A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Coaching to Mitigate the Impostor Phenomenon in Early-Career Software Engineers

TL;DR

Impostor Phenomenon ($IP$) is prevalent in software engineering and adversely affects well-being and team collaboration. The authors test a structured group-coaching program using a quasi-experimental wait-list design with two industry–academic project teams ($P1$, $P2$) and four measurement points ($T_0$–$T_3$), collecting data on $CIPS$, $WHO-5$, $SWLS$, and $PANAS$ alongside non-participant observation. Results show only modest reductions in $CIPS$ and no significant between-group differences; improvements appear strongly shaped by contextual factors such as project lifecycle and existing team practices, rather than the coaching alone. The work highlights the importance of embedding reflective practices and fostering psychological safety within SE teams, suggesting that IP mitigation may depend more on socio-technical environment than on isolated coaching interventions.

Abstract

Context: The Impostor Phenomenon (IP), the persistent belief of being a fraud despite evident competence, is common in Software Engineering (SE), where high expectations for expertise and innovation prevail. Although coaching and similar interventions are proposed to mitigate IP, empirical evidence in SE remains underexplored. Objective: This study examines the impact of a structured group coaching intervention on reducing IP feelings among early-career software engineers. Method: We conducted a quasi-experiment with 20 participants distributed across two project teams using a wait-list control design, complemented by non-participant observation. The treatment group received a three-session coaching intervention, while the control group received it after an observation phase. IP was assessed using the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS), alongside evaluated measures of well-being (WHO-5), life satisfaction (SWLS), and affect (PANAS). Results: The coaching resulted in modest reductions in CIPS scores, whereas the control group also improved during the observation phase, suggesting that contextual and temporal factors may have exerted a stronger influence than the formal intervention. Conclusion: These results suggest that coaching may support reflection and awareness related to IP, yet other contextual aspects of team collaboration and project work might also contribute to these changes. This study offers a novel empirical step toward understanding how structured IP interventions operate within SE environments.

Figures (5)

• Figure 1: Timeline of measurements and intervention phases. T0 and T1 establish the pre-intervention baseline; T2 and T3 represent post-intervention measures for P1 and P2, respectively.
• Figure 2: Evolution of Average CIPS Scores throughout the experiment. The dashed vertical lines indicate the start of the coaching intervention for P1 (at T1) and P2 (at T2).
• Figure 3: Evolution of Average CIPS Scores by subgroups (G1-G4). This visualization confirms internal consistency within each project.
• Figure 4: Comparison of score distributions across the study timeline (T0–T3) for all five psychological scales. Dashed horizontal lines indicate clinical or categorical cut-offs for each instrument. The consistent parallel trends within each project (G1/G2 for P1 and G3/G4 for P2) indicate that the observed changes are systematic at the team level.
• Figure 5: Correlation matrices of psychological scales at baseline (T0) and final follow-up (T3). The heatmaps illustrate the intensification of theoretically consistent relationships between impostor feelings (CIPS), well-being (WHO-5), and affect (PANAS) over the course of the study.