their overall strategy, idiots that eventually figured out it didn’t, idiots that got sued by their shareholders for that and many other decisions during that time. Luckily I got out before they got wise. That’s how voluntary relationships work.
There are quite a few broadcasters here on FR too, as well as degreed professionals, and this person sounds like a lot of small town radio station owners. The latest I heard is about the owner would cut the help wanted ads out of the trade journals before giving them to the employees. That was easy enough to fix. The employees went in on a subscription of their own together. When they all left, they put a “Situation Wanted” ad in one of the “trades” for the station owner.
The customer treatment sounds a lot like some jewelers I’ve heard about. The customers are one time only starry eyed kids buying engagement rings. They know nothing about diamonds. The schlocks use their own color scale, which grades yellow diamonds higher than the true scale. They treat the customers wonderfully on the surface, but the starry eyed kids don’t really know what they are buying, either.
It was mostly a custom solution house, custom solutions make they’re real money on the support contracts, you need to be nice to the customers forever in that kind of work. And we had some big dogs, Baxter Pharm, Phillips Electronics, Gevalier Coffee, no starry eyed kids, starry eyed kids couldn’t afford us.
Really I think his primary problem is that he’s mostly a self made man. His parents were small business owners, he installed the computers in their company, found there wasn’t any software to do what they wanted, got some buddies together to make it, and from there decided to start his own software company. Being at least a second generation entrepreneur I don’t think he actually respects or understands people that get jobs. And like most private practice doctors he also see all outbound money as coming from his pocket, and considers the company (as a concept, not necessarily the people in it) as part of himself. So he doesn’t like to write checks (he used to frown and shake his head while handing out paychecks until we talked HR into putting the checks in envelopes) and he doesn’t like “traitors” and he takes everything very very personally.
But he was willing to take kids fresh out of college, without degrees even, and put them on multi-million dollar projects working hand in glove with MS on bleeding edge technology that still looks good on resumes a decade later. While he is one of my least favorite people on the planet I also owe him quite a bit. He’s a jerk, but his company was a major building block in my life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.