Gossip in the Workplace
Michael A. Gillette, Ph.D.

When it comes to gossip, although plenty is said, very few of the words spoken deal with the ethical aspects of the practice. Most people say that such activity is wrong and that gossip should neither be encouraged nor tolerated. The ethical nature of gossip seems clear to most, even if the allure of hearing fun and private details (accurate or erroneous) is difficult to resist.

As with most topics in ethics, it is far from clear that any extreme response is correct. There is no doubt that gossip in the work place can be dangerous. Nevertheless, I am not prepared to simply state outright that gossip is automatically wrong.

Just recently in the Sixth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, a decision in the case of Mauro v. Borgess Medical Center was upheld. At issue in that case was a surgical technician's loss of a job on the grounds that he was HIV positive. Borgess Medical Center received information through an undisclosed source that the plaintiff, Mauro, had AIDS. Upon verifying this information, Mr. Mauro was offered a different job that did not involve the risk of transmitting HIV to patients. The plaintiff refused this alternative position and was subsequently laid off. The court did not support the plaintiff's contention that this action conflicted with the American's With Disabilities Act.

The point of bringing up this case is not to launch a discussion of the ethical issues involved in HIV testing and job selection. This month's theme deals not with the HIV issue, but rather with the route of information exchange regarding the staff person's HIV status. Is it 'gossip' if a co-worker or friend of an HIV positive employee divulges that information to an employer? And if the sharing of such private information is gossip, then is all gossip wrong?

Let us assume as a starting point that the HIV status of a surgical technician is important information for a hospital to know (ignore for the moment any ethical debate that you might have with this point), and that the HIV positive staff person is unwilling to discuss his HIV status. If that information is important, and if the only way for that information to reach the hospital administration is through unauthorized communication by someone other than the staff person directly involved, then it would seem that at least under certain circumstances, people other than the HIV positive staff person should transmit such information. If that is true, then the transmission of such information is either morally appropriate gossip, or not gossip at all.

Webster's definition of gossip, which seems to capture normal intuitions, states that gossip can be understood as a 'rumor or report of an intimate nature'. On this definition, discussion of a person's HIV status, without permission of that person, certainly could count as gossip. Yet, as described above, there may be times when it is reasonable to provide a 'report of an intimate nature'. Therefore, I can only conclude that there are times when it is morally appropriate to engage in gossip.

Having made the point that gossip is not always wrong, I must also make the statement that gossip is not always right either. The most obvious misuse of gossip would involve actual lies. If I know that a piece of information is untrue, and yet I transmit that information anyway - perhaps because doing so will produce a benefit for me - then I have done something wrong. The reason that such activity is wrong, however, has little to do with the gossip involved. In this case, I have told a lie. The lying is most likely the basis for the immorality of my act, regardless of whether or not the lie was told in the form of gossip.

From a moral point of view it does not matter whether I spread mis-information either by overt accusation or by subtle gossipy talk. In either event I will intentionally be creating a misapprehension, and I will have done wrong. Telling lies, therefore, is at the heart of my immoral action while gossip may or may not be the vehicle by which I commit this offense. What then, is the moral status of gossip?

I would argue that gossip has morally risky characteristics because we are more likely to spread falsehoods in a gossipy way than we would if we had to write such claims down or announce them publicly. The partial anonymity of gossip makes spreading falsehoods easy and comfortable. For that reason, gossip is dangerous.

To clarify the ethical nature of gossip, I believe the following guidelines regarding work-place gossip may be of use.

• Situation One: The topic of gossip is irrelevant to the ability of the staff person to satisfy her/his professional obligations.
  
  Appropriate Response: Ignore the gossip and squelch further discussion if possible. This kind of gossip serves no good end and is likely to harm people.
  
  
• Situation Two: The topic of the gossip is relevant to the ability of a person to satisfy professional obligations, but the evidence in support of the allegations is poor.
  
  Appropriate Response: Investigate the matter more fully. If possible, confront the individual involved. This allows for the development of an accurate understanding of the situation, and also encourages the staff person involved to take action on her/his own as appropriate.
  
  
• Situation Three: The topic of the gossip is relevant to the ability of a person to satisfy professional obligations, and either evidence is clear or the person involved refuses to discuss the issue.
  
  Appropriate Response: Bring the issue to the attention of a supervisor for further investigation and discussion. The issue must be dealt with consistently, fairly, and on the basis of relevant policy. This makes involvement of a supervisor necessary, and the continuation of gossip inappropriate.