Impostor syndrome (more precisely, the impostor phenomenon) is the persistent belief that one’s success is due to luck, timing, or others’ overestimation—alongside fear of being exposed as a “fraud”—despite objective evidence of competence. The term originated in 1978 from Clance & Imes, and modern workplace scholars note that these feelings are shaped both by personal factors (perfectionism, attribution style) and by environments that signal exclusion.
Impostor syndrome (more precisely, the impostor phenomenon) is the persistent belief that one’s success is due to luck, timing, or others’ overestimation—alongside fear of being exposed as a “fraud”—despite objective evidence of competence. The term originated in 1978 from Clance & Imes, and modern workplace scholars note that these feelings are shaped both by personal factors (perfectionism, attribution style) and by environments that signal exclusion.
Prevalence estimates vary widely because studies use different tools and cutoffs. A large systematic review reported ranges from 9% to 82% across settings, with notable associations with depression and anxiety; newer meta-analyses in health professionals similarly connect IP to stress and burnout. In other words: IP is common, consequential, and measurement-sensitive.
Crucially, some critics argue that labeling individuals with a “syndrome” can pathologize people while overlooking structural forces (bias, belonging cues, evaluation ambiguity) that produce impostor feelings—especially for women and people from marginalized groups. A balanced approach targets both the person and the workplace.
Mechanistically, IP often blends (a) perfectionistic standards, (b) rigid, internal, unstable attributions for failure (“it’s me”) and external, unstable attributions for success (“got lucky”), (c) fear of negative evaluation, and (d) low psychological safety. Growth-mindset climates and stereotype-threat-reducing practices can buffer these processes.
Assessment typically uses the 20-item Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS). Many studies apply a threshold around 62 to flag frequent impostor experiences, though psychometric reviews recommend interpreting scores dimensionally and with context rather than as a diagnosis. Clinically and occupationally, IP correlates with burnout, emotional exhaustion, and reduced willingness to speak up or pursue stretch roles. Teams feel the ripple effects via under-voice, overwork cycles, and perfectionism-driven delays.
Therapeutic and coaching tools with evidence-informed logic include: cognitive restructuring (track and challenge discounting, catastrophizing), behavioral experiments (graded “imperfect” deliveries to disconfirm feared outcomes), attribution retraining (credit your controllable skills), self-compassion practices to interrupt shame cycles, and values-based goal setting to shift focus from evaluation to contribution. A 2024 scoping review catalogues such approaches across workplaces.
