How to recognize a troubling pattern of gaslighting at work

“You're reading things into it again”

A manager changes a deadline and then denies that the earlier agreement ever applied. When an employee shows the message, she is told that she cannot understand simple communication and always creates problems. After several similar incidents, she starts checking every note she makes and avoids speaking up. This is an example of a pattern worth taking seriously, but it does not establish intent or provide a complete diagnosis of the relationship. It shows how a dispute about an event can shift into undermining a person's ability to understand reality. The term gaslighting is used widely, and sometimes too widely. Not every mistake, lie or difference of interpretation is the same mechanism. People genuinely can remember events differently. What matters is whether there is a pattern of invalidating experience, discrediting the person's reliability and exploiting an imbalance of power. If an error can be acknowledged after evidence is presented, the situation differs from one in which every piece of evidence becomes another opportunity to ridicule the person who raises it. The ability to return to a shared point of reference is important. In an ordinary misunderstanding, the parties can check a message, correct the record and agree on the current position. In a troubling pattern, a discussion of facts is repeatedly turned into a discussion of one person's alleged defects. Instead of clarifying a deadline, the response accuses them of oversensitivity, inability to understand or inventing problems. No single comment necessarily defines the entire relationship as gaslighting, but each may warrant a response as inappropriate communication. Notice whether feedback leads to correction or further undermining, and consider frequency, context and the impact on the person's ability to work. This provides a better basis for action than arguing over a popular psychological label that participants may understand differently.

The literature calls for precision

In a 2026 paper, Popat and Pandey organise definitions of gaslighting and propose a framework for organizational research. They explicitly note the limited state of the workplace literature. This is a conceptual analysis, not a meta-analysis proving one model or a ready-made test for identifying a perpetrator. The authors distinguish features of the behavior from the possible experience of the person affected by it. Popat and Pandey, 2026. Sweet examines gaslighting from a social perspective and emphasises inequality and power relations. Her research concerns a context different from ordinary office cooperation, so not all conclusions should be transferred directly. It nevertheless helps show that the ability to impose one's version of events also depends on whom others automatically regard as credible. Sweet, 2019.

Why power matters

If the person undermining someone's experience controls performance assessment, access to information or team relationships, challenging their version can carry a cost. An employee may know what happened yet fear that nobody will take their account seriously. In our example, the problem is not only a difference in memory about a deadline. It is also the message that presenting evidence itself demonstrates incompetence. This prevents the dispute from being resolved simply by checking the facts. Do not assume, however, that every forceful defense of a position is planned manipulation. People may become defensive, feel ashamed of an error or fail to understand the effect of their words. Establishing intent requires more evidence. For action, it is often enough to name the behavior: denying a documented agreement, belittling someone personally or punishing questions. You need not prove the entire psychological mechanism before expecting inappropriate treatment to stop. Power may also come from control of the shared narrative. The person chairing a meeting decides what enters the minutes, while someone with strong informal standing can more easily persuade others to accept their account. Pay attention to whether corrections can be raised and how they are handled. If minutes misstate an agreement, an employee should be able to identify the discrepancy without personal disparagement. This does not mean every proposed correction must be accepted, but it should receive a substantive response. Repeated undermining may call for joint confirmation of decisions or the presence of an appropriate person during an important conversation. The choice depends on conditions and safety. Documentation should not be presented as a guarantee that the problem will end or that a person who consistently rejects evidence will be persuaded.

How to find a firm footing in the facts

Confirm important arrangements briefly: the scope of the task, deadline and responsibility. If a discrepancy later arises, return to the specific point: “In Tuesday's message we agreed on Friday. Are we now changing the deadline to Wednesday?” This does not decide who is a good person. It clarifies the decision and leaves a record of the change. Documentation must comply with access and privacy rules and need not collect information unrelated to the problem. An independent perspective also matters. A trusted person who knows the context can help separate facts from accumulating interpretations. The aim is not to recruit supporters against someone, but to reduce informational isolation. If the situation recurs, use an appropriate organizational route and provide examples. Speaking only to the person who undermines your experience may be insufficient, especially if earlier attempts led to retaliation or further belittling.

What should not be demanded of someone in this situation

The advice “just trust yourself more” can ignore the conditions of the relationship. A person needs not only confidence, but also a way to verify agreements and receive an honest response. An instruction to confront the other person immediately is not always helpful either; any action should account for professional dependency and available support. If the strain affects health or daily functioning, professional help may be an important part of regaining stability, whatever label is ultimately applied to the behavior. A supporter should avoid two extremes. Automatically confirming every interpretation can impede an accurate view, while immediately challenging the whole account can deepen isolation. It is possible to recognize that the situation is difficult while helping organise what is known. Ask about specific examples, available records and responses so far without turning the conversation into an interrogation. If a report reaches the organization, an impartial process and clarity about next steps are required. The person experiencing the undermining should not have to determine every participant's intentions alone. An accurate description of behaviours and their impact on work may be enough to trigger an appropriate response. The label is useful only when it adds precision rather than replacing fact-finding and necessary protection.

Gaslighting is not a name for every dispute about memory. Look for recurring attacks on credibility and for how facts are handled. An accurate account of events, an independent perspective and appropriate support are more useful than trying to settle an entire relationship with a single label.

Empatyzer in organising facts and questions

Empatyzer can help you prepare an account of a difficult situation and questions about specific agreements. In Talk to Em about yourself, you can separate what you remember and can point to from your interpretation of the other person's reasons. A useful outcome is a calm message referring to a date, decision or available record, together with a clear purpose for the next conversation. Em does not determine which account is true or diagnose gaslighting. Its response should not be used as evidence against a colleague or confirmation of a hidden intention. The tool can help prepare questions for an appropriate support person or an account for a formal report. A decision about direct contact should consider previous responses and the actual dependency involved. Where the burden persists, independent support, an appropriate organizational process and, when needed, help from a qualified professional remain important.