255

Perceived Inadequacy: A Study of
the Imposter Phenomenon among
College and Research Librarians

Melanie Clark, Kimberly Vardeman, and Shelley Barba

Melanie Clark is Architecture Image Librarian, Kimberly Vardeman is Reference Librarian, and Shelley
Barba is Metadata Librarian at Texas Tech University; e-mail: melanie.clark@ttu.edu, kimberly.vardeman@
ttu.edu, shelley.barba@ttu.edu. © 2014 Melanie Clark, Kimberly Vardeman, and Shelley Barba, Attribution-
NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) CC BY-NC

The Imposter Phenomenon (IP) is an observed anxiety caused by an
individual’s feelings of fraudulence, fear of being exposed as a fraud, and
inability to internalize personal achievement. This study measures the
incidence of the IP among librarians at college and research institutions in
the United States and Canada and seeks to identify factors that contribute
to its frequency. One in eight librarians reported above average IP scores.
Younger librarians and those with less longevity experience IP feelings
at a higher rate than more experienced counterparts. Also included is a
discussion of how to lessen the impact of IP feelings.

he tasks of a modern librar-
ian within an organization
are fluid and often an amal-
gamation of vastly different

roles such as educator, social worker, IT
professional, and printer troubleshooter.
Striving to be seen as an authoritative
figure can lead to internal conflict when
the librarian does not feel he or she is
knowledgeable or experienced with the
subject at hand. Furthermore, college
and university librarians often serve as
liaisons to faculty with more education
and experience, which can exacerbate
those feelings. This culture of academia
can foster professional anxiety in which
individuals question their merit.1

The term “Imposter Phenomenon”
(IP) is used to describe the feelings an
individual experiences when he or she

rightfully achieves a level of success but
does not feel deserving of said success.2

Joan Harvey and Cynthia Katz out-
lined the three main signs of the IP:

1. Believing that one has fooled oth-
ers into overestimating one’s own
abilities.

2. Attributing personal success to
factors other than one’s ability or
intelligence, such as luck, extra
work, charisma, or evaluator ’s
misjudgment.

3. Fearing exposure as an imposter.3
The individual’s fear of being dis-

covered as an imposter by supervisors
leads to anxiety, lack of confidence,
and other psychological distress. The
IP begins to damage a person’s quality
of life when it inhibits job performance
and satisfaction.

crl12-423

256 College & Research Libraries May 2014

Due to a dearth of published studies
about the IP in libraries, its impact on
librarianship is largely unknown. This
study reports the incidence of the IP
among librarians at college and research
institutions in the United States and
Canada, identifies factors that contribute
to its frequency, and offers suggestions on
how librarians and their supervisors can
address the effects of the IP.

Review of Selected Literature
Clance and Imes first defined the term
“Imposter Phenomenon” over thirty
years ago to describe feelings of perceived
fraudulence among high-achieving wom-
en.4 Although early studies of the phe-
nomenon isolated it as a problem among
high-achieving women, subsequent
research showed that men experience
these feelings at a comparable rate and
that gender is not a contributing factor.5
Although they provided no normative
data about the general population, Harvey
and Katz estimated that 70 percent of the
general population has felt imposter ten-
dencies with regard to their work during
some part of their careers.6 More recent
research has examined various aspects of
the phenomenon in specific populations.

Much IP research has focused on
identifying which personality variables
contribute to the phenomenon. Kolligian
and Sternberg reported that the IP, or as
they termed it, “perceived fraudulence,”
is associated with tendencies toward
depression, self-criticism, social anxiety,
and high pressure to achieve.7 McGregor,
Gee, and Posey proposed that those with
imposter feelings are more likely to suffer
the symptoms of depression, and these
combined feelings may hinder produc-
tivity.8 Kets de Vries argued that perfec-
tionism transforms imposter fears into
actual self-defeating behaviors. Those
who perceive themselves as imposters set
impossibly high goals and then overwork
themselves in an effort to counterbalance
supposed deficiencies. Failure to achieve
their excessively high goals causes fur-
ther feelings of doubt and fraudulence,

increasing the tendency to overwork and
triggering burnout.9

Bernard, Dollinger, and Ramaniah
explored the connections between the
“Big Five” dimensions of personality—
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness
to Experience, Agreeableness, and Con-
scientiousness—and the IP. They found
a strong correlation between the IP and
manifestations of Neuroticism such as
self-doubt, depression, and anxiety. Their
research also showed a correlation be-
tween the IP and a lack of Conscientious-
ness or self-discipline.10 Some researchers
have hypothesized that IP tendencies will
be found among those who self-handicap,
meaning that they set up obstacles to pre-
vent success, to protect their self-esteem.11
Self-handicapping behaviors relating to
employment include job hopping, per-
fectionism, overworking, procrastination,
and inability to delegate.12 Ross and Kru-
kowski also found a strong correlation
between IP tendencies and dependent
personality, detached personality, and
negative entitlement.13

The literature is replete with articles
about the IP among academics, but there
is very little discussion of the IP among
librarians. Diane Zorn stated that the
competitive, isolating culture of higher
education contributes to imposter feel-
ings,14 while Kets de Vries theorized that
there is a higher incidence of the IP in
academia because the appearance of intel-
ligence is key to personal success.15 Park-
man and Beard suggested that, because
individuals experiencing the IP may have
the tendency to burn out and leave an
organization rather than risk being found
out as a fraud, the IP negatively impacts
employee retention and succession plan-
ning in higher education.16

While there have been no formal stud-
ies of the IP specifically among librarians,
the concept is not completely absent
from library literature. Rachel Singer
Gordon identified systems librarians as
a group more apt to experience feelings
of being an imposter because that area
of librarianship involves a high level of

Perceived Inadequacy 257

technical knowledge and the need to deal
with constant technological change. She
recommended that systems librarians
minimize those feelings by emphasizing
the skills they bring to systems jobs.17 Due
to constant changes in the nature of their
work, and proliferation of responsibilities
and roles, academic librarians in all posi-
tions face similar work challenges.

Without using the phrase “imposter
phenomenon,” recent studies and articles
on changing roles of all librarians point
to individual librarians’ lack of self-
confidence and authority.18 Newhouse
and Spisak expressed that “this feeling
of inadequacy… where training is often
minimal and expectations of new librar-
ians are high, is an important problem for
the profession.”19

Research Questions
After observing some of the signs of
imposter feelings in new librarians and
discovering that very little had been
published about the prevalence of the
IP among librarians, the researchers
embarked on a study to test three hy-
potheses:

• Hypothesis 1: Newer academic
librarians in the United States
and Canada exhibit a higher oc-
currence of IP feelings than more
experienced librarians.

• Hypothesis 2: Younger academic
librarians in the United States
and Canada exhibit a higher oc-
currence of IP feelings than older
librarians.

• Hypothesis 3: Librarians in posi-
tions requiring technical expertise
have a higher occurrence of IP
feelings than those requiring more
traditional librarian skill sets.

This study addressed the following
research questions to evaluate the re-
searchers’ hypotheses:

• Question 1: Does the IP occur con-
sistently among librarians?

• Question 2: Does it occur at a
higher incidence among younger
or newer librarians?

• Question 3: What other demo-
graphic factors are associated with
its frequency?

Methodology
The researchers created a self-report ques-
tionnaire and submitted it for evaluation
by the researchers’ Institutional Review
Board. The questionnaire was distributed
as an e-survey using Survey Monkey and
opened for participants during the sum-
mer of 2011.

The questionnaire consisted of a de-
mographic profile, the Harvey Imposter
Phenomenon Scale, and three additional
questions. The questionnaire took ap-
proximately 10-20 minutes to complete.
The Appendix of this article contains the
text of the survey.

A demographic profile collected infor-
mation about the subjects’ age, gender,
career longevity, employment classifica-
tion, education level, job function, and
geographical region. These variables
were collected in order to identify cor-
relations between IP feelings and specific
demographics.

The Harvey IP scale is a widely used
self-report questionnaire developed by
psychologist Joan Harvey to validate the
IP as a psychological construct. The 14
items of the scale are ranked on a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from “not all
true” to “very true.” The total IP score is
on a range of 0 to 84. Various researchers
report an internal consistency reliability
between .73 and .91.20

The researchers distributed the online
survey through e-mail solicitation to
librarians employed at Association of
Research Libraries institutions, library-
related listserv announcements, and per-
sonal interactions at the American Library
Association 2011 Annual Conference.

Participants
From 445 voluntary responses to the
e-survey, the researchers filtered the
sample to include only librarians holding
a master’s in library science or equivalent
and employed at college and university

258 College & Research Libraries May 2014

libraries in North America. In all,
352 respondents met the criteria.
There were 262 female respondents
in the sample (74.4%), and 90 male
respondents (25.6%). The majority
of respondents (n = 219, 62.2%) were
over 40 years of age, and the young-
est age group (30 or under) was
the least represented (n = 32, 9.1%).
Additional demographics of these
respondents are shown in table 1.

The job function demographics
gathered from the survey proved
to be unreliable because of the
multifunctional nature of many li-
brarians’ job descriptions. Although
the largest group of respondents
identified themselves as reference
librarians, the second largest group
chose “Other” and listed multiple
job functions in the open-ended
comment field. Because of the pos-
sibility that some respondents who
selected only one job function actu-
ally performed several, the research-
ers considered the data not reliable
enough for analysis.

Results
The highest possible score on the
Harvey IP Scale is 84, and lowest is
0. Harvey stated that scores in the
middle range (in the vicinity of 42
points) indicate possible troubles
due to imposter feelings, and scores
in the upper range suggest signifi-
cant anxiety. To analyze results, the
researchers chose the score of 42 as
a benchmark to show the percentage
of participants who likely struggle
with IP feelings to a significant
degree.21 The overall sample had a
mean IP score of 28.42 with a stan-
dard deviation of 12.47 and a range
of 3–70 (see table 2).

These results suggest that 1 in 8
librarians may be experiencing IP
feelings to a significant degree. The
additional short-answer responses
support this finding. In answer
to the question, “Do you struggle

TABLE 1
Demographics of Respondents (N=352)

Characteristic n Percentage
of Total

Responses

Age

30 years or under 32 9.1

31–35 years 54 15.3

36–40 years 48 13.6

41–50 years 67 19.0

51–60 years 97 27.6

61 years or over 54 15.3

Gender

Male 90 25.6

Female 262 74.4

Longevity

Less than 3 years 48 13.6

3–6 years 49 13.9

6–10 years 53 15.0

10–20 years 90 25.6

More than 20 years 112 31.8

Employment Classification

Staff 87 24.7

Faculty, non–tenure-track 79 22.4

Faculty, tenure-track 186 52.8

Education Level

PhD 32 9.1

MLS and other Master’s 126 35.8

MLS 184 52.3

Master’s, other than MLS 10 2.8

Region

US Southwest 44 12.5

US West 40 11.4

US South 89 25.3

US Midwest 100 28.4

US Northeast 51 14.5

Canada 25 7.1

Other 3 .9

Perceived Inadequacy 259

with feelings of inadequacy at your job
on a regular basis?” 60 (17.5%) of the
343 respondents answered that they do,
202 (58.9%) answered that they do not,
and 81 (23.6%) responded that they do
not presently, but have in the past. One
librarian who answered that he or she
does struggle with feelings of inadequacy
explained, “I’m in a new position having
to learn a lot of new things with little
guidance. I definitely feel inadequate on
a regular basis—I’m hoping this situation
will improve as time passes.”

The same respondent, answering to
what he or she attributed those feelings,
said, “Sometimes it seems as though our
field is changing so fast that it is difficult to
feel truly competent at everything needed
to do the job well. Not to mention that
many of us wear so many hats that we’re
bound to feel like one of those hats doesn’t
fit as well as the others.” This respondent’s
answers reflect the reasons given most fre-

quently for feelings of inadequacy
in the survey responses: a lack of ex-
perience or training, a new position,
or an emphasis on new technology
in the workplace. The combination
of the IP scale scores and the short-
answer responses paint an overall

picture of the prevalence of IP feelings.
Differences between gender scores

were not significant. Females in this study
had a mean score of 28.30 while males had
a mean score of 28.78 (see table 3). This
finding was in line with previous research
with gender and incidence of the IP.22

Table 4 shows that, as age increases,
average IP scores decrease. Twenty-five
percent of the respondents age 30 or
under reported IP scores over 42. Since
the average IP score for this group is
near the midrange of the scale, one might
predict that significant numbers of young
librarians experience moderate to severe
imposter feelings. One respondent said,
“I’ve felt like I was underqualified, but
it mostly stemmed because I was young,
and my superiors tended to passive-
aggressively treat me as if I wasn’t very
qualified.”

Librarians in the first three years of
employment reported significantly higher

TABLE 2
Total IP Scores (Range=0–84; N=352)

High Low Median Average No. (%) of
scores over 42

70 3 27 28.42 45 (12.78)

TABLE 3
IP Scores by Gender (Range=0–84; N=352)

Gender High Low Median Average No. (%) of scores over 42
Male (n=90) 70 7 25.5 28.78 14 (15.56)
Female (n=262) 64 3 28 28.30 31 (11.83)

TABLE 4
IP Scores by Age (Range=0–84; N=352)

Age High Low Median Average No. (%) of scores
over 42

30 years or under (n=32) 70 7 34 35.34 8 (25)
31–35 years (n=54) 63 7 30 30.48 11 (20.37)
36–40 years (n=48) 59 8 25 27.92 8 (16.67)
41–50 years (n=67) 57 4 28 29.07 7 (10.45)
51–60 years (n=97) 58 3 25 26.81 8 (8.25)
61 years or over (n=54) 64 4 23 24.80 3 (5.56)

260 College & Research Libraries May 2014

IP scores than their more experienced
colleagues. Twenty-nine percent of these
respondents reported scores over 42 (see
table 5). One respondent stated that, al-
though feelings of inadequacy lessened
with age, new positions still contributed
to these feelings: “When I first started my
career, and at my second job at the begin-
ning, it took a while to gain confidence
in my abilities. Now, over 10 years in, if
I don’t think I can handle something or
learn how to take it on, I’m more than
happy to admit that from the start.”

Employment classification was not
a significant predictor of IP scores (see
table 6). However, when analyzing em-

ployment classification combined with
longevity, both faculty groups with less
than three years of longevity reported
significantly higher IP scores than the
corresponding librarians classified as staff
(see tables 7–9). Furthermore, librarians
in tenure-track positions with this level
of longevity had higher IP scores than
non–tenure-track librarians with the same
level of longevity. There was a significant
drop in percentages of high scores among
tenure-track faculty librarians with six to
ten years of longevity compared to those
with only three to six years (from 23% to
4%). Whether this decrease is due to those
librarians achieving tenure or another

TABLE 6
IP Scores by Employment Classification (Range=0–84; N=352)

Employment Classification High Low Median Average No. (%) of scores
over 42

Staff (n=87) 58 4 27 27.49 9 (10.34)
Faculty, non–tenure-track (n=79) 64 4 27 28.22 10 (12.66)
Faculty, tenure-track (n=186) 70 3 28 28.95 26 (13.98)

TABLE 7
IP Scores by Longevity and Employment Classification (Staff only)

(Range=0–84; N=87)
Longevity (staff only) High Low Median Average No. (%) of

scores over 42
Less than 3 years (n=18) 48 13 34 31.8 3 (16.67)
3–6 years (n=14) 56 4 26.5 27.6 3 (21.43)
6–10 years (n=12) 35 8 24 23.4 0 (0)
10–20 years (n=24) 58 10 24 25.4 1 (4.16)
More than 20 years (n=19) 46 10 31 28.5 2 (10.53)

TABLE 5
IP Scores by Longevity (Range=0–84; N=352)

Longevity High Low Median Average No. (%) of scores
over 42

Less than 3 years (n=48) 70 7 34 35.21 14 (29.17)
3–6 (n=49) 60 4 30 29.94 8 (16.33)
6–10 (n=53) 52 7 25 26.02 4 (7.55)
10–20 (n=90) 58 7 27 28.53 12 (13.33)
More than 20 (n=112) 64 3 24.5 25.90 7 (6.25)

Perceived Inadequacy 261

factor is worth investigating in further
research. Multiple respondents attributed
feelings of inadequacy to the rigors of ten-
ure, for example: “Workload interfer[es]
with tenure-track responsibilities and [I
am not] able to devote 100% to any project
because of those competing demands on
my time and resources.”

Concerning education levels, the dif-
ferences between the respondents’ aver-
age scores were not significant (see table
10). The discrepancy in percentages of
scores over 42 could be due to the uneven
distribution of education levels of the re-

spondents, specifically the small sample
sizes of PhD holders and those without
an MLS. There is no notable difference
between groups by geographic region
(see table 11).

Statistical Analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA), regres-
sion analysis, and hierarchical regres-
sion were used to look in more depth at
how the demographics of age, employ-
ment classification, and longevity are
related to the strength of the IP in our
sample.

TABLE 8
IP Scores by Longevity and Employment Classification
(Faculty, non-tenure-track only) (Range=0–84; N=79)

Longevity (Faculty, non–
tenure-track only)

High Low Median Average No. (%) of scores
over 42

Less than 3 years (n=13) 64 9 30 34.23 4 (30.77)
3–6 years (n=13) 52 12 30 28.69 1 (7.69)
6–10 years (n=15) 52 10 28 29.47 3 (20)
10–20 years (n=14) 50 7 36 31.79 2 (14.29)
More than 20 years (n=24) 40 4 20.5 21.83 0 (0)

TABLE 9
IP Scores by Longevity and Employment Classification

(Faculty, tenure-track only) (Range=0–84; N=186)
Longevity (Faculty, tenure-track
only)

High Low Median Average No. (%) of
scores over 42

Less than 3 years (n=17) 70 7 38 37.69 7 (41.18)
3–6 years (n=22) 60 11 33.5 32.14 5 (22.73)
6–10 years (n=26) 47 7 25 25.23 1 (3.85)
10–20 years (n=52) 57 8 28.5 29.10 9 (17.31)
More than 20 years (n=69) 64 3 25 26.59 5 (7.25)

TABLE 10
IP Scores by Education Level (Range=0–84; N=352)

Education Level High Low Median Average No. (%) of
scores over 42

PhD (n=32) 64 9 27.5 27.72 2 (6.25)
MLS and other Master’s (n=126) 60 4 26 28.02 16 (12.70)
MLS (n=184) 70 3 28 28.82 27 (14.67)
Master’s, other than MLS (n=10) 40 15 28 28.40 0 (0)

262 College & Research Libraries May 2014

Since age (30 or under, 31–35, 36–40,
4 1 – 5 0 , 5 1 – 6 0 , a n d 6 1 o r o ve r ) a n d
employment classification (Faculty,
tenure-track; Faculty, non–tenure-track,
and Staff ) were ordinal and nominal
variables, respectively, spanning unequal
ranges, these variables were dummy
coded, and a linear regression was used
to analyze their effects on participants’
scores on the IP scale. A hierarchical re-
gression was calculated to analyze each
of these effects.

Employment classification was en-
tered in the first step of the hierarchical
regression. There were not significant
differences in participants’ scores on the
imposter phenomenon scale due to their
employment classification [R2 = .004, F(2,
348) = .773, p = .462].

Age was entered into the second step
of the hierarchical regression and partici-
pants’ scores on the IP scale were found
to differ among age groups [R2 = .045,
F(5, 343) = 3.251, p = .007]. The mean IP
scores between the youngest (30 or under)
and oldest (61 or over) age groups were
contrasted and found to be significantly
different [β = .183, t(350) = 3.292, p = .001];
however, when the youngest and mid-
age (41–50) were contrasted, they were
not found to be significantly different
[β = .010, t(350) = 0.180, p = .858]. As a
whole, age accounted for 4.5 percent of
the variance in imposter phenomenon
scores, suggesting that younger subjects
were more likely to have a higher IP score

than their older counterparts (see table 3).
The interaction between participants’

employment classification and age was
entered in the third step of the hierarchical
regression. The interaction was found to
be a significant unique predictor of par-
ticipants’ scores on the IP scale [R2 = .050,
F(10, 333) = 1.854, p = .051]. Contrasts be-
tween the youngest and oldest ranges and
the youngest and mid-age participants
who were tenure-track, non–tenure-track,
and staff were conducted to explore this
interaction.

As shown in figure 1, for tenure-track
and non–tenure-track faculty partici-
pants, the youngest participants (30 or un-
der) had higher scores on the IP scale than
did their oldest counterparts (61 or over)
[β = .202, t (184) = 2.702, p = .008 (Faculty,
tenure-track), and β = .331, t (78) = 2.700,
p = .009 (Faculty, non–tenure-track)].
However, for tenure- and non–tenure-
track participants, younger participants
scored no differently on the IP scale than
did their mid-age counterparts (41–50)
[β = .039, t (184) = .527, p = .599 (Faculty,
tenure-track), and β = .150, t (78) = 1.220, p
= .226 (Faculty, non–tenure-track)].

This trend is not the same for staff.
Younger participants scored significantly
higher on the IP scale than did the mid-
age participants [β = .250, t (86) = 2.108,
p = .038], but younger participants did
not score differently from the oldest
participants [β = .008, t (86) = .066, p =
.948]. This surprising result merits fur-

TABLE 11
IP Scores by Region (Range=0–84; N=352)

Region High Low Median Average No. (%) of scores
over 42

US Southwest (n=44) 63 8 28.5 30.52 10 (22.73)
US West (n=40) 60 3 29 30.13 8 (20)
US South (n=89) 70 8 28 28.79 9 (10.11)
US Midwest (n=100) 64 4 27 28 14 (14)
US Northeast (n=51) 58 4 26 25.57 2 (3.92)
Canada (n=25) 52 11 31 29.48 2 (8)
Other (n=3) 22 11 21 18 0 (0)

Perceived Inadequacy 263

ther investigation through additional
research such as subject interviews or a
longitudinal study.

A multiple regression was calculated,
regressing participants’ scores on the IP
scale with longevity. Longevity was a
categorical variable with five levels (less
than 3 years, 3–6 years, 6–10 years, 10–20

years, and more than 20 years); but, for
the analysis, these values were dummy
coded. As shown in figure 2, significant
differences in imposter feelings were
found among participants depending on
how long they had been working [R2 =
.061, F (4, 347) = 5.660, p < .001]. Partici-
pants who had been working for less than

FIGuRE 1
IP Scores by Employment Classification and Age

Age Range

M
ea

n
IP

S
co

.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

under
30

31–35 36–40 41–50 51–60 over 61

Faculty, Tenure-Track

Faculty, Non–Tenure-
Track

Staff

FIGuRE 2
IP Scores by Employment Classification and Longevity

Longevity

M
ea

n
IP

S
co

less than 3 3–6 6–10 10–20 more than
20

Faculty, Tenure-Track

Faculty, Non–Tenure-
Track

Staff

264 College & Research Libraries May 2014

3 years had greater imposter feel-
ings (M = 35.21, SD = 14.95) than
did all other participant groups
(see table 12). Using a Cramer’s
V coefficient test, a significant but
weak relationship was found be-
tween employment classification
and longevity [Cramer’s V = .153,
χ2 (8) = 16.354, p = .038].

Analysis of Additional
Questions
Of 352 survey participants, 343 answered
the additional questions following the
Harvey IP Scale. In addition to the re-
sponses addressed above, respondents
attributed their feelings of inadequacy to
a variety of professional interactions: a
lack of feedback or support from super-
visor, negative feedback from supervisor
or colleagues, toxic employee relations,
lack of training or clear instructions,
technological change, and undesired job
reassignment or duties.

These comments represent the larger
sample. The individual’s IP score is in-
cluded in parentheses:

• “I know objectively that I am
good at my job, but I get little to
no sincere feedback from my su-
pervisor. This makes me question
if my work is really valued by the
institution or not.” (30)

• “Vague expectations and inconsis-
tent feedback from management
and senior colleagues.” (35)

• “Now I’m in a position where
forward-looking, creative uses of
technology are valued. So some-
times I feel old and out-of-date
and unable to catch up.” (32)

• “I am in a new library technol-
ogy position. I will often express
an opinion and have it met with
suspicion or outright disbelief.
Then my colleagues will ask
someone else in campus IT…
before they accept the opinion
as reliable. This makes me feel
like they think my judgment is
inadequate.” (53)

While library organizations may not
necessarily cause IP feelings, survey
respondents perceived that the culture
fosters those feelings. Some comments
from respondents even reflected this cul-
ture of animosity for those with feelings of
inadequacy in the profession. “Librarian-
ship takes … flexibility and a firm vision
of the future. Loosey-goosey issue-ridden
automatons need to find another area of
employment.”

When asked how feelings of inadequa-
cy affected job performance, respondents
reported a tendency to second-guess their
work, to strive obsessively for perfection,
and to hesitate to stand up for themselves
or share their opinions. Approximately
25 percent of respondents who reported
having these feelings now or in the past
stated that such feelings drove them to
work toward building their skills and
knowledge; however, most stated that
the effects of these feelings were demo-
tivation, procrastination, and feelings of
stress, anxiety, or burnout. A selection
of responses to this question is included
below:

• “Overload paralysis, inaction due
to fear of negative reaction from
colleagues.” (40)

• “I undervalue my accomplish-
ments.” (48)

• “This stresses me out consider-
ably and it affects my health as a
result.” (33)

• “Sometimes I overcompensate and
do way to[o] much work, other
times I feel so lost I put something
off when I don’t have to.” (52)

TABLE 12
IP Scores and Longevity

Mean
Score

SD B T p

Under 3 years 35.21 14.95
3–6 years 29.94 13.1 5.27 2.136 .033
6–10 years 26.02 11.16 9.19 3.80 <.001
10–20 years 28.53 11.50 6.68 3.07 .002
Over 20 years 25.90 11.31 9.31 4.44 <.001

Perceived Inadequacy 265

A broad conclusion is that one in eight
academic librarians has IP scores above
the benchmark of 42. Younger and newer
librarians, in particular, may be experienc-
ing significant difficulty because of IP feel-
ings. In addition to having less familiarity
with their positions, another cause of
these feelings could be the competitive-
ness, isolation, and other pressures often
found in academic culture.24 Identifying
the reasons why this occurs would require
more in-depth research.

Based on previous research25 and the
short-answer responses, it appears that IP
feelings are detrimental to both individu-
als and the organizations they work for.
To assess the impact, further research is
needed.

Study Limitations
As with all research, limitations of this
study should be taken into consideration.
A concern when analyzing the results of
this study is the predominance of female
respondents. ARL statistics cite that 37.1
percent of librarians at research institu-
tions (8,329 total) are male,26 while only
25.6 percent of this sample is male. Anoth-
er concern is the difficulty of isolating job
functions due to various responses to this
question. A large portion of the respon-
dents reported their function as “other,”
and listed multiple job functions, or un-
categorizable positions such as “Subject
Specialist.” There is no way to verify that
librarians who chose a single function do
not in reality perform multiple job func-
tions. As a result, the responses to the job
function question were unreliable. The
study did not consider parallels between
the IP and nontraditional librarian roles,
such as non-MLS librarians or embedded
librarians.

This study may also have a selection
bias, as the researchers contacted poten-
tial participants with contact informa-
tion available on their library websites,
resulting in a disproportionate number
of responses from public services librar-
ians. Furthermore, librarians who do not
experience IP feelings might have been

• “They [feelings of inadequacy]
challenge me to do my best to
learn new ideas.” (52)

• “These feelings are major con-
tributors to the level of burnout I
currently struggle with.” (53)

While not all feelings of inadequacy
are necessarily related to the IP, these re-
sponses show common reactions to such
feelings. This supports the assertion that
imposter feelings may lead to self-defeat-
ing and self-handicapping behaviors.23

Discussion
The results show that younger librarians
and newer librarians reported higher IP
scores than their more experienced col-
leagues. This confirms the researchers’
hypotheses about age and longevity being
factors in imposter feelings. This finding
is not surprising, as older and experienced
librarians are usually more familiar with
their positions and are likely to feel more
secure in their workplace.

The third hypothesis was that librar-
ians in positions requiring technical
expertise have a higher occurrence of
IP feelings than those requiring more
traditional librarian skill sets. Due to
inconsistences with the respondents’ re-
ports of their job functions and the small
pool of responses for each job function
category, there was insufficient data to
properly test the hypothesis. However,
several short-answer responses addressed
changing job functions and organizational
expectations, including technological
change, as contributing to these feelings.

The results also identified other factors
associated with higher reported IP scores
among respondents. Tenure-track librar-
ians with less than 3 years of longevity
experience IP feelings at a higher rate than
their non–tenure-track and staff counter-
parts. This could be partially due to the
rigor of the tenure process, but identifying
causality is outside the scope of this study.
Non–tenure-track faculty with longevity
of less than 3 years also experience IP feel-
ings at a high rate, although not as high
as tenure-track faculty.

266 College & Research Libraries May 2014

less likely to complete a questionnaire of
this nature.

Self-reporting questionnaires also
come with a certain degree of unreliabil-
ity. The results showed that respondents
with above-average scores on the Harvey
IP Scale did not always report that they
experienced professional anxiety in their
answers to the additional questions.
Mood variability and degree of self-
awareness may influence how a partici-
pant answers survey questions.

Conclusion and Recommendations
There are a number of ways individuals
suffering from IP feelings can reduce
them. The first step is acknowledging
that “feeling incompetent and being
incompetent are two different things.”27
Discussing personal performance with
peers or a supervisor may help one to gain
better perspective.28 Clance recommends
recording positive feedback. Instead of
denying a compliment, “take in the posi-
tive response, and … get as much nourish-
ment as possible out of it.”29 In extreme
cases, counseling or group therapy may
be appropriate.

It is normal to experience IP feelings in
an unfamiliar environment, but “impos-
ters have trouble putting those feelings
in perspective and worry about their er-
rors, not recognizing that their colleagues
make them, too.”30 Knowing that they are
not alone is very beneficial to those who
experience IP feelings. Becoming aware
of and identifying IP tendencies is also
helpful, as is internalizing the belief that
imperfection and even failure will not
create a disaster.31

Supervisors, particularly those who
supervise new librarians, should also be
aware of the phenomenon. Newhouse
and Spisak assert, “the first year seems
to make or break new librarians…it
takes huge doses of openness and af-
firmation (…proper training, adherence
to the tenets of librarianship, appropri-
ate feedback and rewards, and specific
attempts to recruit new professionals)
to overcome a new librarian’s feelings

of being overwhelmed, underappreci-
ated, disillusioned, and underpaid.”32
The short-answer responses indicate
that the relationship between employee
and supervisor may play a role in the
seriousness of some cases of the IP. Su-
pervisors should look out for employees
who downplay their achievements or
assert that they are not as good as others
think, as this strategy is often used by
those with IP feelings to “minimize the
implications of poor performance.”33 Kets
de Vries states, “Good bosses remain alert
for symptoms for neurotic imposture in
their employees: fear of failure, fear of
success, perfectionism, procrastination,
and workaholism.”34

Support from supervisors can be ben-
eficial in counteracting the IP. “Providing
faculty with opportunities to develop
skills in areas they think are their weak-
nesses can do a lot to reduce anxiety
about their abilities and to overcome
isolation.”35 Without having to spend any
money at all, supervisors can alleviate
imposter anxieties by communicating
effectively with their employees.36 Em-
phasizing that constructive criticism is
a necessary aspect of a professional job,
supervisors should internalize and com-
municate the belief that “open, honest,
critical feedback is an opportunity for
new learning and not an irredeemable
catastrophe.”37 Zorn suggests mentoring
new faculty to minimize imposter feelings
and improve retention.38 Formal mentor-
ing may be particularly beneficial in cases
in which it is difficult for an employee
to discuss their performance with their
supervisor.

Valerie Young’s book, Secret Thoughts
of Successful Women: Why Capable People
Suffer from the Impostor Syndrome and How
to Thrive in Spite of It, is a recommended
resource for individuals experiencing IP
feelings, but supervisors may also use it
to gain understanding. Exercises in each
chapter help readers understand how to
overcome fear of success, receive criti-
cism, and better cope with IP feelings.

Further research is also recommended

Perceived Inadequacy 267

to identify other factors contributing to
the IP among librarians and to measure
the effects of the phenomenon on indi-
vidual job performance, organization
of employ, and the library profession as
a whole. This study only measures re-
spondents’ IP scores at one point in time.
A long-term study with a small sample
of subjects to track how IP scores change
over time and throughout major career
stages would be valuable. Such a study
could differentiate between chronic IP
feelings and situational instances of IP
feelings, such as being a newly hired

librarian. Additional research on the IP
among librarians would be a further step
in raising awareness of its prevalence in
the library profession and helping librar-
ians maintain healthy attitudes toward
their work environments.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Adam Randell,
Jason Coleman, Joy Perrin, and Ian Barba
for their constructive feedback on our
manuscript. Thank you to Joan Harvey,
PhD, for graciously allowing us to use
her survey.

Appendix. Librarian’s View of Personal
Professional Performance
Thank you for your participation in this study. Participation is voluntary. Questions
may be skipped and you may exit the survey at any time. This survey should take
approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. Responses will be completely anonymous
and kept confidential by the researchers.

1. In what type of library do you work?
College or University (non-ARL)
University (ARL Library)
Public
School
Special (please specify)

2. How is your job classified?
Staff
Faculty, non-Tenure Track
Faculty, Tenure Track

3. Which of the following best describes your primary job function? (Choose one.)
Access Services
Acquisitions
Administration
Cataloging/Metadata
Collection development
Development/fund-raising
Digital services
Distance/distributed education
Electronic resource management
Government documents
Information literacy/instruction
Interlibrary loan/document delivery
Library and information school educator

268 College & Research Libraries May 2014

Media services/audiovisual
Print Preservation
Rare books and special collections
Reference/research services
Scholarly Communication/repository services
Systems and network services
Web services
Other (please specify)

4. Age range
under 25 41-50
26-30 51-60
31-35 over 60
36-40

5. Gender
Male
Female

6. Years employed as a professional librarian
Less than 3 years
3 to 6 years
6 to 10 years
10 to 20 years
20+ years

7. Highest Education Level
Bachelor’s Degree
Master of Library Science, or equivalent
Master’s degree in field other than Library Science
Master of Library Science, and Master in another subject
Doctor of Philosophy, any subject

8. Region of employment
Canada
US Northeast
US South
US Midwest
US Southwest
US West
Other

Perceived Inadequacy 269

For each statement below, check the box that best indicates how true of you the state-
ment is. A=not at all true, G=very true. Your first thoughts and impressions are most
important here, so answer as quickly and honestly as possible.39

Statement A.
Not at
all true

B. C. D. E. F. G.
Very
true

1. In general, people tend to believe I am
more competent than I really am.

2. I am certain my present level of
achievement results from true ability.

3. Sometimes I am afraid I will be
discovered for who I really am.

4. I find it easy to accept compliments about
my competence.

5. I feel I deserve whatever honors,
recognition, or praise I receive.

6. At times, I have felt I am in my present
position or academic program through some
kind of mistake.

7. I feel confident that I will succeed in the
future.

8. I tend to feel like a phony.

9. My personality or charm often makes a
strong impression on people in authority.

10. I consider my accomplishments adequate
for this stage in my life.

11. In discussions, if I disagree with my boss, a
professor, or the person in charge, I speak out.

12. I often achieve success on a project, report,
or test when I have anticipated I would fail.

13. I often feel I am concealing secrets about
myself from others.

14. My public and private self are the same
person.

15. Do you struggle with feelings of inadequacy at your job on a regular basis?
A. No B. Yes C. Not presently, but I have in the past

16. If you answered “yes” or “in the past” to the above, to what do you attribute these
feelings of inadequacy?

17. How do any feelings of inadequacy affect your job performance, or how have they
in the past?

270 College & Research Libraries May 2014

Notes

1. Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries, “The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake,” Harvard Business Review
83, no. 9 (2005): 108–16.

2. Pauline R. Clance and Suzanne A. Imes, “The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving
Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention,” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 15,
no. 3 (1978): 241–47.

3. Joan C. Harvey and Cynthia Katz, If I’m So Successful, Why Do I Feel Like a Fake? The Impostor
Phenomenon (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985), 8.

4. Clance and Imes, “The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women,” 241.
5. Joan C. Harvey, “The Impostor Phenomenon and Achievement: A Failure to Internalize

Success” (Ph.D. diss., Temple University, 1981); Mary E.H. Topping and Ellen B. Kimmel, “The
Impostor Phenomenon: Feeling Phony,” Academic Psychology Bulletin 7 (1985): 213–26; Sharon
Fried-Buchalter, “Fear of Success, Fear of Failure, and the Imposter Phenomenon: A Factor Ana-
lytic Approach to Convergent and Discriminant Validity,” Journal of Personality Assessment 58, no.
2 (1992): 368–79.

6. Harvey and Katz, If I’m So Successful, Why Do I Feel like a Fake? The Impostor Phenomenon,
3; John Gravois, “You’re Not Fooling Anyone,” Chronicle of Higher Education 54, no. 11 (2007): 1.

7. John Kolligian, Jr., and Robert J. Sternberg, “Perceived Fraudulence in Young Adults: Is
There an ‘Imposter Syndrome’?” Journal of Personality Assessment 56, no. 2: 308–26.

8. Loretta N. McGregor, Damon E. Gee, and K. Elizabeth Posey, “I Feel like a Fraud and It
Depresses Me: The Relation between the Imposter Phenomenon and Depression,” Social Behavior
and Personality 36, no. 1 (2008): 43–48.

9. Kets de Vries, “The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake,” 112.
10. Naijean Bernard, Stephen J. Dollinger, and Nerella V. Ramaniah, “Applying the Big Five

Personality Factors to the Impostor Phenomenon,” Journal of Personality Assessment 78, no. 2 (2002):
321–33.

11. Scott R. Ross, Jane Stewart, Molly Mugge, and Brandy Fultz, “The Imposter Phenomenon,
Achievement Dispositions, and the Five Factor Model,” Personality and Individual Differences 31,
no. 8 (2001): 1347–55; Kets de Vries, “The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake,” 108, 110.

12. Kets de Vries, “The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake,” 110–12.
13. Scott R. Ross and Rebecca A. Krukowski, “The Imposter Phenomenon and Maladaptive

Personality: Type and Trait Characteristics,” Personality and Individual Differences 34, no. 3 (2003):
477–84.

14. Diane Zorn, “Academic Culture Feeds the Imposter Phenomenon,” Leaders: The Newsletter
for Academic Deans and Department Chairs 21, no. 8 (2005): 1, 8.

15. Kets de Vries, “The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake,” 111.
16. Anna Parkman and Roxanne Beard, “Succession Planning and the Imposter Phenomenon

in Higher Education,” CUPA-HR Journal 59, no. 2 (2008): 29–36.
17. Rachel Singer Gordon, “Overcoming the Systems Librarian Imposter Syndrome,” LIBRES:

Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal 13, no. 2 (2003), available online at https://
libres.curtin.edu.au/libres13n2/ess&op_singer_gordon.htm [accessed 5 January 2010].

18. James G. Neal, “Raised by Wolves: Integrating the New Generation of Feral Profession-
als into the Academic Library,” Library Journal 131, no. 3 (2006): 42–44; Ria Newhouse and April
Spisak, “Fixing the First Job,” Library Journal 129, no. 13 (2004): 44–46.

19. Newhouse and Spisak, “Fixing the First Job,” 45.
20. Chan M. Hellman and Tonia D. Caselman, “A Psychometric Evaluation of the Harvey

Imposter Phenomenon Scale,” Journal of Personality Assessment 83, no. 2 (2004): 161–66.
21. Harvey and Katz, If I’m So Successful, Why Do I Feel like a Fake? The Impostor Phenomenon,

114.
22. Harvey, “The Impostor Phenomenon and Achievement: A Failure to Internalize Success”;

Topping and Kimmel, “The Impostor Phenomenon: Feeling Phony”; Fried-Buchalter, “Fear of
Success, Fear of Failure, and the Imposter Phenomenon.”

23. Kets de Vries, “The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake,” 110–12; Ross, Stewart, Mugge, and
Fultz, “The Imposter Phenomenon, Achievement Dispositions, and the Five Factor Model,”
1347–55.

24. Zorn, “Academic Culture Feeds the Imposter Phenomenon,” 1.
25. Parkman and Beard, “Succession Planning and the Imposter Phenomenon in Higher

Education,” 31; Kets de Vries, “The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake,” 110, 113–16.
26. Association of Research Libraries, “ARL Annual Salary Survey 2010–2011” (2011), available

online at www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/salary/sal1011.shtml [accessed 26 June 2012].
27. Lucas Laursen, “No, You’re Not an Imposter,” Science Career Magazine, Feb. 15, 2008,

Perceived Inadequacy 271

available online at http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/
articles/2008_02_15/caredit_a0800025 [accessed 6 July 2012].

28. Laursen, “No, You’re Not an Imposter.”
29. Clance and Imes, “The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women,” 246.
30. Laursen, “No, You’re Not an Imposter.”
31. Gail Matthews and Pauline Clance, “Treatment of the Impostor Phenomenon in Psycho-

therapy Clients,” Psychotherapy in Private Practice 3, no. 1 (1985): 71–81.
32. Ria Newhouse and April Spisak, “Fixing the First Job,” 44.
33. Mark R. Leary, Katharine M. Patton, Amy E. Orlando, and Wendy Wagoner Funk, “The

Imposter Phenomenon: Self-perceptions, Reflected Appraisals, and Interpersonal Strategies,”
Journal of Personality 68, no. 4 (2000): 725–56.

34. Kets de Vries, “The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake,” 115.
35. Zorn, “Academic Culture Feeds the Imposter Phenomenon,” 8.
36. Michael Harvey, Miriam Moeller, and Alex Williams, “Assessing the Role of the Self-Concept

on the Destructive Impact of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Managers,” Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 41, no. 1 (2011): 82–105.

37. Kets de Vires, “The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake,” 116.
38. Zorn, “Academic Culture Feeds the Imposter Phenomenon,” 8.
39. Harvey and Katz, If I’m So Successful, Why Do I Feel like a Fake? The Impostor Phenomenon,

110–112.