A Campaign of Undoing
“Am I losing my mind?” Maria thought for the hundredth time.
Maria’s assessments of academic merit (the faculty equivalent of performance evaluations) were positive. But Maria — an assistant professor in her third year — was beginning to worry her career was off track.
Last year, Maria was appointed to serve on her department’s curriculum committee. She saw it as an opportunity to shape the direction of the department while still a junior faculty member. Karl, the committee chair and a tenured professor, invited Maria to lead an effort to develop a new interdisciplinary class with another department. She was thrilled and dove right in.
Several months ago, before a department-wide faculty meeting, Karl pulled Maria aside and asked if she was having trouble. He said it seemed like she hadn’t been on her game lately. When she denied any problems, he just raised an eyebrow and walked into the meeting.
A few weeks later, Karl told Maria that her problems were impacting the work of the committee, so it was a good thing the department chair was so tolerant. Karl said he was sure it would work out once things settled down. Maria fired off an email apologizing to the department chair for being disorganized.
More recently, Maria asked Karl for some information to support the new course. He insisted he had already given the info to her. Later, when Maria asked if he was sure he had sent it, Karl told her that her accusatory tone was not helpful. Maria left feeling frustrated and flustered.
Last week, Maria asked Karl how she should approach the college’s Educational Policy Committee (EPC) about cross-listing the new course. Karl told her she was mistaken about her role. She was not leading it. He explained the plan all along was that a joint committee would propose the course to the EPC. Nonetheless, he said, he was sure she would continue to have an important role. Maria left confused but determined to make the best of it.
Yesterday, an opportunity to participate in a University-wide diversity initiative came up. Maria passed on the opportunity, deciding she needed to get her head in the game with this new course proposal. This evening, when Maria’s spouse asked how work was going, Maria told her that she’d rather just watch a movie together and not talk about work.
Struggling? Or a Victim of Gaslighting?
Maria’s story is a fictional account drawn from real examples. Unfortunately, her story of optimism turned sour is all too common in higher education, where power dynamics are fluid and roles regularly shift.
Maria may be simply struggling with work priorities — as most people do from time to time. However, Maria might also be the victim of a form of abuse known as “gaslighting.” Gaslighting is abusive behavior that invites targets of the abuse to question their perceptions of reality and to make themselves the problem.
Gaslighting is subtle and cumulative. And it can come from people in authority, peers or from direct reports. Gaslighting in the workplace can lead to lost productivity, a culture of mistrust and lost employees. But because it happens over time, it often slips under the radar of victims and managers alike.
In Maria’s case, none of her experiences with Karl were abusive in isolation. Yet, together, they had the effect of causing Maria to question her worth and withdraw from active participation in the life of the department and even from her marriage.
Distinguishing gaslighting from work-related stress, difficult relations, and poor communication can be difficult. The motive is often obscure. However, the distinguishing characteristic of gaslighting is the creation and use of self-doubt as a weapon.
Working Backwards To Reveal It
Because gaslighting behaviors are subtle and tailored to victims and circumstances, the best way to look for gaslighting is to look for its impact. Here are some indicators someone may be the target of gaslighting:
- She second-guesses herself often
- She feels acutely incompetent despite earlier successes
- She feels a need to “prove” herself by working harder
- She feels isolated from others despite previous good relations
- She avoids contribution out of a fear of being trivialized, undermined or mocked
- She constantly shifts priorities based on ever-changing demands
- She shies away from opportunities
- She avoids or deflects conversations about work with family and friends
The next step is to identify a possible source. Gaslighting involves regular interactions over a period of time. To work (from the gaslighter’s perspective), it also requires the target trust the gaslighter. As a result, someone who openly competes with the target, or who has no ability to affect her work, or whom the target believes is full of crap is probably not gaslighting that person.
Look for a pattern of interactions with one person that seems to be tied to the indicators seen. Someone who believes she may be a victim of gaslighting could ask a trusted colleague or friend about one or more of the indicators. The question should be phrased in a way that does not imply the conclusion that the person is being gaslighted.
For example, in Maria’s case, she might say to a trusted fellow faculty member: “I’m doing a self-assessment covering the last six months. How would you describe my level of decisiveness over that period? How would you describe my ability to focus? How has my level of service (professional or volunteer work) been?”
Then, analyze communications involving the person who seems to be at the focal point. Often, gaslighters strive to deflect negative attention from themselves and onto colleagues groomed to accept it. So, does the potential gaslighter often try to deflect criticism? Does the potential gaslighter suggest incompetence in non-confrontational ways, perhaps softening the blow with vague encouragement or compliments?
Finding a nexus between indicators and communications is not proof that a particular person is intentionally gaslighting you. But it does provide a starting point to change the dynamic.
A Better Light
Gaslighting is an insidious and even deceptive behavior. It is difficult to prove and even harder to discuss. The good news is, regardless of whether it is proven or discussed, it always fails without the target’s implicit consent. Once a person becomes aware it may be occurring, that person also unlocks the power to neutralize its effects.
It is not necessary to stop gaslighting behaviors to end their effects; improving thought processes that allow implanted self-doubt to take root will neutralize gaslighting. After neutralizing the gaslighting, the target has the option (though not the obligation) to take steps to stop it.
Note that in the example above, university leaders may have a greater interest than Maria in knowing whether Karl intended to undermine Maria’s confidence because they have an obligation to protect faculty members from deliberate, systematic abuse. Maria, on the other hand, may simply want to avoid the impact of it.
Start with Thoughts
Gaslighting essentially tricks victims into delegating how they feel about their own competence to the gaslighter. To cancel that de facto delegation, victims should broaden their perspective to recall what success looks like outside the gaslighter’s span of control.
First, a gaslighting victim should recall instances of being in the “flow” during professional and volunteer pursuits. In the example above, Maria might focus upon successful research projects, or upon work with a non-profit organization or professional association.
Next, even if the gaslighting target feels she cannot trust other sources (gaslighters often encourage distrust in others to reinforce their abuse), she can push herself to ask others for opinions about things that are the subject of potential gaslighting. She should take care to avoid asking for second opinions about the gaslighter’s statements, however.
For example, in the scenario above, Maria might ask another member of the curriculum committee what they understand to be the process for presenting the new course to the EPC. Or, she might ask another faculty member for an opinion about her recordkeeping abilities.
In hearing that other people perceive things in their own way and not necessarily as the gaslighter portrays them, the gaslighting target will gain greater trust in her own perceptions. This is a logical extension of the process undertaken to identify gaslighting initially.
Another way for a gaslighting victim to rebuild trust in her perceptions is to write in a workplace journal for a period of time. Record significant tasks undertaken, interactions related to those tasks, and feelings around these interactions. The workplace journal should include interactions with the potential gaslighter and others — comparative data can help identify a source.
Remembering past work successes, seeking a range of opinions about things perceived, and keeping a workplace journal will fortify feelings of competence in the face of gaslighting. With greater awareness and confidence, a gaslighting victim can then mindfully choose a response. It may be enough simply not to react. Or, the gaslighting victim may want to take further steps to stop the behavior.
Stopping the Behavior
There are essentially three ways to challenge gaslighting behaviors: complain, confront and reframe. The path with the greatest possibilities for long-term success (though perhaps the hardest to start) is reframing.
Reframing works like this: 1) observe the behavior; 2) identify the behavior; 3) separate the underlying issue; and 4) invite discussion about both separately.
Returning to the example of Maria talking to Karl about presenting a new course to the EPC, Maria would observe to herself that Karl appears to have employed two gaslighting techniques. First, he said she was mistaken about her leadership role. Second, he said there had been a plan “all along” and implied she should have been aware of it.
These statements were collateral to telling Maria how she might approach the EPC (the underlying issue she asked about). Please note these comments by Karl appear to be gaslighting to Maria in the context of earlier discussions. Correcting someone’s perception is not necessarily gaslighting per se.
For Maria, the statements simply reflect what Karl implies Maria should think about herself — that she is confused and has been for a while. They are not relevant to her underlying issue which is, “what are the next steps I should take to move the new course forward with the EPC?”
With gaslighting statements distinguished from the underlying issue, Maria can approach Karl and ask to talk about a couple of things. She can explain that she wants to talk about how they have been communicating without reaching a common understanding; and second, she can ask to talk about what the plan should be in regard to presenting the new course to the EPC.
Distinguishing these two issues with Karl allows Maria to demonstrate she is aware of potential gaslighting without accusing him. By refusing to conflate her perceptions with the issues, Maria sends a message to Karl that gaslighting will not work. It also avoids even more gaslighting about gaslighting.
In a nutshell, reframing allows Maria to get on with what she needs to do: see the course proposal through to completion. If she decides to take further action to stop the behaviors, she can do so from a place of confidence in her work and not from defensiveness.
Another option is to make a complaint. This approach has the advantage of engaging someone with the power to impose consequences. However, because an allegation of psychological abuse is serious and complex, the person receiving the complaint may need to investigate further. Because gaslighting is not illegal, administrators will need to identify a specific policy or policies that have been violated.
Depending upon an administrator’s relationship with the suspected gaslighter, there may be a tendency to downplay a complaint that does not align with their perceptions. A workplace journal as discussed above can help overcome skepticism and move an investigation along.
Be aware an investigation can be disruptive and time-consuming. There may be a tendency for people in the department to feel like they have to “take sides.” That said, depending upon the egregiousness of the behavior and the strength of the evidence, it may be worthwhile to put leaders on notice.
Another option to stop gaslighting behavior is to confront the gaslighter. Depending upon power dynamics and the gaslighting target’s self-confidence, it may be appropriate to give the potential gaslighter an opportunity to address the issue directly.
Be ready, though, for further gaslighting. Confronting someone with potential gaslighting may provide an opportunity for the gaslighter to challenge the target’s perceptions (e.g., “you’re being irrational”). Seeking assistance from a neutral third party to facilitate the discussion may help.