The topic of gaslighting in professional settings, particularly in the context of health and safety, is highly relevant and often overlooked. The term “gaslighting” was introduced in the 1960s to describe psychological manipulation intended to instill doubt in the victim’s objective perception of reality. This manipulation can lead to a serious drop in confidence and morale, especially in dangerous safety-critical environments. As noted by Robin Stern in “The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life,” recognizing these tactics is essential for anyone in a leadership position.
Every safety manager has probably faced this unsettling phenomenon at some point. This is how gaslighting can lead to serious issues in the workplace. Let me give you three examples.
- In the first scenario, a safety manager halts work on a scaffolding due to a safety violation. Later, a supervisor arrives and hears the crew claim that nothing was wrong.
- Secondly, a worker engages in dangerously risky behavior, but the safety manager, pressed for time, fails to document the violation. Later, that worker argues to a disciplinary committee that there exists a personal conflict between himself and the safety manager and accuses the manager of lying.
- Thirdly, a worker is reprimanded for not wearing a safety harness while working up high. That worker then counters that they were wearing proper safety equipment, but the safety manager was too far away to properly see the situation.
These kinds of experiences can really shake a safety manager's confidence and reputation. In my experience, many EHS managers see their roles not just as jobs, but as a mission to protect lives. When they encounter dishonest behavior, it can be disheartening and lead to frustration with their profession.
As noted by Paige L. Sweet in “The Sociology of Gaslighting” (American Sociological Review, 2019,) when abusers successfully make victims feel “crazy,” victims become especially vulnerable to institutional abuse and are less likely to rely on institutional support.
Recognize differences in self-perception
Understanding the internal struggles and justifications of those who violate safety protocols can help managers respond more calmly and effectively in these situations. Dale Carnegie, in his book “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” highlights that many individuals, even those incarcerated in places like Sing Sing Prison, do not perceive themselves as bad people; rather, they rationalize their actions with elaborate justifications. This insight serves as a reminder that if notorious criminals can manipulate their self-perception, ordinary employees might also twist the truth when confronted with violations of safety protocols. Recognizing this tendency is crucial for safety managers. When conducting safety interventions, it’s important to create an environment where employees do not feel cornered into defending themselves at all costs.
Documentation is another vital tool for safety managers. Keeping a camera on hand to document any violations can be invaluable. When incidents arise, meticulous records of interactions with potential gaslighters become essential. This means preserving emails and avoiding one-on-one conversations without witnesses, thereby ensuring there is a clear account of events should disputes arise.
Communication plays a significant role in managing the emotional toll of gaslighting. Safety managers should feel empowered to share their experiences and feelings with trusted colleagues or friends. Often, navigating tricky situations within a company can take time, and discussing these challenges can provide new perspectives and emotional relief. It’s important not to take the situation personally. Engaging in open dialogue can clarify feelings and foster resilience.
Additionally, reaching out for support from higher management or ethics officers is essential when conflicts arise. Even if a safety manager feels they’ve addressed an issue, it is vital to ensure that upper management is aware of any gaslighting attempts. This awareness allows for informed decision-making should similar situations emerge in the future.
A culture devoid of blame
Leadership also has a critical role in this dynamic. Creating a supportive environment is paramount. When workers believe that conflicts could result in job loss or significant penalties, they are more likely to defend themselves aggressively. Thus, cultivating a culture devoid of blame is essential. Most safety violations should be viewed as indicators of systemic issues rather than personal failures. When breaches occur, investigations should focus on systemic flaws rather than individual mistakes.
Training initiatives can further empower employees. Organizing workshops that educate staff about recognizing manipulative behaviors promotes a safer workplace. Bringing in external trainers or facilitating team discussions on ethical dilemmas encourages an open sharing of insights, enriching the collective understanding of these issues.
Monitoring the team's well-being is equally important. Leaders should remain vigilant to early signs of distress within a team. Regular meetings can provide a platform for team members to voice their feelings and concerns.
In cases where gaslighting is identified, it is crucial for leaders to support the affected employees. Let your employee know that the investigation is a natural process in such a situation, not an act of distrust.
Finally, intervention is key. When signs of gaslighting are evident, it’s imperative for leadership to step in, investigating the situation thoroughly to ensure all parties are heard and treated with fairness.
Real-life example
Let’s take a look at a real-life situation. A new safety manager was out on the site. He spotted two workers strolling right down the middle of the roadway instead of using the designated pedestrian path. He waved from the walkway and politely asked them to move. The workers ignored him and kept walking. So, he snapped a photo, and went back to the office. He identified them and issued fines for the safety violation.
The workers then approached management, and claimed they were just crossing the road to reach the pedestrian path and that they hadn’t really heard him. To clarify the situation, a committee was formed. The still image made it unclear. Were the workers walking down the middle of the road or simply crossing from one side to the other? Plus, while there was a policy for docking pay, it was usually for more serious violations. Since the new manager wasn’t aware of this policy, the committee suggested that he reconsider his decision and rescind the fines.
While it’s likely the workers violated safety protocols and then tried to cover it up. They were given an extra knowledge check instead of a penalty. This reassures them that their employer trusts the safety manager’s expertise and helps bolster his reputation. The committee's presence adds an element of impartiality to the review. Reviewing procedures before the check reinforces everyone’s understanding. After successfully passing the knowledge check, the workers provide feedback, suggesting that the safety manager introduce himself next time he addresses the employees. He took this advice to heart.
In the future, the company moved away from fines for safety violations and instead they adopted safety talks that provided both useful information and constructive criticism.
This case illustrates several critical aspects of interaction within an organization, especially regarding safety:
- Manager’s behavior: The new manager showed initiative, which is positive; however, his approach was ineffective. He failed to introduce himself and did not ensure clear communication with the workers, leading to a misunderstanding and then to gaslighting.
- Workers’ response: Their reaction to the manager's request indicates a lack of awareness regarding safety rules and suggests they may not take such remarks seriously. However, their attempt to deflect responsibility raises questions about their attitude toward safety.
- Committee and resolution: Forming a committee to address the situation was the right decision. It demonstrated a commitment to fairness and care for the manager's reputation, which is essential for building trust within the team.
- Feedback: The employees' recommendation that the manager to introduce himself emphasizes the importance of effective communication and building trusting relationships.
- Training and coaching: The initiative to conduct knowledge assessments and shift to a coaching approach instead of penalties represents a positive outcome. This enhances the safety culture and allows employees to improve their skills without fear of punishment.
The scenarios discussed throughout this article serve as poignant reminders of the challenges safety managers face. They underline the need for well-defined protocols and robust support systems at all levels.
Remain vigilant against gaslighting
In conclusion, protecting against gaslighting in occupational safety is not just a managerial responsibility; it is a critical issue that requires the active involvement of both safety managers and organizational leadership. By prioritizing clear communication, fostering a supportive workplace culture, and investing in employee training, organizations can create an environment where manipulation is less likely to thrive.
Safety managers play a vital role in this endeavor. They must remain vigilant during their observations and interactions, ensuring thorough documentation to counteract any potential gaslighting attempts.
Ultimately, building a safety culture characterized by open collaboration and transparency is essential. When employees feel heard and respected, they are more likely to engage positively with safety initiatives. A successful safety program hinges on mutual respect and understanding, enhancing not only the safety of the workplace, but also the overall morale and well-being of the entire organization. By recognizing and addressing the complexities of gaslighting, we can foster a healthier, safer and more resilient work environment for everyone involved.
