We examine how the prevalence of gossip about peers' performance (peer performance gossip), a form of informal communication, influences employees' performance manipulation. Gossip is often viewed as a mechanism that disciplines behavior and deters misconduct. Yet, it may also serve as a salient cue of social evaluation, heightening employees' concerns about appearing incompetent to others. We predict that the prevalence of peer performance gossip increases employees' fear of negative social evaluation, which in turn leads them to inflate their reported performance to protect their social image. We further predict that this effect is weaker for employees with higher self‐monitoring, as they are more adept at tailoring their behavior to social cues and managing impressions. Data from two field surveys and an experiment support our predictions. Peer performance gossip increases performance manipulation by heightening social image concerns, particularly among employees with lower self‐monitoring. We contribute to the accounting literature by uncovering a social motive for performance manipulation and highlighting how informal social dynamics can shape reporting behavior beyond formal control systems. Accordingly, leaders should explicitly consider gossip when designing compensation systems, training programs, and internal communication practices. If left unaddressed, gossip may encourage performance manipulation and distort performance evaluations.

We use a sample of banks from 24 European countries to investigate whether the adoption of the Basel II Capital Accord in 2008 affects the market valuation of discretionary loan loss provisions (DLLPs). Although Basel II lowers the incentives of internal ratings-based (IRB) banks to recognize income-increasing DLLPs in an opportunistic manner, it has no such impact on the remaining banks, which adopt the Standardized methodology. We use this setup in a difference-in-difference (DiD) design, where Standardized banks act as a control group. Our evidence supports the three hypotheses that, for IRB relative to Standardized banks, Basel II is associated with (i) less income-increasing DLLPs and (ii) less income-smoothing via DLLPs, which enhances the informational content of DLLPs about future loan losses and leads to (iii) higher market valuation of DLLPs. Our findings are timely and have policy implications for future regulatory developments in the banking industry.