The rumor - a multiple risk factor

Müller-Milch is a well-known German dairy company with 21 000 employees worldwide. It was alleged that CEO Theo Müller was close to a far-right party. Although independent sources have refuted the allegations, the rumors went so far that Müller-Milch had to refer to them in Wikipedia. The origin of the rumors is considered to be an action of the Munich magazine Wiener in 1989, when the head of the company fell for a faked right-wing radical inquiry. In another case in the 90s rumors surfaced that the owner of the Warsteiner brewery was a member of the Scientologists. The brewery tried to cover up the effect and was first really hyped in the gossip columns.

Rumors are believed

A study with students by biologist Ralf Sommerfeld shows that people are overly influenced by gossip. The participants were allowed to distribute money and were influenced with invented rumors in the process. Although it was later pointed out to the participants that reality was different, they continued to make decisions as if the rumour had been true. Already the psychologist Allport said: "A stereotype can spread, even if it claims exactly the opposite of the truth".1 Why are they believed?

People are fundamentally bad at dealing with irritations and incomprehensible or contradictory perceptions. If a recipient wants to believe a rumor because it corresponds to his own ideas and desires, he will not subject the rumor to critical examination. This can happen completely unconsciously, for example if someone doesn't want to believe that this person can do it all. People look for faults and puff them up. The proficient person becomes insecure and pays more attention to mistakes themselves, with the result that they actually make more mistakes. A self-fulfilling cycle begins and can lead to bullying. The more fearful and insecure the recipient of a rumor is, the more willing they are to believe and pass on a rumor. A fearful or insecure listener will believe the rumor 94 %.

Rumours as part of informal internal communication

German employees learn not even half of the important events in the company from their superiors, but through hearsay. In the UK and France, this proportion is even higher, in Scandinavia it is significantly lower. On the one hand, companies seem to expect employees to informally obtain the information they need; on the other hand, it seems to be unimportant whether this information is true or not. And this is what an average of two hours a day is spent on in Swiss companies.

Supervisors are not exempt from this. They then have a particularly hard time dismissing rumors if they involve an employee who is difficult to assess or is still new. They start asking around instead of directly seeking the conversation. They don't realize they are preventing a foundation of trust and making it difficult for the new employee to get started. In addition, this is an invitation to the other employees to bring up as many rumors as possible to management.

How management produces rumors

It is well known that information deficits lead to rumours in organisations. However, rumors arise despite information if it is not conveyed in a credible manner. If the information comes across as too euphonious and obfuscating, it promotes the mistrust of employees and achieves the opposite.

How can a management communicate its own uncertainty if it fears that it will upset the whole company? Rumors are much more damaging than the truth. Communication takes a lot of courage. In such cases, management must show that it can explain complex, unclear situations in such a way that employees support the change process.

Actions often speak louder than words. Sudden dismissals shake the company culture more than any attempt to find a joint solution. If the crisis then does not occur after a joint search for a solution, the staff involved feel taken seriously and are proud of the averted crisis. Loyalty has increased.

Management as a victim

In other cases, management relies on the stories of those who want to ingratiate themselves with them and don't notice. Bosses lend them their ear without ever approaching the people concerned themselves and listening to their arguments. Large companies and administrations are particularly at risk here.

Many supervisors know the moments when they need a large portion of trust in employees. They hope that nothing bad will happen and that, for example, the project manager has his project under control. If they cannot see this or receive too little information, they become nervous and suspicious. If they then miss the opportunity to have a clarifying conversation, they are likely to fall prey to rumors that may create a problem that was not there in the first place.

Mobbing, burn-out and other consequences

Although unproductive work time with informal conversations is much higher than absences, hardly any crisis management addresses these factors. There exists a strange helplessness on the topic of rumors and culture. People would rather believe the studies that claim daily gossip is important to keep employees fit and productive. The price seems quite high for diffuse information that produces quite a few victims. The possible damage to a company's image, the damage caused by "working to rule", by frequent sick leave and staff turnover is added to this. Holding out does not seem to be a solution either, because the loss of one's own self-worth, depression, anxiety reactions and burn-out are frequent consequences with all the economic costs of job loss and re-integration.

Solution attempts

Health insurance companies, cantons and organisations would have to finance culture development and rumour prevention as a priority topic in their own interest. Because it is in everyone's interest to prevent the frequent absences from work and secondary illnesses of those affected. Many of these sufferers can never sue for bullying because that requires evidence - and that is not available in the rumour sector. Those who can replace the rumour culture with trust and dialogue really promote the image of a company - at least as an employer.

There are also other attempts at solutions, such as creating social network platforms in the company. Alcatel promises that this could reduce unproductive time by 75 %. However, a 2014 survey by Time shows that while 42 % of employees would have more information through internal, digital communication, face-to-face exchanges with bosses are rated as much more focused and efficient. This is understandable because in a face-to-face conversation, questions and reasons can be clarified directly and simultaneously; body language can set straight what cannot be said in the mail or online. The message is less susceptible to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

For this reason, Ruth Cohn wrote a succinct rule, namely, don't talk about absentees. "Hold back on interpretations of others as long as possible. Instead, speak out your personal reactions. "2 To add, "Seek direct, clarifying conversation. »