Reflection: The Cost of “Masking” in the Workplace

Neurodivergent individuals often engage in masking — consciously hiding or suppressing natural behaviors, communication styles, or ways of thinking — to fit workplace norms. While masking can help navigate social expectations, research shows it comes at a significant cost. Studies across neurotypes, including autism, ADHD, and dyslexia, indicate that prolonged masking is linked to burnout, anxiety, depression, and even identity erosion. (PMC: Camouflaging in Autism)

Masking strategies vary widely but often share common threads: over-preparing for social interactions, mimicking expected communication styles, suppressing fidgeting or other self-regulatory behaviors, and carefully monitoring tone or body language. These behaviors require constant attention, creating a persistent cognitive load that can leave individuals exhausted and disengaged. Even routine tasks — team meetings, emails, or presentations — can become draining when paired with the mental effort of maintaining a “mask.”

I didn’t even realize the toll it was taking on me until I began to unmask. For years, I worked hard to be noticed, to contribute ideas, and to be appreciated, yet I constantly felt unheard and unvalued. Rejection sensitive dysphoria magnified these experiences, leaving me feeling inadequate and isolated. Masking may have allowed me to blend in, but it came at the expense of my energy, confidence, and sense of self.

Systemic Factors That Encourage Masking

Masking doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Workplace culture and organizational norms often unintentionally encourage it. Rigid performance metrics, limited avenues for alternative communication, and an overemphasis on “fitting in” create environments where difference is perceived as a risk.

For example, a meeting culture that prizes rapid verbal responses can disadvantage employees who process information more slowly or think visually, pushing them to suppress natural cognitive strategies. Over time, these systemic pressures reinforce the idea that authenticity is unsafe. Even well-intentioned policies can fall short if they don’t explicitly value diverse approaches to work, communication, and problem-solving.

Consequences Beyond Burnout

The toll of masking extends beyond fatigue. Research and lived experience indicate several key consequences:

• Emotional strain and anxiety: Constant self-monitoring elevates stress and contributes to chronic anxiety.

• Identity erosion: When natural behaviors are repeatedly suppressed, individuals may feel disconnected from themselves.

• Reduced creativity and engagement: Masking drains cognitive resources that could otherwise be spent innovating or collaborating.

• Impaired career growth: Fear of visibility or misunderstanding may lead talented employees to hold back ideas, limiting opportunities for recognition and advancement.

Even small adjustments — allowing flexible communication, providing predictable structures, or creating psychological safety — can mitigate these effects. Inclusion isn’t only ethical; it’s strategic.

Broader Implications for Organizations

Masking highlights a critical truth: hiring neurodivergent talent is only half the work. If workplaces require employees to hide who they are, the benefits of inclusion — innovation, engagement, retention — are diminished. Organizations that prioritize authentic participation see measurable gains in both productivity and culture.

Neuroinclusive environments allow employees to bring their full selves to work. This doesn’t mean lowering expectations; it means redesigning systems, processes, and norms so that diverse cognitive styles are valued and supported. Teams benefit from richer problem-solving, more creative solutions, and higher morale when individuals feel safe to contribute authentically.

Reflection for Readers

• Where in your work or educational environment do you or others feel pressure to mask?

• Which policies or norms unintentionally reinforce this pressure?

• How could spaces, processes, or expectations adapt to allow authenticity without compromising performance?

These questions aren’t just academic — they’re the first step toward practical change. When inclusion is treated as system design rather than individual adaptation, masking decreases, engagement rises, and both neurodivergent and neurotypical team members thrive.

“It took stepping out of masking for me to realize that being seen for who I truly am isn’t just liberating—it’s necessary for belonging and meaningful contribution.”

— Meredith Gapsis, NeuroAdvocacy & Consulting