Gossip - The Original Knowledge Economy

John Moore has a nice link to Chris Corrigan on Gossip and to Fast Company on the same. FC and Chris also link to Offra Gerstein on the subject.

I once suggested that the cash value of gossip was zero, and that its value in an information economy was close to that. I recant.

To dispose of Offra Gerstein first, nice thoughts, along the lines of "how do we encourage people not to bad-mouth each ohter in social situations?" Very idealistic, totally wasted breath. We humans play constant games of power and status and betrayal, backstabbing and one-upmanship are all part of the deal, very often conveyed by gossip. While status confers benefits and lack of it creates disadvantages, the games will continue; unless you are proposing that all of us have exactly equal access to resources, regardless of what we do, how well educated we are, who our friends are or how we look. No, I didn't think so.

It is hallucinatory to expect any organisation to counter the process successfully when the magazine stands and most of TV is predicated on salacious gossip and unsubstantiated rumour, including business columns and especially politics.

Chris Corrigan however, has a very interesting thought that John Moore quotes.

When I am working with organizations who complain that they have communication problems, I always ask about gossip. I ask how long it takes for a juicy rumour to propagate through the organization. People usually respond with some lightning fast time.

I always point out that this means that there is no communication problem, the problem is that people are just not passionate enough about issues that are "communication problems." This always leads into nice discussions about working with more passion, rather than devising some useless set of easily broken communication commitments.

I am interested in understanding HOW gossip works, and harnessing that dynamic to deal with "communication problems" in organizations.

When it comes to harmessing the dynamic, I'm sure there are ways for participants, and not just management, to use gossip as a way of testing the comunication channels in an organisation, and possibly using those channels as a way of moving vital information around.

I'm sure gossip is an economics of information. We trade tidbits with each other, and since we still keep all the information we give away, we can use the incoming trades to construct a more coherent story which becomes a more valuable piece of currency that we trade again. But the most successful gossipers don't just trade and build, they construct meaning and build understanding. The really successful ones are those who can pull together the scraps into something that is not only coherent, but has a high predictive value and that creates social power. Such people become vital cogs in the gossip-enabled, information architecture of the organisation.

Its my experience that a great deal of gossip and back-channel communication comes from attempts by management to control the flow of information. But we are totally used to dealing with incomplete information, everything we do is based on inadequate data. What we do is fill in the gaps in a coherent way and that is what gossip does as well. It infers, deduces, extrapolates and smooths the edges till we get a shape we think we recognise, then we pass it on.

By pouring as much information as we can into both formal and informal channels, there is a much better chance that we will propagate an accurate message, and substantiate that message through trusted intermediaries as well. It will not allow us to control the message in any way, however. Weaning management off the control valve is going to be the real challenge.

Another reason for loving this technology, because it moves information so fast and so effortlessly and without prejudice. If you want the truth to move that way, tell the truth, if you want you lies to be discovered and deconstructed before your eyes, tell lies or worse, use corporate speak.

And Chris's three types of communications problems ring all the right bells with me.

1. I can't get the information I need. ... This complaint usually precedes an unworkable solution, whereby everyone guesses what everyone else needs and provides the information BEFORE the demand for it arises. (Mhmm, another push solution, no houseroom here)

2. There are too many rumours/lies/trust issues here.. But the bottom line is that gossip will always be a part of groups. Dealing with this requires well grounded management combined with healthy individuals that have a capacity for absorbing negativity and letting it go.

3. Hoarding information. Knowledge is power. ... within an organization, not sharing knowledge is a huge competetive disadvantage. And, as Cluetrain points out, even withholding knowledge from your market may sink you in the long run. The world is opening up and success lies that way.

Another suggestion, have a look at a system like Karen Stephenson's Mercator software which maps the social and human networks in an organisation. She identifies Three Types of people Found In All Networks

Hubs

Socially Connected To The Nth Degree
Have the Most Direct Ties
Many Face-To-Face Conversations

Gatekeepers

Stations On Critical Organization Pathways when information funnel through a person
Can Act As A Valuable Information Broker
Or Slow The Process By Withholding Information

Pulse Takers

The Most Indirect Ties
The Opposite Of Hubs
Unseen But All Seeing
Carry A Lot Of Subtle Influence
Placed Between The Hub And The Gatekeeper
Ear To The Ground
Tend To Be Less Visible
Role Not Easily Understood Or Appreciated

Most Interesting Employees

Analyse And Interpret Information
Respected By Those Plugged In To Their Opinions
Can Make Or Break A Management Policy
Identifying And Understanding Their Role Vital If Introducing Innovation Or Change
Consult Pulse-Takers First For Opinions

The most important part of all is that the networks that function in an organisation bear almost no relationship to your organisation chart. You almost literally have no idea how your business works; maybe gossip can help.

One last note that I'd love to have added to the Cluetrain and that I pinched from The Social Life of Information, not quite verbatim;

All organisations function only if everyone understands how company rules and regulations are broken. This rule breaking is clear, consistent and widely practised. Knowing who to ask how to get something done is the first step in this process. If you don't believe me, watch what happens to a company where the workers "work to rule".

Now I want to add a codicil. This knowledge and practise is propagated through organisations by gossip.

Comments

[Piers Young]

I completely agree with you about the good and bad gossip - Gerstein's approach is sweet, but a little difficult to enforce.

And yes too on Chris' communication problems. The research he was (indirectly) referring to suggested that gossip was a tool for people determining or increasing their social status. So the communication comes with baggage.

The other is has to do with Chinese Whispers. Just because a rumour gets round a company quickly, that doesn't mean that the communication channels don't have "noise". Gossip can change the tone, mood and even content of the message.

(Or if you can be bothered, I made a larger (slightly rambling!)comment on it here

Anyway, thanks for the pointer to Karen Stephenson's stuff. I hadn't seen that before - really interesting.

[Jon Husband]

I'm guessing you know of Valdis Kreb's work on the visualization and analysis of networks, as well as Karen Stephenson's work. Similar stuff.

If not, fyi ( http://www.orgnet.com )

Earl says:
Hi Jon, welcome back.
I had not heard of Krebs, checking now, thanks.

[Lourdes Pietrosemoli]

I'm currently doing some research on gossip in the workplace and would like to cite the fragment below. I would like to know who's the author and where can I find more on the subject of "gossip as an economics of information".
Thanks,
Lourdes

I'm sure gossip is an economics of information. We trade tidbits with each other, and since we still keep all the information we give away, we can use the incoming trades to construct a more coherent story which becomes a more valuable piece of currency that we trade again. But the most successful gossipers don't just trade and build, they construct meaning and build understanding. The really successful ones are those who can pull together the scraps into something that is not only coherent, but has a high predictive value and that creates social power. Such people become vital cogs in the gossip-enabled, information architecture of the organisation.