Most people would deny indulging in workplace gossip. However, Deborah Grayson Riegel, a communication coach and instructor at Wharton Business School, says people engage in this destructive practice without realizing it. If you have ever participated in a “confirmation expedition” by asking a colleague to confirm your negative experience of a third party (”Have you noticed Sam in accounting never replies to emails?”), or welcomed a similar inquiry from a coworker, you could be contributing to a climate of eroding trust, hurt feelings, damaged reputations, and divisiveness—in other words, you might be gossiping.
 
Gossip is a way of bonding by excluding others, of venting, and of validating our own beliefs, so the urge to engage in it is strong. But talking behind backs undermines an open, honest culture. How can we stop doing something wrong that feels so right?  Riegel has this advice:

• Name it; then pivot. Label gossip “gossip.” Then pivot the conversation by asking, “How can I help you get a better outcome?” Engage in coaching, brainstorming, and problem-solving— not in problem-confirming.
• Ask yourself why you need someone else’s confirmation about a behavior that you’re noticing in a third party. If it’s to confirm you’re right, don’t bring someone else into the conversation. If it’s to understand how you might be contributing to the dynamic or to brainstorm helpful solutions, then it might be workable.
• Let people know your policy is, “if you have a problem with me, tell me first.” Adopt the “tell them first” policy with your colleagues, too. When someone approaches you with gossip about someone else, ask, “Have you already told her?”
• Create a feedback-rich environment around you. The more you normalize feedback —positive and negative, giving and receiving — the less likely people will be to look for alternative means to express their frustrations and concerns.

 
Have you ever interacted with a colleague regarding negative impressions about a coworker? How might that conversation have been more productive? To join the conversation, click "comments" above. 

Much of the job hunt process involves waiting. After you score an interview, you might feel the urge to follow-up, so be smart about it. Writing in the Harvard Business Review, Art Markman, Ph.D. professor of psychology and marketing at the University of Texas, Austin and author of Bring Your Brain to Work: Using Cognitive Science to Get a Job, Do it Well, and Advance Your Career, posits four situations where it may be in your best interest to send the hiring manager a note:

1. The thank you note: One day post-interview, you can send a short email thanking the hiring manager for their time.  Mention one specific element of the interview or what you learned about the organization. Finally, mention how much you are looking forward to hearing from them. One caveat: This isn’t an opportunity to add more content about yourself.
2. The follow-up note: You may not hear back from the hiring manager by the date they mentioned for making an offer, but don’t panic. Sit tight for another week and then, if no word, send a brief note restating your interest. Ask if there’s anything additional you can provide.
3. The exception: The one time you can reach out in between the interview and the date the hiring manager gave you is if there is a significant change in your situation or portfolio, e.g. if you have published an article, secured a patent, or had another job offer.
4. The feedback note: If you feel like the interview went well, but aren’t offered the job, you can send one additional note to ask for feedback. Again, be brief. Thank the interviewer again, say you enjoyed the interview and would appreciate some constructive feedback on what you can do in the future to improve your chances.

 
How do you like job applicants to follow up with you after an interview? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

Being a leader involves getting buy-in for your decisions, even from those who may not agree with you. In recent research by Harvard Business School professor Laura Huang and Harvard MBA student Ryan Yu for Huang’s new book, Edge: Turning Adversity Into Advantage, 60 leaders were observed and interviewed as they tried to change minds of people who initially disagreed with them. Depending on what was driving their detractor’s resistance, they approached the situation with one of the following three targeted strategies:

• The Cognitive Conversation: If someone opposes your idea with analytical reasoning, offer up sound arguments with a strong presentation. The goal is to show the person that, on an objective and factual basis, their initial stance on the situation is less reasonable than your argument. Be cautious about not introducing emotions into the discussion, and avoid broad generalizations.
• The Champion Conversation: When the detractor isn’t easily persuaded through cognitive arguments, or when they harbor a grievance in your relationship, debates can be futile. Instead, invest time in personally learning about them and building rapport. Gradually convert this detractor into someone who is your champion or advocate, perhaps by shedding more light on the qualities that you value in them and how your values align.
• The Credible Colleague Approach: If the detractor’s deeply held personal beliefs make them fundamentally opposed to your proposal, then—rather than trying to change their mind yourself—bring in a credible colleague. A champion of your position from another part of the organization, whether a peer or manager, may be better suited to convince this individual. A credible colleague allows your challenger to disentangle who you are from what your argument is, and then to evaluate your idea based on its objective merits. If you and the detractor are at an impasse, the credible colleague might just tip the scales in your favor.

 
What strategies have you used to identify the source of a colleague’s objections to your ideas and change their mind? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.