Understanding Performance Under Pressure: The Dual Role of Impostor Syndrome and Leader–Member Exchange in High-Tech Work Environments

Retno Ryani Kusumawati; Tri Ratna Murti; Kuncono Teguh Yunanto

doi:10.47134/pjp.v3i1.5052

Authors

Retno Ryani Kusumawati Universitas Persada Indonesia Y.A.I
Tri Ratna Murti Universitas Persada Indonesia Y.A.I
Kuncono Teguh Yunanto Universitas Persada Indonesia Y.A.I

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47134/pjp.v3i1.5052

Keywords:

Technostress, Digital Self-Efficacy, Impostor Syndrome, Leader-Member Exchange, Performance

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of technostress and digital self-efficacy on employee performance in digitally transformed manufacturing environments. It examines impostor syndrome as a mediating variable and leader–member exchange (LMX) as a moderating variable to understand their combined influence on work outcomes. A quantitative research design was applied, involving 236 employees from a technology-integrated manufacturing company in Indonesia. Data were analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in R. The results show that technostress negatively affects employee performance, while digital self-efficacy enhances it. Impostor syndrome significantly reduces performance but does not mediate the relationship between technostress or digital self-efficacy and performance across the full sample. Similarly, LMX does not significantly moderate the effect of impostor syndrome on performance. However, multigroup SEM analysis reveals that these relationships are significant among factory employees but not among office staff. These findings highlight the contextual nature of psychological responses to digital transformation and suggest that organizations should tailor interventions to different work settings. Strengthening digital self-efficacy and supportive leadership practices may help mitigate the negative effects of technostress and impostor syndrome on employee performance.

References

Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bernardin, H. J., & Russell, J. E. A. (2013). Human resource management: An experiential approach (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bravata, D. M., Watts, S. A., Keefer, A. L., et al. (2020). Prevalence, predictors, and treatment of impostor syndrome: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(4), 1252–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05364-1

Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Chen, S., Jiang, W., & Zhang, G. (2018). Leader–Member Exchange and employee innovation: The moderating role of psychological safety. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(6), 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6678

Clance, P. R. (1985). The impostor phenomenon: Overcoming the fear that haunts your success. Atlanta, GA: Peachtree Publishers.

Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The impostor phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–Member Exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634. https://doi.org/10.2307/258314

Duncan, D., Cameron, L., & Carr, M. (2023). Digital impostorism and self-efficacy among employees in data-driven organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107820

Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00110.x

Gimpel, H., Hosseini, S., Huber, R., Probst, L., Röglinger, M., & Faisst, U. (2018). Structuring digital transformation: A framework of action fields and its application at ZEISS. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 19(1), 31–54.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory over 25 years. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of Leader–Member Exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400105

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of Leader–Member Exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662

Mak, W. W. S., Chan, R. C. H., & Yu, K. K. (2021). Examining the impostor phenomenon in relation to self-efficacy and work performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110360

Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2010). Human resource management (13th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Neureiter, M., & Traut-Mattausch, E. (2023). Examining the impostor phenomenon at work: Its impact on job performance and satisfaction. Applied Psychology, 72(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12347

Paredes-Aguirre, M. I., Rodríguez-Ponce, E., & Cuesta, M. (2024). Digital self-efficacy and work engagement in Industry 4.0 contexts. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 9, 100289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100289

Saleem, F., Mahmood, A., & Mahmood, A. (2021). Technostress and employee performance: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Technology in Society, 66, 101640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101640

Schyns, B., & Day, D. (2010). Critique and review of Leader–Member Exchange theory: Future research directions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 744–758. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011075278

Srivastava, S. C., Chandra, S., & Shirish, A. (2015). Technostress creators and job outcomes: The moderating role of personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.049

Suh, A., & Lee, J. (2017). Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction. Internet Research, 27(1), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2015-0181

Tai, K., Cheung, M. F. Y., & Chan, K. C. (2023). Digital transformation and employee adaptability: The moderating role of organizational support. Computers in Human Behavior, 144, 107757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107757

Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2011). Crossing to the dark side: Examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress. Communications of the ACM, 54(9), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1995376.1995403

Ulfert-Blank, R., & Schmidt, S. (2022). Digital self-efficacy: Development and validation of a new measurement instrument. Computers in Human Behavior, 130, 107178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107178