05.07.05 The 3rd Organisational Consequence of Negative Gossip : Destruction of Work or Client Relationships

Destruction of Work or Client Relationships

Negative gossip is a common destroyer of valuable work relationships.

One of the major things that happened to us was that the defamatory rumour sent several client relationships down the drain as we could no longer trust the credibility and reliability of some of their officials. Although some of our clients found out that the rumour had been a hoax and started inviting us back to train them, we still remained very guarded.

Looking at just how rampant negative gossip was during Nehemiah’s narrative and, as already said; I can’t help but wonder how much gossip would have preceded Eliashib’s decision to smuggle Tobiah into the temple's storeroom. What is clear is that the priest's action dented his relationship with Nehemiah, despite the fact that the priest had been the first to work on the wall rebuilding project.

There are several examples at JuaLink that depict how negative gossip can disrupt work relationships as elaborated below.

To begin with, negative rumours can break interdepartmental relationships. An example is where Lulu used gossip to alienate the human resource department from the publicity one, by ferrying negative gossip between Obed on the one part; and, Faraja and Neema on the other. Furthermore, such gossip could kill a victim’s passion to connect with members since she or he feels alienated; which can impede team dynamics within units,departments or even the organisation as a whole. For instance, you may remember how Lulu attempted to fragment her very own publicity department, by saying one thing to Faraja and another to Neema, hoping to create friction between the two women. Had Faraja and Neema entertained Lulu’s divisive chatters, the department would have split into two, which would have destroyed ‘team spirit’ thereby hampering performance. Further, negative rumours can destroy collaborations by ruining the image of the gossipers before their victims or vice-versa. At JuaLink, for example, that habit maligned the ‘prayer partners’’ reputation for good, once the board instructed that warning letters be placed on the gossipers’ personal files. That was a permanent record which they would never be able to erase come hell or high water. Lastly, negative gossip can wreck the relationship between an organisation and clients. For example, Lulu’s gossipmongering habit ruined any chances of a business collaboration between Edisa Kitchens and the publicity department. By simply sharing an audio recording with Obed, Lulu severed an otherwise promising relationship between Faraja and the caterers, thereby disconnecting the supplier from future opportunities of providing services to the publicity department. To make matters worse, Obed found the audio clip so annoying that he did not even pick data on the kinds of dishes that she (Faraja) would have preferred, a thing which would have enhanced the business relationship between Edisa and JuaLink. It is therefore very likely that Obed’s wife continued to supply substandard products to other departments of JuaLink; and, who knows, she probably could have eventually lost that business as well, in the long run.