Gaslighting is increasingly common in professional environments, particularly in fast-moving workplaces where conversations happen quickly and decisions are rarely revisited. It doesn’t usually appear as overt manipulation. It shows up as language that introduces just enough ambiguity to create doubt.
It often sounds like this:
“That’s not quite what I said.”
“You may be remembering it differently.”
“We didn’t fully agree on that.”
“Let’s not get stuck on wording.”
On their own, these statements can seem reasonable. Repeated over time, they are not. Their effect is to shift attention away from what was said or decided and onto your interpretation of it.
Gaslighting works through unresolved ambiguity.
Psychologist Dr. Robin Stern, author of The Gaslight Effect, explains that gaslighting depends on uncertainty being left unaddressed. One person introduces ambiguity; the other is left questioning their understanding. In workplaces where conversations move quickly and clarity isn’t consistently restored, doubt is allowed to take root.
This is why gaslighting is more prevalent at work than many people realize. Professional settings rely heavily on verbal communication, hierarchy, and speed. Clarifying every interaction isn’t always practical, and questioning language can feel professionally risky. Over time, uncertainty is internalized.
The impact is cumulative. Many women experience mental fatigue that doesn’t match workload, difficulty concentrating, hesitation around decisions they once made easily, or a quiet erosion of confidence. This is often mislabeled as stress or burnout, when the real issue is sustained psychological friction.
What Helps
Gaslighting loses power when ambiguity is reduced.
Document key decisions briefly and factually.
Confirm agreements in writing after meetings.
Notice patterns, not isolated remarks.
Check perspective with one trusted colleague to recalibrate.
You don’t need to confront every instance. You need structure that limits ambiguity.
You’re not imagining it. When confusion appears consistently in one environment—but not others—that is information. It points to a communication problem in the system, not a personal shortcoming.
