A Qualitative Study on Gossip and Rumour Networks in Academia

Year 2019, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, - , 31.12.2019

Meral Bektaş

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

• 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.
• Akkirman A. D. (2004), Sanal işyerinde örgütsel davranış, İstanbul, Aktüel Yayınları.
• Bacaksız F. E. ve Yıldırım A. (2015), “Dedikodu ve söylentiler: hastanelerdeki durum ve hemşirelerin tutumları”, Sağlık ve Hemşirelik Yönetimi Dergisi, (3 )2, 113-120.
• 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.
• Eğinli A. T. ve Bitirim S. (2008), “Kurumsal başarının önündeki engel: zehirli (toksit) iletişim”, Selçuk İletişim, (5)3, 124-140.
• Ellwardt L. (2011). Gossip in organizations: a social network study [S.l.]: Ridderprint, Ridderkerk, the Netherlands, 978-90-367-4934-3.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Gobind J.and Ukpere W. I., (2013), Idle gossip and dismissal: a breeding ground for workplace litigation, j communication, 4(2), 111-122.
• Goldman, A. (2006), “High toxicity leadership: borderline personality disorder and the dysfunctional organization”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 733.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Greenberg G. and Baron A. R. (1997), Behavior in organizations, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
• Güler, A., Halıcıoğlu, M. B., ve Taşğın, S. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma. Ankara: Seçkin.
• 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.
• Kapferer J. N. (1992), Dünyanın En Eski Medyası, Söylenti & Dedikodu, İletişim Yayınları.
• Kırbaş, M. (2013), “Eğitim örgütlerinde toksit liderlik”, İnönü Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Malatya.
• 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.
• 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.
• Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: why followers rarely escape their clutches. Ivey Business Journal, 69 (3), 1-40.
• Mirable Dictionary (2007), İstanbul, Mira Yayıncılık.
• Robbins S. P. and Judge T. A. (2012), Örgütsel davranış, Ankara, çev. İnci Erdem, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• 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.
• Subramanian S. (2006), “An “open eye and ear” approach to managerial communication”, The Journal of Business Perspective, Vol 10, No 2, April-June.
• Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlüğü (2005), 10. Baskı, Ankara.
• Türkay K.- http://www.iktisadi.org/isletmelerde-dedikodu.html- Erişim Tarihi: 26.02.2017.
• Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2003). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
• Waddignton K. (2012), Gossip and organizations, New York London, Routledge, Taylor & Friends Group.
• Wittek R. and Wielers R. (1998), Gossip in organizations, Computational &Mathematical Organization Theory (4)2, 189-204.
• Şener E. (2013), “Örgütsel intikam üzerine bir araştırma”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi, Isparta.
• 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.