Strategic Information Sharing or Malicious Gossip?

Submitted by Erin.Esposito [1] on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 00:04

An old schoolyard chant goes “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” The author of this chant must have had incredible self-esteem or lived in a dream world, because, for most of us, words can hurt. Harmful words can inflict considerable damage on individuals and relationships. This damage, unlike broken bones, doesn’t always heal completely. –Candice Solie [2], Director, APCO Institute

Most organizations or relationships have an informal communication network, which is otherwise known as the grapevine or gossip. Gossip, generally speaking, has a negative connotation. But it also goes by the alias “strategic information sharing,” according to Michael Morris, research psychologist and professor of organizational behavior at Columbia Business School. (Zimmerman, New York Times, Feb. 3, 2008 [3]) Information sharing aside, there is a significant difference between the types of gossip: speculative gossip versus malicious gossip.

Speculative gossip or constructive querying can be a good and healthy source of information if it is based on facts. These opportunities for dialogue often are where we obtain information in a manner that is shared, hence the term “strategic information sharing.”

Malicious gossip is spread with the intent of causing turmoil or discrediting certain individuals. We have seen this, time and time again, within our Deaf community. The most recent widely known example of negative gossip would be the Gallaudet protest and the things that were said of and by both the protesters and the administration. While there were several valid points, which were factual, there was also a significant amount of things said which contributed to the turmoil within the Deaf community.

Take for example:

• In the August 30, 2006 edition of Buff and Blue, a student, who was a Fernandes supporter, wrote, “Jordan, the Rock star of the Deaf community did that and left the campus apathetic, left a crappy library which everyone bitches about, he left a campus that thrives on alcohol and where the next house party is.” (Cetrano, p. 19)
  • How could this possibly be viewed in a way other than malicious gossip? It lacks factual information and has a negative bias which, without doubt, contributed to the turmoil within the Deaf community.
• The term “not deaf enough” first appeared when the Washington Post noted that “Fernandes and Jordan have said the controversy is over deaf identity politics: For some people, they said, she is ‘not deaf enough.’” (Kinzie, May 13, 2006, page B04 [4])
  • How could the use of this term (“not deaf enough”), regarding the protesters’ attempts to communicate their sentiments about the desired qualifications of a University President, be interpreted as anything other than the spreading of malicious gossip?

Deaf people have, historically, missed out on incidental learning opportunities that hearing people capitalize on. This is one of the major reasons why information sharing is critical within our community and one of our most powerful tools. Whether it is information sharing regarding car purchases, job opportunities, or a wide array of other topics, we sometimes mesh constructive information sharing with malicious gossip. This is where our divisions arise – the backstabbing and crab theory in action – and is something on which we need to take the opportunity to pause and reflect.

How many of you participate in the spreading of malicious gossip? Why do you partake in such a hurtful act?

For those who do not start the spreading of malicious gossip, but are listening to it, what steps have you taken to provide constructive feedback to the messenger to stop the information from spreading? And if you haven’t yet done that, will you do so the next time you find yourself in such a position?