When and why negative supervisor gossip yields functional and dysfunctional consequences on subordinate interactive behaviors

Existing research primarily focuses on negative gossip among peers at the same hierarchical level, often overlooking the impact of such gossip when it comes from supervisors about subordinates with rank differences. Our study investigates subordinates' varying reactions to negative supervisor gossip, exploring the role of attribution-based boundary conditions and rumination-driven mechanisms. Results from a two-wave, two-source field study show that subordinates with a negative attribution style perceive negative supervisor gossip as an indirect and covert harm, leading to affective rumination and supervisor-directed interpersonal deviance. In contrast, subordinates with a positive attribution style interpret such gossip as informal negative feedback, prompting problem-solving pondering and supervisor-directed self-improvement. Our study highlights the double-edged effects of negative supervisor gossip - both covert and indirect - on subordinates' rumination responses and supervisor-directed interactive behaviors. It emphasizes that the impact of leaders' negative behaviors depends on subordinates' consistent attribution tendencies, which are shaped by long-term interactions with their leaders. Our study draws attention to the often-underestimated implicit ethical issues in the workplace and provides a micro-level perspective on informal communication for the field of business ethics.