Recall an incident at work when information was passed primarily through the grapevine. How accurate were the rumors, and how did people react to them?
In my work, I was elected to a position in our faculty union and was able to observe the process of contract negotiations. Management wanted to make a significant change in our working conditions and issued a short memo describing the initiative in glowing and extremely vague terms. The rumour mill got very active, interpreting the memo to mean, essentially, that we'd all get paid more for doing less and support for this change started to build as we got closer to the scheduled vote to approve the contract. The union insisted that we see the fine print and make it public in clear language before being asked to vote on it. The actual truth, once we got to see the fine print, was that under the new proposal, most people would do more work for less money in order to give lots of money to handpicked favourites of some administrators. Union representatives used email and official meetings to circulate the full details of what the changes would mean, so that people's votes would be based on the actual details of the fine print rather than rumour.
check Approved by eNotes Editorial