Nick Oliver/www.nickoliverillustration.
com
According to the media, millennials have
different priorities in comparison with
previous generations. We are told, for
example, that they would rather have pets
than children and are eating too much
avocado on toast to ever buy a house.
And apparently millennials are looking
for something else in the workplace too:
they want meaningful work that gives
them the opportunity to authentically
connect with both their role and their
employer. They are searching for the
‘AWEsome’ – work that gives a sense of
authenticity, well-being and engagement.
50
AWEsome work
Anna Sutton on promoting Authenticity to enhance
Well-being and Engagement at work
A
lthough authenticity has hit the headlines recently in
relation to millennials, the idea has, in fact, long been
recognised as an important part of a fulfilling life.
As far back as the Greek philosophers, authenticity
was promoted as a key part of a life well lived.
In introducing a recent special issue of the Review
of General Psychology Joshua Hicks and colleagues
showed that people of all ages and stages in life value
authenticity in themselves and others.
Thanks to advances in psychological research, we now understand
more clearly what authenticity is, why we find it so important and how
it promotes well-being and engagement at work. We can also address
the challenges in the workplace that seem to promote inauthenticity and
its negative effects on our well-being and performance. These research
findings can help make the dream of ‘AWEsome’ work a reality for
everyone.
In search of authenticity
We tend to understand authenticity in two ways, emphasising either
consistency or coherence (Sheldon et al., 1997). The first view suggests
that consistency in personality traits is the key to authenticity. If we
behave similarly across several roles, we are expressing our ‘true self’
more authentically. For example, if someone is consistently warm and
friendly to other people in her roles as both a manager and a mother, she

might seem more authentic than if she was warm and
friendly as a mother but more distant and reserved as
a manager.
As appealing as the consistency idea is, it relies on
us being able to define our ‘true self’. Some suggest
that’s our ‘unguarded self’ – what we are like when
we are with loved ones or on our own (Sheldon et al.,
2012). This assumes we will be more unguarded with
the very people who have greatest power to reject or
accept us, or that we are somehow less ourselves when
we adapt to different social roles. In fact, research
shows that the work role can provide a welcome
opportunity for expressing aspects of ourselves that
we might not express at home with loved ones.
We can feel authentic even if we behave very
differently at work and home (Sutton, 2018).
The ‘coherence’ view overcomes these problems.
It holds that a personal sense of coherence is key
to authenticity: though we may sometimes behave
inconsistently across different roles we have a clear
sense that all our actions form a coherent story
of who we are. Any seeming inconsistencies are
genuine expressions of ourselves rather than signs
of inauthenticity (Harter, 2002). This approach to
authenticity has roots in two traditions in psychology.
The humanistic tradition, epitomised by Carl Rogers,
views authenticity as a process of becoming aware
of our inner states and values and acting in line with
them. Similarly, Deci and Ryan’s self-determination
theory holds that being authentic involves choosing
how we will act in order to pursue the long-term life
objectives that we believe in and enjoy.
Authenticity, then, is not about identifying
descriptors of a true, unchanging self but developing
a coherent story in which we integrate facts about
ourselves and work towards meaningfulness. It is
a subjective experience of both
knowing and being ourselves and
involves a dynamic process of “… when workers are
personal growth and development more authentic,
rather than trying to maintain an
unchanging personality profile
both they and their
(Knoll et al., 2015). organisations benefit”
Continuing the example above,
imagine that our manager starts
out in a new job by behaving in what she sees as a
professional manner, being fairly reserved and formal
with her staff. But she notices that this approach does
not seem to work with this team and is concerned that
it is alienating her staff. So she adapts her approach to Authentic workers benefit their wider team and
be more friendly and personable, building relationships organisation too. For example, they make a greater
with her team. It is not that she is behaving
inauthentically at either point but that she is engaged
in goal-directed behaviour: she is trying to get the
best out of her staff and able to adapt her behaviour to
meet this goal. She is being true to herself by being an
effective, high performing manager.
There is good evidence that authenticity is a
sought-after, positive experience for most people
(Sutton, 2020). But because authenticity is not a static
the psychologist february 2021 authenticity
In the eye of the beholder?
Our focus is authenticity as a subjective feeling of being true to
ourselves, but we also make judgements about the authenticity
of other people and objects. For example, we might talk about an
authentic first edition of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice or an
authentic Indian meal. George Newman and others call the first
‘historical’ or ‘connection authenticity’: we judge how authentic the
first edition is by an external verification of its connection to the
historical event or person. The authenticity of food or an experience,
on the other hand, is called ‘categorical authenticity’. We judge how
genuine an Indian meal is by how well it conforms to our expectations
of what Indian food is like. We don’t need an expert for that.
In all of these ‘types’ of authenticity, we are evaluating the extent
to which something is genuinely the thing it is claiming to be. Are
we being true to ourselves, is this book a first edition, is this food
really Indian? We make these judgements about other people too,
as captured for example in the well-known concept of authentic
leadership.
Authentic leadership questionnaires ask followers to evaluate
how much their leader seems to act in line with his or her true self.
In this case, an ‘authentic’ leader is defined as someone who seems
self-aware and acts in accordance with their values, being open and
transparent in their relationships and decision-making (Walumbwa
et al., 2008). Employees who say their leaders are more authentic
also report a range of positive work outcomes, such as greater
engagement, job satisfaction and commitment (Lemoine et al., 2019),
lending support to the notion that authenticity is beneficial not just to
the individual but to those around them.
experience of consistency, how authentic we feel
can change in the context of different relationships
and as we fulfil different social roles (Chen, 2019).
While some people may be more
authentic than others overall, each
of us has moments when we feel
more or less authentic. Authenticity
is context-specific and malleable: so
if we can find out what conditions
or experiences help people feel
more authentic at work, we can
develop working environments
that support authenticity. And when workers are more
authentic, both they and their organisations benefit.
Workers who are more authentic are less stressed
and have higher well-being (Knoll et al., 2015).
contribution of personal ideas and effort, are more
productive, behave in a more open and empathic
way, and seek out opportunities to grow and learn
(Friedman & Lobel, 2003). Authentic leaders have
a positive effect on their followers (see ‘In the eye
of the beholder’) and employee authenticity even
benefits customers, who report more satisfying
interactions with workers who are more authentic
(Yagil & Medler-Liraz, 2013).
 Two of the most commonly researched outcomes
of authenticity at work are employee well-being and
engagement. A recent meta-analysis summarising
75 international studies found a medium-sized
relationship between authenticity and both of these
outcomes, so it is worth considering them in more
detail (Sutton, 2020).
Well-being
Well-being is our overall evaluation of our quality
of life. It has positive relationships with health
outcomes, personal characteristics and neurological
functioning. It’s useful in predicting future behaviours,
such as the likelihood of leaving a job (Kahneman
& Krueger, 2006). Several different psychological
perspectives recognise that authenticity is positively
related to well-being. For example, psychotherapeutic
approaches suggest that losing touch with one’s true
self (inauthenticity) is a source of misery while self-
determination theory predicts that satisfying our basic
needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence leads
to a sense of authenticity – which in turn influences
well-being.
The close relationship between authenticity and
well-being can sometimes lead to confusing conceptual
overlap. Philosophers argue that authenticity is both
an integral part of and a route towards the good life
and this confusion is often reflected in psychological
research. For example, researchers have stated that
authenticity is the very essence of well-being and also
provided evidence that authenticity could predict
well-being (Wood et al., 2008). But
although authenticity and well-
Key sources being are certainly related concepts,
we can distinguish between them on
theoretical and empirical grounds.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C.R. From a theoretical point of
Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.) Handbook of
positive psychology. (pp. 382–394). Oxford
view, models of well-being predict
University Press. that authenticity can contribute to
Hicks, J.A., Schlegel, R.J. & Newman, eudaimonic well-being (a meaningful
G.E. (2019). Introduction to the special life) but may not always promote
issue: Authenticity. Review of General hedonic well-being (a pleasurable
Psychology, 23(1), 3–7. life; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). For
Reis, G., Trullen, J. & Story, J. (2016).
Perceived organizational culture and
example, authentic self-knowledge
engagement. Journal of Managerial can be painful, and acting in
Psychology, 31(6), 1091–1105. accordance with our inner values or
Sutton, A. (2018). Distinguishing convictions can sometimes result in
between authenticity and personality social exclusion and can certainly
consistency in predicting well-being. reduce hedonic well-being.
European Review of Applied Psychology,
68(3), 117–130.
Empirical research also
Sutton, A. (2020). Living the good life: demonstrates a clear distinction
A meta-analysis of authenticity, well- between authenticity and well-
being and engagement. Personality and being. For example, in the 2008
Individual Differences, 153, 109645. study led by Alex Wood there was a
van den Bosch, R. & Taris, T.W. strong positive relationship between
(2014). Authenticity at work. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 15(1), 1–18.
authenticity and well-being, but
no overlap in the items used to
Full list available in online/app version. measure the two constructs. In
52 addition, longitudinal studies have
shown that the link between authenticity and well-
being is unidirectional: authenticity predicts later life
satisfaction, but not vice versa (Boyraz et al., 2014).
Notwithstanding this conceptual confusion, there
is good evidence that authenticity is directly associated
with greater well-being across a range of contexts,
including work and personal relationships (Ariza-
Montes et al., 2017; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood
et al., 2008). Authenticity may also have indirect
effects on well-being, acting as a buffer when people
experience stressful events. For example, when
people are more authentic, they do not experience
the reduction in well-being that less authentic people
experience after interpersonal conflict (Wickham et
al., 2016). Overall, the positive relationship between
authenticity and well-being has been demonstrated in
many studies which show that people who are more
authentic at work experience substantially greater well-
being.
Engagement
Engagement is an employee’s energy, enthusiasm and
focused effort in their work. It’s associated with a
wide range of outcomes important to organisational
success, including greater return on assets,
increased profitability and customer satisfaction,
and improvements in safety (Reis et al., 2016; Saks
& Gruman, 2014). From the beginning of research
on engagement at work, the idea of authenticity has
been important, with Kahn (1990, p.700) noting that
engagement involved the ‘simultaneous employment
and expression of a person’s “preferred self” in task
behaviours’.
More authentic employees are more likely to
work in jobs that fit their core values, or at least to
undertake their work in ways that feel more congruent
with those values; behaviour that results in increased
engagement (Reis et al., 2016). Authenticity may also
be an important route by which organisational-level
initiatives, such as corporate social responsibility,
influence employee engagement. For example, when
employees feel able to be more authentic at work,
their company’s efforts at being socially responsible
have a stronger positive effect on their engagement
(Glavas, 2016). Again, the positive relationship
between authenticity and engagement indicates that
authenticity at work is beneficial.
The challenge of inauthenticity
If authenticity is so beneficial, why would we
sometimes choose to be inauthentic? And why is
inauthenticity a particular issue at work? In a cross-
cultural study of authenticity in different relationships,
people reported being least authentic with their work
colleagues (Reis et al., 2016).
One reason is that many jobs require people to
behave in specific ways. People often seem concerned
that giving people the opportunity to be themselves at
 the psychologist february 2021 authenticity

work will result in complete chaos a challenge for many workplaces,

(despite evidence that we tend to which often expect employees
think of our authentic self as an to ‘fit in’ with standard corporate
ideal: fundamentally good and values rather than giving them the
moral – see Newman et al., 2014). freedom to work in line with their
The penalties for acting out of line own. So how can it be done?
with workplace expectations can be We need to start at the
severe, from social condemnation beginning, when the employee
to missed promotions or even Anna Sutton is Senior Lecturer joins the organisation. For
being fired (Ariza-Montes et in Organisational Psychology at example, an introduction to the
al., 2017). We also know that the University of Waikato organisation that emphasises
people in less powerful positions anna.sutton@waikato.ac.nz opportunities to express oneself
report feeling less able to behave and develop as an individual
authentically, creating particular within the organisation –
problems for authenticity in hierarchical workplaces rather than merely emphasising the organisation’s
(Chen, 2019). So although people actively seek values – can lead to better customer satisfaction and
authenticity at work and know that inauthenticity employee retention six months later (Cable et al.,
makes them unhappy, they also see that inauthenticity 2013).
is sometimes a necessity – driven by a desire to act Of course, organisational culture is modelled
professionally, avoid conflict or even avoid losing their and maintained by the leaders. Leaders can model
jobs (Sutton, 2018). authenticity by expressing their values, acting in line
How do we solve that dilemma? A more nuanced with them, and ensuring that their employees are
understanding of authenticity involves developing a allowed to do so as well, even where their values may
fit between ourselves and our environment: finding be different (Friedman & Lobel, 2003). Employees
convergence between our own personal values and the often feel forced into inauthentic behaviour in order
goals of our organisation or community and ultimately to protect themselves (see online version for more on
making better choices of behaviour. To do that, we this), so developing this kind of psychologically safe See the online
might need to look to more collectivist cultures. workplace is essential to promoting authenticity at version for the
An interesting finding from my recent meta-analysis work. virtuous circle of
is that the relationship between authenticity and well- Finally, we also know that employees with more authenticity and
being is slightly weaker in countries which are more autonomous jobs or in higher managerial positions trust.
collectivist (Sutton, 2020). Individualist cultures such with greater autonomy report higher authenticity
as the UK or USA view people as independent and see (Reis et al., 2016; van den Bosch & Taris, 2014). So
overcoming other people’s influence as an essential organisations can work on loosening the constraints
component of living an authentic life (e.g. Wood et of standardisation. Rather than micro-manage every
al., 2008). More collectivist cultures view people as element of a job, it is often possible to provide
interdependent, defined by our membership of social employees with the autonomy to craft their jobs
groups and relationships with others. Authenticity in so that at least some elements of it provide the
these cultures is about finding a way to pursue our opportunity for authentic self-expression. For example,
own goals in harmony with our social context (Wang, giving employees more freedom in how they talk to
2016). customers on helplines, rather than micromanaging
By incorporating this more collectivist view, which scripts or number of calls per hour, could enable them
gives equal weight to self-direction and harmony with to engage more authentically with customers and
others, we see that authentic self-expression is not build better bonds with the company. The customer
the same as spontaneous or unregulated expression. benefits from a more authentic interaction, the
Instead, more authentic people express themselves in employee benefits from being able to do the job in a
a way that feels coherent with who they are and fulfils way that feels authentic and the company benefits from
their work roles. improved customer loyalty.

Promoting authenticity at work Understanding the balance

Given the range of positive outcomes associated with
authenticity at work and recognising the negative
impact that inauthenticity has on people, many
organisations are seeking ways to encourage employee
authenticity. Recommendations in the research
literature essentially boil down to developing a diverse
and inclusive organisational culture: a workplace
where employees are encouraged to act on their
values and work in a way that feels authentic. This is
Authenticity is increasingly recognised as a valuable
resource at work, improving individual well-being
and engagement as well as providing positive benefits
to the organisation as a whole. AWEsome work that
encourages authenticity is not an unattainable ideal.
Instead, we can encourage and support authenticity at
work, understanding the balance between individual
self-direction and harmony with others that is
necessary for a well-functioning workplace.