You Don’t Have an Imposter Syndrome Problem — You Have a Feedback Problem
Imposter syndrome is often framed as an internal problem — a lack of confidence, a tendency to doubt one’s own ability, or a feeling of being a fraud despite evidence to the contrary. The solutions offered tend to follow the same logic: build confidence, reframe your thinking, recognise your achievements. But this framing assumes the problem sits entirely within the individual. In many workplaces, that assumption is wrong.
The problem with reassurance
Most organisations believe they give feedback. In reality, they give reassurance. Phrases like “you’re doing well”, “no concerns”, or “keep going” are common, and they are often intended to be supportive. However, they lack clarity. They do not explain what is working, why it is effective, or what should be refined. Without that detail, they are not actionable. They are feedback without information.
What fills the gap
In the absence of clear feedback, people fill in the gaps themselves. For some, those gaps are easy to ignore. For others, they are not. I am diagnosed with ADHD and autism, both at the more extreme end of clinical scales. That means I do not treat ambiguity as background noise — I process it. When feedback is vague, it does not reassure me. It creates uncertainty. If everything is described as ‘fine’, then the underlying question remains: what does good actually look like?
How uncertainty becomes self-doubt
What is often labelled as imposter syndrome is frequently a rational response to unclear systems. If expectations are implied rather than stated, or communicated inconsistently, then performance becomes difficult to measure accurately. You cannot confidently assess your own work if the criteria are unclear. As a result, people compensate — by over-preparing, double-checking, and searching for patterns in feedback that has not been fully articulated. This is not a lack of ability. It is a lack of visibility.
High performance, low certainty
Get Mitzi Danielson-Kaslik’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This dynamic creates a particular kind of worker: highly capable and highly diligent, but internally uncertain. From the outside, performance appears strong. From the inside, it feels fragile. Confidence is not being built on clear, structured feedback, but on interpretation — and interpretation is inherently unstable.
Why this matters for neurodiversity
For neurodivergent individuals, this effect is intensified. When communication is indirect, socially coded, or reliant on tone rather than content, it requires additional processing. That processing takes energy. Instead of directing that energy fully into the work itself, part of it is diverted into decoding feedback, checking assumptions, and managing uncertainty. Over time, that is not just inefficient — it is exhausting.
The role of the workplace
It is easy to position imposter syndrome as something individuals need to overcome. It is more accurate to recognise the role of the environment. If a workplace does not define what good looks like, does not provide specific and actionable feedback, and relies on reassurance instead of clarity, then uncertainty is not a personal failing — it is a structural outcome.
What better looks like
Improvement does not require complex intervention. It requires precision. Feedback should be specific, actionable, and grounded in examples. Expectations should be explicit rather than implied. When people understand what is working and what needs refinement, performance becomes more consistent and confidence becomes more stable.
Final thought
You may not have an imposter syndrome problem. You may have a visibility problem. If you are performing well but remain unsure whether you are meeting expectations, that uncertainty is not irrational — it is a signal. When workplaces expect confidence without providing clarity, the issue is not the individual. It is the system.
