In the first three pieces in this series, Rethinking Doubt, I’ve explored doubt as something deeply human: how it shows up in professional life, how it becomes useful when it turns active, and how it often signals an identity in motion rather than failure.
This piece widens the lens. Because sometimes doubt isn’t personal at all. Sometimes it’s not about confidence, capability, or mindset its information coming from the system you’re operating in.
What if the doubt you are feeling is not yours?
When you unpack doubt, the conclusion is often that it must be about you. If you go far enough, the thought ‘I am not good enough’ frequently appears, whether that is not good enough at your job, smart enough, or capable enough. But how would you ever know you were ‘enough’? What is this arbitrary scale anyway? The doubt may not be about you at all, but instead it is asking is the system enough.
By the system, I mean the environment you are operating in. This includes the visible elements, such as organisational structure, performance measures, and leadership behaviours, as well as the invisible ones: culture, societal norms, industry practices, and history. The system can be the unconscious driver of doubt. It might be the system and not you.
I witnessed this in an organisation, where I was asked to work with one of their leaders whose confidence was diminishing, as they were being given feedback that they were not stepping up, nor being proactive enough. When we started working together, they were questioning their ability and yet as we unpacked it further it became clear that the system was not up to allow them to be proactive. All the ideas and decision making were clustered at the top of the organisation. When ideas were put forward, they were at worst dismissed or gradually hacked away at, so they no longer resembled my client’s original idea. The questions for my client were not about his ability but instead how to hold a mirror up to the system to get it to see the ideas that were there. It was a challenge to the system, not him.
Part of the answer came from him changing the process and meeting structure for how ideas were presented and working with his line manager to him to pay attention to when the ideas were submitted and how to support them. knowing the root cause of the doubt was the system and not personal, helped my client to focus his energy on what would change this and not on himself.
Doubt doesn’t arise in a vacuum. It is often generated by systems that are unclear, contradictory, or misaligned, where expectations are high, and the ‘rules’ are ambiguous. In these environments, doubt is less a reflection of individual capability and more a rational response to incoherence. It often arises where the system asks for things it hasn’t made possible, like in my client’s case the processes were not in place to support him voicing his recommendations.
The people who doubt the most are often the ones paying the closest attention. Doubt tends to show up first in those who can sense something is not quite right and flag that it needs paying closer attention to. These people are the doubt sensors, the people whose contribution can be misconstrued and not valued. And yet, the system might not listen nor thank them for this. Ultimately the system will fight to keep the status quo and be on alert for when it is being challenged. The system responds by trying to dim the doubt sensors concerns. But when doubt is allowed to speak, people often stop carrying it alone. In fact the act of naming it, can reduce it in itself rather than amplify it further.
Many systems reward certainty over accuracy. Decisiveness is praised, even when it glosses over complexity. Over time, this creates cultures where doubt is hidden, softened, or pushed underground not because it disappears, but because it becomes unsafe to voice. In my book Brilliant Doubt I share the experience of Sarah Wynn Williams, then Public Policy Director Facebook (now Meta), who describes a culture where dissent was not wanted and where concerns were met at best with indifference, and at worst with hostility. Over time, people didn’t stop seeing what was wrong; they stopped speaking up, because it became clear there was no point. When doubt is uncomfortable, organisations often push it back onto the person who raised it, unsurprisingly Wynn Williams left Facebook. And in contrast, when systems don’t listen to doubt, they often mistake compliance for confidence.
In many organisations, doubt is treated as a competence issue when it’s actually a conditions issue. It is frequently misread as a lack of confidence, decisiveness, or resilience. The response is then to “fix” the person through coaching, feedback, or reassurance rather than to examine the conditions that might be producing the doubt in the first place. I get why – it’s easier to coach confidence into an individual than to redesign a system. But it doesn’t address the root cause.
Doubt often intensifies at moments of transition not only for individuals, but for systems too. When identities, roles, or ways of working no longer fit the reality they’re facing, doubt surfaces as a signal that something needs to evolve. When systems don’t listen to doubt, they often lose the people most capable of sensing what needs to change. Those who remain learn how to adapt, perform, or stay silent — which can look like confidence, but is often something else entirely.
Active Doubt at a systemic level is less about answers and more about creating conditions where the right questions can be asked. It is not about staying stuck in uncertainty. It’s about leaders engaging with it deliberately: asking better questions, noticing patterns, and resisting the urge to rush to false certainty. It is the discipline of staying with it long enough for the system to respond.
If doubt is information, what might your system be asking you to notice and what would it take for it to listen?
#brilliantdoubt #leadership #leadershipdevelopment #activedoubt #impostersyndrome #selfdoubt #situationaldoubt #systemicdoubt
