Origins and precise terminology
It is also popularly called “impostor syndrome”; this article uses “phenomenon” to avoid treating that label as a diagnosis. Clance and Imes introduced the term in 1978 through their work with high-achieving women. That historical origin helps explain the expression, but cannot establish its frequency in a workforce or restrict it to one sex or profession. This article uses “phenomenon” descriptively, rather than as a clinical label.
In a workplace conversation, ask what the experience means in concrete terms. Someone might attribute an outcome to luck, expect others to discover a supposed inadequacy, or feel that they do not belong. These statements are not interchangeable. They raise different questions about tasks, recognition, belonging and support. Precise language prevents a popular phrase from replacing an understanding of the actual problem and the circumstances in which it occurs.
Thoughts, emotions and outcomes are different dimensions
Tewfik’s research distinguishes the belief that others overestimate one’s competence from related experiences such as fear or difficulty acknowledging achievements. This distinction matters because the consequences should not be assumed from the definition of the phenomenon itself.
As an organisational approach, separate three levels: what a person thinks, the observable conditions of the job, and the outcome of the task. A successful outcome does not automatically remove distress; expressing uncertainty does not show that the task was performed incorrectly. Combining these levels can produce poor responses, such as rewarding confident speech alone or expecting people to conceal every doubt to appear professional. A useful discussion makes room for both verifiable performance and the person’s experience.
Sources: [3]
What the evidence can establish
A study by Neureiter and Traut-Mattausch involving professionals in Austria examined relationships between the impostor phenomenon and work and career variables. Its findings describe associations within a particular sample. They cannot explain every occupational difficulty experienced by an individual or provide a universal prevalence rate.
Before applying research to an organisation, examine how the phenomenon was defined, which instrument was used, who participated and when the variables were measured. A single survey cannot establish temporal order on its own. It also does not demonstrate that a motivational talk, an application or a particular intervention will resolve the situation. This article proposes management considerations, rather than a treatment proven effective across all occupations, employment settings and individual circumstances.
Sources: [2]
Reasonable uncertainty and genuine training needs
Someone beginning to use a machine, a clinical technique or an information system may genuinely require supervision. Calling every doubt an impostor experience could conceal inadequate preparation. The practical questions concern the competence required by the task, the training actually provided and a fair method for checking that the necessary skills have been acquired.
It is also useful to distinguish appropriate checking from an unlimited demand for perfection. Critical tasks require specific checks; in other situations, repeated checking may consume time without improving quality. A proposed organisational response is to define acceptance criteria, the scope of review and routes for consultation. This makes the discussion concrete. The objective is safe, competent work, without requiring absolute subjective confidence before a person can act.
Connection with occupational safety and health
WHO places prevention of work-related mental health problems within working conditions and recommends organisational interventions. This provides a framework for examining the context without placing all responsibility on individual confidence.
One preventive hypothesis to investigate locally is whether fear of appearing incapable makes it harder to ask questions, report mistakes or request assistance. This behaviour must not be assumed for everyone who experiences impostor thoughts. Examine the actual routes: who receives a question, what happens after uncertainty is raised and whether an answer arrives in time. If a procedure depends on nobody admitting uncertainty, its organisational design needs attention even when nobody uses the word impostor. The investigation should focus on how work is carried out, not on identifying supposedly vulnerable personalities.
Sources: [4]
Examine the environment without dismissing exclusion
Before recommending better self-esteem, examine how opportunities are allocated, how a promotion is explained and how newcomers are treated. Contradictory requirements, opaque assessments or discriminatory comments are not corrected by describing the recipient as insecure. They need to be addressed through the appropriate organisational procedures.
A review can compare similar situations: the information provided when someone takes on responsibility, access to support and whether criteria change depending on who performs the task. Psychological profiles are unnecessary for identifying differences in treatment. Worker participation can reveal barriers that an individual questionnaire might miss. Conclusions should concern practices that can be checked, rather than speculation about colleagues’ or managers’ private motives. Clear records of decisions can help distinguish an unexplained outcome from a genuinely inconsistent process.
A conversation about situations and needs
A practical conversation can start with a particular episode: a presentation, a new assignment or a performance review. Clarify what the person expected, which outcome was observed, what information was missing and what support would have made the task easier. Listening does not mean automatically confirming every interpretation or debating the experience as though it were an examination.
The resulting agreement might involve a technical review, a contact for questions, intermediate objectives or an explanation of quality criteria. Specify who will do what and when the conversation will be revisited. Personal disclosures do not need to become part of a performance file. If distress persists or substantially interferes with everyday functioning, voluntary access to professional support can address it without turning a manager into a therapist.
Learning, feedback and specific recognition
Recognition is more useful when it identifies a contribution: which decision was appropriate, which skill was applied and what could be improved. A general compliment such as “you are brilliant” may leave uncertainty about expectations untouched. Collective achievements can also be recognised without erasing individual contributions or requiring every successful outcome to be framed as personal triumph.
For new appointments and promotions, consider a learning pathway with progressive tasks, criteria for autonomy and agreed reviews. Mentoring requires allocated time and genuine access; naming an unavailable mentor does not provide effective support. These are organisational proposals to evaluate in context. They are not presented as a cure, and they do not justify adding meetings and checks until supportive supervision becomes continuous surveillance of the individual.
Measurement, confidentiality and research scales
Tewfik presents a research scale for workplace impostor thoughts. The existence of an instrument does not make it a competence examination or a criterion for recruitment, promotion or exclusion. Before using a questionnaire, justify its purpose, validity for that purpose and the interpretation of its results.
In Spain, Article 22 of the Occupational Risk Prevention Act protects privacy and confidentiality in health surveillance. Operationally, agreements about working conditions should be separated from clinical information. A prevention dashboard does not need names alongside impostor scores. In small groups, even an aggregate result can identify someone, so reporting arrangements must address that possibility. Access to support should not depend on agreeing to disclose a psychological score to a line manager or performance assessment system.
Hypothetical example: a promotion without clear criteria
An analyst becomes a project coordinator and says that management made a mistake in choosing her. Her manager avoids assigning a diagnosis. Reviewing a recent project reveals two incompatible priorities and no explanation of which decisions she could make independently. They also identify a technical task for which she needs supported practice.
The team agrees a simple decision matrix, a contact for questions and fortnightly case reviews during the transition. The analyst helps determine what support is useful. After an agreed period, they check whether situations are handled more effectively and contradictory authorisations have decreased. The example illustrates an improvement process; it does not claim that every doubt disappears or that the outcome proves a particular psychological cause. Further changes remain possible if the arrangement is unhelpful.
Useful indicators and foreseeable mistakes
Organisational indicators can include responsibilities clarified, response times for questions, access to mentoring and development agreements completed. Qualitative observations help establish whether asking for assistance still carries a social cost. Comparing how a process works before and after a change is more useful than counting how many employees report feeling like impostors.
Foreseeable mistakes include using a test to screen applicants, treating insecurity as a requirement for excellence, demanding public personal accounts or reducing a complaint about unfair treatment to poor self-esteem. A review must also allow for an unsuccessful measure to be changed. Preventive value lies in clearer conditions, accessible support and safe decisions. This article cannot replace professional assessment of an individual situation or demonstrate that a particular employer has fulfilled every applicable legal duty.
Frequently asked questions
Does the impostor phenomenon mean someone lacks ability?
No. It describes an experience or belief about competence and recognition. Competence for a particular task must be assessed through relevant preparation and performance criteria.
Can a scale be used to decide a promotion?
A research instrument should not be turned into a fitness or promotion filter. Its use requires a justified purpose, safeguards and competent interpretation; employment decisions need evidence relevant to the role.
Is improving self-esteem the only response?
No. Expectations, training, support and treatment also need attention. Organisational problems or discrimination cannot be resolved by placing responsibility exclusively on the individual.
Can an employer access a person’s psychological consultations?
Workplace agreements can record measures and follow-up. Clinical information requires separate confidentiality safeguards and should not be incorporated without justification into ordinary performance monitoring.
