Avoid trauma and drama and build trust by training HR teams to recognise DARVO language when they use it
While many HR professionals are deeply committed to supporting employees, the data shows a complex reality: trust in HR is uneven. Only about a quarter to a third of employees report high levels of trust in HR, and even when they say they do trust HR, many still feel uncomfortable speaking up or believe HR may favour senior staff.
Understanding the environment
Recognising these trends isn’t about assuming ill intent; it’s about understanding the environment in which many employees find themselves and the gap that often exists between intention and perception. HR sometimes struggles with its image, and not all HR professionals engage in manipulative or harmful practices. Most care about employee well-being and strive to handle difficult situations with integrity and fairness, even though their primary loyalty is to the leadership team of the organisation.
The reality is that many are not trained to deal with the nuance required by grievance procedures. Without this proper training, communication patterns can emerge, leaving employees disappointed or even traumatised.
The language we now refer to as DARVO wasfirst coined by Jennifer Freyd in 1997. It can emerge consciously as a premeditated tactic to minimise the situation to protect the organisation. Or it can be unconscious because the HR professionals don’t know any better because they haven’t been trained. Either way the damage is the same;
Listen to the Podcast with Nicki Eyre Founder – Conduct Change and Anti-Bullying Campaigner
DARVO tactics appear in HR Communications
1. Deny, Minimising or invalidating the issue
Typical practices:
- Dismissing the reported behaviour as probably a “misunderstanding” or “not serious”
- Questioning the timing or validity of the complaint
- Re-framing the incident as something else (e.g., “normal workplace conflict which happens everywhere”)
Common phrases:
- “Are you sure that’s really what happened.”
- “No one else has had a problem with them.”
- “Do you think you might be overreacting?”
- “We have no record of any previous issues.”
- “That’s just how they communicate.”
2. Attack: Undermining the complainant
Typical practices:
- Criticising the complainant’s tone, performance, or behaviour instead of addressing the complaint
- Using “character assassination” subtly (e.g., questioning their professionalism)
- Treating the person as a troublemaker or liability
Common phrases:
- “You seem to be very emotional about this.”
- “This isn’t a constructive way to handle conflict.”
- “We’ve had concerns about your attitude before.”
- “You might be misinterpreting things because of personal issues.”
- “You’re being confrontational.”
3. Reverse Victim and Offender: Flipping the narrative
Typical practices:
- Framing the accused person or company as the one harmed
- Positioning the complainant as “creating problems” or “hurting morale”
- Pressuring the complainant to apologise, reconsider making a complaint or “ to make peace”
Common phrases:
- “This has really impacted the team, including the person you’re accusing.”
- “They feel targeted by your complaint.”
- “You’re damaging the company’s reputation.”
- “Your actions could be considered harassment, too.”
- “You should try to understand their perspective.”
4. Deflection disguised as “Neutrality”
Typical practices:
- Saying “we have to stay neutral”, but applying pressure on the complainant
- Over-emphasising “policy” to delay or dilute action
- Pushing for informal resolutions that benefit the company
Common phrases:
- “We can’t take sides.”
- “Let’s keep this informal for now.”
- “Filing a formal complaint could make things harder for everyone.”
- “This will take a long time to investigate.”
- “We want to protect both parties equally.”
5. Procedural DARVO. Using process as a shield
Typical practices:
- Claiming insufficient evidence prematurely
- Deliberately misapplying or misinterpreting company policy
- Flooding the complainant with procedural hurdles
Common phrases:
- “Without hard proof, there’s nothing we can do.”
- “You should have reported this sooner.”
- “Our policy doesn’t cover that situation.”
- “That’s not the correct way to file a complaint.”
- “It’s out of our hands now.”
6. Gaslighting / Reality Erosion
Typical practices:
- Rewriting the timeline of events
- Implying the complainant is confused or misremembering
- Overloading them with contradictory statements
Common phrases:
- “That’s not what was said in the meeting.”
- “We already talked about this and you agreed.”
- “No one else remembers it that way.”
- “This seems inconsistent with your previous statements.”
- “You might be misinterpreting their intentions.”
Tips if you experience DARVO tactics with HR
- Document dates, times, and exact phrases used.
- Communicate in writing whenever possible (email rather than verbal.)
- Bring a trusted witness or union rep to meetings.
- Ask clarifying questions (“Can you put that in writing?” is powerful).
- Know your company’s grievance or reporting procedures, and external options (e.g., legal or regulatory bodies if applicable).
When trust in HR breaks down, so does your culture. DARVO tactics, conscious or not, erode psychological safety, increase risk, and damage retention.
👉 Equip your HR managers with the skills to respond ethically and effectively.
🔸 Visit our resource hub to train your teams, build trust, and create safer workplaces where employees feel heard, not silenced.
👉 For individuals who have experienced DARVO language when they report grievances to HR- we can support you.
