Gossip: a channel for the development of personal reputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to empirically test the extent to which gossip plays a role in individual reputation development in the context of contemporary organizations. This study answers the continuous calls to integrate theory across fields by exploring the theoretical links between these two constructs. Design/methodology/approach This study provides a conceptual analysis and general review of the literature on gossip and reputation. The relationship between these two constructs is investigated through a two-study package (lab and field) yielding convergent results. Findings The findings of this study are that gossip contributes to organizational identity in that it reinforces the social norms of groups and that gossip serves as an important enabler of reputational development. This study provides empirical evidence that gossip serves a more significant role in the development of personal reputation than more formal methods of communication. Practical implications As organizations and individuals attempt to develop and capitalize on the effects of individuals’ reputations, this study provides practical insights into the knowledge that needs to be built regarding the method by which this development can occur. This study points to the practical value of gossip in the creation of personal reputation. Originality/value The theoretical framework in this study highlights the centrality of gossip as a primary enabler of reputation development in contemporary organizations. Reputation theory is advanced by studying a segment of the construct that has, until now, been excluded from consideration in this field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".