The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Office Gossip

Nobody gossips. Just ask around.

Every single person you work with will tell you, hand on heart, that they are not a gossip. They just like to "stay informed." They "have good relationships across the business." Someone "mentioned something to them in confidence" and they're "still processing it."

Meanwhile, researchers at UC Riverside strapped recording devices to 467 people and listened to how they actually talk. The average person spends about 52 minutes a day talking about people who aren't in the room.

So let's drop the pretense. The question isn't whether you gossip. You do. The question is whether you're any good at it.

First, what we're talking about when we talk about gossip

Researchers define gossip as talk about a person who isn't present. That's it. No moral judgment attached. By that definition, mentioning that your colleague just had a baby is gossip. So is discussing a celebrity. So is telling your teammate that the new VP tends to ask for the numbers before the narrative.

In that UC Riverside study, most of the 4,003 gossipy instances they recorded were neutral. Negative gossip existed, but it wasn't the bulk of it. We've taken a completely ordinary human behaviour, attached a moral panic to it, and then quietly kept doing it anyway.

That matters, because the advice most women get about office gossip is "don't." And "don't" is bad advice.

The Good: why gossip feels so satisfying, and why that's not a character flaw

There are real reasons gossip feels good, and none of them are that you're a bad person.

It bonds people. Social network research from Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell and Labianca shows that negative gossip travels along friendship ties, while positive gossip travels along ordinary workflow ties. Telling you something risky about someone else is a trust signal. It says: I'm handing you something you could use against me. That flush of closeness you feel is real, and it's the whole point.

It can give you a much-needed heads up. A set of studies by Feinberg, Willer, Stellar and Keltner found that when people watch someone plotting against someone, they feel genuinely bad, and passing a warning along to the person about to get burned makes them feel better. They'll even do it at a cost to themselves. The researchers called it prosocial gossip. You might call it Tuesday.

It's educational. Research by Martinescu and colleagues found gossip serves a self-evaluative function. Positive gossip about others carries self-improvement information, showing you what good looks like around here. Negative gossip gives you a small ego lift, because at least you're not that guy.

It’s strategic (the kind of strategy you won’t find in leadership books). The org chart tells you who reports to whom. It does not tell you who's actually deciding, whose project is quietly dead, who's about to leave, which VP has stopped defending which initiative, or that the reorg everyone's pretending isn't happening is happening. That information exists. It travels through informal channels.

So when you decide you're above all that, you aren't taking the high road. You're volunteering to be the least informed person in the room, and then acting surprised when a decision lands on you sideways.

The Bad: what it actually costs you

Here’s what Eleanor Roosevelt had to say about gossip: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Think about it, how do you really feel about the office gossip? Do you fully trust them? Do you question their motives? Do you encourage them? Do you appreciate the heads up?

Turns out, the answer is complicated.

Total gossip activity was positively related to peer-perceived influence and negatively related to supervisor-rated performance.

Read that again. The more you talk about people who aren't there, the more informal power you accumulate with your peers, and the less credible you look to the person who decides whether you get promoted.

It gets worse:

Frequent gossipers get rated as less likable and less popular than people who gossip less. Not the outcome anyone's going for.

Your motive gets judged, and you don't control the verdict. Recent qualitative work by Greenslade-Yeats and colleagues found that recipients constantly assess why you're telling them. If they read prosocial intent, they trust you more. If they smell self-interest, they dismiss the information as manipulation and quietly downgrade you. You can be entirely accurate and still get filed under "political."

And it does something to you. In the Martinescu research, receiving negative gossip raised self-protection concerns, notably more so for women, who tended to think: that could be me next. That's the real tax. You stop spending energy on your actual work and start spending it on threat management.

The Ugly: the part that's specifically about being a woman

There's an easy version of this section. It goes: the stereotype that women are vicious gossips is a sexist myth, the data disproves it, please be outraged.

But you and I both know, that’s not always true. So let's be accurate instead.

On frequency, the stereotype fails. The UC Riverside team tested it head on, going in on the assumption that gossips are immoral, uneducated, lower class and female. Women did not engage in more negative, tear-down gossip than men. Women gossiped more overall, but the entire difference sat in the neutral, information-sharing category. Age and extraversion predicted negative gossip. Gender didn't.

On aim, it's a different story. Frank McAndrew argues that women are more likely than men to use gossip in a deliberately competitive way, pointed at same-sex rivals, with the goal of damaging a rival's reputation and cutting her out of her own network. His conclusion is blunt: the old assumptions here look like more than just a stereotype. It’s ugly, but we’ve all seen it. BTW - that’s not to say men don’t try to damage their perceived rivals. They just do it in a different way.

So no. You're not imagining it.

When gossip is useful, within limits

You don't need to gossip more. You need to be more disciplined about what you're already doing. Five rules.

1. Sort information from entertainment. Before you engage, ask one question: does this change a decision I'm going to make? If yes, it's intelligence. If no, it's television. Watch television at home.

2. Be a receiver, not a source. Listening costs you nothing. Originating costs you the supervisor rating. The penalty in that research attached to how much people talked, not how much they knew. You can be the best-informed person in the building and still be a low-volume talker. In fact that's exactly the combination you want.

3. Trade up in valence. Say good things about people who aren't in the room. Out loud. Often. Positive gossip travels through work ties rather than friendship ties, carries genuine self-improvement value for the person hearing it, and builds you a reputation as someone whose read on people is both generous and accurate. It's the cheapest reputation move available and almost nobody uses it. When your name comes up in a room you're not in, you want the association to be "she's fair about people."

4. Talk about behaviour and process, never character. "That team has missed the last two deadlines" is information. "She's a disaster" is a verdict. Verdicts are what get repeated back with your name welded to them six months later.

5. Assume everything is a group email. Never in writing. Not Slack, not Teams, not a text, not a "haha" in a DM. Screenshots are forever and discovery is real.

And a sixth for when you're the one being talked about: don't investigate, and don't defend yourself to the room. Go once, directly, to the single person best positioned to correct the record, and then get back to work. Chasing it just gives it oxygen and confirms you're rattled.

The point of all this

Gossip and intelligence are the same raw material. The difference is entirely in the handling: whether you verify it, whether you repeat it, whether you let it change what you do.

The women who make it past director aren't the ones who abstained. They're the ones who heard everything and repeated almost none of it, and who used what they learned to be three moves ahead in a room where everyone else was still reacting.

Be unshockable. Be discreet. Be the person people tell things to, and the last person anyone worries about.

Well helloooo there! Like what you see here? We'd love to have you as a member of the Expansive Woman Project. We provide content, courses, and community for women who are done waiting for their next promotion. Membership is free, and always will be!

Click here to join now!