Gaslighting Project Teams

To gaslight other people is to manipulate them so effectively that they doubt not only their own perceptions of their circumstances but also their recollections of past events. [APA 2023.3] The term comes from the title of a 1938 play and two films of the 1940s, in which an unfaithful husband convinces his wife of his fidelity by causing her to reject her own observations. In its original usage, the term gaslight implies that perpetrator and target are in an intimate romantic relationship.

In recent years, however, the term's usage has broadened. I use the term in this post to apply in any relationship, including workplace relationships unrelated to romance. At work, the tactic is usually employed with a single individual as target, but gaslighting can also serve to manipulate any workgroup, from teams to entire enterprises.

In contexts in which perpetrators have formal power over their targets, such as the supervisor/subordinate relationship at work, perpetrators can abuse their power in order to carry out the gaslighting. Perpetrators can suppress targets' objections, compel statements of support, and even redirect organizational resources to advance their objectives. And targets have few options to defend themselves.

Independent thought and faith in the evidence of one's own observations are among the best protections against gaslighting. These abilities are therefore early targets of perpetrators. One consequence of being "gaslighted" is gradual loss of the ability to notice the gaslighting. The target of an effective gaslighting campaign actually abandons previously held beliefs about reality, and adopts the views the perpetrator repeatedly asserts.

Indicators of gaslighting campaigns at work

Defense against a gaslighting campaign begins with noticing the indicators of gaslighting. Perhaps In contexts in which perpetrators have formal
power over their targets, such as the supervisor-
subordinate relationship at work, perpetrators
can abuse their power to effect the gaslightingthe most direct indicators of a gaslighting campaign are the perpetrator's own words. Below is a collection of statements and phrases perpetrators might use in their efforts to coerce their targets to reject their own observations and judgments in favor of the perpetrator's views of reality. The elements of this collection are meant to represent what we might hear in the context of a project sponsor or senior manager giving direction to a project team.

• That risk you're concerned about just will never happen. We don't need to plan for it.
• That deadline isn't tight. Meeting it will be no problem if you're clever about how you do things.
• Changing that requirement will have little to no impact. I'm sure you can find a way to accommodate the change without causing any delays.
• If you can't easily accommodate this change, you probably should have anticipated the possibility a bit better, wouldn't you agree?
• I need to borrow Jan for a special assignment for just three days. That won't kill you.
• I never said that the customer wanted X. I said they inquired about it, that's all.
• This confusion is embarrassing for us all. From now on, I'll be the one to talk to the customer. If you need any info from them, let me know and I'll take care of it.
• I know they said they wanted X, but Y does almost exactly the same thing. Try adapting Y.
• I'm not asking you to work harder. I'm asking you to work smarter.
• If the customer wants that too, then that's what we have to do.
• These problems are all traceable to Alpha's bad decisions, but now that Alpha is finally gone, you can straighten everything out, OK?
• You're being a perfectionist. Just make it work.
• I know it's not the way you'd like it, but we can easily fix it in version 2.0.
• I got you a one-week extension, which is more than enough if you put your mind to it.
• We don't need to make it do X, because the customer doesn't really need it. Just tell her.
• I'm sure you can finish on time because I have faith in you.
• You're being panicky, that's really no problem at all.
• Don't make a big deal out of this. Just get it done.

Last words

Certainly there are other indicators of gaslighting beyond the perpetrator's own words. Policy is a realm worth monitoring carefully. For example, policies that limit access to information or contact with organizational elements beyond the team are among perpetrator favorites. Awareness is the first level of defense.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Cognitive Biases at Work:

How to Get Overwhelmed

Here's a field manual for those who want to get overwhelmed by all the work they have to do. If you're already overwhelmed, it might explain how things got that way.

Barriers to Accepting Truth: II

When we work to resolve differences of opinion at work, we often depend on informing each other of what we believe to be real facts. At times, to our surprise, our debate partners reject these offerings as untrue, even when they're confirmed authoritatively. Why? And what can we do about it?

Workplace Politics and Social Exclusion: II

In workplace politics, social exclusion can be based on the professional role of the target, the organizational role of the target, or personal attributes of the target. Each kind has its own effects. Each requires specific responses.

Seven Planning Pitfalls: III

We usually attribute departures from plan to poor execution, or to "poor planning." But one cause of plan ineffectiveness is the way we think when we set about devising plans. Three cognitive biases that can play roles are the so-called Magical Number 7, the Ambiguity Effect, and the Planning Fallacy.

Bad Trouble: Coping strategies

When Bad Trouble develops at work people make choices about coping. If they cope constructively, they have choices about how to do that. Even those who don't cope constructively have choices. Here's a survey of the wide range of choices people make.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info