The grapevine – Webster’s “informal person-to-person means of circulating information or gossip” – is the unsanctioned communication network found in every organization. In my recent research, based on responses from more than 800 individuals in a wide variety of companies and industry, I learned just how the grapevine compares with more formal sources of organizational information.
I’ll share some thoughts on how communicators can harness the power of the grapevine. But first, let me share what I heard from some of those 837 individuals about how the grapevine poses a significant challenge for senior management – and for the formal communication channels employed by today’s communicators.
I asked, for example, if there were big differences in the message delivered in a speech from a company leader or the one heard over the grapevine, which would you tend to believe. Some 47% said they would put more credence in the grapevine. Another 11% would believe a blend of elements from both messages, meaning only 42% would believe senior leadership.
Leaders are “too PC” and “too positive,” I was told. “Senior leadership’s ‘advertising’ statements are not always trustworthy,” and “I tend to discount official speeches – they’re too carefully crafted. I prefer the truth.” Also: “Too often they paint a picture of Utopia. What world are they in?”
One individual had her own formula. “If senior leaders don’t trust you or aren’t confident enough to let you in, only believe 70% of what is said and get the other 30% from the grapevine so you’ll be prepared.”
I also asked which you would tend to believe if there were big differences in a message delivered in an official newsletter (online or print) or the grapevine. This time the majority (51%) favored the newsletter, with only 40% putting more faith in the grapevine. Putting something in writing, it seems, tends to carry more weight than the spoken word.
“This,” I was told, “is the official word everyone waits for. When something is in writing, it is likely to be quoted and displayed as evidence. At least here there is a paper trail.” On the other hand, there was the concern that “online or print means it’s already been filtered to be PC in the corporate culture. I don’t believe it.” And one caution to editors everywhere: “I believe what the newsletter says, except for those pictures of smiling employees. I’ve never seen any of them!”
I wanted to see how much of a credibility gap there was in message delivered over the grapevine vs. those heard directly from a direct supervisor. Not surprisingly, 74% told me they would believe their supervisor. But – everything depends on the relationship employees have with their supervisors. “I’d trust my current supervisor,” said one individual. “My old supervisor, no.”
People tended to give supervisors higher marks because of the more personal relationship that often exists. Said one individual, “I would believe my supervisor if I could also challenge him. Since your boss can fire you he should also be able to answer all your questions.”
I also wanted to know whether you would believe the grapevine or your most trusted co-worker if there were big differences in the messages from each. Personal relationships were again a crucial factor, with 89% reporting they would believe their co-worker. Here again, trust was the key, as with the individual who replied, “I don’t gossip with co-workers I don’t trust.”
So much for whom you believe. When all is said and done, it comes down to accuracy, which led me to ask people just how accurate they have found the grapevine?
Fifty-seven percent gave it favorable ratings. They supported their response with such comments as “Management communication usually confirms what the grapevine already knows,” and “The grapevine may not be wholly accurate, but it is a very reliable indicator that something is going on,” and “I believe the grapevine, but I validate it by checking versions from multiple sources.”
On the other hand, how did people rate the accuracy of formal communication? Given the tendency cited earlier to believe what they saw in writing, 67% had a favorable response to the accuracy of formal communication.
Communicators can take heart in hearing, for example, that “Formal communication is generally always accurate. There are seldom any mistakes in it, and people spend a long time crafting messages. But belief or trust in a message is based not just on accuracy. It also factors in completeness, disclosure, transparency, perceived intent, durability of the information, and of course, interpretation. Not to mention perceptions about and experiences with the sender. I think the mantra for today is ‘Trust, but verify.'”
As with all of the questions, there was a small percentage of people who indicated that they believed a “blend” of what they heard, rather than choose from among the formal communication channel and the grapevine. This, of course, is what really happens most of the time, which makes it incumbent for communicators to find ways to provide both formal and informal channels for their messages.
One individual reinforced this idea by noting that “Both channels have elements of truth that need to be synthesized.” Said another: “The grapevine is distorted, the formal is edited, and the truth lies between.” And a third: “Formal communication doesn’t tell the whole story. The grapevine has all the gory details.”
Others indicated that the nature of the message was important in deciding which source to believe more. “If the message relates to major changes and controversial issues,” said one individual, “the grapevine has more credibility. In the case of small and administrative changes, the formal methods are reliable. It’s all about skepticism.”
Another individual echoed a similar belief: “For information of a general nature (financial results, product news, etc.), I trust the formal channels. However, if the news relates to an ongoing investigation, regulatory action or product crisis – then I tend to believe the grapevine.”
Employees do, indeed, tend to believe the grapevine – an inevitable part of organizational life, a communication channel very much alive within organizations but not sanctioned by them, a natural (and healthy) consequence of people interacting.
Research suggests that up to 70% of all organization communication comes through the grapevine, yet many senior leaders are unaware that it exists or how it operates. One study, in fact, found that while 92% of lower-level managers knew the grapevine was active, only 70% of upper-level managers knew about it. In the same study, 88% of supervisors said they understood that the absence of formal communication increased activity through informal channels – but only 54% of executives understood this correlation.
Even with those numbers, one challenge today is for management to avoid overestimating the grapevine’s potential. As one of my interviewees explained, “A recent organizational change came as a complete shock. Senior leadership believed that the grapevine was more active than it really was – and that we would have some advance warning as a result of that activity.”
Research also finds that 80% of organizational rumor proves to be true. There may be a need for more research here, since this seems incredibly high, given what we know about how information gets distorted. Remember the child’s game of “telephone,” for example, where a whispered message is whispered and changes along the way from child to child.
But even if that figure is accurate – even if the rumor mill were 90% accurate – that small percentage of distorted or fabricated information can be devastating. And, remember, the grapevine is not responsible for errors.
Regardless of its accuracy, of whether it’s underestimated or overestimated, the grapevine cannot be eliminated or uprooted. You can’t kill it. You can’t stop it. But you can learn to understand it – and ideally even influence it. Here are some conditions when you can expect the rumor mill to kick into high gear:
1. When there is a lack of formal communication.
2. When the situation is ambiguous or uncertain.
3. When employees feel threatened, insecure, and highly stressed.
4. When there is an impending large-scale change.
5. When the subject matter is of importance to employees.
I think this response from my survey sums it up perfectly: “Formal communication focuses on messages the company wants to deliver, with a scope management feels is appropriate, and at a time management feels is right. The reason the grapevine plays such an important role is that it delivers the information employees care about, provides the details employees think they should know, and is delivered at the time employees are interested.”
The knowledge economy operates on the complexities of connections and networks. Companies are a combination of formal hierarchy and informal networks, but most communication strategies take into account only the formal organization. (Cascade communication is a classic example of “rolling out” a message from top to bottom of the organization chart.)
We will always need authentic speeches from senior leaders, well-written and well-researched articles in newsletters, and first-line supervisors who are first-rate communicators. It’s just that none of these strategies was created to deal with the complex web of social interactions and informal networks that grace today’s organizations.
In many of them, the grapevine is the major informal communication medium. It is a naturally occurring force. The question becomes: How do we tap into that force?
Malcolm Gladwell showed us one place to start in The Tipping Point: “If your want effective, sustainable communication in an organization, you need to reach a tiny minority of exceptional individuals who are responsible for the majority of the dialogue.”
His recommendation is keyed to the reality that gossip moves through groups that are split into factions (like separate departments and divisions) through people who gravitate into an intermediate position, making connections between the factions. They control the gossip flow and hold a lot of power.
Influencing the grapevine, then, begins with identifying “the influentials” who operate within it. Use a tool like Social Network Analysis to create a visual map of the informal organization and see who and where your connectors are. Find out about their attitudes toward the company, inform them in advance, train them to be even more skillful communicators, solicit their opinions. And ask their advice.
In conducting my research, there was no doubt as to which communication vehicle is the quickest. Some 99% chose the grapevine, which means that communicators are not going to be able to beat it to the punch. The challenge, instead, is to understand how the grapevine works within your organization – and how you can influence it.
