Feeling and Appearing Authentic: New Insights on Their Social Outcomes and Conceptual Clarity

Abstract

Authenticity is the sense of alignment with one’s true self (Harter, 2002; Kernis, 2003; Sedikides, Slabu, Lenton, & Thomaes, 2017). When studying authenticity in organizations, three common understandings emerge from the literature: 1) authenticity can be considered a side effect of self-regulatory strivings in that it results from the consonance between one’s values and organizational goals (Hewlin, 2003; Markus, 1977; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999), 2) authenticity can be inferred from behavioral expression of one’s values, attitudes, and emotions, while social and organizational influence largely erodes authenticity (Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 2015; Schlenker, 2002), and 3) feeling authentic benefits psychological health (Gino, Kouchaki & Galinsky, 2015; Kifer, Heller, Qi, Perunovic, & Galinsky, 2013; Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt, & King, 2009) and may also positively affect job satisfaction (Cable, Gino, & Staats, 2013; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2013). Although largely corroborating the current workplace trend of “be yourself”, this literature offers little clarity on the conceptualization of authenticity and its social outcomes. To address this gap, employing a diverse mix of laboratory and field studies, the current symposium examines two previously overlooked social outcomes of authenticity, and offers some refreshing conceptual clarity regarding the experience vs appearance of authenticity and the role of others’ influence in the social construction of authenticity. First, Huang investigates how individuals’ sense of inauthenticity shapes the development of their social attitudes, showing that the sense of lacking control associated with inauthenticity encourages a unique attributional pattern conducive to cynical views and damaging to value-based organizational commitment. Next, Pillemer demonstrates that behaving authentically is not always beneficial and that, when encouraged to be authentic in interviews, men were rated worse than women as they decreased skilled emotional regulation, or deep acting. Then, Abi-Esber, Kouchaki, Jachimowicz, and Gino empirically develop the distinction between felt vs. displayed authenticity and examine their differential effects on objective vs. self-rated performance. Finally, Rees, Ramanujam, Victor, and Lehman offer a new perspective wherein they argue that authenticity might be less about being “true to oneself” and more about “remaining true to the authentic self one has created in conjunction with others.” By demonstrating a social attitudinal outcome of inauthenticity, a negative impression management implication of authenticity, and the different performance implications of felt vs. displayed authenticity, and by applying an social lens on the conceptualization of authenticity, we gain a better understanding of how inauthenticity affects individuals’ perception of others, how the perception of authenticity as deep vs. no acting affects others’ view of individuals, how felt vs. displayed authenticity are conceptually and empirically distinct, as well as how it is possible to incorporate others’ influence rather than seeing it as a form of erosion of the true self, and identify potential areas for future research and theory building. To Thine Own Self Be True, Or Others Would Seem False Too Presenter: Li Huang; INSEAD Bounded Authenticity: The Paradox of Being Genuine in Professional Interactions Presenter: Julianna Pillemer; New York U. What Are We Studying When We Study Authenticity? Presenter: Nicole Abi-Esber; Stanford GSB Presenter: Maryam Kouchaki; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Presenter: Jon Michael Jachimowicz; Harvard Business School Presenter: Francesca Gino; Harvard U. The Enactment of Authenticity as a Process of Sensemaking Presenter: Laura L. Rees; Queen's U. Presenter: Rangaraj Ramanujam; Vanderbilt U. Presenter: Bart Irwin Victor; Vanderbilt U. Presenter: David Lehman; U. of Virginia