Imposter Syndrome — Imposter Island Is More Like It — 10 Ways to Manage It

I have been doing my Melbourne radio program for 27 years. I interview over 100 people each year. I have shared the show with people like Jane Goodall, Gene Cernan (Apollo 17), and Neil deGrasse Tyson. I’ve been told I’m one of the best interviewers around and my show gets more popular every year.

Some days, as I drive to the station, I feel like a complete imposter. Thankfully, nobody notices.

I’ve been thinking about writing this article for quite some time, but until recently I had never really felt like an imposter. On occasion, I might have doubted my abilities, but nothing too serious. I was also very mindful that this problem at least appears to affect women more than men — so who was I to talk about this?

But imposter syndrome can be brought on by many things, and recently I have realised that even the most confident of us can feel it when our mental health is at a low point.

Over the last 12 months, my mental health has been harder hit than I have ever experienced in my life. I noticed recently that my mood had become independent of what was happening around me. Everything seemed to be a struggle; most disturbing were the things that I normally found easy. I started to fear things that in the past didn’t bother me at all. At work I cringed at the idea of RUOK day. What would I say if somebody actually asked me with any sincerity and I felt compelled to answer? Simple tasks took way more energy than they should.

For me at least, my struggles with mental health opened the door just a crack and a little imposter syndrome crept in.

One of the first things that I want to consider here is the question of whether or not it is rational to be feeling this way. If I look at the data — the message is quite clear. It’s 2019, I have been doing the radio program for 27 years. That’s about 45 shows a year so over 1200 live broadcasts. I have never screwed up the program. There is no evidence to support the idea that I ever will. So why on earth would I feel like an imposter?

Let’s forget the data for a second. To be honest it doesn’t mean that much when imposter syndrome kicks in. I need to examine this from the perspective of the new island that I am now sitting on. This is the island where you go when your confidence has taken a beating. It’s the island where for some reason compliments seem to be less valuable that critiques. It’s an island where there are no crowds, where you don’t want to be judged or scrutinized, where you don’t want to be relied upon, and where self-reflection and self-scrutiny are 24 hour jobs. There are many ways to get to this island. It’s much harder to leave. It’s safe. It’s secluded. It’s our personal sanctuary and prison at the same time.

Now I am expected to step off this island and do a live radio broadcast that is listened to by a huge audience, and is podcast by people all around the world. I have to produce and lead and everyone in the studio looks to me for direction?

From the perspective of my new island — are you kidding me?

Does this feel at all familiar to you? Do you experience this when you are going to work, giving a talk, or participating in life in some way? I think it’s worse when your mental health is low, but it can happen regardless of how you are doing emotionally.

So how do I get past these feelings? How can a person manage this feeling? To answer these questions I think we first need to discuss why this is happening.

On my new island, I am hypersensitive. I have started to examine things in ways that are very unhelpful. As a trained scientist, I think I am worse off as I can take this examination to a more detailed analytical level whilst at the same time ignoring the evidence before me.

Worst-case scenarios fill my head and I focus on all the negatives. In my mind, I amplify these negatives in a way that is disproportionate and the positives get washed away. I forget what I have achieved in the past. I take the damage to my confidence from other areas of life and overlay that on this activity. In an almost unconscious way, I work hard to convince myself that I will somehow fail. I know the chance is low, but I also know the consequences are high. So, of course, I focus on the consequences.

On my island, I have forgotten who I am, what I know, and why people trust me to do a good job. Somehow, I have fooled all these people into believing I am something I am not. What if somebody works this out? It all feels very real. Can I not just stay on my island?

One of the things that I find interesting about imposter syndrome is that we can ask colleagues and friends for feedback to lift us up, but often this doesn’t help. It should, but it doesn’t. Perhaps we have fooled them too? Are we that good at fooling people?

Finding a path to follow

Lately I have had to actively deal with this problem. It’s not easy, but I’ve been doing a few things that help.

The first thing I have realised is that these feelings are strongest not when I am around people at the radio station, or when I am actually doing the job, but when I am alone and have time to think. The anxiety tends to spike when I have minimal external stimulus. When I first arrive at the station, I am alone for about 20 minutes. I know this time without connection to people will be difficult. It’s important to identify when I’m feeling like an imposter the most — these are the times that need more management.

During this period I try and listen to music, or do tasks that are really easy for me. I focus on these things more than the big task ahead. I try to follow a routine — I will pick the music for the show, enter that into the computer system, make a cup of tea, go to the bathroom, just a few simple things that take little effort for me. Don’t get me wrong, these tasks are about management, not elimination of the problem.

About 30 minutes before we go to air my co-hosts will start arriving. This helps a lot. They usually look to me for guidance on what we will be doing for the show. I’m always well prepared so these are easy answers to give. I try to focus on their positivity. Most of them only do one show a month so they love being there. I focus on their trust of me. I focus on the fact that these are very smart people and it would be very hard to fool them.

The guests start to arrive. I make a point of meeting them all as they come in. This is where I really make some ground on overcoming the imposter syndrome. They are usually nervous — they try to hide it — but after 27 years I can almost smell it. I put them at ease. I focus on how they look to me for my expertise. It dawns on me that of all the people in the room, I know the most about this stuff. I’m the person they are here to speak to. I focus on the small tasks — showing them the studio, making sure they are comfortable, telling them we will take good care of them.

We have not gone to air yet, but I realise I’m already doing the job. Somehow, I have slowly stepped off my island, and I’m surviving. It’s hard. My mind keeps running back to a point of fear, but the next guest arrives and I’m needed again. Focus on the positive bits. Damn that’s hard to do.

I start to scrutinise everyone around me. Have they worked it out? Do they know I’m an imposter? It would seem they are completely happy with what I am doing. Perhaps I’m able to do this after all? At the very least I’m damn good at being an imposter — perhaps so good that I’m indistinguishable from the genuine article? Better not think about that too much.

We go to air, the show works as always, I’m briefly back in the world.

I hope I am a temporary resident on the imposter island. It’s a tough place to be. Ultimately, we all spend time there sooner or later and it’s different for each of us.

We need the right support if we are to venture back into the world.

So What Can You Do?

There are two key things that I would love most people to take away from this article. The first is that even the most experienced people can sometimes feel the effects of imposter syndrome, so don’t feel as though this only happens to those less experienced.

The second is a list of potential ways to combat this syndrome. I’m mindful that the four key tools I have been using for my radio program (connection to people, follow a routine, focus on positivity from others, and focus on small tasks), are not a complete list. So, I have a few other suggestions that might be helpful.

1. Be kind to yourself if you are on an island like mine. Declines in mental health are real and they can be debilitating. This will affect your confidence and self-worth. These two things don’t make you an imposter, important to remember that.

2. Be mindful of when you most feel like an imposter. Is it when you are alone, or around certain people or places? This is where you will need to have the best strategies. Sometimes this could involve having an empathy rich friend nearby or having mundane tasks to do. It needs to be managed actively.

3. Be observant of when your mind is getting what’s important wrong. Yep, I’m suggesting you be rational — but only in the broadest sense. If ten people have seen you do something before and they liked it — odds are you are better at it than you are currently feeling. Moreover, to be frank, even if you aren’t, the key people involved are happy with your performance so does it actually matter?

4. We are great at remembering negative comments but terrible at remembering compliments. So, you need to record all the good stuff. Make sure they are handy. Screen shots on your phone. Voice messages if you have them. Material from friends, family, strangers and colleagues. Pull this out and look at it when you feel like an imposter.

5. Break it down into parts, don’t focus on the whole. One of the things we get wrong with major tasks or events is that we focus our attention on our ability to do the entire thing. That can be daunting. Often it can be more helpful to look at the various tasks involved — the imposter monster gets smaller, and just maybe we can get past it.

6. Find somebody that you trust and respect and seek their feedback and support. The one thing I have realised over the years is that this problem effects people regardless of age or level of experience. It’s more common than you know. If you have somebody that you trust, be open about the problem.

7. Remind yourself that nothing has to be perfect. It’s very important to note that we tend to judge ourselves much harsher than other people judge us. We will make one tiny mistake and focus on that while the people around us don’t even notice.

8. If you are going to compare yourself to other people and their performance, make sure you do that carefully. Don’t just pick the most amazing person you have come across and try to measure up. That doesn’t help at all. Look to others for inspiration and tips for improvement, but compare your next performance to your last one, not everyone else’s.

9. We often feel like imposters when we are trying to stretch ourselves. I think this is totally normal. It’s important to remember that if we want to learn and grow we have to be challenged. The key is making sure these challenge steps are reasonable. We need to assess them, preferably with a colleague/friend, and ask ‘are they within my reach’?

10. Imposter syndrome has one definite weak spot: it tends to go away when we accumulate more experience. Not always, but most of the time. The more you do, the less you will question your capability.

I’m mindful that my ten suggestions above are not all encompassing. I have barely touched on areas of self-care or broader strategies for improving mental health.

The problem of imposter syndrome can be debilitating. There is no simple solution. If you are feeling this way, I hope this article has been helpful. At the very least, remember that you are not alone. Everyone has an island they go to — but with care, honesty and support we can all venture off these islands.

mental healthShane HuntingtonAugust 1, 2019imposter syndrome, mental health, science communication, self-care

How to Improve Australian Research Grant Systems & Support Researcher Mental Health at the Same Time

A few months ago, I joined a friend for a coffee and we started talking about the NHMRC grant system. The moment it came up, I noticed her demeanor shift. She seemed beaten. She didn’t even know if she had won or lost the grant. The process alone was enough to damage her confidence. I had supported her in the grant writing process so I knew it was an excellent submission. But in the current system, quality doesn’t seem to matter, and everyone knows it.

So I asked her, would she be willing to trade the current system for something else? I proposed a short application of two pages, with a 70% cull of applications followed by a simple lottery. “Absolutely”, she responded. This would be substantially better than the current system. Then she got excited because she realized the lottery part could be electronically resolved in a day.

Researchers would not be concerned about their careers right up until weeks before contracts are about to end. We would not pretend that quality was the main factor in making decisions? We could have a system that was not biased against women. We could make sure that old white men with large research teams didn’t get most of the cash. We could guarantee that truly innovative ideas get funded even if they are risky. We could stop making 90% of the research community feel like garbage.

Currently, we have a system that is taking between 3–6 months of a researcher’s time to be part of, another month or so if you are a reviewer, and we could trade that for something that would probably take a few days. Importantly, researchers would actually see this alternative as fairer.

Make no mistake, the research grant systems in Australia are doing real damage to mental health. When the system itself causes damage to the very people it is supposed to support, something has to change. The current situation is not okay.

The lack of care for mental health goes well beyond the research bodies themselves.

We put the care of our researchers at the very bottom of the pile across the sector. It’s institutionalized. There is a lot of talk of mental health, but institutions do nothing to rectify these top issues. Show me a researcher that is happy with the current grant systems and I will show you 100 that are not.

There is little doubt that having more money in the system would alleviate some of the problems. Money, however, is not the only issue that exists. If we really want to address problems with our granting systems, we need to look deeper. We need to understand just how much damage a bad system can do to the mental health of our researchers.

The existing systems are so bad that even when researchers are successful they tend to keep quiet about it because they know so many around them are suffering. They have “grant success guilt”.

The Top Issues with the Current Grant Systems in Australia

Before running through this list, I want to be clear that I see tertiary and independent research institutions along with government agencies as part of the “system”. It’s not just the NHMRC or ARC that cause all the problems. It’s a solid team effort.

This list is not exhaustive and is in no particular order of priority, but obviously #1 is the most important. Not all problems apply to all granting agencies.

#1 — Time wasted: Months of research time on long applications

#2 — Waiting for results: Unknown outcome dates, year after year

#3 — Timing of applications: Discriminatory for parents

#4 — Reviewer feedback: No quality control, sometimes hurtful

#5 — Impact of grants on overall workloads: Extreme, up to 30% of the year (or more?)

#6 — System biases: Race, gender, age, field

#7 — Success rates: Devastatingly low — career ending

#8 — Institutional pressure: Extreme pressure from institutions to apply

#9 — Removal of review panels: No oversight of reviewers

#10 –Track record assessment: Field biased, not comprehensive

#11 — The reviewer lottery: Vast standard differences

#12 — A system that is not adaptive: Difficult to improve grants based on feedback

#13 — Decision making transparency: Completely opaque system

#14 — Relative to opportunity: No real structure for assessment

#15 — ROI for universities: Salary expenditure on applications enormous

#16 — The Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF): Not viewed as a competitive system

#17 — Partial funding of grant budgets: Budgets arbitrarily cut without cause

#18 — Assessment based on academic level, not years of service: perverse incentive to stay junior

#19 — Preprints not allowed: Systems out of date with current publication practice

* * *

There is a consistent theme in almost all of the problems that are listed above. Above all, most of the issues are due to a lack of understanding of what is being communicated to researchers and what the impact of that will be. The proposed solutions below, are based primarily on a more nuanced communication strategy.

A Researcher-Centred Funding System

In healthcare, there has long been the goal of achieving what is often called ‘patient centred care’. For the majority of health systems this is still a goal, yet to be reached, but we all understand the need and the positive impact on lives and economies that would result.

Our grant systems need to follow a similar path. The public investment in research needs to get to our researchers in a way that is positive, competitive and efficient. Architecturally, the wellbeing of our researchers should be at the very centre of any design and there should be strong support for the system even by those who fail to be funded. So basically the opposite of what we have right now.

Despite recent reviews and redesigns of some of our granting systems, many of the most significant issues still exist. To be blunt, any system that requires more than a 20-page application for $100k in funding is simply not fit for purpose. Any system that discriminates based on family commitments, gender, location, background or seniority is not fit for purpose.

What I am proposing below is not a complete redesign of the system, (that will take a lot more time than I have in this article). Instead, I am suggesting a few rapid changes that hopefully will take care of the majority of the big issues that have been listed. This is not an exhaustive list, nor will it address all of the issues raised.

Change #1 — Expression of Interest Model

Over the last 25 years, I have engaged with a lot of grant systems. I’ve been an applicant, a reviewer and a consultant. The most effective schemes I have come across all have a two tiered application process. Typically, this requires an initial expression of interest submission that would be short and sharp, followed by a small selection of projects being invited to submit a more substantial application.

The expression of interest application must have the goal of rapid communication with minimal time spent. Researchers will be aware that some 70–80 percent of these applications will be rejected. The full length of these applications should not exceed 10 pages and preferably should be limited to 5 pages. With much shorter applications, more reviews can be done for each applicant. The goal, given these are about 1/10 of the length of the current applications, should be for a minimum of 10 reviews. If you are going to cull 70–80 percent of people, you had better have some good statistics to back you up — more reviews will help with that. Limits on the number of applications would still need to apply.

Every review must outline 5–10 ways in which the expression of interest could be improved. Preferably this feedback would be according to deliberate instructions from the funding agency. It should not be a free for all — applicants should have a fair idea of what areas they will get help with. Applications should have a simple budget during the EOI phase — in fact budgets should not be a factor for transition to the next round. The results of an EOI round should be delivered within 6–8 weeks.

The 20–30 percent of applications that make it through the EOI round would be asked to provide ‘complete cases’ for funding. To be clear though, even these should not be of similar length to those currently being used. These should be limited to 30–40 pages. Similar requirements for feedback would be required by reviewers. All final decisions would be made by expert panels.

Back in 2005 I applied for funding under the State Government of Victoria’s Science, Technology and Innovation program. After an initial 5-page application that resulted in a cull from 157 down to 23, we were all put into a workshop with a professor from the Melbourne Business School. He provided us with guidance on what a good business plan for government looked like. We all learned. We all felt like we were working with the funding agency. At no point did we feel our time was being wasted. Above all, our projects ended up being better designed because of the grant process itself.

Change #2 — Multiple Application Times

One of the benefits of reducing both applicant and reviewer time loads with EOI models is that you can have multiple grant rounds without increased burdens. Currently, there is significant discrimination in our grant systems due to applications being required proximate to school holidays and other significant dates. This can be reduced by offering multiple rounds per year — each of equal value. Ideally 3 rounds would be offered but with a rule that you could not apply in consecutive rounds. If only 2 rounds were offered, then this rule should not apply.

The outcomes of each round should be delivered before the next round opens. Having multiple rounds will also spread the ministerial responsibilities out which hopefully would lead to faster and consistent turn around. Having numerous rounds would also enable researchers to engage with the research grants systems shortly after they start new positions. Currently some staff on 1–2 year contracts that start just after application are due, have to wait almost a year to get their 10% chance of success. Multiple rounds would remove this delay and assist new appointments.

Change #3 — Decouple Ideas and Track Records

In the current system, researchers are chained to the past by the assessment of their track records. Ultimately a system that decouples the assessment of ideas from the assessment of track records would be more effective. Frankly I don’t care where a good idea comes from. It should receive top marks if it is well constructed and argued. The removal of bias should always be the goal and decoupling ideas and people will help at least partially achieve this.

Applications could be readily split and sent to different reviewer groups. The assessments would later be recombined and if there was a need to connect the two areas of assessment this could be done via expert panel discussions.

Change #4 — Relative to Opportunity Calculator

I believe it is time we started working on a system that would calculate a ‘relative to opportunity’ index that would be utilized in the review process. The bias in the system currently means that researchers have little faith in how significant life and career events are taken into account when their track record is being assessed. An automated system would not be perfect at this but I suspect it would do a far better job than our current ‘reviewer lottery’ system and it would level the playing ground for assessment. It would need to account for different fields and different types of employees — e.g. clinicians vs academic researchers etc. Careful design would be required here to guarantee that the system itself did not perpetuate further biases.

Change #5 — Use of Budget Bands

It would appear that almost nobody gets the budget that they ask for from grants. In the case of ARC Discovery programs, the average is about 70%. I don’t see the point of researchers going to great effort to demonstrate specific costing when that is ultimately ignored. I have never understood how institutions put forward proposals and then get told they have to do the exact same job with no negotiation for 70% of the cost.

With this in mind, we could save a lot of time by asking researchers to simply nominate a ‘band’ for funding during the EOI phase. The band ranges would need to be in increments for 50k-100k. More detailed budgets could then be required for the more detailed 2nd stage applications — but even then, if the 70% funding model continues the value of budget specificity cannot be argued.

Change #6 — Feedback Systems — Review the Reviewers Program

To solve some of the issues with reviews that are either unprofessional, lacking field expertise, or potentially biased, we should establish a ‘review the reviewers’ program. In this program every review generated would need to be read by one other reviewer. If there is a concern with the review, then the second reviewer would flag the review and it would then need approval by a 3rd party (possibly even an expert panel) before being sent to the applicant. This would be a simple pass fail program — if the review was deemed inappropriate it would simply be removed.

The act of having this program in place will in itself improve the standard of reviews and reduce the amount of damage that reviews can do to research self-esteem, mental health and careers. If the time load here becomes problematic, then it could be done on a percentage of reviews each year randomly. Not a perfect system but works for the tax office!

Change #7 — Transparency and Communication Charter

All grant systems should have charters in place that guarantee that there is transparency regarding decision making. Despite the elaborate systems in place right now there is a wide spread concern regarding fairness. Part of this no doubt comes from the crushing success rates coupled with extraordinary workloads for grant applications. But the lion’s share comes from the opaque nature of the review process and the inability of applications to iterate the standard of their applications from year to year.

Similarly, the effectiveness of communication in the system needs to be actively monitored. In situations where 100 page applications are required there has been a communication failure. Not only is such length unnecessary, it also ends up being ineffective because reviewers cannot effectively engage with the weight of the material. Every aspect of the process should be optimised from a communication perspective. Minimise time spent, maximize information quality delivered, at every level of the process.

* * *

It is the role of our funding agencies to distribute the public investment in research in a competitive, responsible and fair way. The current lack of feedback and empathy in the grant systems means they are failing in this task. Systems that do not have the support of their constituents need to be carefully modified.

There are many barriers to changing these systems. Some of these are significant but given the current negative impact on researcher mental health, I believe the effort is well and truly warranted.

Blog

Imposter Syndrome — Imposter Island Is More Like It — 10 Ways to Manage It