Authenticity at Work

Ralph van den Bosch

Lay out: Vanthel Vormgeving, Anthèl Reijnders
Printed by: Optima Grafische Communicatie

Copyright © 2016 by Ralph van den Bosch. All rights reserved. No part of this book
may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other
means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or
stored in any information storage and retrieval system without prior written permission
of the author. Citing and referencing this material for non-commercial or academic use
is encouraged, provided the source mentioned.
 Authenticity at Work

Authenticiteit op het werk

(met een samenvatting in het Nederlands)

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de Universiteit Utrecht,
op gezag van de rector magnificus, [Link]. G.J. van der Zwaan,
ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen
op vrijdag 21 oktober 2016 des middags te 12.45

door
Ralph van den Bosch
geboren op 19 september 1984
te Tilburg
Promotor: [Link]. T.W. Taris
Man has within him the latent capacity for change and growth;
he himself must discover and free it.

Carl R. Rogers

7
Contents
Chapter I General introduction 11
Chapter II Authenticity at work: The development of an individual 23
authenticity measure at work
Chapter III The authentic worker’s well-being and performance: 45
The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being,
and work outcomes
Chapter IV Authenticity at work: A matter of fit? 67
Chapter V The authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 91
Chapter VI General discussion 115
References 128
Summary in English 137
Samenvatting in het Nederlands 145
Appendix A: IAM Work – Dutch version 151

9
Chapter I
1
General introduction

1
Solo-authored with helpful comments from Toon Taris.

General introduction 11
In order to be competitive organizational change is everywhere, all of time. Given these
Chapter

i
changing circumstances, employees face challenging situations and are often uncertain
about their jobs (e.g. Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011). This may lead employees to
take career decisions that may on the one hand enhance their job security, but might
on the other hand also result in a bad fit with the organization. For example, employees
might realize that their job does not match their ideal preferences but they might choose
financial certainty over the uncertainty of not knowing what a new job might bring them.
In these situations employees take little responsibility for their own careers, choosing
security over an ideal fit with their job or organization. However, if organizations actively
support the development of their employees, employees may engage in activities con-
cerning their career development which are more in line with the strategic goals of the
organization (Lips-Wiersma & Hall, 2007). This stresses the importance of facilitating
employees to actively think about their own career development on the one hand and
the process of employees choosing career paths that fits them and the organization best
on the other hand.
Individuals tend to choose for a specific organization and job on the basis of reasons
relating to how well their preferences and aspirations match those of this organization/
job (Erickson & Gratton, 2007; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). This means that
future employees will often selectively and actively choose which organizations match
their preferences best and where they probably can be their true self, i.e., where they
feel authentic at work. Authenticity can be loosely defined as the possibility to stay
close to one’s true self (Harter, 2002). Successful companies are able to attract the
right people, who feel authentic at work, are engaged and are very productive at work
(Erickson & Gratton, 2007). These employees are fulfilling their own needs, and simulta-
neously contribute to the strategic goals of the organization they work for. For example,
a large in-depth study by George, Sims, McLean and Mayer (2007) revealed that leaders
believed that being authentic made them more effective; they said that it had not
been imitating others that had made them successful, but rather it was unlocking the
potential within themselves. Moreover, what made them successful was also the desire
for continuously improving and unlocking this potential.
As these examples show, authenticity has great potential as an important factor
in employee functioning for both the organization and the employee. In spite of its
expected relevance in the workplace, at present little research has addressed the issue
of authenticity at work. Moreover, previous research concerning authenticity suffered
from at least three important limitations. Firstly, previous research focused on human
functioning in general, instead of on work-specific functioning, meaning that at present
we have little insight in the role of authenticity in the work context. Secondly, previ-
ous research focused mainly on trait-like conceptualizations rather than on state-like

General introduction 13
 conceptualizations of authenticity. Consequently, we do not know whether levels of
authenticity are more or less stable or whether they vary across contexts; if the latter
applies, this opens up possibilities for interventions. Finally, the measurement of au-
thenticity varied between subjective (people’s own assessment) and objective (assessed
by others) conceptualizations of authenticity, making it unclear which assessment of
authenticity predicts human functioning best. Largely due to these limitations, there is
little insight in the antecedents, correlates and consequences of authenticity specifically
in the work context. Thus, although authenticity is frequently considered important for
human functioning, we do not know what contributes to authenticity in the work con-
text, and whether feeling authentic is indeed relevant to outcomes such as performance
and well-being. In the upcoming paragraphs we will elaborate more on these limitations.
Basically, the goal of this thesis is to provide further insight whether authenticity
at work is a relevant and useful concept in the field of industrial and organizational
psychology. In order to address this main goal we formed three sub-research questions.
Firstly, can authenticity at work be measured with a reliable and valid instrument? To
address this question we aim to develop and test a reliable measure of experienced
authenticity, explicitly in the workplace. Secondly, is authenticity at work a predictor of
relevant work outcomes? Based on a self-developed authenticity measure, in this thesis
we aim to extend current knowledge concerning experienced authenticity at work by
examining the implications of feeling authentic or inauthentic at work for well-being and
work outcomes (such as burnout and in-role performance). Finally, what are possible
processes accounting for the associations between authenticity and work outcomes
(such as P-E fit and motivation)? To address this final question we aim to distinctively
provide insights if and how authenticity at work, P-E fit, and motivation are related. In
this way this thesis provides more insight in the processes that could account for the
associations between authenticity at work, well-being and work outcomes.
In the remainder of the current chapter we will briefly discuss the literature and
research on authenticity at work. For a better understanding of the concept of authen-
ticity it is necessary to provide a clear definition of authenticity at work. We therefore
provide a short introduction addressing the meaning and definition of authenticity at
work employed in the present thesis. Lastly, we will clarify shortly the issues addressed
in the four empirical chapters.

Authenticity

The concept of authenticity has received a fair amount of attention, and humanistic
psychologists such as Carl Rogers (1961, 1965) argued that being authentic (loosely

14 Chapter 1
defined as the possibility to stay close to one’s true self) would be the main condition
Chapter

i
to be fulfilled in order to eventually achieve self-actualization (i.e. the state when man’s
capacities are fully activated and expressed) and optimal well-being (i.e. the perfect
balance between multiple forms of well-being such as physical, mental, and emotional
well-being). At present there is a growing body of literature concerning the concept of
authenticity. Authenticity has been studied in a broad spectrum of research areas such
as the cultural experience of authenticity (e.g. Slabu, Lenton, Sedikides, & Bruder, 2014),
authenticity climate (with the climate of authenticity referring to the feeling of authen-
ticity as experienced in teams at the team level) and its effect on emotional exhaustion
(e.g. Grandey, Foo, Groth, & Goodwin, 2012), the association between authenticity and
psychological well-being (e.g., Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008; Toor &
Ofori, 2009; Ménard & Brunet, 2011), the experience of authenticity across different
roles (e.g. Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997), authenticity in relation to team-
work behavior and team productivity (Hannah, Walumbwa, & Fry, 2011), authenticity in
relation to leadership (e.g. Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008),
and authenticity in romantic relationship functioning (e.g. Brunell, Kernis, Goldman,
Heppner, Davis, & Cascio et al., 2010). Finally, a recent study by Boyraz, Waits and Felix
(2014) revealed that experienced authenticity predicted life satisfaction over time.
As shown in this short review, the concept of authenticity is gaining importance in
relation to human functioning. However, as stated earlier these studies also have some
important drawbacks, especially in relation to the conceptualization and measurement
of the authenticity concept. Most importantly, these studies pay little to no attention
to the specific experienced authenticity in the workplace. Moreover, most studies were
based on trait-like conceptualizations of authenticity, where a state-like conceptual-
ization seems more relevant in the workplace, since jobs and organizations change
constantly. Lastly, these studies assess authenticity subjectively (using self-evaluation
measures) or objectively (through peer assessments).

1. State vs. Trait

Some influential researchers studying authenticity describe this concept as a trait. In trait
conceptualizations of authenticity, authenticity is seen as a stable personality dimension
(e.g. Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood et al., 2008). This suggests that whether one feels
authentic is stable over time and does not, or at least to an only minor degree, change
over time or across situations. However, there is compelling evidence that authenticity
may be considered a state, rather than a trait. For example, Sheldon et al. (1997) found
cross-role variations in felt authenticity, that is, their participants reported high levels of
authenticity in one role (e.g., in their role as supervisor) but lower authenticity in another
role (e.g., in their partner role). Fleeson and Wilt (2010) found compelling evidence that

General introduction 15
 whether people experienced authenticity was dependent upon the various situations
they were in. They presented support for their state-content significance hypothesis
(stating that what people are doing is relevant to authenticity), implicating that the
level of experienced authenticity is not a constant factor but can actually change over
time, depending on the specific circumstances of the situation. Lenton, Slabu, Sedikides
and Power (2013) also provided evidence that authenticity is sensitive to context and
therefore can be considered a state. Furthermore, Lenton, Bruder, Slabu and Sedikides
(2013) showed that experienced levels of authenticity vary within individuals across
time. Lastly, Slabu, Lenton, Sedikides and Bruder (2014) recently stressed the impor-
tance of state authenticity experienced in different cultures, including participants from
the United States, China, India, and Singapore. Results displayed that the experience of
state authenticity is not solely a Western phenomenon but is also experienced in Asian
cultures, and therefore is an intercultural experience of being true to oneself.
As these studies show, the degree of authenticity a person experiences is not solely
a function of a disposition or trait to act or feel authentic. Apparently, the level of
experienced authenticity at least partly depends on the particular role a person fulfills
and/or the context in which this person functions. Therefore, a trait conceptualization
would be less suited for developing interventions or to see authenticity at work as an
outcome. In line with this reasoning we consider the experienced level of authenticity at
work as an affective state which is a result of truly fitting at your job. Since the job and
job characteristics can change we believe that the experienced level of authenticity at
work will be subject of change as well.

2. Subjective vs. Objective authenticity

Some researchers measure authenticity in terms of how participants are perceived by
others. For instance, Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, and May (2004) describe
authentic leaders as confident, high on moral character, optimistic and hopeful. Fur-
thermore, Goffee and Jones (2005) state that authenticity is a quality that others must
attribute to you. These two examples put a clear norm on how authenticity should be
conceptualized: not in terms of being close to one’s true self, but rather in terms of
(appearing to be) confident or seen through the eye of the beholders. Indeed, it would
seem possible to “act” authentic, which clearly is not in line with the basic definition
of authenticity as the fit between one’s true self. Erickson (1994) stressed that an
individual’s own perception is more relevant in experiencing authenticity than others’
perceptions of that individual. This suggests that there is only one best way to address
the experience of authenticity; through the eyes of the individual itself. Therefore, au-
thenticity in this thesis is assessed using self-evaluation of the experience of authenticity

16 Chapter 1
at work. Only the individual can assess if he or she feels authentic at work. We are
Chapter

i
explicitly not investigating whether an individual behaves authentic according to others.

3. Authenticity at work
Since we consider authenticity as a state and because previous research was mainly
focused on general conceptualizations of authenticity, we build upon the work of
Barrett-Lennard (1998) and Wood et al. (2008) in developing a work-specific measure of
authenticity. Barrett-Lennard (1998) proposed that authenticity occurs when individuals
experience congruence between three things: (i) their personal primary experience,
such as emotions, physical state and deep-level cognitions, (ii) their conscious aware-
ness of these experiences, and (iii) their behavioral and emotional expression of their
own experiences. Thus, a person feels authentic when he/she is consciously aware
of his/her deep inner experiences, and acts on the basis of this awareness. Wood et
al. (2008) developed a tri-partite model of authenticity, the (in)congruence between
primary experience, awareness, and behavior is translated into three subdimensions:
lack of self-alienation, authentic living and not accepting external influence. Lack of
self-alienation can be described as the subjective feeling of knowing oneself at work.
Workers who feel in touch with their core self at work, experiencing their self as who
they really are at work, will score high on this dimension. The second dimension is
authentic living which occurs when workers act in alignment with their personal goals,
preferences and beliefs. It is the degree in which they are true to themselves in most
situations at work and act upon their own values and beliefs. The last dimension is
accepting external influence. This can be described best as not conforming with expec-
tations of others against your own will. Authenticity at work occurs when employees
experience low levels of self-alienation, when they show low levels of accepting external
influence and when they experience high levels of authentic living.

In short, the current thesis considers authenticity as a subjectively-experienced affective

phenomenon which can change over time and across situations. This implies that the
experienced level of authenticity is a state, can be measured specifically in a work
context, and could be subject to characteristics of this work environment.

General introduction 17
 Empirical chapters

In order to address the research questions central in this thesis we conducted three in-
dependent large-scale survey studies. In four empirical chapters2 we present the findings
of these studies concerning authenticity at work. Table 1.1 indicates how the material
presented in these chapters relates to the three research questions mentioned above.
Chapter 2 presents the development of a person-centered conceptualization of au-
thenticity at work, addressing research question 1. Chapter 3 provides insight in the
association between authenticity at work, well-being and performance. This chapter
provides material relevant to research questions 2 and 3. Chapter 4 encompasses the
difference between authenticity at work and person-environment fit and Chapter 5
provides further insight in the relationship between authenticity at work and motivation
addressing research questions 2 and 3 as well.

Table 1.1 Overview of research questions addressed in chapters

Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter

2 3 4 5

(1) Can authenticity at work be measured with a reliable X X X X

and valid instrument?

(2) Is authenticity at work a predictor of relevant work X X X

outcomes?

(3) What are possible processes accounting for the X X

associations between authenticity and work outcomes
(such as P-E fit and motivation).

First, in the study described in Chapter 2, we present the development of a state-like

measure of authenticity at work containing three subscales: authentic living, self-alien-
ation and accepting external influence based on the approach of Wood et al. (2008). We
divided the total sample at random in two equally sized samples and performed explor-
atory factor analyses on the first sample, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed

2
The four empirical chapters are based on four independent research articles that sometimes used
partly the same data sets. Therefore readers of this thesis might notice some overlap in the use of
both theory and methodology.

18 Chapter 1
on the second sample. We further validate the scale by presenting correlates between
Chapter

i
authenticity at work, its subscales, and well known industrial and organization outcomes
(e.g. emotional exhaustion, vitality, work demands and autonomy). In this chapter we
successfully address the development of a short state-like authenticity measure specifi-
cally related to work. The hypotheses are tested in a cross-sectional study among a
heterogeneous group of employees (N = 646). Part of the hypotheses are tested in a
slightly smaller subsample (N = 516).
Chapter 3 focused on whether authenticity at work was relevant in predicting well-
being and work outcomes. In this chapter we investigated the possible relationship
between authenticity at work, subjective well-being and work outcomes after controlling
for relevant work characteristics and some demographic variables. We hypothesized
that employees with high levels of experienced authenticity would report relatively high
levels of positive forms of well-being such as work engagement and job-satisfaction.
Furthermore, it is expected that employees with high levels of experienced authenticity
show lower levels of negative forms of well-being such as burnout. Lastly, it is assumed
that workers high on authenticity show higher levels of in-role performance and lower
levels of voluntary turnover intention. These hypotheses are tested in a cross-sectional
study among a heterogeneous group of employees (N = 685).
Since we presume that authenticity at work is an affective state which is the result
of the congruence between the person and the specific work environment in which they
operate, we examined whether authenticity at work and P-E fit are distinct constructs.
By doing so we provide further evidence concerning the discriminant and convergent
validity of the concept of authenticity at work. Chapter 4 addresses this issue using a
cross-sectional sample of highly gifted workers (N = 867). It is expected that authen-
ticity and P-E fit are related but distinct constructs. Furthermore, it is expected that
authenticity at work mediates the relationship between P-E fit and well-being.
In the study reported in Chapter 5 we investigated the relationship between authen-
ticity at work and motivation. Deci and Ryan (1985) argue that self-determined motiva-
tion stems directly from the self and are therefore authentic. Interestingly, authenticity
at work and self-determined motivation both describe forms of experienced authenticity.
Therefore, it is unclear whether both concepts are distinct of each other. Chapter 5
addresses this issue. Furthermore, the mediation role of self-determined motivation
on the association between authenticity at work and well-being is investigated. Based
on the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan (2000) it is assumed that the posi-
tive association between experienced authenticity at work increases in strength with
increasing quality of self-determined motivation. Furthermore, it is expected that self-
determined motivation mediates the association between authenticity and well-being.

General introduction 19
 The hypotheses are tested in a cross-sectional study among employees in the financial
services sector (N = 546).
Lastly, the final chapter of this thesis provides a general discussion of the insights
gathered in the four empirical studies. Furthermore, it provides suggestions for future
research and illustrates some practical implications based on the findings in this thesis.
Figure 1.1 presents an overview of the conceptual model investigated in the present
thesis. Chapter 2 through 5 will discuss each of its associations in more detail.

Figure 1.1 Conceptual research model investigated in the present thesis.

20 Chapter 1
Chapter II
Authenticity at work:
Development and validation
of an individual authenticity
3
measure at work

3
Appeared as: Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014). Authenticity at work: Develop-
ment and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 15, 1-18. DOI 10.1007/s10902-013-94133. Author Van den Bosch was involved
in designing the study, collection of the data, analyzing the data, statistical analysis,
interpretation of the results, and writing the first draft of the manuscript. Author Taris
was involved in the study design, interpretation of the results and editing of the ma-
nuscript.

Authenticity at work:
Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work 23
 Abstract
Building on the work by Barret-Lennard (1998) and Wood et al. (2008), this study
describes the development and validation of a theory-based measure of state au-
thenticity at work, the Individual Authenticity Measure at Work (IAM Work). Even
though this construct is obviously relevant to the work context (e.g., as regards
issues of work relations, leadership and well-being), none of the instruments cur-
rently available focuses on authenticity in the area of work and organizational
psychology. A total sample of 646 participants was divided in two equal sized sub-
samples. Exploratory factor analysis supported the underlying tripartite construct
of authenticity at work, resulting in the subscales authentic living, self-alienation,
and accepting external influences. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the tri-
partite construct and showed good psychometric properties of the state-focused
measure of authenticity at work. Finally, correlation analysis showed that each
subscale and the total score of authenticity was positively related to commonly
used work outcomes such as job satisfaction, in-role performance, and work en-
gagement. This study concludes that the IAM Work is a reliable and valid measure
of state authenticity at work. Implications for future research and practice are
discussed.

24 Chapter II
A growing body of research underlines the importance of being authentic for human
functioning (among many others, Boucher, 2011; Grandey, Foo, Groth & Goodwin, 2012;
cf. Jung, 2011). According to Harter (2002), the concept of authenticity (loosely refer-
ring to the degree to which a person acts in agreement with one’s true self) can be
discussed from a variety of perspectives. For example, authenticity can be considered
Chapter

ii
a subjective experience (introspection, “I feel authentic”), an objective property (“s/he
is authentic”), or a state or a disposition (cf. Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis & Joseph,
2008). Moreover, authenticity has been studied in relation to different topics such as
leadership (Spitzmuller & Ilies, 2010; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson,
2008), team outcomes (Hannah, Walumbwa, & Fry, 2011), cross-cultural psychology
(Boucher, 2011), intimate relationships (Brunell et al., 2010; Lopez & Rice, 2006; Neff
& Suizzo, 2006), and well-being (Ménard & Brunet, 2011; Toor & Ofori, 2009). Clearly,
authenticity is at present an important topic in research in psychology and related fields.
A variety of authenticity measures is currently available (e.g., Kernis & Goldman,
2006; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997; Wood et al., 2008). However, in
spite of its obvious relevance to the work context (e.g., as regards issues of work
relations, leadership and well-being), few of these instruments focus specifically on
authenticity experienced in this area (Menard & Brunet, 2011, for a notable exception
that is based on Kernis and Goldman’s, 2006, approach). The present study contributes
to this research by developing and validating a focused measure of state authenticity
at work using a subjective, person-centered orientation that is based on previous work
by Barret-Lennard (1998) and Wood et al. (2008). Below we first discuss the concept of
authenticity, after which we present an empirical study among 646 workers in which our
measure of authenticity is developed and validated.

Authenticity: Background and conceptualization

Rogers (1965) stated that felt (i.e., subjectively experienced) authenticity would be a
good indicator of the degree to which a person is “fully functioning” – Rogers’ term for a
person fulfilling their full potential. According to Rogers, authenticity would also be the
primary condition that would eventually lead a person to be fully functioning. Erickson
(1994) argued that it is an individual’s own perception that leads to the experience
of (lack of) authenticity, rather than others’ perception of that individual. Consistent
with the humanistic views of Rogers and Erickson, we consider authenticity at work
as a subjectively experienced phenomenon that can be measured in terms of a bipolar
continuum with on the one side being fully authentic and on the other side being fully
inauthentic. Recently two theory-based measures of authenticity aimed to capture the

Authenticity at work:
Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work 25
 concept of authenticity (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood et al., 2008). White (2011)
compared both theory-based measures of authenticity and examined their factorial
structure and their incremental validity. Results indicated that there was little support
for the factorial structure of the authenticity inventory developed by Kernis and Gold-
man (2006). It was unclear what their concept of authenticity was measuring and was
therefore dropped for further analysis. In contrast, the authenticity scale developed by
Wood et al. (2008) performed well and supported the originally proposed three-factor
structure. White (2011) stated that the empirical support for the concept of authenticity
used by Wood et al. (2008) advocates for its use. Therefore, the present study takes
the view of authenticity presented by Wood et al. (2008) as a starting point for the
development of a state-like measure of authenticity in the context of work.

Person-centered concept of authenticity

Wood et al.’s (2008) person-centered conception of authenticity builds on the work of
Barrett-Lennard (1998). The construct implies consistency between the three levels of
a person’s primary experience, their symbolized awareness, and their outward behavior
and communication. The first dimension of authenticity concerns the match or mismatch
between actual physiological states on the one hand, and conscious awareness on the
other. The congruence of these dimensions represents the first aspect of authenticity:
self-alienation. Self-alienation is the subjective experience of not knowing who one is.
People who feel “out of touch” with their core self are characteristic for this dimension
of authenticity.
The second authenticity dimension concerns the match between conscious aware-
ness and actual behavior. The congruence of both dimensions represents the second
aspect of authenticity: authentic living. Authentic living is the degree to which individu-
als are true to their selves in most situations and live in accordance with their own
values and beliefs.
The final dimension of authenticity concerns the extent to which an individual accepts
external influence of others and the belief of actually meeting others’ expectations.
Schmid (2005) posed that self-alienation and authentic living are affected by the social
environment. Accepting external influence will affect subjective feelings of self-alienation
as well as the experience of authentic living, hereby completing the tripartite construct
of authenticity.

State vs. trait

Trait conceptionalizations of authenticity tend to consider authenticity as a temporally
stable personality dimension (e.g., Wood et al., 2008). For some purposes, such static
conceptualizations are problematic, e.g., when the level of authenticity is assumed to

26 Chapter II
be contingent upon variations in a person’s environment. For example, Schmid (2005)
proposes that self-alienation and authentic living are affected by a person’s (social)
environment. If so, changes in this environment should lead to corresponding changes
in subjective authenticity, but current state measures of authenticity are not designed
(and presumably not sensitive enough) to reflect the effects of these environmental
Chapter

ii
changes on experienced authenticity. Clearly, there is a need for measures of state
authenticity, e.g., in the context of intervention research.
Previous research is consistent with the view that authenticity may be considered a
state, rather than a trait. For example, Sheldon et al. (1997) found cross-role variations
in felt authenticity, that is, their participants reported high levels of authenticity in one
role (e.g., in their role as supervisor) but lower authenticity in another role (e.g., in their
partner role). These results suggests that the degree of authenticity a person feels is
not solely a function of a disposition or trait to act authentic, and that it will at least
partly depend on the particular role that a person fulfills and/or the context in which
this person functions. Basically, the present study assumes that whether employees
feel authentic at work is the result of the congruence between the person and his work
environment (cf. Barrett-Lennard, 1998; Schmid, 2005; Wood et al., 2008). That is, if
employees’ work environment is more congruent with their core ‘authentic’ self, they will
feel more authentic. Apparently, the perceived level of authenticity can be considered a
state, and it seems plausible that this state is the outcome of the degree to which there
is a good fit between the person and their environment.

Associations with other concepts

Previous research (that used different constructs of authenticity) has shown positive cor-
relations between authenticity and psychological wellbeing. For example, Toor and Ofori
(2009) reported positive relations between authenticity and autonomy, environmental
mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, and purpose in life. Sheldon
et al. (1997) examined the experienced level of authenticity in different roles, show-
ing negative relations between “role authenticity” and anxiety, depression, perceived
stress, and symptomatology. In addition, role authenticity showed a positive relation with
self-esteem. In Hannah et al.’s (2011) study among Army action teams, team leader au-
thenticity was measured in relation to team authenticity and team outcomes. Hannah et
al. found positive relations between team leader authenticity and team authenticity, team
work behavior, and team productivity. Finally, Wood et al.’s (2008) research revealed that
higher levels of authenticity (as measured in terms of the three subscales of authentic
living, self-alienation and accepting external influence) were associated with higher
scores on concepts such as satisfaction with life, positive affect, self-esteem, autonomy,
happiness, environmental mastery, personal growth, self-acceptance, and gratitude.

Authenticity at work:
Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work 27
 Overview of the current research

The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a theory-based instrument
that measures state authenticity at work using a subjective, person-centered orienta-
tion. Moreover, for practical reasons (such as the fact that employees are often reluctant
to complete long questionnaires, and that their employers may not allow them to do so
during working hours) it is useful for both practitioners and researchers to have short,
yet reliable and valid instruments at their disposal. Therefore, we also aimed to develop
a short version of the state measure of authenticity at work. Below we first develop a
statistically reliable measure of authenticity, based on Wood et al.’s (2008) and Barrett-
Lennard’s (1998) conceptualization of authenticity as a tripartite concept that consists
of self-alienation, authentic living and external influence, and drawing on cross-sectional
data from 646 participants.
Subsequently this measure is validated by relating it to external concepts that can be
assumed to be associated with authenticity. Following Wood et al. (2008), we examined
its relations with stress and negative affect. Workers who experience lower levels of
authenticity are not, or to a lesser account, in touch with their self and might therefore
participate in work activities that will cost more energy. This loss of energy will result
in higher levels of stress and negative affect. Therefore, consistent with Wood et al.
(2008), we expect authenticity to show negative relations with negative affect (Hypoth-
esis 1a) and stress (Hypothesis 1b).
In addition, we examined the associations between authenticity and five variables
tapping salient aspects of the work environment, namely autonomy, work demands,
work engagement, in-role performance and overall job satisfaction. Autonomy is the
extent to which individuals can be self-governing at work. It would seem plausible that
workers who can to some degree affect their work and their work environment will be
able to increase the level of experienced authenticity and shape their own preferences
and their job, e.g., through job crafting processes (cf. Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2002).
Therefore, we expect that autonomy is positively related to authenticity (Hypothesis
2a). Further, we assume that being overloaded with work stresses employees and will
eventually lead to inauthenticity. This implies that high work load is associated with
lower levels of authenticity (Hypothesis 2b). Moreover, we expect workers who experi-
ence higher levels of authenticity to behave more in accordance with their own values
and beliefs at work. Their job is in line with their core and authentic self. Therefore, we
expect authenticity and in-role performance to be positively associated (Hypothesis 2c).
Finally, we expect that authenticity will be positively related to worker well-being.
Work engagement is defined by Schaufeli and Bakker (2010) as a positive, fulfilling,
work-related state of mind that is characterized by (1) vigor, which represents high

28 Chapter II
levels of energy and mental resilience while working; (2) dedication, which represents a
sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge; and (3) absorption,
which represents being fully concentrated and engrossed in one’s work and whereby
times passes quickly. Engagement is a positive, affective-motivational state of mind that
results when one’s job involves an optimal match between specific work characteristics
Chapter

ii
(i.e., job demands and job resources) and personal characteristics. Since authenticity
focuses on the match between a person and his environment, it would seem likely that
high levels of engagement will be associated with high levels of authenticity (Hypothesis
2d). Finally, we expect overall job satisfaction to be positively associated with authentic-
ity (Hypothesis 2e), since the possibility for workers to conduct tasks that are congruent
with one’s core values and ideas will surely contribute to their satisfaction with their job.

METHOD

Procedure
Six hundred and forty-six Dutch employees contributed data for the current study. Part
of the participants (N = 296) were contacted through two online communities, one
community composed of human resource professionals and the other involving primary
school teachers. A short explanation of the aim the study was provided, followed by a
link that led directly to the starting screen of an online survey. This introductory screen
explained the purpose of the survey, and emphasized that participation was voluntary
and that confidentiality was guaranteed. In addition, to be eligible for the present study,
participants were required to spend at least 20 hours per week on paid employment.
Participants were informed that completing the questionnaire would take 15 minutes of
their time. To stimulate participation, participants were informed that from the overall
pool of participants, 5 participants would randomly be selected and would be offered
the opportunity to participate in a free, online “E-assessment” which would give them a
thorough view of their own personality. This E-assessment was unrelated to the present
study.
The remaining respondents were contacted through the organizations they worked
for. Fifteen organizations were invited to join the study, seven of which agreed to par-
ticipate. All employees of these seven organizations (N = 723) received an email at their
home/work email addresses with the request to fill in an online survey. The format of
this survey was identical to the survey taken by the members of the online communities.
Three hundred and fifty employees completed the online survey. The average response
rate across these seven organizations was 50.7 percent, ranging from 31 to 80 percent.

Authenticity at work:
Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work 29
 These figures are well above the threshold for acceptable response rate (of 26.2%)
proposed by Baruch and Holtom (2008).

Participants
The total sample of 646 Dutch workers consisted of 63% females versus 37% males.
The average age was 43 years (sd = 10.60), ranging from 19 to 69 years. On average
employees worked 36.6 hours per week (sd = 8.98), ranging from 20 to 80 hours. Due
to the nature of the data (a convenience sample), many participants (76%) held a BA or
MA degree. Therefore, the present sample is not representative for the Dutch working
population.

Measures
Scale development. In order to create a state-focused measure of authenticity at work,
the first author adapted the 25-item Authenticity scale presented by Wood et al. (2008)
in several respects. First, since Wood et al.’s scale taps general rather than work-specific
authenticity, all items were rewritten, such that they referred to authenticity in the work
context. For example, the item ‘I am true to myself in most situations’ became ‘I am true
to myself at work in most situations’ (Table 1 presents all items). Second, as Wood et
al.’s instrument focuses on trait-based rather than state authenticity, the introduction to
the adapted measure instructed participants to focus on their most recent work position
when answering the items. They were asked to imagine how much each statement
applied to them only at work (and not in other situations) for the past four weeks.
A 7-point Likert-type scale was used, ranging from 1 (“does not describe me at all”)
to 7 (“describes me very well”). The scores 1, 7, as well as the neutral score 4 were
anchored.
The resulting 25 items were evaluated by the second author in terms of their fit with
the intended conceptualization of authenticity as a three-dimensional, work-related and
state-based construct. Differences of opinion regarding the adaptation of these items
were discussed among the authors until agreement on their face validity and formulation
was reached. To acknowledge that this adapted measure differs substantially from Wood
et al.’s (2008) original instrument, in the remainder we refer to this adapted version as
the Individual Authenticity Measure at Work (IAM Work).
Work engagement. Work engagement was assessed with the short version of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2003). The short
UWES taps the three underlying dimensions of work engagement: vigor, dedication,
and absorption with three items for each dimension. Example items are: “At my work,
I feel bursting with energy” (vigor); “My job inspires me” (dedication); “I feel happy
when I am working intensely” (absorption). All items were scored on a 7-point scale

30 Chapter II
ranging from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“always”). In the present study, the internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha) of the entire questionnaire was .93; for each of the three subscales
coefficient alpha was .88 for vigor, .91 for dedication, and .78 for absorption.
Work demands. Work demands were measured with the Copenhagen Psychoso-
cial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) (Kristensen & Borg, 2003; Petersen, Kristensen, Borg &
Chapter

ii
Bjorner, 2010). The scale contained seven items tapping quantitative demands and work
pace, e.g., “Do you have to work very fast?” and “Do you get behind with your work?” (1
= “almost never”, 5 = “almost always”, coefficient alpha in the current study was .85).
Autonomy. Autonomy was assessed with three items from Karasek’s Job Content
Questionnaire (Karasek, Brisson, Kawakami, Houtman, Bongers, & Amick, 1998). An
example item is: “Do you have freedom in carrying out your work activities?” (1 =
“almost never”, 5 = “almost always”, coefficient alpha in the current study = .78).
In-role performance. Employee in-role performance was measured using the task-based
job performance measure of Goodman and Syvantek (1999). The scale contained 8 items.
An example item is: “I achieve the objective of my job” (1 = “does not apply to me at all”,
5 = “Always or almost applies to me”, coefficient alpha in the current study = .82).
Overall job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was measured with a single item:
“Overall, I am satisfied with my job” (1 = “totally disagree”, 7 = “totally agree”).
Wanous et al. (1997) performed a meta-analysis of single-item measures of overall job
satisfaction, showing that such single-item measures are usually acceptable and more
economical alternatives for multi-item measures of that concept. The item employed
in the present study was used successfully in previous research, e.g., Brewer (2005)
and Rogelberg, Leach, Warr & Burnfield (2006), suggesting that this item was a valid
measure of overall job satisfaction.
Stress. Stress was assessed with 7 items of the Dutch translation of the Depression
Anxiety Stress Scales (De Beurs, Van Dyck, Marquenie, Lange, & Blonk, 2001; Lovibond
& Lovibond, 1995). Participants rated how much each statement applied to them over
the past week. An example item is: “I found it difficult to relax” (0 = “Did not apply to
me at all”, 3 = “Applied to me very much, or most of the time”). In the present study,
coefficient alpha was .88).
Negative affect. Negative affect was measured with the negative affect scale from
the positive and negative affect scale (PANAS) developed by Watson, Clark, and Tel-
legen (1988). Participants were presented a list of 10 negative affect-laden words (e.g.,
distressed, upset, and guilty) and were asked how much each word applied to them over
the past week (1 = “very slightly or not at all”, 5 = “extremely”, with coefficient alpha
being .89 in the present study).

Authenticity at work:
Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work 31
 Statistical analysis
In order to develop and cross-validate the IAM Work, we randomly assigned the 646
participants to either an exploratory sample (N = 324) or a confirmatory sample (N
= 322). In the exploratory sample we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
using the principal axis method and promax rotation. The results of the EFA were
cross-validated using the confirmatory sample using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA,
Arbuckle, 2007). Hypotheses 1a-2e were examined by conducting correlation analyses.

RESULTS

Exploratory analysis

Principal axis factor analysis

All 25 authenticity items were submitted to an exploratory principal axis factor analysis
with an oblique promax rotation. Bartlett’s test (χ² with 300 df = 3,088.54, p < .001)
and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (KMO = .867) indicated that the sample was ad-
equate for this specific analysis. The first 7 factors had eigenvalues of respectively 6.91,
2.69, 1.91, 1.29, 1.18, 1.05, and 0.96. These factors respectively accounted for 27.67,
10.74, 7.66, 5.16, 4.72, 4.18, and 3.83 percent of the variance in the items. Therefore,
Cattell’s (1966) scree test suggested that the number of factors to be extracted could
be either 1 or 3.

Parallel analysis and MAP analysis

In order to decide upon the appropriate number of factors, we conducted a parallel analy-
sis and a minimum average partial (MAP) test (Zwick & Velicer, 1986; Velicer, Eaton, &
Fava, 2000). Parallel analysis involves a comparison of eigenvalues between sample data
and a randomly generated data set. The number of variables and cases in the random
sample are equal to the sample data. The eigenvalues as expected on the basis of the
random data are then compared with the eigenvalues obtained for the observed sample
data. Whenever the observed eigenvalue for a factor exceeds the eigenvalue of the cor-
responding random factor, the observed eigenvalue is considered practically meaningful,
in that it is larger than a randomly generated eigenvalue (Fabrigar et al., 1999). The MAP
test separates systematic variance from unsystematic variance. To this aim, a series of
matrices of partial correlations are examined. The number of factors extracted is based
on the step number that resulted in the lowest average partial correlation (O’Conner,
2000). Both tests complement each other. Parallel analysis tends to over-extract, whereas

32 Chapter II
the MAP test tends to under-extract the number of factors (O’Conner, 2000). Optimal
results are obtained when both methods arrive at the same number of factors.
Using O’Conner’s (2000) syntax for parallel analysis we calculated 1000 randomly gen-
erated datasets with 324 cases and 25 variables. The first 7 eigenvalues were 1.54, 1.46,
1.39, 1.34, 1.29, 1.24 and 1.20, respectively, indicating that a three-factor solution was
Chapter

ii
appropriate for this data (i.e., the first three observed eigenvalues using the principal axis
factor analysis were higher than the corresponding three factors obtained in the parallel
analysis). The first six partial squared correlations after conducting the MAP test were .025,
.016, .015, .016, .018, and .021 respectively, also indicating that a three-factor solution
was appropriate (i.e., the third partial squared correlation resulted in the lowest value).

Based on the results of both analyses, we conducted a second and a third principal
axis factor analysis with the number of factors predefined at three and oblique promax
rotation. The results showed that the loadings of item 1 on these factors were lower
than our critical value of .30 and that item 4 loaded on both Authentic Living and
Self-Alienation. Further, items 12 and 14 loaded on a different factor than they were
theoretically expected to load on. After omitting these four items, the EFA analysis
resulted in an optimal simple structure solution.
Factors 1, 2 and 3 in Table 2.1 represent authentic living, self-alienation, and ac-
cepting external influence, respectively. As expected, the three factors were significantly
correlated, r = -.37 (p<.001) for authentic living and self-alienation, r = -.16 (p<.001)
for authentic living and accepting external influence, and r = .33 (p<.001) for self-
alienation and accepting external influence. Reliability analyses showed alphas of .81 for
authentic living, .81 for self-alienation, and .69 for accepting external influence.

Short version
For practical purposes, it is often convenient to have a short version of a particular
instrument. To this aim, we examined whether it was possible to create a short ver-
sion of the IAM Work by including all items with a factor loading above .6 in a further
exploratory factor analysis. Saucier and Goldberg (2002) argued that four-item scales
are the practical minimum, with scales consisting of fewer than four items often show-
ing poor psychometric properties. As application of this threshold meant that for the
factor accepting external influence only two items could be retained, for this factor we
included the four highest-loading items (loadings > .45). Subsequent reliability analyses
for the exploratory sample showed internal consistencies of .81 for Authentic Living, .83
for Self-Alienation, and .67 for Accepting External Influence; that is, the reliabilities of
the four-item versions of the three authenticity dimensions were very similar to those
obtained for the full scales. Moreover, the intercorrelations between the long and the

Authenticity at work:
Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work 33
 Table 2.1 Factor loadings for the exploratory factor analysis (exploratory
sample, N = 324).

Factor

Accepting external
Authentic living

Self-alienation

influence
Item

17 I am true to myself at work in most situations.* .80

16 At work, I always stand by what I believe in. * .75

19 I behave in accordance with my values and beliefs in the workplace.* .73

15 I find it easier to get on with people in the workplace when I’m being myself.* .61

21 My daily behavior at work reflects “the real me”. .59

22 At work I behave the way I feel. .44

6 I feel that I am doing the things in the workplace that are right for me. .44

8 I think it is better to be yourself at work, than to be popular. .42

9 At work, I feel free to express my emotions to others. .41

2 I dislike people in the workplace who pretend to be what they are not. .37

20 At work, I feel alienated.* .84

25 I don’t feel who I truly am at work.* .81

18 At work, I feel out of touch with the “real me”.* .67

23 In my working environment I feel “cut off” from who I really am.* .63

7 I feel as if I don’t know myself very well in the workplace. .53

3 I have to hide the way I feel inside at work. .47

24 At work, I feel the need to do what others expect me to do.* .69

13 I am strongly influenced in the workplace by the opinions of others.* .61

10 Other people influence me greatly at work.* .51

11 At work, I behave in a manner that people expect me to behave.* .48

5 I usually do what other people tell me to do in the workplace. .38

1 I make my own choices at work. #

4 I can be myself during daily work activities. #

12 I am in touch with the real me while I work. #

14 At work, I feel pressured to behave in certain ways. #

Note. Principal axis exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation (promax). Loadings lower than .30 are
not presented. * = This item is included in the final 12-item version of the IAM Work. # = This item was
excluded from the exploratory analyses.

34 Chapter II
short versions of a particular subscale were .87 (p <.01), .95 (p < .01), and .96 (p <
.01) for authentic living, self-alienation, and accepting external influence, respectively.
These findings indicate that the short and the long versions of the three measures of the
dimensions of authenticity were practically identical. Therefore, in the remainder of this
study we focused on the twelve items of the short version of the IAM Work (cf. Table 2.1).
Chapter

Cross-validation: Confirmatory factor analysis

The findings of the EFA were cross-validated using the AMOS software (Arbuckle, 2007) in the
ii
confirmatory sample. Three competing models were tested and compared using maximum
likelihood estimation procedures. The first model was a one-factor model, with all 12 items
loading on this factor. The second model was a three-factor model with Authentic Living,
Self-Alienation, and Accepting External Influence as three separate first-order factors. The
third model was a second-order factor model, with the three first-order factors (Authentic
Living, Self-Alienation and Accepting External Influence) loading on a single, overarching
latent factor that was expected to tap the three-dimensional construct of Authenticity.
The one-factor model did not fit the data well, χ²(df = 54, N = 322) = 379.76; χ²/
df = 7.0; GFI = .82; RMSEA = .14 (90% confidence interval = .12-.15); NFI = .73; CFI
= .76. Conversely, the three-factor model fitted the data well, χ²(df = 50, N = 322) =
123.05; χ²/df = 2.5; GFI = .94; RMSEA = .07 (90% confidence interval = .05-.08); NFI
= .91; CFI = .95, with all fit indices meeting their criterion for reasonable fit (cf. Byrne,
2010; Kline, 2005). The difference between the two models was significant, ∆χ²(df = 4,
N = 322) = 256.71, p< .001, demonstrating that the three-factor solution obtained from
the exploratory sample also applied to the confirmatory sample.
Maximum likelihood estimation assumes that the data are multivariate normally
distributed. However, a multivariate kurtosis Z-statistic of z = 44.95 suggested that
this assumption was violated in the confirmatory sample (Bentler, 2005). We therefore
performed a post-hoc analysis. Hu, Bentler, and Kano (1992) argued that in cases of
non-normality it is more appropriate to correct the test statistic, rather than to change
the estimation method. Satorra and Bentler (1988) developed the S-Bχ² statistic which
corrects the χ²-statistic if the underlying assumption of multivariate normality is violated.
Curran, West and Finch (1996) showed that the S-Bχ² is the most reliable test statistic for
correcting non-normally distributed data. Using EQS (Bentler & Wu, 2002) we computed
an adjusted goodness of fit statistic of S-Bχ²(df= 50, N = 322) = 88.48; χ²/df = 1.8;
CFI = .95; RMSEA = .05 (90% confidence interval .03-.06). The uncorrected χ²-value of
123.05 for the three-factor model compared to the correctedS-Bχ² value of 88.48 shows
a strong decrease, indicating that our data indeed followed a non-normal distribution.
Moreover, the χ²/df, CFI and RMSEA values improved as well. Based on these results,
we preferred the estimates obtained for the corrected model to the uncorrected findings.

Authenticity at work:
Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work 35
 Figure 2.1 represents the corrected parameter estimates for the three-factor model of
authenticity. The S-Bχ² corrected standardized factor loadings range from .44 to .94 for
authentic living, .72 to .83 for self-alienation, and .31 to .75 for accepting external influ-
ence. Reliability analysis for the confirmatory sample showed an internal consistency of
.71 for authentic living, .86 for self-alienation, and .66 for accepting external influence in
the confirmatory sample. It can be concluded that our exploratory findings were success-
fully replicated in the confirmatory analysis. The three-factor solution in the exploratory
sample emerged also in the confirmatory sample and the reliability statistics demonstrated
fair, up to good internal consistency across both samples (cf. Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Figure 2.1 Second-order, three-factor model of state authenticity at work. Error

variances and residues are omitted for clarity. Standardized corrected values
are presented. All estimates are significant at p < .001.

Finally, we examined whether the three dimensions of authenticity could be combined

in order to arrive at one overall factor of state authenticity at work (cf. Figure 2.1).
This second-order factor model involves a slight variation on the three-factor model
described above, in that the associations among the three latent factors are used to
estimate the loadings of these factors on a single, overarching second-order factor. The
main advantage of the second-order factor model as compared to the three-factor model
is that the second-order model shows whether it is plausible that a single second-order
factor accounts for the associations among the three lower-order factors, revealing
both the magnitude and significance of the loadings of these lower-order factors on the
second-order factor.

36 Chapter II
 Taking a closer look at the standardized regression paths deriving from the factor
authenticity in Figure 2.1, we notice that all three factors add substantial value. The
latent standardized variable loadings of authentic living, self-alienation, and accepting
external influence were respectively .73, -.98, and -.50, and alpha was acceptable, with
.82 for the overall 12-item measure of authenticity.
Chapter

Construct validity
The factor analyses reported above demonstrates that the short version of the IAM
ii
Work shows good psychometric properties: the expected three-factor structure was
confirmed, with acceptable reliabilities and good factor loadings. To further validate the
IAM Work we examined the relations among the three dimensions of the IAM Work,
the total authenticity score, and other work outcomes. To this aim we performed a
correlation analysis using a subsample of our data consisting of 516 participants who
completed a survey which included the specified work outcomes (cf. Table 2.2).
As predicted, authenticity was positively associated with positive work outcomes and
negatively with negative work outcomes. Specifically, Authentic Living was positively
and significantly associated with work engagement, vitality, dedication, absorption,
in-role performance and overall job satisfaction (r’s ranging from .27 to .37, p< .01),
and negatively with negative affect (r = -.20, p < .01) and stress (r = -.16, p < .01).
Self-Alienation was significantly negatively correlated with work engagement, vitality,
dedication, absorption, in-role performance and overall job satisfaction (r’s ranging from
-.34 to -.49, p < .01), and positively with negative affect (r = .47, p< .01) and stress
(r = .45, p< .01). Finally, high scores on Accepting External Influence were associated
with low scores on work engagement, vitality and dedication (r’s ranging from -.09 to
-.14, p < .05), and with high scores on negative affect (r = .31, p < .01) and stress (r
= .26, p< .01). These findings are fully in line with our expectations (Hypotheses 1a-b,
2c-e supported).
Finally, we examined the associations between authenticity on the one hand and
work characteristics on the other. Authenticity was positively correlated with autonomy
(r = .44, p < .01) and negatively with work demands (r = -.14, p < .01). This pattern of
correlations was also found for the three subdimensions of authenticity, with high levels
of autonomy being associated with positive scores on the three dimensions of authentic-
ity and high job demands being associated with adverse scores on these dimensions
(Hypotheses 2a-b supported).

Authenticity at work:
Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work 37
38
Table 2.2 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), internal consistency (Cronbach’s α), and correlations for the total sam-

Chapter II
ple (N = 516).

Variable M SD α (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

(1) Authenticity 5.37 0.75 .79 -

(2) Authentic Living 5.71 0.91 .76 .68 -

(3) Self-Alienation 1.92 1.12 .85 -.80 -.42 -

(4) Accepting external influence 3.69 1.08 .67 -.68 -.15 .29 -

(5) Work engagement 5.35 1.01 .93 .43 .37 -.46 -.10 -

(6) Vitality 5.30 1.04 .89 .43 .35 -.45 -.14 .89 -

(7) Dedication 5.60 1.17 .90 .41 .34 -.47 -.09 .94 .77 -

(8) Absorption 5.15 1.10 .78 .32 .31 -.34 -.06 .90 .68 .77 -

(9) Work demands 2.94 0.73 .85 -.14 -.12 .15 .04 -.15 -.20 -.11 -.10 -

(10) Autonomy 3.82 0.78 .79 .44 .30 -.47 -.18 .43 .38 .41 .36 -.08 -

(11) In-role performance 3.75 0.51 .82 .27 .32 -.21 -.08 .42 .42 .36 .37 .02 .21 -

(12) Overall Job satisfaction 5.46 1.48 - .37 .27 -.49 -.03 .66 .61 .70 .49 -.20 .34 .22 -

(13) Stress 2.45 0.80 .88 -.42 -.16 .45 .26 -.29 -.37 -.29 -.13 .35 -.24 -.15 -.36 -

(14) Negative affect 1.47 0.58 .89 -.46 -.20 .47 .31 -.30 -.38 -.29 -.15 .35 -.26 -.11 -.37 .78

Note. Correlations of .09 are significant at p< .05, correlations of .12 are significant at p< .01.
DISCUSSION

The present study was designed to develop and validate a theory-based instrument for
measuring state authenticity at work using the subjective, person-centered orientation
proposed by Wood et al. (2008). We conducted a series of exploratory and confirma-
Chapter

ii
tory factor analyses. The exploratory factor analyses supported the expected tripartite
person-centered model of authenticity. These findings were replicated in the confirma-
tory sample. Moreover, the internal consistency of the three dimensions of authenticity
as well as that of the overall scale was satisfactory. Correlational analyses provided evi-
dence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the IAM Work, showing significant
relations between the subscales and work outcomes such as engagement, performance
and job satisfaction.
The four most interesting findings of this research are the following. First, our re-
sults supported the validity and reliability of our measure of Barrett-Lennard’s (1998)
tripartite construct of authenticity in both the exploratory and the confirmatory samples.
Moreover, results indicate that the short version of the IAM Work showed a fair up to
good internal consistency without a substantial decrease of Cronbach’s alpha. If one is
interested in obtaining a detailed view of how an individual perceives their work in rela-
tion to authenticity, the tripartite construct would be the measure of choice. However,
if one is only interested in obtaining a global indication of the general experience of
authenticity at work, the total overall score of the IAM Work would seem preferable.
Second, our results showed that the three dimensions of authenticity loaded differ-
entially on the overarching second-order factor of authenticity (cf. Figure 2.1). The fac-
tor loading of self-alienation was -.98, that of authentic living was .73, and for accepting
external influence we found a loading of -.50. Thus, although all three dimensions
contribute substantially to the higher-order factor of authenticity, self-alienation has the
highest loading, followed by authentic living and accepting external influence, respec-
tively. These findings suggest that self-alienation is the central dimension of authenticity
at work. This is consistent with Barrett-Lennard (1998), who argues that the tripartite
construct of authenticity is centered around the consistency between an individual’s
primary experience and their symbolized awareness, i.e., self-alienation (cf. also Yalom,
1980). The importance of self-alienation is again reflected in the relatively correlations
between self-alienation and work engagement, autonomy, overall job satisfaction,
stress, and negative affect. These findings add credence to the notion that the IAM Work
is a valid measure that corresponds with Barrett-Lennard’s (1998) conceptualization of
authenticity.
Third, our findings demonstrate that our state measure of authenticity at work is
associated with several commonly studied work outcomes and the antecedents thereof,

Authenticity at work:
Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work 39
 underlining the practical relevance of this concept. Hypotheses 1a-b predicted that
authenticity would be negatively related to negative affect and stress. Consistent with
these predictions, the expected relations were obtained for both authenticity (as an
overall measure) and its three dimensions. Similarly, Hypothesis 2d stated that authen-
ticity would be positively correlated with work engagement. In line with this reasoning,
individuals who perceive themselves as more authentic report higher levels of work
engagement. Individuals who stay close to their core-self on average feel more vital,
dedicated and absorbed while working. As feeling authentic may be considered a ‘per-
sonal resource’ (cf. Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2007), it would seem
plausible that authenticity is an antecedent of work engagement and, possibly, other
outcomes as well. In this light, it is noteworthy that high scores on authenticity were
associated with high levels of in-role performance and job satisfaction (Hypotheses 2c
and 2e supported).
Finally, authenticity also showed correlations with job characteristics. Consistent
with Hypotheses 2a and 2b, the present study revealed that people with more autonomy
at work reported higher levels of authenticity than others. This supports our reasoning
that high-autonomy workers are self-governing, and may therefore experience more
freedom and space to act in accordance with their true and core-self than others. These
findings show that it is well possible that work characteristics account for part of the
variance in authenticity.

Study limitations
Three main limitations of the present research warrant further discussion. The first
limitation of this research is its cross-sectional nature, meaning that no causal asso-
ciations between authenticity and the other variables included in this study could be
demonstrated. However, note that the main purpose of this study was to develop a
valid and reliable measure of state authenticity at work. Although it would have been
interesting to study the causal associations among authenticity, work characteristics and
well-psychological being, for the present purposes it suffices to show that our measure
of authenticity and its subdimensions relate in predictable ways to the other study
concepts.
Second, the present study did not include the original measure of general, dispo-
sitional authenticity developed by Wood et al. (2008). It can be expected that their
general measure of dispositional authenticity will relate positively to state authenticity
at work, and showing such a relationship might have provided further evidence for the
(convergent and discriminant) validity of our measure. Future research may shed light
on this issue.

40 Chapter II
 Third, part of the sample used in this study was a convenience sample, meaning that
the findings cannot be generalized to the general Dutch working population. This applies
especially to descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations: it is therefore
impossible to decide upon a cutoff score indicating whether an individual is functioning
either authentic or inauthentic. As determining cutoff scores was not the primary target
Chapter

ii
of the present research we do not consider this a major issue.

Study implications
In spite of these limitations, the present study has several implications for research and
practice. From a practical point of view, one important contribution of this study is the
fact that it presents a reliable and valid instrument that – unlike Wood et al.’s (2008)
original measure – allows researchers and practitioners to study authenticity (and re-
lated concepts) in relation to (changes in) the work context. The current study showed
that, when individuals experience lack of authenticity, this is associated with a range of
adverse scores on work characteristics such as job demands and autonomy, as well as
low scores on worker well-being and motivation (e.g., in the form of low engagement,
performance and satisfaction, and high levels of stress and negative affect). It is unclear
whether these associations can be construed causally, but at the very least low scores
on authenticity constitute a “warning sign” for an unfavorable work situation, both on
the individual and the work group level. For example, the IAM Work can be used as a
screening instrument to trace departments with high numbers of employees reporting
low levels of authenticity, in which case interventions may be developed to prevent or
reduce negative work outcomes.
As regards future research, two issues stand out as being especially important. First,
although the present study provided preliminary evidence that lack of authenticity is
related to adverse work conditions and low well-being, longitudinal studies must be
conducted to shed light on the possibly causal links between authenticity and these
work conditions and outcomes. Such research could also reveal whether the IAM Work
(that was designed as a measure of state rather than trait authenticity) indeed var-
ies with changing work conditions. Similarly, the precise location of authenticity in the
nomological network that links working conditions and outcomes is unknown. Earlier on
we proposed that authenticity is at least partly contingent upon work conditions such as
the presence or absence of job autonomy and that it is an antecedent of worker well-
being and performance; that is, we believe that authenticity could partly mediate the
associations between work conditions and work outcomes. However, evidence testifying
to these ideas is still absent.

Authenticity at work:
Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work 41
 In short
The development of a state-oriented measure of authenticity at work opens up a new
area for research within the domain of industrial and organization psychology. Authen-
ticity might be a key factor in employee’s perception of work. If people feel authentic
(i.e. stay true to themselves, feel in touch with themselves and are -- within practical
boundaries -- not affected by external influences) it is likely that this will induce positive
work outcomes. Future research using the current measure will deal with these and
other issues.

42 Chapter II
Chapter III
The authentic worker’s well-
being and performance:
The relationship between
authenticity at work, well-
4
being, and work outcomes

4
Appeared as: Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014). The authentic worker’s
well-being and performance: The relationship between authenticity at work, well-
being, and work outcomes. The Journal of Psychology, 148 (6), 659-681. DOI
10.1080/00223980.2013.820684. Author Van den Bosch designed the study, collected
and analyzed the data, interpreted the findings, and wrote the manuscript. Author Taris
co-designed the study, interpreted the findings and edited the manuscript.

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes 45
 Abstract
Previous research on authenticity has mainly focused on trait conceptualizations
of authenticity (e.g., Wood et al., 2008), whereas in specific environments (e.g., at
work) state conceptualizations of authenticity (cf. Van den Bosch &Taris, 2014a) are
at least as relevant. For example, working conditions are subject to change, and
this could well have consequences for employees’ perceived level of authenticity
at work. The current study employs a work-specific, state-like conceptualization of
authenticity to investigate the relations between authenticity at work, well-being,
and work outcomes. A series of ten separate hierarchical regression analyses us-
ing data from 685 participants indicated that after controlling for selected work
characteristics and demographic variables, authenticity at work accounted for on
average 11% of the variance of various wellbeing and work outcomes. Of the three
subscales of authenticity at work (i.e., authentic living, self-alienation, and accept-
ing influence), self-alienation was the strongest predictor of outcomes, followed
by authentic living and accepting external influence, respectively. These findings
are discussed in the light of their practical and theoretical implications.

46 Chapter III
In the current society organizations are changing all the time. In order to remain
competitive, organizational change (including mergers, downsizing, diversification,
implementation of new production systems, restructuring, et cetera) occurs on a scale
that has never been seen before: corporate change is everywhere, all of the time (cf.
Kets De Vries & Balasz, 1997). In these situations employees face difficult times and
are uncertain about their jobs (e.g., Kalimo, Taris & Schaufeli, 2003; Oreg, Vakola &
Armenakis, 2011). This may lead workers to take career decisions that will enhance their
job certainty, which could imply that they frequently choose or hold on to jobs that do not
match their “dream job prescription”. Moreover, these changes also involve uncertainty
Chapter

iii
for organizations; given the pressure to remain competitive, their main focus might be
on optimizing processes, cutting costs and improving productivity, and employees’ job
experiences may only be considered to the degree that these are functional in reaching
these goals (cf. Kanter, Stein & Jick, 2003).
Given these circumstances, the question rises to what extent employees really con-
nect with their selves at work: to which degree does their job allow them to do what
they actually think is meaningful, important and interesting, in a way that fits their own
preferences? Person-Environment (P-E) fit theory states that stress arises not solely
from the person or his environment, but is a result of the congruence of both (cf.
Caplan, 1983; Edwards, Caplan & Harrison, 1998). Larger misfits between a person and
this environment will induce strain, stress and will show lower levels of well-being. Fol-
lowing this reasoning, it seems plausible that workers who experience to be true to their
selves feel more comfortable and do not loose energy in pretending to be someone else.
The present research examines this reasoning by exploring the relationship between
authenticity at work (that is, if one really can be their true self and feel authentic while
working) on the one hand, and well-being and work outcomes on the other. At present
little is known about this issue, in spite of its potential importance for work outcomes
such as employee well-being, performance, turnover and satisfaction. The present study
was designed to address this particular subject, and examines the role of authenticity at
work in relation to well-being and work outcomes.

Previous research on the correlates of authenticity

Previous research has used various conceptualizations of authenticity. For example,

whereas some studies address authenticity as an individual-level phenomenon (e.g., Ker-
nis & Goldman, 2006; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis & Joseph, 2008), others employ a
team-level conceptualization of authenticity (e.g., Grandey, Chuen, Foo, Groth & Goodwin,
2012; Hannah, Walumbwa & Fry, 2011). Similarly, previous research has addressed a wide

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes 47
 range of antecedents and consequences of authenticity. As for individual-level conceptu-
alizations of authenticity, Ménard and Brunet (2011) and Toor and Ofori (2009) reported
positive correlations between authenticity and psychological well-being. In an interesting
study, Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, and Ilardi (1997) focused on levels of authenticity as
experienced across different roles. Their results indicated that lower levels of authenticity
(as averaged across roles) were associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression and
perceived stress. Wood et al. (2008) developed a theory-based, three-dimensional mea-
sure of authenticity, reporting positive relations between higher levels of authenticity on
the one hand, and satisfaction with life, positive affect, self-esteem, autonomy, happiness,
environmental mastery, personal growth, self-acceptance, and gratitude on the other.
In an attempt to explore the independence and uniqueness of Wood et al.’s (2008)
authenticity model vis-à-vis similar models, Pinto, Maltby, and Wood (2011) examined the
associations between trait authenticity, Gray’s (1985) behavioral inhibition/approach system
and Cloninger’s psychobiological model (Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1993). Although
there was some interconnectedness between authenticity, Gray’s model (Gray, 1985) and
Cloninger et al.’s (1993) psychobiological model, the tripartite trait model of authenticity
could be distinguished from these models. A recent study concerning trait authenticity
by Maltby, Wood, Day, and Pinto (2012) explored how authenticity could be positioned in
current models of personality. Their findings suggest that trait authenticity loads on the
factor Honesty-Humility of the HEXACO personality model (Lee & Ashton, 2004).
As for team-level conceptualizations of authenticity, a study by Hannah et al. (2011)
among army action teams revealed that team leader authenticity was positively associ-
ated with team authenticity, team work behavior, and team productivity. Grandey, Chuen,
Foo, Groth, and Goodwin (2012) examined “authenticity climate” in Australian health
institutions in relation to emotional exhaustion, the central component of the burnout
syndrome (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). An “authentic” climate was defined as
the shared perception of a group that this group valued and accepted self-expression of
its members. Grandey et al. (2012) showed that a climate of authenticity mitigated the
negative relation between engaging in emotion work and emotional exhaustion. That
is, if employees engaged in surface acting and worked in a group with a high climate of
authenticity, they showed reduced strain effects compared to employees who worked
in a group with lower levels of climate of authenticity. Thus, being truly yourself and
staying close to one’s inner self was associated with positive outcomes.
This short review demonstrates that previous research on authenticity has provided
interesting and useful insights in the nature and relevance of the concept for human
functioning. However, this research also has several important limitations. Most im-
portantly, previous studies usually employed (a) trait-based rather than state-based
conceptualizations of authenticity (cf. Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood et al., 2008) and

48 Chapter III
(b) general-purpose rather than focused measures. Trait conceptualizations of authen-
ticity construe authenticity as a stable personality dimension. The drawback of such
an approach is that such measures are relatively insensitive to changes in the possible
determinants of authenticity, meaning that such trait-based measures of authenticity
cannot be used in research where authenticity is considered an outcome of situational
circumstances. In such cases, state-based conceptualizations of authenticity would
be considerably more useful. For example, Sheldon et al. (1997) reported cross-role
variations in subjective authenticity. In their study participants’ experienced level of
authenticity varied across roles (e.g., authenticity felt at work or felt among friends),
Chapter

iii
which suggests that the degree of authenticity a person feels is not (or not solely) a
function of the disposition or trait to act authentic, and will at least partly depend on
the particular role that a person fulfills and/or the context in which this person operates.
Unfortunately, instruments focusing specifically on the work context are rare (one
notable exception is Menard & Brunet, 2011, who developed a French authenticity mea-
sure that was based on Kernis & Goldman’s, 2006, insights). Given the lack of theory-
guided, state-based and context-specific measures for measuring authenticity at work,
Van den Bosch and Taris (2014a) developed a state measure of authenticity at work.
This measure focuses specifically on the work context and assumes that authenticity at
work can be subject to change.

Authenticity at work
At the present the ontological status of authenticity is unclear. Some researchers con-
sider authenticity as a trait-based phenomenon, whereas other construe authenticity as
state-based concept. Trait conceptualizations of authenticity tend to see authenticity as
a temporally stable disposition that is unlikely to change much across time or situations
(e.g., Wood et al., 2008). Conversely, the present study assumes that whether people
feel authentic is the result of the congruence between the person and the specific
environment in which they operate (cf. Barrett-Lennard, 1998; Van den Bosch & Taris,
2014a). Since the characteristics of this environment may change, the degree of congru-
ence between the person and his/her environment (i.e., their experienced authenticity)
may be subject to change as well. This implies that the perceived level of authenticity
is a state rather than a trait.
Taking this reasoning into the work context, if employees function in a work environ-
ment which is more congruent with their core ‘authentic’ self, they will feel more authen-
tic. Building on Wood et al.’s (2008) work, Van den Bosch and Taris (2014a) presented a
theory-based measure of state authenticity that referred explicitly to the work context.
They consider authenticity at work as a subjectively experienced phenomenon that can
be measured in terms of a bipolar continuum with on the one pole being fully authentic

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes 49
 and on the other pole being fully inauthentic. In their view authenticity at work is a
state rather than a trait, with the items of their measure referring to transient feelings
of authenticity rather than a stable disposition. The present study takes this approach
as a starting point for examining the relation between authenticity at work, well-being,
and work outcomes.

Person-centered concept of authenticity at work

In his seminal work on the self, Barrett-Lennard (1998) distinguished among three
central congruencies: a person’s primary subjective experience, their symbolized aware-
ness, and their outward behavior and communication. Wood et al. (2008) based their
three-dimensional measure of dispositional authenticity on Barrett-Lennard’s concep-
tualization, and recently Van den Bosch and Taris (2014a) followed this line in their
development of a focused state-based authenticity measure, the Individual Authenticity
Measure at Work (IAM Work). The first dimension of authenticity, self-alienation, is the
subjective experience of “not knowing who one is” at work. Employees who feel out
of touch with their core self at work are characteristic for this dimension. The second
dimension of authenticity, authentic living, is the degree in which employees are true
to their selves in most situations at work and act in accordance with their own values
and beliefs in the workplace. Employees who perform work that fits their own values
and beliefs are characteristic for this dimension. The third dimension of authenticity
refers to the extent to which an individual accepts external influence of others and
the belief of actually meeting the expectations of others. Schmid (2005) argued that
self-alienation and authentic living are affected by the social environment. Accepting
external influences (i.e., being subjected to situational forces) would affect subjective
feelings of self-alienation as well as the experience of authentic living, hereby finalizing
the tri-partite construct of authenticity. The optimal level of experienced authenticity
is reached when a worker experiences a low level of self-alienation, a high level of
authentic living and a low level of accepting external influence.
The aim of the present study is two-fold. First, we build on and extend previous work
on authenticity and well-being at work by examining the associations between state
authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes. Second, by doing so we simultane-
ously present a further validation of Van den Bosch and Taris’ (2014a) measure.

Work engagement, burnout, and satisfaction

In order to assess the importance of authenticity at work, its relations with various
major indicators of worker well-being (burnout, work engagement, and job satisfac-
tion, respectively) are investigated. Where Maslach and Leiter (1997, 2008) considered
burn-out and work engagement as the opposite poles of a continuum that is completely

50 Chapter III
covered by the Maslach Burnout Inventory, Schaufeli, Taris and Van Rhenen (2008)
provided compelling evidence that burnout and work engagement are two different
kinds of employee well-being. Therefore each construct is discussed and introduced
independently using different instruments.
Work engagement refers to a persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that
is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior. It is a posi-
tive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and
absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Vigor refers to high
levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort
Chapter

iii
in one’s work, and persistence while facing difficulties. Dedication is characterized by
enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge; one feels a sense of significance. Finally,
absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s
work, whereby time passes quickly and one finds it difficult to detach from work.
Work engagement is mainly associated with positive work outcomes. Engaged em-
ployees show higher levels of job satisfaction, feel more committed to the organization
and experience good health (Schaufeli et al., 2008). They also show more proactive be-
havior and perform better (Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005). Workers who feel authentic
stay close to their self, do work that is congruent with their own values and beliefs, and
participate in work activities that fit their core self. These types of workers will be more
intrinsically motivated and are “pulled” towards their work (Van Beek, Hu, Schaufeli,
Taris & Schreurs, 2012). We therefore expect that experienced authenticity at work
shows a positive relationship with work engagement. Specifically, we expect that au-
thentic living will show a positive relationship with work engagement, vigor, dedication,
and absorption (Hypothesis 1a). Conversely, we expect negative associations between
self-alienation and work engagement, vigor, dedication, and absorption (Hypothesis 1b).
Moreover, we expect that accepting external influence shows a negative relationship
with work engagement, vigor, dedication, and absorption (Hypothesis 1c).
Burnout is a condition described by emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and a reduced
experienced level of personal accomplishment (Maslach, 1993). The first aspect, emo-
tional exhaustion, refers to depletion of mental resources. The second aspect, cynicism,
refers to a distant or indifferent attitude to one’s work in general. The third aspect of
burnout, personal accomplishment, refers to a lack of professional efficacy and the
tendency to evaluate one’s work negatively. Contrary to work engagement, burnout
is mostly associated with negative work outcomes. Workers who experience burnout
symptoms show lower levels of job satisfaction, are less committed to the organiza-
tion, show higher levels of turnover intention, and generally perform worse than other
employees (Maslach et al., 2001; Van Beek et al., 2012).

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes 51
 As for the possible relation between authenticity and burnout, people who feel more
authentic at work are expected to stay closer to their core self and to feel less detached
from their own values and beliefs. Therefore, they will show lower levels of cynicism.
Moreover, employees who experience authenticity at work fit better at their job. They will
therefore be more energetic and experience lower levels of emotional exhaustion than
employees who feel inauthentic at work. Consequently, we expect a negative relationship
between authenticity at work and burnout. Specifically, we expect that authentic living
shows a negative relationship with emotional exhaustion and cynicism, and a positive
relationship with personal accomplishment (Hypothesis 2a). In accordance with this no-
tion we expect self-alienation to show a positive correlation with emotional exhaustion
and cynicism, and a negative correlation with personal accomplishment (Hypothesis 2b).
Accepting external influence will show a positive relationship with emotional exhaustion
and cynicism, and a negative relationship with personal accomplishment (Hypothesis 2c).
Previous research (cf. Ménard & Brunet, 2011; Toor & Ofori, 2009) showed positive
relations between authenticity and job satisfaction. Individuals who can stay close to
their core self at work and can stay in touch with their selves, show higher levels of
job satisfaction than employees who feel detached from their core self. In line with
these findings, we expect that the perceived level of authenticity at work will show a
positive correlation with job satisfaction. Specifically, we expect authentic living to show
a positive correlation with job satisfaction (Hypothesis 3a). Conversely, self-alienation

Figure 3.1 Schematic representation of the hypothesized associations between

authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes controlled for demo-
graphics and work characteristics.

52 Chapter III
will show a negative correlation with job satisfaction (Hypothesis 3b), and accepting ex-
ternal influence will show a negative correlation as well with job satisfaction (Hypothesis
3c). Figure 3.1 presents an overview of the study hypotheses.

In-role performance and turnover intention

The relationship between the two work outcomes, in-role performance and turnover
intention are investigated in relation to authenticity at work. Previous research on au-
thenticity and performance showed a positive relation between both variables (cf. Han-
nah et al., 2011). In-role performance is based on the introspection of the employees
Chapter

iii
about their performance and is therefore an evaluation of one’s perception. Chatman’s
model of Person-Organization fit (1989) focuses specifically on the fit between a per-
son’s values and the values of the organization. A better fit between the person’s values
and those of the organization will enhance their performance (cf. O’Reilly, Chatman, &
Caldwell, 1991). Authentic workers are expected to fit their job better than inauthentic
workers and might therefore show higher levels of performance. Thus, we expect that
authenticity at work is positively associated with in-role performance. Specifically, we
expect authentic living to show a positive relationship with in-role performance (Hypoth-
esis 4a). Conversely, we expect self-alienation and accepting external influence to show
negative relationships with in-role performance (Hypothesis 4b-c).
Turnover intention is a proxy of the probability that an employee will leave the or-
ganization voluntarily. Schneider’s attraction-selection-attrition theory (1987) proposes
that employees who do not fit the organization they work for will eventually leave this
organization. The result of the poor fit between the person and organization is thus
manifested in a higher turnover intention (Schneider, Goldstein & Smith, 1995). Since
high levels of authenticity signify a good fit between the worker and the organization,
authenticity at work should be negatively related with turnover intention. Specifi-
cally, we expect a negative association between turnover intention and authentic living
(Hypothesis 5a), a positive association between self-alienation and turnover intention
(Hypothesis 5b), and a negative association between external influence and turnover
intention (Hypothesis 5c).

The present study

Using data from 685 workers, the current study examines the role of perceived authen-
ticity at work in predicting well-being and work outcomes, controlling for relevant work
characteristics and background variables. Previous research using the person-centered
conceptualization of authenticity showed that people who feel more authentic and who
stay closer to their core self, show more positive signs of well-being than others (cf.
Wood et al., 2008). Based on these findings, we expect that state authenticity at work

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes 53
 will account for a significant amount of variance of well-being and work outcomes, even
after controlling for relevant job characteristics and demographic variables. Specifically,
we expect an increase in explained variance for the following outcomes: work engage-
ment, vigor, dedication, absorption, cynicism, emotional exhaustion, personal accom-
plishment, job satisfaction, in-role performance, and turnover intention. These variables
were selected because they represent various facets of occupational well-being: motiva-
tion (engagement, dedication, cynicism), affect (vigor, job satisfaction, exhaustion),
cognition (personal accomplishment), and (proxies of) behavior (absorption, in-role
performance, and turnover intention) (cf. Van Horn, Taris, Schaufeli & Schreurs, 2004).
Moreover, our study included three work characteristics: job demands, job control/
autonomy, and social support. Karasek and Theorell (1990) argue that these three
characteristics are central aspects of any work situation. Reviews of the literature based
on this theory provided longitudinal evidence for causal relations between these work
characteristics and well-being (e.g. De Lange et al., 2003). For instance, employees
who experience high job demands, low control, and low support report lower levels of
satisfaction and feel more often exhausted. Moreover, these reviews have shown that
the main effects of demands, control, and support on work outcomes are often sup-
ported, but these variables rarely interact with each other and, if present, account for an
only limited part of the variance in the outcome variables (cf. Taris, 2006). For simplicity
and based on these findings, the current study did not examine the moderation effects
of job demands, job control, and support.

METHOD

Participants
Six hundred and eighty-five Dutch employees contributed data to the current study.
About half of the participants (N = 302) were contacted through two online communities,
focusing on human resource professionals and primary school teachers, respectively. The
purpose of the study was briefly explained, followed by a link leading to the first page of
an online survey. This page again explained the purpose of the survey, emphasized that
participation was voluntary and that confidentiality was guaranteed, and that comple-
tion of the questionnaire would take about 15 minutes. As an incentive to stimulate
participation, participants were informed that from the overall pool of participants, 5
participants would randomly be selected and be offered the opportunity to participate
in a free, online “E-assessment” which would give them a thorough view of their own
personality. This E-assessment was unrelated to the present study. Finally, participants

54 Chapter III
who indicated that they worked fewer than 20 hours per week were considered not
eligible for this study; their data were excluded from further analysis.
The remaining participants (N = 383) were contacted through the organizations
they worked for. Fifteen organizations were invited to participate in the study, eight of
which eventually agreed to participate. All employees of these organizations (N = 814)
received an email at their home/work email addresses with the request to fill in the
online survey. Two weeks after the first email a reminder was sent. The format of this
survey was identical to the survey taken by the members of the online communities.
Three hundred and eighty-five employees fully completed the online survey. The aver-
Chapter

iii
age response rate across these eight organizations was 51 percent, ranging from 31
percent up to 80 percent, thus exceeding the lower threshold for acceptable response
rate (of 26.2 %) proposed by Baruch and Holtom (2008).
The total sample (N = 685) consisted of 64% women versus 36% men. The average
age was 42 years (SD = 11.0), ranging from 19 to 69 years. Due to the nature of
the data (a convenience sample), many participants (75%) held a BA or MA degree.
Therefore, the present sample is not representative for the Dutch working population.

Measures
Authenticity. Authenticity was measured with the short version of the Individual Authen-
ticity Measure at Work (IAM Work; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2013). The IAM Work taps the
three dimensions of authenticity proposed by Barrett-Lennard (1998): authentic living,
self-alienation, and accepting external influence. All three dimensions consist of four
items each. Participants were instructed to keep in mind their most recent work situation
for the past four weeks. They then indicated how much each statement applied to them
at work, using a 7-point rating scale (1 = “does not describe me at all, 7 = “describes me
very well”). Example items are: “At work, I always stand by what I believe in” (authentic
living); “I don’t feel who I truly am at work” (self-alienation); and “At work, I feel the
need to do what others expect me to do” (accepting external influence). In a companion
study, Van den Bosch and Taris (2013) examined the factorial validity of the IAM Work.
Using confirmatory factor analysis, their study cross-validated the three-factor structure
for the individual authenticity measure at work, showing that the three-factor model
of authenticity fitted the data well (CFI = .95; RMSEA = .05 (90% confidence interval
.03-.06)). For more details on the psychometric properties of the IAM Work we refer to
Van den Bosch and Taris (2014).
Work engagement. Work engagement was assessed with the short version of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010). The short UWES
contains three underlying dimensions of work engagement: vigor, dedication, and
absorption. All three dimensions include three items each. Example items are: “At my

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes 55
 work, I feel bursting with energy” (vigor); “My job inspires me” (dedication); and “I feel
happy when I am working intensely” (absorption) (0 = “never”, 6 = “always”).
Burnout. Burnout was assessed with the Dutch version (Schaufeli & Van Dieren-
donck, 2000) of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS; Schaufeli,
Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996). The MBI-GS consist of fifteen items divided across
three subscales: emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and personal accomplishment. Typical
items are: “I feel emotionally drained from my work” (emotional exhaustion); “I doubt
the significance of my work” (cynicism); “In my opinion, I am good at my job” (personal
accomplishment) (0 = “never”, 6 = “every day”).
Work characteristics. Three work characteristics were included in this study. Quanti-
tative work demands were measured with the 7-item job demands scale of the Copen-
hagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) (Kristensen & Borg, 2003). An example
item is: “Do you have to work very fast?”. Job control/autonomy was assessed with
three items from Karasek’s Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek, Brisson, Kawakami,
Houtman, Bongers, & Amick, 1998). An example item is: “Do you have freedom in
carrying out your work activities?”. Finally, social support was assessed with four items
from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) (Kristensen & Borg, 2003),
including “How often do you get help and support from your colleagues?”. All items were
rated on a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = “almost never”, 5 = “almost always”).
In-role performance. Employee in-role performance was measured using the task-
based job performance measure of Goodman and Syvantek (1999). An example item is:
“I achieve the objectives of my job” (1 = “does not apply to me at all”, 5 = “Always or
almost applies to me”).
Turnover intention. Turnover intention was assessed by two items previously used
by Van Ryn and Vinokur (1992). An example item is: “I am thinking about leaving my
job”. Both items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 = “almost never” and 5
= “almost always”.
Overall job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was measured with the item “Overall,
I am satisfied with my job” (1 = “totally disagree”, 7 = “totally agree”). Wanous, Reich-
ers, and Hudy (1997) performed a meta-analysis of single-item measures of overall job
satisfaction, showing that such single-item measures are usually acceptable but more
economical alternatives for multi-item measures of that concept.
Demographic variables. In order to control for demographic aspects of the partici-
pants we included three control variables: gender, age, and educational level. Educa-
tional level was presented as a multiple choice question with six options ranging from 1
(primary education only) to 6 (MA or PhD degree).

56 Chapter III
 Table 3.1 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α), and correlations for the total
sample (N = 685).

Variable M SD α (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

(1) Authenticity 5.33 0.74 .79 -

(2) Authentic Living 5.71 0.89 .75 .68 -

(3) Self-Alienation 1.97 1.11 .84 -.82 -.43 -

(4) Accepting external influence 3.74 1.06 .66 -.68 -.14 .31 -

(5) Work engagement 5.35 0.98 .93 .39 .34 -.43 -.09 -

(6) Vitality 5.28 1.01 .87 .39 .32 -.41 -.12 .89 -

(7) Dedication 5.60 1.14 .90 .38 .31 -.45 -.07 .93 .75 -

(8) Absorption 5.17 1.10 .78 .28 .28 -.30 -.04 .90 .67 .75 -

(9) Cynicism 2.64 1.29 .83 -.46 -.22 .54 .21 -.59 -.56 -.62 -.42 -

(10) Emotional exhaustion 2.81 1.29 .89 -.46 -.20 .50 .27 -.45 -.54 -.41 -.27 .62 -

(11) Personal accomplishment 5.53 0.74 .77 .39 .34 -.38 -.14 .64 .57 .61 .55 -.40 -.29 -

(12) Work demands 2.92 0.76 .86 -.14 -.09 .14 .07 -.11 -.16 -.09 -.05 .20 .39 -.11 -

(13) Autonomy 3.75 0.78 .78 .37 .27 -.39 -.15 .37 .35 .36 .31 -.36 -.36 .32 -.12 -

(14) Social support 3.61 0.94 .86 .23 .13 -.30 -.06 .23 .22 .26 .15 -.37 -.32 .18 -.24 .36 -

(15) Turnover intention 2.37 1.13 .96 -.31 -.19 .36 .12 -.42 -.39 -.47 -.28 .58 .36 -.21 .13 -.28 -.23 -

(16) In-role performance 3.76 0.50 .81 .27 .30 -.21 -.09 .38 .36 .33 .35 -.18 -.17 .55 .02 .18 .04 .04 -

(17) Overall job satisfaction 5.48 1.44 - .35 .24 -.46 -.04 .65 .58 .70 .48 -.64 -.46 .45 -.19 .30 .32 -.54 .19

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:
Note. Correlations of .09 are significant at p < .05, correlations of .11 are significant at p < .01.

57
iii
Chapter
 Statistical analysis
Table 3.1 presents the intercorrelations, means, standard deviations, and internal consis-
tency statistics (Cronbach’s alpha) for the study variables. All reliability statistics showed
a fair to good internal consistency (Nunnally, 1994). To test the study hypotheses the
data were analyzed using hierarchical regression analysis. Preliminary inspection of the
data revealed that our data were normally distributed. For all variables, skewnesses
were smaller than 2 and levels of kurtosis were below 7 (Finney & DiStefano, 2006). For
each dependent variable two blocks of predictor variables were entered. The first block
contained the demographic variables (gender, age, educational level) and the work
characteristics (work demands, autonomy, social support). The second block included
the three dimensions of authenticity; authentic living, self-alienation, and accepting
external influence. In this way we could examine whether the dimensions of authenticity
accounted for additional variance in the dependent variables, beyond what was already
accounted for by demographic background variables and important work characteristics.

RESULTS

Table 3.2 presents the standardized effect estimates (betas) for the 10 separate hier-
archical regression analyses (one for each outcome variable). In all analyses, inclusion
of the authenticity dimensions authentic living, self-alienation, and accepting external
influence in the second block accounted for a significant increase of the amount of vari-
ance explained in the criterion variables. On average, the three authenticity dimensions
accounted for an additional 11% of the outcome variables, beyond what was already
accounted for by the work characteristics and background variables.

58 Chapter III
 Table 3.2 Results of a series of ten hierarchical regression analysis (N = 685). Effects are standardized betas.

Work engagement Vitality Dedication Absorption In-role performance

M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2

Gender -.04 -.05 -.05 -.06 -.05 -.06 .00 -.01 -.13** -.13***

Age .05 .00 .10** .05 .06 .02 -.02 -.06 .03 -.03

Education -.08 -.11** -.12** -.15*** -.06 -.09** -.04 -.06 .09* .07

Work demands -.03 -.01 -.08* -.05 -.01 .02 .00 .02 .02 .04

Autonomy .33*** .21*** .30*** .19*** .30*** .18*** .30*** .21*** .17*** .09*

Social support .12** .06 .13** .07 .17*** .10** .04 .00 -.01 -.04

Authentic living .17*** .15*** .13*** .17*** .25***

Self-alienation -.28*** -.26*** -.33*** -.18*** -.08

Accepting external influence .07 .03 .09* .06 -.02

∆R ² .11*** .10*** .12*** .07*** .07***

R² .16*** .28*** .17*** .27*** .16*** .28*** .10*** .16*** .06*** .13***

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:
59
iii
Chapter
60
(table continues overleaf)

Chapter III
Emotional Personal
Cynicism exhaustion accomplishment Turnover intention Job satisfaction

M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2

Gender .03 .04 .06 .07* -.07 -.08* .01 .02 -.06 -.08*

Age .00 .05 -.09* -.04 .07 .02 -.14*** -.10** -.02 -.05

Education .09* .11*** .01 .03 -.02 -.05 .13*** .15*** -.07 -.09**

Work demands .10** .07* .31*** .28*** -.05 -.03 .05 .03 -.10** -.08*

Autonomy -.27*** -.14*** -.25*** -.14*** .28*** .17*** -.17*** -.08* .22*** .10**

Social support -.26*** -.18*** -.18*** -.11** .08* .03 -.19*** -.14*** .23*** .15***

Authentic living .02 .05 .20*** -.02 .06

Self-alienation .43*** .36*** -.21*** .28*** -.38***

Accepting external influence .05 .11*** .00 -.01 .11***

∆R ² .16*** .13*** .10*** .07*** .13***

R² .22*** .37*** .28*** .41*** .12*** .22*** .13*** .19*** .16*** .29***

Note. M1 = model with only demographic variables and job characteristics as predictors, M2 = model with three subscales of authenticity added as predictors.
* p <.05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001.
Taking a closer look at the work engagement construct, we see that authentic living
showed positive relations with work engagement (β = .17), vigor (β = .15), dedication
(β = .13), and absorption (β = .17) (Hypothesis 1a supported). Moreover, self-alienation
was negatively associated with engagement (β = -.28), vigor (β = -.26), dedication (β
= -.33), and absorption (β = -.18) (Hypothesis 1b supported). Interestingly, accepting
external influence showed a small positive, rather than the expected negative association
with dedication (β = .09, p < .05). Finally, accepting external influence showed no signifi-
cant relationship with work engagement, vigor, and absorption (Hypothesis 1c rejected).
Focusing on burn-out, in line with Hypothesis 2a we found a significant positive
Chapter

iii
association between authentic living and personal accomplishment (β = .20). However,
the relations between authentic living on the one hand and cynicism, and emotional
exhaustion on the other were not significant (Hypothesis 2a partly supported). Self-
alienation showed strong positive associations with cynicism (β = .43) and emotional
exhaustion (β = .36), and a negative association with personal accomplishment (β =
-.21) (Hypothesis 2b supported). Finally, accepting external influence showed a positive
relationship with emotional exhaustion (β = .11), but not on cynicism and personal
accomplishment (Hypothesis 2c partly supported).
As regards job satisfaction, turnover intention and in-role performance, we found
a positive relationship between authentic living and in-role performance (β = .25)
(Hypothesis 4a supported), but no significant associations between turnover intention
and job satisfaction (Hypothesis 3a and 5a not supported). Self-alienation showed a
positive relationship with turnover intention (β = .28) and a negative relationship with
job satisfaction (β = -.38) (Hypothesis 5b and 3b supported); however, the expected
effect on in-role performance was not found (Hypothesis 4b not supported). Contrary
to our expectations, accepting external influence showed no significant associations
with turnover intention and in-role performance (Hypothesis 4c and 5c not supported).
Contrary to our expectations, accepting external influence showed a positive associa-
tion with job satisfaction (β = .11) (Hypothesis 3c not supported). As aforementioned,
accepting external influence showed a small positive, rather than the expected negative
association with dedication, and accepting external influence also showed a positive
association with job satisfaction. Looking at the correlations presented in Table 3.2 we
notice that accepting external influence is negatively correlated with job satisfaction and
dedication. The reversed positive beta weights in the multiple regression analyses are
therefore probably the result of suppressor effects.
In order to judge the relative importance of the three subscales of authenticity we
conducted an additional post-hoc analysis. We therefore calculated the mean R² of the
three subscales of authenticity for all of the study variables (work engagement, personal
accomplishment, job satisfaction, cynicism, emotional exhaustion, turnover intention,

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes 61
 and in-role performance). Averaged across the study variables, authentic living, self-
alienation, and accepting external influence accounted for 2.1%, 8.8%, and 0.4% of
the variance of these study variables, respectively, showing that self-alienation is the
dimension that is most strongly related to the other study concepts.

DISCUSSION

The present study focused on a state measure of authenticity at work as a predictor

of work outcomes, controlling for working conditions and demographic variables. Draw-
ing on data from 685 participants a series of 10 hierarchical regression analyses were
conducted, examining whether authenticity at work accounted for a significant part of the
variance in well-being (work engagement, burnout, and job satisfaction) as well as other
work outcomes (turnover intention and in-role performance). Whereas other research on
authenticity mainly used trait-based and general-purpose measures of authenticity (cf.
Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood et al., 2008), the current study employed a state-based
measure of authenticity that was explicitly developed for use in the work context. Our
findings suggest that the tripartite construct of authenticity at work adds substantial value
and accounts for a substantial amount of variance in predicting well-being (11.5% on av-
erage) and work outcomes (7.0% on average) controlled for relevant work characteristics.
The four most interesting findings of this research are the following. First, the ∆R²
change values ranged from .07 for turnover intention and absorption, up to .16 for cyni-
cism. These figures show that the concept of authenticity at work has a larger impact on
well-being than on work outcomes such as in-role performance and turnover intention.
This is reflected in the beta values, which are larger for the well-being constructs as
compared to in-role performance and turnover intention. These findings suggest that
authenticity at work is more important for employee well-being than for other types of
outcomes. Yet, even the figure of 7% additional variance would seem to be of practical
importance to organizations, underlining the relevance of the authenticity concept for
organizational research.
Second, the strongest (and apparently central) construct of the person-centered
concept of authenticity at work is self-alienation. Its importance is reflected in the
strength of the relationships of this dimension, vis-à-vis the relationships of the other
two authenticity dimensions. The absolute beta weights of self-alienation ranged from
.18 for the absorption up to .43 for cynicism. These findings are in line with Barrett-
Lennard (1998), who argued that the tripartite construct of authenticity is centered
around the consistency between an individual’s primary experience and their symbolized
awareness - i.e., self-alienation (cf. Yalom, 1980).

62 Chapter III
 Third, taking a closer look at the three dimensions of authenticity at work we notice
that authentic living shows significant results only with the positive work outcomes such
as work engagement and personal accomplishment. For the negative work outcomes
(such as emotional exhaustion and cynicism), the beta weights of authentic living were
almost zero. Authentic living reflects the extent to which employees can act in accor-
dance with their own values and beliefs at work. Our results indicate that if employees
can work in accordance with their beliefs, this will increase the likelihood of experienc-
ing positive outcomes. Employees feel more engaged, think more positive about their
achievements at work (i.e., personal accomplishment), and perceive higher levels of
Chapter

iii
in-role performance. Earlier research concerning person-organization fit (O’Reilly et al.,
1991) found that the congruence between an individual’s values and the values of the
organization was positively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment,
and negatively to turnover. However, our results suggest that not living in accordance
with their own values and beliefs is not necessarily reflected in negative well-being
outcomes, as indicated by the insignificant associations of authentic living with cynicism
and emotional exhaustion. In this sense, a decrease of the level of authentic living may
not immediately translate in lower well-being.
Finally, accepting external influence showed only two significant relationships,
namely with emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction. Employees who accept to some
extent more external influence, behave in a manner that others want them to behave.
Complying with others’ demands may drain one’s resources, meaning that such workers
might feel more exhausted than others. Conversely, they also experience higher levels
of satisfaction with their work. It is possible that meeting others’ demands results in
gratitude from these others, which could increase job satisfaction.

Study limitations
Four main limitations of the present study warrant further discussion. The first concerns
the cross-sectional design of the present study. We were therefore unable to determine
long-term or causal effects of authenticity at work, well-being and work outcomes.
However, the main purpose of this study was to shed light on the relations between
authenticity at work on the one hand and well-being and other work outcomes on the
other. Although we could not provide evidence on the causal direction of relations, the
results provide a fair amount of evidence for theoretically interpretable associations be-
tween authenticity at work, well-being and work outcomes. In this light more research
on authenticity at work as an antecedent of well-being and other work outcomes is
warranted.
Secondly, the sample used in the present study was a convenience sample. Employ-
ees with a higher educational level where relatively overrepresented (76% of the sample

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes 63
 held a BA or MA degree). Therefore the external validity is limited to only employees
working in business services. Moreover, the restriction-of-range effects that are due to
the limited variability in educational level might have led to conservative effect estimates,
not only for level of education but also for other variables associated with this concept.
Thirdly, all data in the present study were obtained using self-reports, which means
that common method variance (CMV) might have influenced our findings. However, the
bias due to this phenomenon should not be overestimated. Spector (2006) argued that
suggesting that CMV per definition overestimates the associations among variables is an
oversimplification of the state of affairs and may be considered a methodological “urban
legend. Further, Table 3.1 presents the correlations between the included variables in
the current study”. If CMV would apply, it would result in upward-biased intercorrela-
tions among all study variables. However, the correlations in Table 3.1 follow a variable
pattern and although our sample was relatively large (N = 685), we still found several
correlations that were almost zero. Thus, we conclude that CMV did not (or at least not
substantially) bias our findings.
Finally, the present study did not include the original measure of general, dispo-
sitional authenticity developed by Wood et al. (2008). It can be expected that their
general measure of dispositional authenticity will relate positively to state authenticity
at work, and the variables under study in the current research. Future research may
shed light on this issue.

Practical and theoretical implications

In spite of these limitations, the present research has several practical and theoretical
implications. The current study showed that authenticity at work is related to well-being
and work outcomes, even after controlling for work characteristics and demographic
variables. Although it is unclear whether these associations can be interpreted causally,
they do suggest that adverse scores on authenticity can at least be seen as a “warning
sign” for an unfavorable work situation, both on the individual and the work group level.
Apparently, state conceptualizations of authenticity at work can be used as a screening
instrument to identify departments with high numbers of employees reporting low levels
of authenticity, in which case interventions may be developed to prevent or reduce
negative work outcomes.
The most important theoretical implication of this study concerns the role of au-
thenticity at work in predicting well-being. This study provided preliminary evidence
concerning authenticity at work as an antecedent of well-being or the absence thereof,
for example in terms of levels of work engagement and burnout. Therefore the person-
centered conceptualization of authenticity at work should be recognized as a possibly
relevant concept in current work stress models, and a more systematic examination of

64 Chapter III
this concept might add some interesting and important insights concerning the nature
and emergence of employee well-being.

Future research
Considering future research, two topics are of special interest. Firstly, although the
present study provided preliminary evidence on the relations between authenticity at
work, well-being and work outcomes, their causal linkages remain to be investigated.
Longitudinal research will provide stronger evidence for such relations and yields the
opportunity to study actual behaviors (e.g. absenteeism and performance). Moreover,
Chapter

iii
such research will provide more insights whether experienced authenticity at work
indeed varies as a function of dynamic work conditions, and can therefore be seen
as a state conceptualization (cf. Van den Bosch & Taris, 2013) rather than a trait-like
conceptualization of authenticity (cf. Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood et al. 2008).
Secondly, the present study showed that the concept of authenticity at work was
more strongly associated with well-being than with work outcomes. A study by Wright,
Cropanzano, and Bonett (2007) provided insight in the happy-productive worker hy-
pothesis. Their results showed that job satisfaction as well as psychological well-being
were related to performance scores. Since the association between authenticity at work
and work outcomes was weaker than that between authenticity at work and well-being,
the relationship between authenticity at work and work outcomes might be mediated
by concepts of psychological well-being. Further research concerning the happy-worker
hypothesis and authenticity might expand the current model and might reveal that
relations between authenticity at work and for example performance is mediated by
well-being. The happy-worker hypothesis provides a clear framework for investigating
the mediating role of well-being.

Concluding remarks
The present study was designed to shed light on the associations among a state-based
measure of authenticity on the one hand, and various work outcomes and well-being on
the other. The contribution of this study to current knowledge is twofold. First, it clearly
demonstrates that state-like conceptualizations of authenticity at work are important
correlates (and, perhaps, antecedents) of well-being at work and – to a somewhat
lesser degree – other work outcomes. Second, these findings provide further evidence
for the validity of the measure used – a recently developed measure of state authenticity
at work. Both sets of findings suggest that further research on the concept of authentic-
ity at work is warranted and could provide interesting and potentially important insights
in the antecedents of employee functioning at work.

The authentic worker’s well-being and performance:

The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes 65
Chapter IV
Authenticity at work:
5
A matter of fit?

5
Based on: Van den Bosch, R. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., Peeters, M. C. W., & Reijse-
ger, G. (submitted). Authenticity at work: A matter of fit? Utrecht: Utrecht University,
Department of Social, Health and Organizational Psychology. Author Van den Bosch de-
signed the study, analyzed the data and interpreted the results, and wrote the first draft
of the manuscript. Author Schaufeli interpreted the results and provided comments on
the manuscript. Author Taris co-designed the study, interpreted the results and edited
the manuscript. Authors Peeters and Reijseger collected the data.

Authenticity at work:
A matter of fit? 67
 Abstract
Authenticity at work is loosely defined as the extent to which an individual feels
in touch with their true self at work. At first sight the concept of authenticity
at work seems to have some overlap with the concept of P-E fit, which is loosely
defined as the extent to which an individual fits their environment. Employing
the two-step-approach proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the current
research investigated (i) the distinctiveness of authenticity at work and P-E fit,
and (ii) the unique relationships of authenticity at work and P-E fit with employee
well-being. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that authenticity at work and
P-E fit are empirically distinct from each other. Results indicated that the mediated
effect of authenticity at work was stronger for the negative forms of well-being
(burnout and boredom) as compared to the positive forms of well-being (work
engagement and job satisfaction). In the light of these findings theoretical and
practical implications are discussed.

68 Chapter IV
Ever since its introduction, the concept of authenticity (i.e., the degree to which a
person acts in agreement with one’s true self) has received notable attention, and
clinical psychologists such as Carl Rogers (1961, 1965) consider it the primary condition
that leads to self-actualization and optimal well-being. Authenticity has been found to be
relevant in industrial and organizational psychology (e.g., Menard, 2008; Toor & Ofori,
2009; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). Recently, the general,
tripartite measure of trait authenticity proposed by Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, and
Joseph (2008) was adapted by Van den Bosch and Taris (2014a) for use in the work
context as a state measure of authenticity. Van den Bosch and Taris construe state
authenticity at work as a subjectively experienced phenomenon that emerges when
there is a strong congruence (or “fit”) between a person and his/her work environment.
This reasoning suggests that it is important to examine the link between authenticity on
the one hand, and the concept of person-environment fit (P-E fit) on the other. P-E fit is
Chapter

iv
loosely defined as the congruence among an individual and his or her work environment
that results when both match (Edwards, 2008). One basic distinction in P-E fit research
is that between complementary fit (i.e. a person’s characteristics “complete” the envi-
ronment or add to it what is missing, Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011) and supplementary
fit (which is characterized by the similarity between person and environment, Muchinsky
& Monahan, 1987). In the case of authenticity, the latter type of P-E fit would seem
most relevant.
Both authenticity at work and P-E fit are related to aspects of employee well-being.
For example, Van den Bosch and Taris (2014b) showed that authenticity accounted for
an additional thirteen percent of the variance in well-being after controlling for relevant
work characteristics, and for an additional ten percent of the variance of other work out-
comes, such as performance and turnover intention. The P-E fit literature also includes
a considerable body of research on the relation between P-E fit, well-being, and work
outcomes. For instance, several meta-analyses showed that P-E fit and well-being are
positively related (e.g. Edwards, 1991; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).
Good fit, independently of which type of fit construct is used, leads in general to positive
outcomes for both the person and the organization (Oh, Guay, Kim, Harold, Lee, Heo,
et al., 2013). However, at present no research has examined the effects of authenticity
at work and P-E fit simultaneously in predicting well-being. The current research was
designed to address this gap, by (i) examining the distinctiveness of authenticity at
work and P-E fit; do these concepts overlap or are they distinct constructs? and (ii)
examining the unique relationships of both constructs with employee well-being (i.e.,
work engagement, burnout, job satisfaction, and boredom). By focusing on these two
topics the present study provides novel insights into the growing body of knowledge on
the role of authenticity at work.

Authenticity at work:
A matter of fit? 69
 Authenticity at work
Researchers differ in how they operationalize the concept of authenticity. Some research-
ers treat authenticity as a trait-like phenomenon, whereas others consider authenticity
a state-like concept. Trait conceptualizations of authenticity refer to a temporally stable
disposition that is unlikely to change much across time or situations (e.g., Kernis & Gold-
man, 2006; Wood et al., 2008). In contrast, state-based conceptualizations assume that
authenticity results from the congruence between the person and the specific environ-
ment in which (s)he operates (cf. Barrett-Lennard, 1998; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014a).
Because work environments change, the degree of congruence between the person and
his/her environment (i.e., their experienced authenticity) changes as well. Since we are
interested in authenticity at work – a specific environment that is open to change – we
employ a state conceptualization of this concept to investigate the associations between
authenticity at work, P-E fit, and well-being. The basic assumption in this study is that
when the work environment is – according to workers’ own assessment – more congru-
ent with their self, higher levels of authenticity are likely to occur.

Person-centered concept of authenticity at work

In his seminal work on the self, Barrett-Lennard (1998) pointed to three inner con-
sistencies: a person’s primary subjective experience, their symbolized awareness, and
their outward behavior and communication. Hence, authenticity at work includes three
dimensions: self-alienation, authentic living, and accepting external influence (Wood et
al., 2008). Van den Bosch and Taris (2014a) based their three-dimensional measure of
subjective authenticity on Wood et al.’s conceptualization and developed a situation-
specific (in this case, the work environment) state-based measure of authenticity.
The first dimension of authenticity, self-alienation, is the subjective experience
of “not knowing who one is” at work. This dimension refers to employees who feel
out of touch with their core self at work. High levels of self-alienation are associated
with psychopathology (cf. Wood et al., 2008). Employees who do not feel alienated
at work will show higher levels of experienced authenticity. The second dimension of
authenticity, authentic living, refers to the degree to which employees are true to their
selves in most situations at work and act in accordance with their personal values and
beliefs. Employees who engage in work activities that fit their own values and beliefs are
characteristic for this dimension, and will show high levels of experienced authenticity.
The third dimension of authenticity refers to the extent to which an individual accepts
external influence of others and believes that (s)he meets the expectations of others.
According to Schmid (2005), self-alienation and authentic living are influenced by the
social environment. Accepting external influence (i.e., being subjected to situational
forces) would therefore affect subjective feelings of self-alienation as well as the experi-

70 Chapter IV
ence of authentic living. An optimal level of experienced authenticity is reached when
an employee experiences low levels of self-alienation, high levels of authentic living, and
low levels of accepting external influence.
A recent study revealed that authenticity at work accounted for a substantial amount
of explained variance in predicting well-being (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014b). This
research showed that feelings of alienation and not staying close to oneself at work
were related to higher levels of burnout (i.e., exhaustion and cynicism). In contrast,
experiencing authenticity at work was positively associated with work engagement (i.e.,
vigor, dedication, and absorption), and satisfaction. Apparently, if workers stay close to
their selves at work and participate in activities that are in line with their core and inner
self, they do not lose energy in pretending something or someone they are not, and
consequently they will experience lower levels of burnout. On the other hand, if workers
stay close to their self and are able to engage in work activities that suit their core and
Chapter

iv
inner self they will feel engaged and satisfied.

P-E fit
P-E fit is a topic that has at present continued to interest managers and researchers
for more than an entire century. Since Parsons (1909) ushered the P-E fit era with
his matching model of career decision-making, it was almost four decades later that
Lewin (1951) introduced the currently well-known formula B = f(P,E). According to this
formula, behavior (B) is a function of the person (P) and the environment (E). Building
on the seminal work of Parsons and Lewin, a large body of literature attests to the
relevance of P-E fit theory for industrial and organization psychology (e.g., Edwards,
2008; Kristof-Brown, 2005). The P-E fit literature distinguishes between several forms
of fit: Person × Environment interactions, Person-Vocation fit, Person-Job fit, Person-
Organization fit, Person-Group fit, and Person-Supervisor fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).
Moreover, Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) proposed that there are two basic types of
person-environment fit congruencies: supplementary fit and complementary fit. Supple-
mentary fit or congruence occurs “when a person fits into some environmental context
because he or she supplements, embellishes, or possesses characteristics which are
similar to other individuals in this environment” (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987, p. 269).
Good fit occurs when an individual is to a large degree similar to other people in his or
her environment. Supplementary fit is therefore characterized by a similarity between
the person and the environment. Complementary fit/congruence is described as the
match between an individual’s talents and the corresponding needs of the environment.
Complementary fit is characterized by the added value of the person to the needs of
the environment. More specifically, the qualities of the individual add substantial value
to and fill the needs of the environment. Meta-analytic findings support the notion

Authenticity at work:
A matter of fit? 71
 that workers who accomplish higher levels of P-E fit hold more positive work attitudes,
show lower levels of turnover intention, and perform better (e.g., Hoffman & Woehr,
2006; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). These findings relate to outcomes for complementary
as well as supplementary fit. However, a study of Piasenten and Chapman (2007) as-
sessed supplementary and complementary fit simultaneously, finding that their effects
on outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment differed. In
addition, Guan, Deng, Risavy, Bond, and Li (2011) found that supplementary fit and
complementary fit showed different effect sizes in relation to affective commitment and
organization citizenship behavior. These studies suggest that the type of fit experienced
by employees is related to the strength of the associations with various well-being and
work outcomes. Therefore, the present study distinguishes between complementary
P-O fit and supplementary P-O and P-J fit.

Well-being
Well-being is a multifaceted construct. To consider the full spectrum of employee well-
being we distinguish between a positive form of well-being, work engagement, and
a negative form of well-being, burnout. In addition, we include job satisfaction and
boredom as two less extreme aspects of positive and negative employee well-being,
respectively. Work engagement is defined by Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, and
Bakker (2002) as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized
by vigor, dedication, and absorption. It refers to a persistent and pervasive affective-
cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior.
Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness
to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence while facing difficulties. Dedication is
characterized by enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge; one feels a sense of
significance. Finally, absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and deeply
engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with
detaching oneself from work. Work engagement is generally associated with positive
work outcomes. Engaged employees experience good health, show higher levels of job
satisfaction, feel more committed to the organization (Schaufeli et al., 2008), perform
better (Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005), and behave proactively (Salanova & Schaufeli,
2008).
Burnout is a negative psychological condition that is characterized by emotional
exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach, 1993). The first
dimension, emotional exhaustion, refers to a lack of mental resources. The second
dimension, cynicism, captures a distant or indifferent attitude to one’s work. Finally,
personal accomplishment refers to a lack of professional efficacy and the tendency to
evaluate one’s work negatively. The first two dimensions, exhaustion and cynicism, are

72 Chapter IV
considered to be the core of the burnout syndrome (Schaufeli & Taris, 2005). Thus
burnout is a form of occupational fatigue that is typified by exhaustion as well as mental
withdrawal. Contrary to work engagement, burnout is associated with negative work
outcomes. Workers who experience higher levels of burnout are less committed to the
organization they work for, are less satisfied with their job, reveal a higher tendency
to leave the organization they work for, and perform worse than average (Maslach,
Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Van Beek et al., 2012). Schaufeli, Taris and Van Rhenen (2008)
provided compelling evidence that burnout and work engagement are two different
kinds of employee well-being.
Boredom is defined as a state of low arousal and dissatisfaction that results from
an understimulating work environment (Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993). Reijseger et
al. (2012) described boredom as a negative affective-motivational state of mind that
results from a work environment that elicits little activity and provides little challenge
Chapter

iv
and pleasure. In this study, bored employees felt that time passed by slowly and felt
little identification with the work activities they engaged in. Moreover, Reijseger et al.
reported that both low job demands and low job resources were associated with higher
levels of boredom at work. Other studies revealed that boredom was positively associ-
ated with psychological distress, higher levels of absenteeism, and lower levels of job
satisfaction (e.g. Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2002; Melamed, Ben-Avi, Luz, & Green,
1995). Watt and Hargis (2010) found that high levels of boredom were associated with
lower levels of job performance. Reijseger et al. (2012) showed that boredom could be
distinguished from other forms of well-being, such as burnout and work engagement.
Finally, job satisfaction is described by Locke (1976) as a positive, pleasurable
emotional state which results from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences. Job
satisfaction is an important indicator of employment quality (Seashore & Taber, 1975),
and has been successfully related to indicators of mental and physical health. For ex-
ample, Faragher, Cass, and Cooper (2005) reported in a meta-analysis of almost 500
studies that job satisfaction was strongly related to mental health. The association
between satisfaction and physical health was more modest, but still significant. Their
results revealed that lower levels of satisfaction are associated with higher levels of
burnout, depression, and anxiety, and lower levels of physical health. As this meta-
analysis shows, job satisfaction is a relevant and important outcome.

The present study

Authenticity and P-E fit

At first sight the concept of authenticity at work and P-E supplementary fit show some
similarity, since they both encompass a form of congruency between the individual and

Authenticity at work:
A matter of fit? 73
 the environment. P-E fit refers to the match between the environment and person.
This match is expected to relate to authenticity: the better the P-E fit, the higher the
feelings of experienced authenticity, and vice versa. Because both constructs to some
degree capture the congruence between the person and the environment, the question
emerges to what extent authenticity at work and P-E fit differ. While authenticity focuses
on experienced feelings of being in touch with one self at work, P-E fit focuses on the
individual’s cognitive assessment whether there is a good match between him or her
and the organization or job. So the difference between authenticity and P-E fit hinges
on the psychological domain; the former is primarily affective in nature, whereas the
latter is primarily cognitive. Based on the different nature of both constructs we expect
authenticity at work and P-E fit (i.e., supplementary fit, divided into P-O fit and P-J fit),
to be distinct (Hypothesis 1).
As described earlier there is a distinction between supplementary and complemen-
tary fit (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Guan et al., 2011). Regardless the nature of the fit, a
positive fit is associated with positive outcomes. Employees perceiving complementary
fit, experience fit as originating from their perception that they possess unique skills
and qualities and therefore add value to the organization they work for. These workers
are cognitively aware of the dissimilarity between them and their job or organization.
Contrariwise, employees experiencing supplementary fit perceive themselves and their
environment as similar. The cognitive awareness of similarity or dissimilarity is expected
to relate to feelings of authenticity at work in a way, employees aware of dissimilarity
will show lower levels of authenticity and employees aware of similarity will show higher
levels of authenticity. Therefore we expect the relation between authenticity at work
and complementary P-O fit to be significantly weaker than the relationship between
authenticity at work and supplementary P-O and P-J fit (Hypothesis 2).

Mediation model
The model under study is presented in Figure 4.1. Employees are assumed to assess the
consistency between their self and the environment. As described previously, the match
between person and environment is also expected to relate to the level of experienced
feelings of authenticity: the better the P-E fit, the higher the feelings of experienced
authenticity. If an employee’s cognitive assessment results in fitting in the working
environment (supplementary fit), and assesses this environment as similar, this should
result in higher levels of authenticity at work. After all, the environment and workers in
it share their common values and therefore the employee does not need to engage in
behavior that does not fit their core authentic self. This cognitive process is expected to
relate positively to subjective feelings of authenticity at work.

74 Chapter IV
Figure 4.1 Heuristic model of the mediation model between P-E fit, authenticity
at work, and well-being.

Previous research on authenticity at work revealed that authentic workers are in-
trinsically motivated and identify fully with their job (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2015).
Conversely, low authentic workers show low levels of identification with their job. Thus,
Chapter

iv
employees high on experienced authenticity identify with their job and stay close to their
core self and can work in accordance with their own norms and values. They do not
lose energy in pretending someone they are not, nor must they deal with difficulties of
not being themselves at work (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014b). This process is expected
to relate to employee well-being. Specifically, we expect authenticity at work to relate
positively to positive forms of well-being (i.e., work engagement and job satisfaction)
and we expect authenticity at work to be negatively related to negative forms of well-
being (i.e., boredom and burnout) (Hypothesis 3).
Person-Environment (P-E) fit theory states that stress arises from incongruence or
misfit (cf. Caplan, 1983; Edwards, Caplan & Harrison, 1998). Larger misfits between
a person and environment will induce lower levels of well-being. Chatman’s model of
Person-Organization fit (1989) focuses specifically on the fit between a person’s values
and the values of the organization. A better match between the person’s values and those
of the organization enhances their performance and well-being (cf. O’Reilly, Chatman, &
Caldwell, 1991). However, based on Chatman’s (1991) model of person-organization fit,
Edwards et al. (1998) theory of P-E fit, and consistent with previous findings concerning
state authenticity at work, we expect authenticity at work to mediate the relationship
between P-E fit and well-being. The cognitive judgment of fit is expected to result in
feelings of authenticity which in time will lead to well-being.

Authenticity at work:
A matter of fit? 75
 METHOD

Participants and Procedure

The present study was conducted among a sample of highly gifted workers. Part of the
sample (approximately 2,000 respondents) was contacted through the Dutch branch
of MENSA, an international society of highly gifted individuals. People can only join
this organization after taking a standardized and valid intelligence test that shows that
their IQ belongs to the top-2% of the population. All members received an email from
the organization which described the purpose and relevance of the study. The email
was accompanied with a link which led directly to the introductory screen of the online
survey. It was emphasized that participation was voluntary and strictly confidential. The
other part of the sample was contacted through several online communities especially
focusing on highly gifted individuals. In order to be included in the present study, the
participants had to report their IQ and fill in the name of IQ test they took. A short
explanation of the aim of the study was provided, followed by link that led directly to the
online survey. The introductory screen explained that participation was confidential and
completely anonymous. These efforts resulted in a total sample of 1,262 highly gifted
participants. The exact response rate could not be computed, since – due to the way of
collecting the data – it was unclear how many eligible workers had been contacted. Part
of the participants (N = 368) were self-employed and were excluded from further analy-
sis. After listwise deletion of observations with missing values the sample contained 867
highly gifted employees, 802 of which were MENSA members.
Of these 867 participants, 383 (44.2%) were female and 484 (55.8%) were male.
Their average age was 41.6 years (sd = 9.36), and on average they had 18.7 years
(sd = 9.67) of work experience. Nearly 46.0 percent of the participants held a master’s
degree, 32.4 percent held a bachelor’s degree, and most of the remaining participants
(21 percent) had completed their intermediate vocational education or had completed
high school only.

Measures
Authenticity at work. Authenticity was measured with the Individual Authenticity Mea-
sure at Work (IAM Work; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014a). The IAM Work taps the
three dimensions of authenticity distinguished by Wood et al. (2008): authentic living,
self-alienation, and accepting external influence. All dimensions include four items each.
Participants were instructed to keep in mind their most recent work position for the
past four weeks. They were then told to indicate how much each statement applied to
them only at work and in no other situation, using a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = “does not
describe me at all, 7 = “describes me very well”). Example items are: “At work, I always

76 Chapter IV
stand by what I believe in” (authentic living, Cronbach’s alpha = .79); “I don’t feel who
I truly am at work” (self-alienation, alpha = .97); and “At work, I feel the need to do
what others expect me to do” (accepting external influence, alpha = .78).
Boredom. Boredom was assessed using the Dutch Boredom Scale (DUBS; Reijseger,
Schaufeli, Peeters, Taris, Van Beek, & Ouweneel, 2012). The scale consists of 6 items,
including “It seems as if my working day never ends” and “At work, time goes by very
slowly” (0 = “never”, 6 = “always”). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) in the
present study was .90.
Burnout. Burnout was measured with two scales, emotional exhaustion and cyni-
cism, of the Dutch version (Schaufeli & Van Dierendonck, 2000) of the Maslach Burnout
Inventory – General Survey (MBI-GS; Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996). The
subscale emotional exhaustion consists of 5 items (e.g., “I feel emotionally drained from
my work”, Cronbachs alpha = .91) and the subscale cynicism consists of four items
Chapter

iv
(such as “I doubt the significance of my work”, alpha = .88). Answer categories ranged
from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“every day”).
Satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was assessed by three items of the Questionnaire
on the Experience and Evaluation of Work (QEEW, Van Veldhoven, De Jonge, Broersen,
Kompier, &Meijman, 2002). An example item is “Overall, I am satisfied with my job” (1
= “totally disagree”, 5 = “totally agree”). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) in
the present study was .94.
Work engagement. Work engagement was assessed with the short version of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010). The short UWES
taps the three aspects of work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption) with
three items each. Example items are: “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” (vigor);
“My job inspires me” (dedication); “I feel happy when I am working intensely” (ab-
sorption) (0 = “never”, 6 = “always”). In the present study, the internal consistencies
(Cronbach’s alpha) for these subscales were .89 for vigor, .90 for dedication, and .82 for
absorption, respectively.
Demographic variables. In order to control for demographic characteristics of the
participants we included four control variables: gender, age, work experience (in years),
and educational level. Educational level was presented as a multiple choice question
with six ordered options, ranging from 0 “primary education” to 6 “academic degree”.
P-E fit. In order to test our hypotheses, we developed an 11-item, direct measure
of perceived P-E fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) consisting of three scales: person-job
(P-J) supplementary fit, person-organization (P-O) supplementary fit, and person-orga-
nization (P-O) complementary fit (cf. Table 4.1 for the items). To examine the factorial
validity of these P-E fit scales, three competing models were tested and compared using
maximum likelihood procedures as implemented in AMOS 18.0 (Arbuckle, 2007). The

Authenticity at work:
A matter of fit? 77
 first model was a one-factor model, with all items loading on this factor. The second
model was a two-factor model, with the complementary items and the supplementary
items as two separate first-order factors. The third model was a three-factor model,
with P-O fit supplementary, P-J fit supplementary, and P-O fit complementary as three
separate factors. The one-factor model did not fit the data well, χ²(df =44, N = 867) =
1,912.69; GFI = .71; RMSEA = .22 (90% confidence interval = .21 - .23); NFI = .69;
CFI = .69. The two-factor model fitted the data better χ²(df =43, N = 867) = 448.48;
GFI = .89; RMSEA = .10 (90% confidence interval = .10 - .11); NFI = .93; CFI = .93.
The difference between the one-factor model and the two-factor model was significant
∆χ²(df = 1, N = 867) = 1,464.21, p< .001. The three-factor model also fitted the data
well, χ²(df =41, N= 867) = 157.34; GFI = .97; RMSEA = .06 (90% confidence interval
= .05 - .07); NFI = .97; CFI = .98, with all fit indices meeting their criteria for good fit
(cf. Byrne, 2010; Kline, 2005). The difference between the two-factor model and the
three-factor model was significant ∆χ²(df = 2, N = 867) = 291.14, p< .001, demonstrat-
ing that the model with three separate P-E fit factors fitted the data best. We therefore
conclude that three separate fit factors (P-O supplementary, P-O complementary, and
P-J supplementary fit) could be distinguished. Table 4.1 presents all items with their
standardized factor loadings as estimated in the three-factor model. Table 4.2 presents
the correlations among the three fit factors. Coefficient alphas were .86 for person-
organization supplementary fit, .88 for person-organization complementary fit, and .90
for Person-work supplementary fit.

Statistical analysis
The mediation model examined in the present study was tested with structural equation
modeling (SEM) using the AMOS 18.0 software (Arbuckle, 2007). Five competing models
were tested and compared using maximum likelihood estimation procedures. Model fit
was evaluated using the χ² statistic, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Normed Fit Index (NFI), and the Comparative
Fit Index (CFI).

Main analysis
In order to test the study hypotheses we applied the two-step approach recommended
by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First we examined whether the concepts of authentic-
ity at work and person-environment fit could be treated as different constructs. To test
this hypothesis, we compared five competing models using confirmatory factor analysis.
The one-factor model (M1) proposed that all items of authenticity and P-E fit would
load on one latent factor. Thus, this model assumed that P-E fit and authenticity are
essentially the same concept.

78 Chapter IV
Table 4.1 Standardized factor loadings of the three-factor model of P-E fit (CFA,
N = 867).

Factor

complementary
supplementary

supplementary
P-O fit

P-O fit
P-J fit
Item

1 I fit my job well .79

2 This job fits all my wishes and desires .86

3 I am still not tired of the job I am doing .81

4 There is a good match between what my job offers me and what I am looking
.87 Chapter

iv
for in a job

5 My organization offers me exactly what I am looking for .89

6 I cannot imagine an organization that would fit me better .77

7 My organization meets all my wishes and desires .80

8 This organization’s culture fits me well .63

9 I am important for my organization since my personal values differ from theirs .74

10 I am valuable for my organization, exactly because I valuable other things .93

11 Due to my divergent ideas I am important for my organization .86

Authenticity at work:
A matter of fit? 79
 The four-factor model (M2) proposed that all items of authenticity loaded on one latent
factor, whereas the items of P-O supplementary fit, P-O complementary fit, and P-J fit
would load on three separate latent factors. For all models with more than one latent
factor we allowed the factors to correlate. The third model was a six-factor model (M3),
with authentic living, self-alienation, accepting external influence, P-O supplementary
fit, P-O complementary fit, and P-J supplementary fit as six separate first-order factors.
The fourth model was a second-order factor model (M4), with three first-order factors
(authentic living, self-alienation, and accepting external influence) loading on a single,
overarching latent factor (i.e., authenticity) and the three other first-order factors (P-O
supplementary fit, P-O complementary fit, and the P-J fit) loading on separate factors.
This model (M4) also tested the relevance of the complementary fit construct in relation
to the concept of authenticity at work (Hypothesis 2). The fifth model was a double
second-order factor model (M5), with the three subscales of authenticity loading a
2nd-order latent factor (authenticity) and the remaining subscales of P-E fit loading on a
second 2nd-order latent factor (P-E fit).
In the second step of our two-step approach we tested two possible models. The
first model was the hypothesized full mediation model (cf. Figure 4.1). In this model the
relationship between P-E fit and the study outcomes was fully mediated by authenticity
at work. The second model was a partial mediation model. In this model the relationship
between P-E fit and the study outcome variables was partially mediated by the concept
of authenticity at work. For the mediation analysis we applied the bootstrapping proce-
dure proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) with the number of bootstrap samples set
at 2,000 and bias-corrected confidence intervals set at 95%. Hypotheses were tested by
comparing the fit indices corresponding with each model. Table 4.2 presents the means,
standard deviations, and correlations among all study variables.

80 Chapter IV
 Table 4.2 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and correlations for the study variables (N = 867).

Variable M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

(1) Age 41.6 9.36 -

(2) Educational level 5.11 1.09 -.05 -

(3) Work experience 18.7 9.67 .89 -.16 -

(4) Gender 1.44 - -.13 .11 -.14 -

(5) Authenticity 4.63 1.02 .11 .05 .11 -.07 -

(6) Authentic living 5.30 1.04 .07 .10 .06 -.05 .76 -

(7) Self-alienation 3.37 1.81 -.08 -.08 -.08 .02 -.85 -.50 -

(8) Accepting influence 4.04 1.17 -.11 .09 -.12 .09 -.63 -.32 .25 -

(9) Work engagement 4.35 1.26 .10 .07 .11 -.05 .58 .44 -.61 -.20 -

(10) Vigor 4.41 1.36 .10 .04 .11 -.06 .58 .42 -.59 -.24 .92 -

(11) Dedication 4.47 1.42 .08 .09 .09 -.05 .60 .44 -.64 -.19 .95 .82 -

(12) Absorption 4.16 1.32 .09 .07 .09 -.04 .43 .36 -.45 -.12 .91 .74 .80 -

(13) Emotional exhaustion 3.19 1.43 -.10 -.03 -.11 .10 -.59 -.36 .59 .32 -.52 -.60 -.49 -.36 -

(14) Cynicism 3.28 1.51 -.05 -.01 -.05 .00 -.63 -.39 .70 .22 -.67 -.64 -.69 -.51 .65 -

(15) Job satisfaction 3.26 1.08 .07 .05 .08 -.06 .62 .42 -.71 -.17 .77 .72 .80 .62 -.58 -.74 -

(16) Boredom 3.54 1.44 -.23 -.06 -.21 .01 -.45 -.32 .52 .09 -.54 -.52 -.53 -.45 .42 .57 -.56 -

(17) P-O fit supplementary 2.66 .86 .04 .06 .04 -.02 .50 .35 -.59 -.09 .55 .48 .60 .45 -.43 -.59 .71 -.39 -

(18) P-O fit complementary 3.10 .93 .10 .02 .10 -.15 .16 .18 -.07 -.14 .21 .19 .20 .19 -.10 -.09 .15 -.09 .07 -

(19) P-J fit supplementary 2.99 .96 .12 .11 .13 -.05 .57 .40 -.66 -.13 .70 .61 .74 .58 -.47 -.67 .79 -.55 .72 .14

Note. Correlations of .08 are significant at p< .05, correlations of .12 are significant at p< .01.

A matter of fit?
Authenticity at work:
81
iv
Chapter
 RESULTS

Authenticity and P-E fit

The results of the CFAs are shown in Table 4.3. Model M1 (i.e., the 1-factor model with
all items loading on one factor) did not fit the data well (χ² = 6,881.26, df = 230; GFI
= .52; NFI = .54; RMSEA = .18; CFI = .55). Model M2 (the 4-factor model with all
authenticity items loading on a single latent factor and three separate fit constructs)
also showed poor fit (χ² = 3,169.00, df = 224; GFI = .74; NFI = .79; RMSEA = .12; CFI
= .80). Model M3 (the 6-factor model with three separate authenticity dimensions and
three separate fit dimensions) showed a good fit (χ² = 814.07, df = 215; GFI = .93; NFI
= .95; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .96).

Table 4.3 Authenticity and P-E fit: Fit of the six competing models (N = 867).

Model χ² df GFI NFI RMSEA CFI

M1: 1-factor model 6881.26 230 .52 .54 .18 .55

M2: 4-factor model 3169.00 224 .74 .79 .12 .80

M3: 6-factor model 814.07 215 .93 .95 .06 .96

M4: One 2nd order factor model 904.24 221 .92 .94 .06 .95

M5: Double 2nd order factor model 780.22 164 .92 .94 .07 .95

M6: Final model 612.49 163 .94 .95 .06 .97

Based on our discussion of the associations between different types of P-E fit and
authenticity, we expected supplementary fit to be more strongly associated with authen-
ticity at work than complementary fit (Hypothesis 2). In order to test this assumption,
we allowed the latent factor of authenticity at work to correlate with the three separate
first-order fit factors (Model M4). This model fitted the data well (χ² = 904.24, df = 221;
GFI = .93; NFI = .94; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .95). Results showed that the correlation
between P-O fit supplementary and authenticity at work was r = .69 (p< .001), the
correlation between P-J supplementary and authenticity at work was r = .76 (p < .001),
and the correlation between P-O fit complementary and authenticity at work was only r
= .10 (p < .01), lending credence to our reasoning that complementary fit should be only
weakly related to authenticity at work. We formally tested this hypothesis by performing
two additional analyses. First, we constrained the correlation between authenticity at
work and P-O fit, and the correlation between P-O complementary fit and authenticity at

82 Chapter IV
work to be equal. This constraint resulted in a poorer fit of the model (χ² = 1,047.89, df
= 222; GFI = .91; NFI = .93; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .94), ∆χ²(df = 1, N = 867) = 143.65,
p < .001. Second, we constrained the correlation between authenticity at work and P-J
fit, and the correlation between P-O fit complementary fit and authenticity at work to
be equal. This also resulted in a poorer fit of the model (χ² = 1,097.98, df = 222; GFI
= .90; NFI = .93; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .94), ∆χ²(df = 1, N = 867) = 193.74, p<.001.
These findings again strengthen our reasoning that complementary fit would relate only
weakly to authenticity at work (Hypothesis 2 supported). Clearly, complementary fit is
less important for authenticity than the other types of fit. For simplicity, complimentary
fit was omitted in subsequent models.
Model M5 (i.e., the double 2nd-order factor model with the three authenticity subscales
loading on one higher-order factor and the two remaining P-E fit subscales loading on
the other higher-order factor) showed good fit (χ²= 780.22, df = 164; GFI = .92; NFI
Chapter

iv
= .94; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .95). Model M6 (the final model) was adjusted to reach an
optimal fit. In order to obtain optimal fit we allowed two items of the accepting external
influence scale of the authenticity construct to correlate. The fit of this model was excel-
lent (χ² = 612.49, df = 163; GFI = .94; NFI = .95; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .97). Based on
these findings, we concluded that the expected factor structure was confirmed, demon-
strating that the concept of authenticity at work and the concept of person-environment
fit indeed represent two different constructs (Hypothesis 1 supported).

Structural analyses
In order to examine the associations among P-E fit, authenticity and well-being, we
tested two competing models (cf. Figure 4.1). The first model (the full mediation model)
showed a reasonable fit, χ²(df = 1,011, N = 867) = 3,598.20; RMSEA = .05 (90%
confidence interval = .05 - .06); NFI = .90; CFI = .93. The second model (the partial
mediation model) showed a marginally better fit, χ²(df = 1,007, N = 867) = 3,463.13;
RMSEA = .05 (90% confidence interval = .05 - .06); NFI = .91; CFI = .93(Byrne, 2010).
The difference between both models was significant ∆χ²(df = 4, N = 867) = 135.07,
p < .001, indicating that the partial mediation model fitted our data slightly better.
Therefore, the remainder of this study focuses on the partial mediation model.

Mediation analysis
Table 4.4 shows the direct effects of P-E fit on the work outcomes, its indirect effects
through authenticity at work, and the percentage of variance in well-being accounted
for by both the direct and indirect effects. Partial mediation occurs when both the direct
effect of variable X on Z and its indirect effect through variable Y is significant (Preacher
& Hayes, 2008). Our results indicate that authenticity at work partially mediates the

Authenticity at work:
A matter of fit? 83
 relationships between P-E fit on the one hand, and work engagement (b = .20, p<
.001), job satisfaction (b = .19, p< .001), burnout (b = -.50, p< .001), and boredom (b
= -.25, p< .001) on the other hand.

Authenticity at work and P-E fit

We expected a positive association between authenticity at work and P-E fit (Hypothesis
2). Consistent with this reasoning, Figure 4.2 reveals that P-E fit was positively associ-
ated with authenticity at work (b = .78, p< .001). Employees with a good fit with the
organization and his or her work reported lower levels of alienation and apparently work
in congruence with their own values and beliefs.

Table 4.4 Direct and indirect effects after executing bootstrapping for the work
outcomes in the present study. Pathways are standardized estimates.

Percentage explained variance

Direct effects Estimate SE
in well-being

P-E fit → Engagement .61 .05 37.2 %

P-E fit → Satisfaction .89 .05 79.2 %

P-E fit → Burnout -.28 .07 7.8 %

P-E fit → Boredom -.38 .07 14.4 %

Indirect effects

P-E fit → Authenticity → Engagement .20 .06 4.0 %

P-E fit → Authenticity → Satisfaction .19 .05 3.6 %

P-E fit → Authenticity → Burnout -.50 .07 25.0 %

P-E fit → Authenticity → Boredom -.25 .07 6.3 %

Note. p< .001 for all estimates.

Authenticity at work and well-being

We expected that higher levels of authenticity at work would be related to higher levels
of employee well-being (Hypothesis 3). Consistent with this reasoning, our results indi-
cate that authenticity at work and work engagement were positively related, b = .28 (p
< .001). Thus, employees who perceived their selves as authentic showed higher levels
of engagement. Moreover, authenticity at work and job satisfaction were positively as-
sociated. Authentic workers displayed higher levels of satisfaction at work (b = .24, p

84 Chapter IV
< .001). We expected the relationship between authenticity at work and burnout to
be negative. Our results supported this hypothesis (b = -.64, p < .001): workers who
felt out of touch with their self at work and could not participate in work activities that
were in congruence with their own values and beliefs showed higher levels of emotional
exhaustion and were more cynical towards their work. Finally, we found a negative
association between authenticity at work and boredom. As expected, workers who
showed lower levels of experienced authenticity reported higher levels of boredom (b =
-.32, p < .001). In conjunction, these findings provide strong support for the idea that
authenticity at work is positively related to worker well-being (Hypothesis 3 supported).

DISCUSSION
Chapter

iv
Drawing on data from 867 highly gifted employees, the present study examined the
concepts of authenticity at work and P-E fit in relation to various aspects of employee
well-being (burnout, work engagement, boredom at work and job satisfaction). The
four most interesting findings of the present study are the following. First, our findings
show that whereas the concepts of authenticity at work and person-environment fit are
theoretically related, authenticity can be distinguished empirically from scales assessing
various types of P-E fit (i.e., P-O and P-J supplementary fit) (Hypothesis 1 supported).
Our findings demonstrated that an employee’s cognitive assessment of the degree to
which she or he fits in their work environment (supplementary fit) is related to feelings
of authenticity at work.
Second, our results indicated that complementary fit was substantially weaker related
to authenticity at work than supplementary fit. In this sense, the degree to which good
fit will lead to higher feelings of authenticity is contingent upon the type of fit involved.
This finding is in line with Cable and Edwards (2004) which underlines the fact that
complementary and supplementary fit are two different forms of fit. Furthermore, this
finding is in line with Piasenten and Chapman (2007). Although complementary fit also
showed a positive relation with authenticity at work, its relationship with authenticity
was substantially weaker. In conjunction, these findings provide further evidence that
similarity – i.e., supplementary fit – is central to the fit construct.
Third, our analysis revealed that authenticity at work and P-E supplementary fit are
strongly related. How employees judge the congruence between themselves and their
job or organization is associated with how authentic they perceive themselves to be
at work. Apparently, the degree to which employees evaluate their work environment
as being similar to their own values, desired culture, and needs (supplementary fit),
enhances their levels of feeling authentic at work.

Authenticity at work:
A matter of fit? 85
 Finally, we expected that authenticity at work would mediate the relationship be-
tween P-E fit and well-being. Our findings indicated that perceived authenticity at work
partially mediated the relationship between P-E fit and several well-being outcomes.
Further inspection of the indirect effects presented in Table 4.4 revealed that the effects
of P-E fit mediated by authenticity on the negative forms of well-being (burnout and
boredom) were relatively stronger than the effects in relation to the positive well-being
(engagement and job satisfaction) outcomes. The strongest mediated effect of authen-
ticity is found when predicting burnout. These findings suggest that the adverse effects
of feeling inauthentic at work are more important than the effects of feeling authentic
at work. Not feeling authentic is associated with emotional exhaustion and boredom.
The present findings are in line with previous studies concerning authenticity at work
and well-being. For instance, Van den Bosch and Taris (2014b) found similar results
concerning the relatively stronger associations between authenticity at work and nega-
tive well-being outcomes than with positive well-being outcomes. The present research
strengthens these findings and provides further evidence regarding the adverse effects
of feeling inauthentic at work.

Limitations and suggestions for further research

The present study is not without limitations, and three of these require further discus-
sion. First, it is clear that the present sample of highly gifted employees does not
represent the average or typical employee. The highly gifted employees included in the
present study had an IQ of at least 130, i.e. two standard deviations above average.
Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the findings of our study can be generalized to
other employees and occupational groups. However, the present sample is an interest-
ing one in the context of the current study, in that is known that highly intelligent
people tend to have a higher risk of psychological and/or social maladjustment (Powell
& Haden, 1984). For example, highly gifted workers are easily bored because they are
frequently overqualified for their job, constantly seek new adventures and challenging
activities (which may not be appreciated by their colleagues and supervisor, leading
to conflict and lack of support at work), and need to experience freedom (which is
difficult to achieve in the presence of all sorts of fixed organizational procedures, cf.
Persson, 2009). Highly gifted individuals are therefore expected to experience relatively
frequently a poorer fit with their job, compared to other employees. Thus, this is an
interesting sample in that a real lack of fit may be prevalent. Yet, given the idiosyncratic
nature of the present sample it is important for the present findings to be replicated in
further research among other samples.
Second, the cross-sectional nature of the present research design precludes con-
clusions about cause-effect relations. Although the evidence presented in this study

86 Chapter IV
showed that P-E fit and authenticity can empirically be distinguished, the present design
does not allow for causal inferences. This implies that the causal linkage between P-E fit,
authenticity at work, and well-being remains to be investigated. Although this presents a
serious limitation of this research, we note that the present study is the first to examine
P-E fit and authenticity at work simultaneously in predicting well-being. In this sense,
we believe that it adds substantially to current knowledge on the nomological network
of authenticity and P-E fit.
Finally, all data in the present study were gathered through self-reports, implying
that common method variance (CMV) might have influenced our findings. However, the
bias caused by this phenomenon should not be overestimated. Spector (2006) argued
that it is incorrect to assume that CMV among self-report measures always takes place.
Moreover, if CMV would have influenced our findings, this would have led to inflated
correlations among all study variables. However, Table 4.2 shows that the correlations
Chapter

iv
among the variables follow a variable pattern and although all measures were self-report
scales, still some correlations were non-significant, which suggests that the bias due
to CMV is relatively small. Further, the meta-analysis of Kristof-Brown and colleagues
(2005) revealed that studies using subjective and objective fit measures reported similar
findings concerning the associations between P-E fit and well-being. All in all, there
seems no reason to assume that CMV biased our findings considerably.

Theoretical and practical implications

Despite these limitations, the present study provides further understanding of the con-
cept of authenticity at work and extends the work of Van den Bosch and Taris (2014a;
2014b) by replicating the associations among authenticity at work and engagement,
burnout, and satisfaction. Moreover, the present study extends current knowledge by
showing that a cognitive evaluation of fit (i.e., P-E fit) is distinct from (and theoretically
precedes) an affective evaluation of fit (authenticity). Further, the current study suggests
that P-E fit predicts the negative forms of well-being mainly indirectly, via authenticity
at work. On the other hand, P-E fit predicts the positive forms of well-being (i.e., work
engagement and job satisfaction) are relatively more strongly directly, rather than being
mediated through authenticity at work. Thus, the magnitude of the mediating effect
of authenticity at work regarding P-E fit and well-being outcomes seems to vary for
different types of outcome variables. Lastly, the present study examined authenticity
at work and P-E fit simultaneously, and included boredom as an important well-being
outcome (Reijseger et al., 2012). Our results emphasize that authenticity at work is a
relevant construct in industrial and organization psychology, and especially so in relation
to worker well-being.

Authenticity at work:
A matter of fit? 87
 At the practical level, the present findings suggest that organizations should focus
on employees experiencing misfit. Misfit is both directly and indirectly (i.e., through
authenticity at work) associated with lower levels of well-being. These findings stress
the importance of examining the employee’s perceptions of fit with their job. Periodic
evaluating allows organizations to locate misfitting and inauthentic employees and pro-
vide options to increase their fit and feelings of authenticity at work. On the one hand
employees can shape their jobs using job crafting (Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli,
& Hetland, 2012) or can renegotiate their terms of employment (e.g., see research on
I-deals, Bal, De Jong, Jansen, & Bakker, 2012). In this way employees are able to
tailor their jobs to their own preference, which should lead to jobs where employees
achieve better fit and feel more authentic. On the other hand, mobility programs within
organizations should focus on locating misfitting and inauthentic functioning employees.
Misfitting and inauthentic workers can be relocated to different jobs, departments, or –
if necessary – to a different organization.

Concluding remarks
The present study adds to our understanding of authenticity at work by showing its
divergent validity with the person-environment fit. We successfully demonstrated that
whereas both constructs are theoretically related, they are empirically distinct from
each other. Furthermore, the present study reveals that whereas authentic workers
show more positive signs of well-being (i.e., work engagement and job satisfaction), low
authentic workers show adverse relations with well-being (i.e., burnout and boredom).
In general these findings suggest that authenticity at work might be an important evalu-
ative construct related to the fit a person experiences at their job, but also to several
important well-being outcomes.

88 Chapter IV
Chapter V
The Authentic worker’s
6
motivation and well-being

6
Based on: Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (submitted). The authentic worker’s moti-
vation and well-being. Author Van den Bosch designed the study design, collected and
analyzed the data, interpreted the results and wrote the first draft of the manuscript.
Author Taris co-designed the study, interpreted the results and edited the manuscript.

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 91

 Abstract
Drawing on Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the present
study examines the associations between state authenticity at work, motivation
and well-being. Since authentic behavior refers to the degree to which a person
acts in agreement with their true self (i.e., one’s own core values), we expected
high levels of authenticity at work to be positively related to more intrinsic types
of motivation regulation and negatively to more extrinsic types of motivation
regulation. Moreover, high levels of authenticity should be associated with higher
levels of well-being (i.e., lower burnout and higher work engagement). Structural
equation modeling using cross-sectional data from 546 participants revealed that
self-determined motivation (i.e. autonomous motivation) showed positive asso-
ciations with authenticity at work and that non-self-determined motivation (i.e.
controlled motivation and amotivation) showed negative associations with au-
thenticity at work. The positive associations increased in strength with increasing
self-determined motivation. A similar – but reversed – pattern was found for the
negative associations. Parallel mediation analysis revealed that self-determined
motivation partially mediated the relationship between authenticity at work and
well-being. These findings are discussed in light of their theoretical and practical
relevance.

92 Chapter V
The associations among authenticity, self-determined motivation and well-being at work
have gained much interest over the past few years. One line of research has successfully
related authenticity – loosely defined as the degree to which a person acts in agreement
with their true self (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014a) – to various aspects of well-being.
For example, Toor and Ofori (2009) found a positive association between experienced
authenticity and leaders’ psychological well-being. Kernis and Goldman (2006) reported
positive associations between self-reported authenticity on the one hand and eudemonic
well-being, hedonic well-being, and life satisfaction on the other, whereas Wood, Linley,
Maltby, Baliousis, and Joseph (2008) found strong associations among experienced
authenticity and well-being. Finally, Van den Bosch and Taris (2014b) found that self-
reported authenticity at work was associated with favorable scores on work engage-
ment, job satisfaction, and burnout.
In a second, conceptually different line of research, a series of studies focused on the
associations between various types of motivation on the one hand, and well-being on
the other. In this research a major distinction is made between self-determined versus
non-self-determined motivation and behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985), arguing that – since
they stem from the self – especially self-determined behaviors are “authentic” and should
Chapter

v
therefore be associated with positive well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, Van
Beek, Hu, Schaufeli, Taris, and Schreurs (2012) showed that self-determined forms of
motivation were associated with favorable scores on burnout and work engagement.
Similarly, Fernet, Guay, and Senécal (2004) reported that high levels of self-determined
motivation resulted in lower levels of burnout, and Van den Broeck, Schreurs, De Witte,
Vansteenkiste, Germeys, and Schaufeli (2011) found that autonomous motivation was
associated with favorable scores on emotional exhaustion and vigor, a key dimension of
work engagement.
Interestingly, both lines of research employ different conceptualizations of authentic-
ity. Whereas research focusing on the associations between different types of motivation
and well-being construes authenticity as an inherent property of behaviors driven by
self-determined motivation and that does not need separate assessment, studies exam-
ining the direct associations between authenticity and well-being focuses on authenticity
as an affective-cognitive phenomenon that can (and must) be assessed separately from
particular behaviors and/or motivations. This raises the question as to the interrelations
of these two lines of research: although both speak of “authenticity” and construe this
concept at the meta-level as relating to behaviors that reflect one’s true self, in terms
of their specific conceptualization and measurement both approaches differ strongly.
The present study addresses this issue, examining the relationships among these two
conceptualizations of authenticity in the context of well-being at work, and drawing on
cross-sectional data from 546 Dutch employees providing financial services.

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 93

 Authenticity at work

Authenticity as an independently observable concept

Studies focusing on authenticity as a concept that is measured as a distinct concept,
independently from particular underlying motivations, tend to differ in their concep-
tualization and measurement of authenticity. Trait conceptualizations of authenticity
construe authenticity as a disposition that is unlikely to change much across time or
situations (e.g. Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood et al., 2008). Conversely, state-based
conceptualizations of authenticity assume that whether people feel authentic is the
result of the congruence between the person and the environment in which they operate
(cf. Barrett-Lennard, 1998; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014a). Since the characteristics
of this environment may change, the degree of congruence between the person and
his/her environment (i.e., their experienced authenticity) may change as well. In this
approach, the perceived level of authenticity is therefore a state rather than a trait.
Taking this reasoning into the work context, if employees function in a work environ-
ment that is more congruent with their core ‘authentic’ self, they will feel more authentic.
Recently, Van den Bosch and Taris (2014a) presented a theory-based measure of state
authenticity that refers explicitly to the work context. They consider authenticity at work
as a subjectively experienced phenomenon that can be measured in terms of a single
continuum with on the one side being fully authentic and on the other side being fully
inauthentic. In their view authenticity at work is a state rather than a trait, and the
items of their measure therefore refer to transient feelings of authenticity rather than
a disposition. The present study employs this state-like approach to investigate the
associations between authenticity at work, self-determined motivation, and well-being.
Authenticity at work taps three central dimensions: self-alienation, authentic living,
and accepting external influence (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014a). The first dimension of
authenticity, self-alienation, refers to the subjective experience of “knowing who one is”
at work. Employees who feel out of touch with their core self at work are characteristic
for this dimension. Such employees wonder who they are at work and might feel ‘cut off’
from who they really are. High levels of self-alienation are associated with psychopathol-
ogy, and a lack of self-alienation signifies a high level of experienced authenticity. The
second dimension of authenticity, authentic living, is the degree in which employees’
actions at work are congruent with their values, feelings and beliefs. For example, a
flight attendant smiling at passengers may well just be doing “emotion work”, rather
than to act authentic in agreement with their feelings (Chang & Chiu, 2009). More
generally, employees who engage in work activities that fit their own values and beliefs
are characteristic for this dimension. The third dimension of authenticity refers to the
extent to which an individual accepts external influence of others and the belief of

94 Chapter V
actually meeting the expectations of others. Schmid (2005) argues that self-alienation
and authentic living are continuously influenced by the social environment. Accepting
external influences (i.e., being subjected to situational forces; e.g., an employee who
must take orders from his or her superiors, satisfy customer needs, et cetera, will
probably report high scores on this dimension) is therefore likely to lead to subjective
feelings of self-alienation and of living inauthentically. An optimal level of experienced
authenticity is reached when a worker experiences low levels of self-alienation, high
levels of authentic living and low levels of accepting external influence. Workers who
feel authentic stay close to their self, act at work in congruence with their own values
and beliefs, and participate in work activities that fit their core self.

Self-Determination theory and authenticity

As indicated above, within Self-Determination Theory (SDT) authenticity is considered as
an inherent property of behaviors driven by self-determined motivation. If the motivation
for that particular property is self-determined, that action is “authentic” and no separate
assessment of a worker’s feelings of authenticity is required. SDT is a macro-theory of
human motivation. It focuses on the motivation behind the choices that people make,
Chapter

v
assuming that these choices are either self-motivated and self-determined or instigated
by external influences (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Organismic Integration Theory (OIT, Deci
& Ryan, 1985) differentiates among six different types of self-determined behavior,
describing these behaviors in terms of the extent to which they emerge directly from
the self (i.e., are self-determined) or are due to other, non-self-determined (or external)
reasons. For example, employees might participate in activities because of social pres-
sure, rewards, or the fear of punishment. OIT distinguishes among six types of regula-
tory styles that vary from being non-self-determined (i.e., amotivation), via external
regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation, to
being completely self-determined (intrinsic regulation, Ryan & Deci, 2000). Amotivation
is a general lack of intention to act Amotivated workers do not act at all, or, if they do,
they act very passively. External regulation is considered the least self-determined form
of external motivation and contains elements of rewards and punishments. Introjected
regulation is to some degree – but only superficially – internalized, and is therefore not
integrated with the self. Work activities led by introjected regulation are somewhat in-
ternally driven but still have a primarily external locus, therefore they are not considered
as part of the self.
External regulation and introjected regulation are both forms of controlled motiva-
tion, and constitute a qualitatively inferior type of motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
Conversely, identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic regulation are
seen as relatively autonomous and therefore qualitatively superior forms of motivation

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 95

 (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Identified regulation reflects a conscious evaluation of a goal in
such a manner that the behavior towards achieving this goal is adopted as personally
important. Behavior that derives from identification, for example with a work task, is
relatively autonomous and self-determined. When identified regulations are completely
incorporated in the self and are therefore congruent with one’s other values and beliefs,
integration has taken place, leading to integrated regulation (Deci& Ryan, 2000). The
main difference between integrated regulation and intrinsic motivation concerns the
degree to which behavior is experienced as enjoyable. Whereas integrated regulation
occurs when one considers the outcome of a particular behavior important, this does
not necessarily mean that one enjoys engaging in this behavior. Conversely, intrinsi-
cally motivated employees primarily engage in work activities because they find these
interesting, enjoyable, challenging, and/or pleasing (Ryan & Deci, 2002).
Note that these six regulation types can be ordered on the basis of the level to
which employees have internalized the reasons to engage in certain activities. Whereas
amotivation for a particular behavior is a fully non-self-determined type of regulation, its
opposite (intrinsically regulated behavior) is completely self-determined (Ryan & Deci,
2000). Self-Determination Theory states that intrinsically motivated behaviors are the
prototype of self-determined actions (Deci & Ryan, 1985). These prototypical actions
emerge directly from the core self. These prototype actions are unalienated and “au-
thentic” in the fullest sense of those terms. However, SDT acknowledges that externally
motivated behavior can also be self-determined. Therefore, individuals must identify
with their work in order to let their behavior be self-determined (Ryan & Deci, 2002).
Organismic Integration Theory proposes that the level of self-determined motivation
increases with more autonomous forms of motivation, and is the most self-determined
at the intrinsic level (Deci & Ryan, 1985). If employees feel more authentic at work,
the ratio between self-determined behavior and non-self-determined behavior will shift
towards self-determined behavior and derives therefore more from the self. Amotivation
is seen as a non-self-determined form of motivation, whereas intrinsic motivation is seen
as completely self-determined (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Following this reasoning, we expect the association between authenticity at work
and motivation to be relatively strongly positive for autonomous motivation and to
gradually decrease in strength as the behavior becomes less autonomous. Eventu-
ally, as employees identify to a lesser degree with their work activities, we expect the
association between authenticity at work and motivation to reverse and to show a
negative relation with controlled motivation and then gradually increase in strength as
the behavior becomes less self-determined (Hypothesis 1). This means that workers
who experience high levels of authenticity are more likely to engage in work activities
because they really enjoy it, hence are intrinsically motivated. Conversely, workers who

96 Chapter V
experience low levels of authenticity do not engage in work activities because they enjoy
it but more likely for different reasons such as money. Specifically, we expect a posi-
tive association between authenticity at work and autonomous motivation (i.e. intrinsic
regulation and identified regulation). Intrinsic regulation and identified regulation are
both forms of autonomous motivation and are largely self-determined. Therefore, these
types of motivation originate from the core authentic self. Conversely, we expect a
negative association between authenticity at work on the one hand, and controlled
motivation (i.e. introjected regulation and external regulation) and amotivation on the
other. These types of motivation are not or only to a minor degree self-determined and
do not originate from employees’ core (or authentic) self. Consequently, these types of
motivation will be experienced by employees who experience lower levels of authenticity
at work.

Work engagement and burnout

Although Maslach and Leiter (2008) considered burn-out and work engagement as the
opposite poles of a continuum that is completely covered by the Maslach Burnout Inven-
tory, Schaufeli, Taris, and Van Rhenen (2008) provided compelling evidence that burnout
Chapter

v
and work engagement are two different kinds of employee well-being. Therefore, both
forms of well-being are discussed separately.
Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that
is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-
Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while
working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence while facing
difficulties. Dedication is characterized by enthusiasm, pride and challenge. Lastly,
absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s
work, whereby time passes. Engaged workers are “pulled” to their work and show
high levels of self-esteem (Taris, Schaufeli & Shimazu, 2010). The pulling in particular,
may be the result of high identification with their job, which implies that one also feels
authentic at work. Therefore, authenticity at work will show a positive association with
work engagement (Hypothesis 2).
Burnout is characterized by three subdimensions: emotional exhaustion, cynicism,
and a reduced experienced level of personal accomplishment (Maslach, 1993). The
first dimension, emotional exhaustion, refers to a lack of mental resources. The second
dimension, cynicism, captures a distant or indifferent attitude to one’s work in general.
Finally, personal accomplishment refers to a lack of professional efficacy and the ten-
dency to evaluate one’s own work negatively. The first two subscales (exhaustion and
cynicism) are considered the core of the burnout syndrome (Schaufeli & Taris, 2005).
As for the possible relation between authenticity at work and burnout, people who

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 97

 feel more authentic at work stay closer to their core self, feel less detached from their
own values and beliefs, and will therefore show lower levels of cynicism. Moreover,
employees who experience authenticity at work have a better fit with their job and will
therefore be more energetic (i.e., experience lower levels of emotional exhaustion)
than others. The process of not staying in touch with one self and struggling with the
daily causes a misfit between the person and job, which will deplete one’s energy and
will reduce their level of pride and identification with their job. Therefore, high levels
of burnout will be accompanied with low levels of authenticity at work (Hypothesis 3).

Self-determined motivation and well-being

Van Beek et al. (2012) showed that work engagement was positively related to autono-
mous motivation. Interestingly, the more autonomous the motivation, the stronger the
association became. According to SDT, higher forms of autonomous motivation emerge
directly from the self and are therefore more self-determined. The lower the level of
motivation (i.e. controlled motivation), the more non-self-determined the behavior is.
Following this reasoning, we expect a positive association between work engagement
and autonomous motivation (i.e. intrinsic motivation and identified motivation) and
negative associations with controlled motivation (i.e., introjected regulation and external
regulation) and amotivation (Hypothesis 4).
Further, Van Beek et al. (2012) reported that burnout was positively related to
introjected regulation and negatively to identified regulation and intrinsic regulation,
respectively. Since burnout involves a process of mental distancing from work, is it
expected that workers reporting high scores on burnout do not identify with their jobs.
However, they must still perform their work duties. Thus, their motivation to engage
in these duties will originate from external factors rather than from their core self. We
expect that persistence of this situation will eventually result in depletion of workers’
mental resources, resulting in loss of energy. Therefore, burnout will be negatively
related to autonomous motivation (intrinsic motivation and identified motivation) and
positively to controlled motivation (introjected regulation and external regulation) and
amotivation (Hypothesis 5). Figure 5.1 presents a heuristic model for the expected
relations between authenticity at work, motivation, and well-being.

98 Chapter V
Figure 5.1 Heuristic model of the full and partial mediation model between Chapter
authenticity at work, self-determined motivation, and well-being.
v
METHOD

Procedure and participants

Twenty-two Dutch organizations providing financial services to their customers partici-
pated in the present study. All employees of these organizations (N=912; the average
number of employees per organization was 41) received an e-mail at their work e-mail
address with a request to complete an online survey. One week after the first e-mail
a reminder was sent. Both messages first explained the purpose and relevance of the
study, then offered a link leading to the first page of the survey. The introductory
screen emphasized that participation was voluntary and completely anonymous. Partici-
pants were informed that the questionnaire could be taken during work time, and that
completing the questionnaire would take about ten minutes. In total 564 participants
fully completed the online survey, yielding a 62% response rate. Two organizations did
not exceed the lower threshold for acceptable response of 26.2% proposed by Baruch
and Holtom (2008). These organizations (with response rates of 22% and 23%) were
excluded from further analysis. This did not result in a substantial drop in the number of
participants, since only 18 participants were omitted.

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 99

 The response rate for the remaining 20 organizations varied from 33% to 100%, yielding
an average response rate of 71.3% and an overall sample size of 546 participants (53.7%
female; Mage was 37 years, sd = 9.9). A third (35%) had completed their intermediate
vocational education, 50% held a bachelor’s degree, and 15% held a master’s degree. The
twenty organizations included in the present study provided a broad spectrum of services to
their customers. Examples of the services provided are financial audits, due diligence, Dutch
tax law, accounting and financial advice in general. Approximately 80% of the employees
in these organizations provided such services. The remaining 20% worked in support and
management jobs such as personal assistant, human resources officer or IT specialist.

Measures
Authenticity at work. Authenticity was measured with the Individual Authenticity Measure
at Work (IAM Work; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014a). The IAM Work taps the three dimen-
sions of authenticity (authentic living, self-alienation, and accepting external influence)
with four items each. Participants were instructed to keep in mind their most recent
work position for the past four weeks. They were then asked to indicate how much each
statement applied to them only at work and in no other situation. Example items are: “At
work, I always stand by what I believe in” (authentic living); “I don’t feel who I truly am
at work” (self-alienation); and “At work, I feel the need to do what others expect me to
do” (accepting external influence) (1 = “does not describe me at all, 7 = “describes me
very well”). To examine the factorial structure of this relatively novel concept, three con-
firmatory factor-analytic models were tested. In the first model all 12 items loaded on a
single latent factor. This model did not fit the data, χ²(df =54, N = 546) = 784.76; RMSEA
= .17 (90% confidence interval = .16-.18); GFI = .78; CFI = .83. In the second model
all authenticity items loaded on the presumed dimension, but there were no associations
among the latent factors. This model corresponds with the idea that the authenticity
items tap three unrelated concepts. This model showed better, yet still unacceptable fit,
χ²(df =54, N = 546) = 578.31; RMSEA = .13 (90% confidence interval = .12-.13); GFI =
.86; CFI = .88. The third model was similar to the second model, but allowed the three
factors to correlate. This model showed acceptable fit, χ²(df =51, N = 546) = 262.47;
RMSEA = .087 (90% confidence interval = .077-.097); GFI = .93; CFI = .95, and fitted
the data significantly better than the model with three uncorrelated factors, Δχ²(df =3,
N = 546) = 315.84, p< .001. This model is consistent with the presumed theoretical
structure of authenticity, consisting of three related subdimensions that all tap aspects of
authenticity. In the present study, the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .85 for
self-alienation, .75 for authentic living, and .65 for accepting external influence.
Work engagement. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli & Bakker,
2010) taps the three dimensions of work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption)

100 Chapter V
with three items each. Example items are: “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”
(vigor, alpha = .87), “My job inspires me” (dedication, alpha = .88), and “I feel happy
when I am working intensely” (absorption, alpha = .77) (0 = “never”, 6 = “always”).
Burnout. Burnout was measured with two scales (emotional exhaustion and cyni-
cism) of the Dutch version (Schaufeli & Van Dierendonck, 2000) of the Maslach Burnout
Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS; Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996). Typical
items are “I feel emotionally drained from my work” (emotional exhaustion, 5 items,
alpha = .88) and “I doubt the significance of my work” (cynicism, 4 items, alpha = .84)
(0 = “never”, 6 = “every day”).
Motivation. Motivation was assessed with the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale
(MWMS; Gagné, Forest, Vansteenkiste, Crevier-Braud, Van den Broeck, Aspeli et al., 2014).
The MWMS contains 19 items that cover six dimensions of motivation: amotivation, external
materialistic regulation, external social regulation, introjected regulation, identified regula-
tion, and intrinsic regulation. Note that external regulation is divided in two forms, external
social and external material regulation. According to Gagné et al. (2014) both are important
in the work context and are therefore included separately. Furthermore, integrated regula-
tion is not included in this measure. Gagné et al. (2010) report that integrated regulation
Chapter

v
and identified regulation could not be distinguished empirically. Therefore, integrated regu-
lation was not assessed in the present study. Amotivation was measured with four items,
including “I don’t know why I work: this work is meaningless to me“ (alpha = .93). External
material regulation was measured with three items. A typical item is: “I work because
others (e.g. employer, supervisor) will reward me financially” (alpha = .89). External social
regulation was measured with three items, including “I work to get the other’s approval (e.g.
supervisor, colleagues, family, clients)” (alpha = .92). Introjected regulation was measured
with three items, such as “I work because otherwise I feel bad about myself” (alpha = .93).
Identified regulation was measured with three items, including “I work because what I do
in this job has a lot of personal meaning to me” (alpha = .88). Finally, intrinsic regulation
was measured with four items. An example item is: “I work because I enjoy this work very
much” (alpha = .88) (1 = “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”).
Demographic variables. Finally, we included three control variables: gender, age, and
educational level. Educational level was presented as a multiple choice question with six
options ranging from 1 (primary school only) to 6 (academic degree).

Statistical analysis

Preliminary analysis
In order to examine whether a six-factor model of motivation (Gagné et al., 2010) would
fit the data better than a simpler three-factor model of motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005),

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 101

 we performed two confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). The three-factor model with
the items of amotivation loading on the first factor, the items of external materialistic
regulation, external social regulation and introjected regulation loading on a second
factor (controlled motivation), and the items tapping identified regulation and intrinsic
regulation loading on the third factor (autonomous motivation) did not fit the data,
χ²(df =149 , N = 546) = 3,153.25; GFI = .62; RMSEA = .19 (90% confidence interval
= .19-.20); NFI = .60; CFI = .61. The six-factor model performed considerably better,
χ²(df =137, N = 546) = 297.81; GFI = .95; RMSEA = .05 (90% confidence interval =
.04-.05); NFI = .96; CFI = .98, with all fit indices meeting their criterion for good fit (cf.
Byrne, 2010). The difference between the two models was significant, ∆χ²(df = 12, N
= 546) = 2,855.44, p< .001, and the six-factor model was accepted as the best model.

Multilevel check
As individual observations were nested within organizations, the data possessed a
multilevel structure. In order to check whether the organizational level accounted for a
practically relevant part of the individual-level variance ICC-1 values were computed for
all study variables (McGraw & Wong, 1996). Low ICC-1 values (ICC < 0.1) imply that the
variables included in the present study do not differ meaningfully across organizations
(Chen, 2012). In the present study ICC-1 scores ranged from -.02 to .05. Apparently,
multilevel analysis of the current data set was neither warranted nor required.

Main analysis
The research model examined in the present study (cf. Figure 5.1) was estimated using
structural equation modeling (SEM) as implemented in AMOS 18.0 (Arbuckle, 2007). Two
competing models were tested and compared using maximum likelihood estimation pro-
cedures. In order to test these models we calculated the mean scores for the subscales
of the concepts in the present study. These subscales served as observed indicators
of the higher-order latent variables in the model. Model fit was evaluated using the χ²
statistic, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA), Normed Fit Index (NFI), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). The first model
to be tested is the full mediation model (cf. Figure 5.1). In this model the relationships
between authenticity at work and the well-being outcomes are fully mediated by the six
dimensions of motivation. The second model is the partial mediation model (cf. Figure
5.1). This model extends the full mediation model with direct relationships between
authenticity at work and well-being. For the mediation analysis we applied Preacher and
Hayes’ (2008) bootstrapping procedure. The bootstrap analyses were performed with
2,000 bootstrap samples and bias-corrected confidence intervals were set at 95%. The
residuals related to the mediators were allowed to covary (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

102 Chapter V
 To test our hypotheses we examined the regression paths of the model fitting our
data best. Moreover, we employed the Product-of-Coefficient approach (Preacher &
Hayes, 2008) to examine the total indirect effect and the specific indirect effects of the
possible mediation of motivation on authenticity at work and its relationship with work
engagement and burnout. Moreover, Sobel tests (Sobel, 1982) were conducted to test
whether the indirect effects were significant.

RESULTS

Table 5.1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for this study. Two
competing models were compared (cf. Figure 5.1). The first model (the full mediation
model) showed marginal fit to the data, χ²(df =49, N = 546) = 355.30; GFI = .92;
RMSEA = .11 (90% confidence interval = .10-.12); NFI = .89; CFI = .90, with some fit
indexes meeting their criterion for acceptable fit but others not (cf. Byrne, 2010). The
second model (the partial mediation model) performed better, χ²(df =47, N = 546) =
257.04; GFI = .94; RMSEA = .09 (90% confidence interval = .08-.10); NFI = .92; CFI
Chapter

v
= .93, with all indexes meeting their criterion for good fit (Byrne, 2010). The difference
between both models was significant, ∆χ²(df = 2, N = 546) = 98.26, p< .001, indicating
that the partial mediation model fitted the data significantly better than the full media-
tion model. Finally, all non-significant regression paths were omitted from the partial
mediation model. This final model fitted the data well, χ²(df =52, N = 546) = 255.60;
GFI = .94; RMSEA = .09 (90% confidence interval = .08-.10); NFI = .92; CFI = .93.

Testing the hypotheses

Authenticity at work and motivational regulation

Hypothesis 1 stated that the association between authenticity at work and motivational
regulation is contingent on the type of motivational regulation. Specifically, the associa-
tion between authenticity and motivational regulation would vary with the degree of
identification with one’s work activities, i.e., from strongly positive for intrinsic regulation
to strongly negative for amotivation. Figure 5.2 presents the standardized regression
paths, showing that authenticity at work was positively associated with intrinsic regula-
tion (b = .32, p< .01) and identified regulation (b = .20, p< .01). Authenticity at work
was negatively related with introjected regulation (b = -.22, p< .01), external social
regulation (b = -.09, p< .05), external material regulation (b = -.13, p< .01), and
amotivation (b = -.35, p< .01), which is largely consistent with Hypothesis 1.

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 103

 Figure 5.2 Structural paths of the partial mediation model, with the associa-
tions between authenticity at work and well-being being mediated by six forms
of motivation. Coefficients represent standardized estimates. Non-significant
coefficients are omitted for clarity.

To formally test these impressions an additional series of SEMs was conducted. First
we tested whether the effects of authenticity on all six motivations could be assumed
to be equal (which is a precondition for Hypothesis 1 to be confirmed). This yielded an
increase of 113.41 chi-square points with 5 df compared to the fit of the final model
presented in Figure 5.2, p< .001. Thus, the effects of authenticity on the different types
of motivations differed significantly. Inspection of the pattern of effects of authenticity
showed that the expected pattern was largely confirmed.

104 Chapter V
 Table 5.1. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and correlations for the study variables (N = 546).

Variable M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

Authenticity

(1) Self-alienation 1.95 1.05 -

(2) Authentic living 5.62 .89 -.43 -

(3) Accepting external influence 3.12 1.04 .52 -.21 -

Motivation

(4) Amotivation 1.19 .50 .34 -.11 .13 -

(5) External materialistic regulation 2.37 1.03 .12 -.08 .20 .18 -

(6) External social regulation 2.57 1.05 .07 -.01 .28 .06 .41 -

(7) Introjected regulation 2.45 1.06 .20 -.11 .25 .05 .27 .38 -

(8) Identified regulation 4.06 .61 -.18 .19 -.02 -.20 -.10 .03 .06 -

(9) Intrinsic regulation 4.01 .60 -.30 .17 -.18 -.26 -.18 -.04 -.11 .40 -

Well-being

(10) Vigor 5.36 .97 -.42 .26 -.23 -.30 -.20 -.04 -.06 .35 .52 -

(11) Dedication 5.48 1.06 -.39 .23 -.21 -.32 -.19 -.01 -.04 .31 .67 .78 -

(12) Absorption 4.96 1.10 -.23 .18 -.09 -.19 -.17 -.01 .02 .33 .57 .68 .77 -

(13) Emotional exhaustion 2.30 1.01 .44 -.18 .36 .27 .21 .18 .16 -.21 -.31 -.50 -.35 -.29 -

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being

105
v
Chapter
106
Table 5.1. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and correlations for the study variables (N = 546) (continued).

Chapter V
Variable M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

(14) Cynicism 2.19 1.08 .51 -.22 .30 .38 .22 .12 .11 -.26 -.48 -.61 -.62 -.47 .61 -

Demographic variables

(15) Age 36.9 9.94 -.05 .10 -.10 -.05 -.14 -.11 -.06 .06 .02 .09 .05 .09 -.11 .00 -

(16) Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) - - -.12 .06 -.01 -.07 .01 -.08 -.08 .13 .01 .01 -.08 -.05 -.12 -.12 -.01 -

(17) Educational level 4.6 1.03 .07 -.05 .02 .04 .08 .15 .03 -.09 -.01 -.06 -.01 -.02 .10 .10 -.27 -.28

Note. Correlations of .09 are significant at p< .05, correlations of .12 are significant at p< .01.
The main exception is the relationship between authenticity at work and introjected
regulation (b = -.22, p< .01), which is slightly stronger than its relationship with ex-
ternal social regulation (b = -.09, p< .05) and external material regulation (b = -.13,
p< .01). We then tested whether the effect of authenticity on introjected regulation (of
-.22) differed significantly from that of the effect of authenticity on identified regulation
(of .20). This yielded an increase of 44.37 chi-square points with 1 df, as compared to
the final model presented in Figure 5.2, p< .001. Thus, consistent with Hypothesis 1,
these two effects differ significantly. We then tested whether the effect of authenticity
on external social motivation (of -.09) differed from that of introjected regulation (of
-.22). The pattern of these effects is seemingly inconsistent with what is stated in
Hypothesis 1, in that the magnitude of the effect of authenticity on external social
regulation should be larger (and not smaller) than its effect on introjected regulation.
However, statistical testing might reveal that the magnitude of both effects is the same,
and in that case Hypothesis 1 would at least not be rejected. Constraining these effects
to be equal yielded an increase of 6.66 chi-square points with 1 df, p< .01, meaning that
both effects differed significantly. This implies that Hypothesis 1 is only partly supported,
since the effect of authenticity on introjected regulation and/or that on external social
Chapter

v
regulation deviates significantly from the pattern expected in Hypothesis 1.

Authenticity at work and well-being

Hypothesis 2 stated that the experienced level of authenticity at work was positively
related to work engagement. As expected, experienced authenticity was positively as-
sociated with engagement (b = .23, p < .01, Hypothesis 2 supported). Hypothesis 3
proposed that experienced authenticity at work would be negatively related to burnout.
As expected, low levels of authenticity were associated with higher levels of burnout (b
= -.42, p < .01). Thus, not knowing who one is at work and not working in accordance
with one own values and beliefs is associated with higher levels of exhaustion and a
larger mental distance from work.

Motivational regulation and well-being

Hypothesis 4 stated that work engagement would be positively associated with intrinsic
regulation, identified regulation, and introjected regulation, and negatively with external
social regulation, external material regulation, and amotivation. Consistent with this
hypothesis, intrinsic regulation was positively associated with engagement (b = .59,
p< .01), whereas external material regulation was indeed negatively related to both
engagement (b = -.08, p< .01) and amotivation (b = -.08, p< .01). Contrary to our
expectations introjected regulation was positively associated with work engagement (b

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 107

 = .10, p< .01). Furthermore, identified regulation and external social regulation were
not significantly related to work engagement (Hypothesis 4 partly supported).
Hypothesis 5 stated that there would be a negative association between burnout and
autonomous motivation (intrinsic regulation and identified regulation), and a positive
association between burnout and controlled motivation (introjected regulation, exter-
nal social regulation, and external material regulation) and amotivation. As expected,
intrinsic regulation was negatively related to burnout (b = -.32, p< .01), and external
material regulation (b = .10, p< .01) and amotivation (b = .17, p< .01) were positively
associated with burnout. However, although the associations between identified regula-
tion, introjected regulation, external social regulation and burnout were in the expected
direction, these relationships were not significant (Hypothesis 5 partially supported).

Mediation analysis
Table 5.2 presents the indirect effects of the six factors of motivation on well-being
(engagement and burnout), the total indirect effect of these factors, and the direct
effects of authenticity at work on well-being. Partial mediation occurs when the direct,
indirect and total effects are all significant. Our results indicate that motivation partially
mediated the effect of authenticity at work on work engagement (b = .21, p < .01) and
burnout (b = -.18, p < .01). Table 5.2 shows that for engagement, the indirect effects
of intrinsic regulation (b = .18, p< .01) and introjected regulation (b = -.02, p< .05)
were significant. For burnout, the indirect effects of intrinsic regulation (b = -.10, p <
.01) and amotivation (b = -.06, p< .05) were significant.

108 Chapter V
Table 5.2 Indirect effects after executing bootstrapping for work engagement
and burnout. Pathways are standardized estimates.

Engagement Burnout

Six factors of motivation Estimate SE Estimate SE

Intrinsic .18** .04 -.10** .03

Identified .01 .01 -.01 .01

Introjected -.02* .01 .01 .01

External social .00 .00 -.01 .01

External material .01 .01 -.01 .01

Amotivation .03 .03 -.06* .03

Total indirect effect .21** .04 -.18** .03

motivation

Total direct effect .22** .06 -.42** .06

Chapter
Total effects

Note. *p< .05, ** p< .001.

.43** .06 -.59** .06
v
DISCUSSION

Drawing on data from 546 financial services professionals and building on Deci and
Ryan’s (1985) Organismic Integration Theory, the present study examined the associa-
tion between state authenticity at work and motivation. Moreover, the mediating role of
motivation in the relationship between authenticity at work and well-being (i.e., work
engagement and burnout) was investigated. Using structural equation modeling, our
results indicated that self-determined (or “authentic”) motivation partially mediated the
relationship between self-reported authenticity at work and well-being. We believe that
the four most interesting results of this study are the following:
Firstly, our results revealed that authenticity at work and the six regulation styles
as introduced by OIT were significantly related. As expected, the level of experienced
authenticity at work was positively related to two types of autonomous motivation,
showing a strong association with intrinsic motivation and a weaker association with
identified regulation. This suggests that subjectively experienced authenticity is indeed
positively associated with performing “authentic”, self-determined actions, as implied
in Ryan and Deci’s SDT (2000). Note that the effects presented in Figure 5.2 for the

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 109

 associations between authenticity and these two regulation styles are not as strong as
to argue that both approaches to examining authenticity yield the same results. Appar-
ently, acting upon self-determined motivations and subjective feelings of authenticity
do not necessarily occur simultaneously. Further, Authenticity at work was negatively
associated with the regulation styles that are part of controlled motivation. Low levels
of experienced authenticity were associated with high levels of introjected regulation,
external social regulation, external materialistic regulation, and amotivation, with the
association between authenticity at work and amotivation being the strongest.
Interestingly, Assor, Vansteenkiste and Kaplan (2009) distinguished between two
types of introjected regulation. The first form concerns avoiding negative feelings (such
as shame and guilt), whereas the second form focuses on the desire to experience posi-
tive feelings (e.g., pride). Their findings thus suggest that lower levels of authenticity are
associated with negative feelings and/or the absence of positive feelings, which meshes
well with the indirect, negative effect of authenticity on engagement via introjected
regulation found in the present study. The negative association between authenticity
and external material regulation could mean that workers are willing to do work which
does not fit their core authentic self in exchange of money or external rewards. It
could also mean that workers participate in work activities out of fear of being laid off.
However, the exact reason is unclear. Finally, low levels of authenticity at work were
accompanied with a lack of intention to engage in work activities at all (i.e., high levels
of amotivation). Insofar as this association reflects a causal process, this suggests that
lack of authenticity could lead to underachievement and a laissez-faire attitude at work.
Secondly, self-determined motivation partially mediated the relationship between
authenticity at work and well-being. Our analyses revealed that the indirect effect of
motivation accounted for 48.8% of its total effect on work engagement. Similarly, for the
burnout construct, the indirect effect of motivation on the association between authen-
ticity at work and burnout accounted for 30.5% of its total effect on burnout. Although
these results mean that a substantial part of the total effect of authenticity on burnout
and engagement is accounted for by motivational regulation, the largest part of the
effect of authenticity on well-being is direct. Interestingly, the six motivational factors
were more important in predicting work engagement than in burnout. Apparently, the
motivational aspect is more relevant for engaged workers than for burned-out workers.
Thirdly, multiple mediator models as used in the present study can be used to in-
vestigate the relative importance of the included mediators. Comparison of the indirect
effects of different mediators reveals which mediator or theory should be considered as
the most important (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Our results show that motivational regu-
lation partially mediates the relationship between authenticity at work and well-being.
However, closer inspection of the six motivational factors revealed that intrinsic regula-

110 Chapter V
tion had the largest indirect effects on well-being, affecting both work engagement
and burnout (cf. Table 5.2). These findings suggest that of the six types of motivational
regulation examined here, intrinsic regulation is the most important in predicting well-
being. Intrinsic regulation is characterized by feelings of joy and a pleasant experience;
employees participate in work activities because they really enjoy it. Experiencing these
feelings of joy is associated with higher levels of work engagement and lack of these
pleasurable experiences is associated with higher levels of burnout. Apparently, employ-
ees who perceive high levels of authenticity at work are strongly intrinsically motivated
to carry out their work activities. Conversely, employees who feel less authentic are
more often amotivated. They do not seem in touch with their self at their job, feel alien-
ated, and might lack purpose. In time, this might lead to low performance and burnout.
Lastly, Van Beek et al. (2012) investigated the relationships between self-determined
motivation and well-being, reporting findings very similar to those presented in the cur-
rent study. In both studies, the associations between motivation and well-being (work
engagement and burnout) showed similar patterns, including the positive association
between introjected regulation and work engagement. This adds further credence to
the notion that engaged workers are not exclusively intrinsically motivated, but are also
Chapter

v
sensitive to external influences. Introjected regulated employees relate their self-worth
to their performance at work. They want to avoid negative feelings such shame and guilt
or want to experience feelings such as pride (Assor et al., 2009).

Limitations
Three important limitations require further discussion. First, the present study employed
a cross-sectional design, meaning that the causal direction of the associations among
authenticity at work, self-determined motivation, and well-being could not be estab-
lished. However, the present study is the first to shed light on the possible associations
between authenticity at work and self-determined motivation as described by Deci
and Ryan (1985), and in this sense it provides a solid base for longitudinal research
designs to build upon in examining authenticity at work as possible antecedent of self-
determined motivation.
Second, the present study used self-report measures, which could imply that com-
mon method variance (CMV) has affected our findings. However, the bias caused by this
phenomenon should not be overestimated. For example, Spector (2006) convincingly
argued that CMV among mono-method measures does certainly not always occur. Fur-
ther, if present, CMV would have led to inflated correlations among all study variables.
However, Table 5.1 shows that the associations among the correlations follow a variable
pattern and that – in spite of having a large sample size of 546 participants – still several

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 111

 null correlations were present. Thus, all in all there are no indications that CMV has
substantially biased our findings.
Finally, our data were collected among a relatively homogenous group of workers. All
participants worked in the financial services industry. Since all participants shared a very
similar occupational background, it is possible that this has led to a restriction of the
range of the study variables. This implies that the effects were conservatively estimated,
and that in more heterogeneous samples stronger effects might be found.

Theoretical and practical implications

In spite of these limitations, we believe that this study has several important theoreti-
cal and practical implications. First, the present findings extend the scarce theoretical
knowledge on the concept of state authenticity at work in relation to Self-Determination
Theory. Two recent studies on authenticity at work (Metin, Taris, Van Beek, Peeters &
Van den Bosch, 2014; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014b) examined the nomological network
of this concept in the context of work psychology. The present study confirms the
importance of authenticity in the work context, showing that subjectively experienced
authenticity at work can be related to the six different regulation styles proposed by OIT
(Deci & Ryan, 1985), supporting the assumption that authenticity at work is a possible
antecedent of motivation.
Self-Determination Theory states that intrinsically motivated behaviors are the proto-
type of self-determined actions. These fully self-determined actions emerge directly from
the self (Ryan & Deci, 2000), suggesting that employees who can be fully themselves at
work – i.e., who are authentic – will show higher levels of intrinsically motivated behav-
ior. The present findings support this notion. This means that workers who stay in touch
with their self, work in accordance with their own values and beliefs, and do not accept
external influence against their will show higher levels of intrinsic motivation behavior. If
employees feel less authentic the level of intrinsically motivated behavior will decrease.
Less authentic employees show higher levels of nonself-determined behavior.
As for the practical implications of this study, our results indicate that low levels of
experienced authenticity at work show adverse effects on well-being and are positively
associated with qualitatively lower forms of motivation (cf. Gagné & Deci, 2005). There-
fore, it seems important for organizations to screen their staff for employees who act
on the basis of controlled motivation. Since we believe that state authenticity at work
is the result of the congruence between a person and his or her environment, lack of
authenticity might be the result of a bad employee-job fit. To improve this fit, organiza-
tions could either adjust the content of the jobs of inauthentic employees or transfer the
employee to another job – either within or outside the organization.

112 Chapter V
 Since intrinsically motivated workers experience pleasure in their jobs, it can be
said that authentic workers are happy workers. On the other hand, inauthentic workers
show signs of amotivation, higher levels of burnout, and lower levels of work engage-
ment. These findings underline the relevance for employees of finding or shaping a
job in such a way that they feel authentic at work. Job crafting techniques (Nielsen
& Abildgaard, 2012) or I-deals (Bal, De Jong, Jansen & Bakker, 2012) are techniques
which could enhance feelings of authenticity at work. An earlier study by Van den Bosch
and Taris (2014b) provided some evidence that lack of authenticity is related to poor
in-role performance. These findings stress the importance of developing interventions to
promote authenticity in the organization; at the very least they underline the importance
of not ignoring inauthentic employees. Note that lack of authenticity is not only salient
for the organization (due to the lower performance of inauthentic workers), but also
for individual workers, since lack of authenticity at work is related to lower well-being.
Therefore, such interventions should benefit both the organization and their employees.

Chapter

The Authentic worker’s motivation and well-being 113

Chapter VI
7
General Discussion

7
Solo-authored by Van den Bosch with helpful comments from Toon Taris.

General Discussion 115

Authenticity can be loosely defined as the degree to which one stays close to one’s
true self (Harter, 2002). Although authenticity is expected to be a relevant concept in
employee functioning, at present there is little to no attention for the conceptualization
of experienced authenticity in the workplace. The aim of this thesis was to extend the
understanding of subjectively self-experienced authenticity at work, providing further
insight into the issue whether authenticity at work is a relevant and useful concept in the
field of work and organizational psychology. In order to address this general research
question we formulated three sub-questions:

Research question 1: Can authenticity at work be measured reliably and validly?

Research question 2: Is authenticity at work a predictor of relevant work outcomes?
Research question 3: What are possible processes accounting for the associations be-
tween authenticity and work outcomes (such as P-E fit and motivation)?

Previous research concerning authenticity (i) often focused on human functioning in

general instead of on work-specific functioning, (ii) focused mainly on trait-like concep-
tualizations rather than state-like conceptualizations of authenticity, and (iii) employed
both subjective and objective conceptualizations of authenticity. The first empirical
chapter of this thesis (Chapter 2) aimed to develop a state-like measure of authenticity
in the context of work. Chapter 3 built upon this study and investigated the associations
among authenticity at work, well-being, in-role performance and turnover intention. The
Chapter

vI
next empirical chapter (Chapter 4) addressed the issue of the possible overlap between
Person-Environment fit and authenticity at work and furthermore examined the mediat-
ing role of authenticity at work on the relationship between P-E fit and well-being. The
last empirical chapter (Chapter 5) linked authenticity at work to motivation. It inves-
tigated the association between authenticity at work and self-determined motivation.
Furthermore, in this chapter the potential mediating role of self-determined motivation
on the association between authenticity at work and well-being was investigated. In
the current (and final) chapter we discuss the main findings of this thesis, discuss
some methodological issues, shed light on practical implications and provide a direc-
tion for future research. First we discuss the answers on the three research questions
as formulated earlier in this thesis. Figure 6.1 summarizes the hypotheses tested in
Chapters 2-5. The findings for these hypotheses are discussed below in the light of our
three research questions.

General Discussion 117

 Figure 6.1 The research model for the present thesis.

Research question 1: Can authenticity at work be measured

reliably and validly?
Chapter 2 of this thesis described the development and validation of a theory-based
measure of state authenticity at work, the Individual Authenticity Measure at Work
(IAM Work). Based on previous conceptualizations of authenticity as a general trait, we
developed a work-specific instrument to assess the experienced level of authenticity at
work. The analyses performed in this study supported the expected three-dimensional
structure of authenticity and resulted in three subscales of authenticity at work: self-
alienation, authentic living, and accepting external influence. Furthermore, in this
chapter a 12-item scale was validated and it was demonstrated that a state measure of
authenticity at work was associated with several commonly studied work outcomes and
the antecedents thereof. These associations were found for the subscales of authenticity
as well as for the overall score of the IAM Work. Researchers interested in a more
detailed view of authenticity are recommended the use of the subscales. However, if
researchers are interested in a more general experience of authenticity at work we
would advise them to use the overall score of the IAM Work.
The analyses in Chapter 2 and 3 revealed that self-alienation is most likely the core
of the concept of authenticity at work, since these analyses demonstrated that for
this dimension the strongest correlations with variables such as work engagement, job
satisfaction, and stress were found. Moreover, self-alienation also manifested the high-
est factor loading on the higher-order factor of authenticity in Chapter 1. Furthermore,
self-alienation reported relatively higher beta-weights compared to authentic living
and accepting external influence, while controlling for each other and other relevant
work characteristics. These findings support the notion of Barrett-Lennard (1998), who

118 Chapter VI
reasons that the core of authenticity is centered around the consistency between an
individual’s primary experience and their symbolized awareness, i.e. self-alienation.
Furthermore, authenticity at work showed a positive association with experienced
autonomy at work. This finding underlines our notion that high-autonomy workers have
more opportunities for self-government, and may therefore experience more freedom
and space to act in accordance with their true and core-self compared to workers ex-
periencing lower autonomy. Lastly, we conducted three independent empirical survey
studies. In all four empirical chapters Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .75 to .79 for the
total scale of authenticity, from .75 to .79 for the subscale authentic living, from .84
to .93 for the subscale self-alienation, and from .65 to .78 for the subscale accepting
external influence.
Based on these results, the answer to research question 1 is that it is indeed possible
to measure authenticity at work in a reliable and valid manner. Although we examined
a limited set of variables, the results reported in this thesis strongly suggest that the
IAMWork is a reliable and valid instrument that can be used to address research ques-
tions involving authenticity in the workplace.

Research question 2: Is authenticity at work a predictor of

relevant work outcomes?
The findings in Chapter 2 present a promising, yet preliminary validation of the validity
of the IAMWork by relating the scores on this instrument to other, theoretically related
Chapter

vI
concepts. Yet, additional in-depth analyses of the associations between authenticity at
work and other concepts are necessary to demonstrate the validity of this instrument
more fully. Therefore in Chapter 3 we built upon the findings of Chapter 2 and investi-
gated the associations between authenticity at work, well-being, in-role performance,
and turnover intention, employing the IAM Work. We conducted hierarchical regression
analyses and after controlling for relevant demographic variables and work characteris-
tics authenticity at work accounted for on average 11% of the variance in the outcome
variables. Thus, our findings suggested that the concept of authenticity at work added
substantial value and accounted for a substantial amount of variance in predicting well-
being (11.5% on average) and work outcomes (7.0% on average). Furthermore, this
study revealed that authenticity at work was a stronger predictor of well-being rather
than of work outcomes such as in-role performance and turnover intention. This was
reflected in the ∆R² change values and the beta values derived from the regression
analyses.
An important finding of this study was that authentic living, loosely defined as the
degree to which an employee can engage in work activities that are in line with his/her
own core values, was positively associated with positive work outcomes such as work

General Discussion 119

 engagement and personal accomplishment. The associations between authentic living
and negative work outcomes such as emotional exhaustion and cynicism were almost
zero. These results indicate that if employees work in accordance with their own values
and beliefs, this will enhance the likelihood of positive work outcomes. Workers feel
more vital and driven to perform at work, and rate their self higher in terms of personal
accomplishment.
Examining these results, the answer to research question 2 is that authenticity at
work is a relevant predictor of relevant work outcomes.

Research question 3: What are possible processes accounting

for the associations between authenticity and work outcomes
(such as P-E fit and motivation)?
If authenticity at work can indeed be defined as the degree an employee feels in touch
with her/himself at work, it overlaps to some degree with the commonly used definition
of P-E fit as referring to the degree to which an employee fits his/her job in general.
Furthermore, Deci and Ryan (1985) posed that self-determined motivation derives di-
rectly from the self and is therefore authentic per definition. Apparently, on the basis of
these definitions it seems that authenticity at work, P-E fit and motivation may be closely
related, and a further understanding of their relatedness is needed: to which degree is
authenticity related to P-E fit and motivation? And to which degree can authenticity be
distinguished from these concepts? Therefore, we assessed the distinctiveness of the
IAM Work by relating authenticity at work to two theoretical associated concepts: P-E
fit and motivation.

Authenticity and Person-Environment Fit

We describe authenticity at work as the result of the fit an employee experiences at his
job. The issue whether P-E fit and the experienced authenticity at work were “two of a
kind” or two substantially different concepts was addressed in Chapter 4. Confirmatory
factor analysis revealed that P-E fit and authenticity at work were separate constructs
and were differentially related to other concepts, meaning that although P-E fit and
authenticity at work are theoretically related, they can be distinguished empirically.
This means that both are separate constructs measuring different kinds of fit. This
is consistent with our reasoning that P-E fit focuses on a cognitive assessment of fit
(employees assess cognitively whether there is a match between their selves and their
job), whereas authenticity at work is a more affective assessment of fit (employees
focus on experienced feelings of being in touch at work).
Interestingly, Chapter 4 also revealed that supplementary fit showed substantially
stronger associations with authenticity at work compared to complementary fit and

120 Chapter VI
authenticity at work. Although this was not hypothesized, these results are in line with
Piasenten and Chapman (2007) who argue that complementary fit and supplementary
fit are different forms of P-E fit. These results suggest that similarity – i.e. supplemen-
tary fit – is more important in feeling authentic at work instead of filling in a gap and
fitting in because an employee adds a certain skill or value that is needed within the
organization – i.e. complementary fit. Expected similarity and the cognitive assessment
hereof are thus strongly associated with feelings of being true to one’s core self at work.
Finally, this chapter shed light on the possible mediation of authenticity at work on
the relationship between P-E fit and well-being. The results indicated that authenticity
at work partially mediated the association between P-E fit and well-being. Interestingly,
the indirect effects of authenticity at work were stronger for the negative forms of well-
being (boredom and burnout) than its effects on the positive forms of well-being (work
engagement and job satisfaction). These findings suggest that the adverse effect of
inauthenticity (not feeling authentic at work) is more important for health and well-being
than actually feeling authentic at work. Moreover, these findings support Rogers’ (1961;
1965) statement that being authentic would eventually lead to optimal well-being. In
addition, the reported findings are in line with recent longitudinal research of Boyraz et
al. (2014) that showed that higher levels of authenticity were related to higher levels of
life satisfaction and a decreased level of stress over time.

Authenticity and motivation

Chapter

vI
The last empirical chapter of this dissertation (Chapter 5) examined the association
between authenticity at work and motivation. Specifically, it aimed to connect different
types of motivation as described by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002) with
authenticity at work. The second goal of Chapter 5 was to investigate the possible
mediation of self-determined motivation of the association between authenticity at
work and well-being (work engagement and burnout). Our results indicated that (i)
authenticity and different forms of self-determined motivation were related and (ii) self-
determined motivation partially mediated the relationship between authenticity at work
and well-being. As for the relationship between authenticity and motivation, our results
revealed that authenticity at work was positively associated with higher forms of motiva-
tion (autonomous motivation) and negatively with lower forms of motivation (controlled
motivation). Interestingly, the strength of the association increased with the increasing
level of motivation, resulting in the strongest positive association between authenticity
at work and intrinsic regulation. Conversely, the opposite pattern emerged for the lower
forms of motivation. The strength of the negative association between authenticity at
work and controlled motivation increased, resulting in the strongest negative association
between authenticity at work and amotivation. Simply put, these findings suggest that

General Discussion 121

 authentic workers mainly participated in their work because they enjoy it. Employees
who perceive high levels of authenticity at work are strongly intrinsically motivated
to carry out their work activities. Conversely, a lack of authenticity is associated with
amotivation, underachievement and having a laissez faire attitude at work.
Furthermore, our findings revealed that self-determined motivation partially medi-
ated the association between authenticity at work and well-being. Motivation accounted
for nearly 50% of the association between authenticity and work engagement and for
approximately 30% of the association between authenticity and burnout. Apparently,
the motivational aspect is more important for engaged workers than for burned-out
workers. The direct effect of authenticity at work to work engagement and burnout was
almost twice as strong for the relationship between authenticity and burnout indicating
that the adverse effects of not feeling authentic are more important than the benefits
of feeling authentic at work.
The results presented in Chapter 4 and 5 provide an answer to research question 3.
Although authenticity at work, P-E fit and motivation are related, the concepts P-E fit
and motivation are separate constructs. Authenticity at work adds substantial value in
predicting work outcomes when examined simultaneously with both P-E fit and motiva-
tion. Figure 6.2 presents the heuristic model investigated in the present thesis.

Figure 6.2 Heuristic model based on findings (dark lines) in present thesis.

Limitations and Future research

This thesis is not without methodological issues and some of these warrant further
discussion. The three most important issues and directions for future research are the

122 Chapter VI
following. The first limitation is that all studies are based on cross-sectional data. This
means that the reported associations cannot be interpreted in terms of causation. How-
ever, this thesis had two important goals. First, we aimed to develop a reliable and valid
measure of a theory-based authenticity measure applied to the context of work. For this
aim the cross-sectional data presented in chapter 2 through 5 are sufficient. The second
goal was to shed first light on the possible associations between authenticity at work
and relevant work outcomes. Although we agree that longitudinal data would strengthen
the relationships found in the presented empirical chapters, we think that in spite of
the cross-sectional nature of the data we successfully demonstrated and illustrated the
potential of the concept of authenticity at work as an important factor within the field of
industrial and organizational psychology. However, the findings presented in figure 6.1
are based on cross-sectional data and the most obvious direction for future research is
to examine these associations over time to strengthen the results found in this thesis.
The second limitation we discuss concerns the fact that the majority of the partici-
pants represented in this thesis were mainly highly educated and white-collar workers.
Although we conducted several statistically independent studies among different occupa-
tional groups, overall the populations used in this thesis are still relatively homogeneous
concerning the educational level and the type of jobs of the participants. This means
that employees with a higher educational level where relatively overrepresented. In this
light it cannot be argued that the findings in this thesis can be generalized to blue-collar
samples. It can also mean that the strength of the findings reported in this thesis may
Chapter

vI
have been underestimated due to restriction-of-range effects. The generalization of the
results - the external validity - is therefore limited to white-collar professions. Having
said that, it is not clear why the findings of the current research would not generalize to
other occupations and populations.
The third limitation concerns the data. All data in this thesis were acquired us-
ing self-evaluation instruments, which means that common method bias (CMV) might
have influenced our findings. According to Spector (2006), the argument that using
self-evaluation instruments always and automatically leads to biased findings is an
oversimplification that has the status of a “methodological urban legend”. We have two
main reasons why we reason CMV did not substantially bias our findings. First, if CMV is
a problem it will account for systematic variance and will result in high significant inter-
correlations among all included variables in the same study. However, the correlations
presented in the empirical chapters (cf. Table 2.2; Table 3.1; Table 4.2; Table 5.1) follow
a variable pattern and although the sample sizes of the reported studies were relatively
large (with Ns ranging from 546 to 867 participants), still some correlations were almost
zero and statistically not significant. Thus, it is not the case that all correlations were
biased upwards, as would be expected in the presence of CMV. Second, in all empirical

General Discussion 123

 chapters authenticity at work was linked to either existing theories or was implemented
in existing and previously researched frameworks. This means that different studies
conducted by other researchers included overlapping variables as presented in the four
empirical chapters. For instance, the meta-analysis of Kristof-Brown and colleagues
(2005) revealed that studies using similar fit measures as implemented in Chapter 4
reported similar findings concerning the relationship between P-E fit and well-being,
suggesting that the findings presented in the current thesis are in line with previous
findings and therefore not uniquely due to the effect of CMV in the present thesis.
Based on these findings, we conclude that there is no reason to assume that CMV did
substantially bias our results. Finally, it should be noted that since in our view authentic-
ity concerns a person’s own evaluation of their level of experienced authenticity, it is
difficult to see how authenticity could have been measured non-subjectively.

Future research: A research agenda

The discussion of the limitations and the results of the present thesis provided at least
five suggestions for future research.
(1) The results in de present thesis and recent studies show that state authenticity
at work is a possible mediator of the associations among job resources, well-being and
performance (Metin, Taris, Van Beek, Peeters, & Van den Bosch, 2016). Moreover, state
authenticity at work acted as a buffer of the association of some job demands in a
healthcare sample. Authenticity at work buffered the association of emotional demands
on emotional exhaustion and cynicism, and the effect of surface acting and turnover
intention (Brenninkmeijer, Van den Bosch, Van Hoof, & Taris, 2015). To successfully
demonstrate the possible mediating and moderating effects of authenticity at work
in association with relevant work outcomes as presented in figure 6.1, a three-wave
longitudinal study is necessary.
(2) Since all constructs in the present thesis are assessed using self-evaluation
measures, the associations with actual objective work-outcomes such as absenteeism
and performance remain to be investigated. Future research should therefore also
incorporate these objective measures.
(3) As we argued earlier in this thesis (Chapter 4), a lack of experienced authenticity
might be the result of a poor fit between the employee and the organization he/she
works for. Previous research by Lenton et al. (2013) revealed that employees feel strong
motivations to experience true authenticity and avoid feelings of inauthenticity. Specific
interventions such as job crafting techniques (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) are activities
an employee can undertake to shape their environment in a way that this will improve
fit, and hereby meet their specific needs and desires. We assume that employees who
are able to craft their job will (a) experience higher levels of experienced authenticity,

124 Chapter VI
(b) experience higher levels of well-being and (c) will perform better. Future research
can incorporate different forms of job crafting techniques (e.g. Petrou et al., 2012) in
the framework represented in figure 6.1 and investigate the possible moderating role
of job crafting on the association between P-E fit and authenticity at work, and on the
relationships between authenticity at work and well-being and performance.
(4) As stated earlier, white collar workers are overrepresented in the empirical chap-
ters. Therefore, future research should also focus on blue collar samples to investigate
whether the found associations are also present in a blue collar work environment. Blue
collar work environments are often limited in the experienced level of freedom to carry
out work activities. Therefore, it would seem possible for blue collar workers to experi-
ence lower levels of authenticity at work. It would also possible for blue collar workers
to put a different emphasis on feeling “authentic” at work, e.g., it has been argued
that “social class” is related to values and orientation: the higher one’s social class
position, the greater the likelihood that one will value self-direction and conversely, the
lower one’s class position, the more one will conform to external authority (i.e., accept
external influence; cf. Kohn, 1977). Such a different emphasis on being authentic could
also affect the associations between authenticity and other concepts. Thus, in order to
study the external validity of authenticity at work, it is imperative to conduct studies
among blue-collar workers as well.
(5) Last, in Chapter 5 we investigated the association between authenticity and
motivation, showing that the associations proposed by Ryan, Laguardia, and Raw-
Chapter

vI
sthorne (2005) were found. Feeling authentic at work apparently enhanced the quality
of motivation and levels of well-being. Furthermore, SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) argue
that the fulfillment of three psychological needs (competence, relatedness, and au-
tonomy) are essential for optimal functioning. However, the association between the
three psychological needs, authenticity at work and motivational regulation remains to
be investigated. We wonder whether the fulfillment of these three needs will enhance
feelings of authenticity at work. If so, it will strengthen the self-determination theory.

Practical implications
The findings in this thesis are valuable to employees as well as organizations. Although
it is unclear whether the associations presented in this thesis can be construed caus-
ally, at the very least low scores on authenticity at work constitute a ”warning sign”
for an unfavorable work situation, both on the individual and the departmental levels.
The current results show that low levels of experienced authenticity are negatively
associated with well-being and performance. Therefore, low levels of experienced au-
thenticity at work are relevant for both the employee (due to signs of lower well-being)
and the organization (due to lower in-role performance of low authentic workers). For

General Discussion 125

 instance, the IAM Work can be used as an assessment tool to detect departments with
high numbers of employees reporting low levels of authenticity. Specifically developed
interventions may prevent or at least reduce the negative work outcomes. Furthermore,
misfitting and inauthentic workers can be invited by the human resource department of
the organization to discuss possible causes of feeling inauthentic and consequently solve
these issues together.
Screening for inauthentic employees is not solely important for individuals but also
relevant for teams. Hannah et al. (2011) reported a positive interaction between team
authenticity and authenticity strength on team work behavior, meaning that variations
in levels of authenticity (authenticity strength) were associated with different levels
of team work behavior. They argue that despite moderate levels of experienced team
authenticity, an inauthentic team member could be partially responsible for decreasing
productivity and could affect team work behavior negatively. These findings underline
the importance of screening for inauthentic employees since lack of authenticity not only
affects employees’ own levels of well-being but also team performance. Based on these
findings, organizations might consider relocating inauthentic workers who indeed show
lower levels of performance and team spirit, to a different team or to a position where
teamwork is less essential to their daily performance.
Self-alienation, one of the subdimensions of authenticity at work, is the congruence
between one’s conscious awareness and their actual physiological states (cf. Barrett-
Lennard, 1998). Employees with signs of high levels of self-alienation might engage in
work activities that do not fit their core self. This could result in a situation where alien-
ated workers engage in work activities that do not suit them, while lacking the conscious
awareness of doing so. I.e. these employees could lack the ability to experience a lack
of congruence between their physiological states and their consciousness awareness,
which might result in feelings of alienation. To increase the conscious awareness of these
employees they could engage in activities such as coaching sessions. This might further
increase employees’ understanding of the causes of their feelings of self-alienation and
could enhance their awareness of the reasons why they participate in their current work
activities the way they do. In this way they could enhance their self-knowledge, which
could in turn result in lower levels of alienation from their core and inner self and in
higher levels of self-worth.
Furthermore, in this thesis we conceptualized state authenticity at work as the de-
gree of congruence between the person and the environment in which he/she operates;
thus, lack of authenticity might be a consequence of a bad employee-job fit. In order to
improve this fit several interventions may be beneficial. First, job crafting (Petrou et al.,
2012) or I-deals (Bal, De Jong, Jansen & Bakker, 2012) consists of a set of techniques
which could enhance feelings of authenticity at work. In this way employees are able

126 Chapter VI
to tailor their jobs to their own preference, which can lead to jobs were employees
achieve better fit and feel more authentic. Employees are strongly motivated to experi-
ence true authenticity and to avoid feelings of inauthenticity (Lenton, Bruder, Slabu, &
Sedikides, 2013). This, in combination with adverse health effects of feeling inauthentic,
emphasizes the need for organizations to develop measures and policies that facilitate
employees in feeling authentic at work. By doing so organizations use the energy and
motivation of employees to shape their environment in a way that suits their core self
well. The ability to create and shape a more authentic experience at work can be seen
as an important skill which an employee can develop or already possess.
At the organizational level the experienced level of authenticity might be relevant
for the success of large-scale cultural change programs. Such programs may result
in employees experiencing poor fit with the new values of an organization. In time
this could lead employees to feel inauthentic, which might have adverse consequences
for employee health and performance. Therefore, the experienced level of authenticity
can be assessed before, during and after the cultural change to examine the adaption
process of the employees. This could help management to timely intervene and/or
relocate employees to positions were they can flourish instead of depleting all their
personal and mental resources.

Conclusion
The current research presents a first step in investigating the concept of state authentic-
Chapter

vI
ity at work. The main research question of this thesis was to provide further insight
into the issue whether authenticity at work is a relevant and useful concept in the field
of industrial and organizational psychology. The findings suggest that the concept of
authenticity at work has much potential for research and practice in the context of work
and organizational psychology. In this respect one main contribution of this research is
that it successfully developed a short and reliable state-like measure of authenticity at
work. Furthermore, the research presented here provided evidence for possible adverse
effects of experienced inauthenticity at work as well as for the potential benefits result-
ing from feeling authentic at work. Thus, this thesis successfully sheds first light on the
concept of authenticity in a work-specific environment. Although the evidence for asso-
ciations between authenticity at work and often-studied well-being and work outcomes
is clear, their causal linkage remains to be investigated. All in all, we believe the present
thesis provides a useful foundation for future research concerning authenticity and adds
to the understanding of the position of authenticity in the nomological network of work.

General Discussion 127

 References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Struc- Brenninkmeijer, V., Van den Bosch, R., Van
tural equation modeling in practice: A review Hoof, R., & Taris, T. W.(2015). ‘To thine own
and recommended two-step approach. Psy- self be true’: The role of authenticity in the
chological Bulletin, 103 , 411-423. relationship between job demands, employee
well-being and performance. Manuscript
Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). AMOS 18.0 [computer under editorial consideration.
software]. Chicago: SPSS.
Brewer, G.A. (2005). In the eye of the storm:
Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M. & Kaplan, A. Frontline supervisors and federal agency per-
(2009). Identified and introjection approach formance. Journal of Public Administration
and introjection avoidance motivations in Research and Theory, 15, 505-527.
school and in sports: The limited benefits of
self-worth strivings. Journal of Educational Brunell, A. B., Kernis, M. H., Goldman, B. M.,
Psychology, 101, 482-497. Heppner, W., Davis, P., Cascio, E. V., & Webster,
G. D. (2010). Dispositional authenticity and
Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F., Luthans, romantic relationship functioning. Personal-
F. & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A ity and Individual Differences, 48, 900-905.
look at the process by which authentic leaders
impact follower attitudes and behaviors, The Burks, D. J., & Robbins, R. (2012). Psychologists’
Leadership Quarterly, 15 , 801-823. authenticity: Implications for work in profes-
sional and therapeutic settings. Journal of
Bal, P. M., De Jong, S. B., Jansen, P. G. W., & Humanistic Psychology, 52, 75-104.
Bakker. A. B. (2012). Motivating employees to
work beyond retirement: A multi-level study Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation
of the role of I-deals and unit climate. Journal modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, appli-
of Management Studies, 49, 306-331. cations, and programming (2nd Ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1998). Carl Rogers’
helping system: Journey & substance. Lon- Cable. D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Comple-
don: Sage. mentary and supplementary fit: A theoretical
and empirical integration. Journal of Applied
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey Psychology, 89, 822-834.
response rate levels and trends in organiza-
tional research. Human Relations, 61, 1139- Caplan, R. D. (1983). Person-environment fit:
1160. Past, present and future. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.),
Stress research (pp. 35-78). New York: Wiley.
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2002). EQS for
Windows: User’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivari- Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the
ate Software, Inc. number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245-276.
Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6 [computer manual].
Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional
organizational research: A model of person-
Boucher, H. C. (2011). The dialectical self-con- organization fit. Academy of Management
cept II: Cross-role and within-role consistency, Review, 14, 333-349.
well-being, self-certainty, and authenticity.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 1251- Chen, Q. (2012). The impact of ignoring a level
1271. of nesting structure in multilevel mixture
model: A Monte Carlo study. Sage Open.
Boyraz, G., Waits, J. B., & Felix, V. A. (2014).
Authenticity, life satisfaction, and distress: A Cloninger, C., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T.
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling R. (1993). A psychobiological model of tem-
Psychology, 61, 498-505.

128 References
perament and character. Archives of General Erickson, R. J. (1994). Our society, our selves:
Psychiatry, 50, 975-990. Becoming authentic in an inauthentic world.
Advanced Development, 6, 27-39.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for
the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, Erickson, T. J., & Gratton, L. (2007). What it
NJ: Erlbaum. means to work here. Harvard Business Re-
view. Boston, Harvard Business Publishing.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The
robustness of test statistics to nonnormality Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R.
and specification error in confirmatory factor C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use
analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29. of exploratory factor analysis in psychological
research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.
De Beurs, E., Van Dyck, R., Marquenie, L. A.,
Lange, A., & Blonk, R. W. B. (2001). The Depres- Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005).
sion Anxiety Stress Scales: A questionnaire for The relationship between job satisfaction
measuring depression, anxiety and stress [in and health: a meta-analysis. Occupational
Dutch]. Gedragstherapie, 34, 35-53. and Environmental Medicine, 62, 105-112.

De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Fernet, C., Guay, F., & Senécal, C. (2004).
Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. (2003). “The Adjusting to job demands: The role of work
very best of the millennium”: Longitudinal self-determination and job control in predict-
research and the demand-control-(support) ing burnout. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
model. Journal of Occupational Health Psy- 65 , 39-56.
chology, 8, 282-305.
Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. A. (2006). Nonnor-
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic mo- mal and categorical data in structural equa-
tivation and self-determination in human tion modeling. Greenwich (CT): Information
behavior. New York: Plenum. Age Publishing.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” Fleeson, W., & Wilt, J. (2010). The relevance of
and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and big five trait content in behavior to subjective
the self-determination of behavior. Psycho- authenticity: Do high levels of within-person
logical Inquiry, 11, 227-268. behavioral variability undermine or enable
authenticity achievement? Journal of Person-
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A con- ality, 78, 1353-1383.
ceptual integration, literature review, and
methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper and Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determina-
I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of tion theory and work motivation. Journal of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
283-357). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M.,
Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person-environment fit Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli,
in organizations: An assessment of theoreti- A.K., et al. (2010). Validation evidence in ten
cal progress. The Academy of Management languages for the Revised Motivation at Work
Annals, 2, 167-230. Scale. Montreal: Concordia University.

Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M.,
(1998). Person-environment fit theory: Con- Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli,
ceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and A.K., et al. (2014). The multidimensional
directions for future research. In C. L. Cooper work motivation scale: Validation evidence
(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. in seven languages and nine countries. Eu-
28-67). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ropean Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology.

References 129
 George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. N., & Mayer, D. Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can
(2007). Discovering your authentic leadership. test statistics in covariance structure analysis
Harvard Business Review. be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351-362.

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2005). Managing au- Jung, H.J. (2011). Why be authentic? Psycho-
thenticity: The paradox of great leadership. logical underpinnings of authenticity among
Harvard Business Review. baby boomers in the United States. Ethos, 29,
279-299.
Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999).
Person-organization fit and contextual per- Kalimo, R., Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B.
formance: Do shared values matter? Journal (2003). The effects of past and anticipated
of Vocational Behavior, 55 , 254-275. future downsizing on survivor well-being: An
equity perspective. Journal of Occupational
Grandey, A., Foo, S.C., Groth, M., & Goodwin, Health Psychology, 8, 91-109.
R.E. (2012). Free to be you and me: A climate
of authenticity alleviates burnout from emo- Kanter, R. M., Stein, B., & Jick, T. (2003). The
tional labor. Journal of Occupational Health challenge of organizational change: How
Psychology, 17, 1-14. companies experience it and leaders guide it.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gray, J. A. (1985). Issues in het neuropsychol-
ogy of anxiety. In A. H. Tuma and J. D. Maser Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Hout-
(Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. man, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job
5-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument
for internationally comparative assessments
Guan, Y., Deng, H., Risavy, S. D., Bond, M. H., of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of
& Li, F. (2011). Supplementary fit, complemen- Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 322-355.
tary fit, and work-related outcomes: The role
of self-construal. Applied Psychology: An Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy
International Review, 60, 286-310. work: Stress, productivity, and the recon-
struction of working life. New York: Basic
Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Fry, L. W. Books.
(2011). Leadership in action teams: Team
leader and members’ authenticity, authentic- Kass, S. J., Vodanovich, S. J., & Callender, A.
ity strength, and team outcomes. Personnel (2001). State-trait boredom: the relationship
Psychology, 64, 771-802. to absenteeism, tenure and job satisfaction.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 317-
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder 327.
and S. J. Lopez (Eds), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 382–394). Oxford, UK: Oxford Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A
University Press. multicomponent conceptualization of au-
thenticity: Theory and research. Advances in
Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-357.
Foster, J., Lakey, C. E., & Goldman, B. M. (2008).
Within-person relationships among daily Kets De Vries, M. F. R., & Balazs, K. (1997). The
self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authen- downside of downsizing. Human Relations,
ticity. Psychological Science, 19, 1140-1145. 50, 11-50.

Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quan- Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and practice of
titative review of the relationship between structural equation modeling (2nd Ed.). New
person-organization fit and behavioral York: The Guilford Press.
outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68
389-399. Kohn, M. L. (1977). Class and conformity: A
study in values (2nd Ed.). Chicago: The Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.

130 References
Kristensen, T. F., & Borg, V. (2003). Copenha- Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manu-
gen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). al for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd
Copenhagen: AMI. Ed.). Sydney: Psychology Foundation.

Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Per- Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Day, L., & Pinto, D.
son–environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA (2012). The position of authenticity within
handbook of industrial and organizational extant models of personality. Personality and
psychology, Vol. 3: Maintaining, expanding, Individual Differences, 52, 269-273.
and contracting the organization (pp. 3-50).
Washington, DC: American Psychological As- Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multidimen-
sociation. sional perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C.
Maslach, and T. Marek (Eds.), Professional
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., burnout: Recent developments in theory and
& Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of research (pp. 19-32). Washington, DC: Taylor &
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of Francis.
person-job, person-organization, person-
group, and person- supervisor fit. Personnel Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997).The truth
Psychology, 58, 281-342. about burnout: How organizations cause
personal stress and what to do about it. San
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
properties of the HEXACO personality inven-
tory. Multivariate Behavior Research, 39, Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predic-
329-358. tors of job burnout and engagement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 3, 498-512.
Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L., & Sedidikes,
C. (2013). How does “being real” feel? The Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P.
experience of state authenticity. Journal of (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psy-
Personality, 81, 276-289. chology, 52, 397-422.

Lenton, A. P., Slabu, L., Sedikides, C., & Power, McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming
K. (2013). I feel good, therefore I am real: Test- inferences about some intraclass correlations
ing the causal influence of mood on state coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.
authenticity. Cognition and Emotion, 27,
1202-1224. Melamed, S., Ben-Avi, I. Luza, J., & Green, M. S.
(1995). Objective and subjective work monot-
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. ony: effects on job satisfaction, psychological
New York: Harper. distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar work-
ers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 29-42.
Lips-Wiersma, M., & Hall, D. T. (2007). Orga-
nizational career development is not dead: Ménard, J. (2008). Authenticité et bien-être
a case study on managing the new career au travail: Étude auprès de gestionnaires.
during organizational change. Journal of Montréal (CA): Université de Montreal.
Organizational Behavior, 28, 771-792.
Ménard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity
Lock, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of and well-being in the workplace: A mediation
job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26,
Handbook of industrial and organizational 331-346.
psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally College. Metin, U. B., Taris, T. W., Van Beek, I., Peeters,
M. C. W., & Van den Bosch, R. (2016). Authen-
Lopez, F. G., & Rice K. G. (2006). Preliminary ticity at work: A job-demands resources per-
development and validation of a measure of spective. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
relationship authenticity. Journal of Counsel- 31, 483-499.
ing Psychology, 53, 362-371.

References 131
 Mikulas, W. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The Pejtersen, J.H., Kristensen, T.S., Borg, V., &
essence of boredom. Psychological Record, 43 , Bjorner, J.B. (2010). The second version of the
3-12. Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38,
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). 8-24.
What is person-environment congruence?
Supplementary versus complementary mod- Persson, R. S. (2009). Intellectually gifted
els of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, individuals’ career choices and work satisfac-
268-277. tion: A descriptive study. Gifted and Talented
International, 24 , 11-24.
Neff, K. D., & Suizzo, M. (2006). Culture, power,
authenticity and psychological well-being Petrou, P., Demerouti, E. Peeters, M. C. W.,
within romantic relationships: A comparison Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting
of European American and Mexican Ameri- a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates
cans. Cognitive Development, 21, 441-457. and the link to work engagement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33 , 1120-1141.
Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J. S. (2012). The
development and validation of a job crafting Piasenten, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. (2007).
measure for use with blue-collar workers. Perceived similarity and complementarity as
Work & Stress, 26, 365-384. predictors of subjective person-organization
fit. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psy- tional Psychology, 80, 341-354.
chometric Theory (3rd Ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill. Pinto, D. G., Maltby, J., & Wood, A. M. (2011).
Exploring the tripartite model of authentic-
O’Conner, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs ity within Gray’s approach and inhibition
for determining the number of components systems and Cloninger’s bio-social model of
using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. personality. Personality and Individual Differ-
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & ences, 51, 194-197.
Computers, 32, 396-402.
Powell, P. M., & Haden, T. (1984). The intel-
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. lectual and psychosocial nature of extreme
(1991). People and organizational culture: a giftedness. Roeper Review, 6, 131-133.
profile comparison approach to assessing
person-organization fit. Academy of Manage- Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymp-
ment Journal, 34, 487-516. totic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple
Oh, I., Guay, R. P., Kim, K., Harold, C. M., Lee, J., mediator models. Behavior Research Meth-
Heo, C., & Shin, K. (2013). Fit happens globally: ods, 40, 879-891.
A meta-analytic comparison of the relation-
ships of person-environment fit dimensions Reijseger, G., Schaufeli, W. B., Peeters, M. C. W.,
with work attitudes and performance across Taris, T. W., Van Beek, I., & Ouweneel, E. (2012).
East Asia, Europe, and North America. Person- Watching the paint dry at work: psychometric
nel Psychology, 67, 99-152. examination of the Dutch boredom scale.
Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 1, 1-18.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011).
Change recipients’ reactions to organiza- Rogelberg, S.G., Leach, D.J., Warr, P.B., & Burn-
tional change: A 60-year review of quantita- field, J.L. (2006). “Not another meeting!”: Are
tive studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral meeting time demands related to employee
Science, 47, 461-524. well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
86-96.
Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Bos-
ton, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

132 References
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2000).
therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: UBOS—Utrechtse Burnout Schaal. Handlei-
Houghton Mifflin. ding [Utrecht Burnout Scale—Test Manual].
Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets Test Services.
Rogers, C. R. (1965). The concept of the fully
functioning person. Pastoral Psychology, 16, Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., &
21-33. Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inven-
tory – General Survey. In C. Maslach, S. E.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determi- Jackson, and M. P. Leiter (Eds.), The Maslach
nation theory and the facilitation of intrinsic Burnout Inventory-test Manual (3rd Ed., pp.
motivation, social development, and well- 22–26). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
being. American Psychologist, 55 , 68-78. Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá,
self-determination theory: an organismic V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of
dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci and R. M. engagement and burnout: A two sample con-
Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination firmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: The Univer- Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
sity of Rochester PresRyan, R. M., Laguardia, J.
G., & Rawsthorne, L. J. (2005). Self-complexity Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2005). The con-
and the authenticity of self-aspects: Effects ceptualization and measurement of burnout:
on well-being and resilience to stressful Common ground and worlds apart. Work &
events. North American Journal of Psychol- Stress, 19, 256-262.
ogy, 7, 431-448.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen,
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work
the Big Five: Applications of 10 psychometric engagement: three of a kind or three different
criteria to the development of marker scales. kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psy-
Big Five Assessment (29-58). Göttingen: Ho- chology: An International Review, 57, 173-203.
grefe & Huber.
Schmid, P. F. (2005). Authenticity and alien-
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). ation: Towards an understanding of the
Linking organizational resources and work person beyond the categories of order and
engagement to employee performance and disorder. In S. Joseph and R. Worsley (Eds),
customer loyalty: The mediation of service Person-centred psychopathology (pp. 75-90).
climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, Ross-on-Wye (UK): PCCS.
1217-1227.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
corrections for chi-square statistics in covari-
ance structure analysis. Proceedings of the Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D.
American Statistical Association, 1, 308-313. B. (1995). The ASA framework: an update.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773.
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The
conceptualization and measurement of work Seashore, S. E., & Taber, T. D. (1975). Job
engagement. In A.B. Bakker and M.P. Leiter satisfaction indicators and their correlates.
(Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of es- American Behavioral Scientist, 18, 333-368.
sential theory and research (pp. 10-24). New
York: Psychology Press. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L.
J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self:
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personal-
(2003). The measurement of work engage- ity traits and its relations with psychological
ment with a short questionnaire. Educational authenticity and subjective well-being.
and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716.

References 133
 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014b). The
73 , 1380-1393. authentic worker’s well-being and perfor-
mance: The relationship between authentic-
Slabu, L., Lenton, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Bruder, ity at work, well-being, and work outcomes.
M. (2014). Trait and state authenticity across The Journal of Psychology, 148, 659-681.
cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-
ogy, 45, 1347-1373. Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2015). The
authentic worker’s motivation and well-
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for in- being. Manuscript currently under editorial
direct effects in structural equations models. consideration.
In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology
1982 (pp.290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Van den Broeck, A., Schreurs, B., De Witte, H.,
Vansteenkiste, M., Germeys, F., & Schaufeli,
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in orga- W. (2011). Understanding workaholics’ mo-
nizational research: Truth or urban legend? tivations: A self-determination perspective.
Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
60, 600-621.
Spitzmuller, M., & Ilies, R. (2010). Do they
[all] see my true self? Leader’s relational Van Horn, J.E., Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B.,
authenticity and followers’ assessments of & Schreurs, P.J.G. (2004). The structure of
transformational leadership. European Jour- occupational well-being: A study among
nal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and
19, 304-332. Organizational Psychology, 77, 365-375.

Taris, T. W. (2006). Bricks without clay: On ur- Van Ryn, M., & Vinokur, A. D. (1992). How did
ban myths in occupational health psychology. it work? An examination of the mechanisms
Work & Stress, 20, 99-104. through which an intervention for the
unemployed promoted job-search behavior.
Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., &Shimazu, A. American Journal of Community Psychology,
(2010). The push and pull of work: The dif- 20, 577-597.
ferences between workaholism and work
engagement. In A.B. Bakker and M.P. Leiter Van Veldhoven, M., De Jonge, J., Broersen, S.,
(Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of es- Kompier, M., & Meijman, T.F. (2002). Specific
sential theory and research (pp. 39-53). New relations between psychosocial job condi-
York: Psychology Press. tions and job-related stress: A three-level
analytic approach. Work &Stress, 16, 207–228.
Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Authenticity and
its influence on psychological well-being Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000).
and contingent self-esteem of leaders in Construct explication through factor or
Singapore construction sector. Construction component analysis: A review and evaluation
Management and Economics, 27, 299-313. of alternative procedures for determining
the number of factors or components. In R.
Van Beek, I., Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W.B., Taris. D. Goffin and E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and
T.W., & Schreurs, B.H. (2012). For fun, love or solutions in human assessment: Honoring
money. What drives workaholic, engaged and Douglas Jackson at seventy (pp. 41-71). Boston:
burned-out employees at work? Applied Psy- Kluwer.
chology: An International Review, 61, 30-55.
Vodanovic, S. J. (2003). Psychometric mea-
Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014a). Au- sures of boredom: A review of the literature.
thenticity at work: The development and vali- Journal of Psychology, 137, 569-593.
dation of an individual authenticity measure
at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1-18. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W.
L., Wernsing, W. L., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and vali-

134 References
dation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D.
Management, 34, 89-126. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee
positive well-being on the relation between
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. job satisfaction and job performance. Journal
(1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 93-104.
are single-item measures? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 247-252. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Craft-
ing a job: Revisioning employees as active
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). crafters of their work. Academy of Manage-
Development and validation of brief mea- ment Review, 26, 179–201.
sures of positive and negative affect: The PA-
NAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti,
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2007). The role of per-
sonal resources in the job demands-resources
Watt, J. D., & Hargis, M. B. (2010). Boredom model. International Journal of Stress Man-
proneness: its relationship with subjective agement, 14, 121-141.
underemployment, perceived organizational
support, and job performance. Journal of Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy.
Business Psychology, 25 , 163-174. New York: Basic Books.

White, N. (2011). An examination of disposi- Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Factor
tional authenticity. Arizona State University, influencing five rules for determining the
Arizona. number of components to retain. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 99 , 432-442.
Wood, A. M., Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Baliou-
sis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic
personality: A theoretical and empirical
conceptualization and the development of
the authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 55 , 385-399.

References 135
Summary

Summary 137
Introduction
Due to ongoing changes in the organizations they work for, employees frequently face
challenging situations and are often uncertain about their job. These challenging situ-
ations may lead workers to prefer having high job and financial security to optimizing
their fit with their job. However, individuals also attach great importance to work for
organizations that match well with their own preferences and aspirations, and where
they can expect to feel authentic (i.e. the degree to which an individual stays true to
their core self).
In spite of the expected relevance of authenticity in the context of the work en-
vironment, little research specifically focuses on experienced authenticity at work.
Furthermore, previous work on authenticity showed at least three important limitations.
These studies (i) focused on human functioning in general, instead of on work-specific
functioning, (ii) employed trait-like conceptualizations of authenticity instead of state-
like conceptualizations, and (iii) employed both subjective and objective conceptualiza-
tions of authenticity. Therefore, the main focus of this thesis was to address these
issues and to extend the understanding of subjectively self-experienced authenticity
in the work context. Since little research is done on the possible associations between
authenticity in the workplace and other concepts, the second aim of this thesis was to
further validate the concept of authenticity at work by examining its associations with
relevant work outcomes (i.e. work engagement, in-role performance, and burn-out).
Below the answers to the three main research questions addressed in the current thesis
will be summarized.

Summary of main findings

Research question 1: Can authenticity at work be measured with a

reliable and valid instrument?
Based on earlier work in the area of authenticity in general, in Chapter 2 we developed
a person-centered conceptualization of authenticity at work, the Individual Authenticity
Measure at Work (IAM Work). The analyses conducted in this chapter supported the
expected three-factor structure of authenticity at work and consequently resulted in an
instrument with three subdimensions of authenticity: lack of self-alienation, authentic
living, and not accepting external influence. The results presented in Chapters 2 and 3
reveal that self-alienation is most likely the core of the concept of authenticity at work,
as reflected in stronger associations between this subscale and well-being. Furthermore,
in the present thesis three additional large-scale survey studies were conducted. In all
studies reliability statistics and fit indices showed fair up to good results, with findings
that mostly corresponded with our theory-based expectations. Based on these findings

Summary 139
 we conclude that authenticity at work can be measured with a reliable and valid instru-
ment: the IAM Work.

Research question 2: Is authenticity at work a predictor of relevant

work outcomes?
In Chapter 3 we built on the findings presented in Chapter 2 and investigated the as-
sociations between authenticity at work, well-being, in-role performance, and turnover
intention. After controlling for demographic variables and relevant work characteristics
(such as work demands and social support), the concept of authenticity at work ac-
counted for a substantial amount of variance in predicting well-being and work outcomes.
Furthermore, this study suggested that authenticity is more important in predicting well-
being rather than work outcomes. In addition, high levels of experienced authenticity
are associated with higher levels of positive well-being (such as work engagement and
job satisfaction) and performance. Conversely, low levels of experienced authenticity are
associated with higher levels of negative well-being (such as emotional exhaustion and
cynicism, which constitute the core of the burn-out construct). Based on the findings
reported in Chapters 2 and 3 we conclude that authenticity at work is indeed a relevant
predictor of important work outcomes and well-being.

Research question 3: What are possible processes accounting for

the associations between authenticity and selected work outcomes
(such as P-E fit and motivation)?
Based on the definitions of authenticity at work, self-determined motivation, and
Person-Environment (P-E) fit, the three concepts seem to be closely related; they all
refer to the degree to which the characteristics and motivation of a person match (the
behaviors required in) a particular context. Therefore, further understanding of the
relations among these concepts is needed. Furthermore, it is unclear to which degree
authenticity at work can be distinguished empirically from concepts such as P-E fit and
motivation. In Chapters 4 and 5 we addressed both issues and assessed the distinctive-
ness of the IAM work by examining the associations between authenticity at work on the
one hand and P-E fit and motivation on the other.
Chapter 4 showed that P-E fit and authenticity at work are separate constructs and
are differently associated with well-being and work outcomes. Furthermore, the results
of this study revealed that similarity – being similar to the organization, or “supplemen-
tary fit” – is more important in feeling authentic than ‘fitting in’ – providing something
that is missing in the organization, or “complementary fit”. Lastly, mediation analysis
showed that authenticity at work partially mediated the association between P-E fit
and well-being. Interestingly, the associations were stronger for the negative forms of

140
well-being, suggesting that the adverse effects of feeling inauthentic at work are more
important than the possible benefits of feeling authentic in the workplace.
Chapter 5 examined the association between motivation and authenticity at work.
The results indicate that (i) authenticity at work and several forms of self-determined
motivation are related, and (ii) self-determined motivation partially mediates the as-
sociation between authenticity at work and well-being. Interestingly, authenticity at
work was strongly and positively associated with higher-quality types of motivation (i.e.
intrinsic motivation), and was strongly negatively associated with lower-quality forms
of self-determined motivation (i.e. external regulation). Moreover, the strength of the
relationship between authenticity at work and various types of motivation varied. It was
strongly positive for the higher quality (intrinsic) types of motivation, but decreased and
eventually became strongly negative for the lower-quality types of motivation.
The results in Chapters 4 and 5 provide an answer to the third research question.
Although authenticity at work, P-E fit, and (intrinsic) motivation are indeed related, the
three concepts can be considered as separate constructs: authenticity at work added
substantial value in predicting well-being and work outcomes when assessed simultane-
ously with P-E fit and motivation.

Practical implications
The findings presented in the current thesis are relevant for individuals, teams, and
organizations. Low scores on authenticity at work can be considered as a “warning sign”
for lack of well-being, low performance and motivation. The present thesis provides sug-
gestions for concrete interventions at the individual, team, and organizational levels. For
example, the IAM Work can be used as an assessment tool to screen departments for
employees who experience low levels of authenticity. Specially developed and tailored
interventions might mitigate the adverse effects of not feeling authentic at work.

Limitations
There are three important limitations to the findings presented in this thesis. Firstly, in
order to develop a valid and reliable measure and to investigate the possible antecedents
of authenticity at work, the studies presented in this thesis all drew on cross-sectional
study designs. Therefore, results should be interpreted with care, especially regarding
possible cause-effect relationships. Secondly, the majority of the participants in the
studies presented here were highly educated and white-collar workers. This means that
the generalization of the results is limited to white-collar workers only. Finally, since
all data were acquired using self-evaluatory instruments, common method bias (CMV)
might have biased our findings. However, in the separate chapters of this thesis we
argue why this should not be a major issue here.

Summary 141
 Conclusion
The present thesis is among the first to investigate the concept of authenticity at work.
The findings presented here suggest that authenticity at work is a promising concept for
research and practice in the field of work and organizational psychology. We successfully
developed a short and reliable measure of authenticity at work (the IAM Work), showed
possible adverse effects of not feeling authentic at work on well-being, and shed first
light on the role of authenticity in a work-specific environment. All in all, the present
thesis provides a strong foundation for further research using the concept of authentic-
ity at work.

142
Samenvatting

Samenvatting 145
Introductie
Door de continue transformatie van organisaties komen werknemers voortdurend voor
uitdagingen te staan, waarbij ook hun huidige baan onder druk kan komen te staan.
Enerzijds kunnen deze uitdagende situaties ertoe leiden dat werknemers kiezen voor
baan- of financiële zekerheid en niet voor de “ideale” baan die goed bij hen zou passen.
Aan de andere kant zien we dat werknemers bij voorkeur kiezen voor organisaties die
dezelfde doelen en dromen nastreven als zijzelf. Er ontstaat dan een betere match
tussen het individu en de organisatie waarvoor zij werken. Werknemers verwachten hier
meer authentiek te kunnen zijn (waarbij authenticiteit omschreven kan worden als de
mate waarin een individu dicht bij zijn/haar echte zelf kan blijven).
Hoewel het begrip authenticiteit relevant lijkt te zijn in de context van werk is er tot
op heden maar weinig onderzoek naar gedaan. Daarnaast zien we dat eerdere studies
die authenticiteit hebben onderzocht een aantal beperkingen kennen. Deze studies
gingen met betrekking tot het concept authenticiteit uit van (i) algemeen functioneren
in plaats van werkspecifiek functioneren, (ii) vatten authenticiteit eerder op als een
stabiel persoonskenmerk (een ‘trait’) dan als een veranderlijke toestand (‘state’) en
(iii) maakten gebruik van subjectieve en objectieve omschrijvingen van authenticiteit.
Om deze redenen is het hoofddoel van dit proefschrift om deze beperkingen voor het
begrip authenticteit te adresseren en daarmee tevens het begrip van authenticiteit op
het werk te vergroten. Omdat nauwelijks onderzoek is gedaan naar de mogelijke relaties
tussen authenticiteit en andere concepten in de context van werk is het tweede doel
van dit proefschrift om het concept van authenticiteit op het werk verder te valideren
en de mogelijke relaties met relevante werkuitkomsten te onderzoeken, denk hierbij
bijvoorbeeld aan werkbevlogenheid, prestatie en burnout. In het vervolg van deze sa-
menvatting worden de drie hoofdvragen en de antwoorden hierop kort besproken. Deze
samenvatting sluit af met de praktische implicaties en de conclusie.

Samenvatting van de bevindingen

Onderzoeksvraag 1: kan authenticiteit gemeten worden met een

betrouwbaar en valide meetinstrument?
In hoofdstuk 2 ontwikkelen we een instrument om authenticiteit op het werk te meten,
de Individual Authenticity Measure at Work (IAM Work). De in dit hoofdstuk uitgevoerde
analyses ondersteunen de veronderstelde drie-factor structuur van authenticiteit op het
werk. De IAM Work kent daarmee drie subdimensies: het ontbreken van zelfvervreem-
ding, authentiek leven en het niet accepteren van sociale invloed. De resultaten in hoofd-
stuk 2 en 3 laten zien dat de subdimensie zelfvervreemding de belangrijkste dimensie
is en daarmee de kern van het concept authenticiteit op het werk vertegenwoordigt. Dit

Samenvatting 147
 is te zien aan de sterkere correlaties tussen zelfvervreemding en verschillende vormen
van welzijn die in deze hoofdstukken worden onderzocht. In dit proefschrift zijn er
drie grootschalige onafhankelijke survey studies uitgezet. In al deze studies laten de
betrouwbaarheidsstatistieken en de fit-maten goede resultaten zien en zijn deze resul-
taten inhoudelijk goed interpreteerbaar. Op basis van deze bevindingen concluderen
we dat authenticiteit op het werk gemeten kan worden met een betrouwbaar en valide
meetinstrument: de IAM Work.

Onderzoeksvraag 2: is authenticiteit op het werk een voorspeller van

relevante werkuitkomsten?
In hoofdstuk 3 borduren we voort op de bevindingen uit hoofdstuk 2 en onderzoeken
we de relatie tussen authenticiteit op het werk, welzijn, prestatie en verloopintentie. Na
controle voor relevante werkeigenschappen (bijvoorbeeld taakeisen en sociale steun) en
demografische eigenschappen laten de analyses zien dat het concept authenticiteit op
het werk voor een substantiële toename in de verklaarde variantie zorgt bij het voorspel-
len van welzijn en werkuitkomsten. Daarnaast laat deze studie zien dat authenticiteit op
het werk een sterkere voorspeller is van welzijn dan van andere werkuitkomsten. Verder
zien we dat een hoger niveau van ervaren authenticiteit op de werkvloer samenhangt
met hogere scores op prestatie en positieve welzijnsconcepten (zoals werkbevlogenheid
en arbeidstevredenheid). Aan de andere kant zien we dat lagere niveaus van ervaren
authenticiteit op de werkvloer gerelateerd zijn aan hogere scores op negatieve welzijns-
concepten zoals emotionele uitputting en cynisme. Gebaseerd op de bevindingen in
hoofdstuk 2 en 3 concluderen wij dat authenticiteit op het werk een relevante voorspel-
ler is voor werkuitkomsten en welzijn op het werk.

Onderzoeksvraag 3: wat zijn mogelijk processen die

verantwoordelijk zijn voor de relatie tussen authenticiteit en
werkuitkomsten?
Als we de omschrijvingen van authenticiteit op het werk, motivatie en persoon-omgeving
fit nader bedenken lijken de drie concepten te overlappen: deze concepten hebben alle te
maken met de mate waarin de kenmerken en motivatie van een persoon passen bij (het
gedrag dat gewenst is in) diens omgeving. Om deze reden is het nodig om meer inzicht
te verkrijgen in de mogelijke onderlinge verhoudingen van deze concepten. Daarnaast is
het onduidelijk in welke mate authenticiteit op het werk echt (empirisch) onderscheiden
kan worden van concepten zoals motivatie en persoon-omgeving fit. In hoofdstuk 4 en
5 behandelen we beide vraagstukken en onderzoeken we het onderscheidend vermogen
van de IAM Work door de concepten authenticiteit, motivatie en persoon-omgeving fit
tegelijkertijd te onderzoeken.

148
 Hoofdstuk 4 geeft weer dat P-E fit en authenticiteit op het werk twee verschil-
lende constructen zijn die beide anders gerelateerd zijn aan welzijn en werkuitkomsten.
Daarnaast laten de resultaten van deze studie zien dat een match op basis van gelijkenis
– oftewel “supplementaire fit” – een krachtiger voorspeller is van authentiek kunnen zijn
op het werk dan een match op basis van toevoeging – “complementaire fit”. Tot slot,
een mediatie-analyse laat zien dat authenticiteit op het werk de relatie tussen P-O fit
en welzijn gedeeltelijk medieert. Wat hierbij op valt is dat de kracht van de onderlinge
verhoudingen sterker is voor de negatieve vormen van welzijn. Dit betekent dat de
negatieve effecten van het niet authentiek kunnen zijn op het werk zwaarder wegen dan
de mogelijke voordelen van je helemaal authentiek kunnen voelen op het werk.
Hoofdstuk 5 onderzoekt de relatie tussen motivatie en authenticiteit op het werk.
De resultaten uit deze studie laten zien dat (i) authenticiteit op het werk en verschil-
lende vormen van motivatie gerelateerd zijn; en (ii) dat motivatie de relatie tussen
authenticiteit op het werk en welzijn gedeeltelijk medieert. Wat hierbij opvalt is dat au-
thenticiteit op het werk een sterke positieve relatie heeft met kwalitatief hogere vormen
van motivatie (bijvoorbeeld intrinsieke motivatie) en juist een sterke negatieve relatie
heeft met kwalitatief lagere vormen van motivatie (bijvoorbeeld externe motivatie).
Bovendien laten de bevindingen zien dat de kracht van de relatie tussen authenticiteit
en motivatie varieert als functie van het type motivatie. Voor intrinsieke motivatie werd
een sterke positieve relatie met authenticiteit gevonden, maar deze relatie werd zwak-
ker (en uiteindelijk negatief) naarmate de kwaliteit van het type motivatie afneemt
(meer richting extrinsieke motivatie verschuift).
De resultaten in de hoofstukken 4 en 5 geven een antwoord op de derde onder-
zoeksvraag. Ondanks het feit dat de drie concepten authenticiteit, motivatie en P-O fit
onderling gerelateerd zijn, kunnen zij toch gezien worden als verschillende constructen.
Authenticiteit op het werk voegt substantiële waarde toe in het voorspellen van welzijn
en werkuitkomsten, ook wanneer zij tegelijkertijd met P-O fit en motivatie wordt onder-
zocht.

Praktische toepassingen
De in dit proefschrift weergegeven resultaten zijn relevant voor individuele werknemers,
teams en organisaties. Lage scores op authenticiteit op het werk kunnen beschouwd
worden als een waarschuwingssignaal. De bevindingen laten zien dat een lager ni-
veau van ervaren authenticiteit op het werk negatief gerelateerd is aan welzijn en
prestatie. In het huidige proefschrift geven wij suggesties voor concrete interventies
op individueel, team- en organisatieniveau. De ontwikkelde vragenlijst IAM Work kan
bijvoorbeeld ingezet worden als screeningsinstrument om afdelingen te scannen en te
zoeken naar werknemers die zich minder authentiek voelen op het werk. In overleg

Samenvatting 149
 met HR-afdelingen kunnen vervolgens specifieke en op maat gemaakte interventies de
negatieve gevolgen en mogelijke oorzaken van het niet authentiek voelen op het werk
worden verminderd of weggenomen worden.

Beperkingen
Dit proefschrift kent een aantal belangrijke beperkingen. Ten eerste, alle onderzoeken
in dit proefschrift kennen een cross-sectioneel design. Dit betekent dat het niet mogelijk
is om de gevonden verbanden causaal te interpreteren. Ten tweede, de meerderheid
van de deelnemers aan de verschillende studies is hoogopgeleid. Hierdoor is de gene-
raliseerbaarheid beperkt tot hoogopgeleide medewerkers en is het niet per se zo dat de
gevonden verbanden ook gelden voor lager opgeleid personeel – al lijken er evenmin
aanwijzingen te zijn om aan te nemen dat de gevonden verbanden niet zouden gelden
voor lager opgeleid personeel. Tot slot, alle data in dit proefschrift zijn verkregen door
het invullen van zelfbeoordelingsvragenlijsten waardoor common method bias (CMV) de
gevonden resultaten zou kunnen hebben verstoord. In de afzonderlijke hoofdstukken
van dit proefschrift geven we aan waarom we denken dat er geen aanleiding is om te
veronderstellen dat er sprake is van grote vertekening.

Conclusie
Dit proefschrift laat als een van de eerste onderzoeken op dit gebied op een syste-
matische en gestructureerde wijze zien hoe authenticiteit op het werk gemeten en
onderzocht kan worden. De uitkomsten suggereren dat authenticiteit op het werk een
veelbelovend concept is voor zowel onderzoeksdoeleinden als de praktijk binnen het
werkveld van de psychologie van arbeid, organisatie en gezondheid. Met dit onderzoek
is er met succes een korte en betrouwbare vragenlijst ontwikkeld die authenticiteit
op het werk meet (de IAM Work). Daarnaast zijn de negatieve gevolgen van het niet
authentiek voelen op het werk inzichtelijk en is inzichtelijk gemaakt hoe authenticiteit
zich verhoudt ten opzichte van andere werkgerelateerde concepten. Alles overziend zijn
de uitkomsten van dit proefschrift een gedegen fundament voor verder onderzoek naar
het concept authenticiteit op het werk.

150
Appendix A: IAM Work- Dutch version

De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op uw meest recente werksituatie.

Probeer bij het beantwoorden dus zo goed mogelijk voor te stellen hoe de stell-
ing op u van toepassing is op uitsluitend uw werk en niet in andere situaties.

Denk daarnaast bij het beantwoorden in hoeverre de stellingen op u van toepassing zijn
geweest in de laatste 4 weken.

0 = Helemaal niet op mij van toepassing

1=
2=
3 = Neutraal
4=
5=
6 = Helemaal op mij van toepassing

1. Ik vind het gemakkelijker om goed op te schieten met mensen op       

mijn werk wanneer ik mezelf ben. a

2. Ik houd op mijn werk vast aan de overtuigingen waar ik in geloof. a

      
3. Op mijn werk blijf ik trouw aan wie ik ben. a
      
4. Op mijn werk gedraag ik me in overeenstemming met mijn eigen       
waarden en overtuigingen. a

5. Ik voel me op mijn werk niet verbonden met wie ik echt ben. b

      
6. Ik voel me op mijn werk vervreemd van mijzelf. b
      
7. Op mijn werk voel ik me afgesloten van wie ik werkelijk ben. b
      
8. Ik voel me op mijn werk niet zoals ik werkelijk ben. b
      
9. Andere mensen beïnvloeden mij sterk op mijn werk. c
      
10. Op mijn werk gedraag ik me op de manier welke van mij wordt       
verlangd. c

11. Ik word sterk beïnvloed door wat anderen op mijn werk vinden. c
      
12. Op mijn werk heb ik de behoefte om te doen wat anderen van mij       
verwachten. c

a
= Authentiek leven, b = Zelf-vervreemding, c = Accepteren sociale invloed

Samenvatting 151
Ralph van den Bosch (1984) has a Master’s degree in Work and Organizational
psychology from the Radboud University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands. He under-
took his Ph.D. research at the department of Social and Organizational Psychology,
University Utrecht. Ralph works as a management consultant at House of Perfor-
mance, since 2013, in order to improve workplace performance of large internatio-
nal organizations. His (research) interests include large scale transition programs,
strategy execution, gamification, industrial and organizational psychology, and
change management.