Anyone can experience adversarial behavior at work, but when adversarial behavior occurs between members of the leadership team, it can have severe consequences. Initially, these behaviors may manifest as attempts to suppress or obstruct an executive’s actions. However, they can escalate to more serious levels resulting in serious personal and professional consequences for the targeted executive.

Adversarial behaviors can take various forms. We interviewed a group of retired and transitioning S&P 500 executives who identified three common types of adversarial behavior: 1) One retired C-level executive explained how they faced public intimidation through humiliation from the head of a business unit because they were implementing corporate initiatives that had a negative impact on the unit. 2) Another C-level executive faced a boycott. The executive was being ignored and left off meeting invites where critical decisions were made. Their contributions were actively undermined, dismissed and even silenced. 3) One executive encountered sabotage. Someone within their organization reported them to the ethics hotline wrongly accusing them of giving cash to a vendor. During the investigation, it became clear to the executive that someone was trying to distance them from the project and discredit them in the eyes of the decision-making executive.

Each of these scenarios is only a facet of adversarial behavior. In fact, when facing adversarial behavior something much worse could be happening in the shadows—corporate gaslighting. Corporate gaslighting is a tactic used to sow doubt and undermine an executive’s credibility among their peers and influential stakeholders, masking adversarial behavior.

Unlike traditional gaslighting, where an individual tries to make another person doubt their own perceptions, corporate gaslighting creates a negative narrative to convince an entire organization, team, or structure to doubt an executive’s performance and role. This not only aims to destroy their professional reputation but also erodes their executive confidence. In addition to spreading negative narrative and exhibiting adversarial behavior on their victim, the perpetrator will use other techniques to deny and reverse their victim’s position. They can deflect confrontation, distort and downplay the severity of their actions. Ultimately, they shift the victim-offender dynamic by scapegoating, using political influence for self-preservation.

Because corporate gaslighting occurs in stages, sometimes the victim doesn’t even realize it is happening. They may feel the effects but may not completely understand what is happening or the severity of the situation.

However, if an executive does nothing against these dysfunctional behaviors, they may regret not acting. Here are three actions that some targeted executives have implemented successfully.

Focus on the Right Problem

As corporate gaslighting progresses in stages, the victim may become preoccupied with defending against adversarial behavior, often failing to notice that a negative narrative is starting to take root.

A CIO from a S&P 500 global technology company noted:

“I was so stuck in the adversarial behavior that I missed how the negative narrative around me was taking me down. I could feel it, but I could not grasp it. If I had the clarity I have today I would have focused on countering the narrative rather than combating the adversarial behavior.”

The executives we interviewed said that recognizing the problem is difficult, especially if experiencing it for the first time.

They recommended looking for “smoke”—signs such as patterns, perception, and reputation. Where there is smoke, there is likely fire. If there is fire, then adversarial behavior is just the smoke, not the real issue.

Questions that executives can ask themselves to help determine if they risk corporate gaslighting include.

• Is the behavior consistent over time? Does the behavior occur under similar circumstances repeatedly?

• What do neutral third parties within the company say about it? Is there consensus regarding whether the behavior seems deliberate?

• What is the person’s track record regarding similar behavior? Have they been previously disciplined or reported for similar actions?

Respond Strategically and Prepare Your Coalition

Responding to adversarial behavior is a nuanced decision that requires careful consideration of the impact on corporate values and personal principles.

Reflecting on past experiences, several executives we spoke with shared valuable insights highlighting the importance of timing: “If I had waited a couple of days, the political outcome would have been better,” one noted. Another executive admitted, “I thought I had more support than I did. After addressing it, I realized I didn’t”—underscoring the need to accurately gauge support before taking action. A common theme emerged around the pitfalls of impulsive decisions with one leader candidly stating, “Reacting so quickly was a mistake on my part.”

While values provide the rationale for action, relying solely on values can easily backfire. To decide when and how to act, it is important to test the approach and build a strong coalition.

However, until the coalition is built, it is wise to buy some time. According to all the executives we spoke with, each executive had their own strategies:

• Hold private conversations: Engage in one-on-one or small group discussions with your current coalition to discuss your stance and gather feedback on responding to the negative narrative.

• Discuss hypotheticals with mentors: Consult with trusted mentors about hypothetical scenarios and potential political repercussions of addressing the behavior and how to do so.

• Seek positive narratives and endorsements: Ask allies to highlight your positive narrative and secure smaller, easily publicized endorsements within the corporation to build a positive reputation.

Develop a Positive Counter Narrative

The only productive way to counter corporate gaslighting is to create a positive narrative based on concrete facts and figures that can be leveraged in all levels of the organization—above and below, as well as with peers. This means learning to preemptively script a fact-based diplomatic deflection when faced with a negative narrative.

One CTO from a global S&P 500 technology company, who was battling the narrative that they couldn’t handle the C-suite pressure, used a five-step process for diplomatic deflection, which involved shifting the focus from the concern to the solution:

1. Acknowledged the concern by saying: “Handling the pressures at the C-suite level is indeed demanding, and it’s natural to have reservations about someone’s readiness for that environment.”

2. Reframed the narrative: “My primary focus is not just managing pressure but generating concrete results. That’s where I consistently direct my efforts.”

3. Highlighted the achievements: “Delivering (e.g., the market expansion or business optimization) and driving (e.g., revenue growth or market share increase) is my main concern, which is why you can already see our teams delivering (e.g., increased quarterly profits, enhanced customer satisfaction scores and improved operational efficiency).”

4. Refocused on results: “Leadership in high-pressure environments demands a result-oriented approach.”

5. Reinforced commitment to the business: “While every executive has their own approach, my commitment is to corporate performance.”

In some cases, leaving the company may ultimately be the best option, especially when corporate gaslighting is ingrained in the culture. Adversarial behaviors are doorways to corporate gaslighting and doing nothing is not an option. As business leaders, it is crucial to identify, respond and counteract such threats to protect your reputation and career, and those of which you are leading.