And How to Get it Back
Leadership gaslighting—when well-meaning leaders unintentionally sow self-doubt and mistrust—is a subtle but corrosive issue. Explore its psychological roots, organizational enablers, long-term impacts, and research-backed strategies to rebuild trust and foster transparent, thriving workplaces.
The Quiet Erosion of Trust
The term “gaslighting” has saturated modern discourse, appearing in social media rants, workplace grievances, and casual conversations. Its overuse, however, has diluted its gravity. Too often, any disagreement, discomfort, or assertion of authority is mislabeled as gaslighting, obscuring a serious issue.
True gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that causes people to question their memory, perception, or sanity.
In leadership, it’s not just intentional deceit that’s dangerous—it’s the unintentional distortion that erodes trust in ways that are profoundly difficult to repair.
When leaders—even those with good intentions—distort reality, they create workplaces marked by confusion, self-doubt, and silence. Employees stop speaking up, suppress their instincts, and lose confidence in their judgment.
This isn’t merely a personal failing—it’s a cultural one, with cascading effects on morale, productivity, innovation, and retention. Left unchecked, leadership gaslighting can transform vibrant teams into disoriented, disengaged groups, undermining the very goals leaders strive to achieve.
This article delves deeply into the mechanics of leadership gaslighting, unpacks why empathetic leaders fall into this trap, examines systemic enablers, and explores its long-term consequences. Backed by recent research, it offers practical, actionable strategies for leaders and organizations to repair trust, prevent recurrence, and build transparent, psychologically safe cultures.
By addressing this issue head-on, leaders can transform their teams from uncertain to empowered, fostering environments where every voice is valued.
What Is Leadership Gaslighting?
Gaslighting is not a catch-all for poor communication, hurt feelings, or differing opinions.
Psychologically, it’s a pattern of manipulation where someone distorts facts, rewrites history, or invalidates another person’s experience, often to maintain control—whether consciously or not. The result is a loss of self-trust in the person being gaslit, who may feel confused, isolated, or “crazy.”
In leadership, gaslighting takes subtler, often socially acceptable forms due to workplace norms and power dynamics. Common behaviors include:
- Revising history: Claiming a conversation or decision never happened, leaving employees doubting their recall.
- Denying agreements: Contradicting private commitments in public, making employees feel they “misunderstood.”
- Invalidating emotions: Dismissing valid concerns with phrases like “You’re overreacting” or “You’re too sensitive,” even when feedback is calm and reasoned.
- Deflecting accountability: Using “I don’t recall” or “That’s not what I said” to sidestep responsibility, especially when evidence suggests otherwise.
- Blaming the messenger: Framing feedback as a personal flaw (“You’re not seeing the big picture”) rather than engaging with the issue.
Gaslighting doesn’t require malice. It thrives on plausible deniability, confident delivery, and the trust employees naturally place in their leaders.
The inherent power imbalance in workplaces amplifies its impact—employees may hesitate to challenge a leader, fearing repercussions or further self-doubt.
A Real-World Case: Witnessing Gaslighting in Action
Several years ago, I supervised a mid-level leader managing a small, high-performing team in a fast-paced tech firm. He was polished, strategic, and well-regarded—at least on paper. But over time, I noticed unease among his team. Two employees approached me privately, their concerns strikingly similar:
- “I’m losing confidence in my ability to read situations.”
- “I leave meetings thinking I must have misheard everything.”
- “He says we’ve discussed things that never happened, and he’s so calm I start believing him.”
Their hesitation wasn’t dramatic or accusatory—it was cautious, almost apologetic. That raised a red flag. I began observing closely, attending meetings and tracking interactions.
In one team meeting, I saw the pattern unfold. A team member raised a concern about a project scope change, referencing a prior discussion where the leader had agreed to revisit the issue.
The leader smiled and said, “I thought we resolved that. Maybe you’re remembering it differently.” His tone was warm, almost paternal.
But it was false.
I had been in that earlier meeting—the issue hadn’t been resolved, and he had promised to follow up.
The employee blinked, hesitated, then retreated. “Oh, maybe I got it wrong,” they said, visibly deflated. The conversation moved on.
This wasn’t a one-off. The leader’s pattern—deflect, deny, distort—was subtle but consistent. He didn’t raise his voice or belittle anyone. Instead, his calm confidence made employees question themselves.
Over weeks, I saw the impact: team members stopped raising concerns, grew quieter, and second-guessed their contributions. The team’s once-vibrant energy dulled.
I confronted the leader privately: “You’re rewriting conversations in real time. It might feel like a shortcut to control, but it’s destabilizing your team. They’re not resisting you—they’re doubting themselves. That’s not leadership; it’s erosion.”
To his credit, he was stunned. He hadn’t intended harm; he saw his deflections as “smoothing things over” under pressure.
With coaching, he began owning his missteps, but the damage had been done. Rebuilding the team’s confidence took months of validating their experiences, documenting decisions, and fostering open dialogue. This case underscored how even well-meaning leaders can gaslight—and how deeply it impacts teams.
Why Good Leaders Fall Into Gaslighting
Gaslighting isn’t exclusive to manipulative or narcissistic leaders. Often, it stems from human vulnerabilities, especially in empathetic, high-performing leaders. Here’s why it happens:
- Fear of exposure: When caught off-guard or unprepared, leaders may rewrite narratives to save face. For example, saying “That’s not what I meant” when they know they misspoke, hoping to avoid embarrassment.
- Conflict avoidance: Some leaders dodge accountability by denying miscommunications rather than admitting fault, believing it preserves team harmony.
- Stress and overload: Under pressure, leaders may dismiss concerns or revise history to keep projects moving, not realizing the long-term cost to trust.
- Unconscious bias: Leaders may assume their perspective is “correct,” dismissing others’ experiences as less valid without intending harm. This can be particularly pronounced when leaders hold privileged identities (e.g., male, white, neurotypical) and fail to recognize systemic inequities in how credibility is assigned.
- Cultural conditioning: In hierarchical organizations, leaders are often rewarded for projecting certainty, which can lead to doubling down on distortions rather than admitting uncertainty.
- Lack of self-awareness: Many leaders don’t recognize their defensive habits, especially if they’ve never received candid feedback about their impact.
These behaviors often start as defensive reflexes—a way to protect credibility, manage stress, or maintain control. But over time, they train teams to self-censor, disengage, and distrust their instincts. The irony? Leaders who gaslight unintentionally may genuinely value their teams but undermine them through habits they don’t recognize.
Systemic Factors: How Organizations Enable Gaslighting
Beyond individual behaviors, organizational structures can enable or exacerbate gaslighting. These systemic factors create environments where distortions thrive:
- High-pressure cultures: Organizations that prioritize results over process often reward leaders who “manage up” by deflecting blame or rewriting narratives. A 2023 study in Human Resource Management found that performance-driven cultures increase defensive behaviors in leaders, including gaslighting.
- Weak accountability: When leaders face little pushback—due to hierarchical structures or fear of retaliation—gaslighting goes unchecked. The Frontiers in Psychology study (2021) noted this is common in organizations with centralized power.
- Lack of documentation: Ambiguity about decisions or agreements creates fertile ground for distortions. Without meeting notes or shared records, leaders can more easily deny or reframe conversations.
- Toxic positivity: Cultures that discourage “negativity” or conflict can pressure leaders to dismiss valid concerns, framing them as overreactions to maintain an upbeat facade.
- Insufficient training: Many organizations fail to equip leaders with emotional intelligence, active listening, or conflict-resolution skills, leaving them to rely on defensive tactics under stress.
- Inequitable power dynamics: Gaslighting disproportionately harms marginalized employees, whose perspectives are often dismissed as “overly emotional” or “unrealistic.” A 2024 study in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion found that women and people of color report higher rates of workplace gaslighting, exacerbating feelings of exclusion.
Addressing gaslighting requires tackling these systemic issues alongside individual behaviors. Organizations must prioritize transparency, accountability, and inclusivity to prevent distortions from taking root.
Research Insights: The Psychology of Workplace Gaslighting
Recent research illuminates the mechanisms, prevalence, and consequences of gaslighting in workplaces, revealing systemic trends that demand attention:
- A 2021 study in Frontiers in Psychology surveyed 1,200 employees across industries like tech, finance, and healthcare, finding that gaslighting behaviors are significantly more prevalent in high-pressure organizations with weak accountability structures. The study used a mixed-methods approach, combining employee self-reports with manager interviews, and identified that leaders under intense performance scrutiny are 40% more likely to distort or deny past communications to maintain control. This behavior was most common in environments with centralized decision-making, where employees felt unable to challenge distortions without risking their careers. The implication? Organizations must implement robust feedback mechanisms and transparent decision logs to curb these tendencies.
- A 2022 article in Organizational Dynamics conducted a qualitative analysis of 50 workplace case studies, concluding that even unintentional gaslighting can mimic the effects of emotional abuse over time. The researchers found that repeated exposure to reality distortion—such as leaders denying agreements or invalidating concerns—leads to chronic self-doubt, with 65% of affected employees reporting symptoms akin to anxiety or depression. This effect is amplified in “low-voice” cultures, where employees fear retaliation for speaking up, resulting in up to 20% higher turnover rates in such environments.
- A 2023 study in Journal of Applied Psychology focused on emotional intelligence (EQ) and gaslighting, surveying 800 employees and their managers. It found that high-EQ employees—those skilled at perceiving emotional cues—are 50% more likely to notice gaslighting early due to their sensitivity to discrepancies between words and actions. However, these employees often internalize the resulting confusion, with 70% reporting feelings of self-doubt or inadequacy rather than confronting the leader. This internalization leads to a 15% drop in job performance and a 25% increase in stress-related absenteeism, highlighting the need for psychological safety to empower high-EQ workers to address distortions.
- A 2024 meta-analysis in The Leadership Quarterly synthesized data from 30 studies, identifying a strong correlation between gaslighting and “defensive impression management,” a leadership trait where individuals prioritize image over authenticity. The analysis found that leaders exhibiting this trait—often charismatic and well-liked—are 30% more likely to engage in gaslighting behaviors under stress, particularly in organizations that reward polish over vulnerability. These leaders may not intend harm but use distortions to maintain an aura of competence, with 60% of surveyed employees reporting reduced trust in such leaders over time.
- A 2025 study in Work and Stress explored gaslighting’s role in “workplace imposter syndrome,” surveying 2,500 employees across diverse industries. It found that gaslighting increases imposter syndrome by 35%, as employees internalize self-doubt and question their competence despite objective achievements. The study noted a pronounced effect in diverse teams, with 40% of women and 45% of people of color reporting gaslighting-related imposter feelings compared to 20% of white men. This contributes to burnout, with affected employees showing a 30% higher likelihood of reporting exhaustion or disengagement.
- A 2025 report from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) analyzed organizational data from 200 companies, finding that gaslighting behaviors correlate with a 30% increase in employee disengagement. This disengagement translates to an estimated $450–550 billion in annual productivity losses in the U.S. alone, driven by reduced collaboration, innovation, and retention. The report emphasized that organizations with low psychological safety—where gaslighting thrives—see a 25% higher rate of voluntary turnover among high performers.
- A 2023 study in Personnel Psychology examined gaslighting’s impact on team dynamics, finding that teams exposed to gaslighting behaviors exhibit a 20% reduction in collaborative problem-solving and a 15% drop in creative output. The study used experimental simulations to show that gaslighting disrupts trust networks, leading to siloed communication and lower team cohesion.
- A 2024 study in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion highlighted gaslighting’s disproportionate impact on marginalized groups. Surveying 1,000 employees, it found that women (38%) and people of color (42%) report gaslighting experiences at higher rates than white men (18%). These employees are 50% more likely to feel excluded from decision-making, exacerbating DEI challenges and increasing legal risks for organizations.
- A 2025 article in Harvard Business Review synthesized global workplace data, noting that gaslighting is a growing concern in remote and hybrid work environments. The lack of face-to-face interaction and asynchronous communication increases opportunities for misrepresentations, with 30% of remote workers reporting gaslighting incidents compared to 22% in in-person settings. This underscores the need for digital documentation and clear communication protocols.
While I’ve listed many examples, this is just scratching the surface of the research. And these studies are not outliers—they represent a growing body of evidence that gaslighting is a systemic issue with measurable impacts. It derails individual well-being, team performance, and organizational outcomes, costing billions in productivity, innovation, and retention. Critically, its disproportionate harm to marginalized groups underscores the need for DEI-focused interventions to address bias in how credibility and feedback are perceived.
Long-Term Consequences: The Ripple Effects of Gaslighting
When leadership gaslighting goes unaddressed, its consequences extend beyond immediate trust erosion. Over time, it can:
- Undermine innovation: Teams that don’t trust their instincts stop taking risks or proposing new ideas, stifling creativity. A 2023 study in Creativity and Innovation Management found that psychological safety is a key predictor of innovation, and gaslighting directly erodes it.
- Increase turnover: Employees who feel gaslit are more likely to leave, especially high performers who value authenticity. SHRM’s 2025 report noted that 40% of employees who experience gaslighting actively seek new jobs within six months.
- Harm mental health: Chronic self-doubt can lead to anxiety, depression, or burnout. The Work and Stress study (2025) linked gaslighting to a 25% increase in reported workplace stress disorders.
- Damage organizational reputation: As employees share experiences on platforms like Glassdoor or X, companies known for gaslighting cultures struggle to attract talent. A 2024 LinkedIn survey found that 60% of job seekers prioritize “trustworthy leadership” when evaluating employers.
- Perpetuate inequity: Gaslighting disproportionately affects marginalized groups, reinforcing systemic biases. This can lead to lower diversity retention rates and legal risks, as employees may pursue discrimination claims.
These long-term effects highlight the urgency of addressing gaslighting proactively, both for individual well-being and organizational health.
Red Flags: Is Gaslighting Happening in Your Organization?
To identify leadership gaslighting, watch for these patterns in yourself or others:
- Frequent “misremembering” that benefits the leader: Employees recall instructions or agreements differently, but the leader’s version consistently protects their position or deflects blame.
- Deflection over dialogue: Feedback is met with dismissal (“That didn’t happen”) rather than curiosity or exploration.
- Self-doubt in employees: Team members second-guess valid concerns or hesitate to speak, even when their observations are grounded in evidence.
- Private vs. public discrepancies: Conversations held privately are reframed or denied in public, leaving employees disoriented.
- Overuse of denial: Phrases like “I never said that,” “You must have misunderstood,” or “I don’t recall” dominate, even when multiple people recall otherwise.
- Emotional exhaustion: Team members report feeling drained or anxious after interactions with the leader, a sign of the cognitive toll of navigating distortions.
- Disproportionate impact on marginalized groups: Women, people of color, or neurodivergent employees report feeling dismissed or invalidated more frequently, signaling potential bias in gaslighting behaviors.
The most telling sign? A chilling silence. When teams stop debating, questioning, or innovating, it’s often because gaslighting has eroded their confidence in their own voice.
The Path to Repair: Rebuilding Trust
If you’ve engaged in gaslighting behaviors—or you’re leading a team where trust has eroded—repair is possible with intentional, consistent effort. Here are actionable steps for leaders and organizations:
- Own it quickly and clearly: Acknowledge missteps with humility. For example: “I misrepresented that conversation. You’re right—we didn’t resolve it. Let’s revisit.” This signals you value truth over ego.
- Validate experiences: Show employees their perceptions matter. Try: “I see why you’d feel that way. Let’s walk through what happened.” Validation rebuilds confidence in employees’ reality, especially for marginalized groups.
- Pause before denying: If tempted to say “That’s not what I said,” take a breath and check your memory. Invite clarification: “Let’s make sure we’re aligned—can you share what you heard?”
- Create accountability structures: Encourage open feedback and document key decisions to reduce ambiguity. Tools like meeting summaries, shared notes, or project management software (e.g., Asana, Notion) can anchor reality and prevent disputes over “what was said.”
- Model vulnerability: Admit when you’re wrong or unclear. Saying “I missed that” or “Let’s double-check” builds trust faster than doubling down. Vulnerability invites collaboration, not chaos.
- Seek feedback proactively: Regularly ask your team, “How am I doing at hearing you?” or “Is there anything I’ve missed?” Use anonymous surveys or 360-degree feedback tools (e.g., Qualtrics, Culture Amp) to catch blind spots early.
- Invest in training: Emotional intelligence, active listening, and conflict-resolution workshops can help leaders unlearn defensive habits. Programs from the Center for Creative Leadership, Korn Ferry, or the Emotional Intelligence Network are effective for this.
- Address systemic issues: Organizations should audit their cultures for high-pressure dynamics, weak accountability, or toxic positivity. Implement policies like mandatory meeting notes, transparent decision logs, or regular “speak-up” forums to foster clarity. Conduct diversity training to address bias in how feedback is received from marginalized groups.
Practical Tools for Prevention
To prevent gaslighting, leaders and organizations can adopt these evidence-based tools:
- Decision logs: Use tools like Confluence, Google Docs, or Trello to record agreements and action items, reducing ambiguity and providing a shared source of truth.
- Feedback loops: Implement regular check-ins or pulse surveys to gauge team morale and identify trust gaps early. Tools like Culture Amp, SurveyMonkey, or Peakon can automate this process.
- Conflict resolution frameworks: Train teams in models like Nonviolent Communication (NVC) or the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument to address disagreements without defensiveness.
- Leadership coaching: Pair leaders with coaches who specialize in emotional intelligence to build self-awareness and accountability. Platforms like BetterUp or Torch offer tailored programs.
- Team charters: Create shared agreements on communication norms, such as “We document all decisions,” “We assume good intent but verify facts,” or “We amplify marginalized voices.”
- Bias audits: Regularly assess whether gaslighting disproportionately affects certain groups. Use tools like Textio or McKinsey’s Inclusive Leadership Assessment to identify and address inequities.
Gaslighting thrives in ambiguity, defensiveness, and unchecked power. Trust grows in clarity, humility, and shared reality.
Leaders and organizations that commit to these principles can transform their teams, fostering environments where people feel safe to speak, innovate, and thrive.
Final Thoughts: Clarity Over Control
Leadership isn’t about being infallible or projecting unassailable authority. It’s about presence, accountability, and creating spaces where people feel seen, heard, and valued.
Gaslighting—even when unintentional—lives in the gap between misremembering and misrepresenting. It erodes the trust that teams need to collaborate, take risks, and grow, with disproportionate harm to marginalized employees and long-term costs to organizational health.
But leaders who prioritize clarity over control can close that gap. They don’t need to rewrite reality—they build it collaboratively, saying:
- “You’re right. I got that wrong.”
- “That’s not how I recall it, but let’s check the facts.”
- “You’re not imagining things. Let’s sort this out together.”
The best leaders don’t need to be right all the time. They need to be real. By embracing vulnerability, validating experiences, and anchoring decisions in shared truth, they create cultures where trust isn’t just restored—it’s strengthened. Organizations that support these efforts with systemic changes—transparent processes, inclusive policies, and robust training—can prevent gaslighting from taking root, ensuring workplaces where every voice matters.
These don’t require malice. They thrive on confidence, deniability, and power imbalance. Over time, these subtle distortions condition employees into silence and compliance, especially those already marginalized or dismissed in organizational power dynamics.
📥 Want to build trust as a leader instead of lose it?
Download The Trust-Building Toolkit—a free, research-backed guide with 7 practical strategies and a printable trust check-in worksheet.
Explore Related Reads:
The Psychology of Toxic Leadership: How Good Cultures Get Poisoned
The Psychology of Trust: Why People Follow Some Leaders and Not Others in 2025
Leave a comment