From this story, the term gaslighting entered the cultural lexicon. Today it describes a form of psychological distortion in which someone is pressured to doubt their understanding of events. It has travelled beyond the domestic sphere and into workplaces, boardrooms and institutions. Organisational gaslighting has become a quiet but consequential behaviour that shapes trust, culture and reputation. Many leaders may not recognise it as such. 

Where Organisational Gaslighting begins

Gaslighting in the workplace frequently appears in small moments. A decision justified one day is denied the next. A repeated issue is minimised until it is reframed as a performance concern. An inconsistency is attributed to confusion rather than incomplete information. Individually, these incidents may appear minor. Together, they alter how employees interpret both leadership and the institution.

Research in organisational psychology describes this as institutional incoherence, in which the official narrative no longer aligns with lived experience. HR expert Sara Nawaz summarises the effect clearly, noting that “gaslighting at work is a form of manipulation that twists your reality, memory or perception. It can make you second guess yourself, dismiss your achievements and feel anxious or overly apologetic.” This is not simply interpersonal tension. It is a systemic distortion of communication.

The dynamic also mirrors mechanisms seen in digital environments. The Center for Countering Digital Hate observes that harmful online narratives work by amplifying distortions that gradually reshape how people interpret events. Their analysis focuses on algorithmic systems, yet the underlying mechanism is the same. Repetition, contradiction and selective truth-telling alter perception over time.

How organisations slip into gaslighting

Most gaslighting is not intentional. It develops through everyday habits that prioritise convenience over accuracy. Leaders under pressure reinterpret past decisions to justify present actions. Teams soften difficult truths to avoid conflict. Communications are drafted to maintain harmony rather than reflect complexity.

A recent report by The Pulse Business, based on conversations with PR leaders, highlights this pattern. Participants noted increasing pressure “to compromise facts, deflect criticism, deny reality, or shift blame.” These pressures rarely begin as deception. They stem from the institutional desire for defensible narratives rather than transparent ones.

Common behaviours include:

• denying previous statements or commitments
• reframing cultural concerns as isolated misunderstandings
• dismissing feedback as oversensitivity
• introducing new narratives without acknowledging contradictions
• attributing systemic issues to personal failings

These patterns generate uncertainty. Employees begin to question what is true. Some withdraw from decision making. Others become reluctant to speak. What may appear to leadership as disengagement is often a form of psychological retreat from an environment where truth feels negotiable.

Leadership consultant Jeffrey Jacobs captures the effect bluntly. “Gaslighting is one of the most damaging tools used by toxic and narcissistic leaders. It is a long-term manipulation strategy designed to make you distrust your memory, your instincts and even your sanity.” Inside organisations, it need not be narcissistic to be damaging. Once selective memory or narrative control becomes normalised, it spreads quickly across teams and decision-making forums.

Why organisations fail to recognise it

Organisations often struggle to identify gaslighting because it resembles ordinary communication challenges. Leaders interpret it as misalignment or unclear messaging. They respond with more meetings, revised guidelines or updated communication channels. Yet the underlying problem is not information flow. It is information validity.

When facts can change without acknowledgement, communication tools cannot resolve the deeper issue. Institutions also tend to prefer explanations that preserve harmony. Naming manipulative communication patterns requires admitting that culture and governance have diverged. That recognition arrives slowly and often only after staff morale declines or turnover increases.

Trust erosion as reputational risk

Trust depends on consistency. Research from Deloitte shows that reputation has become a top global business risk. Internally, distorted communication weakens psychological safety and reduces the range of perspectives reaching leadership. Externally, credibility suffers when public narratives contradict internal reality. Employees notice when stated values do not match practice. This values’ gap is one of the most significant drivers of mistrust. When the gap widens, reputational risk rises.

Ethics consultant Mary Beth West captures the professional tension precisely. “Organizational gaslighting behaviours are simply inconsistent with PR industry ethics codes.” 

Consultant Vino Govender says that “gaslighting in the workplace is the silent destroyer of confidence. Small but intentional distortions of reality slowly make the victim question their own competence, memory and worth.” Together, these reflections underline that gaslighting is not a cultural inconvenience. It is a structural vulnerability.

Where PR teams become involved

Communications professionals often face pressure to tidy narratives before issues are resolved. Messaging may be drafted to reassure stakeholders rather than address underlying concerns. Structural problems are reframed as misperceptions. Leadership asks for narratives that restore confidence without confronting complexity.

Most PR teams do not set out to distort reality. They respond to organisational demands for certainty and cohesion. Yet when messaging diverges from lived experience, communications become complicit in the pattern and the reputational risk intensifies.

PR leaders are uniquely placed to interrupt this behaviour and protect organisational credibility.

They can:

• request evidence before endorsing narratives
• highlight contradictions early and transparently
• integrate employee sentiment into strategic discussions
• encourage leaders to acknowledge previous statements when circumstances change
• frame honesty as a strategic asset rather than a reputational threat
• challenge attempts to retrospectively rewrite events
• champion communication standards that maintain internal clarity

The task is not to create perfect narratives. It is to create accurate ones.

Gaslighting cannot survive in an era shaped by transparency, digital scrutiny and empowered employees. Organisations that rely on narrative control over truth undermine their own decision making. Those that confront issues directly become more resilient.

Communicators have a central role in this shift. They can help leaders replace ambiguity with clarity and preference with reality. In doing so, they protect not only reputation but also the organisational coherence upon which trust depends.

Curzon PR is a London-based PR firm working with clients globally. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our Business Development Team info@curzonpr.com