Traitor syndrome / professional self doubt

[RetroMaggie]

Hi all
I'm trying to find any articles, research, studies or references to traitor syndrome/ complex or inner self doubt issues in high achieving women.
Anyone heard of this? Can you point me in the right direction?
Thanks

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I thought it was known as 'Impostor Syndrome'... Wikipedia supplies some links. Not exclusive to women btw. Particularly common in people who have benefited from social mobility, moving up the scale from working to middle-class, feeling like a 'fraud' and worried that everything will be taken away.

[Awayinamangercooper]

Susan Pinker touches on it in The Sexual Paradox which is an interesting read, but very "women are inherently X; men are inherently Y", iykwim.

[RetroMaggie]

Oops, yes... Imposter not traitor (though if you suffer from it you are a traitor to your own competencies... )

Thank you, both of you, that has helped no end.

I'm also seeking any recent studies on the effect menstrual cycle hormone fluctuations has on self belief and stress. There is recent evidence actual performance is not adversely affected (especially in sport performance studies) but I suspect stress and coping is.... any thoughts?

[MyNameIsInigoMontoya]

It's a bit of a tangent but may be related Retro - I have been wondering lately (but not got round to googling) whether there is any known correlation between periods and illness. It is just starting to seem more than coincidence to me that when I get ill (and I mean anything from colds, infections to stomach bugs so not just one type of illness), so often AF turns up within a few hours or a couple of days (while I'm still ill) - just to add insult to injury! So I have wondered whether we have lower immunity around that time, or whether getting ill can bring forward AF somehow.

Not quite what you were asking, but it may be related as getting ill would presumably affect self-belief and stress too, or it might be the same hormonal changes causing both for example.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I am highly suspicious of generalising about the effects of the menstrual cycle on psychology. Yes, there are some that suffer medically and we should research the problem, develop treatments and apply them appropriately. But if we start making wider claims that we are not beings of free-will but simply at the mercy of our inherent biology (which we are unable to change) then all we do is add to the 'woman as victim' myth that has blighted us for centuries.

[RetroMaggie]

Thanks Inigo, I'll have a think about that.

Yes, Cogito I get where you are coming from... though I'm also keen on self awareness, an understanding what is happening internally and how this may be impacting your management style, stress levels and wellbeing.

[sportsfanatic]

Cogito: I so agree. "Women as victim" really pisses me off.

[RetroMaggie]

I'd like to think I've gone beyond woman as victim though. Why ignore what my body does every month and how this gives me the edge; times when I'm great at introspection and analysis and times when I'm a powerful, self confident extrovert?

[sportsfanatic]

Retro: don't ignore it if it does have that effect on you. Just don't let on to any male within hailing distance and never ever use it as an excuse. Men don't feel the need to excuse their testosterone when it makes them take stupid risks and lose billions on the markets.

Rule of womanhood - never shoot yourself in the foot by giving your secrets away

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

The emphasis is on 'may'. You may well believe that your psyche is entirely bound up in one bodily function, I (and I don't think I'm alone) prefer to take each day as I find it and have noticed no patterns whatsoever. Again, beware of generalisations.

[RetroMaggie]

Just one more potential flash point ... What are your thoughts on the potential legal enforcement of min three women on FTSE exec boards? (already in place in Norway)

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I am not in favour any more than I would be in favour of min three disabled people or min three black people. Women should not be put on boards simply to make up the numbers.

[DexterTheCat]

I shall have to google this. I didn't know this existed but I do think I suffer from it. I don't think it's anything to do with gender though. I have always thought it came from the fact that as a child my father had very high expectations and standards so I felt that anything less than perfection wasn't good enough.

I constantly feel I'm not good enough doing what I do and that at some point I'm going to 'get found out'. I sometimes feel like I have a huge concrete flag on my chest as I just feel a constant pressure all the time but in some of my more salient moments realise most of the pressure is self inflicted.

Also totally agree with cogito. I worked in a traditionally male environment and would hate to think I only got the job (or any job for that matter) purely because of gender.

[BasilRathbone]

Men are never bothered about the fact that they only got the job because they're a man.

I really don't think women need to be.

[RetroMaggie]

At the current rate of change it will take over 70 years to achieve gender-balanced boardrooms in the UK

women in the boardroom report

Cogito you say Women should not be put on boards simply to make up the numbers.
and Dexter "would hate to think I only got the job (or any job for that matter) purely because of gender."

Either women are not (yet) good enough OR systematic, institutionalised sexism is preventing high capable women from leading the vast majority of companies.

If quotas are not the answer then what is?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Women may not be leading many very large companies in the FTSE 100 but we're very often successful heading up our own enterprises and smaller companies. With the financial sector in the news at the moment I heard it described today as 'selling your soul'.... banking executives on call 24/7, no life of their own, expected to be anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat in exchange for a fat salary.

A good (male) friend who is a very senior manager in a large company has been under all kinds of pressure over the last 12 months, including being threatened with the sack if he didn't move his family overseas. What stopped the pressure? One of his fellow managers committed suicide ... and the board decided maybe they should be looking after their employees a little better

The 'answer' could well be that quotas would change the balance and, with more women in charge, the business world will be that bit less of a pact with the devil. Or it could be that - as is happening - women make a success of a different niche & a better way of working, and the bigger, old-fashoined companies explode in a shower of testosterone like so many dinosaurs smithereened by a meteorite.....

[RetroMaggie]

Cogito - I think you are considerably more patient than me! Or more optimistic. The breakdown of the capitalist infrastructure you describe could be a very long time away.

[AlwaysWild]

Imposter syndrome - yes I have lots of that and yes I think it relates to my cycle.

Women on boards - men have been getting places on boards for having a penis for a pretty long time so why not have overt quotas rather than hidden old-boys-golf-club-penis quotas.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I don't think there's any need to break down the capitalist infrastructure. Women the world over are very active in commerce, shrewd with money and benefit greatly from being in control of their own income and businesses. Large organisations fond of the old boys' club tradition of promoting the same kind of identikit WASPs to the top roles are finding this is a dead-end strategy and are having to seriously question their succession planning and culture. The banks are an obvious example but massive organisations like Tesco are also struggling. Smaller, more nimble companies which have less rigid structures by contrast, and which are more likely to have women in senior roles, are better placed to cope with a tough trading environment.

[BasilRathbone]

Hmm, that may be true Cogito (about women being active in business the world over etc.) but taht doesn't actually alter the fact, that 90% of the world's wealth is owned by men.

So maybe a bit of breaking down is needed.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

90% of the world's wealth is probably owned by less than 1000 individuals. Middle-Eastern rulers, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc. It's imbalanced, certainly, but I don't think it especially precludes women from amassing their own wealth or succeeding in commerce... except in states like the Middle East where women are forbidden from certain activities. We don't have to wait until the sytem is smashed before we get started.

[RetroMaggie]

I don't see the need to get started. Women have been succeeding in commerce for generations already... but in most cases they bump their heads on a very solid and thick glass, male run, ceiling... including when trying to get funding.