Is imposter syndrome built on a fallacy?

Key points:

• Maybe it’s time to change how we view school leadership
• Taking K-12 education transformation from pipe dream to pipeline
• Moving from industrial education to deeper learning
• For more news on district management, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub

We have all experienced imposter syndrome at some point in our career.  It’s experienced as a feeling or underlying concern that somehow, despite having the job qualifications and having been hired into a role, you aren’t really qualified, experienced, or capable to fulfill the role. There’s a feeling of being a fraud, and a worry that others will discover you don’t really belong. If you’ve experienced this, know you aren’t alone. We’ve all been imposters at some times in our careers.

And its not just new leaders or those new to leadership. Many–even those with experience–are admitting to feeling imposter syndrome as society and the subsequent role of school leadership changes.

Even people at the highest rung of the corporate ladder don’t always feel confident or deserving of their success.

A majority–71 percent–of U.S. CEOs say they experience imposter syndrome, according to a new Korn Ferry survey of about 400 executives.

Many leaders have lost their confidence. Whether it be the accelerated pace of change, turbulent social issues, or the intrusion of politics into education, more school leaders are second-guessing themselves and overthinking the implications of their decisions.

There are more trap doors than there used to be when school leaders were less exposed. Leaders are fatigued by the expectations from school district communities to have all the answers–whether that be about societal or technological change, not just educational change. Increasingly, many feel undervalued and underprepared for the situations they find themselves in.

But what if this fear is unfounded? What if it’s based on an outdated model of leadership? Is it possible that leaders are feeling like imposters because they are comparing themselves to an outdated stereotypical image of a leader?  You know the leadership image we are referencing.  A leader who is:

Charismatic: A stereotypical leader is often seen as having a magnetic personality that inspires and attracts followers. They are articulate, confident, and persuasive.

Decisive: They are known for making decisions quickly and confidently, often under extraordinary amounts of pressure. They project certainty and direction.

Authoritative: They exhibit a strong sense of authority and control. They are comfortable taking charge and giving orders, expecting others to follow.

Confident: A stereotypical leader exudes self-confidence and assurance.  They believe in their abilities and decisions, which can instill confidence in others.

Highly knowledgeable: They are perceived as extremely knowledgeable and skilled in their field.  They have the answers and their expertise commands respect and trust from others. They have been there and experienced the issue that’s at hand and therefore can provide the immediate, correct answer.

The idea is that the leader is there to make the right decisions, and all the team should need to do is follow these directives. This is an intimidating list to fulfill, especially given the complexity for leaders in most industries.  When leaders internalize these expectations, they may feel inadequate or like frauds if they perceive any deviation from this idealized image. While these traits are commonly associated with a stereotypical image of a leader, it’s important to recognize that effective leadership takes many forms, and frequently requires different or differing leadership styles to suit the situation.

For many decades, we have equated the authoritarian leader as the ideal leader. It’s a reflection of a more military-style leadership, where following orders was literally a life-or-death decision. However, recent leadership research, including that of Daniel Goleman, Simon Sinek, and Brene Brown, indicates that these authoritarian actions and behaviors are antiquated indicators of leadership and often are counterproductive. They showcase “power over” as opposed to “power with/to/within”–a much more engaging and authentic way to lead. The authoritarian leader may be a beneficial archetype in times of conflict, and at the same time detrimental in times or spaces requiring collaboration and teamwork.

Maybe our imposter syndrome has been based on an outdated model of leadership. Maybe we should start with creating a vision for the type of leader we strive to become. Maybe we should start with changing (or at least scrutinizing) what kind of a leader we want to be before we judge ourselves against it?

Recent leadership research highlights several key characteristics of a “future-forward leader,” focusing on the evolving demands of leadership in a rapidly changing world.  What if we prioritize these leadership traits:

Adaptable:  Leaders are highly adaptable and flexible. They can respond to changing circumstances because they hold their answers lightly (and are willing to be wrong!).

Empathetic: They prioritize understanding and connecting with team members on an emotional level. Their empathy helps to build trust, improve communication, and foster a healthy and supportive work environment.

Inclusive: They promote diversity and inclusion with their teams, recognizing the value of diverse perspectives and fostering an environment where everyone feels heard.

Curious: They embrace a growth mindset and are committed to continuous learning and development, both for themselves and their teams.

Collaborative: Future-forward leaders emphasize collaboration or competition, promoting teamwork and fostering a culture of shared goals and mutual respect.

These characteristics reflect a shift towards a more human-centered, agile, and authentic style of leadership that may be necessary for navigating the future landscape in education.  In comparison, this list feels a lot less intimidating and a lot more attainable.

There will still be times when you will not have all the answers. You may not have experience in a new situation. You may be unsure. But if you aren’t judging yourself against an image of an authoritative leader, there is no longer a reason to feel like an imposter.  You know how to ask others for their ideas, discuss solutions, engage teams and collaborate. You know how to make people feel heard and seen. You likely know the direction you want to take your team, school, or organization–you just don’t have to do it alone.

Before we completely dismiss imposter syndromeas antiquated, good things can come from questioning our leadership capabilities. There is a positive side of this syndrome–or perhaps, a better way of saying it is that there is a positive side to constantly seeking to learn and grow. The difference in our reaction and the benefits that arise out of it stem from our expectations. Are we expecting that we must have all the answers, or are we expecting to learn and grow? Instead of internalizing outdated expectations and doing this from a place of judgment, what if we did this from a place of reflection and curiosity? How might I continue to learn and grow as a leader?  What are my blind spots?   How might I learn from the mistakes I make as a leader?

The foundational leadership stereotype that caused imposter syndrome for so many may be past its use-by date, but the compulsion it creates to grow and improve won’t ever be.

As you walk into a new situation, a new environment, or a new role, consider that it may not be your competencies and capabilities that are the fallacy, but rather the model you are basing it on.

About the Author:

Sean Slade, Alyssa Gallagher, and Max Cooke are Heads of BTS Spark across North America, a social impact educational leadership organization www.btsspark.org.