The Confidence Gap: Why High-Achieving Women Still Doubt Themselves


On imposter syndrome, the roots of self-doubt, and what the research actually tells us.

She has the degrees, the title, the track record. Her colleagues respect her. Her results speak for themselves. And yet, somewhere between the meeting room and the mirror, she wonders: Does anyone know I don’t really belong here?

This is imposter syndrome. For high-achieving women, it is not a character flaw or a passing phase. It is a documented, pervasive pattern with measurable consequences for careers, organisations, and ambition itself.

The term “imposter phenomenon” was coined in 1978 by psychologists Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Imes, who studied 150 high-achieving women in the United States. Each had been formally recognised for her professional and academic success. And yet, despite the external validation, nearly all struggled to internalise their accomplishments, attributing their achievements to luck, timing, or the inability of others to see through them. What Clance and Imes identified was not simply low self-esteem. It was something more specific: a persistent disconnect between objective achievement and subjective self-perception. Success, no matter how documented, failed to silence the internal voice insisting it was undeserved.

Decades later, this phenomenon remains stubbornly persistent, and its roots, research suggests, run earlier and deeper than the workplace.

One underappreciated strand of the research traces the confidence gap to the classroom itself, long before professional life begins. A landmark study by Colbeck, Cabrera, and Terenzini (2001), published in The Review of Higher Education, examined how teaching practices shape students’ professional self-perceptions and found that the effect is not gender-neutral. Even when controlling for academic performance, women consistently emerged from higher education with lower professional confidence than their male peers. The implications are significant: the gap is not simply about what students learn, but about how educational environments communicate to students, particularly women, whether they belong.

This early erosion of professional confidence creates compounding disadvantages that follow women into their careers. Carlin, Gelb, Belinne, and Ramchand (2018), writing in Business Horizons, document one of its most consequential effects: women are significantly more likely than men to withdraw from a job application if they believe they lack even one listed qualification — whereas men routinely apply despite perceived skill gaps. The result is a self-imposed filter on ambition that costs both women and the organisations that might have hired them.

For a long time, imposter syndrome was treated primarily as an individual problem, something to be managed through therapy or mindset coaching. More recently, large-scale data has told a more structural story.

A 2024 meta-analysis published in Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, drawing on 115 effect sizes and over 40,000 participants, confirmed what Clance and Imes originally proposed: women experience imposter syndrome more frequently and more intensely than men. The findings were consistent across academic, professional, and healthcare settings and spanned participants in North America, Europe, and Asia.

Research from Cornell University adds another dimension. Studies there found that men tend to overestimate their abilities and their performance, while women consistently underestimate both, even when their actual output is equivalent in quality and quantity. The performance gap is not real. The confidence gap is.

Katty Kay and Claire Shipman, in their influential 2014 Atlantic essay and subsequent book The Confidence Gap, argue that success correlates as closely with confidence as it does with competence and that the natural consequence of chronically low confidence is inaction: opportunities not pursued, hands not raised, promotions not sought.

Eagly  and  Johnson’s  foundational  1990  meta-analysis  across  162  studies in Psychological Bulletin adds important nuance here. Their research found that while women and men do not differ significantly in task-oriented leadership effectiveness in organisational settings, women consistently tended toward more democratic and participative leadership styles. This matters in the context of the confidence gap: women’s collaborative, consensus-building approach to leadership is genuinely effective, yet it may be less visible, less self-promoting, and therefore less likely to be recognised without deliberate institutional attention.

One of the more unsettling findings in this space is that professional success does not dissolve self-doubt, it can intensify it.

A 2020 KPMG study surveyed 750 high-performing executive women, all within one or two steps of the C-suite, representing over 150 organisations. Three-quarters reported having personally experienced imposter syndrome at some point in their careers. Nearly half said their feelings of self-doubt stemmed from never having expected to reach the level of success they had achieved. Eighty-one percent believed they placed more pressure on themselves not to fail than their male counterparts did.

Data from the Survey Center on American Life paints a similar picture at a broader scale. Among young working women, more than half reported feeling “not good at their job” at least once or twice in a single week, compared to 46% of young men. Strikingly, educational attainment offered little protection: college-educated women reported higher rates of self-doubt than women with less formal education, reinforcing the conclusion that credentials alone do not build internal confidence.

The consequences of the confidence gap extend well beyond career advancement. Research published in Management Science in 2025 by Bucher-Koenen, Alessie, Lusardi, and van Rooij, drawing on a carefully designed survey experiment, found that what appears to be a substantial gender gap in financial literacy is, to a meaningful degree, a confidence gap in disguise. When women were given no option to answer “I don’t know,” they frequently chose the correct answer. The researchers estimated that approximately one-third of the observed financial literacy gender gap is explained not by a genuine knowledge deficit, but by women’s lower confidence in their own financial knowledge. Both knowledge and confidence, they found, independently predict stock market participation, meaning that underconfidence has measurable economic consequences for women’s long-term wealth accumulation.

The picture is consistent across sectors. A 2025 qualitative study by Khan, Jamil, Muhammad, and colleagues, published in BMC Health Services Research, examined the experiences of women in healthcare leadership in Pakistan. Despite comprising a substantial majority of the academic medicine faculty, women remain severely underrepresented in leadership positions. Among the key barriers identified were not only structural and cultural obstacles, unsupportive work environments, the double burden of domestic and professional responsibilities, but also internalised lack of confidence and self-doubt, even among women who had already achieved significant professional recognition.

There is a real risk in framing imposter syndrome purely as an internal condition, one that women must diagnose and fix within themselves. Increasingly, researchers and organisational psychologists are pushing back on this framing.

Not everyone agrees that imposter syndrome is the right lens through which to view women’s self-doubt. In a widely discussed 2021 Harvard Business Review essay, Ruchika Tulshyan and Jodi-Ann Burey argued that the concept itself does more harm than good, not because the experience is fictitious, but because naming it “syndrome” locates the problem inside the woman rather than inside the institution.

Their critique is pointed: telling women they have imposter syndrome, and coaching them to overcome it, places the burden of repair on the people least responsible for the conditions that created the self-doubt in the first place. Tulshyan and Burey further emphasise that for women of colour, the framing is especially inadequate, their hesitation and guardedness in professional spaces is often not a cognitive distortion but an accurate read of environments where they face compounded racial and gender bias simultaneously. Tulshyan and Burey do not dispute that women experience profound self-doubt; they dispute that the solution is psychological rather than structural.

Corporate environments were largely designed by and for a narrow demographic. Women, particularly women of colour, often operate as minorities in rooms where the informal rules, communication norms, and pathways to recognition were built without them in mind. The self-doubt they experience does not arise in a vacuum. It is, in many cases, a rational response to genuinely ambiguous signals: environments where their competence is more frequently questioned, where their successes receive less attribution, and where the costs of visible failure are perceived to be higher. As the PMC literature on imposter syndrome in academic medicine has documented, the phenomenon is associated with reduced career planning, less ambition-seeking behaviour, and lower likelihood of pursuing leadership at the precise moments when confidence and decisive action matter most.

Carlin and colleagues (2018) are explicit about the organisational dimension: closing the confidence gap is not solely women’s responsibility. Organisations benefit materially when they actively discourage the equation of low confidence with low competence, build mentoring structures that apply equally to women, and create cultures where women’s contributions are attributed accurately and visibly.

Not all the findings point in one direction. Research from Zenger Folkman shows that women’s confidence grows more steeply with age and experience than men’s, suggesting that the gap, though real, is not fixed. With time, with meaningful mentorship, and with organisations that create conditions for women to see their impact reflected back to them, the internal narrative can shift. But that observation also contains an implicit cost: the opportunities lost in the early and middle years, the ideas not shared, the roles not applied for, the negotiations not entered. Confidence that arrives late still arrives after its most consequential moments have passed.

The evidence from education (Colbeck et al., 2001), from business leadership (Carlin et al., 2018; Kay C Shipman, 2014), from healthcare (Khan et al., 2025), from finance (Bucher-Koenen et al., 2025), and from psychology (Clance & Imes, 1978; meta-analysis, 2024) converges on the same conclusion: the confidence gap is real, it is cross-sector, and it is costly. Closing it requires more than encouraging women to believe in themselves. It requires examining and rebuilding the educational and professional environments that make self-doubt so rational in the first place.

What perhaps matters most, beyond statistics and research findings, is the reminder that a person’s value can never be reduced to their achievements, productivity, or moments of failure. The way we perceive ourselves should not fluctuate entirely according to success or inadequacy, because human worth exists independently from performance.

In many ways, the very existence of doubt can also reflect awareness. The more we grow, learn, and understand ourselves, the more questions naturally emerge. Perhaps insecurity is not always a sign of weakness, but sometimes the consequence of complexity, sensitivity, and intelligence itself. What truly matters is ensuring that these doubts do not turn into self-destruction, but instead become the starting point for building a stronger and more conscious sense of self-worth.

And while research often highlights differences in the way confidence manifests across genders, these reflections ultimately speak to something deeply human and universal. People are inherently different from one another, in personality, experience, emotion, and perception, and it is precisely this diversity that gives richness both to human relationships and to collective environments. The goal, then, is not uniformity, but the creation of spaces where vulnerability does not diminish value, and where uncertainty can coexist with growth.

Perhaps true confidence is not the absence of fragility, but the ability to carry it without allowing it to define our worth.

Community Research Team, Nova Women in Business

Luisa Tabatabai & Mariella Staby

References

Bucher-Koenen, T., Alessie, R., Lusardi, A., C Van Rooij, M. (2025). Fearless woman: Financial literacy, confidence, and stock market participation. Management Science, 71(9), 7414–7430.

Carlin, B. A., Gelb, B. D., Belinne, J. K., C Ramchand, L. (2018). Bridging the gender gap in confidence. Business Horizons, c1(5), 765–774.

Clance, P. R., C Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247.

Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., C Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Learning professional confidence: Linking teaching practices, students’ self-perceptions, and gender. The Review of Higher Education, 24(2), 173–191.

Current Research in Behavioral Sciences meta-analysis (2024). Gender differences in impostor phenomenon: A meta-analytic review. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences.

Eagly, A. H., C Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256. Kay, K., C Shipman, C. (2014). The confidence gap. The Atlantic, 14(1), 1–18.

Khan, K. I., Jamil, B., Muhammad, M., Mohsin, S., Khan, A. H., C Javed, M. Q. (2025). Gender inequality in healthcare leadership: The challenges women face in breaking through the glass ceiling. BMC Health Services Research, 25(1), 190.

KPMG LLP. (2020). Advancing the future of women in business: A KPMG Women’s Leadership Summit report.

Survey Center on American Life. (2023). Despite professional successes, many women still experience imposter syndrome.

Tulshyan, R., C Burey, J. (2021). Stop telling women they have imposter syndrome. Harvard Business Review. Zenger Folkman. (2024). The confidence gap in men and women: How to overcome it.

The Economics of Mindfulness: Why Wellbeing Is a Business Case

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Reframing Wellbeing in the Modern Workplace 

As the nature of work becomes increasingly complex, digital, and fast-paced, employee wellbeing has emerged as a critical driver of organizational success. Far from being a peripheral HR topic, psychological wellbeing directly impacts core business outcomes – from productivity and innovation to turnover and engagement. The notion that investing in wellbeing is costly or optional is increasingly contradicted by empirical evidence showing that it is, in fact, a smart economic decision. 

Workplaces where employees report higher levels of subjective wellbeing – particularly job satisfaction – demonstrate significantly better performance outcomes, including labor productivity, output quality, and profitability. These relationships persist even when controlling for other HR policies, highlighting wellbeing as a distinct and measurable source of competitive advantage. 

Moving Beyond Perks: Systemic Approaches to Wellbeing 

Workplace wellness initiatives often focus on individual-level solutions like meditation apps, fitness memberships, or lunchtime yoga. While these efforts may reduce short-term stress, they fail to address the structural conditions that give rise to chronic strain, disengagement, and mental health risks. 

Interventions are more effective at the organizational or group level. Changes to work schedules, job roles, or team dynamics – especially those that increase employees’ control and participation – have demonstrated a broader and more sustainable impact on wellbeing. Employees who have autonomy in their tasks and a voice in how work is structured consistently report higher levels of job satisfaction, lower stress, and improved work–life balance. These outcomes are amplified in environments that support open communication and shared decision-making. 

Such systemic approaches suggest that wellbeing is not the result of individual resilience, but of healthy, empowering work environments that are intentionally designed. 

Technology and the New Frontier of Workplace Wellbeing 

In response to hybrid and remote work environments, organizations are increasingly turning to digital tools to support mental health and wellbeing. From immersive virtual reality (VR) environments that simulate calming nature scenes to AI-based tools that monitor emotional states via facial expressions, biometric data, or tone of voice, technology now plays a growing role in the design of workplace wellbeing strategies. 

Virtual reality programs have shown promising results in reducing stress and promoting relaxation in various workplace settings. Even short VR interventions with nature-based visuals or guided breathing exercises have been associated with measurable improvements in employee wellbeing. These technologies can serve as accessible and time-efficient micro-breaks, particularly in demanding or high-pressure environments. 

At the same time, the use of emotional AI raises critical ethical concerns. While emotion-recognition systems promise to enhance management decisions and detect early signs of burnout, they also risk turning the workplace into a zone of surveillance. Monitoring affective states without transparent consent or context can undermine psychological safety rather than support it. If technologies are used to control rather than empower employees, they may backfire – reducing trust and increasing stress. 

The key lies in intentional design and ethical implementation. When used responsibly and transparently, digital wellbeing tools can extend access to support and complement systemic approaches to workplace culture. However, technology must remain a tool – not a substitute – for genuine human connection, autonomy, and care. 

Wellbeing as a Catalyst for Innovation 

Wellbeing not only prevents burnout – it enables innovation. Employees who perceive their work as meaningful and values-aligned are more likely to engage in creative thinking, share new ideas, and take initiative. When employees experience purpose and psychological safety, their engagement spills over into behaviors that benefit the organization as a whole. 

Studies indicate that this effect is strengthened when organizational values align with employees’ own spiritual or ethical beliefs. A sense of authenticity and shared purpose in the workplace fosters emotional connection, which in turn drives proactive contributions and innovative work behavior. 

Resilience as a Buffer to Emotional Strain 

In emotionally intense or high-stakes sectors, such as healthcare, workplace resilience plays a critical role in protecting psychological wellbeing. Employees working under high stress, such as nurses in mental health services, report substantially better wellbeing when they experience resilience-supportive conditions like strong team relationships, opportunities for growth, and autonomy in clinical decisions. Higher resilience levels are associated with lower levels of anxiety, depression, and mental distress – even when job demands remain high. 

These findings affirm multidimensional models of wellbeing, which emphasize not just happiness or the absence of illness, but the capacity to grow, feel connected, and exercise agency in the face of adversity. 

From Support Programs to Cultural Shift 

Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) remain widely used and often valued as accessible tools for short-term counselling and support. However, their long-term effectiveness depends on integration with broader workplace strategies. EAPs that operate in isolation, without addressing organizational culture or workload issues, may offer limited benefits. When combined with systemic measures – such as leadership development, trauma-informed management, or inclusive policy changes – EAPs can serve as effective pillars within a comprehensive wellbeing strategy. 

Designing for Sustainable Human Performance 

The research is clear: organizations that invest in structural wellbeing – not just individual coping – unlock higher engagement, greater innovation, and stronger business outcomes. Mindfulness, autonomy, psychological safety, and meaningful work are not luxury goods; they are essential design principles for the future of work. 

The economics of mindfulness lies in creating environments where people can thrive – not just survive. In doing so, companies don’t just promote wellbeing – they build better, more adaptive organizations for the long term. 

Sources

Bryson, A., Forth, J., & Stokes, L. (2017). Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace performance? Human Relations, 70(8), 1017–1037. 

Delgado, C., Roche, M., Fethney, J., & Foster, K. (2021). Mental health nurses’ psychological well-being, mental distress, and workplace resilience. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 30, 1234–1247. 

Fox, K. E., Johnson, S. T., Berkman, L. F., Sianoja, M., Soh, Y., Kubzansky, L. D., & Kelly, E. L. (2022). Organisational- and group-level workplace interventions and their effect on multiple domains of worker well-being: A systematic review.Work & Stress, 36(1), 30–59. 

Kirk, A. K., & Brown, D. F. (2003). Employee assistance programs: A review of the management of stress and wellbeing through workplace counselling and consulting. Australian Psychologist, 38(2), 138–143. 

Riches, S., Taylor, L., Jeyarajaguru, P., Veling, W., & Valmaggia, L. (2024). Virtual reality and immersive technologies to promote workplace wellbeing: A systematic review. Journal of Mental Health, 33(2), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2023.2182428 

Mantello, P., & Ho, M. T. (2024). Emotional AI and the future of wellbeing in the post-pandemic workplace. AI & Society, 39, 1883–1889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01639-8 

Salem, N. H., Ishaq, M. I., Yaqoob, S., Raza, A., & Zia, H. (2022). Employee engagement, innovative work behaviour, and employee wellbeing: Do workplace spirituality and individual spirituality matter? Business Ethics, Environment & Responsibility, 32(3), 657–669.

Mara Blanz

Research Editor & Editor

The Future of Work: Remote Work, Hybrid Models, and the Office’s Evolution

Reading time: 3 minutes

The landscape of work is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by technological advancements, evolving societal attitudes, and global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic acted as a catalyst, accelerating the adoption of remote work and prompting companies to reassess traditional work structures. Central to this evolution are the concepts of remote work, hybrid models, and the reimagining of traditional office spaces. These developments are not only altering the physical location where work occurs but are also reshaping the dynamics of the global workforce.

Remote Work: A Lasting Change? 

The adoption of remote work has seen a substantial increase, particularly during the pandemic. Gallup reports that U.S. workers averaged 3.8 remote workdays per month in 2023, a rise from 2.4 days before the pandemic. This shift has led to enhanced productivity for many, as employees experience fewer office-related distractions and a better work-life balance. Additionally, companies can now access a broader talent pool without geographical constraints. 

However, remote work is not without its challenges. Feelings of isolation and loneliness are common among remote workers, stemming from reduced face-to-face interactions. This can lead to a weakened sense of team cohesion and connection to the company’s culture. Moreover, the blurring of boundaries between personal and professional life can result in difficulties disconnecting from work, potentially leading to burnout. A survey by PwC in 2022 highlighted that 39% of employees were concerned about not receiving adequate training in digital and technology skills from their employers, underscoring the need for ongoing support in a remote setting. 

Hybrid Models: The Emerging Standard 

To balance the advantages and drawbacks of remote work, many organizations are adopting hybrid work models, which combine in-office and remote working. A PwC survey found that 46% of companies anticipated implementing a hybrid model by the end of 2022. This approach allows employees to engage in collaborative activities in the office while performing focused tasks remotely. 

For hybrid models to be effective, a reevaluation of office design is essential.  According to workplace strategy experts, companies are shifting away from the traditional cubicle-based layout in favor of open, flexible spaces that encourage teamwork and innovation. This may involve reducing the number of assigned desks in favor of creating more collaborative spaces that foster teamwork and innovation. Leading companies like Google and Facebook are at the forefront of redesigning their offices to support flexible layouts and incorporate technology that facilitates seamless collaboration between in-office and remote employees. 

The Office’s Evolution: From Workspace to Collaboration Hub 

The traditional office is being redefined from a place solely for individual work to a hub for collaboration and creativity. In this new model, the office complements remote work by providing spaces designed for team interactions and innovative endeavors. According to a report by JLL (Jones Lang LaSalle), while global office occupancy rates have declined, there is an increased demand for spaces that support collaborative work. 

This shift has significant implications for the commercial real estate sector. As companies reduce their physical office spaces, property owners are compelled to offer more flexible leasing options and rethink office configurations to accommodate a more mobile workforce. For instance, some landlords are transforming traditional office buildings into co-working hubs, while others are integrating wellness-oriented designs that include outdoor workspaces, improved ventilation, and enhanced communal areas to foster employee engagement. The focus is now on creating environments that enhance employee experience, promote well-being, and support a variety of work styles. 

Conclusion 

The future of work is characterized by flexibility and adaptability. Remote work and hybrid models are becoming integral components of organizational strategies, necessitating a reimagining of the traditional office. As businesses navigate this evolving landscape, they must address the challenges associated with these new work arrangements, such as maintaining company culture, ensuring employee well-being, and providing adequate support and training. By embracing these changes thoughtfully, organizations can create a dynamic work environment that meets the needs of their employees and positions them for success in a rapidly changing world. 


Sources: news.gallup.com , pwc.com 

José Afonso Nunes Freitas 

Research Team Member & Editor