Helping employees reinterpret reality collaboratively
Contrary to popular belief, gaslighting is not about lying.
It is about collaboratively recalibrating another person’s confidence in his own perception of events.
But the term itself has earned such a poor reputation, ever since the 1944 movie adaptation of of Patrick Hamilton’s play, with the original title, Gas Light, two words later fused into one by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Editor’s note
An earlier British rendition in 1940, directed by Thorold Dickinson and starring Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard, psychologically darker and – some say, artistically superior – was quickly forgotten, eclipsed by the much bigger Hollywood budget, star power (Ingrid Bergman’s prestige), visually luxurious sets and international distribution of the later American production.
Readers familiar with corporate environments may recognise the pattern.
Narrative HarmonisationTM (Advanced Leadership Module)
So, continues Charlotte, it boils down to harmonisation of the narrative. Perception alignment. Memory recalibration. Stakeholder reality management.
One of the greatest misconceptions amongst junior professionals is the quaint belief that workplace reality is objective.
It is not.
Workplace reality is simply the version endorsed by the largest meeting invite.
If an employee says, “I was never trained,” avoid contradiction. Contradictions invite discussion. Instead say, “I’m sorry you feel unsupported.”
The issue is no longer whether training occured, but whether the employee’s feelings are proportionate.
The advanced practitioner never denies observable reality outright. Amateur gaslighters say, “That never happened.”
Professionals say, “I think there may have been a misunderstanding around expectations.”
Gaslighting is not primarily about deception. It is about exhaustion.
The objective is not to make someone believe you. Merely to make them too tired to continue disagreeing.
Charlotte cites some case studies: Case Study 1 – The Vanishing Conversation
Consider the inexperienced employee who says, “You told me last Thursday that the report was not urgent.”
An amateur manager might panic at this point. The experienced practitioner simply pauses and says, “I think perhaps you may have inferred a level of flexibility that was never explicitly intended.”
Observe what has happened.
The employee is no longer defending the original conversation.
He is now defending his interpretation of the conversation.
Case Study 2 – The Performance Improvement Journey
Employees frequently become attached to objective measurements of performance. This attachment can become unhealthy.
For example:
“But my KPIs were exceeded.”
A dangerous statement: KPIs measure output. Modern leadership measures alignment. One might therefore respond, “Performance concerns were never solely about deliverables.”
Note the elegance.
The employee cannot disprove a criterion that was never previously defined.
Case Study 3 – Training & Induction
Occasionally, an employee may produce documentary evidence demonstrating that no onboarding or training was provided.
Do not become defensive.
Defensiveness implies accountability.
Instead say, “We encourage self-directed learning in this organisation.”
The absence of support is now repositioned as empowerment.
Alternatively, more confident practitioners – and only those operating at very advanced levels (please refer to my Premium Gaslighting Course for Elite Altitude Students, details in the Appendices) – may choose to meet this head on, with, “That’s not what the documentation says.”
Never forget: The purpose of documentation is not merely to record events. It is to outlive recollection.
Case Study 4 – The Witness Problem
Difficulties occasionally arise when a conversation has witnesses.
Junior practitioners often assume this limits strategic flexibility. In fact, it merely expands the stakeholder management exercise.
Most witnesses do not remember events clearly. They remember atmospheres.
Accordingly, the calmest participant usually inherits credibility.
Case Study 5 – The Meeting Follow-Up Email
Always follow verbal conversations with a carefully worded summary email.
Not to document reality.
To establish it.
For example, “Further to our constructive discussion today, we agreed on several development areas and a pathway forward.”
You then proceed to record your preferred version of events, carefully omitting any contradictory remarks, uncertainties, objections or emotional reactions that may have occurred during the actual exchange.
Observe the craftsmanship.
The phrase “we agreed” performs extraordinary labour.
No agreement need actually have taken place.
The wording merely establishes the atmosphere of consensus.
This is important because most organisational disputes are not resolved by determining what occurred.
They are resolved by determining which participant appears calmer, more reasonable, and more professionally documented.
A follow-up email sent within seven minutes of the meeting is therefore vastly more authoritative than human memory.
Especially distressed human memory.
Junior practitioners often worry that the recipient may disagree with the summary.
This concern is understandable, but naïve.
Most employees are too shocked, exhausted, or professionally isolated to challenge a written version of events immediately after a difficult meeting.
By the following morning, the narrative has already begun hardening into process.
Editor’s note
Readers may observe that Charlotte speaks of written communication with almost religious reverence.
This is because, in many organisations, the first documented version of events rapidly becomes the official one — particularly when authored by the more senior participant.
Leave a comment