Gaslighting: Bosses who instil fear in staff inspire false loyalty

In one of our Silicon Savannah Nairobi tech firms, new CEO Kamau gathered his executive team for their quarterly strategy session.

The firm struggled through several roadblocks recently and it proved clear to many on the team that Mr Kamau’s push for aggressive expansion into foreign markets lay fraught with risks and uncertainties.

However, despite whispered concerns in the hallways and quiet side discussions, no one dared to speak up when it mattered.

In the meeting room, harmony prevailed. Instead of debate, his executives nodded in agreement as Mr Kamau outlined his grand yet unachievable plans.

Later, several team members shared their fears with one another, but sadly not the most important conversation that should have taken place with their own leader.

Fear and futility were clearly at play and permeated every aspect in life at the tech firm. Although some executives longed to voice concerns, they shrunk down and held back.

Many worried they would damage their standing in the team or, worse, get a reputation as disloyal to the new CEO’s vision. Even though the group operated as a close-knit team, there existed no honest exchange of ideas when it counted most.

Mr Kamau’s history of gaslighting staff since his joining the firm stifled psychological safety. Like many in high-stakes meetings, team members doubted whether raising their hands would truly make a difference.

Fear of rocking the boat and the futility of assuming their concerns would be brushed aside silenced their voices.

Organisational psychologist Adam Grant as well as researcher Constantinos Coutifaris address the dangers of such situations in leadership.

Groupthink, once thought to arise purely from social cohesion and a desire to maintain harmony, is now better understood as rooted in fear and the perception of futility.

The researchers argue that when team members feel unsafe or believe their input will not be valued, they will often choose to remain silent rather than risk potential backlash.

The issue is not that people are simply too comfortable with each other, but rather that they question the utility and safety of expressing dissent. Here in Kenya, our leading firms call the phenomenon a lack of psychological safety.

According to the research, leaders often unintentionally send signals that discourage dissent. Many assume psychological safety revolves around overt discrimination or harassment. But more often, even little snide comments, calculated frowns of displeasure, sighs of exasperation, etc.

The lesson for leaders, including those in corporate settings, is clear that by unintentionally implying that their minds are set in stone through signaling, gestures, or speech, they make it difficult for their teams to feel comfortable raising concerns or suggesting alternatives.

On the contrary, strong effective leaders should openly express doubts, admit mistakes, or actively criticise their own actions to send a message that they value truth and feedback.

Employees, when faced with leadership dynamics like this, you need to carefully choose when and how to raise concerns.

Rather than waiting for the perfect moment, workers can use private one-on-one settings to share their honest opinions or present evidence-backed alternatives.

The key lies in approaching the issue diplomatically and demonstrating how dissent can benefit the organisation.

Often, framing feedback as a way to enhance the company’s outcomes, rather than opposing leadership decisions, can open the door for more productive discussions.

But if the CEO or executive will not yield, then it is time to search for alternative employment.

On the other hand, at the manager-level, they can take actionable steps to encourage open feedback from their teams. By openly admitting when they make errors or welcoming feedback from employees, they can foster an environment where honesty feels safe.

Leaders like Mr Kamau could gather their teams in informal settings and ask for honest critiques about recent decisions, creating a space where team members can voice concerns without fear of consequences.

Regularly reviewing decisions together and highlighting lessons learned can cultivate a culture of continuous learning and improvement.

Human resources departments, including training managers, can recognise the subtle signs of groupthink and cultivate open communication should be a priority.

Incorporating groupthink awareness into leadership development programmes can help ensure that managers are equipped to lead their teams effectively.

HR professionals can also establish anonymous feedback systems, ensuring that employees feel comfortable expressing concerns without fear of reprisal.

Ultimately, equipping managers to value dissent, rather than punish it, can help drive better decision-making and foster a more resilient organisation.

In summary, in our fast-paced Kenyan business climate, fostering open communication and encouraging honest feedback can spell the difference between success and failure.

Leaders who embrace dissent, actively seek input, and create a safe space for employees to share concerns will build stronger, more adaptable teams.

By addressing the fear and futility that often stifles voices, companies can make better decisions and drive lasting growth.

Have a management or leadership issue, question, or challenge? Reach out to Dr. Scott through @ScottProfessor on X or on email [email protected]