You’re a senior lead with your company. You’ve just wrapped up a high-stakes meeting in a boardroom overlooking the river and various downtown towers. Your running hot from managing complex logistics, but now you face a seemingly simple decision: you need to reply to an email from an executive presenting two different, but equally viable strategic directions for next quarter.
You sit down at your desk, Monogram coffee in hand. You have the requisite information. You have the expertise. You just killed a way more difficult presentation. And yet, you’re paralyzed. Then your brain starts rerunning the calculation: “If I choose Option A, we risk a minor delay in Q-1. If I choose Option B, we have greater exposure to market fluctuations. I’m struggling so much just making the call… does that mean I’m not cut out for a decision-making role?”
It’s hours later, you’ve re-drafted the email six times. You look out the window at the offices across the street, imagining that inside each one is someone more capable than you. Frustration builds. Imposter syndrome is in full regalia.
This isn't a lack of intelligence or executive capability. This is cognitive overload—specifically, your highly trained brain trying to solve an equation where the variables are driven by anxiety rather than logic. You are stuck in a rumination loop, trying to find a "perfect" strategy where one doesn't exist.
Many professionals navigating the high-pressure corporate landscape find themselves trapped in these exact cognitive bottlenecks. Evidence-informed strategies drawn from cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can help address these patterns.
Part of the reason high performers can struggle with this particular situation happens because they are typically able to reason their way through difficult situations. They often have a great deal of experience in exactly these types of situations. However, when we encounter a situation for which there isn’t a clear “winning strategy” or one that is based on an illogical or erroneous assumption, high performers can get stuck in rumination (an obsessive, repetitive loop of dwelling on the same distress-inducing thoughts).
When it becomes tied to our identity it can stimulate a pursuit for proof of personal worth that becomes a self-perpetuating loop. When we are operating from a false set of assumptions for which the data do not exist, nothing can be “proven.” So, we end up in a perpetual cycle of emotional dysregulation that we try to address with distractions, attempts to disprove something that doesn’t exist, or a combination of both. You are trying to solve an unfalsifiable perspective. It is the emotional equivalent of Plato’s Beard.
The philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine used the term "Plato's Beard" to describe the confusing way our minds try to prove that something doesn't exist. To say "the ghost in my office does not exist" requires us to first imagine the ghost.
When you ruminate, your brain does the exact same thing with negative self-appraisals. When your brain tells you, "I am incompetent," your highly analytical mind immediately goes to work trying to disprove it. You search your memory for evidence of your competence.
But here is the trap: by constantly fighting, analyzing, and trying to "shave off" the thought, you may be treating it as a problem that requires a definitive solution. If you demand absolute proof of your lack of incompetence, no amount of reassurance may feel sufficient. The search becomes self-perpetuating—not necessarily because the belief is impossible to test, but because the standard of proof keeps shifting. In this sense, Plato's Beard offers an interesting analogy for the difficulty of trying to resolve an abstract question about your own worth through endless analysis.
The forced rumination that results from this means that a significant portion of our energy may be directed to inhibiting the thoughts rather than building ideas, responses, or behaviours. This means we are using partial capacity and splitting our attention. (Hot tip: doing so is NOT associated with improved performance). Further, this is an incredibly neurologically demanding task that leads to more rapid fatigue.
We’ve all heard well-meaning folks suggest some version of “Just stop worrying about it”. This is what psychologists refer to as thought suppression. And unfortunately for those who follow this advice, it’s well documented that thought suppression leads to paradoxical increases in the frequency of intrusion thoughts and the intensity of associated distress. One effective strategy for addressing these types of challenges that looks similar but is functionally distinct is cognitive reappraisal.
Cognitive reappraisal allows us to free ourselves from the suppression cycle by addressing negative interpretations of thoughts (Blechert et al., 2015), rather than avoiding them.
When we engage in reappraisal, increased activation in prefrontal brain regions associated with our executive functioning is paired with decreased activity in regions (e.g., amygdala) associated with emotional responses. This is experienced as a reduction in distress and an increase in planful action. In a study by Goldin and colleagues (2008), reappraisal engaged prefrontal regions involved in cognitive control earlier than expressive suppression and was associated with reduced amygdalar activity. Although this research examined emotional responses to film clips rather than workplace rumination, it offers a useful illustration of how changing an interpretation may differ from suppressing an emotional response.
So, what are the operational differences between reappraisal and suppression?
Think about it like trying to hold a beachball underwater that’s either fully inflated (i.e., thought suppression/substitution) or that you’ve poked holes in (i.e., cognitive reappraisal). Which is easier?
Suppression means making a conscious effort to NOT retrieve anything at all in response to the presenting concern, pushing the unwanted thought out of awareness. Thought substitution is a similar exercise with an additional step—we generate substitute memories or thoughts in an effort to distract ourselves. While this can work temporarily, it is exhausting and inefficient. Both strategies keep the beachball fully inflated; you are relying force to keep it submerged. The moment you stop actively holding the ball under water, it rockets back to the surface (typically when your exhausted head hits the pillow).
Cognitive reappraisal is the poking of holes into that buoyant beachball. Instead of fighting to keep the thought underwater, you let it float to the surface, look at it objectively, and either stop battling with it or deflate it so that it can sink.
Poking Holes in "I’m Not Cut Out for This"
Let’s look at how to apply cognitive reappraisal to the imposter thought that paralyzed you at your desk: "If I make the wrong call on this, then I'm not cut out for a decision-making role."
To poke holes in this inflated, anxious thought, your analytical brain needs to run a logical audit. We do this by separating emotional fiction from objective facts:
Identify the Distortion: This thought is a mix of All-or-Nothing Thinking (one sub-optimal decision equals total professional incompetence) and Catastrophizing (predicting a single choice will ruin your career standing).
Examine the Evidence for the thought “I’m incompetent”
Fact: You just successfully delivered a highly complex presentation an hour ago.
Fact: Both Option A and Option B in the email are "equally viable." This means there is no single "correct" answer, only different pathways with different trade-offs.
Fact: True decision-making roles are not about being a psychic who avoids all risks; they are about weighing risks and moving forward.
Generate the Reappraisal (The Deflated Thought):
The New Thought: “I'm finding this decision difficult because the options have different, real risks. That doesn't establish anything about my overall competence. I was hired for my ability to manage trade-offs, not to predict the future. According to my current information, A is the best call, and I will manage whatever comes next.”
By shifting from generalized self-criticism (“I’m such an incompetent loser!”) to a more balanced assessment (“Based on the information available, this is how I shall proceed”), you change how you interpret the situation. Rather than treating the decision as a test of your competence, you recognize that it involves weighing risks and making a judgment under uncertainty. Cognitive reappraisal involves expanding our lens to allow us to more accurately interpret a situation, which research suggests can reduce emotional distress. This shift allows you to focus on the decision itself rather than what you fear it might say about you.
The beachball begins to deflate. The decision may still feel uncomfortable, but it is no longer a verdict on your worth. You identify the trade-offs, make the best call you can, and finally hit send.
To put this into practice, you can use this general equation the next time you find yourself stuck at your desk:
1. What is the thought I am having? (e.g., "If I make the wrong choice, I'm incompetent.")
2. What is the emotional implication of this thought? (e.g., "I feel anxious, paralyzed, and like an imposter.")
3. What is the objective evidence for and against this thought? (e.g., "I have a track record of strong decisions, and both options here are actually viable.")
4. What is a more balanced interpretation based on a broader frame of reference? (e.g., "This is a complex decision with trade-offs, not a test of my worth. I will make the best choice possible with the data available.")
Like any cognitive skill, reappraisal improves with practice. It is much easier to practice on low-stakes, daily worries than it is during a high-pressure corporate crisis. Building this capacity during calmer moments ensures that the neural pathways have been primed and are ready to execute when stakes are high.
However, for thoughts or deep-seated beliefs that carry a heavy emotional weight, running this equation solo can feel incredibly difficult. The "Plato's Beard" of our own minds can be highly convincing.
Give this four-step process a try on your next complex task. If it helps you find relief and take action, amazing. If you find yourself hitting a wall, it may be time to navigate this process with a professional. Working with a therapist trained in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can provide the structured, objective support needed to untangle these complex cognitive loops and restore your executive freedom.