Leaders' gossip as informal leadership communication: norms, strategy and ethics Open Access

Leadership communication research has traditionally emphasized formal practices such as vision statements, speeches, and policies (Fairhurst and Connaughton, 2014; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). These studies show how leaders articulate purpose, align followers, and mobilize action. Yet much of organizational life unfolds in informal, everyday exchanges. Among these, gossip—conversation about absent others that is spontaneous, relational, and evaluative (Foster, 2004; Michelson et al., 2010)—is one of the most common.

Although gossip is often dismissed as trivial or disruptive, recent work demonstrates its functional roles. Gossip transmits norms, reinforces cooperation, and facilitates learning (Feinberg et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2023; Fan and Dawson, 2022). It helps employees interpret ambiguous events and navigate reputations. Because leaders are symbolically powerful, their informal talk carries particular weight. Gossip from leaders can shape reputations, signal inclusion and exclusion, and set moral boundaries (Cornelissen et al., 2014; Pápay et al., 2022; Giardini and Wittek, 2019).

Despite this significance, leadership research has generally treated gossip as a problem to be managed or suppressed (Wu et al., 2016). What is lacking is a systematic theorization of gossip as a communicative practice of leadership itself. Recognizing leaders' gossip as consequential is important because it reveals how influence operates not only through formal mechanisms but also through subtle, informal discourses that shape culture, trust, and ethical climates.

This paper addresses this omission by developing a conceptual framework that positions leaders' gossip as informal leadership communication. We define leaders' gossip as informal communication about absent third parties, initiated or transmitted by leaders, that conveys implicit judgments, signals strategic direction, and reinforces organizational norms. Drawing on literatures in gossip (Foster, 2004; Giardini and Wittek, 2019; Hartung and Renner, 2019), leadership communication (Fairhurst and Connaughton, 2014), cultural transmission, and ethical leadership, we identify three interrelated dimensions—normative, strategic, and ethical gossip—through which leaders influence organizational life.

The paper makes three contributions. First, it highlights gossip as a legitimate yet overlooked leadership practice, demonstrating how leaders' informal talk guides sensemaking and everyday organizing. Second, it integrates fragmented literatures into a coherent framework clarifying gossip's multi-level consequences. Third, it advances leadership and organization development by showing how awareness of gossip's functions can inform training, development, and culture-building interventions.

By theorizing leaders' gossip as a communicative practice, we respond to calls for critical perspectives that move beyond idealized accounts of leadership (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012; Collinson, 2014). Gossip, as a pervasive yet morally ambivalent form of talk, illustrates how leadership is enacted not only through formal communication but also through subtle everyday conversations that shape organizational meaning and practice.

The guiding question for this conceptual inquiry is: How can leaders' gossip be theorized as a multidimensional form of informal leadership communication that shapes norms, strategy, and ethics? This question directs the paper's conceptual synthesis and the development of the proposed framework across normative, strategic, and ethical dimensions.

Following Jaakkola (2020), this paper employs a conceptual synthesis approach to integrate fragmented literatures across leadership communication, organizational gossip, and ethical leadership. Conceptual synthesis builds on the logic of integrative literature reviews, which aim to advance conceptual understanding and theory development through systematic combination of diverse knowledge domains (Snyder, 2019). This approach is particularly appropriate when multiple theoretical perspectives require integration to generate new frameworks rather than to aggregate empirical findings. Literature was identified through keyword searches in major academic databases (e.g. Scopus, Web of Science) using terms such as “gossip,” “leadership communication,” “informal leadership,” and “ethical leadership.” The search strategy was intentionally broad and covered both foundational and contemporary contributions, primarily spanning the period from approximately 1990 to 2024, while also incorporating earlier seminal works where conceptually relevant. The initial search yielded a large and diverse body of literature across these domains, resulting in a core set of approximately 70 relevant sources, which were iteratively screened based on title, abstract, and full-text relevance. Rather than aiming for exhaustive coverage, the selection process prioritized conceptual significance, theoretical influence, and alignment with the research question, with the literature set refined iteratively as key themes and conceptual relationships emerged, resulting in a focused body of literature that informed the final synthesis.

Studies were included based on conceptual relevance, theoretical contribution, and consistency with the paper's aim of developing a multidimensional model of leaders' gossip. The integration process involved comparing constructs, mapping overlaps, and identifying conceptual gaps across these domains to construct the three proposed dimensions—normative, strategic, and ethical gossip. This process ensures methodological rigor and transparency in developing a theoretical contribution that synthesizes established and emerging perspectives. The guiding research question—how leaders' gossip can be theorized as a multidimensional form of informal leadership communication—necessitates conceptual integration rather than empirical aggregation. A systematic or semi-systematic review would primarily aim to summarize empirical findings or identify effect patterns across studies (Snyder, 2019), whereas our objective is to reconcile fragmented theoretical domains and develop a novel conceptual framework. Similarly, theory adaptation was not the primary goal, as the intention is not to modify an existing single theory but to synthesize multiple perspectives into a coherent multidimensional model. Conceptual synthesis is therefore most appropriate for advancing theoretical integration and generating new propositions (Jaakkola, 2020).

To conceptualize gossip as a leadership practice, it is necessary to situate it within three research streams: leadership communication, organizational gossip, and ethical leadership. Leadership communication research shows how leaders shape organizational life by articulating visions, framing meaning, and guiding sensemaking (Weick, 1995; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014; Fairhurst and Connaughton, 2014). Yet this work privileges formal communication—speeches, strategy documents, official messaging—while overlooking the informal practices, including gossip, that also influence interpretation. In addition, communication-as-constitutive perspectives suggest that organizational realities are continuously produced through ongoing discourse rather than formal communication alone (Fairhurst and Putnam, 2004; Kuhn, 2008). This view is further reinforced by CCO scholarship emphasizing that communication constitutes organizational reality through ongoing interaction and material-discursive processes (Cooren et al., 2011; Ashcraft et al., 2009; Taylor and Van Every, 2000). From this view, informal talk such as gossip is not merely supplementary but participates in constituting leadership processes and organizational meaning.

Gossip scholarship, once focused on dysfunction (Noon and Delbridge, 1993; Michelson et al., 2010), now emphasizes its roles in information sharing, norm enforcement, and sensemaking (Foster, 2004; Sun et al., 2023; Fan and Dawson, 2022). Gossip conveys judgments that shape reputations and expectations (Giardini and Wittek, 2019; Pápay et al., 2022) and, as everyday talk, transmits values and reinforces group identity (Schein, 2010; Martin, 2002). At the same time, a parallel stream of research highlights gossip as a political resource through which actors negotiate power, build coalitions, and regulate inclusion and exclusion within organizations (Kurland and Pelled, 2000; Waddington, 2012). This perspective is supported by empirical and conceptual work showing how gossip is embedded in social networks and organizational power dynamics, shaping influence, status, and access to information (Hannerz, 1967; Mills, 2010; Waddington, 2005, 2021). This perspective emphasizes that gossip is not only functional but can also be strategically deployed to influence status and shape relational boundaries. Classical sociological accounts similarly frame gossip as a mechanism of social boundary maintenance and group differentiation, reinforcing norms while also reproducing hierarchies and exclusionary dynamics. Foundational sociological work further suggests that such boundary processes are central to social organization, where interaction rituals and group dynamics continuously reproduce inclusion and exclusion (Simmel, 1950; Goffman, 1959; Elias and Scotson, 1994; Spacks, 2012).

Moreover, gossip has historically been gendered and often delegitimized as trivial or informal talk, a characterization that is intertwined with broader gendered assumptions about communication and social influence (Eder and Enke, 1991; Leaper et al., 1995). Research on gendered communication further suggests that conversational practices such as gossip are differentially evaluated depending on gendered expectations and relational norms, influencing how such talk is perceived in organizational contexts (Leaper et al., 1995; Tye-Williams and Krone, 2015). This lens helps explain why gossip has been marginalized in leadership research despite its prevalence, and suggests that interpretations of gossip may vary depending on the social position and identity of both speakers and targets.

Ethical leadership research shows that leaders are moral agents whose communication defines boundaries of acceptable behavior (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Westacott, 2000; Cheng et al., 2022). Gossip complicates this role, as it can reinforce fairness or undermine trust. From a critical perspective, the ethical implications of gossip are inseparable from its potential use as a mechanism of informal control, symbolic exclusion, or reputational management, highlighting its dual role as both a constructive and potentially coercive communicative practice. Together, these literatures establish a base but reveal a gap: leadership studies stress formal discourse, gossip research rarely considers leaders, and ethical leadership neglects gossip as moral practice. Addressing this omission, the paper develops a framework of leaders' gossip as informal communication that enforces norms, signals strategy, and shapes ethical climates.

Gossip is one of the most enduring forms of human communication, extending beyond casual conversation. Evolutionary accounts suggest it replaced grooming as a means of maintaining cohesion in larger groups through reputational exchange and deviance sanctioning (Dunbar, 1996, 2004). In organizations, gossip continues to regulate behavior, build coalitions, and sustain culture (Kniffin and Wilson, 2010). Beyond its cohesive functions, gossip also operates as a mechanism through which actors negotiate status, influence, and informal power, shaping inclusion and exclusion within social and organizational networks. Such dynamics are consistent with research highlighting gossip as embedded within social networks and power relations, where it contributes to the distribution of influence and access to information (Hannerz, 1967; Mills, 2010; Waddington, 2005, 2021).

Early research portrayed gossip as rumor and mistrust (Noon and Delbridge, 1993; Michelson et al., 2010). More recent work highlights its constructive roles: transmitting information, reinforcing norms, and strengthening ties (Foster, 2004). Integrative frameworks capture its antecedents, functions, and outcomes (Dores Cruz et al., 2021), while studies confirm its role in culture building and norm maintenance (Sun et al., 2023; Fan and Dawson, 2022).

Gossip encourages prosocial behavior (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2011), deters deviance (Wu et al., 2016), and supports vicarious learning (Zhu et al., 2022). At the group level, it fosters cohesion in early stages and enforces norms later (Ajay and Mudiyanselage, 2025). Network studies show gossip circulates within cohesive groups, often targeting high-status actors, shaping trust and hierarchy (Ellwardt et al., 2012; Wittek and Wielers, 1998). Classical sociological perspectives further suggest that gossip contributes to boundary maintenance by distinguishing insiders from outsiders and reinforcing shared moral orders, while simultaneously reproducing social hierarchies and patterns of exclusion. Foundational sociological analyses reinforce this view by conceptualizing gossip as part of broader processes of social differentiation, group cohesion, and exclusion (Simmel, 1950; Goffman, 1959; Elias and Scotson, 1994; Spacks, 2012).

Overall, gossip is a structured and functional communicative mechanism. Yet it is still studied as a general phenomenon rather than as a deliberate leadership practice. Importantly, its dual character—as both a cooperative mechanism and a potential instrument of control—remains underexplored in leadership contexts. How leaders' participation in gossip influences sensemaking, cultural continuity, and ethical climates remains underexplored.

Leadership is increasingly understood as a communicative process rather than a function of traits or authority. Foundational work shows leaders shape meaning by framing events during ambiguity (Weick, 1995; Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991), with sensegiving—leaders’ efforts to guide interpretations—recognized as central (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Communication scholars further argue that leadership is enacted through discourse, where language and narratives constitute meaning (Conger, 1991; Fairhurst and Connaughton, 2014; Hackman and Johnson, 2013). Extending this view, communication-as-constitutive perspectives emphasize that leadership itself is continuously produced and reproduced through ongoing communicative interactions, where both formal and informal discourse contribute to the construction of organizational reality (Fairhurst and Putnam, 2004; Kuhn, 2008). This position is further supported by CCO scholarship, which conceptualizes organizations as constituted through communicative practices that materialize structures, relationships, and authority (Cooren et al., 2011; Ashcraft et al., 2009; Taylor and Van Every, 2000).

Yet research has largely emphasized formal communication—speeches, strategy documents, and official messaging. Studies show employees rely equally on informal cues during change, combining official narratives with everyday conversations (Maitlis and Sonenshein, 2010; Cornelissen et al., 2014). Sensemaking is dialogic, unfolding through exchanges between leaders and followers (Kraft et al., 2018; Kihlberg and Ola, 2020). Within this dialogic process, informal talk such as gossip becomes a key medium through which interpretations are negotiated, contested, and stabilized across organizational actors.

Critical leadership studies caution that privileging formal discourse masks the political and relational aspects of leadership talk (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012; Collinson, 2011). Because of their symbolic authority, leaders' informal speech—particularly gossip—carries disproportionate influence. Such informal discourse can function as a subtle mechanism of power, shaping inclusion, exclusion, and the distribution of reputational capital within organizations. Engaging gossip as leadership communication thus extends the communicative turn and illuminates how leaders reproduce or unsettle power relations. Overall, leadership research affirms communication as central but underexamines informal practices. Gossip, as a pervasive and evaluative form of talk, offers an overlooked mechanism through which leaders shape trust, culture, and learning.

Organizational culture is sustained through communication. Foundational perspectives view leaders as primary culture carriers who embed values through words and actions (Schein, 2010). Pluralist views stress fragmentation across subgroups (Martin, 2002), while communication-as-constitutive accounts highlight culture as continuously enacted in discourse (Fairhurst and Putnam, 2004). These approaches differ in emphasis but agree that culture is inseparable from communicative processes. From this perspective, culture is not only transmitted but also negotiated through everyday interactions, where informal discourse plays a critical role in shaping shared meanings and social boundaries. Classical sociological perspectives further suggest that such processes of meaning-making are closely tied to interactional order and group differentiation, where communicative practices sustain both cohesion and social distinction (Goffman, 1959; Simmel, 1950).

Gossip illustrates informal cultural transmission. Unlike formal communication, gossip circulates implicitly, carrying evaluative judgments about absent others and signaling acceptable versus deviant behavior (Fan and Dawson, 2022; Pápay et al., 2022). It reinforces boundaries by linking conduct to collective values (Michelson et al., 2010). At the same time, gossip can operate as a mechanism of informal control, distinguishing insiders from outsiders and reinforcing or contesting existing hierarchies within groups. Such boundary work aligns with sociological accounts emphasizing how gossip contributes to the reproduction of established–outsider distinctions and patterns of social exclusion (Elias and Scotson, 1994). In leader–follower contexts, gossip becomes a subtle extension of cultural influence, amplifying norms while also exposing tensions when subgroups sustain alternative interpretations. Syntheses confirm gossip's centrality in sustaining cooperation and shared expectations (Giardini and Wittek, 2019). Leadership studies, however, have emphasized formal mechanisms like mission statements and rituals. Recognizing gossip as leadership practice highlights how leaders' informal talk can both strengthen cohesion and reveal fragmentation, extending leadership development to include sensitivity to everyday discourse. This dual role underscores that gossip not only stabilizes culture but may also reproduce power relations and patterns of exclusion, particularly when evaluative judgments align with dominant group norms.

Research has clarified gossip's organizational functions, but little attention has been given to its role as a leadership practice. Social information processing theory suggests that employees adopt cues from salient others when interpreting events (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Leaders' informal talk thus carries disproportionate weight compared to peers. This asymmetry highlights how leaders' gossip can function not only as information exchange but also as a mechanism through which influence and informal authority are enacted within organizations.

At the individual level, gossip reflects motives such as information sharing, bonding, and norm enforcement (Hartung and Renner, 2019). It shapes self-evaluations (Martinescu et al., 2014), promotes vicarious learning, improves performance, and deters deviance (Zhu et al., 2022), while also fostering connection (Jolly and Chang, 2021). At the group level, gossip shifts from building cohesion in early stages to enforcing norms in mature ones (Ajay and Mudiyanselage, 2025). Frameworks show it as a structured, evaluative practice with both positive and negative forms shaping trust and cooperation (Dores Cruz et al., 2021; Gai and Greer, 2025; Kniffin and Wilson, 2010). At the same time, these dynamics may be shaped by underlying power relations, where gossip can be selectively mobilized to reinforce status hierarchies, privilege certain voices, or marginalize others within the group. This interpretation aligns with research positioning gossip as a political resource through which actors negotiate power, manage reputations, and influence organizational dynamics (Kurland and Pelled, 2000; Waddington, 2012; Mills, 2010).

For leadership, these insights matter. While scholarship emphasizes formal sensegiving (Fairhurst and Connaughton, 2014; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014), critical studies warn that sanitized portrayals obscure how power operates in informal talk (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012; Collinson, 2011). Tourish (2013) cautions that managerial communication may silence dissent under the guise of openness. Gossip embodies this ambivalence—capable of reinforcing fairness and cohesion (Pápay et al., 2022) yet also enabling symbolic exclusion. This duality underscores the need to conceptualize leaders' gossip not only as a functional communicative practice but also as a politically situated activity embedded in broader dynamics of control, influence, and identity regulation. In this sense, leaders' engagement in gossip can simultaneously reinforce collective norms while shaping the distribution of voice and visibility within organizational settings.

Understanding gossip as a leadership practice requires addressing its ethical ambiguity. Gossip can reinforce norms, highlight integrity, and sanction misconduct, but when misused it erodes dignity, fairness, and trust. Its dual nature makes ethical boundary conditions central to theorizing leaders' gossip.

Ethical leadership research offers the foundation. Leaders shape organizational morality through everyday talk as much as formal decisions. Ethical leadership is defined as modeling appropriate conduct (Brown and Treviño, 2006) and communicating values (Treviño et al., 2003). Fairness, integrity, and transparency foster trust (Den Hartog and De Hoogh, 2009; Engelbrecht et al., 2017). In this light, leaders' gossip can reinforce ethical standards, complementing reputation management (Neves and Story, 2015).

Yet gossip carries risks. It may undermine dignity (Westacott, 2000), and leadership style shapes gossip climates: authentic leaders curb harmful gossip (Cheng et al., 2022), while poor modeling enables it (Michelson et al., 2010). Context adds complexity: ethical leadership varies across cultures (Zhang et al., 2023), and digital or hybrid work increases misinterpretation risks (Contreras et al., 2020). Additionally, perceptions of gossip may be shaped by social and relational factors, including the positional authority and identity of the leader, suggesting that the same communicative act may be interpreted differently depending on who engages in it and in what context. Such variation is consistent with research showing that gossip is embedded in broader social and power relations, where its interpretation is shaped by status, identity, and relational positioning (Kurland and Pelled, 2000; Waddington, 2012). Thus, gossip is best understood as an ethically bounded practice: it can strengthen trust and culture when guided by fairness and respect, but it also requires leaders to exercise restraint, reflexivity, and ethical responsibility.

Beyond its communicative and ethical dimensions, gossip also operates as a mechanism of informal power and identity work. As noted by Michelson et al. (2010) and Tourish (2013), gossip both reflects and reproduces organizational hierarchies, serving as a subtle form of boundary regulation that shapes inclusion and exclusion. This relational function links gossip to identity maintenance and the negotiation of belonging within teams and networks. In this sense, leaders' gossip may simultaneously reinforce ethical norms while also contributing to symbolic boundary-making, where certain individuals or groups are implicitly positioned as insiders or outsiders. Classical sociological perspectives reinforce this interpretation by emphasizing how processes of inclusion, exclusion, and group differentiation are sustained through everyday interaction and evaluative discourse (Elias and Scotson, 1994; Spacks, 2012). Moreover, in contemporary digital environments, gossip increasingly diffuses through virtual platforms, where messages can circulate rapidly and cross contextual boundaries (Contreras et al., 2020). In such contexts, the persistence and visibility of digital communication may amplify the ethical consequences of gossip, as evaluative statements can be decontextualized, redistributed, and interpreted by wider audiences beyond the original interaction. This amplification effect highlights how digital mediation can intensify both the constructive and harmful consequences of gossip, reshaping how ethical boundaries are negotiated in organizational settings. These dynamics underscore the need to view leaders' gossip not only as communicative sensegiving but also as an exercise of informal influence and boundary management shaped by digital mediation.

Research shows that gossip is functional, patterned, and culturally significant (Dores Cruz et al., 2021; Fan and Dawson, 2022; Sun et al., 2023). Yet leadership studies emphasize formal communication—vision statements, speeches, and policy directives—while largely overlooking leaders' informal talk, which employees interpret as highly salient (Cornelissen et al., 2014; Kihlberg and Ola, 2020).

Gossip is not interchangeable with other informal practices such as humor or rumor. Its evaluative orientation links individual behavior to collective meaning. Studies show that gossip shapes individual learning (Hartung and Renner, 2019; Martinescu et al., 2014; Jolly and Chang, 2021), fosters cooperation by signaling reputational consequences (Zhu et al., 2022; Beersma and Van Kleef, 2011; Wu et al., 2016), and transmits cultural boundaries (Giardini and Wittek, 2019; Pápay et al., 2022; Ajay and Mudiyanselage, 2025).

We define leaders' gossip as informal communication about absent third parties, initiated or transmitted by those in leadership roles, that conveys judgments, signals priorities, and reinforces norms. Unlike ordinary gossip, leaders' talk carries disproportionate interpretive weight (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978).

From this, we propose three interrelated dimensions:

1. Normative gossip – reinforces or challenges behavioral boundaries.

2. Strategic gossip – shapes sensemaking about priorities and direction.

3. Ethical gossip – conveys moral judgments, shaping perceptions of fairness and integrity.

While analytically distinct, these dimensions are interdependent in practice. A single instance of leaders' gossip may simultaneously reinforce norms, signal strategic priorities, and communicate ethical evaluations. Moreover, the effectiveness of one dimension may depend on the credibility of others. For example, strategic gossip intended to guide sensemaking may lose legitimacy if it is perceived as ethically unfair, while normative signals may be weakened when leaders' evaluative judgments are viewed as biased or inconsistent. This interdependence highlights that leaders' gossip operates as a bundled communicative practice, where its influence emerges from the alignment—or misalignment—of normative, strategic, and ethical elements.

This framework consolidates fragmented literatures into a simple, multidimensional model, highlighting gossip as a consequential form of informal leadership communication with implications for trust, cooperation, and cultural continuity. By explicitly recognizing the interaction between these dimensions, the model advances beyond static categorization and captures the dynamic and context-sensitive nature of leaders' informal communication.

Consider a senior manager in a multinational firm who, during an informal coffee break with her direct reports, remarks: “I heard James tried to cut corners on the client proposal again — that's why he's struggling to get recognition from the board. Meanwhile, Priya's thorough approach is what we really need right now.”

Although framed as casual conversation, this comment operates on multiple levels. Normatively, it reinforces boundaries of acceptable behavior by condemning shortcuts while praising diligence. Strategically, it provides a sensegiving cue that thoroughness, rather than speed, is what leadership currently values. Ethically, it signals that cutting corners is not only ineffective but also inappropriate, with reputational consequences.

For employees listening, such gossip offers implicit guidance on how to behave, but it also highlights gossip's ambivalence. Some may feel motivated to emulate Priya, while others may view the disparagement of James as a breach of fairness, potentially undermining trust. This dual effect illustrates the importance of understanding leaders' gossip as a practice that simultaneously reinforces norms, directs attention, and raises ethical questions—all of which are vital to leadership and organizational development.

The first dimension of leaders' gossip highlights its role in signaling and reinforcing cultural norms. Gossip inherently carries evaluative judgments about absent others, communicating which behaviors are sanctioned or condemned (Fan and Dawson, 2022; Pápay et al., 2022). Early organizational studies framed gossip as a mechanism of control that discourages deviance and sustains social order (Noon and Delbridge, 1993). More recent work has reframed it as a collective process through which reputational signals help to regulate behavior and strengthen group norms (Wu et al., 2016).

When leaders participate in gossip, these normative functions intensify. Leaders' reputational judgments carry symbolic weight, reinforcing what Schein (2010) described as leaders' capacity to embed and transmit cultural values through what they notice, reward, or criticize. Gossip allows leaders to extend this cultural embedding into informal spaces, where norms are often more vividly conveyed than in official policy documents. Research on group development supports this interpretation: gossip shifts from bonding in early stages to norm enforcement in more established groups (Ajay and Mudiyanselage, 2025). Leaders' gossip can thus accelerate norm clarity, legitimizing particular behaviors as central to organizational life.

The second dimension concerns gossip's strategic role in leadership. Leadership is increasingly understood as a communicative process of sensegiving, where leaders shape how members interpret ambiguous events (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014; Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991; Weick, 1995). Most accounts privilege formal mechanisms—mission statements, strategy documents, and public addresses (Conger, 1991; Fairhurst and Connaughton, 2014), overlooking how leaders influence sensemaking through subtler, informal channels.

Gossip provides one such channel. Leaders' casual remarks about absent others can serve as indirect but powerful cues about priorities, alliances, and organizational trajectories (Cornelissen et al., 2014). Gossip also offers leaders soft intelligence—informal information that can reveal tensions, morale, or emerging issues (Michelson et al., 2010). Empirical studies highlight this value: gossip facilitates tacit learning and adaptive behavior (Jolly and Chang, 2021) and can deter misconduct through reputational monitoring (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2011).

By engaging in strategic gossip, leaders may influence employees' interpretive frames while enhancing their awareness of organizational dynamics. For management development, this underscores the need to train leaders to ethically harness gossip as a sensegiving practice that aligns informal conversations with collective goals.

The third dimension foregrounds gossip's ethical stakes. Ethical leadership research emphasizes that leaders influence organizational morality through role modeling, fairness, and communicative integrity (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Treviño et al., 2003; Den Hartog and De Hoogh, 2009). Because gossip inherently involves evaluative talk about absent others, leaders' gossip is not neutral—it conveys moral judgments that shape perceptions of what is right, fair, and legitimate.

Used responsibly, leaders' gossip can reinforce integrity by signaling which behaviors align with organizational values. Neves and Story (2015) demonstrate that ethical leadership strengthens perceptions of fairness and reputation, suggesting gossip could serve as a complementary channel for building ethical climates. At the same time, gossip carries risks. Westacott (2000) highlights how gossip may degrade dignity by reducing individuals to objects of judgment, while Michelson et al. (2010) show that leaders' negative talk can cultivate suspicion. Moreover, Cheng et al. (2022) demonstrate that authentic leadership reduces harmful gossip by modeling ethical behavior.

Critical leadership scholars remind us that leadership talk is never innocent. Alvesson and Spicer (2012) argue that leadership discourse often masks power dynamics, while Tourish (2013) shows how managerial communication can silence dissent under the guise of transparency. Applying these insights, leaders' gossip emerges as both a resource for ethical sensegiving and a potential vehicle for symbolic exclusion. The ethical dimension thus calls for careful reflection within leadership development: leaders must cultivate discernment in how they participate in or abstain from gossip, recognizing its capacity to either build moral coherence or corrode trust.

The three dimensions—normative, strategic, and ethical gossip—position leaders' gossip as a distinctive form of informal leadership communication. Normative gossip clarifies behavioral boundaries by broadcasting evaluative judgments (Noon and Delbridge, 1993; Fan and Dawson, 2022; Pápay et al., 2022). Strategic gossip offers subtle sensegiving cues and access to soft intelligence often absent from formal channels (Michelson et al., 2010). Ethical gossip conveys moral judgments that can reinforce integrity but also risk exclusion and mistrust (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Westacott, 2000; Cheng et al., 2022).

These dimensions interact in practice. A single remark about an absent colleague may simultaneously discourage deviance, signal shifting priorities, and communicate ethical expectations. Beyond co-occurrence, however, the influence of each dimension is conditional upon the others. For instance, strategic gossip intended to guide sensemaking may be undermined if it is perceived as ethically inappropriate, while normative signals may lose their regulatory force when leaders' judgments are viewed as biased or inconsistent. Conversely, alignment across the three dimensions can reinforce credibility, strengthening the impact of gossip on trust, coordination, and learning. This integration shows that gossip is not peripheral but a multifunctional practice of informal influence. Accordingly, leaders' gossip should be understood as a dynamically integrated communicative process, where its effects depend not only on the presence of individual dimensions but also on their coherence and mutual reinforcement.

Ethical boundaries remain critical: gossip contributes positively only when leaders align informal judgments with organizational values. For leadership development, this highlights the need to train managers to navigate gossip responsibly, especially in diverse and digitally mediated contexts.

To show how our framework extends prior work, Table 1 summarizes the three dimensions of leaders' gossip, their anchoring literatures, dominant emphases, and our proposed extensions. This mapping demonstrates how the framework consolidates existing insights while advancing beyond them. Prior studies largely theorize gossip at the group level (e.g. norm enforcement, reputation management) or as dysfunctional, but rarely as an intentional leadership practice. Our framework directly addresses this omission.

Having defined the dimensions of leaders' gossip, it is important to clarify their operation in practice. Table 2 links the three dimensions to core functions, expected outcomes, and boundary conditions. Normative gossip operates through norm enforcement and cultural signaling, strategic gossip through sensegiving and intelligence gathering, and ethical gossip through moral signaling and climate reinforcement. These effects are contingent on leadership style, organizational culture, and digital or cross-cultural contexts.

The following discussion integrates the theoretical propositions and conceptual dimensions presented earlier to highlight their contributions to leadership and organizational theory. It clarifies how the three dimensions of leaders' gossip—normative, strategic, and ethical—interact to shape culture, trust, and learning. The section also outlines the paper's theoretical contributions, practical implications, and boundary conditions for future research.

This framework contributes to leadership and organizational theory in three ways. First, it redefines the theoretical status of gossip. Whereas prior studies treated gossip as background noise or a managerial problem (Kurland and Pelled, 2000; Feinberg et al., 2014), we argue that it is itself a form of leadership communication. This shifts attention from gossip as an outcome of leadership to a mechanism of influence, extending communicative views of leadership (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014; Fairhurst and Connaughton, 2014).

Second, it integrates fragmented literatures. Gossip research emphasizes evaluative and cultural effects (Giardini and Wittek, 2019; Fan and Dawson, 2022; Sun et al., 2023), while leadership studies focus on formal communication and ethical role modeling (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Treviño et al., 2003). Bridging these strands shows that leaders' gossip is a cross-cutting mechanism shaping norms, culture, and ethical climates, responding to calls for broader theorizing about leadership as discourse and practice (Fairhurst and Putnam, 2004; Cornelissen et al., 2014).

Third, it advances a multidimensional conceptualization. Prior studies noted gossip's paradoxical functions—bonding and divisive, constructive and harmful (Kniffin and Wilson, 2010; Pápay et al., 2022)—but did not specify how. Our model distinguishes three dimensions—normative, strategic, and ethical—clarifying how leaders' informal evaluations influence sensemaking, cooperation, and trust, contingent on ethical boundaries. In sum, the framework repositions gossip as a legitimate, ethically bounded leadership practice. It demonstrates that leaders' informal talk is not peripheral but central to culture shaping and meaning making, while also carrying moral responsibility.

Viewing gossip as informal leadership communication has direct implications for leadership and organization development. Conventional approaches treat gossip as corrosive, yet evidence shows it is pervasive and functional, conveying signals rarely captured in formal systems (Foster, 2004; Michelson et al., 2010). Rather than suppressing gossip, leaders and HR professionals should learn to engage with it constructively and ethically.

First, gossip can serve as a diagnostic tool, offering “soft intelligence” on emerging concerns, tensions, and reputational dynamics beyond formal reports (Michelson et al., 2010). Leadership development programs can train managers to listen to gossip as part of sensemaking practices (Wang et al., 2021).

Second, leaders' evaluative remarks shape cultural norms. In line with Schein's (2010) view of leaders as cultural architects, gossip embeds values in informal settings and signals organizational expectations (Fan and Dawson, 2022; Pápay et al., 2022).

Third, gossip carries moral weight. Disparaging talk can fuel climates of fear (Westacott, 2000; Michelson et al., 2010), while ethically guided gossip reinforces fairness and trust (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Cheng et al., 2022). Development programs should therefore emphasize ethical reflexivity in informal communication.

Finally, digitalization intensifies these challenges. Gossip increasingly circulates through online platforms, reducing leaders' visibility while sustaining cultural impact (Pápay et al., 2022; Contreras et al., 2020). HR policies must balance monitoring with empowerment, helping leaders cultivate constructive gossip climates in hybrid contexts. In sum, gossip management should move beyond suppression. Recognizing gossip as consequential communication allows leaders and HR practitioners to leverage it as a resource for culture building, learning, and ethical influence.

In addition to these conceptual contributions, leaders and HR professionals can adopt targeted strategies to cultivate ethical and constructive gossip practices. Leadership development programs should integrate communication modules that help managers recognize gossip as a form of informal sensegiving and norm transmission, fostering awareness of its dual potential to build or erode trust (Brown and Treviño, 2006). Establishing clear ethical communication guidelines and modeling respectful informal talk can reinforce positive gossip climates (Michelson et al., 2010). Organizational culture interventions should emphasize reflection and feedback mechanisms that allow employees to surface and address harmful gossip dynamics, transforming them into opportunities for learning and inclusion (Schein, 2010). Finally, leaders can extend these practices to broader social and digital contexts, modeling integrity and fairness in both face-to-face and mediated communication, thereby strengthening the ethical fabric of organizational life.

In sum, gossip management should move beyond suppression. Recognizing gossip as consequential communication allows leaders and HR practitioners to leverage it as a resource for culture building, learning, and ethical influence.

The effects of leaders' gossip are contingent on contextual and relational conditions. Leadership style shapes whether gossip enhances trust or fuels exclusion: authentic leaders tend to use gossip constructively, while authoritarian leaders may exploit it to marginalize dissent (Cheng et al., 2022; Michelson et al., 2010). Organizational culture also matters—cohesive cultures enable gossip to reinforce shared norms (Schein, 2010), whereas fragmented cultures may see gossip sustain competing narratives (Martin, 2002). Digital and hybrid work further complicate gossip's role: online exchanges lack nonverbal cues and are prone to misinterpretation, reducing leaders' ability to guide informal talk (Contreras et al., 2020). Moreover, the persistence and visibility of digital communication may amplify both the positive and negative consequences of gossip, as evaluative messages can be redistributed and interpreted beyond their original context. Cross-cultural studies likewise suggest that gossip deemed constructive in one society may appear inappropriate in another (Zhang et al., 2023).

These contingencies highlight the need for empirical testing. Qualitative methods (e.g. interviews, ethnography) could illuminate the micro-dynamics of leaders' gossip, while surveys and experiments could measure effects on trust, culture, and performance. Mixed-method approaches would provide both depth and generalizability. Specifically, Proposition 1 (normative gossip) could be examined through experimental or survey designs assessing how exposure to leaders' evaluative talk influences perceptions of acceptable behavior and norm adherence. Proposition 2 (strategic gossip) may be tested using qualitative or longitudinal designs that capture how employees interpret informal cues during periods of organizational change and uncertainty. Proposition 3 (ethical gossip) lends itself to experimental and vignette-based approaches examining how variations in fairness, tone, and intent influence trust and perceived integrity. Proposition 4 (integrated dimensions) could be explored through multi-level or mixed-method designs to assess how the alignment or misalignment of normative, strategic, and ethical elements shapes organizational outcomes such as trust, learning, and coordination.

At the same time, this framework faces limitations. It is deductively derived from existing literature rather than new data, leaving its propositions untested. It also focuses on leaders' intentions, though gossip is co-constructed and open to reinterpretation by employees (Fan and Dawson, 2022). For clarity we emphasized three dimensions—normative, strategic, and ethical—yet emotional or political aspects may also matter. In addition, while this study highlights the interaction between dimensions, further research is needed to systematically unpack how these interactions unfold across contexts and over time. Finally, while our review draws on leadership and organizational studies, broader perspectives from anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies could enrich future theorizing.

Future research can empirically examine the distinct effects of each gossip dimension through multi-level designs that capture how normative gossip reinforces collective values, strategic gossip guides sensemaking and alignment, and ethical gossip shapes perceptions of fairness and trust. Qualitative methods such as ethnography or critical discourse analysis could illuminate the contextual and relational nuances of leaders' gossip, while survey and experimental approaches could test the propositions outlined in this framework. In addition, differentiating these dimensions empirically would allow scholars to assess how ethical boundary conditions moderate gossip's impact on organizational outcomes. Future work may also examine how these dynamics differ across digital versus face-to-face environments, where communication cues, audience scope, and message persistence may alter the interpretation and impact of leaders' gossip. By outlining these potential research paths, the framework provides a foundation for extending conceptual insights into evidence-based leadership studies.

This paper has argued that gossip, often dismissed as trivial or disruptive, should be recognized as a central mechanism of informal leadership communication. We developed a framework that conceptualizes leaders' gossip through three dimensions—normative, strategic, and ethical—each highlighting how informal talk shapes norms, strategy, and moral climates. The framework contributes theoretically by redefining gossip as a form of leadership communication, integrating fragmented literatures, and offering a multidimensional model that specifies mechanisms and propositions for further study. For practice, it highlights gossip not as a problem to suppress but as a resource to be used diagnostically, for norm reinforcement, cultural signaling, and ethical sense giving. Overall, the paper invites scholars and practitioners to reconsider leadership communication as extending beyond formal channels. Gossip, far from being background noise, is a powerful practice through which leaders influence culture, trust, and organizational learning.