Untitled

Running head: RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS 1RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS30

Rumor Transmission and Forgiveness Culture in an Organizational SettingTessa RileyRochester Institute of Technology

AbstractThis study examined organizational rumor transmission and climate of forgiveness. Employees working for an Upstate New York company were administered a self-report 2-wave survey on factors corresponding to likelihood of rumor transmission and willingness to forgive. Employee uncertainty, anxiety, and stress were expected to be positively associated with the frequency of rumor transmission while job satisfaction, communication quality, trust, organizational commitment, and productivity were expected to be negatively associated. Willingness to forgive was postulated to be positively associated with job satisfaction, trust, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Finally, forgiveness climate was hypothesized to have a negative relationship with rumor transmission. There was not enough data to analyze rumor transmission; therefore it was omitted from analysis. A positive correlation was shown between supportive forgiveness and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and trust, as well as between cohesive forgiveness and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and supportive forgiveness. No correlations existed with organizational citizenship behavior for time 1 or time 2. However, interesting correlations were observed between factors related to rumor transmission and factors related to a climate of forgiveness, showing promise for future research. Future research should define rumors in more detail to participants and examine the relationship between productivity and forgiveness. Keywords: rumor transmission, willingness to forgive, forgiveness culture

Rumor Transmission and Forgiveness Culture in an Organizational SettingRumor transmission is a rising interest in psychology especially in the context of the relationship between an organization and its employees (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). By definition, rumors are stories circulating through an environment where the truth is unknown. For example, a rumor that may be transmitted in the workplace could be talk about prospective budget cuts in a particular department. This makes the distinguishable difference between news and rumors, in that news is generally based on corroborated facts. A rumor is also discernable from gossip in that gossip is more socially or politically focused about known individuals (Bordia, Callan, DiFonzo, Gallois, & Jones, 2006). A story of how Judy and Jim are potentially seeing each other outside of work would be characterized as gossip more so than rumor.In an organization, the knowledge of rumor activity can be helpful. From understanding the behavioral and psychological factors rooted behind rumors, one can then analyze and disarm potentially harmful rumors more effectively. By doing so, individuals in managerial positions can develop their organization into a more efficient entity or ease their organization through a period of change with the least amount of resistance. One way of doing this might be to maintain a high level of communication with employees as the change is occurring in order to reduce the level of anxiety and uncertainty among coworkers (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2000). Collective IntelligenceDevelopmental psychologists have found that the way an individual perceives their reality is the product of social networking and communication (Overwalle & Heylighen, 2006). Perception of reality involves a problem when people often collaborate with other individuals to obtain their expertise and then rely on a collective group decision. As Overwalle and Heylighen (2006) labelled it, this can be called collective intelligence or distributed cognition (p. 606). This can be seen in every aspect of our society: government, social, and organizational. The United States democratic government is a perfect example of this group-level, or meso level, information processing when solving national and international issues. So when, say, an employee of an organization is confronted with a rumor identifying a possible future organizational problem, they are naturally going to converse with other employees to gage what would be their course of action if it were true. When such a rumor is transmitted, an initial sense of betrayal is felt by those that are at risk of being affected by the change if it were true. Behavioral psychologists explain that the sense of trust an individual feels stems from the match between words and behavior (DiFonzo & Bordia, 1998). That is to say, if the organization says nothing is wrong but acts in such a way that implies something is wrong, that trust is broken. DiFonzo and Bordias (1998) research found that when communication of a corporation was poor, uncertainty rose and in turn created an environment where rumors spread rapidly and widely. One of the most apparent examples of this effect is seen during World War II, or the springboard for the Golden Age of social psychology (Faye, 2007, p. 1). During the early 1940s, particularly the attack on Pearl Harbor, rumors spread like wildfire throughout the United States. The public began to mistrust their government and lose their sense of morale in political decisions due to a lack of communication. Security standards bared information from being transmitted to the public in fear of important information being leaked at an international level. Faye (2007) quoted one journalist who wrote about the complex situation, the silence created a growing possibility that the public would soon begin to believe all rumors, simply because no facts were made available to controvert them (p. 3). The situation reached an extreme level at which point social psychologists were called in to convey their expertise and in 1942 the Rumor Project was proposed to create rumor clinics throughout the nation. These clinics had the sole job of observing, analyzing, and reporting strong rumors flowing through their area (Faye, 2007). From this example, one can discern the large impact rumors can have on any group. On a smaller scale, one can detect this type of collective group tendency and the trends of rumor production in an organization. When an organization undergoes a structural or managerial change, rumors are even more extensive. Bordia et al. (2006) argue that when a change occurs, employees lose their feelings of situational control because the change is inevitable and out of their hands. With lack of control and an equivocal future, individuals grasp onto whatever control they can find. In doing this, they often think of the worst possible scenario that could result from the situation and base their feelings and actions upon that. The formulation of such an undesirable occurrence to base their decision-making processes creates a sense of comfort in that they are prepared for the worst and will not be surprised if the worst actually occurs (Bordia et al., 2006). To drive this further, rumors of a worst possible scenario are also spread as a warning for friends and colleagues to circumvent the potential demise. In a sense, rumors are an essential element of the collective informal sense-making process (Bordia et al., 2006). Suffice to say, the employees are emphasizing their interpretive control by predicting and making sense of the ambiguous future. Organizational RumorsDiFonzo and Bordia (2000) observed this implication of uncertainty on rumors in an organizational setting in their study. They surveyed public relations employees working for global corporations and were particularly interested in the types and prevalence of rumors as well as the types and efficiency of managerial techniques that were used to deter said rumors. They found that rumors are extremely common in the everyday organizational environment, and are more prevalent when the organization was experiencing change. Similar to the effects seen during the WWII circumstance, one of the main effects of rumors was lowered morale. The other two widespread effects were increased absenteeism and increased employee stress. Finally, with regards to the uncertainty effect found in previously mentioned studies, DiFonzo and Bordia (2000) found that uncertainty predicted rumor transmission. As a way of pulling a handful of these assumed factors involved with organizational rumors such as uncertainty and stress together, the same two researchers, DiFonzo and Bordia (2007), carried out a more in depth study seven years later, this time looking at a singular corporation. This corporation was chosen and observed across a four month period during which half of the employees were laid off. The targeted factors included uncertainty, anxiety, and trust while also looking at what they coined the likelihood of transmission (LOT) (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007, p. 191). LOT was calculated using the number of rumors heard in the organization and the number that were continually disseminated throughout the employees. In order to create a more longitudinal approach where they could observe the changes in the before mentioned factors, a questionnaire was given to the employees four times, each time one month apart from the next. These waves were labelled T1, T2, T3, and T4 while the layoff announcements actually occurred between T2 and T3 (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). Their findings show a peak in rumor movement during the second wave, just before the announcements were made. Not surprisingly, the levels of uncertainty and anxiety also peaked at this time while their trust in the organization dipped below a mean of 3. Even though their level of trust was somewhat restored by the fourth wave, the authors report a sense of bitterness that hung in the employees minds. In turn, they concluded that of all the factors associated with rumor transmission in an organization during a time of change, trust is the most important and influential. Not only does a lack of trust create a surge in rumor transmission, but it also has an effect on the other factors taken into account, uncertainty and anxiety, and their relationship to rumor activity (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). Revenge as Reciprocity The DiFonzo & Bordia (2007) as well as other previously mentioned studies have a context where the uncertainty level was high as employees wait for some unexpected change. In that regard, the company breached their established psychological contract by withholding information about the companys future. In other words, if a company slights its employees in some way by breaching their established psychological contract, employees would be more willing to pass on negative rumors or, more specifically, vengeful rumors. This discovery of another motivation to instigate rumors besides reducing uncertainty led Bordia et al. (2014) to study the use of rumors as revenge in the workplace. To observe this phenomenon, Bordia et al. (2014) completed two studies. The first was a scenario survey designed to manipulate how an employee was being treated and how believable the rumor was. These hypothetical vignettes provided an ethical and pragmatic way to manipulate variables and allow experimental realism (Bordia et al., 2014, p. 7). One hundred retail employees from Australia took this between-subjects questionnaire so all of the vignettes described were grounded in a retail context. The results indicated that the workers who perceived a breach in promise were more likely to transmit a rumor than those who did not. Furthermore, the motivation provided by revenge facilitated the association between the breach in psychological contract and the transmission of rumors. These results emphasize the vast influence of contextual cues on behavior in an organization (Bordia et al., 2014). Similar conclusions were made from the second study they conducted, this time from using a self-report survey with a focus on reciprocity beliefs. Reciprocity beliefs are defined as a unitary set of beliefs favoring retribution as the correct and proper way to respond to unfavorable treatment (Bordia et al., 2014, p. 10). Their findings show that with high levels of reciprocity a strong and positive relationship existed between the breach in promise and the motivation for revenge. In other words, both studies have results that replicate this concept of the impulsivity of rumor revenge when employees perceive wrongdoing (Bordia et al., 2014). ForgivenessWith such negative rumor impulsivity that ensues from a certain type of workplace environment, the goal of an organization should be to reduce these reactions as much as possible by creating a climate of forgiveness. Forgiveness can be defined as a conscious decision to release bitterness and to forgo vengeance (Cox, 2011, p. 1). Research done on forgiveness specifically in an organizational setting is scarce but that doesnt belittle the affect it may have. An organization with a healthy climate of forgiveness could have the potential to positively influence the behavioral reactions of offended employees. This implies that contexts can activate certain behavior tendencies when certain social norms are broken. The social information processing theory, which states that individuals adapt to their social environment and their personal reality of past, present, and future behavior by altering and adapting their attitude and principles, essentially states the same conclusion. When applied to the workplace, this proposes that the perceptions an employee has on the organizational environment are influenced by their own judgments as well as the social factors and cues provided by coworkers. Organizations that utilize this information by creating an environment where grudges are not held and wrongdoings are disregarded in order to solve the problems that arise may create a more efficient company (Cox, 2011). In order to test this theory, Cox (2011) created a survey focusing on elements that promote a forgiveness climate including cohesion, support, and trust while also observing an individuals willingness to forgive. Supportive forgiveness means encouragement is shown to the employee and assistance is given when needed. Cohesive forgiveness means employees feel a level of connectedness and shared significance in their workplace. When someone has a high willingness to forgive, they are more likely to drop ideas of revenge and disperse any feelings of hostility. The elements observed for a relationship with willingness to forgive include job satisfaction, job stress, organizational citizenship behaviors, and performance. Organizational citizenship behaviors are behaviors that help more efficient organizational operations even though they are not directly associated with the job (Cox, 2011). Her findings show that support and cohesion were positively related to a forgiveness climate. Indicating that if an organization were to create a cohesive environment of support for its employees, it would aid in generating a healthy climate of forgiveness. When it came to trust, Cox (2011) broke it down to integrity, ability, and benevolence. Only a trustworthy relationship with integrity had a strong positive relationship to a forgiveness climate. Though the other two types of trust may be correlated with a forgiveness climate, her findings were not statistically significant enough to make that claim. These results imply that in order for an organization to create a forgiveness climate, they should promote support, cohesion, and integrity within their relationship with their employees (Cox, 2011). Lastly, the results showed that an employees willingness to forgive was strongly related to job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational citizenship behaviors. However, her findings did not support her hypothesis that performance would be positively related to willingness to forgive. Instead, there was a strong negative relationship between the two. Cox takes the stance that there is such a thing as too much forgiveness. If too much forgiveness is given and the employees are not made accountable for their actions at all, poor performance may accrue (Cox, 2011). Current StudyThe current study will attempt to mix both DiFonzo and Bordias 2007 study and Coxs 2011 study using the same method of operationalizing the factors. In replication of the DiFonzo and Bordia rumor study, factors including communication quality, uncertainty, anxiety, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, trust, and productivity will be observed using the same questionnaire. It will also include questions comparing the number of rumors heard vs. the number of rumors passed. In order to study the independent variable of the level of rumor transmission, the DiFonzo and Bordia method using LOT will be used. In addition, aspects from Coxs (2011) study will be included. Questions on stress, forgiveness in relation to support, forgiveness in relation to cohesion, and organizational citizenship behavior will be added from her original dissertation in 2008. I will use DiFonzo and Bordias questions on trust and productivity to compare against these forgiveness factors and determine if similar results arise. The act of mixing both studies may shed more light on the relationship between rumors and forgiveness, seeing as they could be two sides of the same coin. Gaining the knowledge of this relationship may aid in effective organizational management especially during a time of organization change or turmoil. The specific organization targeted has a chapter in Rochester and a chapter in Albany, featuring approximately 13 female employees who were asked to participate in a survey on rumor transmission and forgiveness culture. Employee uncertainty, anxiety, and stress are expected to be positively associated with the frequency of rumor transmission while job satisfaction, communication quality, trust, organizational commitment, and productivity are expected to be negatively associated. Further, willingness to forgive is postulated to be positively associated with job satisfaction, trust, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Finally, as a way of bringing both experimental concepts of rumors and forgiveness together, I hypothesize that a forgiveness climate will have a negative relationship with rumor transmission. MethodParticipantsThe current study included thirteen employees (mode age range = 20-29 years, minimum = 20-29 years, maximum = 60-69 years), working for a nonprofit organization as participants. Eleven participants were recruited from the Rochester chapter and two participants were recruited from the Albany chapter. The majority of participants (7) had been working for the company for 0-4 years (5 participants = 5-9 years, 1 participant = 30+ years). Both departments feature only females, yielding a participant pool of all females. Individuals who completed the questionnaire were given $20. Some participants declined the 20$ and the remaining money was turned into a general donation towards their company.ProcedureParticipants were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their self-report of rumor transmission and forgiveness climate in their company (Appendix A). At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants were asked to answer a few demographic questions. The paper and pencil questionnaires were distributed to the participants during work hours and they were given a couple days to find the time to complete it. The whole process, however, was only projected to take approximately 30 minutes. The task was presented in such a way so as to create a confidential, unobtrusive opportunity for individuals to express their opinions on the before mentioned factors. In order to create more substantial data, this questionnaire was administered to participants twice, with a month in between. This two-wave technique further mimics DiFonzo and Bordias (2001) study and may show slight fluctuation depending on current and reoccurring rumors disseminated throughout the organization. MeasuresA self-report questionnaire was distributed to the participants containing 48 questions regarding communication quality, uncertainty, anxiety, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, trust, productivity, stress, willingness to forgive and organizational citizenship behaviors (Appendix A). Furthermore, the questionnaire asked how many rumors the individual has heard vs. how many they have passed along to someone else within the organization. Lastly, questions regarding the forgiveness culture in respect to support and cohesion will be addressed.Unless the questionnaire specifies otherwise, participants rated their agreement or disagreement for each question. A 7-point scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The measurements for uncertainty and job satisfaction were adapted from Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) while measurements for trust were borrowed from Meglino, DeNisi, Youngblood, and Williams (1991). Variables including communication quality, anxiety, rumors heard, rumors passed, and productivity items can be originally found in DiFonzo and Bordia (2007). Organizational commitment measurements were used from the Affective Commitment Scale (McGee & Ford, 1987). Finally, stress, forgiveness: support, forgiveness: cohesion, willingness to forgive and organizational citizenship behavior items were borrowed from Cox (2008). Organizational Commitment. Organizational commitment is the amount of dedication the employee feels to the organization. Organizational commitment was measured using the 6-item scale from McGee and Ford (1987). An example item is I felt that I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree. Higher scores mean higher organizational commitment. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.78 for time 1 and 0.92 for time 2 after an elimination of one item; Organizational commitment subscale was the average of the 5 items.Communication Quality. Communication quality is how well the managers communicate expectations, goals, changes, news, etc. to employees. Communication quality was measured using the 2-item scale from DiFonzo and Bordia (2007). An example item is How well informed has the company kept you about upcoming changes? Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Completely Uninformed, (3) A Little Informed, (5) Somewhat Informed, (7) Completely Informed. Higher scores mean higher communication quality. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.91 for time 1 and 0.90 for time 2; Communication Quality subscale was the average of the 2 items.Uncertainty. Uncertainty is the amount of doubt and insecurity an employee has while working for a company. Uncertainty was measured using the 4-item scale from Schweiger and DeNisi (1991). An example item is I was uncertain about whether friends and colleagues will lose their jobs. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Not At All, (3) A Little, (5) Somewhat, (7) Extremely. Higher scores mean more uncertainty. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.80 for time 1 and 0.82 for time 2; Uncertainty subscale was the average of the 4 items.Anxiety. Anxiety is the amount of concern and unease an employee feels while working for a company. Anxiety was measured using the 2-item scale from DiFonzo and Bordia (2007). An example item is I felt anxious about possible changes that will occur in this company. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Not At All, (3) A Little, (5) Somewhat, (7) Extremely. Higher scores mean more anxiety. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.96 for time 1 and 0.86 for time 2; Anxiety subscale was the average of the 2 items.Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is the amount of fulfillment and gratification the employee feels while doing his/her job. Job satisfaction was measured using the 4-item scale from Schweiger and DeNisi (1991). An example item is Knowing what you know now, if you had to decide all over again whether to take the job you now have, what would you have decided over the past month? Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Definitely Not, (3) Possibly, (5) Probably, (7) Definitely. Higher scores mean higher job satisfaction. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.90 for time 1 and 0.95 for time 2; Job satisfaction subscale was the average of the 4 items.Trust. Trust is the amount of confidence an employee has in relying on the company and vice versa. Trust was measured using the 5-item scale from Meglino, DeNisi, Youngblood, and Williams (1988). An example item is I felt that the company cares about what happens to its employees. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree. Higher scores mean more trust. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.78 for time 1 and 0.90 for time 2; Trust subscale was the average of the 5 items.Productivity. Productivity is the amount of work output and how efficient an employee is at his/her job. Productivity was measured using the 2-item scale from DiFonzo and Bordia (2007). An example item is How productive were you in comparison to your usual level of productivity? Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Much Less Than Usual, (3) Somewhat Less, (5) Somewhat More, (7) Much More Than Usual. Higher scores mean more productivity. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.94 for time 1 and 0.99 for time 2; Productivity subscale was the average of the 2 items.Stress. Stress is the amount of pressure and tension an employee feels while doing his/her job. Stress was measured using the 4-item scale from Cox (2008). An example item is On average, in respect to my work environment, I feel miserable. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree. Higher scores mean more stress. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.83 for time 1 and 0.86 for time 2; Stress subscale was the average of the 4 items.Forgiveness: Support. Forgiveness: Support is the amount of encouragement and assistance given to employees. Forgiveness: Support was measured using the 4-item scale from Cox (2008). An example item is Everyones view is listened to even if is in a minority. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree. Higher scores mean more supportive forgiveness. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.82 for time 1 and 0.94 for time 2; Forgiveness: Support subscale was the average of the 4 items.Forgiveness: Cohesion. Forgiveness: Cohesion is the amount of connectedness and shared significance one feels with other employees and with managers. Forgiveness: Cohesion was measured using the 4-item scale from Cox (2008). An example item is There is a lot of team spirit among us. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree. Higher scores mean more cohesive forgiveness. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.90 for time 1 and 0.95 for time 2; Forgiveness: Cohesion subscale was the average of the 4 items.Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Organizational citizenship behaviors help more efficient organizational operations even though they are not directly associated with the job. Organizational citizenship behavior was measured using the 7-item scale from Cox (2008). An example item is I help others who have heavy workloads. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree. Higher scores mean more organizational citizenship behaviors. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.83 for time 1 and 0.82 for time 2 after eliminating one item; Organizational citizenship behavior subscale was the average of the 6 items.Willingness To Forgive. Willingness to forgive is the propensity to drop ideas of revenge and disperse any feelings of hostility. Willingness to forgive was measured using the 6-item scale from Cox (2008). An example item is One of your coworkers always dominates departmental meetings. This makes it difficult to hear others opinions, and this persons behavior also usually causes meetings to run over the scheduled time. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Not Likely To Forgive, (3) Somewhat Likely, (5) Very Likely, (7) Extremely Likely To Forgive. Higher scores mean a higher willingness to forgive. Using all 6 items, Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.66 for time 1 and 0.63 for time 2; Willingness to forgive subscale was the average of the 6. Because those coefficients do not meet the standards, using only 2 of the 6 items brought Cronbachs Alpha coefficient to 0.89 for time 1 and 0.87 for time 2. However, because that is a significant drop in items, it was decided to use all 6 items despite the Cronbachs Alpha.Rumors Heard. This subcategory looks at how many rumors each participant heard. Rumors heard was an open ended question that read, In the past month, how many different rumors have you heard related to this organization? Higher scores mean more rumors heard. There was not enough data collected on rumors heard to create meaningful results and was therefore omitted from the Pearson correlation analysis.Positive/Negative Rumors. Positive vs. negative rumors indicate whether the rumors heard were good or bad. The question read, In the past month, how overall positive (i.e. giving praise) versus negative (i.e. giving criticism) were the rumors that you heard? (Only answer if you heard 1 or more rumors). This question was measured using a 7-point likert scale from (1) Very Negative, (3) Somewhat Negative, (5) Somewhat Positive, (7) Very Positive. Higher scores mean more positive rumors being heard. There was not enough data collected on positive/negative rumors to create meaningful results and was therefore omitted from the Pearson correlation analysis.Shared Rumors. Shared rumors asks the likelihood of the participant to pass the rumor whether they heard any or not. The question read, If you have heard a rumor over the past month, how likely were you (or would you have been) to share this rumor with a coworker? This question was measured using a 7-point likert scale from (1) Definitely Would Not, (3) Possibly Would, (5) Probably Would, (7) Definitely Would. Higher scores mean higher likelihood of the participant transmitting a rumor. There was not enough data collected on shared rumors to create meaningful results and was therefore omitted from the Pearson correlation analysis.Rumors Passed. This subcategory looks at how many rumors were passed by the participant. Rumors passed was an open ended question that read, Of the above number of rumors, how many did you pass on to someone else within the organization? (Write approximate number.) Higher scores mean more rumors passed. There was not enough data collected on rumors passed to create meaningful results and was therefore omitted from the Pearson correlation analysis.ResultsDescriptiveMeans, Standard Deviations, and 95% Confidence Intervals for all subscales are presented in Table 1. Figure 1 displays a bar graph indicating the mean responses for each subscale with time 1 and time 2 side by side. Consistent but non-significant differences in one direction can be seen for most variables toward reductions in positive attitudes and increases in negative attitudes from time 1 to time 2. Uncertainty, anxiety, and stress all increased from time 1 to time 2. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, forgiveness support and forgiveness cohesion all went down slightly from time 1 to time 2. Communication quality, productivity, and willingness to forgive all went up slightly. There was no difference in trust and organizational citizenship behaviors. Correlates to Forgiveness CultureAll skewness statistics were non-significant. Pearson correlation values between the variables are presented for time 1 in Table 2 and time 2 in Table 3. Due to a 50% response rate for the questions pertaining to rumor, there was not enough data collected on the rumor subscales to create meaningful results. Therefore, rumor subscales were omitted from the Pearson correlation analysis.For time 1, the Pearson correlation results show a strong positive correlation between supportive forgiveness and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and trust. This is understandable because a company that is supportive and forgiving of minor offenses should lead to higher employee commitment and satisfaction in that workplace. Also, in creating this climate of forgiveness the managers are focusing more on the problem than blaming the culprit, which should foster a trusting relationship. In that relationship, the manager trusts the employee to carry out the task despite hiccups in completion and the employee trusts the manager to understand that people can make mistakes. As DiFonzo and Bordia (2007) found, trust was the most important and influential factor. One last correlation is found between supportive forgiveness and willingness to forgive, for both the condensed willingness to forgive subscale as well as the all-inclusive willingness to forgive subscale. A positive correlation can also be seen between cohesive forgiveness and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and supportive forgiveness. A unified environment should lead to higher employee commitment and satisfaction while also correlating to supportive forgiveness. A negative correlation can be seen between cohesive forgiveness and both uncertainty and stress. This may mean that a stronger unified, forgiving environment decreases employee uncertainty about maintaining their job and stress about making sure no mistakes are made. Finally, there is a positive correlation between cohesive forgiveness and willingness to forgive, but only for the condensed willingness to forgive subscale using only 2 items. For time 2, the Pearson correlation results mimic the strong positive correlations shown in time 1, between supportive forgiveness and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and trust. It also mimics the strong positive correlation between cohesive forgiveness and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and supportive forgiveness. However, time 2 results show no correlation between cohesive forgiveness and uncertainty, nor stress. Also, in time 2 job satisfaction and trust were positively correlated to both supportive and cohesive forgiveness. This is unlike time 1, in which trust was not correlated to cohesive forgiveness. In time 2, willingness to forgive with all six items was again negatively correlated to anxiety, though it was not related to supportive forgiveness. The willingness to forgive, only including the two reliable items, was positively correlated to supportive forgiveness. This demonstrates a general similarity in correlations between variables for time 1 and time 2. However, one obvious red flag is shown by no correlations between organizational citizenship behavior and the many subscales neither for time 1 nor time 2. Cox (2008) found willingness to forgive to be related to organizational citizenship behaviors and yet no relationship was found in either time in the current study. This could be related to the type of organization studied. In the current study it is a small nonprofit organization with a heavy workload for each employee while in the Cox (2008) study elementary and secondary schoolteachers working in public school systems participated. Perhaps a larger organization/school system gives way for more opportunities to show organizational citizenship behaviors. DiscussionHypothesis 1 expecting employee uncertainty, anxiety and stress to be positively associated with the frequency of rumor transmission while job satisfaction, communication quality, trust, organizational commitment, and productivity to be negatively associated, was not supported. Due to an insufficient number of responses, all subscales dealing with rumor transmission were not able to be investigated. This means the third hypothesis that a forgiveness climate would have a negative relationship with rumor transmission was also not investigated. Future research on the relationship between rumors and forgiveness should expand the items for rumor as well as explain in more detail the definition of a rumor to participants. This might help generate more responses. Perhaps the way rumors were presented in this study altered the participants decision of whether or not to answer the questions. Then again, it could be that there were little to no rumors disseminated in this specific organization. Hypothesis 2 postulating that willingness to forgive would be positively associated with job satisfaction, trust, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors was not supported for neither time 1 nor time 2. There were issues with the reliability of willingness to forgive in this study. Originally, the subscale included six items but with a low Cronbachs Alpha coefficient, another more reliable subscale was created only using two of the six items. According to prior research on forgiveness, a climate of forgiveness, and willingness to forgive by Cox (2008) shows more correlations and a stronger willingness to forgive factor. This means, future research should include more questions in this subscale. There also could be a limitation to the current studys survey being that it was lengthy and the willingness to forgive questions were last. Fatigue could have incurred and caused the participants to answer without giving as much thought on the questions. Cox (2011) focused on three elements that promoted a forgiveness climate including cohesion, support, and trust. Trusting forgiveness was not found to be significant, therefore the current study only included supportive forgiveness and cohesive forgiveness. She found that these two factors served as antecedents for a forgiveness climate. Though I did not include the forgiveness climate subscale, in the hopes to keep the questionnaire from being to lengthy, the two factors included in the current study proved to exhibit interesting correlations. Both supportive and cohesive forgiveness was positively correlated with other factors related to rumor transmission, such as job satisfaction, trust, stress, and organizational commitment. This implies that further research should be done on these factors as well as the climate of forgiveness. More specifically, future research should look at the relationship between productivity and forgiveness. In the current study, productivity was not correlated to neither supportive nor cohesive forgiveness. In Cox (2010), there was a strong negative relationship between performance and willingness to forgive. It would be beneficial to study more thoroughly whether or not a forgiveness climate and/or willingness to forgive will help or harm productivity in an organization. Outside of the hypotheses, the data revealed some interesting results. First, organizational commitment was the subscale most strongly correlated with other subscales including job satisfaction, trust, productivity, supportive forgiveness and cohesive forgiveness. This shows how interrelated these factors are in regard to how committed employees are to the company. Knowledge such as this may help managers retain and maintain employees for a longer period of time by a simple way of altering the organizational environment to be more cohesive and/or supportive. In a generation where employees stay with a company for approximately 4.4 years, it would be beneficial for employers to complete slight changes to the organization in order to raise that statistic in their company, even if just minimally (Meister, 2012). There were no hypotheses made regarding the differences between responses at time 1 and responses at time 2. However, another interesting result was an underlying trend with the majority of the variables. Seven out of the twelve subscales showed reductions in positive attitudes and increases in negative attitudes. Uncertainty, anxiety, and stress increased from time 1 to time 2. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, forgiveness support and forgiveness cohesion all went down slightly from time 1 to time 2. Granted none of the variables changed enough to make it significant but considering the consistency of the factors, it can be inferred that there was a general shift in attitude over the one month period between questionnaire distributions. There are numerous possibilities as to why this general shift occurred. Perhaps an event during that month caused unrest amidst employees. Maybe it was the timing of the second questionnaire: be it on a busy week for all employees, around a hard work deadline, or simply before an all staff meeting. The first questionnaire was administered right after an all staff meeting which may have accounted for lower responses in uncertainty, anxiety, and stress. The possibility of a hard work deadline near the distribution of questionnaire 2 is also feasible given the rise in anxiety, stress, productivity, and communication quality along with the decrease in job satisfaction and forgiveness. Overall, there were many limitations of the current study. First and foremost, the questionnaires were distributed to the Rochester chapter as well as the Albany chapter. Although the two are interconnected, they involve two organizational climates and environments which are probably not the same. This would be acceptable if the distribution of participants from both were equal. However, eleven participants came from the Rochester chapter and two participants came from the Albany chapter. This brings up another large limitation of the small sample size. Being that there were only thirteen participants, it decreased the reliability of reflecting the organization as a whole. If more of the location chapters were included in the study, there would have been a better chance of finding significant results that reflect the entire organization. Of that sample, all of the participants were female. When speaking of rumors and forgiveness, both topics have a gender stigma attached to them. In this regard, it would be beneficial to get an evenly distributed sample size between both genders. This would yield results where the female and male responses could be compared on how likely both were to spread rumors and how likely they were to forgive. Another limitation is the method at which the questionnaires were distributed and received. Participants were given up to a week to do fill out the questionnaires at their own time. The individuals mood on that day or whether or not they were rushed in completing the task may have an effect on how they respond. The last limitation is the questionnaire itself. The manner in which the rumor questions were presented in the questionnaire may have scared participants away from answering them. None of the forgiveness climate questions were used in this questionnaire, though in hindsight it may have been useful in correlational analysis.All in all, conclusions regarding the relationship between rumor transmission and climate of forgiveness were not made. This does not deter from the importance of research regarding these factors in an organizational setting. Interesting correlations were observed between factors related to rumor transmission and factors related to a climate of forgiveness, showing promise for future research.

ReferencesBordia, P., Callan, V. J., DiFonzo, N., Gallois, C., & Jones, E. (2006). Management are aliens!: Rumors and stress during organizational change. Group & Organization Management, 31(5), 601-621. doi: 10.1177/1059601106286880Bordia, P., Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., DiFonzo, N., Stenson, N., & Tang, R. L. (2014). Rumor as revenge in the workplace. Group & Organization Management, 1-26. doi: 10.1177/1059601114540750Cox, S. S. (2008). A forgiving workplace: An investigation of forgiveness climate, individual differences and workplace outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana Tech University, Cox, S. S. (2011). A forgiving workplace: An investigation of forgiveness climate and workplace outcomes. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1-6. DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during organizational change. Human Resource Management, 37(3&4), 295-303.DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (2000). How top PR professionals handle hearsay: Corporate rumors, their effects, and strategies to manage them. Public Relations Review, 26(2), 173-190.DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor psychology: Social and organizational approaches. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Faye, C. (2007). Governing the grapevine: The study of rumor during World War II. History of Psychology, 10(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1037/1093-4510.10.1.1McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638-642.Meglino, B. M., DeNisi, A. S., Youngblood, S. A., & Williams, K. J. (1988). Effects of realistic job previews: A comparison using enhancement and a reduction preview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 259-266.Meister, J. (2012). Job hopping is the new normal for millennials: Three ways to prevent a human resource nightmare. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2012/08/14/job-hopping-is-the-new-normal-for-millennials-three-ways-to-prevent-a-human-resource-nightmare/Overwalle, F. V., & Heylighen, F. (2006). Talking nets: A multiagent connectionist approach to communication and trust between individuals. Psychological Review, 113(3), 606-627. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.606Palanski, M. E. (2012). Forgiveness and reconciliation in the workplace: A multi-level perspective and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 275-287. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1125-1Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). The effects of communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110-135.

Table 1

Mean, Standard Deviation, and 95% Confidence Interval Of Each Subscale

95% Confidence Interval

M SD Lower Upper

Time 1Organizational Commitment5.341.134.656.02

Communication Quality5.151.164.455.86

Uncertainty2.751.242.003.50

Anxiety3.231.552.304.17

Job Satisfaction5.351.534.426.27

Trust4.861.034.245.49

Productivity5.150.834.655.65

Stress2.711.351.903.53

Forgiveness: Support4.851.044.225.48

Forgiveness: Cohesion5.621.015.006.23

Organizational Citizenship Behavior6.140.685.736.55

Willingness to Forgive3.350.942.783.91

Time 2Organizational Commitment5.081.564.146.02

Communication Quality5.381.104.726.05

Uncertainty3.401.442.534.28

Anxiety3.771.602.804.74

Job Satisfaction5.161.664.166.16

Trust4.861.234.125.61

Productivity5.351.214.616.08

Stress2.961.352.153.77

Forgiveness: Support4.561.373.735.39

Forgiveness: Cohesion5.421.264.666.18

Organizational Citizenship Behavior6.140.695.736.56

Willingness to Forgive3.650.743.214.10

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation.

Table 2Pearson Correlation for Time 1

Note. OC = organizational commitment, CQ = communication quality, UT = uncertainty, A = anxiety, JS = job satisfaction, T = trust, P = productivity, S = stress, F:S = forgiveness: support, F:C = forgiveness: cohesion, OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors, WTF(1-6) = willingness to forgive (including all 6 items), WTF(1&2) = willingness to forgive (only including 2 reliable items).

Table 3Pearson Correlation for Time 2

Note. OC = organizational commitment, CQ = communication quality, UT = uncertainty, A = anxiety, JS = job satisfaction, T = trust, P = productivity, S = stress, F:S = forgiveness: support, F:C = forgiveness: cohesion, OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors, WTF(1-6) = willingness to forgive (including all 6 items), WTF(1&2) = willingness to forgive (only including 2 reliable items).

Figure 1. Comparing the mean responses for each variable at time 1 and time 2.Bar graph indicating the mean responses for each variable. Time 1 is displayed in solid colors while time 2 is displayed in stripes.

Appendix ARumor Transmission and Forgiveness Culture Questionnaire

Demographics:

1. Please specify your sex: Male Female

2. Please specify your age: Less than 20 years old 20 29 years old 30 39 years old 40 49 years old 50 59 years old 60 69 years old 70 79 years old

3. How many years have you been working at this nonprofit chapter? 0 4 years 5 9 years 10 14 years 15 19 years 20 24 years 25 29 years 30 + years

Communication QualityOn the whole over the past month,1. How well informed has the company kept you about upcoming changes? 7 = Completely Informed, 1 = Completely Uninformed2. How do you feel about the adequacy of communication that you receive from the company? 7 = Completely Adequate, 1 = Completely Inadequate

UncertaintyOn average over the past month,1. I was filled with questions about what current events in my company meant.2. I was uncertain about whether friends and colleagues will lose their jobs.3. I was uncertain about whether the company will be a good place to work.4. I was uncertain about whether the overall quality of my job will change.5. I was uncertain about whether I will be laid off.6. I was filled with uncertainty related to my job and/or my company.

AnxietyOn average over the past month,1. I felt anxious about possible changes that will occur in this company.2. The thought of upcoming changes in this company worried me.

Rumors HeardIn the past month, how many different rumors have you heard related to this organization? (Write approximate number.)

If you have heard a rumor over the past month, how likely were you (or would you have been) to share this rumor with a coworker? 7 = Definitely Would, 1 = Definitely Would Not

In the past month, how overall positive (i.e. giving praise) versus negative (i.e. giving criticism) were the rumors that you heard? (Only answer if you heard 1 or more rumors)7 = Very Positive, 1 = Very Negative

Rumors PassedOf the above number of rumors, how many did you pass on to someone else within the organization? (Write approximate number.)

Job Satisfaction 1. In general over the past month, how well would you say your job measures up to the sort of job you hoped it would be when you took it? 7 = Very Much Like, 4 = Somewhat Like, 1 = Not Very Much Like2. All in all, how satisfied would you say you were with your job over the past month?7 = Extremely, 4 = Moderately, 1 = Not At All3. If a good friend of yours told you he/she was interested in working in a job like yours for your employer, on average over the past month what would you have told him/her?7 = Definitely Recommend, 1 = Definitely Not Recommend4. Knowing what you know now, if you had to decide all over again whether to take the job you now have, what would you have decided over the past month? 7 = Definitely Take Same Job, 1 = Definitely Not Take Same Job

Organizational CommitmentOn average over the past month,1. I did not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. (r)2. I felt that this organization had a great deal of personal meaning for me.3. I felt that I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.4. I felt that I would enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.5. I did not feel like part of the family at this organization. (r)6. I did not feel emotionally attached to this organization. (r)

TrustOn average over the past month,1. I felt that the company takes advantage of its employees. (r)2. I felt that management is concerned about employee potential and development.3. I felt that the company is honest in its dealings with the employees.4. I felt that the company cares about what happens to its employees.5. I felt that the company listens to its employees.

ProductivityOver the past month,1. How productive were you in comparison to your usual level of productivity?7 = Much More Than Usual, 4 = Same as Usual, 1 = Much Less Than Usual2. How much work did you accomplish in comparison to what you ordinarily accomplish?7 = Much More Work, 4 = About the Same, 1 = Much Less Work

StressOn average, in respect to my work environment, I feel1. Miserable2. Tense3. Anxious4. HelplessForgiveness: SupportOn average, 1. We have a we are in it together attitude.2. People keep each other informed about work-related issues in the team.3. People feel understood and accepted by each other.4. Everyones view is listened to even if it is in a minority.

Forgiveness: CohesionOn average, 1. People pitch in to help each other out.2. People tend to get along with each other.3. People take a personal interest in one another.4. There is a lot of team spirit among us.

Organizational Citizenship BehaviorsOn average, 1. I help others who have been absent.2. I help others who have heavy workloads.3. I assist the supervisor with her work (when asked).4. I take time to listen to co-workers problems and worries.5. I go out of my way to help new employees.6. I take a personal interest in other employees.7. I pass along information to co-workers.

Willingness to ForgiveHow willing are you to forgive the following workplace offenses?1. You share something embarrassing about yourself with a coworker who promises to keep the information confidential. However, that person breaks this promise when he/she proceeds to tell several people. You are humiliated.2. One of your coworkers starts a nasty rumor about you that is not true. As a result, people begin treating you differently at work.3. Your organization has yearly performance objectives. One group member fails to carry out assigned duties that will affect your departments goals. This behavior will affect everyones end of the year bonus.4. One of your coworkers always dominates departmental meetings. This makes it difficult to hear others opinions, and this persons behavior also usually causes meetings to run over the scheduled time.5. You had hoped for a special assignment this summer and you shared this information with a coworker. However, when your supervisor asked for volunteers, you were not present. You later find out that the colleague in whom you had confided had volunteered for the position that he/she knew you wanted.6. Repeatedly, one of your group members has to leave work for a family crisis or emergency leaving you to do both your job and his/her job. One afternoon, your coworker leaves early for a crisis. Later that day, you see your coworker shopping at the mall with his/her spouse. Apparently, there was no true emergency.

Note. Unless otherwise indicated, participants were asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = neither agree nor disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Measures of uncertainty and job satisfaction are from Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) and previous conceptualizations of uncertainty. Communication quality, anxiety, rumors heard, rumors passed, and productivity items are from DiFonzo and Bordia (2007). Trust was assessed with five items from Meglino, DeNisi, Youngblood, and Williams (1988). Organizational commitment from the Affective Commitment Scale (McGee & Ford, 1987). Stress, forgiveness: support, forgiveness: cohesion, and organizational citizenship behavior items are from Cox (2008). Items with (r) were reverse-scored.