By Chief Robin Shusko, Ed.D.
By the end of the shift, nearly everyone had heard some version of the story.
A supervisor was seen meeting with the chief. An officer was moved off a preferred assignment. A schedule change appeared on the draft roster. No formal explanation had been provided yet, but the department had already filled in the blanks.
One officer says the move is disciplinary. Another says it is favoritism. Someone else says the chief has been planning it for weeks. By the next morning, the issue is no longer just a staffing decision. It has become a test of trust.
This is how gossip becomes a leadership problem in a small police department.
The issue is not simply that people are talking. People will always talk. Officers will ask questions, compare notes, express frustration and try to make sense of decisions they do not yet understand. Such informal conversations are common in any workplace. The problem arises when informal talk becomes the department’s primary source of information and rumors begin to spread faster than facts.
| DOWNLOAD: 26 on 2026: A police leadership playbook
What counts as gossip?
For leadership purposes, gossip is not every conversation that happens outside the formal chain of command. In a healthy organization, employees should be able to ask questions, raise concerns and talk through change. Supervisors should be careful not to label every concern as gossip simply because it is uncomfortable to hear.
A rumor is unverified information moving through the organization. Speculation is an attempt to explain something when facts are incomplete. Gossip becomes more damaging when the conversation turns inaccurate, personal, confidential or corrosive.
There is a difference between: “What do we know about the new schedule?” and “I heard they changed the schedule because they are trying to push someone out.”
There is a difference between: “Has anyone explained why that assignment changed?” and “She only got that assignment because she is friends with the lieutenant.”
The first examples reflect uncertainty and a desire for information. The second examples assign motive, spread speculation and invite distrust before the facts are known.
That distinction is important for supervisors. A leader who treats every question as gossip will lose credibility. But a leader who ignores damaging gossip may allow it to become the agency’s unofficial communication system.
Why small departments are vulnerable
Small departments are especially vulnerable because proximity changes everything.
In a small agency, decisions rarely feel abstract. A schedule change affects someone everyone knows. A promotion process may involve friends, longtime coworkers or officers who have competed for the same opportunities. A disciplinary matter may involve someone who has backed others on calls for years. A change in assignment may be interpreted through years of relationships, frustrations, loyalties or old conflicts.
That closeness can be one of the greatest strengths of a small department. Officers know one another. Supervisors know who is struggling. People step up for one another without being asked. The department can feel less like a large bureaucracy and more like a close team. But that same closeness can also make ordinary management decisions feel personal.
Small departments have fewer buffers. In a larger agency, a rumor may stay within one squad, unit or bureau. In a small department, the same rumor can move from roll call to text messages to the parking lot to the next shift before leadership has issued a clear update.
By the time a supervisor addresses it, the rumor may already feel like fact.
The smaller the organization, the faster people notice change. They notice who was called into an office, who is suddenly absent, who received an assignment, who did not attend a meeting and who seemed unhappy. When leaders do not explain what can appropriately be explained, employees will often create their own explanation.
That explanation may be wrong, but it can still shape morale.
When informal talk replaces trusted communication
The strongest warning sign is not that officers are talking. The warning sign is that officers trust the rumor mill more than they trust the formal communication coming from supervisors. That does not happen overnight. It usually develops slowly.
Employees may first begin saying, “I heard…” more often than they ask, “Can you clarify?” Concerns may reach supervisors only after the rumor has already circulated through the department. Leaders may find themselves correcting misinformation more often than explaining decisions.
Routine management actions may start being interpreted as favoritism, punishment or hidden agendas. Different shifts may begin operating with different versions of the same story. Confidential matters may be hinted at, guessed about or discussed by people who have no legitimate role in the issue.
Another warning sign is when employees stop asking questions directly. They may believe the “real answer” will come from coworkers, not supervisors. They may avoid the chain of command because they assume leadership will not tell them the truth, will retaliate or will dismiss the concern.
A supervisor may hear, “Everyone is talking about it,” but no one has raised the concern through the appropriate channel. At that point, gossip is no longer background noise. It has become a competing communication system.
Rumors thrive in silence
When leaders do not communicate, employees will still try to make sense of what is happening. If they do not receive timely information from a trusted source, they will rely on whatever information is available. That may include partial facts, assumptions, personal interpretations or secondhand accounts. This does not mean leaders should share confidential information. They should not. Personnel matters, internal investigations, medical issues, discipline and sensitive operational decisions must be protected.
But confidentiality is not the same as silence.
A supervisor may not be able to explain every detail of a situation, but they can often say something:
- “I know there are questions about this. I cannot discuss personnel details, but I can tell you the matter is being handled through the appropriate process.”
- “We are reviewing the schedule and will provide an update by Friday.”
Those statements may not answer every question, but they reduce the space where rumors grow. They also demonstrate that leadership is aware, engaged and willing to communicate within appropriate boundaries.
In a small department, silence is rarely neutral. Employees may read silence as avoidance, secrecy, favoritism or indecision. Even when none of that is true, the perception can damage trust.
Gossip is often treated as a morale issue, but in policing, it can become operational. When rumor-driven communication erodes trust, officers may become less willing to bring concerns forward, accept feedback, believe supervisors will handle problems fairly or have confidence in leadership decisions. In a small department, that loss of trust can affect an entire shift.
Warning signs for supervisors
Supervisors should pay attention to patterns, not isolated comments. An officer asking a question is not the problem. A team repeatedly relying on speculation instead of direct communication is the problem.
Warning signs include:
- Officers frequently begin conversations with “I heard” or “everyone is saying.”
- Routine decisions are quickly interpreted as personal, punitive or political.
- Different shifts have different understandings of the same issue.
- Employees avoid asking supervisors for clarification.
- Confidential matters become the subject of hints, guesses or side conversations.
- Supervisors spend more time undoing misinformation than communicating facts.
- Employees believe the “real story” comes from coworkers, not leadership.
These signs do not always mean employees are acting maliciously. Often, they mean the organization has a communication gap. But if leaders ignore the pattern, the gap will be filled by speculation.
How leaders can out-communicate the rumor cycle
The answer is not to overreact. Leaders who try to control every conversation will usually make the problem worse. Heavy-handed responses can make employees feel watched, silenced or punished for asking questions. That only drives the conversation further underground. The better approach is to treat gossip as both a communication issue and an accountability issue.
First, ask whether the rumor is filling an information vacuum. Has leadership communicated what can appropriately be shared? Has the timeline been explained? Do employees know who will provide updates? If not, the first response should be communication, not discipline.
Second, communicate early, even when the answer is incomplete. Leaders often wait until they have every detail, especially when the issue involves personnel, discipline, scheduling, staffing or an operational change. But in a small department, waiting too long can create more harm. A partial but appropriate update is often better than silence: “We are reviewing this issue and will provide an update by the end of the week.”
Third, correct misinformation quickly. A short clarification can prevent a rumor from becoming accepted as fact. A supervisor may not be able to explain every detail, but they can still say, “I cannot discuss individual personnel matters, but I want to clarify that the rumors circulating are not accurate.”
Fourth, keep supervisors aligned. Inconsistent messaging can create its own rumor cycle. Command staff should decide what can be shared, what cannot be shared, who needs to know first, what supervisors should say if asked and when the next update will be provided. This does not require overcommunication. It requires disciplined communication.
Fifth, route concerns back to the appropriate level. If an officer has a question about a schedule, assignment or policy, the supervisor should encourage the officer to ask directly rather than work the issue through the parking lot or group text.
Finally, close the feedback loop. One reason gossip grows is that employees sometimes believe raising concerns does not matter. They ask a question and never hear back. They raise an issue and see no follow-up. When that happens, informal talk becomes the place where people process frustration. Closing the loop does not require leaders to grant every request or explain every confidential detail. It does require acknowledging concerns, explaining what can be explained and following up when action has been taken.
Employees may not always like the answer, but silence is usually worse.
Supervisory boundaries matter
Small departments often pride themselves on being close. That closeness can be healthy, but supervisors must still maintain boundaries.
A supervisor can be approachable without becoming part of the rumor mill. A supervisor can listen without validating speculation. A supervisor can support an employee without sharing confidential information or casually criticizing leadership decisions.
Supervisors set the tone by how they respond to informal talk. If they participate in speculation, employees will assume speculation is acceptable. If they casually discuss confidential matters, employees will do the same. If they complain about command decisions in front of subordinates, they should not be surprised when trust in the chain of command declines.
A useful response is:
“I hear your concern. Let’s separate what we know from what we are assuming.”
Or:
“That is not something we should speculate about. If there is information that can be shared, it will be shared through the appropriate channel.”
Or:
“Bring that concern to me directly. I would rather address it than have it circulate without facts.”
Those responses do not shut people down. They redirect the conversation back to professionalism.
Culture is built in the gaps
Gossip often grows in the gap between what employees notice and what leadership explains. In small departments, those gaps are visible. If leadership does not provide appropriate communication, the organization will create its own explanation. That explanation may be wrong, but it will still shape morale.
In small departments, gossip is not small. It can affect trust, supervision, retention, morale and operational cohesion. Leaders do not need to disclose everything, but they do need to communicate enough to maintain trust, reduce speculation and reinforce professional expectations. When leaders communicate clearly and consistently, they give the organization something stronger than gossip to rely on: facts, expectations and confidence in the chain of command.
About the author
Robin Shusko, Ed.D., is the Chief of Campus Police and Director of Public Safety at Frederick Community College. With prior law enforcement experience, she leads department strategy and operations, compliance and multi-agency coordination in support of campus safety and emergency preparedness.
Her practitioner-scholar work focuses on safety culture, leadership and training effectiveness in higher education. Robin presents at regional and national conferences and contributes to professional publications on public safety leadership, governance and campus readiness.
