The Impostor Phenomenon Revisited: Examining the Relationship between Workplace Impostor Thoughts and Interpersonal Effectiveness at Work

Abstract

Prevailing wisdom paints the impostor phenomenon as detrimental. In this work, I seek to rebalance the existing conversation around this phenomenon by highlighting that it may also have interpersonal benefits. To identify these benefits, I revisit seminal theorizing to advance the construct of workplace impostor thoughts, which I define as the belief that others overestimate one’s competence at work. Incorporating theory on contingencies of self-worth, I present an integrative model that outlines why such thoughts may be positively associated with other-perceived interpersonal effectiveness and why they may not be. I test my theory across four studies (N=3603) that feature survey, video, and pre-registered experimental data. I find that employees who more frequently have such thoughts are evaluated as more interpersonally effective because they adopt a more other-focused orientation. I do not find that this interpersonal benefit comes at the expense of competence-related outcomes (i.e., performance, selection)—a point I revisit in my future directions. When examining my theorized competing pathway, I find that whereas workplace impostor thoughts do somewhat encourage those who have them to self-handicap—consistent with prevailing wisdom—such thoughts do not operate through self-handicapping to harm other-perceived interpersonal effectiveness. I conclude by situating my findings in light of prior work.

Full text

THE IMPOSTOR PHENOMENON REVISITED:
EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
WORKPLACE IMPOSTOR THOUGHTS AND
INTERPERSONAL EFFECTIVENESS AT WORK
BASIMA A. TEWFIK
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prevailing wisdom paints the impostor phenomenon as detrimental. I seek to rebalance
the existing conversation around this phenomenon by highlighting that it may also have
interpersonal benefits. To identify these benefits, I revisit seminal theorizing to advance
the construct of workplace impostor thoughts which I define as the belief that others
overestimate one’s competence at work. Incorporating theory on contingencies of self-
worth, I present an integrative model that outlines why such thoughts may be positively
associated with other-perceived interpersonal effectiveness and why they may not be. I
test my theory across four studies (n53,603) that feature survey, video, and pre-
registered experimental data. I find that employees who more frequently have such
thoughts are evaluated as more interpersonally effective because they adopt a more
other-focused orientation. I do not find that this interpersonal benefit comes at the
expense of competence-related outcomes (i.e., performance, selection)—a point I revisit
in my future directions. When examining my theorized competing pathway, I find that,
whereas workplace impostor thoughts do encourage those who have them to self-
handicap—consistent with prevailing wisdom—such thoughts do not operate through
self-handicapping to harm other-perceived interpersonal effectiveness. I conclude by
situating my findings alongside prior work.
Characterized by thoughts like “Others think I am
smarter than I think I am”and fears of intellectual
fraudulence (Clance & Imes, 1978), the impostor phe-
nomenon is associated with a host of negative out-
comes (for reviews, see Langford & Clance, 1993;
Mak, Kleitman, & Abbott, 2019; Sakulku & Alexan-
der, 2011). For example, psychologists—who were
the first to study it (Clance & Imes, 1978)—have
found relationships with decreased self-esteem
(Schubert & Bowker, 2019), decreased psychological
well-being (Bernard, Lige, Willis, Sosoo, & Neblett,
2017), and increased negative behaviors like self-
handicapping and self-denigration (Ferrari & Thomp-
son, 2006). The limited body of extant organizational
research paints a similarly bleak picture, outlining
negative associations with primarily work-related
Thank you to associate editor Lindred Greer and three
anonymous reviewers for their generative insights through-
out the review process. I owe much gratitude to Drew Car-
ton, Spencer Harrison, Maurice Schweitzer, and Phil
Tetlock for their thoughts and guidance in the early stages
of this research. I am also deeply thankful for the feedback
provided by Deborah Ancona, Rebecca Badawy, Gary Bal-
linger, Sigal Barsade, John Carroll, Emilio Castilla, Jared
Curhan, Roberto Fernandez, Allison Gabriel, Adam Grant,
Insiya Hussain, Hemant Kakkar, Erin Kelly, Tim Kundro,
Jennifer Petriglieri, Ray Reagans, Erin Reid, Nancy Roth-
bard, Chris To, and Ezra Zuckerman. This work also greatly
benefitted from the very helpful comments provided by
Blake Ashforth, J. P. Eggers, Laura Kray, Melissa Mazma-
nian, Damon Phillips, Chris Rider, Pri Shah, and Ned
Smith. I additionally want to acknowledge the insights
provided by seminar participants in the NERD Lab at Har-
vard Business School, the Management Department at Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business,
the Management Department at University of Pennsylva-
nia’s Wharton School, the Department of Managing People
in Organizations at IESE Business School, the Organisa-
tional Behaviour Area at INSEAD, the Department of Man-
agement at London School of Economics, the Department of
Management & Entrepreneurship at Santa Clara University’s
Leavey School of Business, the Organization & Management
Area at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School, and
the Management Area at Tulane University’s Freeman
School of Business. For their helpful research assistance, I
wish to thank Cristina Amusategui, Jennifer Duan, Alexis
Kim, Dejon Kurti, Shlomo Klapper, Cindy Luo, Jared
Scruggs, Sari Strizik, Preeti Varma, and Helen Yap.
988
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
rAcademy of Management Journal
2022, Vol. 65, No. 3, 988–1018.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1627

attitudes (Hutchins, Penney, & Sublett, 2018; McDow-
ell, Grubb, & Geho, 2015; Vergauwe, Wille, Feys, De
Fruyt, & Anseel, 2015). Building on this negative view
that draws mainly from cross-sectional, single-
source survey studies, organizational scholars com-
monly assume that this prevalent workplace phe-
nomenon is uniformly harmful—inferring that its
proximal intrapersonal detriments must also extend
to important workplace outcomes (Vergauwe et al.,
2015). For example, following the aforementioned work
linking the phenomenon to self-handicapping, and
experimental work showing that self-handicapping is
associated with negative interpersonal evaluations
(Rhodewalt, Sanbonmatsu, Tschanz, Feick, & Waller,
1995), a reasonable inference may be that the impostor
phenomenon operates through self-handicapping to
negatively affect interpersonal workplace outcomes.
Although such negative inferences are often exactly
that—inferences, theoretically underdeveloped and
empirically untested—they remain unchallenged, per-
haps for good reason given the ease with which they
can be made amid the prevailing wisdom.
Yet, whereas these inferences linking the impostor
phenomenon to negative work outcomes may be rea-
sonable at first blush, they also run the risk of ob-
scuring positive outcomes that may exist alongside
potential negative ones. This may be particularly the
case when considering the phenomenon’s interper-
sonal consequences, given that within the very same
papers in psychology and management that endorse
inference-making consistent with the prevailing neg-
ative view are also contradictions. For example,
although seminal qualitative work highlighted that
the phenomenon interfered interpersonally with re-
gard to relationship formation and development, this
work also hinted that people often saw those who
experienced the impostor phenomenon as “socially
adept,”“sensitive,”and “charming”(Clance & Imes,
1978: 243). Likewise, in the existing organizational
research, alongside assertions that experiencing the
impostor phenomenon is damaging for interpersonal
relations among other outcomes, are also passing allu-
sions that those who experience the phenomenon are
viewed as interpersonally attractive and likable (e.g.,
Grubb & McDowell, 2012; McDowell, Boyd, &
Bowler, 2007; Rohrmann, Bechtoldt, & Leonhardt,
2016). Importantly, the presence of these puzzling,
theoretically undeveloped hints signals the need
for an integrative theory—one that explores
whether alluded interpersonal upsides exist and
why, while simultaneously theoretically elabo-
rating competing pathways implicated in and con-
sistent with the prevailing negative view.
Accordingly, in this work, I seek to rebalance
the existing conversation around the impostor phe-
nomenon by presenting such an integrative theory,
outlining both whether and why the impostor phe-
nomenon may lead to interpersonal benefits and
why it may not. To do so, I first return to seminal the-
orizing to introduce the forgotten sociocognitive con-
ceptualization, which I call workplace impostor
thoughts defined as the belief that others overesti-
mate one’s competence at work. Building on this con-
ceptualization, I develop a model linking workplace
impostor thoughts to other-perceived interpersonal
effectiveness—an outcome that offers a way to
make sense of the puzzling hints in the literature
that seemingly contradict prevailing wisdom. Per-
ceived interpersonal effectiveness refers to how
well others perceive that one cooperates and inter-
acts with one’s social environment (Lievens &
Sackett, 2012; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994;
Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007).
It reflects a worker outcome that has a profound
impact on modern organization success and sur-
vival—given the socially-embedded, relational nature
of work—that also dates back to classic management
works (Barley & Kunda, 2001; Grant & Parker, 2009;
Katz&Kahn,1966;Smith,Organ,&Near,1983;
Thompson, 1967; Weick, 1979). Indeed, having work-
ers low in perceived interpersonal effectiveness is
costly for the organizations that employ them, costing
on average between $420,000 to $62.4 million annu-
ally (for companies of 100 to 100,000 employees,
respectively; Grossman, 2013).
In a shift from the prevailing wisdom, my integra-
tive theoretical model first posits that others at work
perceive employees who more frequently entertain
workplace impostor thoughts as more interperson-
ally effective. This is because employees who more
frequently entertain such thoughts adopt a more
other-focused orientation in response to the threat to
self-esteem that such thoughts trigger (see Figure 1).
I base these predictions on theory and research on
contingencies of self-worth (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001;
James, 1890) that, together with theory on the impos-
tor phenomenon, implicate a process of domain-
switching—in which a deficiency in self-perceived
competence encourages a shift from proving one’s
competence to proving oneself interpersonally—as a
primary response to self-threatening workplace
impostor thoughts. I end my theory, in a nod to pre-
vailing wisdom, by hypothesizing a competing
mechanism to the adoption of a more other-focused
orientation—self-handicapping—given that extant
theory on contingencies of self-worth and the
2022 Tewfik 989

impostor phenomenon do not preclude the simulta-
neous use of multiple defensive mechanisms.
I test my model in four studies that use survey,
video, and pre-registered experimental data from four
samples: employees at an investment advisory firm,
physicians-in-training, and two cross-industry sets of
employees recruited online. Across my studies, I also
examine alternative explanations, account for com-
peting mechanisms beyond self-handicapping (e.g.,
self-denigration), obtain source-separated measures
of my hypothesized variables (Conway, 2002), and
constructively replicate my effects using different
methods and measures in order to heighten both
external and internal validity (Lykken, 1968). Finally,
I also explore whether there are negative downstream
effects on competence-related outcomes obtained
(e.g., subjective and objective performance, selec-
tion). In doing so, I better situate workplace impostor
thoughts’proposed interpersonal upside within the
work and performance context, acknowledging
competence-related implications in addition to my
interpersonally-related outcome of interest.
My integrative theoretical and empirical effort
rebalances the existing conversation that has primar-
ily focused on the downsides of the impostor phe-
nomenon, offering several contributions. First, by
introducing the construct of workplace impostor
thoughts and showing its positive impact on inter-
personal effectiveness through an other-focused
orientation, I jump-start a line of inquiry among
organizational scholars that sheds light upon the
phenomenon’s interpersonal upsides, thereby
broadening extant discourse. Specifically, I show
that workplace impostor thoughts can result in
higher ratings of interpersonal effectiveness from
others at work because those high in such thoughts
adopt a more other-focused orientation.
Second, and relatedly, by drawing on theory on
contingencies of self-worth to identify other-focused
orientation as the mechanism behind the positive rela-
tionship between workplace impostor thoughts and
other-perceived interpersonal effectiveness, I depart
from prior work that has assumed that, because the
phenomenon threatens self-esteem, those who experi-
ence it likely turn inwards in response (Neureiter &
Traut-Mattausch, 2017; Vergauwe et al., 2015). I argue
that such thoughts—although threatening to one’s
self-esteem because they remind oneself that one may
not be as competent as others believe—encourage
those who have them to turn outwards, given that
those with such thoughts care and recognize that
others think highly of them. The identification of an
FIGURE 1
Theoretical Model
Alternative Defensive
Response
(i.e., Self-Handicapping)
Other-Focused
Orientation
Workplace Impostor
Thoughts
Self-Worth
(i.e., Self-Esteem)
Perceived
Interpersonal
Effectiveness
Notes: Workplace impostor thoughts and self-esteem are assessed by the employee. Other-focused orientation is motivational with behav-
ioral manifestations, assessed accordingly. Self-handicapping is a behavior, assessed accordingly. Finally, perceived interpersonal effective-
ness is other-rated (i.e., by supervisors, patients).
990 Academy of Management Journal June

other-focused orientation also paves the way for other
contributions. It extends and pushes discourse for-
ward, given that scholars have paid little explicit
attention to mechanisms in research around the im-
postor phenomenon, hampering theory development
(Neureiter & Traut-Mattausch, 2017; Whetten, 1989).
Also, it offers the potential to open up generative
lines of theorizing, which I consider in my general
discussion.
Finally, in view of practitioner calls to “over-
come”and “get rid of”the impostor phenomenon at
work, this paper offers another way of viewing this
phenomenon that seeks to balance out the practi-
tioner intuition and conventional wisdom that the
phenomenon is uniformly harmful (Sprankles, 2015;
Stahl, 2017; Wilding, 2020). Indeed, given that the
phenomenon may have upsides that coexist along-
side downsides (e.g., decreased self-esteem), a more
nuanced researcher and practitioner perspective
that begins to consider the phenomenon’s simulta-
neous effects on multiple sets of outcomes (e.g.,
interpersonal ones, competence-related ones, and
well-being-related ones) when characterizing the
phenomenon may be worthwhile—atakeawayI
flesh out in the general discussion.
WORKPLACE IMPOSTOR THOUGHTS
The impostor phenomenon has roots in clinical
psychology (Clance, 1985; Clance & Imes, 1978).
First documented among a group of high-achieving
women (Clance & Imes, 1978), scholars have since
found that the phenomenon is present across gen-
ders, racial groups, and professions (Bravata et al.,
2019). When conceptualizing the phenomenon,
much of the existing theoretical and empirical work
applies a decidedly affective lens. For example,
scholars typically invoke phrases like “feelings of
phoniness,”“intense feelings of inauthenticity in
their accomplishments,”and a “fear of being found
out or exposed”when describing the phenomenon
(e.g., Badawy, Gazdag, Bentley, & Brouer, 2018;
Hutchins et al., 2018; McDowell et al., 2015; Ver-
gauwe et al., 2015). The application of an affective
lens has been generative. However, such a lens dis-
counts the phenomenon’s sociocognitive origins.
Indeed, seminal scholars initially conceptualized
the phenomenon as a belief that others overestimate
one’s competence (Clance & Imes, 1978). Decades
later, Leary and colleagues (2000) as well as
McElwee and Yurak (2010) reiterated this point,
identifying the phenomenon’s central feature as the
belief that others ascribe greater competence than
one believes one has. Yet, despite these theoretical
observations, this original conceptualization remains
largely missing in existing empirical work, evidenced
most clearly in the assessment that the conceptualiza-
tion studied empirically more closely captures nega-
tive affect rather than the phenomenon’s central
feature (McElwee & Yurak, 2010: 185):
One central tenet of impostor theory is that impostors
believe that …others think they are more competent
or intelligent than they know themselves to be.
Empirical tests of this tenet have not yielded support-
ive data …The sum of the previous research is that
impostor scales assess …[an] attribute [that] seems
to be more related to general negative affect.
Accordingly, in this work, I pay homage to the
impostor phenomenon’s sociocognitive origins to
introduce the construct of workplace impostor
thoughts, defined as the belief that others overesti-
mate one’s competence at work. In some ways, work-
place impostor thoughts reflect a reintroduction of a
forgotten conceptualization in extant empirical
work. In other ways, the construct builds on the orig-
inal conceptualization by clearly implicating the
work domain, following other organizational schol-
ars who have similarly introduced constructs that
have originated outside the work domain (e.g.,
Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Pierce, Gardner,
Cummings, & Dunham, 1989). In detail, the con-
struct captures a perceived discrepancy between
two thoughts (Higgins, 1987): what one thinks of
one’s abilities at work and what one believes others
1
think of one’s abilities at work, such that what one
thinks is lower than what one believes others think.
Importantly, this discrepancy may not reflect reality.
That is, to entertain workplace impostor thoughts,
one only needs to perceive that a discrepancy exists,
given that perception is sufficient to motivate behav-
ior (Meister, Jehn, & Thatcher, 2014; Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978). Those who have workplace impostor
thoughts do not deliberately intend to deceive
others to cultivate this perceived overestimation
(Kets de Vries, 2005)—even though the construct’s
1
When using the term “others,”I do not distinguish
between specific others (e.g., supervisors, peers, subordi-
nates), in line with Mead’s (1934) concept of “generalized
other.”Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that, although
those with workplace impostor thoughts may consider
myriad others, who these specific “others”are does not
significantly influence the nature and frequency of such
thoughts (see Table A1 in Online Appendix A; all online
appendices are available at https://osf.io/yw7rm/?view_
only=3b4a67e08a4a474ab89ee7d9a641a0e9).
2022 Tewfik 991

nomenclature contains the word “impostor,”which
carries connotations of intentional deception (“Im-
postor,”n.d.). Rather, entertaining these thoughts
may unwittingly come from common work experi-
ences such as a promotion in which one is suddenly
expected to successfully execute unfamiliar respon-
sibilities (Christensen et al., 2016; Schubert &
Bowker, 2019). Finally, the construct refrains from a
categorical approach in which individuals are cate-
gorized as either impostors or not. Rather, individu-
als vary in how frequently they have such thoughts,
following recent strides by other impostor phenome-
non scholars (see Vergauwe et al., 2015).
Differentiating and Delineating the Theoretical
Value of Workplace Impostor Thoughts
I use the term “workplace impostor thoughts”
rather than the “impostor phenomenon”in order to
more clearly differentiate this conceptualization
from the affective conceptualization predominantly
invoked in extant work. With a sociocognitive con-
ceptualization, affective reactions such as fears of
fraudulence or a fear of being found out—akin to the
affective conceptualization in use—could still play a
role, but may rather be one of many proximal out-
comes that might manifest (Higgins, 1987). This
logic is analogous to one invoked by scholars of
perspective-taking who put forth that empathy (an
affective reaction) is but one potential consequence
among many of perspective-taking (a cognitive con-
struct) and may not always accompany perspective-
taking, depending on the outcome of interest (see
Parker & Axtell, 2001).
Crucially, reconceptualizing the impostor phenom-
enon as currently understood as instead workplace
impostor thoughts provides a helpful theoretical win-
dow that augments understanding and complements
the affective conceptualization in use. Indeed, if neg-
ative emotions like fear are captured in the construct
as they are with an affective conceptualization, it is
unsurprising that scholars have concentrated on doc-
umenting the phenomenon’sperniciousoutcomes
while discounting beneficial interpersonal ones.
Scholars do not consider fear to be a social emotion—
that is, one that serves a social function like envy or
shame (Hareli & Parkinson, 2008). Moreover, fear is
primarily associated with withdrawal (Appel-
baum, Bregman, & Moroz, 1998; Frijda, Kuipers, &
ter Schure, 1989; Kish-Gephart, Detert, Trevi~
no, &
Edmondson, 2009)—a decidedly negative nonaffi-
liative outcome. However, by foregrounding a dis-
crepancy around one’s competence at work and
backgrounding negative affect that has been
affixed to the phenomenon as definitional over the
years (MacCorquodale & Meehl, 1948), scholars
can begin to potentially consider how the phenom-
enon may not always beget negative outcomes.
Such a consideration is in line with seminal theo-
rizing that suggested that the phenomenon was not
“inherently self-damaging or self-destructive”
(Clance, 1985: 23). Thus, a sociocognitive concep-
tualization of workplace impostor thoughts both
reflects original theorizing and broadens scholars’
theoretical horizons to examine if positive mecha-
nisms—such as a more other-focused orientation,
which I discuss in my theoretical model below—
may emerge as well, thereby augmenting our
understanding and redirecting current discourse.
Defining workplace impostor thoughts as the
belief that others overestimate one’scompetenceat
work also allows one to distinguish it from related
constructs like self-efficacy, underconfidence, self-
esteem, and self-monitoring. Table 1 summarizes the
conceptual differences between these constructs and
that of workplace impostor thoughts. At a high level,
these constructs do not capture the self-discrepancy
implicated in workplace impostor thoughts either
because they do not incorporate an individual’s
beliefs about what others think (i.e., self-efficacy and
underconfidence) or because they definitionally do
not seek to capture a perceived self-discrepancy
more generally (i.e., self-efficacy and self-esteem).
WORKPLACE IMPOSTOR THOUGHTS AND
PERCEIVED INTERPERSONAL EFFECTIVENESS
The central aim of this investigation is to develop
a model linking workplace impostor thoughts to
perceived interpersonal effectiveness at work, which
captures how well others perceive that an individ-
ual cooperates, interacts, and works with others
(Lievens & Sackett, 2012; Motowidlo & Van Scotter,
1994; Treadway et al., 2007). To build this model,
I integrate research and theory on the impostor phe-
nomenon with research and theory on contingencies
of self-worth. Unsurprisingly, seminal theory on the
impostor phenomenon is an essential view to draw
upon. Yet, relying solely upon theory around the
impostor phenomenon does not allow for the flesh-
ing out of a complete account. Indeed, whereas such
theory helpfully outlines the phenomenon’sfeatures
and hints at possible associated outcomes (e.g., per-
ceived interpersonal effectiveness), it is less clear on
the specific mechanisms that may be involved.
Extant empirical work exploring the impostor
992 Academy of Management Journal June

TABLE 1
Placing Workplace Impostor Thoughts in a Nomological Network
Construct Definition Key differences from workplace impostor thoughts
Self-esteem “The overall value that one places on
oneself as a person”(Judge et al.,
2003: 303)
Although having workplace impostor thoughts can
certainly have implications for one’s self-esteem,
self-esteem differs in a key way. Whereas
self-esteem can incorporate others’views of the
self, in that it serves as a gauge of interpersonal
relationships (following sociometer theory; Leary &
Baumeister, 2000), its definition is not intended to
capture the specific belief that others overestimate
one’s competence at work. Indeed, self-esteem may
be broader than workplace impostor thoughts in
this sense and misses explicit consideration of the
core feature of workplace impostor thoughts.
Of note, as I elaborate in my theory, to the extent
that being seen as competent is central to one’s
self-worth (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; James, 1890),
decreased self-esteem should be a proximal
consequence of entertaining workplace impostor
thoughts because such thoughts highlight that one
may not be as competent as one should perhaps
be.
(Role) self-efficacy “People’s judgments of their
capabilities to organize and execute
courses of action required to attain
designated types of performances”in
which performance pertains to role
performance (Bandura, 1986: 94)
Because role self-efficacy captures how well one
believes one can execute one’s role, role
self-efficacy only captures half of the conceptual
space that the construct of workplace impostor
thoughts encapsulates. Furthermore, workplace
impostor thoughts make no supposition regarding
the level of role self-efficacy one possesses—
merely that one’s role self-efficacy is lower than
others’judgments of one’s capabilities to execute
role responsibilities. That is, those high in
workplace impostor thoughts need not believe
themselves incapable (i.e., low in self-efficacy).
Rather, they simply believe that others have a
higher regard for their competence than they
themselves have.
Underconfidence Conceptualized as either
underestimating one’s ability relative
to actual performance (i.e.,
underestimation), believing that one is
worse than others (i.e.,
underplacement), or expressing
excessive uncertainty in the accuracy
one’s own judgments (i.e.,
underprecision) (Moore & Healy, 2008)
Unlike underestimation and underplacement,
workplace impostor thoughts involve a
comparison between self-perceived ability and
what one believes others think of one’s ability.
That is, the referent differs. Underprecision, on the
other hand, differs from workplace impostor
thoughts as it does not involve a comparison
between two referents.
Self-monitoring Captures “the extent to which people
regulate their self-presentation by
tailoring their actions in accordance
with immediate situational cues”
(Lennox & Wolfe, 1984: 1347)
While workplace impostor thoughts and
self-monitoring are alike, in that they note that
others provide cues that can inform their thoughts/
behaviors, the two are also distinct, in that
self-monitoring is not concerned specifically with
a discrepancy between what one believes one’s
own competence to be and what one thinks others
believe it to be. Moreover, workplace impostor
thoughts are not conceptualized as a
self-regulation strategy concerning self-
presentation.
2022 Tewfik 993

phenomenon seems to follow suit, identifying corre-
lational relationships with myriad outcomes but
attending less to the “why”behind these relation-
ships (Hutchins et al., 2018; McDowell et al., 2015;
Vergauwe et al., 2015).
Accordingly, in developing my model, I also incor-
porate research and theory on contingencies of self-
worth—a perspective that shares similar assumptions
as theory around the impostor phenomenon, but also
offers unique complimentary contributions. Theory
around the impostor phenomenon assumes that the
perceived (over-)positivity of others’views of one’s
competence can prompt self-protective responses to
“close”the perceived discrepancy (Clance & Imes,
1978; Ferrari & Thompson, 2006). Similarly, a contin-
gencies of self-worth perspective assumes that the
perceived positivity of others’views around aspects
of the self has implications for one’s sense of self-
worth, which leads to subsequent varied self-
protective behavior (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Niiya,
Brook, & Crocker, 2010). Yet, whereas theory on the
impostor phenomenon makes no predictions around
precisely when which self-protective response may
be invoked, a contingencies of self-worth perspective
usefully does.
The central tenet underlying a contingencies of
self-worth perspective is that individuals stake
their self-worth (i.e., self-esteem) on success in self-
selected specific domains (i.e., competence, social
approval) (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; James, 1890).
When circumstances threaten success in these con-
tingent domains, individuals react defensively in
predictable ways to avoid drops in their self-esteem
(Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Of note is the self-protective
response of “domain-switching,”which involves
focusing one’s efforts on succeeding inan alternative
contingent domain when success in the focal contin-
gent domain is perceived as highly uncertain
(Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; James, 1890). Such domain-
switching, in turn, can have unexpected benefits that
stem from focusing one’s efforts in alternative
domains. In what follows, I elaborate upon this
theory’s basic tenets to outline how I expect work-
place impostor thoughts to be positively associated
with interpersonal effectiveness through a process of
domain-switching that protects self-esteem. Specifi-
cally, I hypothesize that workplace impostor thoughts
lead to greater perceived interpersonal effectiveness
by encouraging those high in such thoughts to adopt a
more other-focused orientation to bolster their self-
worth in line with domain-switching. Importantly,
I also hypothesize a competing mechanism—self-
handicapping—that is also grounded in theory on
contingencies of self-worth and the impostor phenom-
enon to present an integrative account that incorpo-
rates what might be expected from the prevailing
wisdom.
A Contingencies of Self-Worth-Based Model of
Workplace Impostor Thoughts
Workplace impostor thoughts as a threat to one’s
self-esteem. Understanding how workplace impos-
tor thoughts ultimately lead to greater perceived
interpersonal effectiveness requires first compre-
hending why such thoughts threaten self-esteem.
Workplace impostor thoughts threaten one’sself-
esteem for at least two interrelated reasons. First,
such thoughts, by definition, remind one that one
may not be as smart and capable as one thinks others
seem to believe, which highlights the possibility that
past successes are unlikely to be repeated (Clance,
1985; Clance & Imes, 1978; Clance & O’Toole, 1987).
In other words, workplace impostor thoughts suggest
that one may be deficient relative to what one thinks
others think in a nontrivial way, as seeing oneself as
competent—and being seen as competent is critical—
for the proficient enactment of one’s work role (Rob-
erts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy, & Quinn, 2005). Given
that self-esteem reflects one’s overarching sense of
self-worth, which importantly includes assessments
of both strengths as well as deficiencies (Pelham &
Swann, 1989), workplace impostor thoughts thus
likely threaten one’s self-esteem.
Second, and relatedly, according to seminal the-
ory on the impostor phenomenon (Clance & Imes,
1978), those who entertain workplace impostor
thoughts are those who principally stake their self-
worth on success in the competence domain. For
example, scholars describe those who experience
the impostor phenomenon as overwhelmingly pre-
occupied with being, and being seen as, “the bright
ones,”such that their self-perceived value hinges
upon such an evaluation (Clance, 1985; Clance,
Dingman, Reviere, & Stober, 1995; Clance & Imes,
1978; Matthews & Clance, 1985). In line with theory
on contingencies of self-worth (Crocker & Wolfe,
2001), those with workplace impostor thoughts
should find such thoughts particularly threatening
for their self-esteem because the reminded defi-
ciency associated with such thoughts is in a domain
in which their self-worth is invested (i.e., contin-
gent). Indeed, decrements in self-esteem in response
to competence threats are especially pronounced
for those who base their sense of self-worth on
competence-related success, as compared to those
994 Academy of Management Journal June

who do not (Crocker, Karpinski, Quinn, & Chase,
2003). Thus, because those with workplace impos-
tor thoughts stake their self-worth on competence-
related success, it is likely that such thoughts nega-
tively influence self-esteem.
The adoption of an other-focused orientation as
the primary defensive response. Following a drop
in one’s self-esteem, one’s immediate goal becomes
the restoration of one’s self-esteem, in line with the-
ory and research on contingencies of self-worth
(Crocker & Park, 2012; Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). As
the primary way of doing so, I propose that those
with workplace impostor thoughts adopt an other-
focused orientation, which captures the extent to
which one attends to, is interested in, and focuses on
others (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009; Grant & Wrzesniew-
ski, 2010; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004; Scholl, Sas-
senberg, Scheepers, Ellemers, & de Wit, 2017).
Adopting an other-focused orientation restores one’s
self-esteem because it provides a path for achieving
success in a domain other than competence—that is,
the interpersonal domain (Pickett, Gardner, &
Knowles, 2004)—which reflects the only other
domain beyond competence in which those with
workplace impostor thoughts likely invest their self-
esteem (Kolligan & Sternberg, 1991; Langford &
Clance, 1993; Neureiter & Traut-Mattausch, 2016b;
Sakulku & Alexander, 2011). Indeed, in a seminal
investigation of the phenomenon, Kolligan and
Sternberg (1991: 310) noted that, while those high in
such thoughts principally stake their self-worth on
successes in competence-based “evaluative”situa-
tions, they also seem to invest their self-worth in
successes in “social situations.”Importantly, such
domain-switching—in which one shifts the depth of
investment of one’s self-worth from one contingent
domain to another (i.e., from proving competence to
focusing efforts interpersonally via an other-focused
orientation)—reflects the dominant response for pro-
tecting self-esteem when success in the contingent
domain feels uncertain (Crocker & Knight, 2005;
Crocker & Park, 2012; Crocker &Wolfe, 2001). Be-
cause those who entertain workplace impostor
thoughts believe that they cannot repeat competence-
based successes (Clance, 1985; Clance & Imes, 1978;
Clance & O’Toole, 1987), such domain-switching is
thus especially likely.
An other-focused orientation can present ver-
bally, paraverbally, or nonverbally (Mehrabian,
1972). Indeed, prior scholars have noted that a moti-
vational other-focused orientation can have behav-
ioral manifestations (Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010:
109). In the workplace, verbally, a more other-focused
orientation may show in the form of assurances (Reis
& Patrick, 1996) and question-asking in conversation
(Huang, Yeomans, Brooks, Minson, & Gino, 2017). As
an illustration, imagine an employee stating “Isee”or
“I understand”as a coworker details a problem he is
facing at work. Paraverbally, it may present in a more
receptive and considerate tone (Ambady & Rosenthal,
1998). For example, picture a physician lowering her
voice and speaking slowly to show care and consider-
ation when talking to a patient. Nonverbally, it may
manifest as greater eye contact and nodding (i.e.,
active listening [Norton & Pettegrew, 1979]). Con-
sider a job candidate maintaining strong eye contact
while engaging in a coffee chat with a prospective
employer.
Perceived interpersonal effectiveness as end
outcome. The adoption of an other-focused orienta-
tion means substantively little if perceivers do not
recognize and reward it. Indeed, accurately reading
another’s orientation can be fraught with error
because people’s behaviors convey surprisingly less
information than may be expected (Cameron & Vora-
uer, 2008). Thus, it is important to hypothesize
that, as a final step, an other-focused orientation
should, in turn, be positively associated with other-
perceived interpersonal effectiveness. Perceived
interpersonal effectiveness captures how well others
perceive that one cooperates and interacts with
one’s social environment (Lievens & Sackett, 2012;
Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Treadway et al.,
2007). It reflects an increasingly desirable employee
outcome in the modern workplace that dates back to
classic management works and costs organizations
a nontrivial amount of money if absent among
employees (Barley & Kunda, 2001; Grant & Parker,
2009; Grossman, 2013; Katz & Kahn, 1966; Thomp-
son, 1967; Weick, 1979). Examples of perceived
interpersonal effectiveness may include how well a
physician delivers a diagnosis to their patient, as
evaluated by the patient, or how well an employee
works with their colleagues, as assessed by peers or
supervisors.
Adopting an other-focused orientation should be
positively associated with other-perceived interper-
sonal effectiveness because the associated verbal,
paraverbal, and nonverbal behavioral manifestations
are often the inputs upon which others base their
interpersonal effectiveness assessments (Van Dyne &
LePine, 1998). In other words, through experience,
perceivers are likely attuned to attending especially
to these particular behaviors that reveal an other-
focused orientation (e.g., asking information-seeking
questions, engaging in greater active listening) when
2022 Tewfik 995

assessing interpersonal effectiveness, thereby mini-
mizing the chance that perceivers erroneously
miss drawing interpersonal conclusions that they
might otherwise make (Blanch-Hartigan, Andrze-
jewski, & Hill, 2012). Indeed, in a study of employ-
ees across two retail service organizations,
Treadway et al. (2007) found that other-focus, as
opposed to self-interest, translated into higher
supervisor-rated interpersonal effectiveness.
In sum, because workplace impostor thoughts
may encourage individuals to adopt a more other-
focused orientation to protect self-esteem, others are
likely to view individuals high in such thoughts as
more interpersonally effective. Accordingly, I pro-
pose the following:
Hypothesis 1. Having workplace impostor thoughts is
positively associated with other-rated interpersonal
effectiveness at work (i.e., there is a positive total
effect).
Hypothesis 2. There is a positive indirect effect of
workplace impostor thoughts on other-rated interper-
sonal effectiveness through the adoption of a more
other-focused orientation.
Hypothesis 3a. There is a positive indirect effect of
workplace impostor thoughts on the adoption of a
more other-focused orientation through self-esteem.
Hypothesis 3b. There is a positive indirect effect of
workplace impostor thoughts on other-rated inter-
personal effectiveness at work serially through
self-esteem and the adoption of an other-focused
orientation.
Alternative Defensive Response: Self-Handicapping
Although I propose that domain-switching in the
form of an other-focused orientation serves as the
primary defensive mechanism invoked, extant the-
ory does not appear to preclude the simultaneous
use of multiple defensive mechanisms. Thus, a full
integrative understanding of the perceived interper-
sonal effectiveness emanating from workplace im-
postor thoughts takes into account other responses
that may compete with an other-focused orientation.
Onealternative,discussedinboththeoryand
research on contingencies of self-worth and theory on
the impostor phenomenon, is self-handicapping, in
which individuals behave in ways or provide state-
ments that allow them (and others) to excuse failures
in anticipation of poor future performance (Niiya
et al., 2010; Rhodewalt, Morf, Hazlett, & Fairfield,
1991). Self-handicapping may be a sensible re-
sponse because those who have workplace impostor
thoughts consider future failure possible, given that
they think they may not be as competent as they think
others believe. As a qualitative example of self-
handicapping for those who have such thoughts, orig-
inal work detailed how one informant “pretended to
be ‘sick’for three consecutive Fridays”(Clance &
Imes, 1978: 4).
Importantly, whereas those with workplace impos-
tor thoughts may self-handicap, doing so may come
with interpersonal costs (Hirt, McCrea, & Boris, 2003;
Rhodewalt et al., 1995). This is because those who
engage in self-handicapping are unsurprisingly often
dubbed as “excuse-makers,”which can negatively
impact interpersonal evaluations as a whole (Hirt
et al., 2003; Rhodewalt et al., 1995). Indeed, to the
extent that other-perceived interpersonal effective-
ness operates similarly as the interpersonal evalua-
tions that have been examined in the literature (e.g.,
liking, desire for future interaction; Hirt et al., 2003;
Rhodewalt et al., 1995), self-handicapping may in
turn be negatively related to other-perceived interper-
sonal effectiveness.
Hypothesis 4. There is a negative indirect effect of
workplace impostor thoughts on other-rated interper-
sonal effectiveness at work through self-handicapping.
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
To test my hypotheses, I conducted four studies.
In Study 1, a field study involving employees at an
investment advisory firm, I explored Hypothesis 1
with multisource, time-lagged data in which I also
collected data on a number of variables that would
be important to controlfor in order to effectively rule
out alternative explanations. In Study 2, I again
tested Hypothesis 1 among a sample of physicians-
in-training using multisource, time-lagged data.
Study 2 offered a more controlled setting than in
Study 1, given that physicians-in-training partici-
pated in a standardized patient simulation and also
allowed me to rule out additional alternative explan-
ations. Moreover, Study 2 uniquely featured re-
corded video data of physician–patient interactions,
which offered a rare opportunity to unobtrusively
assess the mediating role of other-focused orienta-
tion in the field per Hypothesis 2. In Study 3A, I
again tested Hypotheses 1 and 2 in a pre-registered
experiment, thereby strengthening causal infer-
ences. Finally, in Study 3B, a second pre-registered
experiment with full-time employees, I addressed
996 Academy of Management Journal June

limitations and built upon the strengths of Study 3A
to test the full model (i.e., Hypotheses 1–4), using a
yoked design. Of note, because one concern might be
that greater interpersonal effectiveness may come at
the expense of other competence-related outcomes,
thus rendering this interpersonal benefit less attrac-
tive, I also examine whether there are negative
competence-related spillover effects (e.g., perfor-
mance, selection) across studies. Together, the incor-
poration of both field and lab data from four
different samples as well as the replication of effects
using different measures enhances both external and
internal validity, offsets weaknesses associated with
any one method (McGrath, 1981), and allows for
constructive replication, which is thought to reflect
the strongest test of hypothesized relations (Lykken,
1968). All scale items are presented in Table A2 in
Online Appendix A (available at https://osf.io/
yw7rm/?view_only=3b4a67e08a4a474ab89ee7d9a6
41a0e9).
STUDY 1
Sample and Procedure
In Study 1, I engaged in a two-time-period, multi-
source data collection process with employees at an
investment advisory firm based in the mid-Atlantic
region of the United States. Employees completed a
survey at Time 1 that captured the independent vari-
able as well as control variables and demographic
information. At Time 2, about two months later,
supervisors provided ratings of employees’interper-
sonal effectiveness. After employing listwise dele-
tion to handle missing data, 155 employees remained
(35%, female; M
age
536.4 years, SD
age
59.5).
2
Eighty-
seven percent identified as Caucasian. Their average
role tenure was 4.4 years (SD 54.9).
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, respondents used a
7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree)to7(strongly agree)whenrespondingtothe
items below.
Independent variable: Workplace impostor
thoughts (Time 1). As assessed by prior scholars
(Leary et al., 2000; McElwee & Yurak, 2007), existing
impostor phenomenon scales do not capture the
sociocognitive conceptualization of the impostor
phenomenon seminally theorized and used in this
paper. For example, in an empirical examination of
extant measures, Leary et al. (2000: 732) concluded
that “the prediction that impostors [as measured by
existing scales] experience a discrepancy between
how they see themselves and how they think others
view them was not strongly supported”(emphasis
added). Given that this perceived self-discrepancy is
the precise characteristic underlying the conceptual-
ization presented in this paper, I used seven lab and
field samples (n51,059) to develop and validate a
self-report measure of workplace impostor thoughts,
following recommendations from Hinkin (1998) and
DeVellis (1991). See Online Appendix B for a very
detailed description of this process. It is worth noting
here that my scale was distinct from a host of possi-
bly related constructs like core self-evaluations,
self-esteem, self-efficacy, negative affect, and neuroti-
cism. I also found that my scale was related but dis-
tinct from the impostor phenomenon scale most
invoked in current work: the Clance (1985) impostor
phenomenon scale. In the end, my scale validation
effort culminated in five items used in this study.
Employees responded using a 6-point frequency
scale (1 5never to 6 5very frequently): “At work,
people important to me think I am more capable than
IthinkIam,”“At work, others think I have more
knowledge or ability than I think I do,”“At work,
other people see me more positively than my capabil-
ities warrant,”“At work, I have received greater rec-
ognition from others than I merit,”and “At work, I
am not as qualified as others think I am”(a5.93).
Dependent variable: Interpersonal effectiveness
(Time 2). Supervisors provided employee interper-
sonal effectiveness ratings using three items from
Van Scotter, Motowidlo, and Cross (2000) (sample
item: “This employee creates effective working rela-
tionships with colleagues”;a5.74).
Control variables. I included control variables
that theoretically could be related to workplace
impostor thoughts as well as interpersonal effective-
ness (Becker et al., 2016). For example, perhaps
those high in workplace impostor thoughts are also
high in self-presentational concerns (Ferrari &
Thompson, 2006), and self-presentational concerns
rather than workplace impostor thoughts predict
perceived interpersonal effectiveness (Treadway
et al., 2007). To control for self-presentational con-
cerns, I used four items from Heatherton and Polivy
(1991) (sample item: “I feel concerned about the
impression I am making”;a5.88). Second, those
high in workplace impostor thoughts may also be
those who are high performers, given the high
2
Based on this sample size, a post-hoc sensitivity power
analysis revealed that the study was sensitive to detecting
a small to medium effect at 80% power.
2022 Tewfik 997

prevalence of the phenomenon among high-
achievers (Clance & Imes, 1978) and that job perfor-
mance is positively associated with interpersonal
effectiveness (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). To
control for baseline ability, I used the organization’s
baseline performance ratings for the employees in
my sample (a “3,”“2,”or “1”rating, with “3”equat-
ing to the top performers and “1”equating to the bot-
tom performers). Finally, given the racial, gender,
and tenure effects that commonly come to mind in
discussions of the impostor phenomenon (e.g.,
Badawy et al., 2018; Bernard et al., 2017; Christensen
et al., 2016), I also controlled for race (1 5people of
color; 0 5White), gender (1 5female, 0 5male), and
role tenure (in 0.25 year increments).
Subjective performance for supplementary anal-
yses (Time 2). To explore whether the benefit of
perceived interpersonal effectiveness from work-
place impostor thoughts comes at the expense of
competence-related outcomes, I also asked supervi-
sors to give employee performance ratings. In detail,
I used four items from Pearce and Porter (1986) in
which employees were rated on a 10-point scale
(“bottom 10%”to “top 10%”) (sample item: “Overall
performance”;a5.93).
Analyses and Results
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations,
and correlations among the variables.
Confirmatory factor analyses. Before testing
hypotheses, I looked to ensure that there was dis-
criminant validity among those constructs assessed
by the same source (e.g., from employees: workplace
impostor thoughts and self-presentationalconcerns).
My hypothesized two-factor model fit the data well,
x
2
(26) 557.81, CFI 5.97, RMSEA 5.09, and exhib-
ited superior fit in comparison to a one-factor model,
x
2
(27) 5350.38, CFI 5.67, RMSEA 5.28, p,.001.
Hypothesis testing.
3
Hypothesis 1 predicted that
workplace impostor thoughts would be positively
related to other-rated interpersonal effectiveness.
Given that employees were nested under different
supervisors, I used hierarchical linear modeling
(HLM) with maximum likelihood estimation. In sup-
port of Hypothesis 1, I found that entertaining work-
place impostor thoughts was significantly positively
associated with perceived interpersonal effectiveness
(estimate 50.14, SE 50.07, p5.048, f
2
5.013; see
Table 3, column 1). Furthermore, this result held
when controlling for self-presentational concerns and
baseline performance (estimate 50.18, SE 50.07,
p5.009, f
2
5.046; see Table 3, column 2). Finally,
this result held when additionally controlling for
race, gender, and role tenure (estimate 50.19, SE 5
0.07, p5.006, f
2
5.05; see Table 3, column 3).
Competence-related spillover effect supplemen-
tary analyses. I did not find that workplace impos-
tor thoughts had a negative effect on performance
ratings (estimate 50.18, SE 50.14, p5.193, f
2
5.065;
see Online Appendix B, Table B4). In fact, given the
TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study 1
Variable Mean SD 1 234 5678
1 Workplace impostor thoughts 2.21 0.97 —
2 Interpersonal effectiveness 5.92 0.86 .17—
3 Self-presentational concerns 3.72 1.49 .32 2.14
†
—
4 Baseline performance 2.25 0.51 .06 .22 .02 —
5 Gender 0.35 0.48 .07 2.04 2.07 .01 —
6 Race 0.13 0.34 .03 2.06 2.09 2.182.004 —
7 Role tenure 4.37 4.88 2.02 2.006 2.09 .01 .03 2.06 —
8 Subjective performance 8.10 1.74 .10 .53 2.04 .40 .12 .10 2.05 —
Notes:n5155. Gender: female 51, male 50. Race: people of color 51, White 50. Baseline performance is a “1,”“2,”or “3”(top).
†
p,.10
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
3
Using the Clance (1985) impostor phenomenon mea-
sure instead of my workplace impostor thoughts scale did
not produce the same pattern and significance of results,
supporting the unique predictive value of my scale. More-
over, my workplace impostor thoughts scale offered signif-
icant incremental predictive value when considered
alongside the Clance (1985) impostor phenomenon mea-
sure (see Table B3 in Online Appendix B—available at
https://osf.io/yw7rm/?view_only=3b4a67e08a4a474ab89e
e7d9a641a0e9).
998 Academy of Management Journal June

subjective nature of performance measured, there
was some evidence to suggest that workplace
impostor thoughts had a positive spillover effect
through perceived interpersonal effectiveness
(indirect effect 50.26, SE 50.13; 95% CI [0.015,
0.509]; see Online Appendix B, Figure B1). Thus,
greater interpersonal effectiveness from workplace
impostor thoughts did not seem to come with draw-
backs for subjective performance in this study.
Discussion
Study 1 provided evidence, using multisource,
time-lagged data, that having workplace impostor
thoughts was significantly positively related to per-
ceived interpersonal effectiveness at work. The effect
remained after I controlled for self-presentational con-
cerns, baseline performance, race, gender, and role ten-
ure. I also found that greater perceived interpersonal
effectiveness did not come at the expense of subjec-
tive performance in this particular sample. Yet, this
study was subject to limitations. First, although I
ruled out two alternative explanations (i.e., self-
presentational concerns and performance), there may
be others. For example, a high self-monitor could be
very focused on others’views of their competence—
thus having more frequent workplace impostor
thoughts—and may also be attuned to others’reac-
tions to their personal interactions—leading to greater
interpersonal effectiveness. Second, this study did
not measure the hypothesized mediator—an other-
focused orientation—a key variable in my model.
Third, I had yet to examine competence-related out-
comes beyond subjective performance like objective
performance, which would be critical for contextual-
izing my hypothesized interpersonal benefit within
the workplace. Thus, I ran Study 2 to enhance my
package of studies.
STUDY 2
Sample and Procedure
In Study 2, I invited physicians-in-training at a
medical school in the mid-Atlantic region of the
United States to partake in a patient interaction that
“would allow researchers to assess their clinical
skills.”Physicians-in-training were two months away
from starting their clinical rotations and were
recruited via email with the assistance of the medical
school. Seventy physicians-in-training opted to par-
ticipate (44%, female; M
age
524.8 years, SD
age
52.6).
4
Given that the study was intended to simulate a
real-world physician–patient interaction for those
participating—thereby enhancing external valid-
ity—I also recruited patients. Patients were Stan-
dardized Patient actors (SPs), members of the
community who supplemented their income by
assisting in training individuals who were at various
stages in their medical careers. SPs were recruited
with the following casting criteria: males under the
age of 50 years old. Thirteen participated. Because
SPs underwent an extensive training on the medical
case that they were expected to act out as well as a
TABLE 3
Study 1: Effect of Workplace Impostor Thoughts on Interpersonal Effectiveness
Variable
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
estimate SE t estimate SE t estimate SE t
Intercept 5.629 0.170 33.034 5.210 0.336 15.492 5.351 0.354 15.115
Workplace impostor thoughts 0.135 0.068 1.9980.184 0.069 2.665 0.193 0.069 2.792
Self-presentational concerns —— —20.115 0.045 22.55820.124 0.045 22.736
Baseline performance —— — 0.330 0.124 2.657 0.315 0.125 2.515
Gender —— — —— — 20.117 0.135 20.864
Race —— — —— — 20.147 0.195 20.751
Role tenure —— — —— — 20.008 0.013 20.595
22 log likelihood 382.055 369.404 367.803
D22 log likelihood —12.651 1.601
Notes:n5155. Gender: female 51, male 50. Race: people of color 51, White 50. Baseline performance is a “1,”“2,”or “3”(top).
†
p,.10
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
4
Based on this sample size, a post-hoc sensitivity power
analysis revealed that the study was sensitive to detecting
a slightly smaller than medium effect at 80% power.
2022 Tewfik 999

training around how to assess physicians’interper-
sonal skills, they offered a standardized, controlled
experience for physicians such that interactions
were identical, no matter the specific actor. In this
way, I was able to enhance internal validity.
After consultation with the medical school, I
selected two cases: one in which the patient exhib-
ited migraine symptoms and one in which the
patient exhibited symptoms consistent with a sexu-
ally transmitted illness. These cases were chosen
because they were challenging from an interpersonal
standpoint. Physicians-in-training took part in one
of the two cases depending on when they partici-
pated. I statistically account for which of the cases
physicians-in-training faced.
About one week before the physician–patient
interaction (Time 1), physicians-in-training com-
pleted a survey that measured workplace impostor
thoughts as well as control variables. On the day of
the interaction, physicians-in-training participated
in a 30-minute encounter with a SP in which they
collected the SP’s history and information around
the reason for his visit. SPs, blind to study hypothe-
ses and data on the physicians-in-training, then pro-
vided interpersonal effectiveness ratings for each of
the physicians with whom they interacted.
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, respondents used a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to7
(strongly agree) when responding to the items below.
Independent variable: Workplace impostor
thoughts (Time 1). I used the same five-item scale
from Study 1. Given the sample, I changed “at work”
to “in medical school”(sample item: “In medical
school, people important to me think I am more
capable than I think I am”;a5.91).
Interpersonal effectiveness (Time 2). To measure
perceived interpersonal effectiveness, I relied on the
interpersonal skills inventory in use by the medical
school. Using a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (poor)to
4(very good), SPs rated physicians-in-training with
regard to how well they elicited information, lis-
tened, and expressed empathy (a5.60). To explore
whether these three skills loaded together onto a sin-
gle higher-order factor of perceived interpersonal
effectiveness, I ran an exploratory factor analysis
using principal components with direct oblimin
rotation. I found that items loaded onto a single fac-
tor (each with loadings greater than .73).
Control variables. I sought to include control var-
iables that could serve as alternative explanations
not ruled out in Study 1 (Becker, Atinc, Breaugh,
Carlson, Edwards, & Spector, 2016). For example, as
noted in Study 1’s discussion, perhaps those high in
workplace impostor thoughts are also high in self-
monitoring (Chrisman, Pieper, Clance, Holland, &
Glickauf-Hughes, 1995; Clance & Imes, 1978), and
high self-monitoring rather than workplace impostor
thoughts predicts interpersonal effectiveness (Day,
Shleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002). Accordingly, to
control for self-monitoring, I used eight items from
Lennox and Wolfe (1984) (sample item: “Iwould
probably make a good actor”;a5.81). I also con-
trolled for race (1 5people of color; 0 5White) and
gender (1 5female, 0 5male).
Analyses and Results
Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations,
and correlations among the variables.
TABLE 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study 2
Variable Mean SD 1234567
1 Workplace impostor thoughts 3.38 1.10 —
2 Interpersonal effectiveness 3.30 0.53 .35 —
3 Self-monitoring 3.20 1.10 .27.06 —
4 Gender 0.44 0.50 .08 .19 2.19 —
5 Race 0.61 0.49 .06 .05 2.01 .18 —
6 Other-focused orientation
a
3.68 0.42 .49 .47 .11 .34.13 —
7 Objective performance
a
(diagnosis accuracy) 0.53 0.51 2.23 .06 2.05 2.15 2.23 2.01 —
Notes:n570. Gender: female 51, male 50. Race: people of color 51, White 50.
a
n545 (additional analyses). Objective performance is binary (1 5correct diagnosis, 0 5incorrect).
†
p,.10
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
1000 Academy of Management Journal June

Confirmatory factor analyses. I first examined
whether there was discriminant validity among con-
structs assessed by the same source (e.g., from physi-
cians-in-training: workplace impostor thoughts and
self-monitoring). Due to the number of self-
monitoring items relative to sample size, I created
four parcels (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Wida-
man, 2002). As expected, my hypothesized two-
factor model fit the data well, x
2
(25) 539.81, CFI 5
.96, RMSEA 5.09, and was superior to a one-factor
model, x
2
(26) 5127.38, CFI 5.71, RMSEA 5.24,
p,.001.
Hypothesis testing. Hypothesis 1 predicted that
workplace impostor thoughts would be positively
related to other-rated interpersonal effectiveness. To
account for the fact that physicians-in-training were
nested under different cases, I used HLM with maxi-
mum likelihood estimation.
5
In support of Hypothe-
sis 1, I found that entertaining workplace impostor
thoughts was significantly positively associated
with interpersonal effectiveness (estimate 50.18,
SE 50.05, p5.001, f
2
5.17; see Table 5, column 1).
Furthermore, this result held when controlling for
self-monitoring, gender, and race (estimate 50.18,
SE 50.06, p5.002, f
2
5.15; see Table 5, column 2).
Additional analyses: Other-focused orientation.
Study 2 also offered a rare opportunity to unobtru-
sively assess the mechanism of other-focused orien-
tation in the field—per Hypothesis 2—given that SP
interactions were often video-recorded. Assessing
an other-focused orientation by coding videos of
interactions was useful for three reasons. First, from
a theoretical standpoint, the adoption of an other-
focused orientation may occur outside conscious
awareness (McElwee & Yurak, 2007). Thus, tradi-
tional self-report measures assessing an other-
focused orientation may not be appropriate. Second,
conceptually, an other-focused orientation appears
to have verbal, paraverbal, and nonverbal manifesta-
tions (Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Comprehen-
sively measuring such an orientation in the field
may thus be best achieved via a method that captures
both audible and visual information. Third, method-
ologically, assessing an other-focused orientation
via video coding minimizes social desirability con-
cerns (Moorman & Podsakoff, 1992), lending greater
confidence that what is observed is in line with what
we would expect to see in work settings.
Due to technical difficulties, only the interactions
involved with Case 1 physicians-in-training were
successfully recorded, reflecting 64.3% of the sam-
ple (n545 videos). Before coding, I checked for non-
response bias and did not find significant evidence
at p,.05.
6
Thus, to code Case 1 videos for
TABLE 5
Study 2: Effect of Workplace Impostor Thoughts on Interpersonal Effectiveness
Variables
Column 1 Column 2
estimate SE t estimate SE t
Intercept 2.662 0.206 12.932 2.628 0.51 10.467
Workplace impostor thoughts 0.181 0.054 3.348 0.177 0.056 3.157
Self-monitoring —— —20.007 0.056 20.131
Gender —— — 0.169 0.120 1.405
Race —— —20.006 0.120 20.054
22 log likelihood 99.389 97.209
D22 log likelihood —2.18
Notes:n570. Gender: female 51, male 50. Race: people of color 51, White 50.
†
p,.10
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
5
Results are similar when physicians-in-training are
instead nested within SPs. See Table C1 in Online
Appendix C.
6
I found that Case 2 physicians-in-training did not sig-
nificantly differ at p,.05 from Case 1 physicians-in-train-
ing with regard to gender (44.4% female in Case 1 vs.
44.0% female in Case 2;
x
2
(1) 50.001, p5.971, Cramer’s
V5.004), age (M
Case1
525.20, SD
Case1
52.60 vs. M
Case2
5
24.53, SD
Case2
52.63; t(68) 51.02, p5.31, d50.26), race
(64.4% people of color in Case 1 vs. 56.0% people of color
in Case 2;
x
2
(1) 50.484, p5.487, Cramer’sV5.083), and
interpersonal effectiveness M
Case1
53.19, SD
Case1
50.46 vs.
M
Case2
53.36, SD
Case2
50.56; t(68) 521.28, p5.21,
d52.32). The two cases did not significantly differ at
2022 Tewfik 1001

physicians-in-trainings’other-focused orientation, I
recruited two research assistants, blind to hypothe-
ses. We identified which indicators to code for by
iterating between watching videos and reviewing
the existing literature. Ultimately, we settled on sev-
eral theoretically-supported verbal, nonverbal, and
paraverbal indicators (e.g., follow-up statements
[Huang et al., 2017], open hand gestures [Feyereisen
& De Lannoy, 1991], and receptive tone [Ambady &
Rosenthal, 1998]; see Table 6 for a comprehensive
list). Using these indicators, coders then watched all
45 videos, pausing every minute to rate the level of
other-focused orientation observed on a scale of 1
(very slight or not at all)to5(very much). Because
coding involved three sets of indicators (verbal, non-
verbal, and paraverbal), coders watched each video
three times, focusing on a single set of indicators at a
time (resulting in a total of 2721.6 minutes coded,
not including any recoding due to the inherent itera-
tive nature of this process). Coders exhibited high
reliability and agreement across indicators (verbal:
ICC(2) 5.72, p,.001, r
WG
5.95; nonverbal: ICC(2) 5
.80, p,.001, r
WG
5.93; paraverbal: ICC(2) 5.80, p,
.001, r
WG
5.95) (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Also,
exploratory factor analyses using principal compo-
nents with direct oblimin rotation revealed that indi-
cators loaded onto a single factor of other-focused
orientation (coder 1 loadings .. 69; coder 2 loadings
..80). Thus, I averaged the three items to develop a
measure of other-focused orientation for each physi-
cian (a5.87).
7
To test whether other-focused orientation ex-
plained the positive relationship between workplace
impostor thoughts and perceived interpersonal effec-
tiveness, I used multilevel structural equation model-
ing, given physicians were nested within SPs. Per
Hypothesis 2, I specified a model that had a direct
path from workplace impostor thoughts to interper-
sonal effectiveness, one from workplace impostor
thoughts to other-focused orientation, and one from
other-focused orientation to interpersonal effective-
ness. To facilitate an understanding of effect sizes, I
provide standardized coefficients alongside unstan-
dardized coefficients following current practices with
multilevel structural equation modeling, which is
possible when using a Bayes estimator
8
(see Shockley
et al., 2021). As seen in Figure 2, I found support for
Hypothesis 2. Workplace impostor thoughts were pos-
itively related to other-focused orientation (estimate 5
0.23, estimate’50.56, SE 50.06, p,.001). Also,
other-focused orientation was positively associated
with interpersonal effectiveness (estimate 50.73, est-
imate’50.64, SE 50.32, p5.004). Finally, there was
a significant positive indirect effect of workplace
impostor thoughts on interpersonal effectiveness
through an other-focused orientation (indirect effect 5
0.17, SE 50.09; 95% CI [0.036, 0.374]). Also, in sup-
port of Hypothesis 1, I found a significant total effect
of workplace impostor thoughts on interpersonal
effectiveness (estimate 50.21, SE 50.12; 95% CI
[0.010, 0.460]).
Competence-related spillover effect supplemen-
tary analyses. For this case, I also had data on
whether physicians-in-training obtained the correct
diagnosis (1 5correct, 0 5incorrect). Thus, I ex-
plored whether the benefit of greater interpersonal
TABLE 6
Study 2: Verbal, Nonverbal, and Paraverbal Indicators of Other-Focused Orientation
Indicator Category Citation
Statements recognizing patient pain Verbal Reis and Patrick (1996)
Follow-ups to patient statements Verbal Huang et al. (2017)
“I”statements (reverse-coded) Verbal Caporael, Dawes, Orbell, and Van de Kragt (1989)
Eye gaze Nonverbal Grammer, Honda, Juette, and Schmitt (1999)
Open hand gestures and body language Nonverbal Feyereisen and De Lannoy (1991)
Nodding Nonverbal Norton and Pettegrew (1979)
Receptive, nonjudgmental, agreeable,
curious, and caring tone
Paraverbal Ambady and Rosenthal (1998)
p,.05, but did at p,.10, with regard to workplace impos-
tor thoughts (M
Case1
53.70, SD
Case1
51.09 vs. M
Case2
53.20,
SD
Case2
51.07; t(68) 51.86, p5.068, d50.46).
7
In support of discriminant validity between other-
focused orientation and perceived interpersonal effective-
ness, my two-factor model fit the data well,
x
2
(8) 510.39,
CFI 5.98, RMSEA 5.08, and exhibited superior fit in com-
parison to a one-factor model,
x
2
(9) 518.23, CFI 5.93,
RMSEA 5.15, p,.01.
8
As a robustness check, I also ran the multilevel model
using a general estimator (a method that provides only
unstandardized coefficients) and found the same pattern
of results. See Online Appendix C.
1002 Academy of Management Journal June

effectiveness from workplace impostor thoughts also
came with downsides for objective performance.
Using logistic regression, I did not find that workplace
impostor thoughts significantly negatively affected
objective performance (estimate 520.46, SE 50.30,
p5.129, exp(B)5.634; see Online Appendix C, Table
C2) nor did I find that such thoughts negatively
impacted objective performance through an other-
focused orientation (indirect effect 50.13, SE 50.22;
95% CI [20.268, 0.613]; see Online Appendix C,
Figure C1).
Discussion
In a sample of physicians-in-training, I again
found that having workplace impostor thoughts
was significantly positively related to perceived
interpersonal effectiveness at work. The result held
after controlling for self-monitoring, indicating that
self-monitoring was not an alternative explanation.
In additional analyses, Study 2 provided clarity
around the mediating role of other-focused orienta-
tion. Once I took into account an other-focused ori-
entation by coding videos of physician–patient
interactions, I found that the effect of workplace
impostor thoughts on interpersonal effectiveness
largely operated through an other-focused orien-
tation. Building off of this study’s findings, I
next sought to run a third experimental study
with a larger sample to provide complimentary,
higher-powered, causal support around the effect
of workplace impostor thoughts on perceived
interpersonal effectiveness through other-focused
orientation.
STUDY 3A
Sample and Procedure
In Study 3A, I ran a pre-registered experiment
with a yoked design to build upon the two field stud-
ies (pre-registration: https://aspredicted.org/45688.
pdf). I recruited 308 U.S. full-time employees (42%,
female; M
age
533.02 years, SD
age
58.84) via Prolific
to take part following a sample size calculation of a
small to medium effect with 80% power. Employees
were randomly assigned to one of two experimental
conditions: a workplace impostor thoughts condi-
tion and a control condition. In the workplace
impostor thoughts condition, I asked employees to
recall a particular incident at work in which they
thought that others at work overestimated their tal-
ent or abilities. In the control condition, I asked
employees to recall a particular incident at work in
which they thought others thought they had the
same level of abilities and talent that they thought
they had. After the recall, employees were told to
imagine that, right after the incident they recalled,
they had an opportunity to interview for a promo-
tion at work that they really wanted. In choosing a
strong competence-forward situation, I sought to
provide a conservative test of my hypotheses.
Before formally interviewing, they were told that
they would be able to engage in an informal coffee
chat with the prospective interviewer in which
they could direct the conversation. To evaluate
employees’conversation choices, I then recruited a
second sample of participants such that there was
one participant yoked to each employee. Partici-
pants in the second sample, who were recruited
via Prolific, were all full-time employees, native
FIGURE 2
Study 2: Additional Analyses Results
Other-Focused
Orientation
0.23 (0.06)*** 0.73 (0.32)**
0.03 (0.11)
Workplace Impostor
Thoughts
Interpersonal
Effectiveness
Notes:n545. Indirect effect of workplace impostor thoughts on interpersonal effectiveness through other-focused orientation 50.17, SE 5
0.09; 95%CI [0.036,0.374]. Total effect of workplace impostor thoughts 50.21, SE 50.12; 95%CI [0.010, 0.460].
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
2022 Tewfik 1003

English speakers, and had experience hiring an
employee (46%, female; M
age
540.78 years, SD
age
5
12.02).
9
Measures
Other-focused orientation. I measured other-
focused orientation by counting the number of
other-focused questions that employees in the first
sample selected when directing the conversation
with the prospective interviewer. Employees saw 10
pairs of questions in which they had the choice of
either answering a question or asking a question (the
latter reflecting other-focus, following Huang et al.,
2017: 431). Questions were based on Kervyn et al.
(2009). For example, employees saw, “Would you
rather answer the following question—‘In what areas
would you say you are particularly strong? Can you
give some examples?’—OR ask the following ques-
tion to your interviewer—‘What strengths do you
look for in an ideal candidate applying to this posi-
tion? Can you give some examples?’”
Interpersonal effectiveness. To measure per-
ceived interpersonal effectiveness, an employee
from the second set of participants was randomly
assigned to evaluate the choices made by an
employee in the first set. Specifically, participants in
the second set read:
In a prior experiment featuring full-time employees,
employees were told that they would have an oppor-
tunity to interview for another role that would be a
promotion. Before interviewing, candidates had an
opportunity to direct the conversation in an informal
coffee chat with the interviewer. You will see the
choices they made. Using this information, I will ask
you to make inferences about a candidate based on
his/her choices.
After reviewing an employee’s choices, the em-
ployees from the second set, who all had hiring
experience, gave interpersonal effectiveness ratings
on a scale from 1 (not at all likely)to6(extremely
likely) using eight items from Bartram (2005) (sam-
ple item: “Relates to others across levels”;a5.94).
After running an exploratory factor analysis using
principal components with direct oblimin rotation, I
found that all eight items loaded onto a single
higher-order factor of interpersonal effectiveness
(each with loadings greater than .71).
Analyses
Table 7 presents the means, standard deviations,
and correlations among the variables.
Excluded participants. Forty-five participants
failed attention checks, resulting in a final sample of
264. Accordingly, the number of participants (i.e.,
those with hiring experience) recruited for the sec-
ond sample was also 264, for a total of 528
participants.
Manipulation check. To evaluate the success of
my manipulation, participants in the first set saw the
question “How frequently did you have the follow-
ing thoughts in your recalled experience?”followed
by four items from my workplace impostor thoughts
scale (sample item: “People think I am more capable
than I think I am”;a5.85). As expected, those in the
workplace impostor thoughts condition reported
entertaining more of such thoughts (M54.31, SD 5
0.85) than those in the control condition (M53.51,
SD 51.26; t(262) 56.053, p,.001, d50.75).
Hypothesis testing. Hypothesis 1 predicted a posi-
tive association between workplace impostor thoughts
and perceived interpersonal effectiveness. I did not
find support for Hypothesis 1 (workplace impostor
thoughts: M54.00, SD 50.90 vs. control: M53.93,
SD 50.90; t(262) 50.64, p5.53, d50.08). Yet, in
support of Hypothesis 2, those in the workplace
impostor thoughts condition (M55.12, SD 52.49)
adopted a greater other-focused orientation than
those in the control condition (M54.35, SD 52.04;
t(262) 52.743, p5.007, d50.34).
10
An other-focused
TABLE 7
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for
Study 3A
Variable Mean SD 123
1 Workplace impostor thoughts 0.50 0.50 —
2 Interpersonal effectiveness 3.96 0.90 .04 —
3 Other-focused orientation 4.73 2.30 .17 .42 —
Notes:n5264. Workplace impostor thoughts is a dummy
variable: 1 5present, 0 5control. Other-focused orientation is a
count variable (range: 1–8).
†
p,.10
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
9
One participant did not provide demographic
information.
10
As a robustness check, I also examined the relation-
ship between workplace impostor thoughts and other-
focused orientation using a Poisson regression given the
count nature of other-focused orientation (estimate 50.16,
SE 50.06, p5.006, IR R 51.177).
1004 Academy of Management Journal June

orientation was positively associated with inter-
personal effectiveness (estimate 50.17, SE 50.02,
t(261) 57.51, p,.001, d50.93), and, finally, there
was a positive indirect effect of workplace impostor
thoughts on perceived interpersonal effectiveness
through other-focused orientation (indirect effect 5
0.13, SE 50.05; 95% CI [0.04, 0.22]). See Table 8.
Discussion
By manipulating workplace impostor thoughts,
Study 3A provides causal evidence for my theoretical
model, complementing correlational field evidence
in Studies 1 and 2. In detail, I found support for a pos-
itive indirect effect: having workplace impostor
thoughts prompts employees to adopt a more other-
focused orientation, which results in greater interper-
sonal effectiveness, as rated by a second set of
employees with hiring experience. Another strength
of Study 3A was the behavioral measure of other-
focused orientation, which allowed for a constructive
replication of Study 2 results (Lykken, 1968). How-
ever, there remained opportunities to build upon and
strengthen that which was presented in Study 3A. In
particular, with the Study 3A other-focused orienta-
tion measure, there perhaps could be a question
around whether choosing to ask questions was
indeed an indication of other-focus or instead a mea-
sure of avoidance around displaying competence
(e.g., a lack of self-promotion). As such, refining and
validating an alternative other-focused orientation
measure in a second experimental study could be
fruitful. Moreover, whereas the control condition pre-
sented in Study 3A was chosen to be as close to the
workplace impostor thoughts condition as possible
by invoking workplace thoughts of a different nature,
one concern could be that the control condition
actually triggered self-verification, thereby driving
the obtained effects. Accordingly, I devised Study 3B
to address these concerns. Moreover, in Study 3B, I
sought to both test the micro-mechanism of self-
esteem linking workplace impostor thoughts to other-
focused orientation (Hypotheses 3a and 3b) and
examine competing mechanisms to other-focused ori-
entation (Hypothesis 4), given that I did not find
evidence for a total effect in Study 3A. Finally,
although I showed that greater interpersonal effec-
tiveness did not seem to come at the expense of
subjective and objective performance in the two
prior field studies, I sought to explore whether
there was a negative spillover effect on selection in
an experimental setting.
STUDY 3B
Sample and Procedure
Study 3B featured a pre-registered experiment with
a yoked design (pre-registration: https://aspredicted.
org/nt5s2.pdf) that expanded and built upon Study
3A. In this sample, 701 U.S. full-time employees
(58%, female; M
age
533 years, SD
age
59.49) via Pro-
lific took part following a conservative sample size
calculation of a very small to small effect with 80%
power. Employees were randomly assigned to one of
two experimental conditions: a workplace impostor
thoughts condition and a control condition. The
workplace impostor thoughts condition was identical
to that in Study 3A. In the control condition, I asked
employees to recall what they had for lunch the previ-
ous day. This control condition was chosen because
it was similar to the workplace impostor thoughts
condition in terms of what participants were asked to
do, but had the benefit of offsetting aforementioned
TABLE 8
Study 3A: Effect of Workplace Impostor Thoughts on Interpersonal Effectiveness
Variable
Column 1: Other-focused orientation Column 2: Interpersonal effectiveness
estimate SE t estimate SE t
Intercept 4.346 0.197 22.019 3.202 0.120 26.743
Workplace impostor thoughts 0.769 0.280 2.743 20.057 0.102 20.573
Other-focused orientation —— — 0.167 0.022 7.509
Notes:n5264. Given the experimental design, workplace impostor thoughts is a dummy variable (1 5present, 0 5control);
other-focused orientation is a count variable (range: 1–8). Indirect effect of workplace impostor thoughts on interpersonal effectiveness
through other-focused orientation 50.13, SE 50.04; 95% CI [0.04, 0.22].
†
p,.10
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
2022 Tewfik 1005

weakness that might be associated with the control in
Study 3A.
11
Like in Study 3A, after the recall,
employees were told to imagine that, right after the
incident they recalled, they had an opportunity to
interview for a promotion at work that they really
wanted, and that they could direct the conversation.
The way that they could direct the conversation dif-
fered from Study 3A. Specifically, they saw 16 ques-
tions and were asked to choose eight of them. Half of
these 16 questions were questions they could answer
(e.g., “What do you find particularly challenging
about your current work role?”). The other half of the
questions were questions they could ask (e.g., “What
do you think success looks like in this position?”).
For questions they chose to answer, they were
prompted to write out what they would say in
response to the question.
12
To evaluate employees’
choices (and answers, if they chose to answer any),
I then recruited a second sample such that there
was one participant yoked to each employee. Par-
ticipants in the second sample, recruited via Pro-
lific, were all full-time employees, native English
speakers, and had supervisory experience, following
available Prolific filters (52%, female; M
age
538
years, SD
age
510.17).
13
Measures
14
Unless otherwise noted, respondents used a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to7
(strongly agree) when responding to the items below.
State self-esteem. I measured state self-esteem
using four items from Heatherton and Polivy (1991)
(sample item: “I do not feel confident about my abil-
ities”;a5.91). For ease of interpretation, items were
reverse-scored so that higher scores represent higher
state self-esteem.
Other-focused orientation. I measured other-
focused orientation behaviorally by counting the
number of questions that employees in the first sam-
ple chose to ask out of eight possible questions when
directing the conversation with the prospective
interviewer.
15
As noted, existing theory implicates
question-asking—specifically, asking information-
seeking questions from a conversational partner—as
an indicator of other-focused orientation (Huang
et al., 2017: 431). A sample question participants
could ask was, “What are the most important things
you’d like to see someone accomplish in the first
90 days on the job?”
Self-handicapping. I measured self-handicapping
behaviorally by counting the number of questions
out of two possible ones that employees in the first
sample chose to answer. Following the literature
on claimed self-handicapping (Rhodewalt et al.,
1995), a sample question participants could
choose to answer that reflected self-handicapping
was, “Try to remember the last time you performed
poorly on a work task. What explained your poor
performance?”
Interpersonal effectiveness. To measure per-
ceived interpersonal effectiveness, an employee from
the second set of participants was randomly assigned
to evaluate the choices made by an employee in the
first set. Specifically, just like in Study 3A, employees
from the second set, who all had supervisory experi-
ence, gave interpersonal effectiveness ratings on a scale
from 1 (not at all likely)to6(extremely likely) using six
items from Bartram (2005) (sample item: “Relates to
11
Studies 3A and 3B can be viewed as companion stud-
ies with each study addressing the limitations of the other.
12
At the point in the experiment in which they had to
make their choices, participants were not aware that they
would be asked to provide answers to any questions they
chose to answer, assuaging concerns that laziness may be a
factor driving differences between the two conditions.
13
Two participants did not provide demographic
information.
14
Study 3B features behavioral measures for other-
focused orientation, self-handicapping, self-promotion, and
self-denigration. The inclusion of behavioral measures in
experiments is often applauded (Baumeister, Vohs, &
Funder, 2007). To further validate that my measures cap-
tured the conceptual space of each of these constructs as
defined in the manuscript, following prior literature, I
recruited two organizational behavioral scholars, blind to the
study and hypotheses. I asked both scholars to categorize the
questions for asking and answering contained in Study 3B
according to the psychological construct each best repre-
sented (see Online Appendix D for greater detail). Coders
exhibited very strong agreement that my behavioral
measures indeed reflected the constructs as defined in the lit-
erature and in the paper (
k
first rater
5.88;
k
second rater
51.00). I
alsodidthissameexercisewithapanelof10naivecoders
recruited from Prolific. Seeing strong alignment from naïve
coders (i.e.,
k
s..70) would lend further credence to the
conclusion that my behavioral measures captured the
respective conceptual spaces. I, indeed, found strong
alignment also among naïve coders (
k
first rater
5.91;
k
second rater
51.00;
k
third rater
5.91;
k
fourth rater
5.74;
k
fifth rater
51.00;
k
sixth rater
51.00;
k
seventh rater
51.00;
k
eighth rater
5.82;
k
ninth rater
51.00;
k
tenth rater
5.82).
15
Unlike Study 3A, these questions for asking were not
directly pitted against those for answering, thereby avoid-
ing the concerns associated with Study 3A’s measure of
other-focused orientation.
1006 Academy of Management Journal June

others across levels”;a5.94). An exploratory factor
analysis using principal components with direct obli-
min rotation showed that all six items loaded onto a
single higher-order factor of interpersonal effectiveness
(each with loadings greater than .84).
Alternative defensive responses: Self-denigration
and self-promotion.
16
I also measured alternative
defensive responses that could serve as alternative,
sometimes competing, explanatory mechanisms to
other-focused orientation. For example, one could
imagine that those high in workplace impostor
thoughts could also, or in addition, try to prove their
competence to themselves or others (Clance, 1985),
perhaps through self-promotion, defined as attempts
to positively influence judgments of competence
(Jones & Pittman, 1982). Moreover, self-promotion
could be negatively associated with interpersonal
effectiveness ratings (Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986).
Thus, I measured self-promotion behaviorally by
counting the number of questions out of two that
employees in the first sample chose to answer.Fol-
lowing the literature on self-promotion (Jones & Pitt-
man, 1982), a sample question participants could
choose to answer was, “In what areas would you say
you are particularly strong? Can you give some
examples?”As another alternative mechanism, one
could imagine that those high in workplace impostor
thoughts could also, or in addition, self-denigrate
(Hutchins et al., 2018), or put themselves down,
which could negatively influence interpersonal
evaluations (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Thus, I mea-
sured self-denigration behaviorally by counting the
number of questions out of two that employees in
the first sample chose to answer. Following the liter-
ature on self-denigration (Schlenker & Leary, 1982),
a sample question participants could choose to
answer was, “What makes you question whether
you would be a good fit for this role?”
Alternative micro-mechanisms to state self-esteem.
I also measured alternative micro-mechanisms to
self-esteem that could explain a relationship be-
tween workplace impostor thoughts and other-
focused orientation, in either the same, or a compet-
ing, direction. Perhaps those high in such thoughts
feel a sense of low belonging (Bravata et al., 2019),
and thus adopt an other-focused orientation as a way
to promote affiliation. To account for this, I included
three belonging items (Zadro, Williams, & Richard-
son, 2004; sample item: “I might be poorly accepted
by the interviewer”;a5.92). For ease of interpreta-
tion, items were reverse-scored so that higher scores
represent higher belonging. Alternatively, perhaps
those high in workplace impostor thoughts feel
greater positive affect toward others because others
see them more positively (Meister et al., 2014), and
this increased positive affect is positively related to
an other-focused orientation (Grant & Wrzesniewski,
2010). Hence, I included five items from Vorauer
and Kumhyr (2001) to tap into emotions felt toward
others (e.g., “happy”;a5.91). Lastly, perhaps
those high in workplace impostor thoughts feel
anxiety (Rohrmann et al., 2016), and anxiety
influences an other-focused orientation (Ingram,
Scott, Holle, & Chavira, 2003). I measured anxi-
ety using three items (Brooks, 2014; sample item:
Ifeel“anxious”;a5.96).
Competence-related spillover effect: Selection
for interview. Finally, for supplementary analyses, I
recruited a third set of participants, one yoked to
each employee in the first set, to render judgments
around whether they would invite their reviewed
employee to interview based on their conversation
choices (e.g., “Would you invite this candidate for
an interview?”with two response options: “Yes”or
“No”). In this way, I sought to explore whether
greater perceived interpersonal effectiveness came
at the expense of candidate selection. Participants in
the third sample were all full-time employees, native
English speakers, and had supervisory experience,
following available Prolific filters (52%, female;
M
age
536 years, SD
age
510.30).
Analyses
Table 9 presents the means, standard deviations,
and correlations among the variables.
17
Excluded participants. Overall, 104 participants
failed pre-registered attention checks, resulting in a
16
I also included two filler questions, so that there were
eight “answer”questions to match the eight “ask”ques-
tions available: “What do you like doing outside of work?”
and “What are your preferences around socializing at and
outside of work?”I did find that selection of these ques-
tions for answering differed by condition (workplace
impostor thoughts: M50.71, SD 50.73 vs. control:
M50.93, SD 50.74; t(595) 53.710, p,.001, d50.30).
17
In support of discriminant validity between other-
focused orientation and perceived interpersonal effective-
ness, I looked at the correlation between other-focused ori-
entation and perceived interpersonal effectiveness, given
that the former is a count variable and the latter is continu-
ous. As seen in Table 9, r5.24, which is a correlation that
is well below cutoffs that signal a lack of discriminant
validity (i.e., r5|.70|) (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Cohen,
1992).
2022 Tewfik 1007

final sample of 597.
18
Accordingly, the number of
participants (i.e., those with supervisory experi-
ence) recruited for the second and third samples
were also 597 each, for a total of 1,791 participants
involved. Following the pre-registration, two
research assistants also checked responses given
to any questions selected for answering to identify
nonsensical responses. No responses were deemed
nonsensical by both research assistants. See Table
D1 in Online Appendix D for sample answers par-
ticipants gave for self-promoting, self-denigrating,
and self-handicapping questions.
Manipulation check. Participants in the first set
saw the question “How frequently did you have the
following thoughts in your recalled experience?”fol-
lowed by four items from my workplace impostor
thoughts scale (sample item: “People think I am
more capable than I think I am”;a5.92). As ex-
pected, those in the workplace impostor thoughts
condition reported entertaining more of such
thoughts (M54.34, SD 50.80) than those in the con-
trol condition (M52.88, SD 51.32; t(595) 516.471,
p,.001, d51.35).
Hypothesis testing. Table 10 displays the means
and standard deviations of the key focal variables by
condition. Table 11 and Figure 3 present the coeffi-
cients of hypothesized paths following those out-
lined in my theoretical model (Figure 1). I did not
find support for Hypothesis 1, which predicted a
positive association between workplace impostor
thoughts and perceived interpersonal effectiveness
(workplace impostor thoughts: M54.03, SD 50.95
vs. control: M53.95, SD 50.90; t(595) 51.082,
p5.28, d50.09; see Table 10).
19
In support of Hypothesis 2, and consistent with
Study 2, those in the workplace impostor thoughts
condition (M54.64, SD 51.26) adopted a greater
other-focused orientation than those in the control
condition (M54.39, SD 51.05; t(595) 52.617, p5
.009, d50.21; see Table 10).
20
Moreover, an other-
focused orientation was associated with greater per-
ceived interpersonal effectiveness (estimate 50.19,
SE 50.03, z(597) 55.44, p,.001, d50.45). Finally,
TABLE 9
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study 3B
Variable Mean SD 1234567891011
1 Workplace impostor thoughts 0.51 0.50 —
2 Interpersonal effectiveness 3.99 0.93 .04 —
3 Self-esteem 4.44 1.50 2.47 .01 —
4 Other-focused orientation 4.51 1.17 .11 .24 2.02 —
5 Self-handicapping 0.32 0.55 .08
†
2.08
†
2.05 2.35 —
6 Self-promotion 1.39 0.69 2.102.17 .102.46 2.13 —
7 Self-denigration 0.96 0.68 .02 2.092.082.50 .03 .01 —
8 Belonging 3.99 1.40 2.18 .01 .54 .04 2.02 .04 2.05 —
9 Other-directed positive affect 3.32 0.91 2.19 .01 .37 2.11 .02 .08
†
.04 .30 —
10 Anxiety 4.02 1.83 .62 .04 2.65 .09.01 2.05 2.01 2.46 2.39 —
11 Candidate selection 0.85 0.35 .05 .05 2.09.06 2.05 .11 2.03 2.05 2.01 .08
†
—
Notes:n5597. Workplace impostor thoughts (1 5present, 0 5control) and candidate selection (1 5yes, 0 5no) are dummy variables.
Self-esteem is measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree). Other-focused orientation is a count variable (range: 0–8);
perceived interpersonal effectiveness is measured on a scale from 1 (not at all likely)to6(extremely likely). Self-handicapping, self-
promotion, and self-denigration are count variables (range: 0–2).
†
p,.10
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
18
I examined whether the relationships between work-
place impostor thoughts and the three focal variables
obtained from the first set of participants (i.e., other-
focused orientation, self-handicapping, and self-esteem)
materially changed when excluded participants were
included. I did not find this to be the case (see Table D2 in
Online Appendix D, which can be compared to Table 10).
19
As another way to test Hypothesis 1, I calculated the
total effect of workplace impostor thoughts on perceived
interpersonal effectiveness from estimating the full model
(total effect 50.08, SE 50.08, p5.28; 95% CI [20.07,
0.23]).
20
As a robustness check, I also examined the relation-
ship between workplace impostor thoughts and other-
focused orientation using a Poisson regression, given the
count nature of other-focused orientation (estimate 50.06,
SE 50.02, p5.008, IR R 51.057).
1008 Academy of Management Journal June

I found a positive indirect effect of workplace impos-
tor thoughts on interpersonal effectiveness through
other-focused orientation (indirect effect 50.05, SE 5
0.02; 95% CI [0.01, 0.11]).
For Hypothesis 3a, whereas those in the work-
place impostor thoughts condition (M53.76, SD 5
1.35) did report lower self-esteem than those in the
control condition (M55.15, SD 51.30); t(595) 5
212.812, p,.001, d521.05; see Table 10), self-
esteem was not significantly related to other-focused
orientation (estimate 50.03, SE 50.04, z(597) 5
0.80, p5.43, d50.07). As such, self-esteem did not
mediate the relationship between workplace impos-
tor thoughts and other-focused orientation (indirect
effect 520.04, SE 50.05; 95% CI [20.14, 0.06]).
And, thus, I did not find a positive indirect effect of
workplace impostor thoughts on perceived interper-
sonal effectiveness serially through self-esteem and
other-focused orientation (Hypothesis 3b: indirect
effect 520.01, SE 50.01; 95% CI [20.03, 0.01]).
Finally, I tested whether self-handicapping served
as a competing mechanism to other-focused orienta-
tion per Hypothesis 4. Although the means trended
in the hypothesized direction, I did not find support
for a significant effect of workplace impostor
thoughts on self-handicapping at p,.05,butIdidat
p,.10 (workplace impostor thoughts: M50.36,
SD 50.58 vs. control: M50.28, SD 50.52; t(595) 5
1.838, p5.067, d50.15).
21
Also, despite the negative
correlation between self-handicapping and perceived
interpersonal effectiveness (r52.08, p5.054), the
two were not significantly related when estimating
the full model (estimate 50.00, SE 50.08, p5.99,
z(597) 50.00, d50.00). Hence, I did not find that self-
handicapping was a competing mechanism (indirect
effect 50.00, SE 50.01; 95% CI [20.02, 0.02]).
Supplementary analyses. The results above pro-
vided support for the core theoretical idea presented
in this paper: having workplace impostor thoughts
prompts employees to adopt a more other-focused
orientation, which results in greater other-perceived
interpersonal effectiveness. Yet, two open questions
remained that I sought to examine with the mea-
sured alternative mechanisms. First, why do those
with workplace impostor thoughts adopt an other-
focused orientation? Following work that shows that
self-esteem and positive affect are closely linked,
such that decreasing self-esteem decreases positive
affect (Brown, 1993), I found evidence for a serial
indirect effect of workplace impostor thoughts on
other-focused orientation first through self-esteem
followed by other-directed positive affect (indirect
effect 50.04, SE 50.02; 95% CI [0.004, 0.07]; see
Online Appendix D).
22
Furthermore, I found that
this serial indirect effect extended to interpersonal
effectiveness (indirect effect 50.01, SE 50.003; 95%
CI [0.001, 0.02]). Second, if self-handicapping did not
serve as a competing mechanism to other-focused ori-
entation for the relationship between workplace
impostor thoughts and interpersonal effectiveness,
would self-denigration or self-promotion do so, given
the nonsignificant total effect? Whereas I did not find
TABLE 10
Means and Standard Deviations for Focal Study 3B Variables by Condition
Variable
Workplace impostor thoughts Active control Significantly different?
Mean SD Mean SD t(df)
Self-esteem 3.76 1.36 5.15 1.30 212.801 (595)
Other-focused orientation 4.64 1.26 4.39 1.05 2.617 (595)
Interpersonal effectiveness 4.03 0.95 3.95 0.90 1.082 (595)
Self-handicapping 0.36 0.58 0.28 0.52 1.838 (595)
†
Notes:n5597. Self-esteem is measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree). Other-focused orientation is a count
variable (range: 0–8). Perceived interpersonal effectiveness is measured on a scale from 1 (not at all likely)to6(extremely likely).
Self-handicapping is a count variable (range: 0–2).
†
p,.10
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
21
As a robustness check, I also examined the relation-
ship between workplace impostor thoughts and self-
handicapping using a Poisson regression, given the count
nature of self-handicapping (estimate 50.26, SE 50.14,
p5.067, IRR 51.296).
22
See Online Appendix D for all mediating analyses
involving belonging, anxiety, and other-directed positive
affect alone and in serial with self-esteem.
2022 Tewfik 1009

evidence for self-denigration, I did find evidence for
a noncompeting alternative mechanism in self-
promotion when using 90% confidence intervals
(indirect effect 50.01, SE 50.01; 90% CI [0.002, 0.04];
see Online Appendix D).
Of particular note—across all supplementary anal-
yses, which involved testing eight additional mod-
els—support for the indirect effect of workplace
impostor thoughts on perceived interpersonal effec-
tiveness through an other-focused orientation per-
sisted. As such, much of the effect of workplace
impostor thoughts on perceived interpersonal effec-
tiveness appeared to operate through an other-focused
orientation.
Competence-related spillover effect analyses:
Candidate selection. When examining the selection
decisions that the third set of participants gave,
using logistic regression, I did not find that workplace
impostor thoughts had a negative effect on selection
(estimate 50.29, SE 50.23, p5.207, exp(B)51.342;
see Online Appendix D, Table D3). I also did not find
that workplace impostor thoughts negatively affected
selection through an other-focused orientation (indi-
rect effect 50.04, SE 50.04; 95% CI [20.028, 0.125];
see Online Appendix D, Figure D9).
Discussion
Study 3B, a pre-registered online experiment,
strengthens the package of studies presented in sev-
eral ways. First, I provide further causal evidence for
my full model—importantly, consistently finding
that having workplace impostor thoughts encour-
ages a more other-focused orientation, which results
in greater other-rated interpersonal effectiveness. A
second strength of Study 3B was a different vali-
dated behavioral measure of other-focused orienta-
tion, which allowed for a constructive replication of
Studies 2 and 3A (Lykken, 1968). Third, although I
did not find that self-esteem alone explained the
relationship between workplace impostor thoughts
and other-focused orientation, I found evidence of a
serial path first through self-esteem then other-
directed positive affect building off work showing the
tight linkage between self-esteem and affect (Brown,
1993). Fourth, I found evidence for my hypothesized
interpersonal upside in an interview-like setting,
which prizes competence, thereby providing a conser-
vative test for my hypotheses. However, this setting
may have also restricted my ability to see workplace
impostor thoughts’ultimate downstream effect on
other-perceived interpersonal effectiveness, given
TABLE 11
Study 3B: Model Results
Variable
Column 1: Self-esteem Column 2: Other-focused orientation Column 3: Self-handicapping Column 4: Interpersonal effectiveness
estimate SE Est./SE estimate SE Est./SE estimate SE Est./SE estimate SE Est./SE
Workplace impostor
thoughts
21.395 0.110 212.717 0.289 0.109 2.640 0.083 0.045 1.832
†
0.036 0.075 0.477
Self-esteem —— — 0.028 0.036 0.795 ——— — — —
Other-focused orientation —— — — — — — — — 0.185 0.034 5.463
Self-handicapping —— — — — — — — — 0.000 0.075 0.002
Notes:n5597. Hypotheses tested simultaneously. See Figure 3 for a visual representation of results. Hypotheses tested simultaneously using structural equation modeling.
Indirect effect of workplace impostor thoughts on interpersonal effectiveness through other-focused orientation 50.17, SE 50.09; 95% CI [0.036, 0.374]. Total effect of
workplace impostor thoughts 50.21, SE 50.12; 95% CI [0.010, 0.460].
†
p,.10
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
1010 Academy of Management Journal June

that I did not find a significant total effect—apoint
I revisit in my general discussion.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Although the impostor phenomenon, popularly
known as impostor syndrome, first garnered scholarly
interest in psychology as a highly problematic work-
place experience (Clance & Imes, 1978), research on
the phenomenon in organizational scholarship is still
scarce. In this investigation, I sought to draw attention
to this understudied workplace phenomenon heavily
featured in practitioner discourse (e.g., Sprankles,
2015; Stahl, 2017; Wilding, 2020) by introducing the
construct of workplace impostor thoughts and out-
lining new integrative theory that highlights how it
may in particular be positively related to other-rated
interpersonal effectiveness. I conclude by discussing
how my findings augment and rebalance our under-
standing of the phenomenon, shed light on an unre-
solved theoretical tension in extant theory, and
interrogate conventional wisdom, thereby impacting
practitioner implications.
Theoretical Implications
The existing conceptualization invoked in re-
search on the impostor phenomenon has been an
affective one that is synonymous with negative
affect, evidenced conceptually and empirically
(Leary et al., 2000; McElwee & Yurak, 2010).
While such a conceptualization has been genera-
tive, it overlooks seminal theorizing that empha-
sized its sociocognitive origins (Clance & Imes,
1978). Hence, I began this investigation by paying
homage to the phenomenon’s sociocognitive origins
in order to introduce the construct of workplace
impostor thoughts, defined as the belief that others
overestimate one’s competence at work. In some
ways, workplace impostor thoughts reflect a reintro-
duction of a forgotten conceptualization. In other
ways, the construct builds upon this forgotten con-
ceptualization by foregrounding the cognitions that
FIGURE 3
Study 3B: Model Results
Self-Handicapping
0.08 (0.05)†0.00 (0.08)
0.04 (0.08)
0.29 (0.11)**
0.03 (0.04)
0.19 (0.03)***
–1.40 (0.11)***
Workplace Impostor
Thoughts Interpersonal
Effectiveness
Other-Focused
Orientation
Self-Esteem
Notes:n5597. Indirect effect of workplace impostor thoughts on interpersonal effectiveness through other-focused orientation 50.05,
SE 50.02; 95%CI [0.01, 0.11]. Indirect effect of workplace impostor thoughts on other-focused orientation through self-esteem 520.04,
SE 50.05; 95%CI [20.14, 0.06]. Indirect effect of workplace impostor thoughts on interpersonal effectiveness through
self-handicapping 50.00, SE 50.01; 95%CI [20.02, 0.02]. Total indirect effects of workplace impostor thoughts on interpersonal effec-
tiveness 50.05, SE 50.02; 95%CI [0.01, 0.09].
†
p,.10
p,.05
 p,.01
 p,.001 (2-tailed)
2022 Tewfik 1011

characterize the phenomenon, the role of others, and
the workplace setting where the phenomenon sits.
Introducing this construct offers several benefits. It
exports back to psychology an augmented under-
standing of the phenomenon that complements the
affective conceptualization invoked, thereby avoiding
the “trade deficit”common in management when
importing theory or phenomena from other disci-
plines (Heath & Sitkin, 2001). Most crucially, it offers
a theoretical window through which organizational
scholars can begin to understand how interpersonal
benefits hinted in the literature may also coexist
alongside assumed detriments.
Indeed, in reconceptualizing the impostor phe-
nomenon as workplace impostor thoughts, I drew on
a contingencies of self-worth perspective to offer
and test an integrative theory that sheds light on the
phenomenon’s hinted, but theoretically uninte-
grated, interpersonal upside while simultaneously
accounting for the competing mechanism of self-
handicapping implicated in and consistent with the
prevailing negative view. In field studies featuring
employees at an investment advisory firm and
physicians-in-training, I found evidence of the posi-
tive relationship between workplace impostor
thoughts and perceived interpersonal effectiveness
that remained robust after controlling for a host of
rival explanations. Moreover, in additional analyses
of the physicians-in-training sample and subsequent
pre-registered experiments, I identified why work-
place impostor thoughts are positively related to
interpersonal effectiveness. In detail, I found that
workplace impostor thoughts are positively associ-
ated with interpersonal effectiveness because they
encourage those who have such thoughts to adopt a
more other-focused orientation. Moreover, this posi-
tive indirect effect remained significant when
accounting for the competing mechanism of self-
handicapping and alternatives explored in supple-
mentary analyses (e.g., self-denigration). Finally, I
further identified why those with workplace impos-
tor thoughts adopt an other-focused orientation:
more frequent workplace impostor thoughts lower
self-esteem, which decreases other-directed positive
affect, which thus encourages an other-focused ori-
entation as a potential way to “reset”and protect
one’s self-worth. In totality, when conceptualizing
the impostor phenomenon as workplace impostor
thoughts in line with seminal theorizing, we can
begin to see that the phenomenon may not be uni-
formly detrimental, as previously thought.
Identifying an other-focused orientation as the
critical mechanism linking workplace impostor
thoughts to interpersonal effectiveness also lays the
foundation for new insights. Prior work has assumed
that those who have such thoughts maladaptively
turn inwards in response as a way to manage the
threat to self-esteem, consistent with other phenom-
ena that are self-threatening (Neureiter & Traut-
Mattausch, 2016a, 2017; Vergauwe et al., 2015). By
drawing on a contingencies of self-worth perspec-
tive, I show, in contrast, that turning outwards can
instead be a proximal consequence. This helps illu-
minate a fundamental distinctive tension associated
with the phenomenon of workplace impostor
thoughts: although such thoughts threaten self-
esteem, crucially, others are not the source of threat,
given that others regard those with workplace
impostor thoughts highly. Thus, turning inwards
may not be the subsequent response. Relatedly,
largely missing from past research is an examination
of the mechanisms (Neureiter & Traut-Mattausch,
2017)—that is, the “theoretical glue”of a model
(Whetten, 1989)—that may explain relationships
observed. By attending to the social mechanism of
other-focused orientation, this work makes advance-
ments as it opens up a new line of research. Indeed,
past research implicates an other-focused orienta-
tion in outcomes like effective leadership and crea-
tivity (Bass & Riggio, 2005; Grant & Berry, 2011).
Accordingly, when in a quest to offer a more holistic,
balanced picture of this phenomenon, perhaps there
may be other positive outcomes yet to uncover.
Strengths, Limitations, and Foundations for
Future Research
Across four studies that leveraged correlational
and experimental data, this work identified how and
why workplace impostor thoughts influence other-
rated interpersonal effectiveness through an other-
focused orientation and introduced an empirical
measure of workplace impostor thoughts to do so.
This was an important first step in widening the the-
oretical aperture to begin to rebalance the existing
conversation arounda phenomenon long considered
uniformly pernicious. Yet, it raises a number of
follow-on questions. First, future work could con-
sider the boundary conditions around this interper-
sonal upshot. For example, at the individual level,
one might imagine that power may attenuate the pos-
itive relationship between workplace impostor
thoughts and other-focused orientation because
greater power is associated with greater self-focus
(Pitesa & Thau, 2013).
1012 Academy of Management Journal June

In a related vein, whereas this work sought to pro-
vide a fuller picture of the hypothesized benefit of
perceived interpersonal effectiveness in the work
and performance context by including supplemen-
tary analyses that did not identify negative relation-
ships between such thoughts and competence-
related outcomes, it is critical to not overgeneralize
these nonfindings. In fact, it could be useful to
deeply consider when the net outcome—capturing
the phenomenon’s simultaneous impacts on inter-
personal, competence-based, and well-being out-
comes—may be positive and when it may be
negative. For example, there may be moderators that
unveil a negative relationship between workplace
impostor thoughts and competence-related out-
comes while simultaneously weakening the positive
relationship between such thoughts and interper-
sonal effectiveness. Under these conditions, the pre-
vailing wisdom that the phenomenon is detrimental
may ring true. In contrast, there may be other condi-
tions, in which findings similar to those obtained in
this paper (i.e., interpersonal upside with no statisti-
cally significant competence-related downsides)
may hold sway. As one such illustration, consider
the extent to which a job is socially embedded. For
those with workplace impostor thoughts who occupy
jobs or complete tasks that are low in social embedd-
edness, opportunities to become more other-oriented
as part of a domain-switching response may be con-
strained, attenuating interpersonal upsides while
potentially exacerbating competence-related down-
sides, given that lowered self-esteem can sometimes
result in lower competence-based outcomes (Ferris,
Lian, Brown, Pang, & Keeping, 2010; Judge & Bono,
2001). In contrast, for those with workplace impostor
thoughts who occupy jobs or complete tasks that are
high in social embeddedness, opportunities to
become more other-oriented may be ample, amplify-
ing interpersonal upsides while potentially minimiz-
ing competence-related downsides.
Third, in light of the nonsignificant total effect
found in Studies 3A and 3B, it may be worth explor-
ing whether there are other alternative (competing)
mechanisms beyond those measured in Study 3B
(i.e., self-handicapping, self-denigration, and self-pro-
motion). Indeed, the pre-interview chat may be a par-
ticularly strong competence-forward situation that
may have made it harder to find significant differ-
ences in ultimate interpersonal evaluations. Finally,
correlations across studies did not reveal a greater
prevalence of workplace impostor thoughts among
women as compared to men. This sits in contrast to
the common view that the phenomenon is gendered,
given that it was first documented among a group of
high-achieving women (Clance & Imes, 1978). Yet, it
is in line with recent findings (e.g., Badawy et al.,
2018; Bravata et al., 2019; Gravois, 2007). Future
work could consider the role of gender as a moderator
to effects found as opposed to an antecedent.
Practical Implications and Conclusion
Existing practitioner recommendations center
around “overcoming impostor syndrome”(e.g., Spran-
kles, 2015; Stahl, 2017; Wilding, 2020). Such recom-
mendations may indeed be reasonable, particularly
when reflecting on the affective conceptualization of
the impostor phenomenon that carries with it the
underlying assumption that it is uniformly detrimen-
tal. With a sociocognitive conceptualization, however,
practitioner guidance may require more nuance, given
the positive relationship identified in this paper
between workplace impostor thoughts and interper-
sonal effectiveness through an other-focused orienta-
tion.Articulatingthisnuancetodevisetailored
interventions requires a great deal of thought, espe-
cially because, although the affective and sociocogni-
tive conceptualizations of the impostor phenomenon
were distinct with only one-third of the variance
shared, they were positively correlated.
Accordingly, one intervention that may be appro-
priate for those currently experiencing workplace
impostor thoughts builds on cognitive reappraisal, a
process in which a phenomenon is reframed in less
emotional terms, thereby removing negative emo-
tional undertones (McRae, Ciesielski, & Gross,
2012). Specifically, in receiving messaging that
emphasizes potential upsides, those with workplace
impostor thoughts may be able to down-regulate
negative emotional responses in the moment. That
being said, relying only on this intervention may be
problematic as it places the onus of the phenome-
non’s management solely on those with workplace
impostor thoughts. As such, it may be especially
worthwhile to consider the workplace context in
which those with such thoughts sit. Indeed, as previ-
ously mentioned, when devising interventions,
practitioners and managers should consider the phe-
nomenon’s net outcome to ascertain if there are
opportunities for the identified interpersonal upside
to manifest. If not, the recommendation of “over-
coming”may remain appropriate.
Finally, because this investigation is the first to
identify that the impostor phenomenon has an
upside that can coexist alongside downsides, it may
be useful to step back and ask why the practitioner
2022 Tewfik 1013

view that the impostor phenomenon is uniformly
detrimental has persisted for this long (e.g., Spran-
kles, 2015; Stahl, 2017; Wilding, 2020; Young,
2011). There are likely several reasons that may
explain this persistence. For example, it may in part
be due to construct drift in which, over time, a con-
struct acquires surplus meaning such that an
evolved conceptualization reigns supreme (MacCor-
quodale & Meehl, 1948; Suddaby, 2010). Moreover,
it may be the result of self-narratives that emphasize
arcs of professional success in spite of the impostor
phenomenon perpetuated by popular figures who
have experienced it, such as Sheryl Sandberg, Maya
Angelou, and Albert Einstein (Bennett, 2019). Narra-
tives are powerful in shaping perception because, in
discussing in detail the experience of others, they
“forge strong and readily recalled memories”(Mar-
tin, 2016: 1709). Thus, while this work takes a first
step at rebalancing the extant conversation around
the impostor phenomenon by shining a light on a
benefit as opposed to a detriment, the view that the
phenomenon is uniformly pernicious may not dissi-
pate easily. Accordingly, a challenge for organiza-
tional scholars looking to augment understanding
will be to continue to identify how, why, and, per-
haps most importantly, when the intrapersonal dis-
comfort associated with workplace impostor
thoughts may not only result in interpersonal com-
fort in the form of interpersonal effectiveness, as
identified here, but perhaps other benefits as well.
Such an approach may be enhanced by simulta-
neously acknowledging any downsides in order to
better contextualize identified upsides.
REFERENCES
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. 1998. Nonverbal communica-
tion. In H. Fishman & A. Deutsch (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of mental health,vol.2:775–782. New York, NY:
Franklin Watts.
Appelbaum, S. H., Bregman, M., & Moroz, P. 1998. Fear as a
strategy: Effects and impact within the organization.
Journal of European Industrial Training,22:113–127.
Badawy, R. L., Gazdag, B. A., Bentley, J. R., & Brouer, R. L.
2018. Are all impostors created equal? Exploring
gender differences in the impostor phenomenon–per-
formance link. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences,131:156–163.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and
action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 2001. Bringing work back in.
Organization Science,12:76–95.
Bartram, D. 2005. The great eight competencies: A
criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90: 1185–1203.
Bass, B., & Riggio, E. G. 2005. Transformational leader-
ship (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. 2007. Psy-
chology as the science of self-reports and finger move-
ments: Whatever happened to actual behavior?
Perspectives on Psychological Science,2:396–403.
Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D.,
Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. 2016. Statistical control
in correlational studies: 10 essential recommenda-
tions for organizational researchers. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 37: 157–167.
Bennett, J. 2019. How to overcome “impostor syndrome.”
New York Times.Retrievedfromhttps://www.
nytimes.com/guides/working-womans-handbook/
overcome-impostor-syndrome
Bernard, D. L., Lige, Q. M., Willis, H. A., Sosoo, E. E., &
Neblett, E. W. 2017. Impostor phenomenon and men-
tal health: The influence of racial discrimination and
gender. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64: 155–
166.
Blanch-Hartigan, D., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Hill, K. M.
2012. The effectiveness of training to improve person
perception accuracy: A meta-analysis. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 34: 483–498.
Bravata,D.M.,Watts,S.A.,Keefer,A.L.,Madhusudhan,
D. K., Taylor, K. T., Clark, D. M., Nelson, R. S., Cokley,
K.O.,&Hagg,H.K.2019.Prevalence,predictors,
and treatment of impostor syndrome: A systematic
review. Journal of General Internal Medicine,35:
1252–1275.
Brooks, A. W. 2014. Get excited: Reappraising pre-
performance anxiety as excitement. Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology: General, 143: 1144–1158.
Brown, J. D. 1993. Self-esteem and self-evaluations: Feel-
ing is believing. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological per-
spective on the self,vol.4:27–58. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cameron, J. J., & Vorauer, J. D. 2008. Feeling transparent:
On metaperceptions and miscommunications. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass,2:1093–1108.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. 1959. Convergent and dis-
criminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin,56:81–105.
Caporael, L. R., Dawes, R. M., Orbell, J. M., & Van de Kragt,
A. J. 1989. Selfishness examined: Cooperation in the
absence of egoistic incentives. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 12: 683–699.
Chrisman, S. M., Pieper, W., Clance, P. R., Holland, C., &
Glickauf-Hughes, C. 1995. Validation of the Clance
1014 Academy of Management Journal June

imposter phenomenon scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment,65:456–467.
Christensen, M., Aubeeluck, A., Fergusson, D., Craft, J.,
Knight, J., Wirihana, L., & Stupple, E. 2016. Do student
nurses experience imposter phenomenon? An interna-
tional comparison of final-year undergraduate nursing
students’readiness for registration. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 72: 2784–2793.
Clance,P.R.1985.The impostor phenomenon: Overcom-
ing the fear that haunts your success. Atlanta, GA:
Peachtree Publishing.
Clance,P.R.,Dingman,D.,Reviere,S.L.,&Stober,D.R.
1995. Impostor phenomenon in an interpersonal/
social context: Origins and treatment. Women & Ther-
apy,16:79–96.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. 1978. The imposter phenome-
non in high-achieving women: Dynamics and thera-
peutic intervention. Psychotherapy, 15: 241–247.
Clance, P. R., & O’Toole, M. A. 1987. The imposter phe-
nomenon: An internal barrier to empowerment and
achievement. Women & Therapy,6:51–64.
Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,
112: 155–159.
Conway, J. M. 2002. Method variance and method bias in
industrial and organizational psychology. In S. G.
Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in
industrial and organizational psychology:344–365.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K.
2003. When grades determine self-worth: Consequen-
ces of contingent self-worth for male and female engi-
neering and psychology majors. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 507–516.
Crocker, J., & Knight, K. M. 2005. Contingencies of self-
worth. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
14: 200–203.
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. 2012. Contingencies of self-worth.
In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self
and identity:309–326. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. 2001. Contingencies of self-
worth. Psychological Review, 108: 593.
Day, D. V., Shleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J.
2002. Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-
analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87: 390–401.
De Dreu, C. K., & Nauta, A. 2009. Self-interest and
other-orientation in organizational behavior:
Implications for job performance, prosocial behav-
ior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied
Psychology,94:913–926.
DeVellis, R. F. 1991. Scale development: Theory and
applications.NewburyPark,CA:SAGE.
Duffy,M.K.,Ganster,D.C.,&Pagon,M.2002.Social
undermining in the workplace. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 45: 331–351.
Ferrari, J. R., & Thompson, T. 2006. Impostor fears: Links
with self-presentational concerns and self-
handicapping behaviours. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 40: 341–352.
Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Pang, F. X., & Keeping,
L. M. 2010. Self-esteem and job performance: The
moderating role of self-esteem contingencies. Person-
nel Psychology, 63: 561–593.
Feyereisen, P., & De Lannoy, J.-D. 1991. Gestures and
speech: Psychological investigations. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. 1989. Relations
among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action read-
iness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57: 212–228.
Godfrey, D. K., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C. G. 1986. Self-promo-
tion is not ingratiating. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50: 106–115.
Grammer, K., Honda, M., Juette, A., & Schmitt, A. 1999.
Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship communication
unblurred by motion energy detection. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 77: 487–508.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. 2011. The necessity of others is
the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial moti-
vations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy
of Management Journal,54:73–96.
Grant, A. M., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2010. I won’tletyou
down …or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-
orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,95:
108–121.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. 2009. Redesigning work
design theories: The rise of relational and proactive
perspectives. Academy of Management Annals,3:
317–375.
Gravois, J. 2007, November 9. You’re not fooling anyone.
Chronicle of Higher Education,54:A1.
Grossman, D. 2013. The cost of poor communication: A
business rationale for the communications compe-
tency. In P. M. Buhler & J. D. Worden (Eds.),
Up, down, and sideways: High-impact verbal com-
munication for HR professionals:001–007. Alexan-
dria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.
Grubb, W., & McDowell, W. C. 2012. The imposter phe-
nomenon’s impact on citizenship behavior and
employee commitment: Flying under the radar. Jour-
nal of Business Issues,1:1
–10.
Hareli, S., & Parkinson, B. 2008. What’s social about social
emotions? Journal for the Theory of Social Behav-
iour, 38: 131–156.
2022 Tewfik 1015

Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. B. 2001. Big-B versus Big-O: What is
organizational about organizational behavior? Journal
of Organizational Behavior,22,43–58.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. 1991. Development and
validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,60:
895–910.
Higgins, E. T. 1987. Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self
and affect. Psychological Review, 94: 319–340.
Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of
measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organiza-
tional Research Methods,1:104–121.
Hirt, E. R., McCrea, S. M., & Boris, H. I. 2003. “Iknowyou
self-handicapped last exam”: Gender differences in
reactions to self-handicapping. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84: 177–193.
Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., &
Gino, F. 2017. It doesn’thurttoask:Question-asking
increases liking. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,113:430–452.
Hutchins, H. M., Penney, L. M., & Sublett, L. W. 2018.
What imposters risk at work: Exploring imposter phe-
nomenon, stress coping, and job outcomes. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 29: 31–48.
Impostor. n.d. In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary
(11th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/impostor
Ingram, R., Scott, W., Holle, C., & Chavira, D. 2003. Self-
focus in social anxiety: Situational determinants of
self and other schema activation. Cognition and Emo-
tion, 17: 809–826.
James, W. 1890. The principles of psychology. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. 1982. Toward a general theory
of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psycho-
logical perspectives on the self:231–262. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2003.
The core self-evaluations scale: development of a mea-
sure. Personnel Psychology, 56: 303–331.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core self-
evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-
efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—
with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,86:80–92.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1966. The social psychology of
organizations. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.
Kervyn, N., Yzerbyt, V. Y., Judd, C. M., & Nunes, A. 2009.
A question of compensation: The social life of the fun-
damental dimensions of social perception. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 828–842.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 2005. The dangers of feeling like a
fake. Harvard Business Review, 83: 108–116.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Trevi~
no,L.K.,&Edmond-
son, A. C. 2009. Silenced by fear: The nature, sources,
and consequences of fear at work. Research in Orga-
nizational Behavior, 29: 163–193.
Kolligan, J., & Sternberg, R. J. 1991. Perceived fraudulence
in young adults: Is there an “impostor syndrome?”
Journal of Personality Assessment, 56: 308–326.
Langford, J., & Clance, P. R. 1993. The imposter phe-
nomenon: Recent research findings regarding
dynamics, personality and family patterns and
their implications for treatment. Psychotherapy,
30: 495–501.
Leary, M. R., Patton, K. M., Orlando, A. E., & Funk, W. W.
2000. The impostor phenomenon: Self-perceptions,
reflected appraisals, and interpersonal strategies. Jour-
nal of Personality, 68: 725–756.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. 2000. The nature and
function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 32: 1–62.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 ques-
tions about interrater reliability and interrater agree-
ment. Organizational Research Methods,11:
815–852.
Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. 1984. Revision of the self-
monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46: 1349–1364.
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. 2012. The validity of interper-
sonal skills assessment via situational judgment tests
for predicting academic success and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 460–468.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman,
K. F. 2002. To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the
question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation
Modeling,9:151–173.
Lykken, D. T. 1968. Statistical significance in psychologi-
cal research. Psychological Bulletin, 70: 151–159.
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. 1948. On a distinction
between hypothetical constructs and intervening vari-
ables. Psychological Review,55:95–107.
Mak, K. K., Kleitman, S., & Abbott, M. J. 2019. Impostor
phenomenon measurement scales: A systematic
review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.00671
Martin, S. R. 2016. Stories about values and valuable sto-
ries: A field experiment of the power of narratives to
shape newcomers’actions. Academy of Management
Journal,59:1707–1724.
Matthews, G., & Clance, P. R. 1985. Treatment of the
imposter phenomenon in psychotherapy clients. Psy-
chotherapy in Private Practice,3:71–81.
McDowell, W. C., Boyd, N. G., & Bowler, W. M. 2007.
Overreward and the impostor phenomenon. Journal
of Managerial Issues,19:95–110.
1016 Academy of Management Journal June

McDowell, W. C., Grubb, W. L., & Geho, P. R. 2015. The
impact of self-efficacy and perceived organizational
support on the imposter phenomenon. American
Journal of Management,15:23–29.
McElwee, R. O. B., & Yurak, T. J. 2007. Feeling versus act-
ing like an impostor: Real feelings of fraudulence or
self-presentation? Individual Differences Research,
5: 201–220.
McElwee, R., & Yurak, T. J. 2010. The phenomenology of
the impostor phenomenon. Individual Differences
Research,8:184–197.
McGrath, J. E. 1981. Dilemmatics: The study of research
choices and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scien-
tist, 25: 179–210.
McRae, K., Ciesielski, B., & Gross, J. J. 2012. Unpacking
cognitive reappraisal: Goals, tactics, and outcomes.
Emotion, 12: 250–255.
Mead G. H., 1934. Mind, self and society: From the stand-
point of a social behaviorist,InC.WMorris(Ed.),
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, A. 2004. Considering rational
self-interest as a disposition: Organizational implica-
tions of other orientation. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 89: 946–959.
Mehrabian, A. 1972. Nonverbal communication.New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Meister, A., Jehn, K. A., & Thatcher, S. M. 2014. Feeling
misidentified: The consequences of internal identity
asymmetries for individuals at work. Academy of
Management Review, 39: 488–512.
Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. 2008. The trouble with over-
confidence. Psychological Review,115:502–517.
Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. 1992. A meta-analytic
review and empirical test of the potential confounding
effects of social desirability response sets in organiza-
tional behaviour research. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 65: 131–149.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. 1994. Evidence that
task performance should be distinguished from con-
textual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79: 475–480.
Neureiter, M., & Traut-Mattausch, E. 2016a. An inner bar-
rier to career development: Preconditions of the
impostor phenomenon and consequences for career
development. Frontiers in Psychology,7.doi:10.
3389/fpsyg.2016.00048
Neureiter, M., & Traut-Mattausch, E. 2016b. Inspecting the
dangers of feeling like a fake: An empirical investiga-
tion of the impostor phenomenon in the world of
work. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.
2016.01445
Neureiter, M., & Traut-Mattausch, E. 2017. Two sides
of the career resources coin: Career adaptability
resources and the impostor phenomenon. Journal of
Vocational Behavior,98:56–69.
Niiya, Y., Brook, A. T., & Crocker, J. 2010. Contingent self-
worth and self-handicapping: Do incremental theorists
protect self-esteem? Self and Identity,9:276–297.
Norton,R.W.,&Pettegrew,L.S.1979.Attentivenessasa
style of communication: A structural analysis. Com-
munication Monographs,46:13–26.
Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. 2001. Seeing another view-
point: Antecedents and outcomes of employee per-
spective taking. Academy of Management Journal,
44: 1085–1100.
Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. 1986. Employee responses to
formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71: 211–218.
Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. 1989. From self-
conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and struc-
ture of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57: 672–680.
Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. 2004. Getting
a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to
social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 30: 1095–1107.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham,
R. B. 1989. Organization-based self-esteem: Construct
definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Management Journal,32:622–648.
Pitesa, M., & Thau, S. 2013. Compliant sinners, obstinate
saints: How power and self-focus determine the effec-
tiveness of social influences in ethical decision mak-
ing. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 635–658.
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. 1996. Attachment and intimacy:
Component processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kru-
glanski (Eds.), Handbook of basic principles:523–
563. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rhodewalt, F., Morf, C., Hazlett, S., & Fairfield, M. 1991.
Self-handicapping: The role of discounting and aug-
mentation in the preservation of self-esteem. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 61: 122–131.
Rhodewalt, F., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Tschanz, B., Feick,
D. L., & Waller, A. 1995. Self-handicapping and inter-
personal trade-offs: The effects of claimed self-
handicaps on observers’performance evaluations and
feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 21: 1042–1050.
Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy,
E. D., & Quinn, R. E. 2005. Composing the reflected
best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming
extraordinary in work organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 30: 712–736.
Rohrmann, S., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Leonhardt, M. 2016.
Validation of the impostor phenomenon among man-
agers. Frontiers in Psychology,7.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.
2016.00821
2022 Tewfik 1017

Sakulku, J., & Alexander, J. 2011. The impostor phenome-
non. International Journal Behavioral Science,6:
75–97.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information
processing approach to job attitudes and task design.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224–253.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. 1982. Audiences’reactions
to self-enhancing, self-denigrating, and accurate self-
presentations. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology,18:89–104.
Scholl, A., Sassenberg, K., Scheepers, D., Ellemers, N., &
de Wit, F. 2017. A matter of focus: Power-holders feel
more responsible after adopting a cognitive other-
focus, rather than a self-focus. British Journal of
Social Psychology,56:89–102.
Schubert, N., & Bowker, A. 2019. Examining the impostor
phenomenon in relation to self-esteem level and self-
esteem instability. Current Psychology,38:749–755.
Shockley, K. M., Gabriel, A. S., Robertson, D., Rosen, C. C.,
Chawla, N., Ganster, M. L., & Ezerins, M. E. 2021. The
fatiguing effects of camera use in virtual meetings: A
within-person field experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology,106:1137–1155.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: Its nature and antece-
dents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653–663.
Sprankles, J. 2015, October 23. 12 signs you might be suf-
fering from the imposter syndrome—fellow perfec-
tionists, I’m looking at you. Bustle. Retrieved from
https://www.bustle.com/articles/119129-12-signs-
you-might-be-suffering-from-imposter-syndrome-
fellow-perfectionists-im-looking-at-you
Stahl, A. 2017, December 10. Feel like a fraud? Here’show
to overcome impostor syndrome. Forbes. Retrieved
from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/
12/10/feel-like-a-fraud-heres-how-to-overcome-
imposter-syndrome
Suddaby, R. 2010. Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in
theories of management and organization. Academy
of Management Review, 35: 346–357.
Thompson,J.D.1967.Organizations in action: Social sci-
ence bases of administrative theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G. L., &
Thatcher, J. B. 2007. The moderating role of subordi-
nate political skill on supervisors’impressions of sub-
ordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate
interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 92: 848–855.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice
extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and
predictive validity. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 41: 108–119.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1996. Interpersonal
facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 81: 525–531.
Van Scotter, J., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. 2000. Effects
of task performance and contextual performance on
systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology,85:
526–535.
Vergauwe, J., Wille, B., Feys, M., De Fruyt, F., & Anseel, F.
2015. Fear of being exposed: The trait-relatedness of
the impostor phenomenon and its relevance in the
work context. Journal of Business and Psychology,
30: 565–581.
Vorauer,J.D.,&Kumhyr,S.M.2001.Isthisaboutyouor
me? Self- versus other-directed judgments and feel-
ings in response to intergroup interaction. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27: 706–719.
Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribu-
tion? Academy of Management Review, 14: 490–495.
Wilding, M. 2020, February 19. 5 ways to overcome impos-
ter syndrome in the workplace. Business Insider.
Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/5-
ways-to-overcome-imposter-syndrome-in-the-
workplace-2020-2
Young, V. 2011. The secret thoughts of successful
women: Why capable people suffer from the impos-
tor syndrome and how to thrive in spite of it.New
York, NY: Crown Publishing.
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. 2004. How
low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient
to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control,
self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 560–567.
Basima A. Tewfik (btewfik@mit.edu) is an assistant
professor of work and organization studies at the MIT
Sloan School of Management. She received her PhD in
management from the Wharton School, University of
Pennsylvania. She studies the psychology of the social
self at work, particularly phenomena such as workplace
impostor thoughts, request-declining at work, and con-
flict management.
1018 Academy of Management Journal June