What innovation leaders taught me about fighting Imposter Syndrome
“I should probably speak up.” The thought crossed my mind ten times as I sat paralyzed in a client meeting two months ago.
Yet there I was, scribbling down notes as I watched our client and my team ping-pong ideas off each other about a design solution that, to me, posed some risks. Rather than piping up, I kept my mouth shut. When the meeting ended, I shared my thoughts with a team member, only to be met with a comment about how I needed to “work on building my confidence.”
Valid feedback, but here’s the thing. What I’m struggling with isn’t a confidence issue; I’ve got what they call Imposter Syndrome.
Imposter Syndrome is the inability to internalize and own your successes. Put another way, it’s the feeling that you’re a fraud, that you got to where you are based on total luck, (not on merit), and that everyone around you knows it. A few examples of how it can impact you include: second guessing decisions, saying no to opportunities, and not asking for help.
Feeling like an imposter is exactly why I never spoke up in the meeting. I was afraid to articulate my opinion because I wasn’t an expert in the subject at hand, and had no evidence of the potential risks.
Since self-diagnosing my problem, I’ve discovered something amazing. I’ve learned to reframe my Imposter Syndrome into an asset by studying how innovation leaders use it to their advantage.
There are two types of …
At our last Design + AI event, Normative had the privilege of hosting an intimate Q&A with Jared Spool. Jared is a frequent keynote for major design conferences and we, along with 40 others, got to fulfill our design nerd dreams to soak in some expert knowledge.
Among the many kernels of wisdom I’ve pocketed from his talk, this one kept rolling around in my mind. Jared said there are two types of designers: those that have Imposter Syndrome and those who should have Imposter Syndrome.
Reductiveness and binary thinking aside, Jared’s opinion solidified a major theme for me. It normalized, and oddly celebrated Imposter Syndrome. It reinforced some of my nascent thoughts around new ways to think about Imposter Syndrome and was another piece of evidence in building confidence around my opinion.
Prior to Jared’s talk, I had been reflecting on the inverse nature of how I see my own Imposter Syndrome versus an innovation leader’s. To be in the business of innovation means you’re dealing with uncertainty, risk, and failure. Where we differ is that innovation leaders turn this into their strength, whereas I use the same logic as a way to hold me back from reaching my full potential. I would even go as far to say that innovation leaders who have Imposter Syndrome are more willing to validate their ideas, challenge the status quo and course correct.
My journey to reframing Imposter Syndrome started off with some good ol’ self reflection, and was followed by research and reflection of how leaders deal with theirs. Here’s how I sum up the manifestation of my flavour of Imposter Syndrome: I’ve got a (strong) opinion, but I’m afraid to articulate it because I have no evidence.
There’s two big (and surprise, interconnected!) elements at the root of this statement; confidence and evidence.
A word about confidence
We’re all going off hunches. And that’s okay. We can accept what we don’t know and resist the urge and seductiveness of not pursuing an idea or sharing a thought simply because there are a lot of uncertainties. I’ve learned from folks like Brene Brown and Mike McDerment, that transparency and vulnerability are your friends. Being clear that you might not have strong evidence to back up your opinion is not detrimental. But an important distinction is that you’re motivated and open to validate your opinions through evidence. The doubt and second-guessing induced by Imposter Syndrome is exactly where these leaders get their motivation. To overcome this, successful innovation leaders funnel their hesitations into actions that help reduce ambiguity.
Test, learn, repeat
Some leaders in the innovation space are concerned their perspective isn’t going to fly. So they reduce ambiguity by testing, learn from the findings to minimize risk, and make smarter decisions as a result. At Normative, we know all about that. It’s one of the many reasons why the majority of our projects start with a research component.
Airbnb and Google are prime examples of companies that use pilots and beta tests to reduce ambiguity before deploying a new feature. With Google, there are Chrome Flags. And most recently, we learned that before Airbnb launched Airbnb Plus, they had done extensive two-year concept testing. Brian Chesky, the CEO, noted “guest expectations have evolved,” which was the major driving force for introducing this new product offering. Chesky needed to have ample evidence to back that claim up and testing to reduce ambiguity was how he did just that.
Confidence + Evidence = Con-evidence
The symbiotic relationship between confidence and evidence plays out like this. You use the findings from testing your initial hunch to make smarter decisions and build up your confidence. On the flip side, you might not have your strong opinion fully formed but through testing and research you chip away at ambiguity to land on your view.
I had a strong opinion about how my Imposter Syndrome was developing and holding me back at work. I dug into the reasons and initially looked at ways to fight and eliminate it. Through consultations with my manager, colleagues, Jared Spool and Google, I learned, counter to my initial hunch, that I had incorrectly framed Imposter Syndrome as something I needed to cure. Rather, the majority of the evidence pointed to the fact that with the right perspective, Imposter Syndrome can be a positive thing. So what did innovation leaders teach me about fighting Imposter Syndrome? That it’s nothing to be fighting in the first place.
