Food for Thought
When everyone is gossiping about someone, should I say something?
During a break, someone makes a disparaging remark about an absent colleague. Others nod. You do not know whether the story is true. If you object, you may seem like a spoilsport. If you remain silent, it may look like agreement.
But criticism of an absent person is not always malicious gossip. Sometimes it is necessary to speak to someone you trust about problematic behaviour or to raise a complaint confidentially. What matters is the reason, the aim, the words chosen and whether the setting is safe.
First, separate observation from interpretation
“The agreed handover arrived on Monday instead of Friday” describes an event that can be checked. “She is always unreliable” is already a judgement about a person. The first can be clarified. The second can become a label that colours every subsequent observation.
I would therefore avoid judging the absent person straight away and ask about the basis instead: “Did you experience that yourself, or did you hear it from someone else?” Or: “What actually needs to be clarified?”
Three different situations
If it is hearsay, a factual question may prevent an assumption from being passed on as a fact.
If it concerns a specific problem in working together, clarification with those involved or through the appropriate channel may be more useful than discussing someone who is absent.
If the conversation becomes disparaging, a boundary may be enough: “I don't want to take part in judging someone who isn't here.”
However, a direct conversation with the person being criticised is not always the right advice. In cases of intimidation, power imbalances, harassment or repeated attacks, a protected reporting channel may be more important than a personal confrontation.
Not everything is proven
Observation: A disparaging comment was made. I can describe what was said and the context.
Hypothesis: It may reflect an unresolved conflict, a poor culture of communication or simply a thoughtless remark. I cannot diagnose an entire team from one incident.
Established professional framework: Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) describes workplace bullying as repeated, systematic actions over time. Individual acts of harassment should also be taken seriously.
My position: People must be able to raise legitimate complaints without others being condemned through rumours.
The interesting question for an organisation is therefore not just who was gossiping, but: Is there a safe way to raise difficult issues openly at all?
To think further: What criticism can people voice openly in your organisation without someone being publicly humiliated?
Further reading: Collaboration and leadership.
Sources and limitations: SECO: Mobbing (in German). These are suggested ways to respond, not an obligation to confront anyone in a particular way or a diagnosis of an individual case.