Leadership Impostor

phenomenon: A Theoretical
Causal Model

Elaina Range Jackson

Regent University

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a well-researched occurrence that describes highly

successful people who cannot internalize their success and believe their achievements in
life or their career were the result of chance or extraordinary effort. The concept was
originally thought to occur more frequently in women. However, further investigation
illustrates that both men and women experience impostor feelings. Researchers have
associated IP with concepts such as the fear of failure, a lack of confidence, and
procrastination. This article presents a theory of leadership impostor phenomenon that
addresses how leaders might experience IP. The research makes seven propositions about
how leaders might encounter IP. The seven propositions are then used to develop a
theoretical causal model of leadership impostor phenomenon demonstrating that high
achievement leads to the fear of failure, which results in a lack of confidence and
procrastination. The model also includes outcomes leaders could experience because of
IP, including risk aversion, indecisiveness, and procrastination. The study extends the
current body of research on IP and offers a path for further investigation of the theory.

The concept of the impostor phenomenon (IP) has gained popularity in the mainstream
press and has received attention from social science and psychology researchers (Mount
& Tardanico, 2014). According to Mount and Tardanico (2014), IP occurs when
“successful and intelligent professionals feel they do not deserve their accomplishments
and that they have faked their way to success” (In Brief section, para. 1). Clance (1985)
first identified the phenomenon when working with highly successful women, and in
early studies on the phenomenon, it was thought that IP most frequently occurs in
women. However, studies have identified that both women and men experience the
phenomenon (Chrisman, Pieper, Clance, Holland & Glickauf-Hughes, 1995). Clance
developed a scale for measuring the concept and suggested people who are high-
achievers and who typically experience a high level of success in their roles most often
suffer from IP.
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 75

Mount and Tardanico (2014) asserted that people who experience IP also often
experience anxiety, have a fear of failure, a lack confidence, and may suffer from
procrastination, risk aversion, and workaholism. Mount (2015) further offered that
people suffering from IP focus on their weaknesses and shortcomings rather than on the
areas in which they are skilled or possess natural talents and abilities. This negative
attention to one’s deficiencies, coupled with self-doubt, can lead to high levels of stress
(Mount, 2015). People who suffer from IP might also experience strain on their
relationships because they feel they should work more to keep people from noticing
their failings (Mount, 2015). By working more, or even obsessively, people dealing with
impostor phenomenon might find themselves spending less time with loved ones.

In addition to defining IP, authors have written extensively about ways in which people
can overcome the phenomenon. Jones (2009) suggested that people suffering from IP
should take steps such as assuming more risks, being willing to accept constructive
criticism, asking for help, and understanding that failure is not shameful. An article in
Business Management Daily proposed that high achievers should learn to focus on their
strengths rather than their weaknesses, fake confidence until they feel confident,
become an expert, and share self-doubt with colleagues and superiors (“How to
overcome impostor phenomenon,” 2016). By focusing on strengths, a person can
channel his work efforts into the areas that allow him to experience small victories. The
concept of feigning confidence involves a person speaking up, taking chances, and
putting herself out front on projects and in meetings. While doing so, the person
pretends to be confident in her approach, ideas, work product, and decision-making,
and the faked confidence will materialize into real confidence (“How to overcome
impostor phenomenon,” 2016). Learning more and becoming an expert could also
positively affect a person’s self-doubt and experience with impostor feelings.

Impostor phenomenon has received generous attention in popular press articles, self-
help books, and within research. The phenomenon has been examined in a variety of
contexts such as in gender (September, McCarrey, Baranowsky, & Schindler, 2001),
among college students (King & Cooley, 1995), in fields such as nursing (Aubeeluck,
Stacey, & Stupple, 2016), and among racial and ethnic minorities (Peteet, Montgomery,
& Weekes, 2015). However, an opportunity exists to expand the body of knowledge on
the concept to understand IP better, specifically as it relates to highly successful leaders.
Additionally, more study is needed to develop a theory of leadership impostor
phenomenon and its underlying assumptions and structure as it relates to top
executives and organizational leaders. This theory would focus primarily on IP found in
people who hold the highest positions of leadership and authority within their
companies or organizations. The present article will build on the current writing and
research on IP and provide a research foundation to investigate themes and ideas that
have been presented about the phenomenon and work toward a theory of leadership
impostor phenomenon. Suggestions for future research will also be provided.

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 76

Leadership and Impostor phenomenon

The current body of research on impostor phenomenon focuses on highly successful
people and those who are often classified as high achievers; the research does not
specifically address how the phenomenon might present in people who hold the top
position of leadership in their group or organization. While IP is well researched, much
of the early studies on the concept were conducted with student groups in college and
graduate programs rather than in workplaces or with leaders of organizations
(Rohrmann, Bechtoldt, & Leonhardt, 2016). Yukl (2013) suggested that there are as
many definitions of leadership, as people are working to develop a definition of the
concept. Therefore, various definitions of leadership have been developed. After
analyzing many of the varying definitions of leadership, Yukl proposed that leadership
is a process in which a leader inspires a group of people to work together to achieve a
common goal or purpose. The concepts explored in this research will address
previously identified characteristics of IP such as the fear of failure, a lack of confidence,
risk aversion, and perfectionism, and propose how individuals in leadership might
experience each characteristic of the phenomenon. The paper will outline eight
propositions about IP, and those propositions will be used to suggest a causal model of
leadership impostor phenomenon and outcomes of the phenomenon. The research
builds on current knowledge and offers a path for future investigation of the construct.

Fear of Failure in Leaders

The fear of failure has been associated with IP and found to have the potential to result
in both positive and negative outcomes for individuals and organizations (Mount &
Tardanico, 2014). A significant body of research addresses the concept of the fear of
failure and how people from various industries and backgrounds deal with the
phenomenon. A significant number of research studies have specifically addressed
entrepreneurs and how these business leaders handle their fears of failure amidst the
pressures of launching a new business or organization. Entrepreneurs often face unique
challenges, as they navigate building organizations and teams, that could lead to the
fear of failure as the entrepreneurs often serve in the top or only leadership position in
their organizations.

In addition to the fear of failure at the individual level, researchers have also observed
the concept at the organizational level. On the organizational level, leaders who fear
failure might hinder an organization by not making necessary changes that could move
the organization forward. This lack of forward movement could lead to a decrease in
organizational performance (de Souza & Tomei, 2016). Leaders might become
paralyzed by anxiety and allow that anxiety and fear to prevent them from making
important decisions that could determine the success or failure of their organizations or
groups. On an individual level, leaders who are afraid of making mistakes might inhibit

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 77

themselves from taking the steps needed to grow personally and professionally and to
achieve success in their careers (Cacciotti, Hayton, Mitchel, & Giazitzoglu, 2016).

Despite the obvious challenges presented by the fear of failure, some people and
organizations could benefit from a leader who faces this type of anxiety (de Souza &
Tomei, 2016; Morgan & Sisak, 2016). Leaders who concern themselves with not failing
might pay greater attention to details to ensure they do not make a mistake that would
highlight a deficiency in their ability to carry out their jobs (de Souza & Tomei, 2016).
The resultant attention to detail could lead to a better, higher-quality work product for
the leader and organization which could result in both growth for the leader and an
increase in organizational performance. Furthermore, the fear of failure could serve to
motivate leaders. A professional who acknowledges being afraid to fail might also be
highly motivated to achieve success in their jobs and for their organizations (Cacciotti,
Hayton, Mitchell, & Giazitzoglu, 2016).

As previously mentioned, several researchers have sought to understand the fear of

failure as it relates to entrepreneurs. Cacciotti, Hayton, Mitchell, and Giazitzoglu (2016)
studied the unique characteristics of entrepreneurs and how the fear of failure could
either cripple or motivate them as they launch and grow their businesses.
Entrepreneurs typically serve as the top executive or leader of their organizations and
often face a substantial amount of risk and uncertain environments. Cacciotti, Hayton,
Mitchell, and Giazitzoglu suggested that fear of failure in people who launch businesses
could be used to study entrepreneurial motivation and elements such as the
entrepreneurs need to achieve, passion and optimism for her business as well as self-
efficacy. The concept of self-efficacy is juxtaposed to the idea of self-doubt which will be
explored in more detail in a subsequent section. Morgan and Sisak (2016) suggested that
when an entrepreneur reaches a certain level of success, his fear of failure could serve to
motivate him to increase his investments in the businesses. The Morgan and Sisak
asserted that the opposite is true for individuals who have not achieved success such
that they are unmotivated and may not be willing to make investments in their
businesses. People who have not yet been successful or have only experienced marginal
gains in their business might experience a debilitating effect from fearing to fail.

Proposition 1: Highly successful leaders will experience the fear of failure.

Lack of Self-Confidence in Leaders

Two individuals with the same set of skills and talents and in the same role can
experience different outcomes regarding successfully executing their jobs. Hollenbeck
and Hall (2004) suggested that the difference in the level of performance from the
successful person to the unsuccessful person might be explained by the level of self-
confidence these individuals possess. Hollenbeck and Hall defined self-confidence as
“our judgment of our capability to successfully accomplish something” (p. 255). The

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 78

researchers suggested that early studies of the phenomenon pointed to the idea that
self-confidence was either a trait that people were born possessing or had been exposed
to early in life by an encouraging family or environment. However, research now
suggested that confidence can be developed in leaders (Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004).

As mentioned in the previous section, fear might motivate a leader to work harder and
with a greater attention to detail (de Souza & Tomei, 2016). However, Hallenbeck and
Hall (2004) suggested that self-confidence allows a leader to maintain a calm and level-
headed approach to achieving goals. Self-confidence might also contribute to a leader
perceiving fewer situations as threatening, and therefore, allow the leader to move
forward and experience growth (Hallenbeck & Hall, 2004), while the opposite would be
true for leaders who lacked self-confidence. Overconfidence lies on the other end of the
spectrum and could be detrimental to a leader’s performance (Shipman & Mumford,
2011). Shipman and Mumford (2011) suggested that low levels of confidence might lead
to a leader taking more time to adequately and strategically plan as well as cast a
compelling vision. The researchers suggested that overconfidence might cause a leader
to fail to plan activities which can be detrimental to both their career and the
organization writ large.

Proposition 2: The fear of failure in highly successful leaders will lead to a lack of
confidence and self-doubt in leaders.

Perfectionism in Leaders
Flett and Hewitt (2002) suggested that perfectionists seek flawlessness in themselves
and their work. According to Flett and Hewitt, perfectionists may also demonstrate
depressive behaviors because they are never truly pleased with themselves or the work
they have done. White (2016) offers that perfectionism is in opposition to effective
leadership. According to White, effective leaders are individuals who take calculated
risks, deal well with uncertain and ambiguous circumstances, are flexible, and can
thrive despite making decisions that might seem irrational or illogical to others (p. 429).
However, leaders who struggle with perfectionism are not able to handle these
situations (White, 2016). White suggested that effective leaders must find a way to make
decisions, despite not having all the answers. Perfectionists need to feel a certain sense
of security before deciding, which can lead to procrastination, another characteristic of
IP (Mount & Tardanico, 2014). White further offers that perfectionism leads to
indecisiveness in leaders.

Proposition 3: The fear of failure in leaders will lead to perfectionism.

Proposition 4: Lack of confidence will lead to impostor phenomenon in leaders.

Proposition 5: Perfectionism will lead to impostor phenomenon in leaders.

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 79

Risk Aversion in Leaders with Impostor phenomenon

Risk aversion is an unwillingness to act in the absence of surety and during uncertainty.
Oreg (2003) suggested that risk aversion also relates to a leader’s unwillingness to
participate in the process of change in an organization. A leader’s willingness or
unwillingness to take on risks or the amount of risk that leader is willing to take will
affect the goals the leader establishes for her team, and the process by which the leader
works with follower toward achieving these goals (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson,
2014). Risk aversion has also been demonstrated to have a negative effect on a leader’s
ability to make timely decisions that might benefit an organization or team. Simon
(1960) distinguished between two types of decisions that managers and organizational
leaders make, those that are programmed and those that are non-programmed.
Programmed decisions do not require leaders to take much risk because they typically
involve routine problems. However, Simon suggested that non-programmed decisions
involved challenges that were more complex and included a unique set of
circumstances. Therefore, non-programmed decisions involve more risk than those
made routinely.

The level of risk aversion a person has can be linked to several emotions the person
experiences such as fear, anger, surprise, and happiness (Holt & Laury, 2002). A feeling
of fear has been associated with impostor phenomenon, as previously established
(Mount & Tardanico, 2014). Holt and Laury (2002) suggested that the more fear a
person has, the more risk aversion the person demonstrates. Likewise, people who
demonstrated higher levels of emotion were more likely to demonstrate an
unwillingness to take risks, while people who remained emotionless were more likely
to participate in higher levels of risk-taking.

Managerial risk aversion could lead to organizational decline, according to Carmeli and
Sheaffer (2009), who asserted that managers who neglect to gather pertinent
information from other people or who fail to listen to the input of others when engaging
in the decision-making process may also be less likely to make a risky decision. Carmeli
and Sheaffer further asserted that leaders who are risk averse might also be more likely
to lead organizations or groups that fall victim to the group behavior phenomenon
groupthink. According to Janis (1982), groupthink occurs when people in a group
choose not to communicate a dissenting view from the ideas proposed by other group
members to maintain cohesion or for fear of no longer being accepted as a member of
the group. White (2016) suggested effective leaders can take calculated risk. The ability
to take measured risks means these individuals can participate in a balanced approach
to risk taking that involves considering all the options and making an informed
decision, even if the leader recognizes that uncertainty still exists within the process.

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 80

Proposition 6: Leaders who feel like impostors will be less willing to take risks, even
calculated risks, because they want to continue to be accepted by others as having a
high level of knowledge and skill in their roles.

Indecisiveness in Leaders with Impostor phenomenon

The ability of leaders to make decisions clearly, confidently, collaboratively, and
efficiently can contribute to the success of the leader. Leaders of organizations typically
bare both the responsibility of making decisions and the consequences of those
decisions (Brunsson, 2007). However, Barkley-Levenson and Fox (2016) suggested that
little empirical research exists regarding decisiveness and indecisiveness and the
relationship between the constructs and other traits. Barkley-Levenson and Fox define
indecisiveness as the “frequent inability to make decisions confidently, quickly, and/or
efficiently” (p. 1). The researchers suggested that leaders who are indecisive might react
by making an impulse decision or by further delaying the decision-making process. The
delay of decisions will be explored more in the following section on procrastination.

According to Elaydi (2006), indecisiveness can be the product of fear and negative
emotions. The researcher posits, “When facing a difficult decision, negative concurrent
emotions may be so overwhelming that the individual becomes emotionally paralyzed
during the decision‐making process” (p. 1366). Elaydi suggested that indecisiveness can
be debilitating for both individuals and organizations. Leaders who deal with
indecisiveness become stuck in what Jones (1989) described as undecided and
uncomfortable. This uncomfortable emotion also relates to increased anxiety for the
leader who is faced with a decision and becomes trapped in the decision-making
process. As previously demonstrated, leaders with impostor phenomenon will likely
struggle with perfectionism that leads to indecisiveness, and therefore, face feelings of
discomfort and anxiety. Elaydi asserted that indecisiveness prohibits leaders from being
able to perform effectively. These leaders might also be less prepared to handle
challenges on the job due to their inability to make decisions (McNeill, Dunlop, Skinner,
& Morrison, 2016).

Proposition 7: Leaders who feel like impostors will be more likely to report
indecisiveness because they lack confidence in their ability, and they want to make the
right decision due to perfectionism.

Procrastination in Leaders with Impostor phenomenon

Procrastination occurs when a person chooses to postpone an activity, even when he
knows the postponement might cause an issue (Steel, 2007). The phenomenon has also
been described as putting off more complicated or complex tasks in favor of those that
are less involved or more enjoyable (Batool, Khursheed, & Jahangir, 2017). Two types of
procrastination have been proposed which are avoidant procrastination and arousal

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 81

procrastination (Lyons & Rice, 2014). According to Lyons and Rice (2014), avoidant
procrastination relates to putting off tasks to focus on less complicated tasks or to avoid
negative feedback related to one’s performance. Arousal procrastination relates to a
positive feeling of arousal that people experience from completing a task just before the
deadline (Lyons & Rice, 2014).

Nguyen, Steel, and Ferrari (2013) suggested that procrastination is prevalent in the
workplace and can cost an organization both productivity and financial resources. The
researchers found that people who are chronic procrastinators also often have lower
paying jobs and jobs in which they report having lower intrinsic motivation.
Procrastination has also been associated with a person’s inability to regulate themselves
effectively, particularly in situations of high stress or heavy workloads (Klassen,
Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008). Klassen, Krawchuk, and Rajani (2008) found that people
with higher self-esteem were less likely to become chronic procrastinators. The low self-
esteem demonstrated by procrastinators directly connects with the previous concepts
proposed about impostor phenomenon, specifically the lack of self-confidence that
impostors experience. Additionally, the idea that procrastinators neglect duties for fear
of negative evaluations (Lyons & Rice, 2014) aligns with the notion that impostors fear
being viewed as incapable (Clance, 1985).

Proposition 7: Leaders who feel like impostors will be more likely to report
procrastination because of low self-esteem and high rates of perfectionism.

Theoretical Model of Leadership Impostor phenomenon

The literature presented in the previous sections demonstrated connections between IP
characteristics proposed by Clance (1985) and Mount and Tardanico (2014). The
researchers proposed that impostors, people who experience impostor phenomenon,
are typically successful, high achievers. The model suggested that when leaders
experience the fear of failure, they will lack confidence in their ability to continue to
work at the same level as they did when they achieved success. The fear of failure will
likely lead to a response of perfectionism driven by the leader’s need to get it right. The
result of these behaviors is impostor phenomenon which could then lead to risk
aversion, indecisiveness, and procrastination. Figure 1 presents the theoretical model of
leadership impostor phenomenon beginning with high achievement and continuing
through to the potential outcomes of impostor phenomenon.

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 82

Figure 1. The model of constructs. This model details how leadership impostor
phenomenon constructs connect and progress from high achievement to impostor
phenomenon and continues to the negative outcomes of risk aversion, indecisiveness,
and procrastination.

Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Research

This article explored current research and knowledge about impostor phenomenon and
presented seven propositions about impostor phenomenon as experienced by leaders.
These propositions were used to develop a theoretical causal model of the construct that
begins with a leader who has demonstrated success and high achievement and includes
the concepts of fear of failure, lack of confidence, and perfectionism which leads to
impostor phenomenon. Impostor phenomenon then results in risk aversion,
indecisiveness, and procrastination. Researchers initially suggested that impostor
phenomenon was more common in women than in men (Clance, 1985), but more recent
investigations have shown that men and women may experience the phenomenon at
similar rates (Chrisman, Pieper, Clance, Holland and Glickauf-Hughes, 1995).

Further research could test this model with leaders from a variety of backgrounds to
determine if the model has empirical validity. Research can also further explore
strategies for how leaders might overcome impostor phenomenon, as well as how some
leaders might cope with the construct. Mount and Tardanico (2014) suggested that in
some cases positive results can emerge from a person’s focus on the details due to their
fear of failure. Researchers could also explore the model and study potential impostors
to understand if any positive outcomes may result from leaders feeling as though they
are impostors. Rohrmann, Bechtoldt, and Leonhardt (2016) suggested that most of the
empirical research about IP was conducted with graduate students. This finding
highlights the opportunity that exists to study the concept in workplaces further and
specifically identify the effects it has on organizational leaders.

About the Author

Elaina Range Jackson earned her Ph.D. in organizational leadership at Regent
University and holds a Master of Science in Business Management from Belhaven
University. Elaina has more than 15 years of direct experience in nonprofit
management, serving in various marketing, development, and project management
leadership roles. She is a wife and mother of four.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elaina Range Jackson at

elaijac@mail.regent.edu.

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 83

References
Aubeeluck, A., Stacey, G., & Stupple, E. J. N. (2016). Do graduate entry nursing
student's experience 'impostor phenomenon'?: An issue for debate. Nurse
Education in Practice, 19, 104-106. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2016.06.003

Cacciotti, G., Hayton, J. C., Mitchell, J. R., & Giazitzoglu, A. (2016). A

reconceptualization of fear of failure in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 31(3), 302-325. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.02.002

Barkley-Levenson, E. E., & Fox, C. R. (2016). The surprising relationship between

indecisiveness and impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 1-6.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.030

Batool, S. S., Khursheed, S., & Jahangir, H. (2017). Academic procrastination as a

product of low self-esteem: A mediational role of academic self-efficacy. Pakistan
Journal of Psychological Research, 32(1), 195-211.

Brunsson, N. (2007). The consequences of decision-making. GB: Oxford University Press.

Carmeli, A., & Sheaffer, Z. (2009). How leadership characteristics affect organizational
decline and downsizing. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(3), 363-378.
doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9852-7

Chrisman, S. M., Pieper, W. A., Clance, P. R., Holland, C. L., & Glickauf-Hughes, C.
(1995). Validation of the Clance impostor phenomenon scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 65(3), 456-467.

Clance, P. R. (1985). The impostor phenomenon: Overcoming the fear that haunts your
success. Atlanta, Ga: Peachtree Publishers.

de Souza D. O. S., & Tomei, P. A. (2016). Fear of failure in the workplace among
Brazilian employees. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 29(4),
407-418.

Elaydi, R. (2006). Construct development and measurement of

indecisiveness. Management Decision, 44(10), 1363-1376.
doi:10.1108/00251740610715696

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of

theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. American Psychological Association,
7, 5-31doi:10.1037/10458-001

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 84

Hollenbeck, G. P., & Hall, D. T. (2004). Self-confidence and leader

performance.Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 254-269.
doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.06.003

Holt, C. A., & Laury, S.K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American
Economic Review, 92(5), 1644-1655. doi:10.1257/000282802762024700

How to overcome impostor phenomenon. (2016). Administrative Professional Today, 42(5),

6. Retrieved from
http://eres.regent.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=bth&AN=114356760&site=ehost-live

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of

undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of
procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 915-931.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001

Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2014). Organizational Behavior and
Management (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and

fiascoes. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.

Jones, L. K. (1989). Measuring a three-dimensional construct of career indecision among

college students: A revision of the vocational decision scale-the career decision
profile. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(4), 477-486. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.36.4.477

Jones, J. R. (2009). Unmask your talent: ‘Impostor phenomenon’ can make you feel a
fraud at work. Jane Redfern Jones explains how it can be overcome. Nursing
Standard, 23(38), 64-64. doi:10.7748/ns.23.38.64.s52

King, J. E., & Cooley, E. L. (1995). Achievement orientation and the impostor
phenomenon among college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(3),
304-312. doi:10.1006/ceps.1995.1019

Lyons, M., & Rice, H. (2014). Thieves of time? Procrastination and the dark triad of
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 61-62, 34-37.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.002

McNeill, I. M., Dunlop, P. D., Skinner, T. C., & Morrison, D. L. (2016). Predicting risk-
mitigating behaviors from indecisiveness and trait anxiety: Two cognitive
pathways to task avoidance: Indecisiveness, trait anxiety, task avoidance. Journal
of Personality, 84(1), 36-45. doi:10.1111/jopy.12135

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu
Leadership Impostor Syndrome P a g e | 85

Mount, P. & Tardanico, S., (2014). Beating the impostor phenomenon (1st ed.). Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Mount, P. (2015). Impostor phenomenon. Training Journal, 5(8).

Morgan, J., & Sisak, D. (2016). Aspiring to succeed: A model of entrepreneurship and
fear of failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(1), 1-21.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.09.002

Nguyen, B., Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. R. (2013). Procrastination's impact in the workplace
and the workplace's impact on procrastination. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 21(4), 388-399. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12048

Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Differences Measure.

Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4), 680–693.

Peteet, B. J., Montgomery, L., & Weekes, J. C. (2015). Predictors of impostor

phenomenon among talented ethnic minority undergraduate students. The
Journal of Negro Education, 84(2), 175-186. doi:10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.2.0175

Rohrmann, S., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Leonhardt, M. (2016). Validation of the impostor
phenomenon among managers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 821.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00821

September, A. N., McCarrey, M., Baranowsky, A., Parent, C., & Schindler, D. (2001). The
relation between well-being, impostor feelings, and gender role orientation
among Canadian university students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(2), 218-
232. doi:10.1080/00224540109600548

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of

quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94.

Shipman, A. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2011). When confidence is detrimental: Influence of

overconfidence on leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 649-
665. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.006

Simon, H. (1960). The New Science of Management Decision. New York, NY. Harper &
Row.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leaders in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp.74-85.

© 2018 Regent University School of Business & Leadership
ISSN 1941-4684 | editorelj@regent.edu