There’s a kind of exhaustion that hardly anyone talks about. It’s not physical exhaustion, nor is it the kind that results in sick days. It’s the exhaustion that sets in when you’ve spent years trying to earn a place that’s long been rightfully yours.

I’m thinking of the executive who rephrases her answer three times during a board meeting—not because she’s unsure about the content, but because she’s unsure of how she’ll be perceived. The entrepreneur who, in negotiations, systematically starts below what she considers reasonable because she anticipates rejection before the conversation has even begun. The expert who delivers the most compelling analysis in the strategy meeting, yet whose contribution is ignored until a colleague repeats the same idea three minutes later. The woman who begins every status email with an apology, even though she delivers the required results.

These aren’t exceptions. They’re patterns I regularly observe in my work with executives and female entrepreneurs, and they all share one crucial thing in common: it’s not that they lack competence—it’s that their own self-doubt changes their behavior. And this change in behavior comes at the cost of visibility, influence, and career opportunities.

Current research shows just how widespread these patterns are. In a A meta-analysis published in 2025 in BMC Psychology evaluated 30 studies involving over 11,000 participants. The study found an overall prevalence of the imposter phenomenon of 62%. We know that the IThe “mposter” phenomenon as early as 1978, when it was developed by the psychologists Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes As has been described: Despite demonstrable successes, women showed a tendency to constantly second-guess themselves, to the point of fearing they would soon be exposed. According to a KPMG study (2020) 75% of the female executives surveyed reported having had such experiences over the course of their careers. The result: Ideas that were held back, positions that weren’t taken, and negotiations that fell short of one’s own expectations.

When Self-Doubt Negatively Affects Behavior

It’s not surprising that this combination leads to internal and external dissonance, but the self-doubt that accompanies this state can become a major long-term challenge.

Research distinguishes four psychological areas in which self-doubt arises: self-acceptance—that is, whether one perceives oneself as “adequate” regardless of performance and external feedback. Perceived agency—that is, the confidence that one can actually achieve set goals and the sense of control over one’s own professional environment—as well as emotional regulation, meaning the ability to remain capable of acting under pressure rather than becoming reactive. Those who lack the necessary resilience in any of these areas experience self-doubt more frequently and lose their clarity and confidence in their actions more quickly when under pressure.

The good news is: As soon as a doubt can be pinned down to a specific area, it becomes something we can address—and that is the key difference between a vague feeling we just can’t seem to shake and a starting point we can work on in a focused way.

Psychology describes one of the most effective steps in this process as follows: Separating yourself from the thought—that is, instead of thinking,“I’m not convincing enough in this meeting,” you practice distancing yourself:“I’m just noticing the thought that I’m not convincing enough.”

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Hayes et al.) refers to this as cognitive defusion. In 2007, Lieberman et al. demonstrated in *Psychological Science* that naming emotions dampens emotional reactivity and improves the ability to make clear judgments under pressure. In day-to-day leadership, however, the opposite is often very evident. Statements like “I’m just not cut out for the big stage” or “I’m too direct for this corporate culture” sound like self-awareness. In reality, however, these thoughts rule out options for action before they’ve even been explored. Feelings and beliefs are states, not traits. The difference between: ““I’m unsure about this case.” And “I sense uncertainty in this negotiation” is not a semantic distinction; it determines whether the next action depends on a state or on a decision.

Why (Self-)Confidence Only Emerges When We Take Action

The most persistent misconception about self-confidence in this context is that it’s something you’re born with or that it will develop on its own eventually. The result is that you wait until it’s there and only then take action.

Psychological research , however, clearly shows the opposite: self-efficacy—the concept introduced by Bandura (1977) in the *Psychological Review* and one of the most frequently replicated constructs in applied psychology—arises from repeatedly experiencing and overcoming obstacles.

So anyone who likes to stick affirmations on their mirror in the morning is welcome to keep doing so, but the research clearly shows:

It is not through preparation alone, nor through positive thinking, but through concrete experience that we are moved to act.

In practice, this means that anyone who waits for the right feeling or the right opportunity before accepting a leadership position, negotiating a salary, or publicly advocating an unpopular position is waiting for something that simply won’t happen. A sense of security only comes after we’ve gained the necessary experience—not before.

Preparation, Not Optimism: What Truly Brings Security and Sovereignty

Gabriele Oettingen’s research on the mental contrast method (NYU, replicated multiple times) shows that people who visualize only the best-case scenario lose motivation because the brain perceives the goal as already nearly achieved. What does work, however, is applying both at the same time—that is: keeping the goal clearly in mind while visualizing the real obstacles along the way just as clearly. Or to put it more simply: We can already play out the experience described above in our minds, which has almost the same effect as if it had actually happened.

A good example of this is former U.S. swimmer Michael Phelps. Not only did he perfectly visualize his next race and how it would unfold, but he also mentally imagined what he would do if his goggles filled with water, if he panicked, or if he had a bad start. In 2008, during the Olympic 200-meter butterfly final, his goggles actually filled with water shortly after the start. So he could see virtually nothing for the last 175 of 200 meters. Yet even though he was swimming without clear vision, he still broke the world record—not because everything went perfectly or because he believed he could do it, but because he had purposefully prepared himself in advance for the most common contingencies.

Applied to your own profession or business context, this means: If you’re preparing for a board presentation, a fee negotiation, or a difficult discussion with stakeholders, you’d be wise not to just run through the best-case scenario. Instead, it helps to ask yourself the following questions:

• What should I do if my numbers are called into question?
• What should I do if I’m interrupted before I’ve made the main point of my statement?
• What if the mood in the room shifts, or the client dismisses my proposed fee as unrealistic?

Those who have worked through these situations in advance will act more calmly, clearly, and effectively should they actually arise later on.

Presence is not a personality trait; it is a choice

In addition to self-efficacy, self-confidence, and the ability to mentally run through scenarios—including all potential obstacles—the topic of presence should not go unmentioned in this context.

(Leadership) presence is often described (on social media) as a vague personality trait that some people possess while others still need to acquire.

Research, of course, is much more precise on this point:

Keating et al. (Frontiers in Psychology, 2020) analyzed how charisma is perceived among political and institutional leaders and found that it arises where empathy and confidence are both evident. Accessibility without assertiveness does not create a leadership impact. Autonomy and assertiveness without empathy, in turn, do not create a connection. However, both have a lasting influence and can optimally strengthen presence in a professional or business context.

In my work, I distinguish between two dimensions of effectiveness: The first is captivating and immediate—for example, a presentation at an executive meeting or a keynote address that sticks in your memory. The second creates connections and sometimes takes time to take effect: the conversation following an intensive workshop, the other person’s willingness to rethink their own position, the trust others place in you even though you haven’t yet earned it. Both dimensions are relevant, but the latter is what builds connection and cooperation, bridges hierarchical boundaries, and generates influence that extends beyond the moment. It arises not from rhetorical techniques, but from genuine attention and sincere interest.

In this context, presence begins much earlier than most people assume. Research on nonverbal behavior and perceived status shows that speaking pace, posture, gestures, and eye contact influence how competent and confident someone is perceived to be—and this happens within seconds, before the content is even evaluated. Furthermore, research indicates that people who raise their voices under pressure, speak faster, and avoid pauses come across as insecure. On the other hand, those who speak clearly, remain calm during pauses, and hold others’ gaze come across as much clearer and more self-assured in their position. Incidentally, the latter also applies even if the apparent “calm” you project doesn’t match your inner feelings—perhaps because you have stage fright and are trying to calm yourself with proper breathing techniques while mentally encouraging yourself.

For women in leadership positions, there is one more specific detail to consider: Clothing and footwear that restrict freedom of movement have been shown to alter gait and posture—and thus how others perceive confidence and authority. Choosing the right outfit, therefore, is not a matter of style, but of impact. When you feel physically comfortable, it shows in your posture, your stride, and your overall demeanor. So it’s definitely worth pulling out that soft linen blouse and those comfortable sneakers—even if others give you a critical look at first—because, in the end, it’s our demeanor that will win them over.

The Invisible Power of True Expertise

Regarding the last point, in addition to self-efficacy, self-confidence, and the poise that goes hand in hand with both, I would definitely like to address the most important aspect (besides a strong network) within our professional lives: the experience and expertise we bring to the table, as both form the foundation of our work and our professional demeanor.

To illustrate this, I’ve brought along an abridged version of a truly fascinating story that actually happened and continues to leave a lasting visual impression to this day:

In 1998, Citicorp and the Travelers Group merged to form what was then the world’s largest financial services provider, and as a result, they were looking for a new brand identity. They commissioned Paula Scher, a partner at the New York design firm Pentagram, to create a new logo for them. The budget for the logo design: $1.5 million.

At the first briefing meeting, Scher listens intently as the participants discuss the company’s vision and future, and begins sketching a design on a paper napkin:

An arch over the lowercase “t” in “citi.” An umbrella. A nod to the Travelers logo.

After a few minutes, she slides the napkin across the table:“That’s your logo.” Someone asks how something so significant could have come about so casually in such a short moment. Scher’s answer:

It takes just a few seconds, and yet it takes 34 years.

The logo remains unchanged to this day. What was paid for was not the sketch, which was created in just a few minutes, but rather the expertise and experience that had been acquired and refined over 34 years—and that made this work, completed in a matter of seconds, possible in the first place.

Self-doubt doesn’t disappear with experience, success, or rank

That’s perhaps the most important insight I’ve gained from everything I see in my daily work. I don’t think self-doubt ever completely goes away, and that’s probably not the point anyway.

The crucial difference arises the moment women stop constantly second-guessing their competence. When they no longer wait until they feel ready, when they speak even though their voice trembles slightly, and when they confidently state their prices without apologizing for them.

Presence doesn’t come from perfection, and the goal isn’t to go through (professional) life completely free of doubt. Ultimately, it’s more about taking yourself seriously despite your insecurities and staying true to your own values.

Sources:

[1] Clance, P. R. & Imes, S. A. (1978). The Imposter Phenomenon in High-Achieving Women. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247.

[2] Dehghani, M. et al. (2025). Global prevalence of imposter syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychology. doi: 10.1186/s40359-025-02898-4 (30 studies, n = 11,483, prevalence 62%)

[3] KPMG (2020). Own It: A Study Examining the State of Women’s Leadership in America. 75% of female executives have experienced imposter syndrome.

[4] Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

[5] Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Scales for measuring teacher and student characteristics. Freie Universität Berlin. (Scale for General Self-Efficacy Expectations, based on Bandura 1977; validated in > 23 countries; German samples: Cronbach’s α .80–.90)

[6] Oettingen, G. (2014). Rethinking Positive Thinking: Inside the New Science of Motivation. Research on mental contrast and positive fantasies.

[7] Lieberman, M. D. et al. (2007). Putting Feelings into Words: Affect Labeling Disrupts Amygdala Activity. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421–428.

[8] Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. (Cognitive defusion)

[9] Keating, C. F. et al. (2020). Charismatic Nonverbal Displays by Leaders Signal Receptivity and Formidability. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 526288.

[10] Berger, J. et al. (1974/1977). Expectation States Theory. Status Dynamics and Perceived Competence in Groups.

[11] Riggio, R. E. (2010). / Schyns, B. & Mohr, G. (2004). Nonverbal Behavior and Leadership Perception. Integrative Reviews.

[12] Phelps, M. & Abrahamson, A. (2008). Beneath the Surface. Sports Publishing.

[13] Dwyer, N. (2017). The $1.5m napkin: Paula Scher’s 5-minute logo. Medium. nedwin.medium.com.