A Qualitative Study on Gossip and Rumour Networks in Academia

Abstract

The communication process that takes place in the form of emotion, thought and information exchange is an important process for organizations, as well as for individuals. Organizational communication, which is carried out in order to ensure an organization’s ability to function and to realize its aims, is divided into two, as formal and informal communication. The gossip and rumour network, which is amongst the informal communication channels, emerges as a result of the relations and needs of the employees of an organization. Humans by nature like to talk about people who are not usually in their immediate environment.  Therefore, much of the free conversation among the employees of an organization may be related to other people, or events, outside of the conversation.

Gossip refers to the transfer of information from one person to another, about a third person who is not present. Rumour means unverified or false news. Gossip and rumour networks in organizations often spread in the initial form of a small spark. However, if the necessary precautions are not taken, this may turn into a big fire and start to damage the organizational climate and/or culture.

The aim of this study is to determine the opinions of academics regarding gossip and rumour networks in academic organizations. In the study, a qualitative research method was applied, using interviews as data collection tool. The results were then interpreted using the descriptive analysis technique, chosen in order to understand the academics’ feelings and thoughts regarding gossip and rumour networks. The interviews forming the qualitative study, were comprised of voluntary participants, and took place at a time and location chosen by the participants. The answers were collected from an objective point of view, taking care that the questions were not guiding. The research was conducted via snowball sampling, one of the purposeful sampling methods. The questions asked to the academics in the study group were; Who may possess the most information? Who do you suggest I talk to about this?

The study considered what the opinions of academics regarding the gossip and rumour network in their organizations were, in addition to what are the issues of gossip and rumor network in academic organizations; who are the causes of this network; what are the causes of gossip and rumour networks; what are the individual and organizational effects of gossip and rumour networks; advantages and disadvantages of these networks to academic organizations. The study also attempted to find answers to questions of how gossip and rumour networks should be managed.

The interviews were conducted with sixteen academics who were actively working in their respective universities. The participants weer aged between 30 and 49 years; 10 were female and 6 were male. Voice recordings were taken according to the participants' permission and the interviews lasted 43-50 minutes.  A code number was given to each of the academics in the study group (K1, K2, K3, K4,...,K16).

Within the framework of the responses received from the participants, the findings of the research were collected under seven headings. These are; issues of gossip and rumour networks; leaders of gossip and rumour networks; reasons for gossip and rumour networks; organizational effects of gossip and rumour networks; academics affected by gossip and rumour networks; organizational advantages and disadvantages of gossip and rumour networks; and management of the gossip and rumour network.

The academics stated that the gossip and rumour networks circulated in the corridors of the organization. In the same way, they stated that the gossip and rumour network affected academics and academic organizations in various ways. They felt the gossip and rumour networks had various advantages and disadvantages for the organizations, and that the gossip and rumour network should be managed. The existence of gossip and rumour networks is an undeniable fact of academic organizations, as in every organization. Therefore, the gossip and rumour networks within academic organizations should be able to be managed for the benefit of the organization, without being ignored by the administrators. Managers occasionally mingling with employees, chatting with them, listening to their wishes and complaints, and seeking solutions with their employees may reduce the impact and number of gossipmongers in organizations and may increase control over gossip and rumour networks. It is recommended that qualitative or mixed studies related to gossip and rumour networks should be conducted in different sectors, to contribute to the explansion of the literature.

Keywords

• gossip,rumor,qualitative study

Akademide Dedikodu ve Söylenti Ağı Üzerine Nitel Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, akademisyenlerin akademik örgütlerdeki dedikodu ve söylenti ağına ilişkin görüşlerini belirlemektir. Nitel yöntem ve fenomenolojik desende yürütülen çalışmada veriler betimsel analiz tekniği ile yorumlanmıştır. Görüşme üniversitede aktif olarak görev yapan on altı akademisyen ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, katılımcılardan alınan yanıtlar çerçevesinde yedi başlık altında toplanmıştır. Bunlar; dedikodu ve söylenti ağının konuları, dedikodu ve söylenti ağının kahramanları, dedikodu ve söylenti ağının nedenleri, dedikodu ve söylenti ağının örgütsel etkileri, akademisyenlerin dedikodu ve söylenti ağından etkilenme durumları, dedikodu ve söylenti ağının örgütsel avantaj ve dezavantajları ve dedikodu ve söylenti ağının yönetimidir. Akademisyenler görev yaptıkları birimlerde dedikodu ve söylenti ağının örgüt koridorlarında dolaştığını ifade etmişlerdir. Aynı şekilde dedikodu ve söylenti ağının akademisyenleri ve akademik örgütleri çeşitli şekillerde etkilediği, örgütler için çeşitli avantaj ve dezavantajlar taşıdığı ve dedikodu ve söylenti ağının yönetilmesi gerektiğini dile getirmişlerdir. Akademik örgütlerdeki dedikodu ve söylenti ağına dikkat çekilen bu çalışmanın bu kurumlardaki idarecilere ışık tutacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Dedikodu,Söylenti,nitel araştırma,akademi

References

1. Akdoğan A., A. Mirap S. O. ve Cingöz A. (2009), “İş görenlerin dedikoduya inanma düzeyleri ve dedikodunun amaçlarına ilişkin algılamaları: örgütsel ve bireysel değişkenler açısından bir inceleme”, 17. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, 21-23 Mayıs, Eskişehir.
2. Akkirman A. D. (2004), Sanal işyerinde örgütsel davranış, İstanbul, Aktüel Yayınları.
3. Bacaksız F. E. ve Yıldırım A. (2015), “Dedikodu ve söylentiler: hastanelerdeki durum ve hemşirelerin tutumları”, Sağlık ve Hemşirelik Yönetimi Dergisi, (3 )2, 113-120.
4. Bruno H. E. (2007), “Gossip-free zones: problem solving to prevent power struggles”, YC Young Children ProQuest Education Journals, September, (62)5, 26-32.Certo C. S. and CErto S. T. (2006), Modern management, Pearson Education LTD.
5. Eğinli A. T. ve Bitirim S. (2008), “Kurumsal başarının önündeki engel: zehirli (toksit) iletişim”, Selçuk İletişim, (5)3, 124-140.
6. Ellwardt L. (2011). Gossip in organizations: a social network study [S.l.]: Ridderprint, Ridderkerk, the Netherlands, 978-90-367-4934-3.
7. Eroğlu E. (2005), “yöneticilerin dedikodu ve söylentiye yönelik davranış biçimlerinin belirlenmesi (afor taşıma hizmetleri a.ş’de bir uygulama)”, Kırgızistan-Türkiye Manas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (13), 203-218.
8. Farley S. D., Timme D. R. and Hard J. W. (2010), “On coffee talk and break-room chatter: perceptions of women who gossip in the workplace”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 150 (4), 361–368.

9. Fay M. J. (2011), “Informal communication of co-workers. a thematic analysis of message”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, An International Journal, (6) 3, 212-229.
10. Gobind J.and Ukpere W. I., (2013), Idle gossip and dismissal: a breeding ground for workplace litigation, j communication, 4(2), 111-122.
11. Goldman, A. (2006), “High toxicity leadership: borderline personality disorder and the dysfunctional organization”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 733.
12. Gouveia Cm De, Vuuren Lj Van and Crafford A. (2005), “Towards a typology of gossip in the workplace”, Journal of Human Resource Management, (3)2, 56-68.
13. Gönen Y. Ö., Öztürk F. Ü. ve Efilti S. (2008), “Örgütlerde Söylenti ve Dedikodu”, 7. Ulusal Büro Yönetimi ve Sekreterlik Kongresi, 22-24 Ekim, Trabzon.
14. Gözütok F. D. (1996), Öğretmenlerin etik davranışları, The Third İnternational Conference On Teacher Education Almost 2000 Crises Chalenge İn Teacher Education, June 27-July 1 1999 Beit Berl Collage, Israel, 83-99.
15. Greenberg G. and Baron A. R. (1997), Behavior in organizations, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
16. Güler, A., Halıcıoğlu, M. B., ve Taşğın, S. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma. Ankara: Seçkin.
17. Hagar C. (2009), “Information in isolation, gossip and rumour during the uk 2001 foot and mouth crisis-lessons learned”, Libri, vol. 59, ISSN 0024-2667, 228–238.
18. Kapferer J. N. (1992), Dünyanın En Eski Medyası, Söylenti & Dedikodu, İletişim Yayınları.
19. Kırbaş, M. (2013), “Eğitim örgütlerinde toksit liderlik”, İnönü Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Malatya.
20. Kurlad N. B., and Pelled L. H. (2000), “Passing the word: toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace”, Academy of Management, the Academy of Management Review, April, (25) 2, 428-438.
21. Leblebici D. N., Yıldız H. H. ve Karasoy A. (2009), “Örgütsel yaşamda dedikodunun algılanışı ve araçsallığı”, SÜ İİBF Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, (12)18, 61-574.
22. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: why followers rarely escape their clutches. Ivey Business Journal, 69 (3), 1-40.
23. Mirable Dictionary (2007), İstanbul, Mira Yayıncılık.
24. Robbins S. P. and Judge T. A. (2012), Örgütsel davranış, Ankara, çev. İnci Erdem, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
25. Slocum J. W. and Hellriegel D. (2009), Principels of organizational behavior, South-Western, Twelfth Edition, International Student Edition. Solmaz B. (2006), “Söylenti ve dedikodu yönetimi”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (16), 563-575.
26. Subramanian S. (2006), “An “open eye and ear” approach to managerial communication”, The Journal of Business Perspective, Vol 10, No 2, April-June.
27. Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlüğü (2005), 10. Baskı, Ankara.
28. Türkay K.- http://www.iktisadi.org/isletmelerde-dedikodu.html- Erişim Tarihi: 26.02.2017.
29. Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2003). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
30. Waddignton K. (2012), Gossip and organizations, New York London, Routledge, Taylor & Friends Group.
31. Wittek R. and Wielers R. (1998), Gossip in organizations, Computational &Mathematical Organization Theory (4)2, 189-204.
32. Şener E. (2013), “Örgütsel intikam üzerine bir araştırma”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi, Isparta.
33. Yaman E. (2007), “Üniversitelerde bir yönetim sorunu olarak öğretim elemanlarının maruz kalığı informal cezalar: nitel bir araştırma”, Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eğitim Yönetimi ve Denetimi Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul.