by Eric Hollenbeck, Carson College of Business
Gossip in the workplace has long carried a bad reputation, often viewed as a distraction at best and corrosive to team culture at worst. But new research from Washington State University suggests that not all workplace gossip is the same—and some forms may actually improve relationships and cooperation on the job.
According to new research published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, coauthored by Stephen Lee, assistant professor of management in WSU’s Carson College of Business, the impact of gossip depends on what people are talking about and why.
Across three studies, the research identifies four distinct types of workplace gossip and examines how each one triggers different emotional reactions and behaviors among those who hear it.
“Most research has treated gossip as either positive or negative,” Lee said. “But that approach misses important differences in how people interpret gossip and how they respond to it.”
Lee collaborated on the study with Rui Zhong of Penn State’s Smeal College of Business and Yingxin Deng of the Beijing Institute of Technology School of Management.
Studying four types of gossip
The first of the three studies measured the types of gossip employees heard from a coworker and their emotional and behavioral responses over the span of two weeks. The second asked participants to recall specific workplace gossip incidents and report their emotional and behavioral responses. The third study used controlled scenarios that compared different types of gossip.
The researchers moved beyond the traditional positive-versus-negative distinction by sorting gossip into four types based on whether it was work-related or personal in nature, and whether it reflected positively or negatively on the person being discussed.
Two of the four types involved positive gossip:
- Endorsement-based gossip: work-related praise shared behind someone’s back, such as highlighting a coworker’s strong performance or contributions.
- Communion-based gossip: positive but not work-focused, often involving personal interests or stories that build social rapport, for example, talking with a colleague about another employee’s weekend volunteer work.
The other two types involved negative gossip:
- Protection-based gossip: work-related and negative, but shared as a warning or “heads-up,” such as alerting a colleague about an unreliable manager or a pattern of problematic behavior that could affect their work.
- Derogation-based gossip: negative and unrelated to job performance, such as sharing personal rumors or attacks on someone’s character.
Why reactions to gossip matter
Researchers further examined how people emotionally react when they receive each type of gossip—and how those reactions shape behavior. The analysis draws on moral emotions theory, which explains how people evaluate others’ actions as right or wrong and respond accordingly.
Protection-based gossip tended to spark gratitude, the researchers found. When people believed gossip was shared to protect or help them, they were more likely to respond by helping the gossiper in return, strengthening cooperation and goodwill.
By contrast, derogation-based gossip consistently triggered disgust, a moral emotion linked to avoidance. People who heard this kind of gossip were more likely to distance themselves from the gossiper, limit interactions, and avoid working with them altogether.
Positive gossip also produced distinct outcomes. Endorsement-based gossip led people to model the behavior and encouraged them to speak positively about others. Communion-based gossip fostered feelings of warmth and connection, increasing socializing and informal interaction at work.
“One of the big takeaways is that three of the four types we studied tend to produce prosocial outcomes,” Lee said. “The one that reliably backfires is gossip that seems aimed at tearing someone down.”
Takeaways for business leaders
Lee said the findings have clear implications for managers and organizational leaders, particularly those who try to eliminate gossip entirely.
“Telling employees ‘no gossip, ever’ isn’t realistic,” he said. “People are going to talk. The question is what kind of talk leaders encourage, model, or implicitly tolerate.”
Rather than banning gossip outright, the researchers suggest leaders could normalize and model positive, work-relevant praise, while actively discouraging gossip that targets individuals in non-work-related ways. Leaders can also pay attention to protection-based gossip as a potential early warning sign of deeper organizational problems.
“If people are repeatedly warning each other about the same issue, that’s often a signal that something needs to be addressed more directly,” Lee said. “Ignoring it can allow small problems to escalate.”
The research also highlights a misconception many people hold: that gossip only affects the reputation of the person being discussed. In reality, it often does more harm to the person doing the gossiping, Lee warns.
“People are constantly making judgments about whether they can trust you,” he said. “And engaging in derogation-based gossip can damage your own reputation just as much as anyone else’s.”
Zhong, Rui, Stephen H. Lee, and Yingxin Deng. “Not All Workplace Gossip Is Equal: A Moral-Emotions Perspective on How Gossip Type Shapes Recipients’ Reactions to Gossipers.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 190 (2025): 104440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104440
