Leader impostorism

Impostorism is the belief that one’s talents and capabilities are not sufficient and that they will be “found out” as a fraud (Clance & Imes, Reference Clance and Imes1978). Just as Mitchell et al., noted that narcissism may be fostered by certain contexts, there is evidence that impostorism may also be elicited by the social context. Leaders are often seen as exceptional and essential to the success of organizations (Meindl et al., Reference Meindl, Ehrlich and Dukerich1985). The mere act of becoming a leader may lead individuals to compare themselves to prototypical leaders (e.g., confident, powerful, capable). Although some individuals will view themselves as aligned with such qualities, others will fail to see alignment and as such will fall prey to leader impostorism, that is, the belief they lack the necessary knowledge, skills, and/or abilities essential for being a leader and are at risk of having their incompetence discovered (Kark et al., 2022; Wen et al., Reference Wen, Liu, Qiu, Leavitt, Wang and Tang2025).

In general, impostorism and narcissism are at odds with one another. Narcissism is positively associated with extraversion, risky decision making, and confidence (Campbell et al., Reference Campbell, Goodie and Foster2004; Grijalva et al., Reference Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis and Fraley2015). Conversely, impostorism is positively associated with introversion, risk aversion, and self-doubt (Clance & Imes, Reference Clance and Imes1978; Kark et al., 2022; Ross et al., Reference Ross, Stewart, Mugge and Fultz2001). Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a narcissist experiencing impostorism. Unfortunately, just as narcissism can be problematic, impostorism is also associated with many negative outcomes, including heightened anxiety, depression, and burnout, as well as reduced job satisfaction and performance (Haar & de Jong, Reference Haar and de Jong2024; Hutchins et al., Reference Hutchins, Penney and Sublett2018; Legassie et al., Reference Legassie, Zibrowski and Goldszmidt2008; McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Gee and Posey2008).

With problems plaguing both narcissism and impostorism within leadership, it makes sense to seek ways to minimize both. Perhaps unsurprisingly given their antithetical nature, however, Mitchell et al.’s suggestion to reduce narcissism within leadership ranks by limiting hypercompetitive leader selection may inadvertently increase leader impostorism. Specifically, the very self-enhancing aspects of leader selection that may drive confident individuals to become overconfident (and seemingly narcissistic) may also be the ones that build confidence in those lacking the assuredness of being leaders. By forcing individuals to “sell” themselves and highlight the ways in which they are worthy of a role, they may begin to actually see themselves as leaders, creating a leader self-identity and building their leadership self-efficacy—both factors that Kark et al. (2022) posited would help diminish leader impostorism.

On the other hand, random or partly random selection practices may be helpful in reducing narcissistic tendencies, but they are also likely to spur impostorism. Without the “proof” of one’s worthiness of a leadership position, individuals may be more likely to consider the fact that they do not, in fact, deserve to be in the role of leader. Along these lines, Slank (Reference Slank2019) argued that although impostorism is often viewed as an irrational view of oneself as a fraud who is undeserving of successes or insufficiently competent, it is perhaps more irrational to not consider oneself in this manner. That is, Slank argued that it is rational to wonder if one is deserving of a position if there are nontalent factors contributing to the decision. When there is sufficient reason to doubt oneself, it is natural to do so. Failing to consider these random factors as being the reason for promotion would, in actuality, be an irrational perspective. Thus, it may be that taking the competitive element out of the leader selection process in favor of random or partly random selection processes would serve to generate impostorism—and understandably so.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?

Given the negative outcomes associated with both narcissism and impostorism, it would appear there is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” element to using hypercompetitive leader selection systems. Using them would potentially result in greater narcissism within leaders (a supposed “bad” thing), whereas foregoing them for random or partly random selection processes would potentially generate greater impostorism (also “bad”). This view, however, is far too simplistic. First, the suggestion to renounce hypercompetitive leader selection systems implies that such practices cannot occur without letting ineffective narcissists permeate the upper echelons of organizations. Second, this premise is based on the faulty assumption that all narcissism is bad.

The first faulty assumption is that hypercompetitive leader selection will necessarily result in the emergence or reinforcement of narcissistic characteristics. This need not be the case. Scarce or highly sought-after positions (such as leadership positions) are likely to have many qualified applicants vying for them. Candidates expect they will need to highlight their relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities for such roles—and that they will need to elucidate how and why they are the best candidate for the job compared to other candidates. It is expected, and even recommended, that applicants showcase their unique abilities and accomplishments to present themselves in a favorable light, thereby highlighting their superiority relative to others. If they are successful, they will ultimately “win” (while others will “lose”). Although Mitchell et al., made valid points about how and why such systems could cultivate and reinforce narcissism among leaders, it remains the case that many leaders who have advanced into their roles through hypercompetitive means possess and/or display few if any narcissistic tendencies.

More importantly, even if narcissistic characteristics are cultivated, this need not be a bad thing. This leads to the second faulty assumption: that narcissism is automatically and entirely bad. For example, an examination of narcissistic CEOs led Chatterjee & Hambrick (Reference Chatterjee and Hambrick2007) to suggest that narcissism can, at times, benefit both the narcissist and the organization in that “narcissistic CEOs tend to generate more extreme performance—more big wins and big losses—than their less narcissistic counterparts, as measured by both accounting and shareholder returns” (p. 378). Thus, although certainly there are occasional losses, there are also occasional wins. Similarly, in their meta-analytic review of narcissism and leadership, Grijalva et al. (Reference Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis and Fraley2015) found that leaders were more effective when they had moderate levels of narcissism as opposed to very high or very low levels. Although it makes sense that very high levels of narcissism appear to hinder leadership effectiveness, very low levels may seem counterintuitive. However, this is where it is important to consider why narcissists tend to emerge as leaders in the first place. One factor is their confidence, a characteristic implicitly associated with leaders. Second, Grijalva et al., also found that narcissists tend to emerge as leaders because they are more extraverted. This becomes likely more pronounced considering the finding that the agentic aspect of extraversion is positively related to leadership effectiveness whereas the affiliative aspect is negatively related to leadership effectiveness (Do & Minbashian, Reference Do and Minbashian2014). These are the very patterns one would expect to see in a narcissist—more assertive go-getter (agentic) versus a communal people person (affiliative; see Jordan et al., Reference Jordan, Giacomin and Kopp2014). Thus, although narcissism is tied to some negative outcomes (e.g., increased counterproductive work behaviors, O’Boyle et al., Reference O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks and McDaniel2012; dismissal of others’ advice, Kausel et al., Reference Kausel, Culbertson, Leiva, Slaughter and Jackson2015), a narcissist’s confidence and extraversion would be advantageous as a leader.

Suggestions for minimizing problematic narcissistic characteristics

Given the importance of hypercompetitive leader selection systems in reducing leader impostorism, the suggestion should not be to forgo their use in favor of alternative systems. Instead, we should modify our practices to maximize the positive aspects of narcissism (which are also related to lower impostorism, i.e., confidence and extraversion) and minimize problematic narcissistic characteristics (i.e., disregard of others’ input, risky decision making).

The first recommendation is to be intentional about what exactly is being assessed and rewarded when making leader selection decisions. As the old adages go, we measure what we treasure and get what we reward. In line with Grijalva et al.’s (Reference Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis and Fraley2015) findings that moderate levels of narcissism are more related to leader effectiveness than are very low and very high levels of narcissism, the goal is not necessarily to eliminate narcissism but rather to be intentional about the narcissistic characteristics that are (vs. are not) preferable. Certainly, confidence and extraversion are relevant and favorable characteristics for leaders. Conversely, the tendency to discount others’ perspectives and take credit for their work are characteristics best avoided. As such, organizations should ensure that selection assessments include elements that will capture these elements and differentiate candidates based on these dimensions.

Consider the employment interview. Grijalva et al. (Reference Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis and Fraley2015) noted that narcissists tend to emerge as leaders especially in circumstances of brief acquaintanceship, such as when they are being interviewed for a leadership position. Along these lines, they noted that organizations should be wary of selection and promotion practices such as unstructured interviews, given they cater to narcissists’ strengths of charismatic self-enhancement. Instead, standardized questions can be created that specifically ask candidates to demonstrate humility, a track record of working with and through others, and an ability to learn from their mistakes. If the issue is that organizations want to avoid self-serving leaders, they need to ask questions that can predict whether a person is likely to highlight themselves and downplay others. For example, consider the questions “Tell me about a time you worked with others to accomplish a challenging task. What role did you and others on your team play? What did you learn from others, including those whose work you were responsible for overseeing?” A candidate who seemingly takes full credit for an accomplishment without providing evidence of others’ input may be a less ideal leader than one who shares the credit and is able to pinpoint the ways in which they learned from others. Similar questions can assess how candidates gather information and how such information is used or prioritized. In short, measuring and rewarding the ideal characteristics of a leader is possible and need not automatically lead to success for individuals very high on narcissism (or high on problematic narcissistic characteristics).

Of course, although Grijalva et al. (Reference Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis and Fraley2015) did not find a linear relationship between narcissism and leader effectiveness, they did find a link between self-report findings of leader effectiveness and narcissism. That is, unsurprisingly, narcissists will self-enhance their own leadership achievements. Thus, an over-reliance on interviews would be a mistake. Instead, organizations should solicit input from others when assessing candidates for a leadership position. It is often noted that the best predictor of future performance is past performance. If evidence emerges that an individual has engaged in problematic narcissistic behaviors in the past with colleagues, direct reports, and so forth, it is likely they will continue to do so in the future.

Organizations can also take a more behavioral approach to assessing candidates for leadership positions. For example, leader assessment centers often include role plays, leaderless group discussions, and inbox exercises (among others) when evaluating candidates. Such exercises require that candidates demonstrate their skills and abilities as opposed to merely talking about them. Take the leaderless group discussion, an exercise in which a group of individuals (e.g., job candidates) are brought together for an informal discussion or to problem solve an issue. No leader is appointed. Rather, the group engages naturally in discussion allowing for some individuals to emerge as leaders. Individuals can be rated by trained observers or even other participants on leadership potential and leader effectiveness. Ensari et al. (Reference Ensari, Riggio, Christian and Carslaw2011) meta-analytically found that extraversion and authoritarian personality—characteristics related to narcissism (Sakkar Sudha & Shahnawaz, Reference Sakkar Sudha and Shahnawaz2020)—are most predictive of leader emergence in leaderless group discussions. However, evaluators can also be specifically asked to consider how inclusive individuals are of others, how open they are to listening to others’ ideas, and how domineering individuals are, and how these elements relate to their leader potential and effectiveness. In this manner, the “dark side” of narcissism can be minimized.

Worthy of note is that these same suggestions should be beneficial with respect to leader impostorism. Being intentional about what is being assessed and rewarded will signal to candidates what the organization values. To the extent that individuals are able to respond with clear examples that demonstrated valued competencies (e.g., how they worked with others and learned from them), they will see how their skills and abilities make them qualified for the leadership position. In addition, candidates who see that decisions were made based on multiple pieces of information (interviews, input from others, behavioral evidence) may be more convinced of their worth and deservedness of the role, minimizing feelings of impostorism.