BETTER THAN THIS — Article 6 of 9
This is the sixth article in the Better Than This series on toxic workplace cultures — what they are, how they work, and what actually helps. New to the series? Start with Article 1: The Workplace That Wears You Down →
You left the meeting confused. Not about the agenda — about what actually happened. A decision was made. You were there. You heard it clearly. And yet an hour later you’re being told it was never agreed to, that you misunderstood, that you always do this.
So you go back over it. Replaying the exchange, looking for the place where you got it wrong. Maybe you did misunderstand. Maybe your memory isn’t as reliable as you thought. Maybe it really is you.
If that loop feels familiar — the self-interrogation, the slow erosion of trust in your own perception — you are not alone. Experiences like this have been increasingly studied within workplace and organizational research, particularly in relation to psychological manipulation, shame, and toxic leadership dynamics.
What Gaslighting Actually Is
The term comes from the 1938 play Gas Light, in which a husband systematically manipulates his wife into doubting her own perception — dimming the gas lights and insisting she is imagining the change. The concept has since expanded into discussions of workplace and organizational behavior.
In workplace contexts, gaslighting generally refers to repeated patterns of communication or behavior that cause someone to question their perception, memory, interpretation of events, or judgment over time (Patel & Bhatt, 2025; Popat & Pandey, 2026). The defining feature is not ordinary disagreement, poor communication, or inconsistent leadership. It is the repeated distortion, denial, or reframing of observable experiences in ways that gradually erode a person’s confidence in their own understanding of reality.
That distinction matters. Gaslighting is not a single disagreement, forgotten conversation, or management mistake. It is a pattern that develops over time and often becomes recognizable only in hindsight.
In some cases, these dynamics are deliberate and manipulative. In others, they may emerge through defensiveness, conflict avoidance, poor self-awareness, or organizational cultures where accountability is weak and perception management is prioritized over clarity. The impact, however, can still be significant regardless of intent.
The Toxic Leadership Connection
Colonel George Reed, whose research on toxic leadership at the U.S. Army War College became influential far beyond military settings, observed that toxic leadership is rarely defined by one dramatic behavior. It is more often identified through the cumulative impact of demotivating behaviors on organizational climate over time (Reed, 2004).
Gaslighting dynamics fit within that broader framework. In the moment, they often appear subtle: a conversation reframed after the fact, a concern dismissed as misunderstanding, a person’s recollection repeatedly questioned with enough confidence that they begin questioning themselves.
Over time, however, repeated reality distortion can affect psychological safety, trust, and team functioning. Reed also noted that toxic leaders may continue advancing within organizations because short-term results are often more visible and measurable than the slower cultural consequences experienced by the people around them (Reed, 2004).
What It Looks Like at Work
Workplace gaslighting rarely announces itself clearly. More often, it develops through repeated patterns that gradually destabilize someone’s confidence in their own perception.
Some common examples include:
Denial of documented or witnessed events.
A conversation happened. A commitment was made. When the person later references it, they are told it never occurred, that they misunderstood, or that they are remembering it incorrectly. Over time, they may begin relying less on their own memory and interpretation.
Minimization and dismissal.
A concern is raised and immediately reduced: you are being too sensitive, that is not a big deal, everyone else seems fine. The effect is not simply disagreement — it is the suggestion that the person’s interpretation itself is unreliable or disproportionate.
Reframing expectations after the fact.
Expectations or standards shift without acknowledgment that they changed. When confusion is raised, the revision is presented as though it had always been clear. The issue is not merely inconsistency; it is the denial that inconsistency occurred.
Selective exclusion and confusion.
Information is withheld or conversations occur without key participants present, and the resulting confusion is later treated as evidence of incompetence or poor judgment. The individual is left attempting to reconcile incomplete information with criticism that feels difficult to fully explain or defend against.
Isolation and triangulation.
Others are invoked to reinforce a narrative: everyone else sees it this way, the whole team has noticed, you are the only one struggling with this. Whether intentional or not, these dynamics can intensify self-doubt and make it feel risky to seek outside perspective or validation.
Emerging research suggests that workplace gaslighting is associated with higher levels of psychological distress, burnout, reduced self-efficacy, and turnover intention among employees (Katsiroumpa et al., 2025; Moisoglou et al., 2025).
Why It Is So Hard to Name
One of the most disorienting aspects of workplace gaslighting is how effectively it interferes with a person’s ability to confidently identify what is happening.
Brené Brown’s work on shame is relevant here. Brown describes shame as the painful experience of believing we are fundamentally flawed or unworthy of connection, and she identifies blame as one common response to discomfort and vulnerability (Brown, 2010). In gaslighting environments, blame and shame can begin reinforcing one another: the person experiencing the behavior is repeatedly positioned as the source of the problem, which can gradually erode the self-trust needed to challenge or even clearly name what is happening.
This dynamic also connects to the nervous system patterns explored in Article 4: The Nervous System at Work. Chronic exposure to uncertainty, contradiction, or persistent interpersonal threat can contribute to ongoing stress activation. And when people are operating from a dysregulated or highly stressed state, access to perspective, confidence, and clear self-assessment may become more difficult. Over time, the confusion created by the environment can begin reinforcing the confusion already taking hold internally.
Research on Adverse Work Experiences similarly points to the cumulative impact of chronic, lower-level workplace stressors that may not individually appear dramatic or formally reportable, but can still significantly affect psychological wellbeing and functioning over time (DeKay, 2022).
The Identity Cost
Gaslighting in the workplace does not just affect how people interpret individual interactions. Over time, it can begin shaping how they understand themselves.
When an environment repeatedly communicates that your memory is unreliable, your reactions are excessive, or your perception is flawed, it becomes increasingly difficult not to internalize some version of that message. Human beings calibrate their understanding of themselves partly through relationships, feedback, and social environments. When those environments repeatedly undermine self-trust, the effects can reach beyond work performance alone.
The person who once trusted their judgment and now second-guesses every decision. The person who once advocated clearly for themselves and now over-explains, apologizes preemptively, or constantly seeks reassurance before acting. These changes rarely happen all at once. More often, they emerge gradually through repeated experiences that weaken confidence in one’s own interpretation of events.
This is part of the slow erosion described earlier in this series. And it is one reason recovery from these environments often takes time. People are not only rebuilding professional confidence; they are rebuilding trust in their own perception and internal stability.
For Leaders: The Unintentional Gaslighter
Most leaders who contribute to gaslighting dynamics are probably not consciously attempting to destabilize another person’s reality. That is important to say clearly.
Sometimes these patterns emerge because a leader is conflict-avoidant and later reframes difficult conversations to reduce discomfort. Sometimes stress, pressure, or poor communication habits create inconsistency that goes unacknowledged. Sometimes defensiveness makes it difficult for a leader to tolerate feedback or admit uncertainty, causing them to minimize or reinterpret concerns rather than engage them directly.
None of this removes accountability. Harmful dynamics can exist without deliberate cruelty. At the same time, it is also important not to dismiss the reality that some workplace gaslighting is intentional and manipulative. Both realities can exist simultaneously.
Brown’s work on blame is useful here as well. She argues that blame often functions as a way of discharging discomfort rather than engaging accountability directly (Brown, 2010). Leaders who reflexively redirect confusion, minimize concerns, or externalize responsibility may not recognize the cumulative impact these patterns have on the people around them.
The question for leaders is not only whether harm was intended. It is whether there is enough self-awareness, feedback, and accountability present to recognize when harm is occurring.
Reed’s observation that organizations often reward visible short-term performance more readily than long-term cultural health remains relevant here (Reed, 2004). In environments where leadership outcomes are measured primarily through productivity or output, the interpersonal cost of leadership behavior can remain largely invisible until turnover, burnout, or trust breakdowns become difficult to ignore.
The Tools
Tool 1: The Reality Anchor Log
For individuals experiencing gaslighting or reality distortion
When an environment repeatedly undermines your perception, documentation can become a practical way to stay connected to your own experience.
After interactions that leave you questioning your memory or interpretation, write down:
- What was said or decided, as specifically as possible
- Who was present
- Your reaction in the moment, including physical or emotional responses
- What alternative version of events, if any, was later presented
Look for patterns over time rather than treating every confusing interaction as proof of gaslighting. Miscommunication happens in every workplace. The goal is not hypervigilance. It is maintaining enough clarity to recognize when confusion has become chronic and reality itself feels persistently unstable.
Tool 2: The Outside Witness
For individuals — building external reality anchors
Isolation can intensify self-doubt. When all interpretation comes from within the same environment creating confusion, perspective becomes harder to maintain.
Identify at least one trusted person outside your immediate situation — a mentor, coach, therapist, colleague, or grounded friend — and periodically reality-check with them. Not to build a case or seek constant reassurance, but to ask:
Here is what happened. Here is how I interpreted it. Does that interpretation seem reasonable to you?
That process is not weakness or instability. It is a grounded response to environments that may be gradually undermining confidence in your own perception.
Tool 3: The Consistency Check
For leaders
Gaslighting dynamics — intentional or unintentional — often cluster around a few recurring patterns. This reflection tool asks leaders to examine their own behavior honestly:
- When expectations changed, did you explicitly acknowledge the change?
- When someone raised confusion or concern, was your first response curiosity or defensiveness?
- Have you minimized someone’s reaction before fully understanding what they were experiencing?
- If someone kept a detailed record of your interactions over several months, what patterns might emerge?
These questions are uncomfortable by design. But discomfort is often where self-awareness begins.
A Few Questions Before You Go
If this article resonated with you, we invite you to participate in a short anonymous survey exploring experiences with toxic workplace dynamics. Responses directly shape the tools, resources, and future content being developed through this project.
Take the anonymous survey →Better Than This — Community Research Survey – Fill out form
Under 10 minutes. Fully anonymous.
Coming Up in This Series
- What Actually Helps: Evidence-Based Strategies for Surviving a Toxic Workplace
- For Leaders: The Accidental Bad Boss
- Finding Your Way Out: Recovery, Resilience, and What Comes Next
References
Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection: Let go of who you think you’re supposed to be and embrace who you are. Hazelden Publishing.
Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work. Tough conversations. Whole hearts. Random House.
DeKay, N. J. (2022). Adverse work experiences and the impact on workplace psychological wellbeing, workplace psychological distress, employee engagement, turnover intention, and work state conscientiousness (Doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University). Digital Commons @ SPU. https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/iop_etd/35
Katsiroumpa, A., et al. (2025). Workplace gaslighting is associated with nurses’ job burnout and turnover intention in Greece. Healthcare, 13, 1574. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13131574
Kukreja, P., & Pandey, J. (2023). Workplace gaslighting: Conceptualization, development, and validation of a scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1099485. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1099485
Moisoglou, I., et al. (2025). Workplace gaslighting: Implications for employees’ mental health and work life. Healthcare, 13, 3255. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13243255
Patel, H., & Bhatt, C. (2025). A theoretical framework for studying the phenomenon of gaslighting. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207640251338867
Popat, A., & Pandey, J. (2026). Workplace gaslighting: A construct for organizational research. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1589063. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1589063
Reed, G. E. (2004). Toxic leadership. Military Review, 84(4), 67–71.
If this is landing close to home and you want support figuring out your next step — schedule a free discovery session →