Abstract
Purpose
This study examines the functions of informal communication in organizations. Informal communication can be characterized as any interaction within an organization in which two or more individuals assume personal roles rather than their professional roles and in which employees do not intend to solve work-related problems. Despite its central role in organizations, a comprehensive understanding of the specific functions of informal communication within workplace dynamics is lacking.
Design/methodology/approach
We reviewed existing literature to identify the functions of informal communication and then surveyed employees (N = 1,380). We asked them to indicate their agreement with statements measuring the functions of informal communication that we derived from the literature.
Findings
Using exploratory factor analysis, we identified four core functions: stress management and recreation, nurturing private relationships, fostering a sense of belonging and connectedness and facilitating information exchange and coordination. We then examined how these core functions related to job-related and sociodemographic characteristics. Our findings underscore the importance of informal communication in organizations, particularly in facilitating the development and maintenance of social relationships as well as information exchange and coordination, both of which play critical roles in organizational success.
Originality/value
This study is among the first to systematize the functions of informal communication in organizations and to empirically extract core functions that can be used for further research. It is also highly relevant to practitioners of organizational management and organizational communication.
Keywords
Citation
Denner, N., Koch, T., Viererbl, B. and Ernst, A. (2024), "Feeling connected and informed through informal communication: a quantitative survey on the perceived functions of informal communication in organizations", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-06-2024-0085
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited
Internal communication in organizations encompasses a wide range of interactions among employees, from formal directives by management to casual interpersonal chats in the cafeteria. These exchanges reflect a continuum between formal and informal communication, with most interactions falling somewhere in between (Kraut et al., 1990; Koch and Denner, 2022). Despite its pervasive presence in the workplace (Koch and Denner, 2022; Viererbl et al., 2022), informal communication among co-workers has often been overlooked in research, overshadowed by the predominant focus on formal communication (Hoffjann, 2023). As the lifeblood of organizational culture, informal communication not only facilitates professional collaboration but also fosters social bonds among colleagues (Ernst and Reinecke, 2022; Kandlousi et al., 2010; Kraut et al., 1990; McGrath et al., 2017). One aspect that has been well studied is rumors and gossip, which is negative informal communication (e.g. Beersma and van Kleef, 2012; Foster, 2004; Rosnow, 2001).
In line with Koch and Denner’s (2022) definition, we delineate informal communication as any interaction within an organization wherein two or more individuals act in their personal roles (e.g. as friends or acquaintances) rather than their professional roles and do not aim to achieve work-related objectives. Given the myriad of interactions that occur outside of formal channels, particularly in informal settings like hallways, break rooms, and virtual spaces, the study of informal communication proves challenging (Crampton et al., 1998; Fay and Kline, 2012; Viererbl et al., 2022). To address this challenge, our study approaches informal communication from a functional perspective (Rubin et al., 1988; Step and Finucane, 2002) and examines the perceived functions of informal communication. These functions shed light on employees’ motivations and perceived benefits behind their participation in informal exchanges (Koch and Denner, 2022). Our goal is not only to identify the types of functions, but also to determine their importance to employees. However, this endeavor is complicated by the disparate findings in the existing literature, which have documented different functions without integrating them. Thus, categorizing and condensing these perceived functions becomes paramount for a more systematic understanding of the outcomes of workplace encounters, which are critical for strategically promoting a cohesive work environment.
Thus, this study has two main objectives: first, to structure and condense core functions of informal communication as perceived by employees, and second, to examine how these core functions are related to employee-specific variables. To achieve these goals, we conducted an extensive review of existing literature on informal communication. Through this, we were able to identify nine distinct functions of informal communication that are frequently discussed and supported by previous research. We then surveyed employees to examine employees’ salience of these nine types of functions. Next, we analyzed how these functions could be empirically condensed and examined their relationship with employee-specific variables, such as job and sociodemographic characteristics. Through this study, we aim to deepen the scholarly understanding of informal communication in contemporary organizations, where employees work both in the office and remotely, and to pave the way for future empirical studies at the intersection of interpersonal and organizational communication.
Informal communication in organizations
Internal communication encompasses all communication processes within an organization (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2012) and has become increasingly important in both research and practice (Tkalac Verčič and Špoljarić, 2020; Xie et al., 2023). While research often emphasizes formal strategic communication among employees (Dolphin, 2005; Tkalac Verčič et al., 2012), it also recognizes the importance of informal communication at all organizational levels (Kandlousi et al., 2010; Kraut et al., 1990; Viererbl et al., 2022). Nevertheless, informal employee-to-employee communication has received limited scholarly attention, even though it constitutes a large part of internal organizational communication (Hoffjann, 2023; Koch and Denner, 2022). It can be conceived as the counterpart of formal communication, with the two forms serving as the endpoints of a continuum (Fish et al., 1993; Kraut et al., 1990).
These endpoints serve as prototypes since most workplace communication falls somewhere along the spectrum between formal and informal (Koch and Denner, 2022; Viererbl et al., 2022). It is worth noting that not all interactions fit neatly into one category or the other; within a single conversation, both formal and informal communication can alternate and mix (Koch and Denner, 2022). One way to distinguish between them is to consider the roles that employees assume of themselves. In informal communication, they assume a more personal role (e.g. friend, acquaintance), whereas in formal communication, they operate within their professional role (e.g. colleague, mentor, supervisor). Informal interactions typically occur in shared offices, around the water cooler, in hallways, or lunch breaks (Fayard and Weeks, 2007; Held et al., 2001; Kraut et al., 1990).
Thus, following Koch and Denner’s (2022) definition, we characterize informal communication as any interaction within an organization in which two or more individuals assume personal roles (e.g. as friends or acquaintances) rather than their professional roles and do not aim to achieve work-related objectives. Conversely, formal communication is defined as any interaction within an organization in which two or more individuals use their professional roles to accomplish work-related goals. Given the prototypical nature of both forms of communication, much workplace discourse falls somewhere along the spectrum between these two poles, so not every employee interaction can be easily classified as strictly formal or informal.
Functions of informal communication
Research identifies several specific functions of informal communication (Beersma and van Kleef, 2012). Some studies categorize informal communication functions, e.g. Jaeger et al. (1994) and Rosnow (2001), who attribute the functions of information, influence, and entertainment to informal communication. Building on this, Lee and Barnes (2021) and Şantaş et al. (2018) add that employees engage in informal communication to form friendships. Koch and Denner (2022) differentiate the functions of information, organization/coordination, integration, seeking distraction, and venting anger. Fay (2011) lists personal disclosure, sociality, and giving and receiving support, while Kraut et al. (1990) find a variety of functions such as coordination and problem-solving, commitment, social bonding, social catalyst, relationships, and information. Beersma and van Kleef (2012), who focus on gossip as negative informal communication, differentiate the functions of influencing others negatively, informing, enjoying, and maintaining group norms.
However, these functions are mostly described separately, without being integrated or interconnected and thus, research has failed so far to capture and structure the functions of informal communication (Begemann et al., 2023). Thus, as a first step toward our goal of identifying core functions of informal communication, we conducted an extensive literature review and examined all studies that addressed one or more functions of informal communication in organizations. Through this process, we identified nine broad types of functions of informal communication that were repeatedly mentioned across multiple studies (see Table 1).
An important function of informal communication is to provide information (Bencsik et al., 2019; Kandlousi et al., 2010; Held et al., 2001). It complements formal channels by providing employees with details about new colleagues, upcoming social events, personal updates, breaking news, or office gossip (Burke and Wise, 2003; Men, 2021). This helps employees meet their information needs (Kandlousi et al., 2010) and acquire knowledge about their work environment (Jakubiec, 2019; Kraut et al., 1990). Thus, informal communication often fills the gaps left by formal channels and is used to supplement incomplete messages (Burke and Wise, 2003; Kandlousi et al., 2010). It also facilitates the sharing of personal information among colleagues and allows for cross-team exchanges (Fay, 2011; Koch and Denner, 2022). Technologies such as chats or social networks further facilitate information sharing and support remote working arrangements (Viererbl et al., 2022; Zhao and Rosson, 2009).
Informal communication in organizations also facilitates organization and coordination (Koch and Denner, 2022). It helps to establish a common basis for coordination (Fay, 2011; Men, 2021). This includes a basic understanding of organizational goals and responsibilities, as well as agreement on joint projects, cooperation in the event of problems, or delegation and control of tasks (Burke and Wise, 2003; Jakubiec, 2019; Men, 2021). Informal communication allows ambiguities to be resolved quickly and easily without waiting for formal processes (Kraut et al., 1990). These informal organizational processes contribute significantly to the success of a functioning organization (Men, 2021).
Informal communication also serves as a source of entertainment and distraction. These conversations often provide entertainment, especially when they include elements of gossip or humor (Foster, 2004; Holmes and Marra, 2004; Michelson and Mouly, 2000). They provide a break from the daily work routine and an opportunity for distraction (Burke and Wise, 2003). Even when working from home, employees enjoy virtual coffee breaks to take a short break from work (Viererbl et al., 2022). As a social resource, informal communication provides a brief respite and actively contributes to relaxation, improves well-being, and fosters commitment (Koch and Denner, 2022; McGrath et al., 2017). In cases of particularly monotonous work, informal communication helps combat boredom and errors by providing intellectual stimulation (Grosser et al., 2012).
Informal communication also plays a role in promoting emotional release and regeneration among employees. Employees talk informally to “let off steam” by expressing frustrations or complaints about their job, boss, or colleagues (Fay, 2011). This informal exchange allows individuals to share concerns, fears, and frustrations, serving as an outlet for negative feelings and even aggression (Burke and Wise, 2003; Foster, 2004). Described by Foster (2004, p. 87) as a “cathartic release”, this function of informal communication contributes to inner balance and regeneration. It helps alleviate emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and stress, leading to emotional relief and well-being (McGrath et al., 2017), which is also evident in the remote context (Zhao and Rosson, 2009).
Another important function of informal communication highlighted in the literature is its role in shaping organizational culture. Informal communication facilitates the collective establishment of norms, values, and conventions within an organization (Koch and Denner, 2022; Men, 2021). This helps to foster a pleasant atmosphere and positive work climate (Jakubiec, 2019). Organizational culture is spread through informal encounters and promotes the integration of employees into the organization (Koch and Denner, 2022). Especially for new employees, informal communication serves as a reference point for understanding expectations and appropriate behavior (Burke and Wise, 2003). Through cultural learning, it acts as a mechanism for conformity, encouraging employees to adapt to the organizational culture and align their behavior with organizational values (Grosser et al., 2012; Jakubiec, 2019).
Informal communication also serves as a means to foster organizational identification among employees. Through communication, each employee can develop a sense of belonging, a stronger commitment, and an emotional connection to their team and the organization (Fay, 2011; Men, 2021). On a personal level, informal interactions allow employees to internalize organizational goals, find deeper meaning in their work, and develop a strong identification with the organization (Burke and Wise, 2003). This organizational identification is particularly crucial for remote workers, as it helps them feel less isolated and more connected to the organization and their coworkers (Fay, 2011).
The literature agrees that a key function of informal communication is to foster a sense of belonging (Burke and Wise, 2003; Fay, 2011; Winslow et al., 2019). As social beings, humans have an innate need for social exchange, belonging, and social support (Burke and Wise, 2003; Fay, 2011; Fayard and Weeks, 2007; McGrath et al., 2017). Therefore, it is not surprising that informal communication occurs in all organizations as employees seek opportunities for social interaction (Fay, 2011; McGrath et al., 2017). By satisfying this need for belonging, informal communication contributes to improved well-being, a sense of recognition, and enhanced job performance (Winslow et al., 2019; Zhao and Rosson, 2009). This sense of belonging fostered by informal communication can be directed toward a specific team within the organization, or it can encompass the entire organization.
Another important function of informal communication highlighted in the literature is its role in building and maintaining professional relationships among employees (Grosser et al., 2012). Even casual conversations or small talk can foster workplace relationships and connect colleagues (Holmes and Marra, 2004). Informal interactions, whether in person or remotely, provide opportunities for employees to get to know each other and form impressions of each other (Zhao and Rosson, 2009). This allows them to gain insight into their colleagues' skills, work styles, and personalities, which helps in collaborative decision making within the organization (Koch and Denner, 2022; Kraut et al., 1990; Zhao and Rosson, 2009). This leads to the development of networks among colleagues, which are crucial in organizations because they facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration, ultimately increasing organizational effectiveness and innovation (Chen and Krauskopf, 2013; Marschan et al., 1996).
Finally, informal communication in the workplace serves the function of fostering private relationships that extend beyond professional connections (Fay, 2011). Early research by Kraut et al. (1990) demonstrated that closer acquaintances are more likely to develop in environments with frequent informal communication, particularly when employees recognize shared similarities or discuss mutual acquaintances, leading to the formation of friendships and other meaningful interpersonal relationships (Fay, 2011; Foster, 2004; Kandlousi et al., 2010). Deeper and more intimate informal communication contributes to the development of private relationships characterized by connectedness and trust (Fay, 2011; Zhao and Rosson, 2009). Research emphasizes that gossip, as a form of informal communication, occurs primarily among colleagues who are friends (Foster, 2004; Grosser et al., 2012; Michelson and Mouly, 2000). Even in remote work settings, informal communication facilitates employees getting to know each other and forming personal relationships (Zhao and Rosson, 2009). Sias et al. (2012) state that technological dyadic communication tools such as phone calls, texts, and emails can complement face-to-face informal communication with close ties to maintain friendships, while Viererbl et al. (2022) suggest that employees who work from home are more likely to engage in informal communication with colleagues they feel close to.
Study objectives
Studying the functions of informal communication offers valuable insights into why employees participate in informal exchanges and the potential benefits they derive from these activities. The nine identified functions have often been reported only descriptively or within a case study (e.g. Fish et al., 1993; Koch and Denner, 2022; Kraut et al., 1990), lacking a systematic distillation and empirical evidence to confirm potential overlaps among them. To gain an initial understanding of these core functions, our aim is to systematically investigate them as perceived by employees. This approach allows us to assess the importance of these functions in employees’ daily work lives and understand the motivations and perceived benefits behind their engagement in informal exchanges. By focusing on perceived functions, we can effectively characterize informal interactions based on their personal roles (Koch and Denner, 2022). Therefore, our study investigates which perceived functions of informal communication in organizations can be empirically identified and which of these functions are most important to employees.
Which core functions does informal communication serve?
Which core functions of informal communication are most important to employees in their daily work lives?
The relationship between functions of informal communication and these characteristics remains unexplored, as previous studies have primarily focused on identifying who engages in informal communication and the circumstances surrounding it. These studies show that both basic sociodemographic and job characteristics are related to informal communication activities. For example, in her qualitative study, Young (1998) found that women often feel marginalized in organizations and are less likely to be part of important informal communication networks. In contrast, Fay and Kline (2011) found no significant relationship between informal communication and gender in a quantitative study. Koch and Denner (2022) identified age as the strongest predictor of the frequency of informal communication, with younger employees engaging more frequently. In addition, education level was associated with increased informal communication, suggesting a possible link between these characteristics and communication behaviors. Analyzing sociodemographic characteristics can shed light on who engages in informal communication, the purposes it serves, and the benefits associated with it.
Research on job characteristics has shown that the frequency of remote work negatively predicts the amount of informal communication, while leadership position and seniority have no significant effect on the amount of informal communication (Koch and Denner, 2022). However, beyond the mere frequency of informal communication, it is uncertain whether and how job characteristics such as team size or hierarchical structure are related to the most prominent core functions of informal communication. Therefore, we pose the following research question:
How do (a) sociodemographic and (b) job characteristics affect the perceived importance of informal communication functions?
Method
Procedure and sample
To answer our research questions, we conducted a quantitative online survey of employees working for different organizations in Germany. We recruited our participants via an online panel (SoSci Panel, Leiner, 2016), consisting of more than 100,000 registered individuals. All participants had to live in Germany, be at least 18 years old, and be employed. To cover a wide range of employment arrangements, we included not only full-time, permanent employees but also all categories of employees, regardless of the size or duration of their employment, such as freelancers and interns.
Participants were contacted by email and asked to access the questionnaire through a link we provided. Participation in the study was voluntary and participants received no compensation for their participation. They were free to exit the survey at any time. We excluded participants who did not complete the questionnaire, rushed through the questionnaire, and/or were not currently employed (e.g. unemployed or a student). The final sample consisted of 1,380 participants. 61% of the participants identified as female, 38% as male, and 1% as diverse. The mean age was 46.30 (SD = 11.58) years. The average tenure in their organization was 13.59 years (SD = 10.91). 53% of participants work in organizations with 250 or more employees, while 24% work in organizations with 49 or fewer employees. 36% of respondents also reported that they currently hold a managerial position.
Measures
For all items used to measure the importance of informal communication functions, we analyzed extensively which existing items in the informal communication literature best capture the functions. Through this selection process, we ensured that the chosen items accurately reflected the essence of each function. We measured all functions with three items (see Table Appendix). The number of items per function was chosen to keep the overall questionnaire as short as possible without losing information. All items were rated on randomized 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) to ensure comprehensibility. The sense of belonging was assessed using four items from the “work-related basic need satisfaction scale” (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). The organizational culture items covered the following aspects: Developing the organizational culture and knowing the organizational values (Burke and Wise, 2003), understanding values and vision (Men, 2021), and creating a positive work climate (Jakubiec, 2019).
The entertainment and distraction function each comprised an item for informal communication as a break from everyday work (Burke and Wise, 2003), for entertainment (Michelson and Mouly, 2000), and as a distraction (Koch and Denner, 2022). For the identification function, we measured integration into the team (Koch and Denner, 2022), appreciation as a member (Fay, 2011), and organizational commitment (Fish et al., 1992). The information function was measured by items covering the following aspects: receiving new information relevant to work (Koch and Denner, 2022), providing additional information for formal communication (Burke and Wise, 2003), and notification of current events and changes (Burke and Wise, 2003).
For the organization and coordination function, we used items related to easier organization of everyday life (Koch and Denner, 2022), coordination of teamwork (Fay, 2011), and joint problem-solving (Fay, 2011). To measure the private relationships function, we used three items from Kandlousi et al. (2010), which describe getting to know and making friends and acquaintances. To measure the professional relationships function, items were asked about maintaining contact with colleagues (Fay, 2011), building a professional network (Kandlousi et al., 2010), as well as teamwork and team building (Whittaker et al., 1994). For the regeneration function, items reflecting aspects of stress reduction (Methot et al., 2021; Michelson and Mouly, 2002), anger reduction (Koch and Denner, 2022), and recovery (Methot et al., 2021) were used.
As for sociodemographic and job characteristics, we measured age (in years), gender, education (higher education yes or no), work experience (in years), leadership position (yes/no), remote work (in days per week), company size (less than 250 employees, 250 or more employees), team size (in employees), and hierarchy structure of the organization (1 = flat hierarchies to 6 = high hierarchies).
Results
RQ1a focuses on identifying the core functions of informal communication. To answer this question, we performed an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA, see also Figure Appendix). Principal component analysis was used on the 27 items retrieved from the literature to examine whether they could be grouped into superordinate categories. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was high at 0.95, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001), indicating strong correlations among the variables examined. Using the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalues > 1) and the scree plot, we identified five factors that collectively explain 50% of the total variance of all variables. These factors were subjected to an oblique rotation method (“oblimin”). We then examined the factor loadings of all items, resulting in the exclusion of one item, “Informal communication makes me feel less lonely”, which showed high loadings across multiple factors.
After removing this item, we performed a new analysis with the remaining 26 items. This analysis revealed four factors, identified by the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalues > 1) and the Scree plot, explaining 48% of the total variance (KMO = 0.95; Bartlett test: p < 0.001). All items loaded on a single factor with a minimum loading of 0.38 (Table Appendix).
The first factor consists of 10 items, three each from the two functions of information as well as organization and coordination, and two each from professional relationships and organizational culture. We named this new factor information and coordination. Items loading on the first factor were, for example, “Informal communication provides me with information that helps me to do my job” (information), “Informal communication facilitates the coordination and planning of teamwork” (organization and coordination), “Informal communication supports me to build a professional network” (professional relationships), and “Informal communication can help to develop the organizational culture together” (organizational culture). The second factor, belonging and connectedness, includes all three items from identification, one from organizational culture, two from sense of belonging, and one from professional relationships. Examples of these items are “Informal communication makes me feel part of the company” (identification), “Informal communication helps me understand the organization, including its mission, vision, values, beliefs, and goals” (organizational culture), “Informal communication makes me feel like I belong” (belonging), and “Informal communication helps me and my team to grow together” (professional relationships). The third factor contains six items from the original functions of regeneration, entertainment and distraction. Accordingly, we named this new factor stress management and recreation. Items loading on this factor were, for example, “I use informal communication to take a break and relax” (regeneration), “I use informal communication for entertainment.” (entertainment), or “Informal communication offers me a break from the daily work routine” (distraction). The fourth and last factor, private relationships, contains the three items from the original function, i.e. “Informal communication helps me to get to know my colleagues better in private”, “I can make friends through informal communication”, and “Informal communication helps me to make acquaintances”.
RQ1b asks which of these functions are most important to employees. Therefore, we conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (RMANOVA) and tested for differences between the four functions revealed by the factor analysis as within-subject factors. The analysis shows a significant effect, F(3, 5,509) = 110.59, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.06. Post-Hoc tests reveal significant group differences for comparisons between all functions (all p ≤ 0.001). Information and coordination (M = 3.84, SD = 0.69) emerges as the most significant function, followed by belonging and connectedness (M = 3.64, SD = 0.79), private relationships (M = 3.52, SD = 0.95) and stress management and recreation (M = 3.28, SD = 0.85). Accordingly, while participants perceived all four functions as somewhat important, using informal communication to improve information flow and coordination within the organization stands out as the most pivotal.
RQ2 examines the relationships between sociodemographic and job characteristics and the perceived functions of informal communication in the workplace. To address this question, we conducted four hierarchical regression analyses, with each of the four perceived core functions of informal communication serving as the dependent variables. Therefore, we calculated factor scores: For each factor, we also retrieved the factor scores. Factor scores represent the level or degree to which each individual in the dataset exhibits characteristics associated with specific underlying factors (DiStefano et al., 2019). These scores are calculated by combining the original variables’ standardized scores with the weighted factor loadings obtained from the EFA and can be used for further analysis (DiStefano et al., 2019; Fabrigar et al., 1999). Using factor scores offers an advantage over means because items are weighted in the calculation, which is not the case with a simple mean index. As independent variables in our regression models (see Table 2), we included gender, age, and education as sociodemographic factors (RQ2a). Additionally, as job-related factors, we incorporated company size, team size, hierarchy level, work experience, leadership role, and frequency of remote work (RQ2b).
Overall, the regression models explained varying amounts of variance across the core functions. Substantial variance was explained for stress management and relaxation (8%) as well as private relationships (9%), while only 1–2% of variance was explained for the other two core functions. In all models, gender was a significant predictor (β < −0.06; p < 0.05). Females corresponded to higher scores regarding all core functions. Furthermore, age was a significant predictor for all core functions but information and coordination (β < −0.14; p < 0.001). Younger age corresponded to higher scores regarding the core functions. Additionally, leadership position had a significant effect on belonging and connectedness (β = 0.06; p < 0.05) and stress management and recreation (β = 0.07; p < 0.05), when participants had a leadership function, they scored higher on the core functions. Company size had a significant effect on information and coordination (β = 0.07; p < 0.05). Participants working in large companies scored higher on the function. Finally, both team size (β = 0.06; p < 0.05) and remote work (β = 0.08; p < 0.05) have effects on private relationships. The more days participants work remotely and the more people are in the team at work, the higher the score on private relationships.
Education, work experience, and hierarchy level did not affect the core functions. However, overall, sociodemographic variables hardly explained whether someone uses informal communication for information and coordination, and belonging and connectedness, but some variance was explained for stress management and relaxation as well as private relationships.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the functions of informal communication within organizations. Specifically, we sought to categorize the core functions and determine which core functions are most important to employees. In addition, we wanted to examine whether these core functions depend on job- and employee-specific characteristics. Building on prior research, we first systematized nine potential functions and then empirically examined them using a sample of employees. Our empirical analysis identified four core functions of informal communication: (1) information and coordination, (2) belonging and connectedness, (3) stress management and recreation, and (4) private relationships.
Information and coordination, as the label suggests, encompasses two sub-dimensions: First, informal exchanges provide individuals with the information they need to perform their jobs effectively, for example, by informing employees about current and upcoming events. It is worth noting that these exchanges provide additional information to the official communication in the organization. Second, informal exchanges help coordinate teamwork and organize day-to-day activities within teams. By fostering open dialogue and sharing informally, team members can work together more efficiently. This coordination helps streamline workflow, solve common problems, and effectively distribute tasks among team members. But this coordination goes even further: It helps build professional networks by creating opportunities for individuals to connect with colleagues, share experiences, and develop a sense of camaraderie. These social connections contribute to the development of a positive organizational culture and a supportive work environment. Overall, the information and coordination function of informal communication plays a multifaceted role. It supports individual job performance by providing necessary information, enhances teamwork and problem-solving skills through effective coordination, and fosters social ties that contribute to organizational cohesion and employee engagement. This function underscores the importance of informal communication as a cornerstone of information flow and collaborative exchange among employees in organizations.
Informal communication also fosters a sense of belonging and connectedness among individuals within the organization. The items within this dimension demonstrate that it plays a dual role: First, it helps individuals feel emotionally connected to the organization by facilitating a deeper understanding of its values, beliefs, and goals. This understanding promotes a sense of belonging to the organization, which instills commitment and a sense of belonging among employees. Second, informal communication helps create a sense of belonging and connectedness within individual teams. It allows team members to develop personal relationships, work together effectively, and support each other's growth. By fostering team cohesion, informal communication improves interpersonal relationships and strengthens collective bonds within the team. Overall, belonging and connectedness as a core function of informal communication promotes a sense of unity, loyalty, and camaraderie among employees. It helps cultivate a (positive) organizational culture, encourages collaboration, and supports personal and team development as well as a supportive and inclusive work environment.
The third core function is stress management and recreation. Informal communication serves as a means for individuals to take a break from their daily work routine and provides opportunities for relaxation and entertainment. In addition, informal communication plays a role in facilitating stress management by providing an outlet for venting frustrations and emotions. When individuals encounter challenges or are bothered by certain issues, informal interactions provide a platform to express feelings and relieve tension. This aspect of informal communication contributes to emotional well-being by allowing individuals to release pent-up emotions and manage stress effectively.
The fourth core function is building private relationships: Informal communication facilitates deeper personal connections among colleagues. It allows individuals to get to know their colleagues better on a personal level and creates opportunities to build friendships and acquaintanceships beyond professional interactions. By engaging in informal conversations and interactions, individuals can form meaningful relationships with their colleagues outside of work-related contexts. This social bonding contributes to a supportive and friendly work environment, where colleagues feel comfortable and valued as part of a close-knit community. When individuals have strong personal connections with their colleagues, they are more likely to collaborate effectively, communicate openly, and trust each other’s abilities and intentions.
Interestingly, our derived functions map onto earlier motives for interpersonal interaction that have been universally identified. For example, both Rubin et al. (1988) and Step and Finucane (2002) found core motives for interpersonal talk such as “inclusion,” which corresponds to our affiliation and bonding function; “relaxation,” which corresponds to stress management and recreation; or “affection,” which taps into our core private relationship function. Future research should explore how these functions align with fundamental psychological needs, for example relatedness, competence, and autonomy (Deci and Ryan, 2008). Understanding how informal communication meets these needs can clarify why functions such as belonging and connectedness are so important for employees. Addressing these psychological needs through informal communication may boost overall employee engagement, as fulfilling these needs is associated with higher motivation and job satisfaction (Battaglio et al., 2022; Olafsen et al., 2018).
Our study reveals that functions of informal communication vary by sociodemographic and job characteristics. Especially age emerges as an influential factor, with older employees scoring lower on these dimensions. This association could be explained with older employees having established diverse networks of personal relationships beyond their current workplace and have developed routines for relaxation and stress relief over time. This observation is consistent with previous research suggesting that younger employees tend to be more active in informal communication (Koch and Denner, 2022). They may have a need for social relationships with co-workers and place a higher value on stress management and private relationship building.
Gender also shows a significant relationship with all core functions, with female employees consistently scoring higher than their male counterparts. Women might place a greater emphasis on interpersonal relationships overall in the workplace, leading to stronger connections and higher scores in areas such as belonging and connectedness. This is not surprising, given that women have been found to use interpersonal talk in informal structures more intensely than men to accomplish a diverse set of work-related goals such as forming (strategic) workplace relationships (e.g. Lyness and Thompson, 2000). In terms of stress management and recreation, women may be more inclined to use informal communication as a means of seeking social support and coping with stress (Taylor et al., 2000). Additionally, higher scores in information and coordination may reflect women’s collaborative work approach, where informal sharing and coordination of tasks are seen as crucial for effective teamwork and job performance (Eagly and Johnson, 1990).
Beyond sociodemographic factors, team and company size are related to our core functions. Team size influences the function of private relationships, indicating that members of larger teams find this function more important than others. This seems intuitive, given that larger teams require more structured opportunities for informal interactions and need to actively create occasions for social exchange. Similarly, the function of information and coordination seems to be more prominent in larger companies. Larger organizations may face challenges in ensuring effective informal communication beyond a department, project, or working team due to their complex structures, a high informational volume, and a larger workforce. Here, informal communication can help as a complementary communication channel to disseminate information and prevent its loss.
Our findings must be interpreted with several limitations in mind. First, our study explicitly focused on the perceived functions of informal communication, neglecting other aspects such as specific topics of informal communication or how employees build informal networks (Chen and Krauskopf, 2013; Fay, 2011; Marschan et al., 1996). However, these aspects are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of informal communication processes, highlighting the need for further research on such dynamics. For example, qualitative research could elucidate the development of individual networks and explore how different network characteristics are related to different functions of informal communication.
Second, our data may be subject to bias due to employee self-reporting. As discussed in the theoretical section of our paper, identifying and distinguishing informal communication from formal communication can be complicated and challenging. Participants may struggle to recall instances of communication accurately and comprehensively, potentially leading to omission of formal communication acts or misclassification of communication types. To mitigate these limitations and gain a more nuanced understanding of informal communication dynamics in employees' everyday work lives, future research could adopt an episodic lens to informal communication and examine informal interactions and their functions with speech events established in interpersonal communication research (Goldsmith and Baxter, 1996). These types of relational talk could be broadly placed on the continuum from formal to informal communication. Consistent with this episodic focus, future research could utilize intensive longitudinal methods such as behavioral data or experience sampling techniques (for initial approaches, see Ernst and Reinecke, 2022; Methot et al., 2021).
Our method of exploring the functions of informal communication represents one of two primary approaches to investigating the impact of informal communication within organizations. Although subject to the potential response biases inherent in self-reporting, by surveying organizational members and capturing their subjective perceptions of informal communication functions, we gain valuable insights into individual motivations for informal types of talk. Such a functional perspective has been the focus of interpersonal scholarship for decades (see Rubin et al., 1988; Step and Finucane, 2002). Future research could complement this perspective by surveying communication managers to understand their perceptions of informal communication functions within organizations.
The second main approach to investigate the functions of informal communication is to look at the effects of this type of communication on relevant organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, turnover intentions, corporate citizenship, or individual performance (Koch and Denner, 2022; Methot et al., 2021; Nikolić et al., 2013). Examining how different forms and frequencies of informal communication acts affect these outcomes would allow for the derivation of corresponding functions of informal communication. Accordingly, research following this approach would be a complementary part of the present research and could therefore contribute to a more comprehensive picture of the functional nature of informal communication.
Third, we did not include all potentially relevant sociodemographic variables in our study. While our research provides valuable insights, it is important to recognize that factors other than those we used may influence the dynamics and importance of informal communication. For example, race and ethnicity may influence how individuals engage in and perceive informal communication. Cultural norms and values, language barriers, and experiences of discrimination or inclusion can shape the nature and effectiveness of these interactions. Similarly, socioeconomic status may influence individuals' participation in informal communication networks and the salience of their functions. In particular, education and job qualification are very likely to have an impact on individual professions and occupational settings. For example, blue collar workers are probably facing very different labor conditions and (informal) communication opportunities than white collar workers. Furthermore, individual stress levels outside the workplace can have an impact on informal communication at work, e.g. obligations in childcare that negatively impact the individual time and energy budget for socializing at work. Accordingly, future studies could extend our findings by including a more comprehensive set of sociodemographic variables. One promising approach to exploring these complex relationships is the use of network analysis. Network analysis can map and measure relationships and flows between people, groups, or organizations, providing a detailed view of the informal communication networks within a workplace.
The results of our study are highly relevant to practitioners of organizational management and organizational communication. The functions of belonging and connectedness, along with information and coordination, emerge as particularly crucial aspects of informal communication. These functions contribute directly to organizational success: On the one hand, information exchanged through informal channels complements the formal flow of information and contributes to the successful dissemination of information outside of hierarchical and formalized structures. On the other hand, positive relationships among employees can further improve formal and informal workflows, which in turn can enable more efficient communication and better collaboration. Furthermore, improved private relationships, recreation and stress reduction through informal communication could have positive effects on individual employees, e.g. in terms of job satisfaction or individual health (e.g. Ernst and Reinecke, 2022; Methot et al., 2021).
Our findings therefore have important implications for workplace culture. Based on our findings, employers should invest in social spaces within workplaces and enable flexible work environments that facilitate casual interactions among employees. By recognizing the role of informal communication in stress management and recovery, providing opportunities for relaxation and informal socialization may reduce burnout and turnovers. In addition, by recognizing the importance of informal communication for information sharing and coordination, decision-makers in organizations can advocate for organizational practices that increase employee involvement and participation, such as investing in tools that allow for informal exchange. This can lead to more engaged and motivated employees, ultimately improving productivity and organizational performance.
However, the promotion of informal communication should take the specific needs of employees into account. For example, organizations could create inclusive spaces and opportunities that address the social and emotional needs of younger employees, such as mentoring programs, social gatherings, and recreational activities, but also facilitate the sharing of knowledge and leverage the experience of older employees through formal and informal mentoring roles. Organizations should also consider gender-specific preferences and needs when developing communication practices to ensure they are inclusive and supportive of all employees. In large organizations, management should actively create opportunities for informal interactions, and leaders of large teams should prioritize team-building exercises and informal gatherings to foster personal connections and enhance teamwork. In doing so, they can not only tap into the potential for more effective workflows and communication, but also contribute to the well-being of employees and thus potentially increase employee engagement, performance, and productivity.
To maximize these benefits, it is crucial to ensure that informal communication is inclusive and accessible to all. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives play a key role in ensuring that all employees can participate in and benefit from informal interactions. By fostering a diverse and inclusive environment, DEI increases connectedness, facilitates better information sharing, supports stress management, and strengthens relationships among diverse groups of employees. Importantly, however, as different employees have different personalities and needs for informal communication, such corporate actions should be a voluntary invitation establishing supportive norms rather than measures of control (see Begemann et al., 2024).
The implications also extend to societal impacts and public policy: Co-workers are a central social resource for employees because they contribute a lot of time during their lives for work. Hence, through enabling stress management as well as increasing social connection, informal communication can overall make a positive difference in employees’ mental health. Through the Covid-19 pandemic, informal communication has been challenged (Begemann et al., 2024; Viererbl et al., 2022). If managers widely recognize the importance of such communication activities within an organization and foster initiatives that promote informal communication among employees in the workspace and the digital space beyond, organizations could substantially contribute to public health.
Overview of the functions of informal communication
Source(s): Created by authors
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting the four perceived core functions of informal communication
| β | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information and Coordination | Belonging and Connectedness | Stress Management and Relaxation | Private relationships | |
| Gender (female) | −0.07* | −0.10** | −0.07* | −0.12*** |
| Age | −0.06 | −0.15*** | −0.29*** | −0.28*** |
| Education (no higher education) | −0.02 | −0.06 | −0.00 | −0.00 |
| Work experience | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.03 |
| Leadership Position | 0.02 | 0.06* | 0.07* | 0.02 |
| Remote work | 0.02 | 0.03 | −0.00 | 0.08* |
| Company size | 0.07* | 0.06 | −0.02 | 0.03 |
| Team size | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.06* |
| Hierarchy level | −0.03 | −0.04 | −0.00 | 0.00 |
| F | 1.67** | 4.72*** | 10.74*** | 12.28*** |
| R2adj | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.09 |
Note(s): n = 1,074; * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001
Source(s): Created by authors
Overview of the items used to measure the functions of informal communication
| Function | Items | Based on |
|---|---|---|
| Information | Informal communication provides me with information that helps me to do my job Informal communication provides additional information to the official communication in the organization Informal communication informs me about current events and upcoming changes in the organization | Burke and Wise (2003), Koch and Denner (2022) |
| Organization and Coordination | Informal communication helps to organize the day-to-day work in the team Informal communication facilitates the coordination and planning of teamwork Informal communication makes it easier to solve common problems | Fay (2011), Koch and Denner (2022) |
| Entertainment and Distraction | Informal communication offers me a break from the daily work routine I use informal communication to take my mind off work I use informal communication for entertainment | Burke and Wise (2003), Koch and Denner (2022), Michelson and Mouly (2000) |
| Emotional Release and Regeneration | Informal communication is a way for me to relieve tension and stress I use informal communication to take a break and relax Informal communication helps me to vent my anger when something is bothering me | Koch and Denner (2022), Methot et al. (2021), Michelson and Mouly (2002) |
| Organizational Culture | Informal communication can help to develop the organizational culture together Informal communication helps me understand the organization, including its mission, vision, values, beliefs, and goals Informal communication creates a positive working environment | Burke and Wise (2003), Jakubiec (2019), Men (2021) |
| Identification | Informal communication helps me to fit in personally with my team Informal communication makes me feel part of the company Informal communication makes me feel emotionally connected to my organization | Fay (2011), Fish et al. (1992), Koch and Denner (2022) |
| Belonging | Informal communication makes me feel connected to my colleagues Informal communication makes me feel less lonely Informal communication makes me feel like I belong | Vanden Broeck et al. (2010) |
| Professional Relationships | For me, informal communication is a way to build and maintain professional relationships with my colleagues Informal communication helps me to build a professional network Informal communication helps me and my team to grow together | Fay (2011), Kandlousi et al. (2010), Whittaker et al. (1994) |
| Private Relationships | Informal communication helps me to get to know my colleagues better in private I can make friends through informal communication Informal communication helps me to make acquaintances | Kandlousi et al. (2010) |
Source(s): Created by authors
Exploratory factor analysis of the variables for the functions of informal communication
| Items | Information and coordination | Belonging and connectedness | Stress management and recreation | Private relation-ships | Communalities (h2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal communication makes me feel connected to my colleagues | – | 0.58 | – | – | 0.59 |
| Informal communication makes me feel like I belong | – | 0.72 | – | – | 0.59 |
| Informal communication can help to develop the organizational culture together | 0.51 | – | – | – | 0.55 |
| Informal communication helps me understand the organization, including its mission, vision, values, beliefs, and goals | – | 0.48 | – | – | 0.58 |
| Informal communication creates a positive working environment | 0.54 | – | – | – | 0.64 |
| Informal communication offers me a break from the daily work routine | – | – | 0.59 | – | 0.53 |
| I use informal communication to take my mind off work | – | – | 0.72 | – | 0.55 |
| I use informal communication for entertainment | – | – | 0.62 | – | 0.50 |
| Informal communication helps me to fit in personally with my team | – | 0.44 | – | – | 0.47 |
| Informal communication makes me feel part of the company | – | 0.69 | – | – | 0.53 |
| Informal communication makes me feel emotionally connected to my organization | – | 0.72 | – | – | 0.53 |
| Informal communication provides me with information that helps me to do my job | 0.77 | – | – | – | 0.49 |
| Informal communication provides additional information to the official communication in the organization | 0.58 | – | – | – | 0.41 |
| Informal communication informs me about current events and upcoming changes in the organization | 0.59 | – | – | – | 0.37 |
| Informal communication helps to organize the day-to-day work in the team | 0.64 | – | – | – | 0.49 |
| Informal communication facilitates the coordination and planning of teamwork | 0.70 | – | – | – | 0.54 |
| Informal communication makes it easier to solve common problems | 0.50 | – | – | – | 0.48 |
| Informal communication helps me to get to know my colleagues better in private | – | – | – | 0.50 | 0.51 |
| I can make friends through informal communication | – | – | – | 0.65 | 0.55 |
| Informal communication helps me to make acquaintances | – | – | – | 0.66 | 0.55 |
| For me, informal communication is a way to build and maintain professional relationships with my colleagues | 0.38 | – | – | – | 0.43 |
| Informal communication supports me to build a professional network | 0.44 | – | – | 0.33 | 0.36 |
| Informal communication helps me and my team to grow together | – | 0.45 | – | – | 0.57 |
| Informal communication is a way for me to relieve tension and stress | – | – | 0.40 | – | 0.41 |
| I use informal communication to take a break and relax | – | – | 0.72 | – | 0.51 |
| Informal communication helps me to vent my anger when something is bothering me | – | – | 0.39 | – | 0.31 |
| Eigenvalues | 9.45 | 2.73 | 1.33 | 1.04 | |
| Explained Variance (%) | 16% | 14% | 10% | 8% |
Note(s): N = 1,380. KMO = 0.95; Bartlett's test: p < 0.001. Extraction of four factors based on the Kaiser criterion and the Scree plot. Cumulative total variance: 48%. Rotated factor loadings (Oblimin rotation); empty cells represent factor loadings <0.30
Source(s): Created by authors
References
Battaglio, R.P., Belle, N. and Cantarelli, P. (2022), “Self-determination theory goes public: experimental evidence on the causal relationship between psychological needs and job satisfaction”, Public Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 1411-1428, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2021.1900351.
Beersma, B. and van Kleef, G.A. (2012), “Why people gossip: an empirical analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 11, pp. 2640-2670, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00956.x.
Begemann, V., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. and Stein, M. (2023), “Peeling away the layers of workplace gossip: a framework, review, and future research agenda to study workplace gossip as a dynamic and complex behavior”, Merits, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 297-317, doi: 10.3390/merits3020017.
Begemann, V., Handke, L. and Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2024), “Enabling and constraining factors of remote informal communication: a socio-technical systems perspective”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 29 No. 5, zmae008, doi: 10.1093/jcmc/zmae008.
Bencsik, A., Juhász, T., Mura, L. and Csanádi, Á. (2019), “Formal and informal knowledge sharing in organisations from Slovakia and Hungary”, Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 25-42, doi: 10.15678/EB-ER.2019.070302.
Burke, L.A. and Wise, J.M. (2003), “The effective care, handling and pruning of the office grapevine”, Business Horizons, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 71-76, doi: 10.1016/S0007-6813(03)00031-4.
Chen, B. and Krauskopf, J. (2013), “Integrated or disconnected? Examining formal and informal networks in a merged nonprofit organization”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 325-345, doi: 10.1002/nml.21063.
Crampton, S.M., Hodge, J.W. and Mishra, J.M. (1998), “The informal communication network: factors influencing grapevine activity”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 569-584, doi: 10.1080/00909887709360246.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2008), “Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health”, Canadian psychology/Psychologie canadienne, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 182-185, doi: 10.1037/a0012801.
Dirsmith, M.W. and Covaleski, M.A. (1985), “Informal communications, nonformal communications and mentoring in public accounting firms”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 149-169, doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(85)90013-3.
DiStefano, C., Zhu, M. and Mîndrilã, D. (2019), “Understanding and using factor scores: considerations for the applied researcher”, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 20, doi: 10.7275/DA8T-4G52.
Dolphin, R.R. (2005), “Internal communications: today's strategic imperative”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 171-190, doi: 10.1080/1352726042000315414.
Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B.T. (1990), “Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 233-256, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233.
Ernst, A. and Reinecke, L. (2022), “Informal communication and well-being during work from home: what is the role of modality?”, Presented at the 72nd Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), Paris, France.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. and Strahan, E.J. (1999), “Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 272-299, doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.
Fay, M.J. (2011), “Informal communication of co‐workers: a thematic analysis of messages”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 212-229, doi: 10.1108/17465641111188394.
Fay, M.J. and Kline, S.L. (2011), “Coworker relationships and informal communication in high-intensity telecommuting”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 144-163, doi: 10.1080/00909882.2011.556136.
Fay, M., J. and Kline, S., L. (2012), “The influence of informal communication on organizational identification and commitment in the context of high-intensity telecommuting”, Southern Communication Journal, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 61-76, doi: 10.1080/1041794x.2011.582921.
Fayard, A.-L. and Weeks, J. (2007), “Photocopiers and water-coolers: the affordances of informal interaction”, Organization Studies, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 605-634, doi: 10.1177/0170840606068310.
Fish, R.S., Kraut, R.E., Root, R.W. and Rice, R.E. (1992), “Evaluating video as a technology for informal communication”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’92, Presented at the SIGCHI conference, ACM Press, Monterey, California, United States, ACM Press, pp. 37-48, doi: 10.1145/142750.142755.
Fish, R.S., Kraut, R.E., Root, R.W. and Rice, R.E. (1993), “Video as a technology for informal communication”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 48-61, doi: 10.1145/151233.151237.
Foster, E.K. (2004), “Research on gossip: taxonomy, methods, and future directions”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 78-99, doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.78.
Goldsmith, D.J. and Baxter, L.A. (1996), “Constituting relationships in talk A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 87-114, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00388.x.
Grosser, T.J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., Labianca, G.J. and Ellwardt, L. (2012), “Hearing it through the grapevine”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 52-61, doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.12.007.
Held, M., Maslo, J. and Lindenthal, M. (2001), “Wissensmanagement und informelle Kommunikation [Knowledge management and informal communication]”, Mannheimer Beiträge, Vol. 2, pp. 17-37.
Hoffjann, O. (2023), “Informality in strategic communication. Making the case for a forgotten concept”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 206-220, doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-03-2023-0028.
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2004), “Relational practice in the workplace: women's talk or gendered discourse?”, Language in Society, Vol. 33 No. 03, doi: 10.1017/S0047404504043039.
Jaeger, M.E., Skleder, A.A., Rind, B. and Rosnow, R.L. (1994), “„Gossip, gossipers, gossipees”, in Goodman, R.F. and Ben-Ze’ev, A. (Eds), Good Gossip, University Press of Kansas, pp. 154-168.
Jakubiec, M. (2019), “The importance of internal communication for management of an organisation”, Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization and Management Series, Vol. 2019 No. 134, pp. 47-62, doi: 10.29119/1641-3466.2019.134.4.
Kandlousi, N.S.A.E., Ali, A.J. and Abdollahi, A. (2010), “Organizational citizenship behavior in concern of communication satisfaction: the role of the formal and informal communication”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 10, p. 51, doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v5n10p51.
Koch, T. and Denner, N. (2022), “Informal communication in organizations: work time wasted at the water-cooler or crucial exchange among co-workers?”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 494-508, doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-08-2021-0087.
Kraut, R.E., Fish, R.S., Root, R.W. and Chalfonte, B.L. (1990), “Informal communication in organizations: form, function, and technology”, in Oskamp, S. and Spacapan, S. (Eds), Human Reactions to Technology: Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, Sage, pp. 1-55.
Lee, S.H. and Barnes, C.M. (2021), “An attributional process model of workplace gossip”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 300-316, doi: 10.1037/apl0000504.
Leiner, D.J. (2016), “Our research's breadth lives on convenience samples A case study of the online respondent pool ‘SoSci Panel’”, Studies in Communication | Media, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 367-396, doi: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-367.
Lyness, K.S. and Thompson, D.E. (2000), “Climbing the corporate ladder: do female and male executives follow the same route?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 86-101, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.86.
Marschan, R., Welch, D. and Welch, L. (1996), “Control in less-hierarchical multinationals: the role of personal networks and informal communication”, International Business Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 137-150, doi: 10.1016/0969-5931(96)00002-9.
McGrath, E., Cooper-Thomas, H.D., Garrosa, E., Sanz-Vergel, A.I. and Cheung, G.W. (2017), “Rested, friendly, and engaged: the role of daily positive collegial interactions at work”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1213-1226, doi: 10.1002/job.2197.
Men, L.R. (2021), “Evolving research and practices in internal communication”, in Men, L.R. and Tkalac Verčič, A. (Eds), Current Trends and Issues in Internal Communication, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78213-9_1.
Methot, J.R., Rosado-Solomon, E.H., Downes, P.E. and Gabriel, A.S. (2021), “Office chitchat as a social ritual: the uplifting yet distracting effects of daily small talk at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 1445-1471, doi: 10.5465/amj.2018.1474.
Michelson, G. and Mouly, S. (2000), “Rumour and gossip in organisations: a conceptual study”, Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 339-346, doi: 10.1108/00251740010340508.
Michelson, G. and Mouly, V., S. (2002), “‘You didn’t hear it from us but...’: Towards an understanding of rumour and gossip in organisations”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-65, doi: 10.1177/031289620202701S07.
Nikolić, M., Vukonjanski, J., Nedeljković, M., Hadžić, O. and Terek, E. (2013), “The impact of internal communication satisfaction dimensions on job satisfaction dimensions and the moderating role of LMX”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 563-565, doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.09.002.
Olafsen, A.H., Deci, E.L. and Halvari, H. (2018), “Basic psychological needs and work motivation: a longitudinal test of directionality”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 178-189, doi: 10.1007/s11031-017-9646-2.
Rosnow, R.L. (2001), “Rumor and gossip in interpersonal interaction and beyond: a social exchange perspective”, in Kowalski, R.M. (Ed.), Behaving Badly: Aversive Behaviors in Interpersonal Relationships, American Psychological Association, pp. 203-232, doi: 10.1037/10365-008.
Rubin, R.B., Perse, E.M. and Barbato, C.A. (1988), “Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 602-628, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00169.x.
Şantaş, G., Uğurluoğlu, Ö., Özer, Ö. and Demir, A. (2018), “Do gossip functions effect on organizational revenge and job stress among health personnel?”, Journal of Health Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 64-72, doi: 10.1177/0972063417747724.
Sias, P.M., Pedersen, H., Gallagher, E.B. and Kopaneva, I. (2012), “Workplace friendship in the electronically connected organization”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 253-279, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01428.x.
Step, M.M. and Finucane, M.O. (2002), “Interpersonal communication motives in everyday interactions”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 93-109, doi: 10.1080/01463370209385648.
Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B.P., Gruenewald, T.L., Gurung, R.A. and Updegraff, J.A. (2000), “Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight”, Psychological Review, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 411-429, doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.107.3.411.
Tkalac Verčič, A. and Špoljarić, A. (2020), “Managing internal communication: how the choice of channels affects internal communication satisfaction”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, 101926, doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101926.
Tkalac Verčič, A., Verčič, D. and Sriramesh, K. (2012), “Internal communication: definition, parameters, and the future”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 223-230, doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.019.
Van Den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B. and Lens, W. (2010), “Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: construction and initial validation of the Work‐related Basic Need Satisfaction scale”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 981-1002, doi: 10.1348/096317909X481382.
Viererbl, B., Denner, N. and Koch, T. (2022), “You don't meet anybody when walking from the living room to the kitchen’: informal communication during remote work”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 331-348, doi: 10.1108/JCOM-10-2021-0117.
Whittaker, S., Frohlich, D. and Daly-Jones, O. (1994), “Informal workplace communication: what is it like and how might we support it?”, Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’94, Presented at the Conference Companion, ACM Press, Boston, Massachusetts, United States, p. 208, doi: 10.1145/259963.260328.
Winslow, C.J., Sabat, I.E., Anderson, A.J., Kaplan, S.A. and Miller, S.J. (2019), “Development of a measure of informal workplace social interactions”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 2043, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02043.
Xie, J., Huang, Q., Yan, M. and Liang, Y. (2023), “It is tough to detach from gossip: the impact of perceived negative workplace gossip on life satisfaction”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1007/s10869-023-09894-8.
Young, S.L. (1998), “Where silenced voices speak out: the hidden power of informal communication networks”, Women and Language, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 21-30.
Zhao, D. and Rosson, M.B. (2009), “How and why people Twitter: the role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work”, Proceedings of the 2009 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work, presented at the GROUP09: ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, ACM, Sanibel Island Florida USA, pp. 243-252, doi: 10.1145/1531674.1531710.
Acknowledgements
We thank Hannah Ginsbach, Toni Kiening, Franca Singh, Nina Steinfeltz, and Isabell Steinle for their contribution to the paper.
Corresponding author
About the authors
Nora Denner is a research associate and PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany. She received her MA from the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Germany.
Dr Thomas Koch is Professor for Corporate Communication and PR at the Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany. He received his PhD from the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany.
Dr Benno Viererbl is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany. He received his PhD from the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany.
Alicia Ernst is a research associate and PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany. She received her MA from the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany.