Wayne 2019

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103317
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
Fit of role involvement with values: Theoretical, conceptual, and

T
psychometric development of work and family authenticity☆
Julie Holliday Waynea, , Russell A. Matthewsb, Heather Odle-Dusseauc,
⁎
Wendy J. Casperd
a
369 Farrell Hall, School of Business, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA
b
University of Alabama, Culverhouse College of Commerce, 361 Stadium Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
c
Gettysburg College, Department of Management, 300 North Washington Street, Gettysburg, PA 17325, USA
d
University of Texas at Arlington, Department of Management, Box 19467, Arlington, TX 76019-0467, USA
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: Scholars acknowledge the importance of authenticity to the work-family interface, yet the con-
Work-family conflict struct is underdeveloped and measures are lacking. We provide a conceptual definition of work
Enrichment (and family) authenticity- extent to which one's time, energy, and attention to work (and family)
Balance are consistent with life values. We develop, refine, and test the psychometric properties of a
Work and family authenticity
measure. Using over time data, we find that work-to-family conflict negatively relates to family
Scale development
authenticity, and work-to-family enrichment positively relates to work and family authenticity.
Further, polynomial regression results suggest that balance satisfaction is higher when work and
family authenticity are similar and high than when work and family authenticity are similar and
low. Work and family authenticity also uniquely predict employee attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, life satisfaction) and family outcomes (i.e., spouse-rated employee
work-family balance and family performance), above and beyond work-family conflict, enrich-
ment, and balance satisfaction. Among these constructs, relative weights analyses revealed that
work authenticity was the most important predictor of job attitudes, and family authenticity was
the second most important predictor of life satisfaction and most important predictor of family
performance as rated by partners. Future research, theoretical, and practical implications are
discussed.
Due to increased competitive pressures, knowledge work, globalization, and connectivity at work (Hewlett & Luce, 2006), along
with home demands, many employees manage work and family roles. In the 1980s, researchers suggested that work and family
interfere with each other, and subsequent evidence suggests that work-family conflict results in negative consequences (Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). In the early 2000s, researchers suggested that work and family can enrich one another and
have positive effects (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Most recently, scholarly attention has been directed at work-family balance, and
findings suggest that global perceptions of balance are distinct from and explain variance in outcomes, above and beyond conflict and
enrichment (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009; Wayne, Butts, Casper, & Allen, 2017).
Yet, scholars have noted that these existing constructs do not capture all essential aspects of employees' investments in their work
This research did not receive any special grant from funding agencies in public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
☆
Corresponding author.
⁎
E-mail addresses: waynej@wfu.edu (J.H. Wayne), ramatthews2@ua.edu (R.A. Matthews), hodle@gettysburg.edu (H. Odle-Dusseau),
wjcasper@uta.edu (W.J. Casper).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.06.005
Received 18 December 2017; Received in revised form 24 May 2019; Accepted 11 June 2019
Available online 14 June 2019
0001-8791/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J.H. Wayne, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103317
and personal lives. Friedman and Lobel (2003) called for attention to a concept that captures the extent to which investment in work
and personal roles aligns with one's values – referred to as “authenticity.” In illustrating the importance of authenticity, they discuss a
“happy workaholic” who invests heavily in the valued work role. Despite being “imbalanced” in time and energy, because high
investment in work fits with his/her values (i.e., authenticity), s/he is open, empathetic, productive, and committed, with better well-
being (Friedman & Lobel, 2003). Greenhaus and Allen (2011) also discuss the importance of authenticity, or alignment of action
(such as devoting time, energy, and emotion to a role) with deeply held values, and consider it key to achieving balance. In spite of
compelling arguments that authenticity is a necessary work-family construct that it is central to optimal individual, family, and
organizational functioning (Friedman & Lobel, 2003), conceptual understanding and scales to measure it are lacking. This is a striking
omission given that scholars have touted the importance of a values, fit-based, work-family construct. Empirically, measures of such a
construct may yield different or stronger relationships with outcomes than existing work-family scales, none of which incorporate
values. The aim of the current manuscript is to define and elaborate the constructs of work authenticity and family authenticity,
develop scales to measure them, examine their substantive relationships with other work-family variables, and demonstrate their
unique and relative importance to valued outcomes.
We first offer formal definitions of work and family authenticity. As they are fit-based, work-family constructs, we merge ideas
from authenticity, work-family, and person-environment (P-E) fit literatures (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006)
to discuss their conceptualizations, how they relate to and differ from other authenticity and work-family constructs, and establish
foundations for measurement. Research on the general construct of authenticity suffers from inconsistent definition and measure-
ment, having been defined as a dispositional trait (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) or a subjective experience that captures expression of
true thoughts and feelings at work (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014). Likewise, no established work-family construct (conflict, en-
richment, or balance) captures fit of role involvement with values, as authenticity is discussed in the work-family literature (Friedman
& Lobel, 2003). Thus, the constructs of work and family authenticity fill a conceptual void in the literature.
When measures of a construct are used without adequate psychometric development, integration of empirical findings is chal-
lenging and scientific progress is hindered. To avoid this, we conduct three studies to develop, refine, and validate measures of work
and family authenticity. To guard against construct proliferation concerns (Shaffer, DeGeest, & Li, 2016), we show that work and
family authenticity are empirically distinct from extant concepts and have unique and important empirical and practical implications.
Third, beyond examining relationships of work and family authenticity with existing work-family constructs (conflict, enrich-
ment, balance) to provide evidence of construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), we offer conceptual understanding of how
conflict, enrichment, and authenticity relate to each other over time (Study 4). Also, scholars have posited that greater authenticity,
or the more a person's involvement in work or family roles fits with values, the more satisfied s/he will be with how work and family
roles are combined (i.e., balance satisfaction). In Study 5, we use polynomial regression to examine the theorized notion that high
work and family authenticity together relate to greater balance satisfaction.
Finally, we advance the literature by examining the extent to which work and family authenticity contribute in new and
meaningful ways to the prediction of and relative importance to valued outcomes such as job and life attitudes (Study 5) and spouse
ratings of employee family performance and work-family balance (Study 6), above established work-family constructs. We examine
family outcomes in addition to work outcomes, and we counter concerns about common method variance by including role partner
reports (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Collectively, our six studies provide a conceptual, measurement, and em-
pirical foundation for future research on work and family authenticity.
1. Previous definitions and measures of authenticity
Ancient philosophers and writers have long extolled the virtue of living authentically or acting in accordance with one's true self
(Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Theorists suggest people are motivated to experience authenticity because it fulfills a
need to be true to themselves (Friedman & Lobel, 2003) and results in positive outcomes. Empirically, authenticity has been linked to
higher self-esteem, creativity, well-being, follower performance, leader-follower and group relations, and productivity (e.g., Harter,
2002; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Though not yet fully considered, scholars have suggested that authenticity matters to work-family
experiences (Friedman & Lobel, 2003; Greenhaus & Allen, 2011). As a foundation for our definition, we review prior definitions and
measures of authenticity, noting similarities and differences with authenticity as discussed in the work-family literature.
Scholars (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008) first described authenticity as a dispositional
trait - a core sense of self that guides daily operations across time and situations. A fundamental aspect of dispositional authenticity is
authentic behavior which “involves behaving in accord with one's values, preferences and needs as opposed to acting ‘falsely’…” (Kernis
& Goldman, 2006; p. 298) and typically refers to expressing oneself in ways consistent with inner thoughts and feelings (Harter, 2002).
Behavioral authenticity is positively related to life and relationship satisfaction, purpose in life, and well-being (Kernis & Goldman,
2006; Wood et al., 2008). There are key conceptual differences, however, between behavioral authenticity and what scholars refer to as
authenticity in work and family roles, as we elaborate below (Friedman & Lobel, 2003; Greenhaus & Allen, 2011).
In contrast to a dispositional view (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood et al., 2008), Van den Bosch and Taris (2014) view au-
thenticity as a subjective state which is an outcome of person-environment (P-E) fit, and depends in part on the role a person fills or
the context in which s/he operates. Rather than an enduring quality across roles, they view authenticity as role-specific. They adapted
Wood et al.'s dispositional measure (e.g., “I always stand by what I believe in”) to be specific to work (e.g., “At work, I always stand
by what I believe in”). This measure captures the expression of true thoughts and feelings at work (e.g., what one does or does not enjoy
or agree with) and relates positively to work engagement, vitality, absorption, dedication, autonomy, performance, and satisfaction,
and negatively to work demands and stress. While this work points to the value of examining authenticity as a state-based, role-
2
specific, fit-based construct, it does not capture authenticity in alignment of one's involvement in work and family roles with values,
as discussed in the work-family literature. Given this conceptual gap, attention to such constructs is needed.
2. Work and family authenticity: Conceptual and measurement characteristics
By merging lines of thinking from authenticity (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014) and work-family scholars (Friedman & Lobel, 2003),
we formally define “work authenticity” and “family authenticity.” Specifically, work (family) authenticity is the extent to which
one's time, energy, and attention to his/her work (family) are consistent with his/her life values and priorities.
We view work and family authenticity as subjective, role-specific, fit- and state-based constructs. Conceptually, we contend that it
is the perception of fit between one's life values (i.e., the person) and his/her time, energy, and attention in a given role (i.e., the
environmental context) that is of key importance. Typically, work-family scholars have examined work-family conflict or enrichment
as perceptions aggregated across time and situations rather than objective events (Maertz & Boyar, 2011). Other literatures have also
shown the value of perceived rather than objective circumstances (e.g., perceived vs. actual demographic similarity, Riordan &
Wayne, 2008) to worker experiences and attitudes. Likewise, we assert that subjective perceptions of fit are of the utmost importance
to the work-family interface, so we conceptualize work and family authenticity accordingly.
Unlike other views of behavioral authenticity (e.g., Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014; Wood et al., 2008),
which capture whether people express true beliefs, emotions, or opinions, or other value-related behaviors (e.g., acting ethically), we
conceptualize work and family authenticity as the fit of one's time, energy, and attention in work and family roles with one's values.
Though other types of authenticity are relevant to work experiences, in examining the work-family interface, a key element is the
extent to which people live out their values by allocating “…time and energy as they choose to the various domains of their lives”
(Friedman & Lobel, 2003, p. 88). Allocation of time, energy, and attention to a role is an intentional resource investment that is
relevant to the work-family interface and differs conceptually from expressing true beliefs, opinions, or emotions.
Work and family authenticity represent supplies-values fit wherein values represent what a person wants or thinks should be and
supplies refers to situational conditions that may fulfill values (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999). Given this, we draw from the P-E fit
literature to consider measurement foundations. Edwards et al. (2006) described three ways of measuring P-E fit: atomistic (i.e.,
person and environment are measured separately and combined), molecular (i.e., perceived discrepancies between person and en-
vironment), and molar (i.e., measures of perceived fit between the person and environment). The “best” way to measure fit aligns with
its conceptualization, so we adopt a molar approach wherein respondents report perceived fit of time, energy, and attention in work
and family roles with their values. Although there are drawbacks (e.g., confounding person and environment, lack of commensurate
measures; Edwards, 1991), molar fit perceptions are more cognitively accessible and proximally related to attitudes and behaviors
than are objective circumstances and/or individual elements involved in the molar perception (Edwards et al., 2006; Kristof-Brown,
Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).
We view work and family authenticity as role-specific for several reasons. First, like Van den Bosch and Taris (2014), we adopt a P-
E fit perspective which suggests that the particular role or context is relevant. Though personal values may be enduring, work and
family contexts have unique demands and resources, so time, energy, and attention to each role is likely distinct. Second, Greenhaus
and Allen (2011) suggest it is within-role (work or family) experiences (e.g., distribution of involvement) that contribute to feelings of
balance across roles. Third, research finds that values (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000) and involvement (Matthews, Swody, & Barnes-
Farrell, 2012) in work and family are domain-specific; by extension, the perception that role involvement is consistent with values is
also likely role-specific. Pragmatically, people can feel authentic in one domain but not the other – for instance, perceiving authentic
investment in work (e.g., a lot of time in a valued work role) but inauthentic in family (e.g., too little time in valued family role).
Finally, research (Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997) on felt authenticity across five social roles found that although there
was some cross-role consistency, people varied in authenticity across roles - feeling more authentic in friend and family roles than in
student and employee roles. For these reasons, it is necessary to use separate, domain-specific items so the measure can identify
which domain contributes to the perception. Though we expect some cross-role consistency (i.e., work and family authenticity are
related to one another), they should be empirically differentiated across roles.
In sum, work and family authenticity capture a respondent's subjective perception of fit between involvement in a role in terms of
time, energy, and attention with values. High authenticity represents a state wherein a person views the time, energy, and attention
to a role as consistent with what s/he wants or thinks it should be based on values (i.e., high fit), reflecting his/her true self. Low
authenticity, on the other hand, occurs when a person's time, energy and attention to a role is not what they want or think it should be
(i.e., low fit), and as such, does not reflect his/her true self.
3. Distinctiveness of work and family authenticity from extant work-family constructs
First, in terms of establishing that we are capturing unique constructs, we aim to demonstrate that work and family authenticity
are related to but distinct from extant work-family constructs. Work-family conflict and enrichment are bidirectional, interrole con-
structs that capture how work and family roles negatively or positively affect one another (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus &
Powell, 2006). Work-family balance has typically been measured as a non-directional gestalt perception of satisfaction, effectiveness,
and/or equality in combining work and family roles (Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, DeHauw, & Greenhaus, 2018). In contrast, work and
family authenticity are within-role constructs. Whereas conflict, enrichment, and balance tap into experiences across roles, work and
family authenticity focus on the fit or alignment of behavioral involvement (time, energy, attention) within a role with one's values.
Notably (see Table 1), these conceptual features (fit, involvement, values, role-specific) are not captured in any other work-family or
3
J.H. Wayne, et al.
Table 1
Conceptual distinctions among work-family conflict, enrichment, balance, and authenticity.
Construct Directional? Across Conceptual focus Example item
roles?
Work-to-family and family-to-work Yes Yes Negative spillover/interference from one role to another “The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family
conflict responsibilities” (Netemeyer et al., 1996)
Work-to-family and family-to-work Yes Yes Positive spillover/enhancement from one role to another “My involvement in my work puts me in a good mood and this helps me
enrichment be a better family member” (Carlson et al., 2006)
Work-family balance satisfaction No Yes Attitude toward combining roles such that resources are sufficient to “How satisfied are you with how well your work life and your personal or
meet demands family life fit together?” (Valcour, 2007)
Work-family balance effectiveness No Yes Cognitive evaluation of effectiveness in combining roles “People who are close to me would say I do a good job of balancing work
4
and family” (Carlson et al., 2009)
Work-family balance equality No Yes Equal distribution of time, satisfaction, or involvement across roles “Nowadays, I seem to enjoy every part of my life equally well” (Marks &
MacDermid, 1996)
Work authenticity No No Fit between time, energy, and attention at work with life values “The attention I give to my work is what I think it should be based on my
life priorities”
Family authenticity No No Fit between time, energy, and attention in family with life values “The attention I give to my family is what I think it should be based on
my life priorities”
Living authentically at work No No Degree to which individuals express their true selves in work situations “At work, I feel free to express my emotions to others” (Van den Bosch &
Taris, 2014)
Behavioral authenticity No No A dispositional tendency to act in ways congruent with values, “I frequently pretend to enjoy something when in actuality I really don't”
preferences, & needs rather than external rewards or punishment (R) (Kernis & Goldman, 2006)
J.H. Wayne, et al.
Table 2
Study 1 content adequacy ratings for work and family authenticity and work-family balance satisfaction.
Item and dimension it was developed to represent: Percent of respondents who classified the item as belonging to each definition:
Work authenticity Family authenticity Work-family balance satisfaction None
Work authenticity
1. The time I spend working is consistent with my values. 79.7 8.5 9.3 2.5
2. The attention I give to my work is what I think it should be based on my life priorities. 81.2 7.7 8.5 2.6
3. My involvement in my work/career fits my priorities. 65.3 3.4 28.0 3.4
4. The energy I devote to my work is what I want it to be based on my values. 80.3 8.5 11.1 0
5. The time I spend at work is what I want it to be based on my priorities. 84.6 2.6 10.3 2.6
6. The energy I give to my work is not what I would like it to be according to what I value. 50.4 12 5.1 32.5
7. I am not able to be as involved in my work as I would like to be. 42.4 12.7 15.3 29.7
8. The attention I devote to my work is what I think it should be. 68.6 7.6 23.7 0
9. The choices I make about how much time and energy I spend working are based on what is important to me rather than external 53.0 6.8 34.2 6.0
pressures.
Family authenticity
10. The time I spend with my family is consistent with my values. 0.8 84.7 10.2 4.2
5
11. The attention I give to my family is what I think it should be based on my life priorities. 2.6 83.8 11.1 2.6
12. My involvement in my family fits my priorities. 2.6 78.6 15.4 3.4
13. The energy I devote to my family is what I want it to be based on my values. 3.4 87.1 6.0 3.4
14. The time I spend with my family is what I want it to be based on my priorities. 0.8 83.1 12.7 3.4
15. The energy I give to my family is not what I would like it to be according to what I value. 12.9 43.1 11.2 32.8
16. I am not able to be as involved in my family as I would like to be. 20.9 42.6 9.6 27.0
17. The attention I devote to my family is what I think it should be. 1.7 82.2 9.3 6.8
18. The choices I make about how much time and energy I spend with my family are based on what is important to me rather than 7.7 62.5 28.2 2.6
external pressures.
Work-family balance satisfaction
19. How satisfied are you with the way you divide your time between your work and personal or family life? 3.4 6.8 86.4 3.4
20. How satisfied are you with the way you divide your attention between work and home? 6.0 2.6 86.3 5.1
21. How satisfied are you with how well your work life and your personal or family life fit together? 4.3 6.8 82.1 6.8
22. How satisfied are you with your ability to balance the needs of your job with those of your personal or family life? 5.1 7.7 82.9 4.3
23. How satisfied are you with the opportunity you have to perform your job well and yet be able to perform home-related duties 14.0 7.0 74.6 4.4
adequately?
Note: We used an a priori acceptable agreement index of 75% (Hinkin, 1998). There were four work authenticity items, six family authenticity, and four satisfaction with work-family balance items that
met this criterion.
authenticity construct, and therefore, are unique conceptual additions to the literature.
Following best practice recommendations (Hinkin, 1995, 1998; Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993), we
developed items to measure our conceptual definitions of work and family authenticity and conducted studies to examine (i) content
adequacy (Study 1), (ii) factor structure (Studies 2 & 3), and (iii) convergent and discriminant validity (Study 3).
4. Measure development and validation studies method & results
4.1. Item development, refinement, and validation: Studies 1, 2, and 3
We deductively generated initial items based on our conceptual definition (Hinkin, 1998). Because an initial item pool should
contain about twice as many items as desired in the final scale (Hinkin, 1998) and we aimed for scales of 3 to 4 items each, we
developed 9 parallel work and family authenticity items (see Table 2).
4.1.1. Study 1. Content adequacy

Per scale development guidelines (Hinkin, 1995; Schriesheim et al., 1993), we examined scale items' content adequacy. We used
naïve respondents, 133 college students from two US Universities, with sufficient ability to match items with construct definitions,
considered appropriate for this judgment task. In the online survey for course credit, participants read definitions of work authen-
ticity, family authenticity, and balance satisfaction (“one's satisfaction with his/her division of time and attention across roles, fit
between work and family, ability to perform job and family roles well,” Valcour, 2007). All 23 items were presented randomly.
Respondents assigned each item to one of three definitions or none (Hinkin, 1998). Fifteen participants provided the same response
for > 95% of items and were removed, resulting in a sample of 118. Participants were 52.6% male, 22% married, 82% had no
children, 55.9% Caucasian, 19.5% Hispanic, and 16.1% Asian American, and on average, were 21.5 years old.
We used frequencies (Table 2) to identify items that assessed the intended construct with an agreement index of 75% (Hinkin,
1998). Four work authenticity, six family authenticity, and four balance satisfaction items met this criterion. Consistent with psy-
chometric evidence, reverse-scored items did not perform well (Harrison & McLaughlin, 1991). Though results suggested dropping
the reverse-scored items, because they can help reduce response sets, we retained them to determine how they would perform in
subsequent tests and used the combination of information from these additional studies to refine our scales.
4.1.2. Study 2. Exploratory factor analyses

We conducted study 2 to perform exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to refine the scales based on items that loaded on the intended
factor (Hinkin, 1998). Participants were recruited as part of a larger survey via email contacts and social media website. Consistent
with sample size recommendations for EFA (Preacher & MacCallum, 2002), 113 participants rated agreement on a 5-point scale with
work and family authenticity items. The sample was 59.3% female, 64% Caucasian, 36.3% were married and 35% reported at least
one child at home and were an average age of 37.5 years. All were employed at least part time, with most (83.2%) working 30+
hours a week. Each participant was given a chance to win one of ten $25 gift certificates.
Principle components EFA with varimax rotation revealed three factors with eigenvalues > 1 and the scree plot indicated a three-
factor solution. Factor loadings (Table 3) suggested a single factor for family authenticity and two for work authenticity with po-
sitively-worded and reverse-scored items loading on different factors. This paralleled our content assessment where reverse-scored
work authenticity items did not perform well. Items with loadings > 0.70 on the intended factor and < 0.35 on any other factor were
identified (Hinkin, 1998).
Based on Studies 1 and 2, three work authenticity items demonstrated content adequacy and appropriate factor loadings. Each
referenced how one's time, energy, or attention to a role aligns with values (i.e., no redundancy in item content). The three parallel
items for family authenticity had the highest content adequacy ratings and all family authenticity items loaded highly on a single
factor. Thus, these items fully capture the breadth of the construct and performed the best psychometrically. As such, we retained
these three parallel work authenticity and family authenticity items for our final six-item measure (see Table 3). Each scale de-
monstrated adequate internal consistency (work, α = 0.82, and family authenticity, α = 0.85).
4.1.3. Study 3. Convergent and discriminant validity

In Study 3, we aimed to a) confirm the factor structure with an independent sample, b) compare the fit of the two-factor model
(work authenticity/family authenticity) with a single-factor model, c) examine scale invariance across gender, and d) demonstrate
convergent and discriminant validity with measures of authenticity, conflict, enrichment, and balance satisfaction.
Participants were recruited from Mechanical Turk and required to work at least 34 h weekly and be U.S. residents with a 95%
approval rate who had completed 500 or more tasks. Participants who failed any of 6 validation questions (e.g., “Leave this question
blank”) were excluded. Participants were paid $1.75; 305 people completed the survey; 17 were omitted due to validation questions,
for a final sample of 288. Participants were 50% female, 65.3% married or cohabiting,1 69.4% had children living at home, 73.6%
1
Given single, childless people consider themselves to have families (Casper et al., 2016), we included single and married participants with and
without children. In Studies 3–6, we instructed participants to “think about the family members that you interact with most frequently and/or those
that are most important to your day-to-day life. For example, this may include spouse/partners, children, parents, siblings, and extended family
members.”
6
Table 3
Study 2 exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation loadings for work and family authenticity items.
Factor loading
1 2 3
Work authenticity
1. The time I spend working is consistent with my values.a 0.17 0.72 0.29
2. The attention I give to my work is what I think it should be based on my life priorities.a 0.12 0.74 0.16
3. My involvement in my work/career fits my priorities. 0.36 0.66 0.07
4. The energy I devote to my work is what I want it to be based on my values.a 0.26 0.75 0.22
5. The time I spend at work is what I want it to be based on my priorities. 0.23 0.64 0.23
6. The energy I give to my work is not what I would like it to be according to what I value. −0.23 −0.42 −0.73
7. I am not able to be as involved in my work as I would like to be. −0.18 −0.18 −0.78
8. The attention I devote to my work is what I think it should be. 0.03 0.59 0.39
9. The choices I make about how much time and energy I spend working are based on what is important to me rather than external 0.18 0.70 0.12
pressures.
Family authenticity
10. The time I spend with my family is consistent with my values.a 0.74 0.32 −0.03
11. The attention I give to my family is what I think it should be based on my life priorities.a 0.81 0.31 0.17
12. My involvement in my family fits my priorities. 0.82 0.20 0.09
13. The energy I devote to my family is what I want it to be based on my values.a 0.82 0.19 0.17
14. The time I spend with my family is what I want it to be based on my priorities. 0.86 0.19 −0.03
15. The energy I give to my family is not what I would like it to be according to what I value. −0.73 −0.05 −0.47
16. I am not able to be as involved in my family as I would like to be. −0.83 −0.13 −0.24
17. The attention I devote to my family is what I think it should be. 0.75 0.16 0.26
18. The choices I make about how much time and energy I spend with my family are based on what is important to me rather than 0.75 0.28 0.04
external pressures.
a
Based on items with loadings > 0.70 on its intended factor and < 0.35 on any other factor, we identified six items for use in the final scale
(Hinkin, 1995), in italics.
Table 4
Study 3 Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of study constructs.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Work authenticity 3.67 0.78 (0.81)

2. Family authenticity 3.97 0.90 0.36⁎⁎ (0.91)
3. Living authentically 3.98 0.69 0.43⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎ (0.83)
4. WFC 2.73 0.83 −0.31⁎⁎ −0.31⁎⁎ −0.23⁎⁎ (0.76)
5. FWC 2.26 0.76 −0.19⁎⁎ −0.32⁎⁎ −0.29⁎⁎ 0.55⁎⁎ (0.75)
6. WFE 3.35 0.87 0.54⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎ −0.28⁎⁎ −0.16⁎⁎ (0.88)
7. FWE 3.64 0.76 0.30⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎ 0.29⁎⁎ −0.10 −0.29⁎⁎ 0.49⁎⁎ (0.81)
8. WFB 3.62 0.97 0.53⁎⁎ 0.47⁎⁎ 0.33⁎⁎ −0.49⁎⁎ −0.35⁎⁎ 0.49⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ (0.95)
Note: WFC = Work-to-family conflict; FWC = Family-to-work conflict; WFE = Work-to-family enrichment; FWE = Family-to-work enrichment;
WFB = Work-family balance satisfaction. Internal consistency reliabilities are in parentheses on the diagonal.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
Caucasian, and on average, were 34.3 (SD = 9.63) years old with average job tenure of 4.88 (SD = 3.86) years, from various in-
dustries.
4.1.3.1. Measures & Results. We used Van den Bosch and Taris's (2014) four items for living authentically at work (e.g., “At work, I
always stand by what I believe in,” α = 0.83). Our work (α = 0.81) and family authenticity (α = 0.91) items were used. Work-to-
family (α = 0.76) and family-to-work (α = 0.75) conflict were each measured with 9 items (Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000),
work-to-family (α = 0.88) and family-to-work enrichment (α = 0.81) with 9 items from Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, and Grzywacz
(2006), and balance satisfaction (α = 0.95) with 5 items from Valcour (2007). Ratings were made on a 5-point Likert scale.
Descriptive statistics and correlations are given in Table 4. Using CFA (AMOS 21: Arbuckle, 2012), work and family authenticity
were modeled as latent factors and set free to correlate, with three items for each as indicators. The CFA model fit the data relatively
well [χ2(8) = 30.64, p < .01, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.10, SRMR = 0.04]. The two latent factors correlated at 0.42 (p < .01). A
single-factor model fit the data poorly [χ2(9) = 264.33, p < .01, CFI = 0.72, RMSEA = 0.31, SRMR = 0.18], and significantly worse
than the two-factor model [∆χ2(1) = 233.69, p < .01]. Results suggest work and family authenticity are related but distinct.
We next examined the two-factor model for invariance across gender (Brown, 2006). The unconstrained model fit the data well
[χ2(16) = 47.95, p < .00, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.05], continued to fit well with parameter estimates constrained
across gender [χ2(20) = 50.84, p < .01, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05], and did not demonstrate a significant change
in fit [∆χ2(4) = 2.89, p > .05], suggesting work and family authenticity are invariant across gender.
Next, we tested our work authenticity measure for convergent and discriminant validity with “living authentically at work.” First,
7
two latent factors were created: one for work authenticity and another for living authentically at work (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014).
The model fit the data relatively well [χ2(13) = 46.13, p < .01, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.05]; work authenticity
correlated 0.49 (p < .01) with the Van den Bosch and Taris measure. Next, the two factors were collapsed onto a single factor. This
model fit the data poorly [χ2(14) = 237.12, p < .01, CFI = 0.72, RMSEA = 0.24, SRMR = 0.15], and significantly worse than the
two-factor model [∆χ2(1) = 190.99, p < .01]. The relationship between family authenticity and living authentically was r = 0.21.
Thus, our work and family authenticity measures are related to but distinct from authenticity as defined by the honest expression of
thoughts and feelings at work.
We next examined convergent and discriminant validity of work and family authenticity with five other work-family measures.
Items were treated as indicators for work authenticity, family authenticity, and balance satisfaction; for conflict and enrichment,
directional subscales were used as indicators to reduce model complexity. The model fit the data relatively well [χ2(209) = 593.27,
p < .01, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.08].2 However, as in past research (e.g., Matthews, Kath, & Barnes-Farrell, 2010) systematic
covariance was observed between the different types of conflict (i.e., subscales) and enrichment.3 As such, cross-domain subscales
were set free to correlate (e.g., WFC-time with FWC-time, WFE-affect with FWE-affect). This model fit the data well
[χ2(203) = 425.61, p < .01, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06] and significantly better than the original model [Δχ2(6) = 167.66,
p < .01]. Correlations between latent factors replicate bivariate correlations (Table 4), and all indicators loaded on respective
factors at 0.53 or above (full results available from first author). Intercorrelations between latent work and family authenticity and
extant work-family constructs ranged from r = −0.24 (FWC and work authenticity) to r = 0.63 (work authenticity and WFE). Given
this latter strong correlation, we examined whether they were distinct with a separate CFA model with only work authenticity and
WFE. The correlated two-factor model fit the data relatively well [χ2(8) = 44.11, p < .01, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.13,
SRMR = 0.06], but a single-factor model fit poorly [χ2(9) = 185.37, p < .01, CFI = 0.80, RMSEA = 0.26, SRMR = 0.12], and
significantly worse than the two-factor model [∆χ2(1) = 141.26, p < .01]. Thus, work and family authenticity are related to but
distinct from conflict, enrichment, and balance satisfaction.
Collectively, results from Study 3 indicate work and family authenticity are novel constructs related to but distinct from “living
authentically at work”, and work-family conflict, enrichment and balance satisfaction. Having developed reliable and valid measures,
we aimed to empirically examine theoretically-derived substantive relationships of work and family authenticity with extant work-
family constructs and valued work and family outcomes.
5. Relationships among work-family constructs and work and family authenticity
5.1. Work-family conflict and enrichment
We hypothesize that work and family authenticity relate to work-family conflict, enrichment, and balance in substantively
meaningful ways. Conflict and enrichment are viewed as episodes that occur on a regular basis and pertain to the depletion and/or
enhancement of time, energy, and/or emotion between work and family roles (Maertz & Boyar, 2011). As such, we posit that ongoing
episodes of conflict and enrichment are primary antecedents to molar perceptions of the extent to which one's time, energy, and
attention to a role fits with his/her values. In particular, more conflict between work and family reduces one's sense of authenticity
within roles whereas more enrichment between work and family improves perceptions of authenticity.
There are two perspectives on the nature of relationships between conflict and enrichment with outcomes, such as authenticity.
The original explanation proposed for conflict, referred to as the domain-specificity perspective (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992),
suggests that when one role conflicts with another (e.g., WFC), this interference into a role results in the person feeling overwhelmed
in, being less effective in meeting demands, and overall reduction in quality of life in the receiving role (e.g., family). The domain-
specificity perspective was also initially adopted to explain the relation of enrichment to outcomes, but empirically, researchers found
a different pattern in that enrichment (e.g., WFE) was associated with affective and behavioral outcomes in the source or sending role
(e.g., work) (Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). Wayne et al. (2004) explained that when evaluating experiences of enrichment,
people may make attributions about their source which results in more positive affect toward and behavioral investment in the role
seen as providing the benefit (i.e., the source attribution perspective). In their study, Wayne et al. found that conflict tended to be
associated with behavioral outcomes in the receiving role (consistent with the domain-specificity perspective) but associated with
affective outcomes in the source role (consistent with the source attribution perspective). More recently, Shockley and Singla (2011)
examined the relation of bidirectional conflict and enrichment with affective outcomes (i.e., job and family satisfaction) and found
meta-analytic support for the source attribution perspective rather than the domain-specificity perspective, demonstrating that when
outcomes are affective in nature, people tend to engage in source attribution processes. Thus, the nature of the relationship between
conflict and enrichment with outcomes may differ based on whether the outcome is affective or behavioral.
Because work and family authenticity capture perceived fit of one's values with behavioral investment in a role rather than
affective reactions toward the role, based on Wayne et al. (2004)'s findings and support for the domain-specificity perspective for
conflict with behavioral outcomes, we expect that conflict interferes with authenticity in the receiving role. In particular, conflict
occurs when time, strain, or behavior required in a source role interferes with satisfaction or functioning in a receiving role
(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). As such, when work interferes with time and energy for one's family (WFC), it reduces the time, energy,
2
SRMR could not be calculated for this model, within AMOS, given missing data at the item/indicator level.
3
For example, significant residual variance was observed between the WFC-time indicator and the FWC-time indicator.
8
and attention available to invest in family to the extent that s/he might want or think should be based on his/her values (i.e., family
authenticity). Likewise, when time and strain from family interfere with work (FWC), it depletes the amount of time, energy, and
attention available to invest in work as one might want or think should be according to his/her values (i.e., work authenticity). Over
time, based on the domain-specificity hypothesis, we expect that:
Hypothesis 1. WFC has a negative lagged effect on family authenticity.
Hypothesis 2. FWC has a negative lagged effect on work authenticity.
Also, we expect enrichment contributes to greater work and family authenticity. Work-to-family enrichment occurs when af-
fective (positive mood), developmental (knowledge and skills), and capital (security, fulfillment) gains from work enhance family
(WFE; Carlson et al., 2006; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Family-to-work enrichment occurs when affective, developmental, and
efficiency (or time-based) gains from family enhance functioning at work (Carlson et al., 2006). Based on Wayne et al. (2004)'s
findings for the source attribution perspective for enrichment with behavioral outcomes, we expect that enrichment promotes per-
ceptions of behavioral investment in the source role. That is, when work provides positive mood and/or a sense of fulfillment (WFE),
because the work domain cultivates these gains, a person should perceive that time, energy, and attention for work is consistent with
values (i.e., work authenticity). Likewise, when family provides time- and mood-related gains that benefit work (i.e., FWE), this likely
fosters perceptions that the source (i.e., family) enables sufficient time, energy, and attention to devote to the family role as consistent
with values (i.e., family authenticity). We examine the source attribution perspective for enrichment over time:
Hypothesis 3. WFE has a positive lagged effect on work authenticity.
Hypothesis 4. FWE has a positive lagged effect on family authenticity.
5.2. Work-family balance
Several scholars have suggested that alignment between one's experiences in a role and his/her values (i.e., work or family
authenticity) gives rise to, or is an antecedent of, feelings of work-family balance. Though balance has been defined in many ways, it
is generally considered to be a holistic perception of how work and family combine – a cross-role perception (Casper et al., 2018;
Wayne et al., 2017). We adopt Valcour's (2007) satisfaction-based view of balance as an attitude about whether resources are
adequate to meet demands across work and family roles, and the resultant emotional states. Kofodimos (1993) noted that balance
results from “…the allocation of time and energy that fits your values and needs, making conscious choices about how to structure
your life, and integrating inner needs and outer demands” (p. 8). This description is consistent with our conceptualization of au-
thenticity, suggesting authenticity helps generate balance. Greenhaus and Allen (2011) acknowledged that experiencing balance
requires authenticity, or correspondence of action with deeply held values. Balance, they contend, is best captured as the extent to
which “outcomes” (satisfaction and effectiveness) achieved in work and family roles are consistent with values. Rather than a
component of balance, role involvement is considered an antecedent to it. Involvement in a role, particularly time commitment, is a
concrete resource allocation decision that influences feelings of balance (Greenhaus & Allen, 2011). As such, a relevant cue people
use to evaluate their sense of balance, as a combination of work and family roles, is the extent to which how much they put into their
work and family roles is consistent with their values.
Given that balance is a global assessment of work and family roles combined, people are especially likely to be satisfied with their
balance when they experience simultaneously high levels of authenticity in work and family roles, as together this combination
provides the strongest signal that roles are satisfactorily combined. That is, high levels of authenticity represent the person's per-
ception of fit between his/her behavioral involvement in a role and values. Being simultaneously high on work and family au-
thenticity signals the greatest fit, and as such, should relate to the greatest sense of balance. Further, the notion behind authenticity is
that the more true to oneself that a person is across various roles and situations, the more positive his/her outcomes will be (Kernis &
Goldman, 2006). Collectively, these rationales suggest that high authenticity in work and family roles will result in the most desirable
outcomes, including a greater sense of satisfaction with work-family balance.
In contrast, low levels of authenticity represent the person's perception of a lack of fit between his/her behavioral involvement in
a role and values. From a fit perspective, being simultaneously low on work and family authenticity signals the greatest lack of fit and
as such, should relate to low levels of balance. Based on the authenticity literature (Kernis & Goldman, 2006), when a person is not
true to oneself in any of his/her roles (i.e., low work and family authenticity), the more negative his/her outcomes will be, including
low levels of balance.
Hypothesis 5. When there is simultaneously high work and high family authenticity, people will report greater balance satisfaction
than when they are low on both.
6. Consequences of work and family authenticity
6.1. Self-reported employee behaviors
Several theories suggest that people who engage authentically in work or family roles experience positive attitudes and behaviors.
First, P-E fit theory assumes people seek environments that allow them to manifest their personal characteristics, and when there is fit
9
between the person (e.g., values) and environment (e.g., time, energy and attention in a particular role), the person can more easily
engage in activities while expending fewer resources, thereby attaining positive outcomes in that role (e.g., satisfaction, performance;
Su, Murdock, & Rounds, 2015). In contrast, when there is misfit between person and environment, a person must expend more
resources and work harder to adapt, redirecting energy that could otherwise have been used to foster positive role outcomes. The
molar approach assumes that (i) perception of fit generates positive outcomes and (ii) the direction of (mis)fit is not meaningful
(Edwards et al., 2006). Accordingly, molar perceptions of fit (i.e., higher work or family authenticity) are associated with better
outcomes in a role, and perceptions of misfit (i.e., lower work or family authenticity) are associated with poorer role outcomes
(Edwards et al., 2006). Research has found molar fit perceptions are positively related to job attitudes (Hinkle & Choi, 2009). By
extension, we expect molar fit perceptions of work or family authenticity relate to outcomes in work or family roles, respectively.
Second, self-determination theory (SDT) is a primary theory applied to the study of authenticity because authentic behavior has
its source in the individual's true self, and therefore, is self-determined by nature (Emmerich & Rigotti, 2017). SDT suggests that when
people engage in actions that are self-endorsed, volitionally enacted, and personally meaningful, their motivation, quality of ex-
periences, and well-being are enhanced. Thus, when involvement in work or family roles is consistent with values (high work or
family authenticity), people should engage fully with challenges, function effectively in that role (work or family, respectively) and
experience psychological growth, health, and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Acting in line with the true self is
honest and sincere, with healthy consequences, whereas inauthenticity is harmful to self and relationships (Fleeson & Wilt, 2010).
Finally, work-family scholars have argued that authentic fit of role involvement with values fosters effort, productivity, openness,
and commitment (Friedman & Lobel, 2003). People have positive feelings toward roles that provide them with authenticity. For
example, “happy workaholics” should be satisfied with work, life, and committed to their organization due to investing in work
consistent with priorities (i.e., high work authenticity). Those who invest little time, energy, and attention to a low-value work role
(also high work authenticity) should be satisfied with their job and committed to their organization because it allows them to live as
their true, authentic self. In contrast, when people behave inauthentically, they may feel work or family does not reflect their values,
and psychologically disengage (Friedman & Lobel, 2003). Someone who highly values work but cannot devote the desired time,
energy, and attention to work will be unhappy due to not behaving in accord with the true self. Similarly, a job that requires investing
more time, energy, and attention than a person desires when work is not a priority should foster less satisfaction and commitment. In
short, inauthenticity can occur from over-involvement or under-involvement in a role relative to values, and both are theorized to
result in negative outcomes. Thus, P-E fit, SDT, authenticity and work-family research converge to suggest people with higher work or
family authenticity hold more positive attitudes toward that role (i.e., job or family, respectively) and life.
Hypothesis 6. Above and beyond conflict, enrichment, and balance satisfaction, (a) work authenticity is positively related to
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction, and (b) family authenticity is positively related to life satisfaction.
6.2. Spouse-reported employee behaviors
Authenticity research often examines how subjective authenticity relates to self-reports of psychological functioning, relying on
an intrapersonal approach. Notably absent is examination of interpersonal or relational aspects of authenticity (Wickham, 2013). A
systems perspective (Greenhaus & ten Brummelhuis, 2014) recognizes that people exist in systems of interconnected others and that
multiple system members should be considered. Thus, the interpersonal implications of authenticity, such as how a focal person's
authenticity relates to other system members' perceptions, are especially compelling. Research suggests that authenticity is an in-
terpersonal cue that social perceivers use to evaluate a person and relationship quality (Wickham, 2013). Because work and family
authenticity refer to one's time, energy, and attention to a role, they capture, in part, behaviors observable by role partners, such as
spouses. As relationship partners likely use authenticity as a social cue for evaluation, employee-reported work and family au-
thenticity should relate to spouses' reports of employee behavior, reflecting an interpersonal approach.
Using a systems perspective, we extend Greenhaus and Allen's (2011) rationale to suggest that employee-reports of work and
family authenticity positively relate to partner perceptions of effectiveness in balancing work and family. For example, the spouse of a
“happy workaholic” (high work authenticity) may recognize that this person's work investment reflects his/her values and see him/
her as effectively combining work and family. In contrast, the spouse of an “unhappy workaholic” (low work authenticity) likely
recognizes that this person's over-investment in work is a mismatch with priorities and therefore, perceives him/her as ineffective
balancing work and family. Parallel arguments hold true for family authenticity. For example, when someone has high family
demands and is overinvested in family relative to values (i.e., low family authenticity), the spouse likely sees this person as in-
effectively balancing work and family. Because balancing work and family involves both roles, we expect spouses consider both work
and family authenticity as relevant cues in evaluating their spouse's balance effectiveness.
Hypothesis 7. Above and beyond employee conflict, enrichment, and balance, work and family authenticity positively relate to
spouse ratings of employee work-family balance.
Finally, a key aspect of authenticity is that living in accordance with one's true self results in people being more present, ex-
periencing less stress, and performing better (Friedman & Lobel, 2003; Greenhaus & Allen, 2011; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). When
someone highly values and is highly involved in family (i.e., high family authenticity), his/her spouse should view him/her as
10
performing well in family. Theoretically, the same process should hold true for high family authenticity due to low involvement in
family when it is a low priority.4 The quality of authenticity is that living as one's true self generates growth, satisfaction, well-being,
and high functioning, and is beneficial to self and relationships with others (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Similarly, P-E fit theories suggest
that high levels of fit, regardless of the nature of fit, generate desirable outcomes, such as performance. Thus, though a person's
involvement in the family may be limited, when it occurs, because it is authentic for the person and signifies supplies-values fit,
theories suggest s/he is able to bring his/her best self to that role and its relationships, and therefore, will be more satisfied, present,
and less stressed while participating with and performing in the family. Though quantity of time may be limited, when role in-
volvement is authentic, quality of experiences and performance in that role should be high, and for these reasons, s/he is likely
perceived by his/her spouse as effective in the family role.
In contrast, when someone cannot spend as much time, energy, and attention with family as he/she desires based on values (i.e.,
low family authenticity), this quality of low authenticity and low fit results in the spouse seeing him/her as performing poorly. If
someone spends a lot of time, energy, and attention in family which is a relatively a low priority (i.e., low family authenticity),
because this does not reflect his/her true self, s/he may be physically present but mentally absent or be stressed, dissatisfied, and
resentful when engaging in family tasks, such that the spouse views him/her as not performing well in family. For these reasons,
though a person's quantity of involvement in the family role may be high, quality may be low.
Hypothesis 8. Above and beyond employee conflict, enrichment, and balance, employee family authenticity positively relates to
spouse ratings of employee family performance.
7. Primary studies method & results
Using work and family authenticity measures developed in Studies 1–3, we collected data from three samples to test substantive
relationships with other work-family variables (Study 4), to employee-reported balance and job attitudes (Study 5) and to spouse-
reported employee balance and family performance (Study 6).
7.1. Study 4 Method & Results
Data were collected with Mechanical Turk from full-time employees who had not participated in Study 3. Respondents were paid
$3.25 for the Time 1 survey, and $2.50 for the Time 2 survey (12 weeks later). Participants were excluded for any of 9 validation
questions. There were 379 participants at Time 1 and 220 people completed both surveys with effortful responding. Participants were
46.2% male, 88.2% married or cohabitating, 63% had children living at home, most (78.6%) were Caucasian and on average, were
36.52 years old (SD = 9.20) with an average job tenure of 7.30 (SD = 5.11) years, from various industries.
7.1.1. Study 4 Measures

We used the 3-item work and family authenticity scales. WFC and FWC were each measured with 5 items (Netemeyer, Boles, &
McMurrian, 1996); WFE and FWE were each assessed with three items (Kacmar, Crawford, Carlson, Ferguson, & Whitten, 2014).
Items were rated on a 5-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
7.1.2. Study 4 Results

Table 5 includes descriptive statistics for Study 4 variables. To examine Hypotheses 1–4, two linear regressions were conducted.
In the first, Time 2 family authenticity was regressed onto Time 1 WFC, FWC, WFE, FWE, as well as Time 1 family authenticity. In the
second, Time 2 work authenticity was regressed onto Time 1 WFC, FWC, WFE, FWE, as well as Time 1 work authenticity. Stan-
dardized results are reported in Table 6.
In examining the hypothesized domain-specificity effects for conflict on authenticity, consistent with Hypothesis 1, after ac-
counting for Time 1 family authenticity, Time 1 WFC had a significant negative lagged relationship with Time 2 family authenticity.
Turning to conflict and work authenticity, Hypothesis 2 was not supported; no significant lagged relationship was observed between
Time 1 FWC and Time 2 work authenticity.
In terms of the source attribution effects for enrichment on authenticity, supporting Hypothesis 3, Time 1 WFE had a significant
positive lagged relationship with Time 2 work authenticity. Hypothesis 4 was not supported; no significant lagged relationship was
observed between Time 1 FWE and Time 2 family authenticity.5 Although not predicted, Time 1 WFE had a significant positive lagged
relationship with Time 2 family authenticity (β = 0.17, p = .006), reflecting a domain-specificity effect.
4
Though conceptually it is possible that individuals experience high family authenticity due to devoting little time and energy to family because
they do not value the family role, research suggests this may be an uncommon occurrence. That is, people tend to report high values for and high
behavioral involvement in family (Matthews et al., 2012). As such, in practice, high family authenticity likely represents molar perceptions of
alignment between moderate-to-high involvement in a moderately to highly valued family role. Likewise, given the generally high value for the
family role, low family authenticity is more likely due to perceptions of underinvolvement in family relative to values rather than overinvolvement.
5
Hypotheses 1–4 were also tested in a fully autoregressive path model (all variables measured at both time points). Results of the path model
consistently replicate those reported here. Additional details available upon request.
11
Table 5
Study 4 Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of study constructs.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time 1 Constructs
3. Work-to-family conflict 2.13 1.05 −0.26⁎⁎ −0.61⁎⁎ (0.93)
4. Work-to-family enrichment 3.47 1.02 0.59⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎ −0.29⁎⁎ (0.89)
5. Family-to-work conflict 1.86 0.90 −0.24⁎⁎ −0.49⁎⁎ 0.49⁎⁎ −0.04 (0.88)
6. Family-to-work enrichment 3.82 0.88 0.40⁎⁎ 0.41⁎⁎ −0.33⁎⁎ 0.54⁎⁎ −0.31⁎⁎ (0.81)
Time 2 Constructs
7. Work authenticity 4.12 0.83 0.64⁎⁎ 0.33⁎⁎ −0.32⁎⁎ 0.59⁎⁎ −0.24⁎⁎ 0.42⁎⁎ (0.87)
8. Family authenticity 4.27 0.86 0.42⁎⁎ 0.64⁎⁎ −0.53⁎⁎ 0.42⁎⁎ −0.39⁎⁎ 0.44⁎⁎ 0.52⁎⁎ (0.91)
⁎⁎
p < .01.
Table 6
Study 4 Hypothesis tests using hierarchical multiple regression.
Time 1 Predictors Family authenticity Work authenticity
(Time 2) (Time 2)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Step1
Family authenticity 0.64⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎ – –
Work authenticity – – 0.64⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎
Step 2
Work-to-family conflict – −0.17⁎⁎ – −0.07
Work-to-family enrichment – 0.17⁎⁎ – 0.31⁎⁎
Family-to-work conflict – −0.07 – −0.08
Family-to-work enrichment – 0.11 – 0.05
F 153.58⁎⁎ 42.04⁎⁎ 147.60⁎⁎ 41.91⁎⁎
DF 1, 218 5, 214 1, 218 5, 214
R2 0.41 0.50 0.40 0.50
ΔR2 – 0.08 – 0.09
Note.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
We conducted Study 5 to examine how work and family authenticity relate to balance satisfaction (Hypothesis 5), and to job and
life attitudes, above other work-family constructs (Hypothesis 6). Employed adults in professional Masters of Business Administration
(PMBA) classes at a private university in the Southeastern US and a public university in the Southwestern US were invited to
participate (if employed) and/or recruit another person employed full-time to participate. At the public university, a researcher
distributed surveys in class and offered extra credit to students to participate and/or recruit participants. Of 300 surveys distributed,
204 were returned (response rate = 68%). At the private university, a researcher placed surveys in mailboxes of 62 PMBAs. Parti-
cipants returned surveys to a locked mailbox and were entered in a drawing for gift cards. Of 62 surveys, 37 were returned (response
rate = 60%). To be included, participants had to work 20 or more hours weekly. Of 241 respondents, 216 were included in the final
sample. The sample was 63.8% Caucasian, 55.3% male, 61.2% married or cohabiting, 44.9% parents, and an average of 36.32
(SD = 10.98) years old. Respondents worked in various industries an average of 44.7 h weekly (SD = 7.88). We included gender, age,
marital status, and household, work, and leisure hours as control variables due to their potential relevance to our model.
7.2.1. Study 5 Measures

The three work and three family authenticity items were used. WFC and FWC were each measured with two time- and two strain-
based items (Carlson et al., 2000) because these two dimensions have received the most empirical attention (Dierdorff & Ellington,
2008) and are typically measured in general measures of work-family conflict (Wilson & Baumann, 2015). WFE was measured with
six items from Carlson et al. (2006) with two items from affect, development, and capital dimensions. FWE was measured with the
same four items for affect and development and two items for efficiency. We measured work-family balance satisfaction with
Valcour's (2007) 5-item scale. We used two items to measure global job satisfaction (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979).
Affective commitment was measured with four items with highest factor loadings from Allen and Meyer (1990). We measured life
12
Table 7
Study 5 Means, standard deviations, and correlations of work-family constructs and self-reported attitudes.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. Family authenticity 5.00 1.47 0.30 (0.87)
3. WFC 3.89 1.38 −0.16 −0.31 (0.82)
4. FWC 2.90 1.24 −0.20 0.01 0.47 (0.82)
5. WFE 4.69 1.19 0.42 0.30 −0.14 0.07 (0.88)
6. FWE 5.07 1.11 0.25 0.34 0.02 −0.02 0.45 (0.87)
7. WFB 4.90 1.33 0.42 0.51 −0.44 −0.05 0.51 0.36 (0.94)
8. Job satisfaction 5.11 1.61 0.64 0.27 −0.21 −0.07 0.61 0.32 0.45 (0.93)
9. Org. commitment 4.24 1.42 0.42 0.19 −0.07 0.04 0.39 0.14 0.26 0.50 (0.76)
10. Life satisfaction 5.60 1.27 0.34 0.43 −0.18 −0.08 0.34 0.31 0.48 0.45 0.30 (0.89)
Note: All correlations |0.14| and above are significant at p < .05. WFC = Work-to-family conflict; FWC = Family-to-work conflict; WFE = Work-to-
family enrichment; FWE = Family-to-work enrichment; WFB = Work-family balance satisfaction; Internal consistency reliabilities are in par-
entheses on the diagonal.
Table 8
Work and family authenticity discrepancy as a predictor of balance satisfaction.
Variable Balance satisfaction
b SE
Constant 4.50 0.12

Work authenticity 0.29⁎⁎ 0.08
Family authenticity 0.37⁎⁎ 0.06
Work authenticity squared −0.04 0.04
Work authenticity X family authenticity 0.11⁎⁎ 0.04
Family authenticity squared −0.10⁎⁎ 0.03
R2 0.39
F 29.78⁎⁎
df 5, 210
Line of fit
Slope 0.66⁎⁎
Curve −0.03
Line of misfit
Slope −0.08
Curve −0.25⁎⁎
⁎⁎
p < .01.
satisfaction with two items from Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985). All items were rated on a 7-point scale.6

Table 7 includes descriptive statistics. To formally test Hypothesis 5, we used polynomial regression with response surface
analysis (Edwards, 1994, 2007). Work and family authenticity were scale centered to improve interpretation, and three new variables
were computed: (a) the square of the centered work authenticity variable; (b) the cross-product of the centered work authenticity and
family authenticity variables; and (c) the square of the centered family authenticity variable. Balance satisfaction was regressed on
the centered predictor variables and three computed variables. As reported in Table 8, the model was significant and explained 39%
of variance in balance satisfaction. Results indicated that after controlling for family authenticity, work authenticity positively related
to balance satisfaction. Also, after controlling for work authenticity, family authenticity incrementally and positively related to
balance satisfaction.
In terms of Hypothesis 5, the significant R2 for the polynomial regression suggested further testing was appropriate (i.e., response
surface methodology; for a recent example and expanded discussion of the process we followed, see Shockley & Allen, 2018). The
three-dimensional response surface was graphed (Fig. 1). For Hypothesis 5, we first examined the slope and the curve of the con-
gruence, or “fit”, line. Results (see Table 8) indicated that the curvature of the congruence line is not significant and the slope is
significant and positive. In support of Hypothesis 5, this shows that balance satisfaction is higher when work authenticity and family
authenticity are both high than when both are low. While not hypothesized, we also examined the incongruence, or “misfit,” line
(e.g., when family authenticity is high and work authenticity is low, or vice versa). The slope of the incongruence line is not
6
In Study 3, the 4-item WFC measure correlated 0.93 (p < .01) with the 9-item measure, and the 4-item FWC version correlated 0.91 (p < .01)
with the 9-item measure. The 6-item WFE measure correlated 0.99 (p < .01) with the 9-item measure, and the 6-item FWE measure correlated 0.99
(p < .01) with the 9-item measure. The 2-item commitment scale correlated 0.98 (p < .01) with the 3-item measure. In a supplementary data set
(n = 668), the 2-item life satisfaction measure correlated highly with the 5-item scale (r = 0.94, p < .01).
13
Fig. 1. Polynomial regression results for work and family authenticity and balance satisfaction.
significant and the curvature is significant. The curvature result suggests that being incongruent (i.e., low work and high family
authenticity or vice versa) relates to lower balance and the nonsignificant slope suggests this pattern is symmetrical for the two types
of authenticity (whether it be low work and high family or low family and high work authenticity). In other words, being more
authentic in one domain does not inherently compensate for a lack of authenticity in the other domain when predicting balance
satisfaction. That is, while more authenticity in either domain is incrementally related to improved balance satisfaction (see Fig. 1),
being high on one does not appear to mitigate the effect of being low on the other. Future research may wish to examine this issue
given these relationships pertaining to incongruence were not hypothesized a priori.
To test Hypothesis 6, we examined the relationship of work authenticity with job attitudes, and of work and family authenticity
with life satisfaction using hierarchical regression. Results (Table 9) indicate that, above controls, bidirectional conflict and en-
richment, and balance satisfaction, work authenticity positively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment but not life
Table 9
Study 5 Hierarchical regression and relative weights analyses results of work-family constructs on self-reported attitudes.
Life satisfaction Job satisfaction Organizational commitment
β % β % β %
2 2 2
Step 1: Controls ∆R = 0.02 ∆R = 0.08 ⁎⁎
∆R = 0.02
Gender 0.01 0.2% 0.07 1.1% 0.05 0.6%
Age −0.05 0.5% 0.06 3.8% −0.05 0.8%
Marital status 0.03 0.4% −0.01 0.2% 0.04 0.5%
Household hours −0.01 0.2% 0.02 1.0% −0.07 0.8%
Work hours 0.12 3.4% 0.05 0.6% 0.05 1.6%
Leisure hours −0.12 2.3% −0.03 0.3% 0.08 1.5%
2 2 2
Step 2 ∆R = 0.26⁎⁎ ∆R = 0.34⁎⁎ ∆R = 0.15⁎⁎
WFC 0.09 3.1% −0.10 3.4% −0.01 1.1%
FWC −0.09 1.4% 0.08 0.9% 0.14 4.0%
WFE 0.07 10.6% 0.34⁎⁎ 29.6% 0.22 27.8%
FWE 0.07 9.3% 0.05 5.5% −0.04 2.0%
WFB 0.32⁎⁎ 31.7% 0.03 9.8% 0.02 8.4%
2 2
Step 3 ∆R = 0.05⁎⁎ ∆R = 0.18⁎⁎ ∆R2 = 0.10⁎⁎
Work authenticity 0.08 10.9% 0.46⁎⁎ 44.0% 0.38⁎⁎ 51.0%
Family authenticity 0.25⁎⁎ 26.0% – – – –
Overall F (df) 7.40⁎⁎ (13, 195) 21.54⁎⁎ (12, 196) 5.69⁎⁎ (12, 196)
Total R2 0.33 0.57 0.26
Note: % = Rescaled relative weight as reported by a percentage of variance explained- underlined percentages indicate the relative weight is
significant at p < .05. WFC = Work-to-family conflict; FWC = Family-to-work conflict; WFE = Work-to-family enrichment; FWE = Family-to-
work enrichment; WFB = Work-Family Balance Satisfaction.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
14
satisfaction, partially supporting Hypothesis 6a. Supporting Hypothesis 6b, family authenticity positively related to life satisfaction.
To further clarify the importance of work and family authenticity, we conducted relative weights analyses (RWA; Tonidandel &
LeBreton, 2015) to account for intercorrelations among predictors and examine their relative contribution to the criterion. Results
(Table 9) indicate that, compared to conflict, enrichment, and balance satisfaction, work authenticity is the most important predictor
of job satisfaction and organizational commitment (accounting for 44–51% of explained variance), followed by WFE (accounting for
27.8–29.6% of explained variance). Family authenticity was the second most important predictor of life satisfaction (accounting for
26% of explained variance), following balance satisfaction (accounting for 31.7% of explained variance). In contrast, WFC and FWC
each accounted for only 1–4% of explained variance.
We conducted Study 6 to examine family outcomes of work and family authenticity (Hypotheses 7–8). Participants worked for an
engineering consulting firm with 1506 employees in the US; portions of this data have been previously published (Wayne, Casper,
Matthews, & Allen, 2013; Wayne et al., 2017). Researchers invited employees to participate in a web-based survey and informed
them $1 would be donated to a charity for each survey returned, up to $500. Employees were asked to complete the survey and
forward the link to their partner if married/cohabiting. In total, 1044 employees (69.32% response rate) and 470 spouses/partners
(58.53% response rate) responded. After excluding surveys with incomplete data and part-time employees (< 30 h/week), our
sample was 956 employees and 456 spouses/partners. We included only dyads in which both employee and partner had complete
data, for a final sample of 408 dyads.
The employee sample was primarily Caucasian (90.7%), male (70.0%), and 63.5% had children. They were, on average, 37.18
(SD = 9.67) years old with 8.34 (SD = 5.97) years firm tenure. Spouses were mostly women (70%), Caucasian (91.7%), an average of
37.17 (SD = 9.80) years old. Most spouses (72.1%) were employed with an average of 5.85 (SD = 5.78) years tenure with their
employer.
7.3.1. Study 6 employee survey

All items were rated on a 7-point scale. Work and family authenticity, balance satisfaction (Valcour, 2007), WFE and FWE were
measured with the same items from Study 5. WFC was measured using Netemeyer et al.'s (1996) 5 items.
7.3.2. Study 6 spouse survey

Spouses rated employee family performance with an adapted 3-item job performance scale (Williams & Anderson, 1991) (1) never
to (5) always (e.g., “My spouse/partner performs well in the family tasks that are expected of him/her”) and rated employee balance
with two items such as, “My spouse/partner is successful in combining his/her work and personal/family roles” (Milkie & Peltola,
1999).

Table 10 includes descriptive statistics. To examine spouse measures (family performance and work-family balance), CFA was
used to model the two latent constructs (items were set as indicators with two constructs free to correlate). The CFA model fit the data
adequately [χ2(4) = 15.84, p < .01, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.09]; all items loaded on their respective factors at 0.79 or higher. A
single factor model fit the data [χ2(5) = 54.00, p < .01, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.16] significantly worse than the two-factor model
[∆χ2(1) = 38.16, p < .01].
Next, we regressed the two spouse-reported variables onto employee reports of work authenticity, family authenticity, conflict,
Table 10
Study 6 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among employee work-family variables and spouse reports of family performance and work-
family balance.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Employee reports
3. WFC 3.72 0.88 −0.60⁎⁎ −0.71⁎⁎ (0.85)
4. FWC 2.06 0.86 −0.09 −0.11⁎ 0.17⁎⁎ (0.82)
5. WFE 2.98 0.88 0.55⁎⁎ 0.47⁎⁎ −0.43⁎⁎ −0.09 (0.88)
6. FWE 3.73 0.66 0.19⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ −0.21⁎⁎ −0.03 0.43⁎⁎ (0.78)
7. Work-family balance satisfaction 2.80 1.02 0.70⁎⁎ 0.77⁎⁎ −0.77⁎⁎ −0.09 0.59⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎ (0.96)
Spouse reports
8. Family performance 4.01 1.01 0.24⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎ −0.29⁎⁎ −0.09 0.14⁎⁎ 0.18⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎ (0.89)
9. Work-family balance 3.43 1.18 0.36⁎⁎ 0.43⁎⁎ −0.45⁎⁎ −0.13⁎ 0.27⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎ 0.43⁎⁎ 0.73⁎⁎ (0.80)
Note: WFC = Work-to-family conflict; FWC = Family-to-work conflict; WFE = Work-to-family enrichment; FWE = Family-to-work enrichment.
Internal consistency reliabilities are in parentheses on the diagonal.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎
p < .05.
15
Table 11
Study 6 Employee work-family experiences as predictors of and relative importance to spouse ratings.
Employee reports Spouse reports
Employee Family performance Employee Work-family balance
β % β %
2 2
Step 1 ∆R = 0.12 ⁎⁎
∆R = 0.22 ⁎⁎
WFC −0.03 17.0% −0.21⁎⁎ 28.5%

FWC −0.06 3.6% −0.05 2.7%
WFE −0.13⁎ 3.7% 0.02 6.6%
FWE 0.12⁎ 12.7% 0.01 2.3%
WF balance satisfaction 0.18+ 24.1% 0.08 20.2%
Step 2 ∆R2 = 0.01 ∆R2 = 0.02⁎
Work authenticity 0.04 12.0% 0.04 13.3%
Family authenticity 0.15⁎ 26.7% 0.19⁎⁎ 26.5%
Overall F 8.89⁎⁎ 17.10⁎⁎
Total R2 0.14 0.24
DF (7, 388) (7, 385)
Note: % = Rescaled relative weight as reported by a percentage of variance explained – underlined percentages indicate the relative weight is
significant at p < .05. WFC = Work-to-family conflict; FWC = Family-to-work conflict; WFE = Work-to-family enrichment; FWE = Family-to-
work enrichment; WF Balance Satisfaction = Work-Family Balance Satisfaction; The reversed parameter estimate for WFE compared to the cor-
relation indicates suppression, suggesting the need for cautious interpretation.
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
+
p < .10.
enrichment, and balance satisfaction, and conducted RWAs (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2015; see Table 11). Hypothesis 7 was partially
supported in that employee-reported family authenticity, but not work authenticity, was associated with spouse-rated employee
balance, above conflict, enrichment, and balance satisfaction. Family authenticity accounted for 26.5% of explained variance in
spouse ratings of employee balance, second in importance relative to WFC. Supporting Hypothesis 8, family authenticity was the most
important predictor of and accounted for 26.7% of explained variance in family performance.
8. Discussion
Although scholars have discussed authenticity in work and family as fit between role involvement and values (Friedman & Lobel,
2003), no research has fully developed or empirically examined this construct. This research merges authenticity, P-E fit, and work-
family literatures to define work and family authenticity and develop reliable and valid measures. We examine work and family
authenticity in the larger work-family nomological network and show the unique and relative importance of work and family au-
thenticity to job and life attitudes and family performance. Compared to work-family conflict, enrichment, and balance satisfaction,
work authenticity was the most important predictor of job attitudes, accounting for about as much explained variance in job attitudes
as did all other work-family constructs combined. Family authenticity was the second most important predictor of life satisfaction and
the most important predictor of family performance. We discuss key findings from our six studies, their implications, and directions
for future research.
8.1. Work and family authenticity: Its meaning and measurement
We define work and family authenticity as role-specific, state-based constructs reflecting a subjective evaluation of fit between
time, energy, and attention to a role with life values or priorities. Following best practices in scale development (Hinkin, 1995, 1998),
we established content, convergent, and discriminant validity of these measures, and structural invariance across gender. Given the
potential for construct proliferation (Shaffer et al., 2016), we sought to ensure that our definition and measure reflect an important,
novel conceptual contribution, distinct from existing constructs, and contribute value to the study of work and family. Results suggest
work and family authenticity are distinct from extant constructs in the authenticity and work-family literatures. Our findings support
the arguments of Friedman and Lobel (2003) that work and family authenticity are novel and important concepts.
This research shows support for our conceptualization of work and family authenticity as role-specific, state-based constructs.
Confirmatory factor analyses indicated work and family authenticity are related to but distinct from one another, with an average
correlation of r = 0.44 across three studies. Consistent with a person-environment fit perspective, though there is some consistency
across roles likely due to the person (e.g., values), the extent to which time, energy, and attention in a role is consistent with values is
meaningfully differentiated in work vs. family domains. Moreover, these role-specific constructs have distinct implications for role-
specific outcomes in that work authenticity tends to relate to work-related outcomes whereas family authenticity tends to relate to
family and/or more general life outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction).
Consistent with our state-based conceptualization, Study 4 findings suggest work and family authenticity are relatively time-
16
variant with test-retest correlations over three months of 0.64. The stability estimate is consistent with those for WFC and FWC for
lags ranging from 6 to 12 months (Matthews, Mills, Trout, & English, 2014). Though there is some consistency over time, work and
family authenticity are best conceived of as role-specific constructs with a state-based component.
8.2. Relationships of work and family authenticity and work-family constructs
The first way that we examined whether work and family authenticity add value to the study of the work-family interface was to
examine their substantive relationships with existing work-family constructs. Based on the domain-specificity perspective (Frone
et al., 1992), we expected that conflict would negatively relate to authenticity in the receiving role. Also, based on the source
attribution perspective, we expected enrichment would relate to authenticity in the source role (Shockley & Singla, 2011; Wayne,
Randel, & Stevens, 2006). Results for work-to-family conflict were consistent with the domain-specificity perspective in that when
work interfered with family (WFC), people were less authentic in their involvement with family (i.e., the receiving role). In terms of
work enriching family (WFE), there was evidence for the domain-specificity perspective (family authenticity) but the relationships
were stronger for the source-attribution perspective (work authenticity).
Contrary to hypotheses, neither family-to-work conflict nor enrichment related to work or family authenticity over time. Based on
theory, this is surprising; yet, it reflects prior findings for conflict that the work-to-family direction relates more strongly and con-
sistently to outcomes than does the family-to-work direction (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Thus, the extent to which someone perceives
work and family authenticity appears to be based on experiences (positive or negative) originating at work that affect the family
domain. Evidence is starting to mount that the extent to which family conflicts with or enriches work is less relevant to authenticity,
balance satisfaction, or attitudes and behaviors than is the effect that work has on family (Wayne et al., 2017).
We also examined the relationship between work and family authenticity and balance satisfaction (Valcour, 2007). Being satisfied
with work-family balance is a desirable goal for most employees (Casper et al., 2018), and our research shows that being authen-
tically involved in work or family roles can promote balance satisfaction. Yet to optimize balance, people should strive to be highly
authentic in both work and family roles at the same time. For reasons previously explained, we conceptualized work and family
authenticity as within-role rather than cross-role constructs. More recently, Casper et al. (2018) provided a comprehensive definition
of balance that includes “involvement balance,” defined as the “perception that one's involvement in work and nonwork roles is
commensurate with the value attached to the roles” (p. 198). They point out that including involvement in their definition is a
distinguishing feature from Greenhaus and Allen's (2011) definition of balance. Though there are similarities between Casper et al.'s
(2018) definition of involvement balance and our definition of authenticity, there are also key differences. Balance, as Casper et al.
(2018) defines it, refers to the “combination of work and nonwork roles” rather than either role individually, as is the case with work
and family authenticity. In addition, their definition of balance includes nonwork roles (e.g., community, self) in addition to family.
For the conceptual and measurement reasons outlined earlier, as well as our empirical evidence that people meaningfully differ-
entiate work from family authenticity and that each relates differently to outcomes, there are valid reasons to treat them as distinct,
role-specific constructs. We also believe there are good reasons, as outlined by Casper et al. (2018), to look at the extent to which
people are adequately involved in all work and nonwork roles, considered together in a holistic appraisal. In fact, we expect that work
and family authenticity are likely key inputs into, and therefore, may help predict and explain, a person's overall holistic appraisal of
involvement balance.
Future work could adapt our work and family items to examine authenticity in other nonwork roles such as friend, community
member, self, etc. (e.g., “The time I spend with friends is consistent with my values”) and their links to balance and well-being. Based
on the theorized importance of being authentic (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) and the demonstrated effects of work and family au-
thenticity on valued outcomes, examining authenticity in other nonwork roles may offer fresh insight into the intersection of people's
work and nonwork lives.
8.3. The importance of work and family authenticity to employee job and family outcomes
The second way we determined whether work and family authenticity added value to the literature was by examining their
relation to job and family outcomes, beyond established constructs of conflict, enrichment, and balance satisfaction. Consistent with
P-E fit (Edwards et al., 2006), authenticity research (Kernis & Goldman, 2006), and motivation theories (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000),
employees who reported greater work authenticity were more satisfied with their jobs and more committed to their organizations,
and those who reported higher family authenticity were more satisfied with their lives and their spouses rated them as more effective
balancing work and family and performing in the family. In short, work and family authenticity add significant value in predicting
attitudes and behaviors, above other work-family constructs.
To test Friedman and Lobel's (2003) assertion that authenticity is a stronger driver of well-being and other outcomes than is
balance, we examined the relative importance of work and family authenticity to outcomes. Work authenticity was the most im-
portant predictor of job attitudes, accounting for 44–51% of the explained variance. Together, work authenticity and WFE accounted
for about 74–80% of explained variance in job attitudes. In contrast, WFC and balance satisfaction were not unique predictors of job
attitudes, together accounting for < 20% of explained variance. For job attitudes, findings support Friedman and Lobel's (2003)
assertion that aligning involvement in work with values (work authenticity) is more important for job satisfaction and organizational
commitment than is balance. Findings also demonstrate the value of work authenticity to the work-family interface relative to work-
family conflict. Practically, fostering work authenticity and enrichment between work and family may be the most promising avenues
for promoting employee attitudes.
17
For life satisfaction, neither conflict nor enrichment was important but together balance satisfaction and family authenticity
accounted for 57% of the explained variance. To be satisfied with life, it is critical that employees align their time, energy, and
attention in family with values, and are satisfied with how work and family fit together. This is consistent with prior research which
shows that family values and family behavioral involvement are related to life satisfaction whereas work values and work in-
volvement are not (Matthews et al., 2012). As SDT suggests, when behavior is rooted in values and not externally regulated, par-
ticularly within family, positive effects on well-being (life satisfaction) occur (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Supporting a systems perspective (Greenhaus & ten Brummelhuis, 2014) and interpersonal views of authenticity (Wickham,
2013), employee reports of family authenticity relate to spouse perceptions of employee behavior. When employees reported greater
family authenticity, spouses reported that employees were more successful balancing work and family and performed better in their
families, even when accounting for employee reports of bidirectional conflict, enrichment, and balance satisfaction. Additionally,
relative weights analyses indicated that employee-reported family authenticity accounted for approximately 27% of the explained
variance in, and was one of the most important predictors of, spouse-rated outcomes. Given authentic behavior occurs within family
and work systems, future research might examine cross-over effects of authenticity in family, coworker, or leader-member dyads.
Notably, work-family experiences that related most strongly to self-reported attitudes (i.e., enrichment, authenticity) differed
from those that related to role partner perceptions of employee behavior (i.e., WFC, balance satisfaction, authenticity). In fact, work
and/or family authenticity were the only constructs that predicted self- and other-reported outcomes, indicating that work and family
authenticity are important both intrapersonally and interpersonally. As a fit-based, role-specific, subjective state, being authentic in
work and family roles relates to one's own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. As they are observable by role partners, they can be cues
for transparency and trust (Wickham, 2013) relating to role partner perceptions.
8.4. Future theoretical and research directions
Self-determination theory is a key theory for studying authenticity (Ryan & Deci, 2000) rarely applied to the work-family in-
terface. We believe this theory holds promise for examining antecedents of work and family authenticity. Future research could
examine self-concept (e.g., self-awareness, self-efficacy) or self-regulatory variables (e.g., psychological capital), as well as situational
factors that meet needs for autonomy (e.g., job or family decision latitude), competence (e.g., role partner feedback, communication,
or rewards) or relatedness (e.g., friendship at work or in one's personal life) that may promote work and family authenticity. Research
could also examine whether need (autonomy, competence, relatedness) satisfaction explains how antecedent variables relate to work
and family authenticity.
Other than FSSBs (Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009) which is commonly studied, few work-family studies have
examined other leader behaviors in employees' management of the work-family interface. SDT and leadership research suggest
leaders can play a role in helping employees meet autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000), so leader
behavior warrants consideration. For example, authentic leadership may foster identification with and trust in a leader (meeting
relatedness and competence needs), and employees may experience greater authenticity in work and family roles. Authentic leaders
may also encourage employees to engage in more authentic involvement in work and nonwork roles.
Future research should seek to overcome limitations of this research. We assessed work-family constructs as antecedents of
authenticity over time and spouse-reported family outcomes, but studies of the job-related outcomes of work and family authenticity
were self-report and cross-sectional, prohibiting conclusions about temporal precedence. Although work- and nonwork-related at-
titudes are well-accepted outcomes of the work-family interface (e.g., Kossek & Ozeki, 1998), longitudinal cross-lagged studies to
examine temporal ordering are important. Such designs could also examine the possibility that authenticity contributes to conflict
and enrichment rather than the direction we proposed. Because of needs and constraints across our study settings, we did not use the
same, full conflict and enrichment scales. Though our data suggest they tap the same underlying construct, future research should
address this concern.
Future research should also seek samples across occupations and national contexts. Although we included multiple samples from
various industries, all data were from the United States (US). Hypotheses drawn from SDT, with its emphasis on intrinsic motivation,
need satisfaction, and self-deterministic behavior, reflect US cultural values of individualism and low power distance. Yet, it remains
to be seen if SDT-based findings would replicate in collective, high power distance cultures where autonomy and self-determination
are less important.
8.5. Practical implications
Firms care about the intersection between employees' work and family because of the connections to job attitudes and behaviors
(e.g., performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, turnover, and absenteeism). In prior research, advice often centers on how
to reduce work-family conflict, given its negative relation with work outcomes (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). The current study suggests
managers pay attention to a previously unexamined concept (work authenticity) which may be more central than conflict or balance
to promoting desirable job attitudes. Thus, we suggest a shift from asking “how do we reduce work-family conflict?” to “how do we
help people align their involvement in work and family roles with their values?”
In leadership development programs, organizations can encourage managers to work with employees to align work and family
involvement with priorities. Managers could formally examine employee authenticity with our scale, or informally, by asking em-
ployees whether they feel the time, energy, and attention they devote to work (or family) fits their values. If employees indicate
misalignment, managers might adjust the work situation as possible to ensure authentic alignment. Overall scale values could also be
18
examined across departments or firms to help design work contexts to foster work and family authenticity.
Authenticity also has practical implications for individuals and families who want to maximize well-being. Family members can
have similar conversations and develop strategies to ensure investment of time, energy, and attention to their family roles aligns with
values. Our findings suggest these accommodations may be well worth the effort, as they may result in more life satisfaction and
better family performance.
8.6. Conclusion
The current research advances the concepts of work and family authenticity, develops and refines measures of them, examines
substantive relationships with established work-family constructs and demonstrates the unique and relative importance of work and
family authenticity to work and family outcomes. Relative to five established work-family constructs, work authenticity explained the
most variance in job attitudes. Family authenticity was the second most important predictor of life satisfaction and most important
predictor of family performance. Our research reveals that work and family authenticity fill a conceptual need and that these con-
structs have strong empirical and practical value and are valuable additions to the literature.
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). AMOS 21 [computer program]. Chicago: SPSS.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Zivnuska, S. (2009). Is work-family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human Relations, 62, 1459–1486. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0018726709336500.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K., Wayne, J., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-family
enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131–164.
Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conflict in the organization: Do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26, 1031–1054.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidemensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 56(2), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713.
Casper, W. J., Marquardt, D., Roberto, K., & Buss, C. (2016). The hidden family lives of singles without dependent children. In L. Eby, & T. Allen (Eds.). Oxford
handbook of work and family.
Casper, W. J., Vaziri, H., Wayne, J. H., DeHauw, S., & Greenhaus, J. (2018). The jingle-jangle of work–nonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic review of
its meaning and measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000259.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71.
Dierdorff, E. C., & Ellington, J. K. (2008). It's the nature of the work: Examining behavior-based sources of work-family conflict across occupations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(4), 883–892.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper, I. T. Robertson, C. L. Cooper, & I. T.
Robertson (Vol. Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 1991. Vol. 6. International review of industrial and organizational psychology,
1991 (pp. 283–357). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 58, 51–100 (erratum, 58, 323-325).
Edwards, J. R. (2007). Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. In C. Ostroff, & T. A. Judge (Eds.). Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 361–372). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective
experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802–827.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of person – environment fit in the work and family domains.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(2), 85–129.
Emmerich, A. I., & Rigotti, T. (2017). Reciprocal relations between work-related authenticity and intrinsic motivation, work ability and depressivity: A two-wave
study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 307.
Fleeson, W., & Wilt, J. (2010). The relevance of big five trait content in behavior to subjective authenticity: Do high levels of within-person behavioral variability
undermine or enable authenticity achievement? Journal of Personality, 78, 1353–1382.
Friedman, S. D., & Lobel, S. (2003). The happy workaholic: A role model for employees. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.
2003.10954764.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77(1), 65–78.
Greenhaus, J., & ten Brummelhuis, L. L. (2014). Models and frameworks underlying work life research. In D. A. Major, & R. J. Burke (Eds.). Handbook of work-life
integration of professionals: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 14–34). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Allen, T. D. (2011). Work–family balance: A review and extension of the literature. In J. C. Quick, L. E. Tetrick, J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.).
Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 165–183). (2nd ed.). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.
1985.4277352.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive
supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35, 837–856.
Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1991). Exploring the cognitive processes underlying responses to self-report instruments: Effects of item context on work attitude
measures. Academy of management proceedings, (meeting abstract supplement) (pp. 310–314). . https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.1991.4977169.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.). Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394). New York, NY, US: Oxford
University Press.
Hewlett, S., & Luce, C. (2006). Extreme jobs: The dangerous allure of the 70-hour workweek. Harvard Business Review, 84, 49–59.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Hinkle, R. K., & Choi, N. (2009). Measuring person–environment fit: A further validation of the perceived fit scale. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17,
19
324–328.
Kacmar, K. M., Crawford, W. S., Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., & Whitten, D. (2014). A short and valid measure of work-family enrichment. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 19, 32–45.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In M. P. Zanna, & M. P. Zanna (Vol. Eds.), Advances
in experimental social psychology. Vol 38. Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 283–357). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press.
Kofodimos, J. R. (1993). The Jossey-Bass management series. Balancing act: How managers can integrate successful careers and fulfilling personal lives. San Francisco, CA, US:
Jossey-Bass.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human
resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-
group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.
Maertz, C. P., & Boyar, S. L. (2011). Work-Family Conflict, Enrichment, and Balance under “Levels” and “Episodes” Approaches. Journal of Management, 37(1), 68–98.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310382455.
Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 417–432.
Matthews, R. A., Kath, L. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). Short, valid, predictive measures of work-family interference. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15(1), 75–90.
Matthews, R. A., Mills, M. J., Trout, R. C., & English, L. (2014). Family-supportive supervisor behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: A contextually
dependent mediated process. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036012.
Matthews, R. A., Swody, C. A., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2012). Work hours and work-family conflict: The double-edged sword of involvement in work and family. Stress
and Health, 28, 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1431.
Milkie, M., & Peltola, P. (1999). Playing all the roles: Gender and the work-family balancing act. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 476–490. https://doi.org/10.2307/
353763.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and re-
commended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behavior Genetics, 32,
153–161.
Riordan, C. M., & Wayne, J. H. (2008). A Review and Examination of Demographic Similarity Measures Used to Assess Relational Demography Within Groups.
Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 562–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106295503.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55,
68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and
a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385–417. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(93)90058-U.
Shaffer, J. A., DeGeest, D., & Li, A. (2016). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: A guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related
constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 80–110.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with
psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1380.
Shockley, K. M., & Singla, N. (2011). Reconsidering work—family interactions and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 861–886.
Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2018). It’s not what I expected: The association between dualearner couples’ met expectations for the division of paid and family labor
and well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 240–260.
Su, R., Murdock, C., & Rounds, J. (2015). Person-environment fit. In P. J. Hartung, M. L. Savickas, & W. B. Walsh (Vol. Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology. APA
handbook of career intervention. Vol. 1. APA handbooks in psychology. APA handbook of career intervention (pp. 81–98). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association Foundations.
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2015). RWA-Web – A free, comprehensive, web-based, and user-friendly tool for relative weight analysis. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 30, 207–216.
Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1512–1523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1512.
Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. (2014). Authenticity at work: Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work. Journal of Happiness Studies,
15, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9413-3.
Wayne, J., Butts, M., Casper, W., & Allen, T. (2017). In search of balance: A conceptual and empirical integration of multiple meanings of work-life balance. Personnel
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12132.
Wayne, J., Casper, W. J., Matthews, R. A., & Allen, T. D. (2013). Family-supportive organization perceptions and organizational commitment: The mediating role of
work–family conflict and enrichment and partner attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 606–622.
Wayne, J. H., Randel, A. E., & Stevens, J. (2006). The role of identity and work-family support in work-family enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 69, 445–461.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the big five to work-family conflict
and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 108–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00035-6.
Wickham, R. E. (2013). Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 878–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.
001.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17, 601–617.
Wilson, K. S., & Baumann, H. M. (2015). Capturing a more complete view of employees' lives outside of work: The introduction and development of new interrole
conflict constructs. Personnel Psychology, 68, 235–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12080.
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385.
20

Wayne 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wayne 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103317

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

Fit of role involvement with values: Theoretical, conceptual, and

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

1. Previous definitions and measures of authenticity

2. Work and family authenticity: Conceptual and measurement characteristics

3. Distinctiveness of work and family authenticity from extant work-family constructs

Work authenticity Family authenticity Work-family balance satisfaction None

4. Measure development and validation studies method & results

4.1. Item development, refinement, and validation: Studies 1, 2, and 3

4.1.1. Study 1. Content adequacy

4.1.2. Study 2. Exploratory factor analyses

4.1.3. Study 3. Convergent and discriminant validity

1. Work authenticity 3.67 0.78 (0.81)

5. Relationships among work-family constructs and work and family authenticity

5.1. Work-family conflict and enrichment

5.2. Work-family balance

6. Consequences of work and family authenticity

6.1. Self-reported employee behaviors

6.2. Spouse-reported employee behaviors

7. Primary studies method & results

7.1. Study 4 Method & Results

7.1.1. Study 4 Measures

7.1.2. Study 4 Results

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

7.2. Study 5 Method & Results

7.2.1. Study 5 Measures

1. Work authenticity 4.93 1.27 (0.73)

Constant 4.50 0.12

7.2.2. Study 5 Results

7.3. Study 6 Method & Results

7.3.1. Study 6 employee survey

7.3.2. Study 6 spouse survey

7.3.3. Study 6 Results

Employee Family performance Employee Work-family balance

WFC −0.03 17.0% −0.21⁎⁎ 28.5%

8.1. Work and family authenticity: Its meaning and measurement

8.2. Relationships of work and family authenticity and work-family constructs

8.4. Future theoretical and research directions

8.5. Practical implications

You might also like