Collective rumination: When "problem talk" impairs organizational resilience

Collective rumination: When "problem talk" impairs organizational resilience

Abstract

When adversity strikes, organization members often turn to others in order to vent their negative emotions and receive social support. While social interaction is commonly seen as a major resource for organizational resilience, dysfunctional social interactions and their negative effects on coping with and overcoming adversity are less well understood. This conceptual article develops theory on collective rumination-defined as repetitive and prolonged discussions of adverse events that center on the negative and uncontrollable aspects of the situation-and its detrimental effects on organizational resilience. We elaborate that collective rumination emerges through a vicious circle of a shared negative situational assessment and mutual contagion with highly negative emotions. Based on our theorizing, we propose that collective rumination is negatively related to three core dimensions of organizational resilience: perceptions of control, commitment to joint action, and the acceptance of adversity as a challenge. With our conceptual article, we answer earlier calls to theorize about forms of social interactions that are not valuable but destructive for organizational resilience and elucidate previously neglected social dynamics that are dysfunctional for recovering from adversity.

INTRODUCTION

Adverse situations, such as goal setbacks and routine breakdowns, are common in organizational life. When adversity strikes, organizational resilience-the process by which an organization uses its capability to positively adjust and maintain functioning prior to, during, and following adversity-is needed to cope with the situation and emerge better prepared for the future. Organizational resilience can be increased by social sharing of negative feelings and thoughts related to the adverse situation because social sharing can help alleviate negative emotions and provide social support. In supportive conversations, negative emotions can be "defused and processed" within the group such that its members are better able to engage in "the coordinative work of resilience."

However, we argue that sharing negative thoughts and emotions among organization members can also undermine organizational resilience. In the context of the global COVID-nineteen crisis, many of us have experienced lengthy conversations that were highly negative, revolving around worst-case scenarios, and focusing on aspects beyond control. While social sharing is a typical response to adversity, which may provide short-term emotional relief and evoke a feeling of closeness, such conversations can foster a shared negative situational assessment and amplify negative emotions. A spiral of negative thoughts and emotions may develop that depletes organization members' cognitive and emotional resources. Yet, the potential negative effects of such "problem talk" on organizational resilience are a blind spot in research: Only a few studies have examined the effects of negative conversations for individuals and groups, and their outcomes for organizations have been neglected until now.

In the present paper, we aim to shed light on this blind spot by developing theory on collective rumination. Following Marmenout in collective rumination, organization members, who are all affected by the adverse situation and contribute their thoughts and emotions to the discussion, are "repetitively and passively discussing organizational problems and their negative consequences with a group of peers." Although research on collective rumination is scant, findings from related areas imply that more than forty percent of organization members frequently have ruminative thoughts about adverse aspects of their work and vent their negative emotions about four to five times a day toward others. Indeed, four out of five individuals believe that talking helps to deal with problems. Hence, it is likely that collective rumination is a common response to adversity.

In this article, we will theorize on the underlying dynamics of collective rumination in the face of adversity (Propositions one and two) and outline how it will diminish organizational resilience (Propositions three and four). As our main contribution, we introduce the concept of collective rumination to organizational resilience research. While we agree that social interactions provide social support and foster a feeling of closeness,

we challenge the common and intuitive assumption that "talking helps" for coping with and overcoming adversity. Instead, we argue that the feeling of closeness serves as a positive reinforcement of "problem talk," leading to an immersion in negative thoughts and emotions. Our core argument is that social sharing-in the shape of collective rumination-can be dysfunctional for overcoming adverse situations. We thereby answer calls to theorize on social interactions that are not valuable for resilience and to elucidate how group phenomena impact resilience.

We begin our conceptual analysis with an overview of research on organizational resilience, summarizing arguments as to why social interactions can be a resource for coping with an adverse situation. We then introduce collective rumination, describe its characteristics, elaborate on its emergence, and theorize about its social dynamics. Based on Brueller et al.'s argument that resilience entails control, commitment, and challenge, we outline the severe negative effects of collective rumination and discuss implications of our work.