Can top managers' impostor feelings affect performance?

Impostor phenomenon and performance

The impostor phenomenon (also known as impostor syndrome) is a term coined by Clance and Imes (1978) that describes the feeling of unworthiness or lack of value that some individuals experience, especially in high-pressure and high-achievement environments. These individuals, despite high accomplishments, perceive themselves as fraudulent and are afraid of being exposed. Individuals that suffer from the impostor phenomenon are unable to internalize their achievements, and so they maintain the illusion that they are frauds (Chrisman et al., 1995). They feel that their achievements are due to luck rather than ability. They have low levels of confidence and place extremely high demands on themselves (Ross et al., 2001), sometimes verging on perfection (Clance, 1985). The constant doubt they experience creates high levels of pressure and anxiety (Clance and O'Toole, 1987) and even depression (Bernard et al., 2002), which can be very disruptive. Thus, this phenomenon can have a serious impact in the business context and in the family environment (Ibrahim et al., 2020).

From medical doctors (Gottlieb et al., 2020), to students (Gable, 2021) or to academics (Bothello and Roulet, 2019), most people may have, on at least one occasion, felt like an impostor in their careers. Although it is undoubtedly unpleasant, experiencing the impostor phenomenon on one occasion is unlikely to have major consequences for a person's professional (or private) life. However, there is a difference between rarely feeling like an impostor and cyclically experiencing it. People with more robust psychological courage, self-efficacy and/or psychological capital are better equipped to deal with the impostor phenomenon (Sanford et al., 2015; Kark et al., 2022). But, considering the prevalence of such inauthenticity and the dearth of value feelings, we may conjecture what impact this feeling would have if individuals were to experience it chronically. Constant feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt can destroy lives and undermine performance. In fact, past research has shown that the impostor phenomenon impacts outcomes at work. Badawy et al. (2018) point to several negative feelings and attitudes displayed by people experiencing the impostor phenomenon, such as low self-efficacy, low affective commitment, low citizenship behaviors and biased managerial decision making. Taken together, these can negatively impact the career progression. For this reason, and because the impostor phenomenon is prevalent among high-achieving individuals (Rohrmann et al., 2016), due consideration should be given to how impostor feelings shape their attitudes and/or behaviors in the workplace and impact the overall performance of firms.

The mechanism that ascribes such feelings to the outcomes is yet to be adequately explained. One possible explanation lies in the tension experienced by individuals suffering from the impostor phenomenon who may feel under-rewarded or over-rewarded. According to McDowell et al. (2007), the impostor phenomenon can be examined as an outcome of over-reward. According to the authors, individuals experience over-reward if they feel that the job they hold is above their self-perceived qualifications, talent and capabilities. They will respond by trying to adjust their attitudes and behaviors with perceived over-reward (Pritchard et al., 1972). However, because they doubt their ability to succeed in the job, their attempts to show increased levels of performance may sabotage not only their own performance but also the firm's performance as a whole.

This subversiveness can be aggravated when these individuals compare themselves to a ratio of inputs to outputs that they imagine is the reference or norm for those who succeed in similar positions. According to equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965), individuals perform a cost versus benefits (or rewards) analysis to decide the inputs they should bring to work and the outcomes that expect to receive from it, comparing their analysis with the inputs and outcomes of others (“social comparison”). They expect a fair return on their contributions (“equity norm”) and avoid inequalities among members of the group based on the ratio of inputs (e.g. time, effort, loyalty, hard work and commitment) to outcomes (e.g. compensation, responsibility and reputation) they believe is adequate. Therefore, the individuals that feel that the outcomes they receive are unfair or inequitable will seek to reduce such inequity, either via inputs or via outputs (or both) (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978; McDowell et al., 2007). For example, they can expend less effort and weaken their commitment to the job, which in turn will affect their job performance and may sabotage the firm's overall outcomes. The impact on performance will depend on the extent to which the influence and discretion of top managers is reflected in the firm's strategies (Hambrick and Finkelstein, 1987; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990; Hambrick, 2018). Furthermore, the perception that top managers hold of their influence over situations and the extent of their control over them and over others also shape firm outcomes (Hogan and Kaiser, 2005).

In addition, top managers who experience the impostor phenomenon have doubts about their capacities, and so they may avoid important decisions or situations that they fear may expose their weaknesses (Bothello and Roulet, 2019). Such discretion may have positive or negative consequences for firm outcomes. On the one hand, top managers may try to compensate for their perceived feelings of inadequacy with workaholism and the pursuit of perfectionism (Ling et al., 2020). They may be tied to arduous and perfectionist work to avoid mistakes (Ross and Krukowski, 2003; Dudău, 2014; Rohrmann et al., 2016), to make up for rewards they believe are over and above what is deserved or because they believe that through these means they can protect themselves against negative feedback and not have their competencies called into question (Kumar and Jagacinski, 2006). Such hard work can lead to higher performance but can, however, fuel impostor feelings and lead inevitably to greater tension and self-doubt (Clance, 1985). For example, if choices expand as a result of their (over) compensating work, they are still inclined to believe that any unintended results are their fault because they should have seen them coming (Schwartz et al., 2002).

On the other hand, in contrast to the over-preparation and hard work scenarios, top managers experiencing impostorism can procrastinate and defer action until the very last moment, which translates into reduced effort and lack of preparedness for the tasks at hand (Chrisman et al., 1995; Rohrmann et al., 2016). Moreover, they can adopt self-handicapping behaviors – namely, concocting alibis from impediments, such as illness and fatigue, to provide cover for failure (Ferrari and Tice, 2000; Ferrari and Thompson, 2006). There may be some costs associated with such self-handicapping behaviors – for example, challenging authority or control can undermine the image, trust and reputation that subordinates have of their leader. Therefore, it can be an unattractive option for top managers. To date, there are no studies that expressly investigate whether top managers in particular exhibit self-handicapping behaviors, but some studies (e.g. Ferrari and Thompson, 2006) have confirmed that individuals with strong impostor feelings are unlikely to admit their imperfections publicly because they fear loss of respect and affection from others (Rohrmann et al., 2016).

Irrespective of working hard or escaping from it, the impostor phenomenon undermines the work context and can reduce job satisfaction and jeopardize career advancement (Vergauwe et al., 2015). Considering the potential dysfunctional nature that impostor feelings may have on the latitude that top managers feel in decision making, the demands of the job and the inability to adequately deal with their work, their emotions may suffer impairment with a consequent impact on performance. To that end, we posit the exploratory hypothesis that impostor feelings exert a negative impact on performance.

Moderators of the relationship between impostor phenomenon and performance

The first mention of the impostor phenomenon concerned high-achieving women, who were experiencing feelings of intellectual phoniness and perceived inadequacy and felt they did not deserve credit for their achievements (Clance and Imes, 1978). Now, however, it is believed that both men and women experience the phenomenon. Yet, research so far has failed to deliver robust conclusions and the evidence is mixed (e.g. Clance and Imes, 1978; Kumar and Jagacinski, 2006; Topping and Bravata et al., 2020).

Despite being commonly associated with highly successful individuals, to date, there is no clear evidence on whether the impostor phenomenon hinders the attainment of success, especially for those in the top rank. However, when linked with psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem, self-efficacy and success expectation, it can have a deleterious effect on the chances (and the desire) to move up the ranks of the firm (or to feel fulfilled in those positions) and can, therefore, constitute a significant barrier to advancement (Vergauwe et al., 2015) Ascending to the top ladder of the firm may generate the feeling of being more exposed and subject to close scrutiny. Consequently, it may lead to the adoption of behaviors that undermine firm performance. For example, since people experiencing impostorism are keen to impress others, they can adopt protective strategies or strategies that they think others expect, such as excessive risk taking, in a desperate attempt to achieve results and win accolades. However, up to now, none of these propositions has been tested in the management literature, and the effect of impostor phenomenon has still to be deciphered.

In addition to the professional challenges (related to the difficulty of the tasks, the conditions of the firm, the conditions of the industry, among others) that subject top managers to high demands, heavy workloads and unrelenting pressure (Hambrick et al., 2005), they also face their own personal challenges. In the case of top managers with impostor feelings, the desire to work extra hours can collide with, for example, family obligations. Crawford et al. (2016) reported that there is a positive relationship between impostor feelings and a self-reported conflict in managing work-life balance. If people experience impostor feelings on a regular basis, that can be conducive to being under constant strain, struggling to cope with the demands of the job and family commitments and feeling depleted of resources to deal with the exigencies in all aspects of their lives (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999; Hudson and González-Gómez, 2021). Vergauwe et al. (2015) find support for the finding that impostor tendencies have an impact on career attitudes and organizational behaviors, indicating lower levels of job satisfaction and commitment to the organization. These endeavors can lead to emotional exhaustion (Whitman and Shanine, 2012; Crawford et al., 2016), which is almost certain to negatively impact firm outcomes.

The pressure of being in the upper echelons of a firm, where demands can be expected to grow with every additional achievement, may lead to the persistence or intensification of impostor feelings (Clance and Imes, 1978). Both men and women experience impostor feelings, but it is conceivable that the effects will be experienced by women and men in different ways. It is likely that those who face an unsupportive environment (Feenstra et al., 2002) at work and at home may struggle with it to a greater extent, and sometimes experience strain in their relationships (Mount, 2015). People who experience impostorism may feel like a fraud in responding rationally to the workplace climate. If they are already likely to feel an intense lack of acceptance, it may reset or further intensify impostor feelings and create the feeling of not being able to achieve future success (Tulshyan and Burey, 2021). Research has shown that masculine and heteronormative environments have been associated with more microaggressions. Thus, for example, environments where stereotyping or sexism is present may explain gender differences in the phenomenon (Haar and de Jong, 2022).

In addition, the pressure derived from having impostor feelings may not be felt equally by men and women, nor do they face similar consequences from it. On the one hand, according to the KPMG (2020) survey of managers in corporate America, 81% of women felt that they put themselves under greater pressure to succeed than men. Moreover, the study shows that 85% of respondents believe that other women feel the same way, but men are less affected by such feelings, with 74% believing that men do not question themselves the way women do. On the one hand, Badawy et al. (2018) found that, among those with impostor feelings, men react more negatively under conditions of negative feedback and high accountability and experience worse performances. The authors attribute these results to existing gender norms that expect men to be more competent.

Taken together, male and female top managers experience impostor feelings, but the impact of the impostor phenomenon on performance will be different depending on gender –in particular, for those who face an unsupportive environment at work and at home.

Along with potential differences due to gender, it is interesting to investigate whether the impact of gender differs according to certain buffers or exacerbators of the previous relationship. To date, there is no study showing the role that possible characteristics may play. Thus, we take the investigation forward with two exploratory possibilities: (1) having a heavy workload: and (2) being the prominent figure at the firm (CEO).

As mentioned before, there is the view that being at the top of a firm carries very high demands – for example, heavy workloads (Hambrick et al., 2005). This may create pressure for top managers, irrespective of gender. However, past research built on gender stereotypes and social gender roles has typically characterized women as “care givers” whereas men are seen as “bread winners” (Eagly, 1987), cementing the idea of women as “mothers” who are highly committed to children and family (Hewlett et al., 2010). Therefore, besides professional commitments, women may have to tailor their agendas to suit family commitments, such as taking children to and from school, skillfully juggling paid and unpaid demands and trying to cope with this idealized version of motherhood (Watson, 2020). Such expectations can impact performance in two ways. First, that may translate into a reduced workload. In fact, according to OECD. Stat database (2021), the average weekly hours worked on the main job for women is 33.9, which is lower than for men with 39.4. However, this does not necessarily mean that women are less productive. There are studies that support both results (see Astegiano et al., 2019 for a review on this matter). On top of a heavy workload, women have to deal with the illusional idea of “shared responsibilities” (Hewlett, 2002). Gender disparities in the household division of labor persist, and women are still the ones who shoulder the burden of household chores and parenting demands (Perista et al., 2016; Augustine and Prickett, 2022). Indeed, some studies revealed that these disparities were even aggravated during the Covid-19 pandemic (Pabilonia and Vernon, 2023). In sum, it is reasonable to assume that the heavy workload and family responsibilities are likely to play a role in determining what top managers can deliver at the firm and how, ultimately, firm performance will be affected.

Second, being at the very top of the ladder is demanding in terms of hours and commitment to the firm. Moreover, it is a position of high visibility and, consequently, more likely to attract attention and scrutiny. This makes the leader more aware of not only of her/his own expectations but also of others' expectations of what the role requires (Kark et al., 2022), with the likely prospect of experiencing negative feedback (Ibarra and Petriglieri, 2016). Although previous research has identified positive outcomes related to power positions, such as a sense of control (Guedes et al., 2017) or optimism (Keltner et al., 2003), recent studies have shown that a threat to their power is more likely the perception of those rising to top positions, especially when linked to past negative work experiences, such as gender discrimination or denigrating treatment, as is more particularly the experience of women (Feenstra et al., 2022). Such conditions can make managers feel an imperfect fit and trigger impostor feelings.

In the case of a manager in the spotlight as CEO who experiences impostor feelings, is afraid of exposure as a fraud, and feels inadequate in the top echelons of the firm, an adverse work environment of this kind can pose real challenges for the incumbent and generate doubts about his/her suitability for such a prominent position (Feenstra et al., 2022).

Moreover, if top managers have less latitude over the possible actions they can take, that shortcoming will be adversely translated into workplace outcomes. This may be particularly relevant in smaller firms, and especially in family firms, where private and professional spheres are sometimes indistinguishable, even in wealth terms. The principal challenges for the manager in such a scenario are likely to be experienced as issues to do with well-being and the ability to deliver results.

Thus, we aim to subject these issues to scrutiny to see whether the experience of top managers who encounter impostor feelings and face high levels of exposure (as CEO) translates into detrimental effects on performance.

Taken together, it is reasonable to expect these variables to have a moderating effect on the aforementioned relationship.

Data and variable definitions

Participants. The survey was part of a broader project that included all management levels and was sent to the 10,836 Portuguese public limited firms. The participants were contacted by email, which was sent to the general email address of the firm that we obtained from Informa D&B, a provider of yearly financial data (from IES – Informação Empresarial Simplificada) certified by a chartered accountant and general contact email information on firms.

In total, 1,034 complete responses from individuals in different hierarchical positions were obtained (with a response rate of around 12%, taking into account emails that bounced or were no longer valid). For the purpose of this study, the selected participants are top managers from small to medium firms (criterion of less than 250 employees).

Our final sample comprises 116 top managers (37 women and 79 men). The mean age of the participants is 52 years old (SD = 9.5, ranging from a minimum of 24 years old and a maximum of 77 years old). The participants have a mean of 14 years' experience as top managers (SD = 8.98, ranging from a few months to 40 years) and about 60% are CEOs (or the equivalent most senior manager in the firm). They work approximately 48.5 h per week (SD = 10.9, ranging from 8 to 80 h). Approximately 46% of the participants have an undergraduate degree, 36% have a master's degree or executive-level education, and 16% have not attended university. Approximately 77% are married or participate in a union or civil partnership, 8% are single and the remainder are divorced or widowed.

The participants work mainly in medium firms (mean of 31.3 employees) and 49% are family firms with an average board size of 2.5 members. The most representative industries are real estate with 14.7% of the sample (N = 17) and accommodation with 9.5% of the sample (N = 11). There are several industries represented by just one firm (N = 1), such as computer programming, consultancy and related activities and other professional, scientific and technical activities.

Dependent variable. We use return on assets (ROA) as a measure for firm performance, defined as the ratio of net income to total assets (e.g. Fonseca et al., 2022).

Independent variable. We use the impostorism scale proposed by Leary et al. (2000). It provides a unidimensional conceptualization of the impostor phenomenon by focusing on a sense of being an impostor or a fraud. It is appropriate for successful people, such as top managers and has been subject to systematic evaluation of their psychometric properties (Mak et al., 2019). It comprises a seven-item measure (1 – Not at all characteristic of me to 5 – Extremely characteristic of me). Items include “Sometimes I am afraid I will be discovered for who I really am” or “I tend to feel like a phony”. The Cronbach alpha is 0.92, showing the scale has very good reliability (DeVellis, 1991).

The remaining data variables were also obtained from Informa D&D. The financial data variable is composed of the average of the past three financial years.

Moderator variables. The moderator variables are gender, which equals 1 if the top manager is a woman, and 0 otherwise. CEO is a dummy variable, which equals 1 if the top manager is the CEO of the firm, and workload represents the (average) of the total number of hours worked per week.

Control variables. We included a set of control variables related to the firm and the participants. To account for the nature of our firms (SMEs) in terms of liability of smallness, we use the natural logarithm of employees to proxy for the size of the firm. Firms that have greater resources at their disposal can take advantage of greater production capacity, and economies of scale or scope. Thus, we use the natural logarithm of assets. Smaller firms face greater constraints in accessing funds, in fulfilling legal obligations and maintaining adequate levels of liquidity and cash flow for future investments. Thus, we control for the natural logarithm of the current ratio (current assets to current liabilities). Finally, we use management team size to account for the number of managers that manage the firm and to account for the latitude for action that top managers have (Patel et al., 2017; Patel and Guedes, 2022).

For the controls variables related to participants, we use: (i) age – namely, the biological age of participants. Although impostor feelings may affect anyone from any age, the evidence is not conclusive (Bravata et al., 2020), with some research finding that these feelings decrease (e.g. Thompson et al., 1998; Brauer and Proyer, 2017) or there is no association with age (e.g. Want and Kleitman, 2006); (ii) tenure, defined as the number of years s/he has been in the current position. Previous research has shown that impostors' fears tend to be related to organizational tenure and career stage (Gardner et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2022). Managers that have greater experience in the role of top manager may be more familiar with the role and challenges that it poses (Kark et al., 2022); (iii) education – namely, the highest academic level achieved. Although considerable research has focused on prominent and successful individuals (e.g. Clance and Imes, 1978; Vergauwe et al., 2015), the phenomenon can affect any individual, with any education level, from children to teenagers, to the elderly (Bravata et al., 2020); and (iv) marital status, because research has shown that impostor feelings are correlated with marital status (Egwurugwu et al., 2018) and can have consequences for these relationships (Mount, 2015).

Finally, we include two-digit industry to control for industry-specific heterogeneity.