The Relationship Between Organizational Authenticity Perceptions and Employees’ Work Performance: Evidence From a Field Experiment

Abstract

The concept of organizational authenticity—the consistency between an organization’s espoused values and its lived practices—has garnered considerable interest in academic discourse. While the authenticity literature has paid much attention to external stakeholders (e.g., clients), the notion of organizational authenticity perceptions of an important stakeholder—employees—has been understudied. Despite prior evidence of external stakeholders’ positive reactions to organizational authenticity perceptions, whether and how it can also affect employees and their work performance remains an open question. I undertook a randomized field experiment in a large, global consulting company to examine how employee perceptions of organizational authenticity affect their work performance. Compared with the control group, those who perceived their organization as authentic demonstrated higher performance. I show evidence that employee trust in the organization mediates the relationship between employee perceptions of organizational authenticity and work performance. Alternative mediators—organizational identification and organizational likability—did not explain this relationship. The study’s results advance the literature by revealing the important role of organizational authenticity perceptions among an internal stakeholder—employees—and the way it affects work performance.

Keywords

organizational authenticity organizational trust work performance extra-role performance employee perceptions of organizational authenticity

Introduction

The concept of organizational authenticity is increasingly important in management theory and a key component of organizations’ connection to clients (Freeman & Auster, 2011; Kovács & Hannan, 2015; Lehman, O’Connor, Kovacs, & Newman, 2019b; Trilling, 1972). As authenticity is inherently in the eyes of the beholder, stakeholder perceptions matter (Lehman, O’Connor, & Carroll, 2019a). Authentic organizations are therefore those whose external expressions and beliefs are deemed to be consistent with their internal practices (Freeman & Auster, 2011; Hahl, 2016; Lehman et al., 2019b; Liedtka, 2008). Research has found that authenticity creates a competitive advantage for nascent enterprises, organizations entering new market segments, and firms diversifying from their core strategy (Hahl & Ha, 2020; Liedtka, 2008; Radoynovska & King, 2019; Weber, Heinze, & DeSoucey, 2008). Moreover, a growing body of research has shown that external stakeholders (e.g., clients) appreciate and reciprocate by responding positively to organizations they perceive as authentic (for a review, see Kovács, Carroll, & Lehman, 2014; Lehman et al., 2019b; O’Connor, Carroll, & Kovács, 2017). For example, perceived organizational authenticity leads to higher attendance, more positive reviews, and client willingness to pay premium prices at restaurants, music concerts, and sports tournaments (e.g., Beverland, 2005; Frake, 2017; Hahl, 2016; Kovács et al., 2014; Lehman, Kovács, & Carroll, 2014; Verhaal, Khessina, & Dobrev, 2015). Yet, there is sparse knowledge on the impact of such perceptions on organizations’ internal stakeholders—employees (see Pamphile & Ruttan, 2023, for a sole exception). Moreover, while Pamphile and Ruttan (2023) pointed to employees’ favorable attitudinal responses to organizational authenticity perceptions, we continue to lack an understanding of whether and how these perceptions could impact employees’ behavioral reactions and enhance work performance.

This understanding is important for several reasons. First, employees are central stakeholders, and their work performance is critical for organizations (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). Moreover, as internal stakeholders, employees are likely to be more concerned about their organization’s authentic approach than external stakeholders, and, as such, their performance will likely be associated with it. Second, employees are likely to have a more comprehensive and fine-grained perception of whether espoused values and lived practices of the organization are aligned (i.e., authenticity)—a perception that is less available to external stakeholders such as clients. As an internal stakeholder, employees can perceive organizational authenticity based on their daily observations of the workplace and ongoing experiences in organizational reality—for example, which behaviors are rewarded, what practices are executed, how issues with clients and employees are addressed, and how stated values play out in daily routines (Schein, 2010)—which likely affect the way they behave and perform at work. Nevertheless, prior research has been constrained in capturing employee responses generally, and their behavioral performance reactions in particular—in organizations they perceive to be authentic.

To address this theoretical void in the organizational authenticity literature, I study an alternative stakeholder—employees—and examine the relationship between employee perceptions of organizational authenticity and performance at work in a longitudinal approach. Drawing on Carroll and Wheaton’s (2009) characterization of moral authenticity and the common view of perceptions of organizational authenticity as perceived consistency in the literature (Demetry, 2019; Hahl, 2016; Hahl & Ha, 2020; Lehman et al., 2019b), I argue that an organization’s espoused values create expectations among employees. If an organization consistently practices these values in its actions, employees perceive it as authentic. Drawing on social exchange theory, I expect that such perceptions lead to positive reciprocity in the form of enhanced work performance. Drawing on authenticity scholars who have suggested that authenticity signals trustworthiness (e.g., Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Hahl, & Zuckerman, & Kim, 2015), I disentangle the authenticity–performance relationship and propose employee trust in the organization as an explanation for this relationship. At the same time, authenticity research has suggested feelings of likability and identification as potential explanations for why authentic brands receive positive client reactions (e.g., Radoynovska & King, 2019). Thus, I also test alternative explanations by which the relationship between organizational authenticity perceptions and employee performance might occur.

I study the authenticity–performance relationship in a field experiment in a leading consulting company’s onboarding training. In doing so, I respond to Lehman and colleagues’ (2019b) call for experimental field research, which is exceedingly rare in authenticity literature. Onboarding training is the encounter stage of a socialization process whereby organizations enculturate new employees. Here, new employees “learn the ropes” (Louis, 1980: 230). It is an institutionalized organizational stage in which new employees undergo a systematic, structured learning experience as part of a cohort before entering the workplace and beginning real work (Cable, Gino, & Staats, 2013). Research has shown that the onboarding experience is critical in shaping new employees’ long-term perceptions of and behaviors toward the organization (for an overview, see Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Methodologically, conducting a field experiment in the onboarding stage allows us to test and measure a refined effect of employee perceptions of organizational authenticity without the influence of past workplace experiences (Eden, 2021), which might have caused employees to develop biases based on such experiences, and could confound the results. Performing a field experiment before entering the workplace therefore minimizes the potential effect of external variables, increases consistent experiences across participants, and leads to more reliable and robust results (Eden, 2021). The results show that those who perceived their organization as authentic demonstrated greater performance both at the end of the training and 4 months post-training. I find further evidence that employee trust in the organization mediates the positive relationship between employee perceptions of organizational authenticity and performance at work. Potential alternative explanations—organizational identification and organizational likability—were lacking significant effects.

Organizational Authenticity Perceptions

The essence of authenticity captures perceptions of organizational consistency (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009). This meaning has old theoretical foundations, rooted in classical philosophical works by the Ancient Greeks such as Aristotle and Socrates, Enlightenment scholars such as Rousseau, and the existential philosophy of Heidegger (1962) and Sartre (1940). Research in psychology has also taken a consistency approach when defining an authentic entity (e.g., Harter, 2002; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt, & King, 2009; Seligman, 2002).

According to Lehman and colleagues’ (2019b) comprehensive review on authenticity in the Academy of Management Annals, while the concept of authenticity has gained various definitions over the years, what appears to unite them is the question of whether a stakeholder perceives an entity to be what it claims to be. Indeed, the focus in the authenticity literature has been on the perceived consistency between an organization’s values and practices, and the perceptions of alignment of an organization’s external expressions and internal experiences (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Cording, Harrison, Hoskisson, & Jonsen, 2014; Radoynovska & King, 2019). Other authenticity scholars have also used the consistency-based approach in their definition, conceptualizing organizational authenticity perceptions as the extent to which an organization’s external expressions are perceived to genuinely represent its identity and the extent to which audience members attribute an alignment with its claims and actions (Baugh, 1988; Demetry, 2019; Frake, 2017; Grazian, 2003; Hahl, 2016; Hahl & Ha, 2020; Hahl, Zuckerman, & Kim, 2017; Lehman et al., 2019a; Negro, Hannan, & Rao, 2011; Newman, 2016; Peterson, 2005). Thus, rather than emphasizing the content of authenticity claims, this definition as perceived consistency emphasizes the structure of such claims and inspires the question: Is there an alignment between proclaimed and lived domains?

Defining organizational authenticity perceptions based on the notion of consistency reflects two important premises in authenticity literature and research. First, it shows the key role of congruence between an organization’s espoused values and realized actions (Carroll &Wheaton, 2009; Lehman et al., 2019b). Carroll and Wheaton’s (2009) definition of “moral authenticity” manifests this importance, arguing that “an organization would be authentic to the extent that it embodies the chosen values of its founders, owners or members” (p. 261). Indeed, research has shown how perceptions of organizational authenticity are derived from the congruence between the “backstage” and “frontstage,” (e.g., Demetry, 2019; Hahl, 2016; Hahl & Ha, 2020; Lehman et al., 2019b; Moeran, 2005; Pamphile & Ruttan, 2023). Second, it shows the key role of organizational values in driving authenticity perceptions among various stakeholders (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Demetry, 2019; Hahl, 2016; Lehman et al., 2019b). In terms of employees, the notion of such perceptions is therefore the perceived congruence between an organization’s core values and executed actions, embodied through its daily work routines, workplace practices, and ongoing reality.

The evidence that authenticity perceptions matter is widespread. As previously discussed, research to date on organizational authenticity perceptions has mainly focused on how organizations present authenticity to external stakeholders (e.g., Beverland, 2005; Beverland & Farrelly, 2009; Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000; Hahl, 2016; Hahl & Ha, 2020; Verhaal et al., 2015), showing the positive effect of the organizational authenticity perceptions of clients (e.g., Beverland & Farrelly, 2009; Frake, 2017; Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Howard-Grenville, Metzger, & Meyer, 2013; Leigh, Peters, & Shelton, 2006; Rose & Wood, 2005; Verhaal et al., 2015), as well as of social movements and communities (e.g., Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000; Negro et al., 2011; Weber et al., 2008). Studies from a variety of domains including art (Fine, 2004; Hahl et al., 2015, 2017; Newman & Bloom, 2012), healthcare and car mechanics (Hahl & Ha, 2020), music (Grazian, 2003; Peterson, 2005), sports (Hahl, 2016), tourism (Grayson & Martinec, 2004), wine (Beverland & Farrelly, 2009), food and fairs (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Castéran & Roederer, 2013; Fine, 1995), and dining and entertainment (Beverland, 2005; Kovács et al., 2014; Lehman et al., 2014) have shown that clients and societal communities are willing to engage with, consume, and reward brands they perceive as authentic.

Nevertheless, the effect of employee perceptions of organizational authenticity on work performance has yet to be examined in the authenticity literature, nor has it been tested using experimental methods. By conducting a field experiment in an organizational setting to test this effect, we substantially advance the authenticity literature both theoretically and methodologically.

The Effect of Organizational Authenticity Perceptions on Employee Performance

In the management field, a favorable organizational practice directed at an employee is typically seen as eliciting a positive reaction from the employee. The common theoretical explanation for this positive response is the norm of reciprocity or “rules of exchange” (Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, & Hall, 2017), and it is based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). This theory describes a positive employee reaction as a sequence of transactions driven by a benefit analysis (Blau, 1964). When employees perceive that an organization engages in a favorable practice, a social exchange process is initiated wherein employees reciprocate with “currency” that is important to their organization (Bordia, Restubog, & Tang, 2008; Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007; Cropanzano & Benson, 2011; Cropanzano & Rupp, 2008; Cropanzano et al., 2017; Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001).

According to social exchange theory, employees desire organizational practices that demonstrate predictability in the organization’s moral virtue and intent (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). This is because such predictability fulfills important individual psychological needs, such as a sense of control, confidence, and a meaningful existence (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). These desired practices, in turn, engender employee outcomes that are essential and critical for organizations (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Mitchell, Cropanzano, & Quisenberry, 2012). Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), empirical studies have linked perceived organizational demonstrations of credibility, reliability, and honesty to higher employee work effort and performance outcomes (e.g., Cropanzano & Rupp, 2008; Karam et al., 2019; Koopman, Lin, Lennard, Matta, & Johnson, 2020; Zhao, Xu, Peng, & Matthews, 2020). Such practices have been found in particular to be highly valuable for employees over other positive organizational traits such as likability and competence (e.g., Brambilla, Sacchi, Rusconi, & Goodwin, 2021; Goodwin, 2015; Goodwin, Piazza, & Rozin, 2014; Landy, Piazza, & Goodwin, 2016; Radoynovska & King, 2019).

Integrating social exchange theory with authenticity research, I expect that employees who perceive their organization as authentic will reciprocate by behaving in ways that serve the organization’s interests. When alignment exists between organizational claims and actions (i.e., organizational authenticity perceptions), employees gain predictability regarding the organization’s moral intent (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Lehman et al., 2019b). This goodwill on the part of the organization therefore engenders an obligation in employees to reciprocate through beneficial deeds that are critical to the organization (Mitchell et al., 2012). Because work performance is the primary focus of most organizations (Cropanzano et al., 2017), employees increase their effort and immerse themselves in their work roles as a form of payback, thus ensuring balance in the exchange (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2008).

Additional support can be derived from research on the positive reactions of clients to perceived organizational authenticity. Studies have shown that clients perceive organizations as authentic when the latter demonstrate morality-predicting signals such as credibility, consistency, trustworthiness, and responsibility (Baron, 2004; Becker, 1960; Hahl & Ha, 2020; Kovács et al., 2014), as well as faithfulness and sincerity (Beverland, 2005; Gino, Sezer, & Huang, 2020; Holt, 2002; Lehman et al., 2014; Morhart, Malar, Guevremont, Girardin, & Grohmann, 2015). These perceptions of authenticity lead to positive reviews, higher attendance, and a willingness to pay more on behalf of clients (e.g., Beverland, 2005; Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Frake, 2017; Gino, Kouchaki, & Galinsky, 2015; Grauel, 2016; Grazian, 2003; Hahl, 2016; Hahl et al., 2015; Kovács et al., 2014; Lehman et al., 2014; O’Connor et al., 2017; Verhaal et al., 2015).

As subsequently noted in more detail, we see this positive effect of employee perceptions of organizational authenticity both on performance in business skills training during onboarding (T2) and in their eventual job performance (T4). Based on the above-mentioned theorizing, I posit:

Hypothesis 1: Employee perceptions of organizational authenticity will lead to (a) higher employee performance at the end of the training (T2), and (b) higher employee performance on the job (T4) than the control group.

The Role of Employee Trust in the Organization as a Mediator

Trust in the organization is defined as a psychological state of employees involving suspension of uncertainty regarding the actions of their organization (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Pratt, Lepisto, & Dane, 2019; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer,1998). Employee trust in the organization is therefore a key component in social exchange situations (Blau, 1964). According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), a social exchange requires a trusting relationship wherein the initial challenge on the part of the organization is proving itself trustworthy (Blau, 1964). Drawing on this theory, studies have shown that through perceived morality-based organizational practices such as fairness and integrity, this relationship is established and employee feelings of trust are developed (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson, 2014; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Integrating social exchange theory with authenticity and trust literature, I argue that employee trust in an organization is generated by perceptions of organizational authenticity, which, in turn, enhances performance.

Trust is formed when trustors believe in the trustee’s integrity (Mayer et al., 1995; Pratt et al., 2019). Drawing on Holt’s (2002) early work on authenticity, scholars have already pointed to the significant role of “trust” (Fueller, Schroll, & von Hippel, 2013) and “faithfulness” (Morhart et al., 2015) in building a beneficial relationship between perceived authentic brands and their stakeholders. Other scholars have also argued that authenticity as consistency signals to stakeholders that organizations are trustworthy (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Gino et al., 2015; Grauel, 2016). Drawing on these conceptual frameworks, empirical evidence has shown the link between stakeholder perceptions of brands as authentic and the trustworthiness they attribute to these brands’ products, based on signals of integrity and honesty (Kovács et al., 2014; Hahl & Ha, 2020; Hahl et al., 2015). Additional support for the authenticity–trust link can be drawn from research on trust in the workplace. Drawing on McAllister’s (1995) argument that trust is developed upon fulfilled expectations of, and the perceived alignment between, words and intentions (e.g., authenticity as consistency) of an exchange partner, prior work has shown a link between trustors’ belief in the trustee’s authenticity and their developed feelings of trust in the trustee (Pratt et al., 2019).

Studies have consistently shown a link between employee trust and performance outcomes (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). For example, Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, and Tan (2000) found that business entities whose employees generated greater trust perform significantly better (i.e., higher sales and profits), because trust involves employees suspending their uncertainty about their organization’s intentions (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Mayer et al., 1995; Pratt et al., 2019; Rousseau et al.,1998). Thus, employees with more trust in their organization focus more attention on their work performance, as such trust allows them to spend fewer cognitive resources and mental energies worrying about what the organization might do that could adversely impact them (Ashforth & Lee, 1990). By avoiding a preoccupation with nonproductive issues such as distress, self-protecting activities, or defensive behaviors (Ashforth & Lee, 1990; De Jong & Elfring, 2010), employees free up more available mental energy and cognitive resources for productive performance efforts (Davis et al., 2000; Rich, 1997; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). Building on this, studies have shown that trust allows employees to invest their work efforts more effectively and increase performance (e.g., De Jong & Elfring, 2010; Deluga, 1995; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Earley, 1986; Jones & George, 1998; M. T. Liu, Brock, Shi, Chu, & Tseng, 2013; J. Liu, Siu, & Shi, 2010; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Rich, 1997; Schoorman et al., 2007).

Taken together, these theoretical links collectively formalize an indirect relationship between employee perceptions of organizational authenticity and performance at work wherein employee trust in the organization mediates this relationship. Drawing on social exchange theory, prior research has already found trust to be an important mediator in the indirect relationship of other perceived morality-based organizational practices, such as fairness, honesty, justice, and employee work performance (e.g., Aryee et al., 2002; Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, 2012; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Montes & Irving, 2008). I expect that employee trust in the organization will be an important mediator in the authenticity–performance indirect relationship as well. Thus, I posit:

Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between employee perceptions of organizational authenticity (T2) and work performance (T4) is driven by employee trust in the organization (T3).

Organizational Authenticity Perceptions and Employee Performance: A Field Experiment

I designed the study as a field experiment with a random assignment to test the hypothesized causal relationship between employee perceptions of organizational authenticity and work performance. This method helps rule out alternative explanations such as personality traits, demographic characteristics, prior work experiences, and biases (Eden, 2021), as well as employee attributions of positive organizational practices that could be correlated with work performance, thereby increasing internal validity of the study (Levine & Parkinson, 2014). The additional advantage of this field experiment is that it was conducted on new employees who had not yet been exposed to various workplace-based factors and experiences that can bias and confound the results, which also increases the internal validity (Eden, 2021).

Sample

I conducted the field experiment at a leading consulting company, which its headquarters is located in India, where most employees work. In general, the company’s employees have university degrees in computer science or engineering programs and high proficiency in spoken and written English.

The company’s projects require new employees to receive 4 weeks of technical onboarding on IT-related tasks, such as Java/Unix/C++ programing, user interface, and so forth, before beginning their actual work. This 4-week onboarding is highly structured; all new employees attend the same classes throughout the day and have breaks at the same time. The training also includes eight business skill sessions that prepare new employees to work successfully with clients and follow company policies. This is the stage where the manipulation took place. The business skills sessions are dedicated to topics such as: the company’s core values, writing skills, holding a client presentation and meeting, speaking and communication skills with clients, business etiquette, and writing official reports, all of which are conducted in English.

I randomly assigned 100 employees to the organizational authenticity condition—the treatment group—and 100 employees to the control group. All participants held university degrees in computer science or engineering. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics by condition. As shown, the demographic and professional characteristics were similar between the two conditions, and there were no significant differences in gender, age, education, and previous job experience. While employees were certainly aware of the company’s reputation as one of the premier companies in India and in IT, and brought some positive expectations, the random assignment ensured that awareness and expectations were common across both groups.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics by Condition

	Treatment Group	Control Group
	(n = 100)	(n = 100)
Demographic and Professional Characteristics
Gender (Male)	60	62
Age (Years)	37 (7.80)	35.18 (8.19)
Computer Science/Engineering	All participants	All participants
Previous Job (Number)	3.36 (1.83)	3.42 (2.27)
Personality Traits
Self-Esteem	4.87 (1.05)	4.88 (1.04)
Conscientiousness	4.80 (1.07)	4.92 (1.06)
Agreeableness	5.09 (1.03)	4.98 (1.20)
Neuroticism	3.19 (1.09)	3.32 (1.18)

Note. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses next to the means.

The Study’s Manipulation

As previously discussed, at the heart of organizational authenticity perceptions is the notion of perceived consistency (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009). Namely, whether a congruence is perceived by employees between an organization’s core values and lived actions in the workplace, between its backstage and frontstage, and expressed and experienced domains (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Lehman et al., 2019b; Radoynovska & King, 2019). I based the manipulation on this notion.

I implemented the study’s experiment in the eight business skills training sessions, which ran twice per week for 80 minutes. Both the treatment and control groups underwent the company’s traditional skill training that includes becoming familiar with company values and policies, practicing speaking and communication skills, business etiquette, and writing reports. The two groups were presented with the same topics and materials, the sessions were the same length, and each was delivered and presented on the exact same day and time (i.e., morning) in the same classroom by the same instructor.

The only difference (i.e., the manipulation) was the content of the prompt presented at the beginning of each class. Table 2 presents a detailed description of the eight training sessions including the prompt difference between the groups. In the treatment group, this prompt included lived examples that presented with the corresponding company’s core values, thus aligning the manipulation with the conceptualization of organizational authenticity perceptions. Drawing on a design from Ruttan and Nordgren (2016), these lived examples were constructed directly from the work descriptions provided by experienced members of the organization, which, in this case, were human resources (HR) managers. Studies have shown that feedback from experienced members, in general, and managers and HR professionals in particular, is a key approach for new employees to become socialized into organizational and lived norms, experiences, and reality (Saks & Gruman, 2012; Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina, 2007; Schein, 2010).

Table 2

Description of the Eight Business Training Sessions (Where the Manipulation Took Place)

Week: Session	Topic Learned	Description of the Prompt at the Beginning of Each Class—Where the Manipulation Took Place in the Overall Schedule
Week: Session	Topic Learned	Treatment Condition	Control Condition
Week 1: Session 1	The Company Core Values	Learning the company’s seven core values of: Excellence, Innovation, Humility, Responsibility, Caring, Learning, and Integrity.	Learning the company’s seven core values of: Excellence, Innovation, Humility, Responsibility, Caring, Learning, and Integrity.
Week 1: Session 2	Email Etiquette	The Excellence value is presented to participants, along with sharing an example of the tight deadlines and high-performance criteria the organization demands from its employees in order to provide an excellent service to its clients, thus creating perceived consistency between the domains.	An illustration of a current company project is presented to participants that includes its technological advantages, innovative potential, as well as its technical challenges.
Week 2: Session 3	Presentation Skills	The Innovation value is presented, along with an example of the company’s operation of innovation-dedicated centers in India and the United States, as well as winning international innovation contests, thus creating perceived consistency between the domains.	An illustration of the company’s policies is presented to participants that includes working hours reporting, sickness absence, and vacation time.
Week 2: Session 4	Writing Etiquette	The Humility value is presented, along with sharing an example in which the company, after releasing many employees due to a project’s end, reached out to other organizations to help them find new jobs, thus creating perceived consistency between the domains.	A general success story of the organization and founders is presented to participants and how it is prestigious to work for the company.
Week 3: Session 5	Speaking Skills	The Responsibility value is presented, along with a shared example in which employees were asked to work weekends and sustain high workloads to meet a project deadline and fulfill a client contract the company committed to, thus creating perceived consistency between the domains.	An illustration of the company’s bonus system is presented to participants that includes a demonstration of its criteria and potential.
Week 3: Session 6	Cultural Differences	The Caring value is presented, along with an example of how the company actively participated in national pedagogical programs and contributed to educational activities in the community, thus creating perceived consistency between the domains.	An illustration of the company’s data protection policies is presented to participants, including an example of a data security breach and security mastery.
Week 4: Session 7	Business Etiquette	The Learning value is presented, along with an example of various courses and training sessions that are provided for free as well as bonus and promotion decisions based on learning achievements, thus creating perceived consistency between the domains.	An illustration of the company’s policies of client service is presented to participants as well as how service quality can transform client engagement and overall client impression
Week 4: Session 8	Business Etiquette	The Integrity value is presented, along with a shared example of a global manager’s harassing and uncivil behavior to his\her employees and how the company handled it, thus creating perceived consistency between the domains.	An illustration of the company’s policies of safety is presented to participants as well as how those policies prevent employees from injuries in the workplace.

Specifically, drawing on a HR directory list obtained from the organization, seven random HR managers were picked and asked to provide lived examples of how the organization manifests each of its seven core values—excellence, innovation, humility, responsibility, caring, learning, and integrity—in actions and practices, emphasizing that such lived examples do not necessarily have to be favorable ones. These examples (see Table 2) included a description of the tight deadlines and high-performance criteria the organization demands from its employees to provide excellent service to its clients, thus manifesting the value of excellence, and a situation in which the company released employees after finishing a project and reached out to other organizations to help them find a new job, thus reflecting the organization’s core value of humility. In another example, the treatment group was exposed to a case in which employees were asked to work during weekends and high workloads to meet a project deadline and fulfill a client contract the company had committed to, thus illustrating the organizational value of responsibility. Another lived example of the value of integrity was the organization owning up to a manager’s uncivil and harassing behavior toward his/her employees without attempting to cover it up. An example of the organizational value of caring was a description of how the company actively participated in national pedagogical programs and contributed to educational activities in the community, such as donating money to schools and technological programs for children (for the full examples see Table 2). Some of these examples were “costly” and “unfavorable,” such as sharing demanding and stressful workplace dynamics, laying off employees, or sharing a manager’s harassing behavior toward employees. I used these lived examples in the prompt at the beginning of each business class of the authenticity condition to represent the “backstage” perceived by the organization’s members of each of the company’s core values (Radoynovska & King, 2019), and used actual quotes of these lived descriptions so that treatment-group participants would be exposed to real-world language.

The first training session for both the treatment and control groups focused on the seven organizational core values. Drawing on the notion of perceived consistency between proclaimed values and lived practices (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Lehman et al., 2019b), each of the subsequent seven sessions for the treatment group began with a prompt wherein the instructor demonstrated how each of the company’s seven core values (i.e., the “frontstage”) is lived in the organizational reality (i.e., the “backstage”). In doing so, the treatment group perceived the notion of organizational authenticity as consistency between proclaimed and lived domains (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Lehman et al., 2019b; Radoynovska & King, 2019).

The control group went through the same company traditional skills training (i.e., the same business topics and materials), but their prompt included only examples relating to the company’s policies, with no reference to the organizational core values or to consistency between the company’s proclaimed and lived domains. As mentioned above, in the first sessions, both the treatment and control groups received the same session outlining the company’s seven core values: excellence, innovation, humility, responsibility, caring, learning, and integrity. The manipulation began in the second session in which the prompt content was different (i.e., where the manipulation took place). Thus, although both groups were presented with a prompt, the treatment group’s prompt included the company’s seven core values and examples about the organization’s way of manifesting (backstage) these values (frontstage).

The two groups had the same instructor and classroom throughout the study. Both groups’ sessions were conducted on the same day, one hour apart, to eliminate the possibility that different times could create outcome differences (e.g., end-of-the-day classes can be less engaging) or biases (e.g., having the session before vs. after a test, morning vs. evening). The 1-hour break between the two sessions was designed to prevent participants of both groups from talking and exchanging ideas about their skill training, thus eliminating spillovers of information.

The instructor conducted the sessions according to a protocol designed by the researchers to eliminate variation between conditions, except for the manipulation (see Appendix A, the predetermined protocol). In both groups, participants were asked to refrain from discussing their business skills training with other trainees to prevent contamination. The instructor was trained and monitored throughout the process of the study, and was unaware of the study’s hypotheses.

Measures and Procedures

I distributed four questionaries throughout the study to distinguish between the independent variable, the mediator, and the dependent-performance measure. The first was given at the beginning of the study, the second and third questionaries at the end of the training with 1 week between them, and the fourth was distributed to employees’ supervisors 4 months post-training, and into employees’ routine employment. The study’s measures, items, and timeline are presented in Appendix B (see Table B1). The baseline questionnaire given at the beginning of the training included character measures that rated four personality attributes: self-esteem, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism. I used well-known and valid measures to assess these personality traits—that is, Heatherton and Polivy’s (1991) scale of self-esteem and John and Srivastava’s (1999) personality trait scale (i.e., conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism).

The second questionnaire included the manipulation check. Drawing on prior work on the notion of organizational authenticity as consistency (e.g., Cording et al., 2014; Lehman et al., 2019a; Negro et al., 2011), participants were asked to respond to a seven-item manipulation check that examined how the organization manifests consistency between the organization’s seven core values and its lived practices. Participants thus rated the degree to which the company embodied excellence, innovation, humility, responsibility, caring, learning, and integrity in its lived practices. The second questionnaire also included the measure of employee attributions of organizational authenticity. I used a well-known and valid measure to assess these attributions. Specifically, I administered an eight-item measure used and validated by Radoynovska and King (2019), which was based on the theoretical framework of Carroll and Wheaton (2009) and empirical measurement of Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, and Joseph (2008).

To reduce concerns about a halo effect of “positive practices” that might lead employees to perceive the organization positively, the second questionnaire also included three measures of positive organizational practices: (1) perceived organizational support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa’s [1986] three-item scale; a sample item is: “The organization values my contributions”); (2) positive workplace climate (Koys & DeCotiis’ [1991] three-item scale, a sample item is: “Employees in this organization are treated with respect”); and (3) quality of work experience (Aubé & Rousseau’s [2005] three-item scale; a sample item is: “The social climate in our workplace is good.”). I chose these positive practices because they represent different dimensions of positivity and support potentially experienced in the workplace (psychological, emotional. and social).

The third questionnaire included the measure of trust in the organization (the study’s proposed mediator), organizational identification, and organizational likability (potentially alternative explanations and mediators). Each questionnaire (i.e., 2 and 3) was distributed a week after the previous one to distance between the employee perceptions of organizational authenticity and the study’s proposed mediator (i.e., employee trust in the organization). I adapted Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis’s (1996) four-item scale of trust to measure trust in the organization. Each item tapped into the willingness of the trustor to trust the trustee. This measure has been found valid and reliable in many studies as a valid reference to determine employees’ trust in their top management (e.g., Davis et al., 2000; Mayer & Davis, 1999; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Mayer et al., 1995). For the present study, the items reflected a focus on trust in the organization. To that end, I followed the steps recommended by Heggestad, Scheaf, Banks, Monroe Hausfeld, Tonidandel, & Williams (2019) for scale adaptation in organizational science research. Heggestad and colleagues evaluated an other–self referent adaptation “as only slightly concerning,” (p. 2623) and recommended presenting all study items so that they could be assessed with respect to the new referent. Drawing on Heggestad and colleagues’ (2019) recommendation, the measure items of employee trust in the organization are presented in Appendix B.¹

To rule out alternative explanations that could mediate the relationship between employee perceptions of organizational authenticity and work performance, participants rated Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) six-item scale of organizational identification and Radoynovska and King’s (2019) one-item direct approach to measure organizational likability.

The fourth questionnaire included the measure of employee work performance. I used Griffin and colleagues’ (2007) three-item proficiency scale to measure employee work performance, which has been found valid in many management studies. Four months after the end of the training (i.e., 4 months into the job), supervisors of the study’s participants were asked to indicate how often in the preceding month participants carried out activities that were expected to make them more effective in their role. All the above mentioned measures were identical for both treatment and control groups. The four questionnaires used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so). All the measures in the field experiment were averaged across their corresponding items (see Table B2 in Appendix B for the correlations and reliabilities of the study’s main variables).

Given that each of the four questionnaires included sensitive questions regarding personality attributes (at the beginning of the training), employee perceptions and attitudes toward the organization (at the end of the training), and employee performance evaluations (4 months into the job), it was crucial to ensure participants’ confidentiality and confidence in the study procedure. I did so by using web-based questionnaires completed by the participants in private. Further, participants were informed that the web-based questionnaires were hosted by the university server and not connected to the company. The study’s research importance and contribution to future training was also explained to participants, as was the complete confidentiality of responses, and that participation was voluntary. To reduce potential response biases and increase validity of the results, demographic details about the participants such as age and gender were obtained from the company’s records rather than asked on the questionnaire.

I argue that perceptions of organizational authenticity would lead the treatment group to exert greater performance in their skills training (T2) than the control group (i.e., Hypothesis 1a). I measured performance using participants’ scores on an exam (i.e., communication and writing skills) the company conducts at the end of the training. This exam was graded on a scale between 0 and 100 by a professional, objective instructor employed by the company, who was unaware of the study’s conditions and hypotheses when evaluating exam scores. I also obtained scores of the baseline exam that measured participants’ communication and writing performance skills before the training to rule out possible initial differences between the two groups. I further argue that employee perceptions of organizational authenticity would lead the treatment group to put greater effort into their work performance (T4) than the control group (i.e., Hypothesis 1b). Lastly, I assert that trust in the organization is a mediator by which the relationship between employee perceptions of organizational authenticity and work performance occurs (i.e., Hypothesis 2). I also examine whether alternative explanations (i.e., mediators)—organizational identification and organizational likability—can explain this relationship.

Results

Baseline Checks

Randomization test

Consistent with the randomized allocation, I found no statistically significant differences in any of the demographic and professional characteristics between the treatment condition and the control condition in gender (Chi² = 0.89, df = 1, n.s.), age (t = 1.55, df = 198, n.s., CI [−4.37-0.52]), or number of previous jobs (t = 0.19, df = 198, n.s., CI [−0.70-0.58]).

Baseline personality check

To reduce further concerns about possible baseline differences between the groups, I also examined whether employees’ personality traits—specifically, self-esteem, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism—differed between the groups at the beginning of the training in the first questionnaire. I found that they did not. Table 1 also presents the mean differences of the baseline personality checks by condition. As shown, there were no baseline personality differences between the treatment group and the control group in self-esteem: M = 4.87, SD = 1.05 versus M = 4.88, SD = 1.04, t(198) = −0.44, n.s, respectively; conscientiousness: M = 4.80, SD = 1.07 versus M = 4.92, SD = 1.06, t(198) = −0.78, n.s, respectively; agreeableness: M = 5.09, SD = 1.03 versus M = 4.98, SD = 1.20, t = (198) = 0.73, n.s, respectively; and neuroticism: M = 3.19, SD = 1.09 versus M = 3.32, SD = 1.18, t(198) = −0.82, n.s, respectively.

Manipulation check

As discussed above, participants responded to a seven-item manipulation check that asked them to indicate the degree to which the organization lived and practiced each of its seven core values (i.e., authenticity as consistency): excellence, innovation, humility, responsibility, caring, learning, and integrity. Conducting a t-test analysis indeed confirmed that participants in the treatment group perceived significantly greater authenticity as consistency: M = 4.92, SD = 0.98, than those in the control group: M = 4.47, SD = 1.24, t(198) = 2.83, p = 0.003. Cohen’s d was 1.12, which indicates a large effect size in favor of the treatment group, thus supporting the internal validity of the organizational authenticity as consistency manipulation.

To reduce concerns about a possible halo effect of organizational positivity perceived by employees, I also examined whether organizational positive practices—specifically, perceived organizational support, positive workplace climate, and quality of work experience—differed between the groups at the end of the training. I found that they did not. There were no differences between the treatment group and the control group in perceived organizational support: M = 4.85, SD = 1.21 versus M = 4.72, SD = 1.16, t(198) = 0.80, n.s, respectively; positive workplace climate: M = 5.29, SD = 1.07 versus M = 5.14, SD = 1.25, t(198) = 0.99, n.s, respectively; and quality of work experience: M = 5.49, SD = 1.10 versus M = 5.28, SD = 1.18, t(198) = 1.35, n.s, respectively.

The Effect of Organizational Authenticity Perceptions on Employee Performance at the End of the Training

I tested Hypothesis 1a: that participants in the treatment group will show higher performance in the business skills-training program as a result of the study’s manipulation. To that end, I obtained from the organization participants’ scores on the business-skills exam that tested their program knowledge. Figure 1 presents the difference between the two conditions on the exam scores at the end of the training. As shown, participants in the treatment group did show significantly higher performance as demonstrated on exam scores: M = 79.18, SD = 9.80, compared to the control group: M = 69.61, SD = 9.34, t(198) = 7.06, p < 0.001, thus supporting Hypothesis 1a. There was no difference in exam scores assessing participants’ baseline knowledge at the beginning of the training: treatment group: M = 62.30, SD = 17.46 versus control group: M = 63.89, SD = 16.67, t(198) = 0.66, p = .51, n.s.

As a robustness test, I also conducted a pre- and post-assessment of performance scores. A fixed effects, within-individual regression analysis found that the improvement between initial test scores and final ones was significantly greater in the treatment group than the control group: Change Difference = 11.16, SE = 1.97, t(198) = 5.63, p = 0.001.

The Effect of Organizational Authenticity Perceptions on Employee Work Performance

Next, I tested Hypothesis 1b: that treatment group employees would show greater performance on the job than the control group. To that end, I examined the difference between the two groups in their performance after 4 months on the actual job, as measured by their supervisors. Figure 2 presents the mean differences in this work performance. The results show that the authenticity-based treatment group demonstrated significantly higher performance at work as rated by their supervisors: M = 6.36, SD = 0.43, than the control group: M = 6.13, SD = 0.49, t(198) = 3.47, p < 0.001, after 4 months (T4) on the job. These results support Hypothesis 1b.

The Role of Employee Trust in the Organization as a Mediator

Next, I tested the hypothesis on the role of employee trust in the organization as a mediator in explaining the relationship between employee perceptions of organizational authenticity and work performance (Hypothesis 2). To examine this indirect relationship, I used Preacher and Hayes’ (2004) bootstrapping technique for mediation with 5,000 iterations to produce 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals. Specifically, I followed PROCESS procedures recommended by Hayes (2013) on Model 4 for testing a meditating model (i.e., X→Mediator →Y, in which the Mediator is employee trust in the organization). To reduce concerns about a halo effect of organizational positivity, I controlled for perceived organizational support, positive workplace climate, and quality of work experience in the model. If employee perceptions of organizational authenticity still led to employee work performance (through employee trust in the organization) after controlling for these positive practices, it can be argued that employee perceptions of organizational authenticity affect employee work performance beyond the potential effect of positive practices in the workplace. Conducting a bootstrapping analysis for a mediating path model while controlling for the three positive practices, results showed that 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effect (0.07; SE = 0.04) excluded zero (95% CI [0.005, 0.15]). These results demonstrate an indirect relationship between employee perceptions of organizational authenticity and performance at work through trust in their organization, supporting Hypothesis 2.

Further, I tested alternative explanations for these results; specifically, whether organizational identification and likability could be alternative explanations (i.e., mediators) to employee trust in the organization through which employee perceptions of organizational authenticity operates. Existing authenticity research has suggested that feelings of likability and identification may potentially explain why perceived authentic brands receive positive reactions from clients (e.g., Aaker, Vohs, & Mogilner, 2010; Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005; Kovács et al., 2014; Kovács, Carroll, & Lehman, 2017; Radoynovska & King, 2019).

Reapplying the bootstrapping analysis procedures for a mediating model (Model 4 in PROCESS) recommended by Hayes (2013), I found no evidence for a mediating effect of organizational identification or organizational likability of employees. Specifically, when inserting organizational identification into the mediating model, the indirect effect (0.01, SE = 0.02) included zero (95% CI [−0.02; 0.05]), and was therefore insignificant. I observed the same pattern with organizational likability. When inserting organizational likability into the mediating model, the indirect effect (−0.004, SE = 0.01) included zero (95% CI [−0.03, 0.02]) and was therefore insignificant. Table 3 presents the bootstrapped point estimates and confidence intervals of the study and alternative mediating models.

Table 3

Bootstrapped Point Estimate and Confidence Intervals (CIs) of the Mediating Effect of Employee Trust in the Organization (Alternative Mediators Are Tested) in the Relationship Between Organizational Authenticity Perceptions and Employees’ Performance

	Mediation Path Via	X - Y	X(M) - Y	The Mediation		Bootstrapping (95%) CI
	Mediation Path Via	Total Effect	Direct Effect	Effect	SE	Bootstrapping (95%) CI
The Study’s Mediator:	Trust in the Organization	0.08	0.01, n.s.	0.07	0.04	[0.005, 0.15]
Alternative Mediator 1:	Organizational Identification	0.08	0.07	0.01	0.02	[−0.02, 0.05]
Alternative Mediator 2:	Organizational Likability	0.08	0.084	−0.004	0.01	[−0.03, 0.02]

Note. Bootstrap sample size = 5000; n.s. = not significant.

Supplemental Analysis: The Effect of Organizational Authenticity Perceptions on Employee Extra-role Performance

Given the above-mentioned findings on the positive effect of organizational authenticity perceptions on employee work performance, an interesting research question is whether this positive effect spills over to performance on extra-role activity. Extra-role performance is defined as additional, off-role activities employees take on without being formally asked or paid to do so (for a review, see LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Examples of such activities include participation in organizational community service activities, organizing social events, and helping other coworkers (e.g., after a long sick absence). In general, organizations perceived as authentic by their stakeholders are associated with characteristics of honesty, morality, responsibility, and ethics (Hahl et al., 2015; Heidegger, 1962; Gino et al., 2015; Grauel, 2016), and thus tend to elicit favorable reactions that are highly desired and important for them (Collier & Esteban, 2007; Trevino, Butterfield, & McCabe, 1998). As social responsibility and community service are an explicit and important part of the companys’ mission, I expect that employees participating in the authenticity condition will be more likely to participate in the company’s community activities (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002).

I used participation magnitude in a community service activity sponsored by the company (records were provided by the company) to measure the employees’ extra-role performance four months post-training (this was the only activity in which new employees could demonstrate extra-role behavior and activity in the examined period). The results of a t test showed that employees participating in the authenticity condition demonstrated a significantly higher—M = 14.67, SD = 2.88—number of hours volunteering in community service activity than employees in the control group—M = 9.61, SD = 1.14, t(198) = 16.32, p < 0.001—after 4 months on the job (see Figure 3).

Discussion

The study was driven by a desire to better understand (1) the meaning of organizational authenticity perceptions among employees; (2) whether employees behaviorally reciprocate and reward their organization if they perceive the organization as authentic by increasing their performance; and (3) the explanatory relationship by which this positive process operates. The findings of the experimental field study provide evidence and support for the significant role of organizational authenticity perceptions in soliciting positive employee behavioral reactions. Specifically, I found that when employees perceive that an organization reveals its authentic identity, they react positively by increasing their work performance. I further found that employee trust in the organization is a mediator in which this effect occurs while ruling out competing explanations—that is, organizational identification and likability.

The study’s findings offer several contributions to the emerging body of literature and research on organizational authenticity. First, they present an important domain of organizational authenticity by focusing on perceptions of an inside stakeholder: employees. Because much existing research has focused on the perceptions of external audiences and stakeholders (e.g., community, clients; for a review, see Lehman et al., 2019b) and their responses to these perceptions (i.e., purchase a service/object or not, reviewer ratings, willingness to pay a higher value), we have little understanding of the role of organizational authenticity perceptions of employees, important internal stakeholders. Addressing this gap is critical for both research and practice given (1) the different views, observations, and preferences of employees rather than those of external stakeholders; (2) the importance of employees and their work performance for organizations; and (3) the growing recognition of authenticity as an organizational necessity for modern organizations (e.g., Hahl & Ha, 2020).

Second, this study is the first to demonstrate the positive effect of organizational authenticity perceptions on in-role and extra-role employee-performance outcomes. While we see a tendency toward a favorable employee-attitudinal response to organizational authenticity perceptions, the authenticity literature lacks a theoretical understanding and empirical evidence of whether and how the perceptions of organizational authenticity could impact employees’ behavioral reactions by enhancing their work performance. Further, by using an experimental approach—which is rare in authenticity literature—and demonstrating the causality of this relationship, this study also contributes methodologically to this body of knowledge, wherein most existing findings have been qualitative and cross-sectionally based (see Lehman and colleagues’ (2019b) call in their review on authenticity). Broadly, the study’s employee-focused findings also contribute to creating common knowledge across both external and internal stakeholders regarding the important role of organizational authenticity perceptions in shaping various positive, attitudinal, and behavioral organizational reactions.

An additional contribution of the study’s findings is that it disentangled the question of why employee perceptions of organizational authenticity result in enhanced employee performance. Building on the world of authenticity scholars who have pointed to the significant role of organizational authenticity perceptions in generating attributions of faithfulness, trustworthiness, and trust (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Fueller et al., 2013; Gino et al., 2015; Grauel, 2016; Hahl & Ha, 2020; Hahl et al., 2015; Kovács et al., 2014; Morhart et al., 2015), the mediation results reveal an indirect relationship of employee trust in the organization—through which organizational authenticity perceptions positively affect employees’ work performance.

Lastly, the study further contributes to authenticity literature by ruling out potential alternative explanations (i.e., mediators) for disentangling this positive relationship. Existing research has suggested that feelings of identification and likability could explain the positive relationship between organizational authenticity perceptions and positive evaluations of external stakeholders (Kovács et al., 2014, 2017; Radoynovska & King, 2019). In this context of external stakeholders, intuitive, affective judgments such as likability will likely carry more weight, especially in appeal-based responses such as providing positive reviews to brands’ products (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007). However, the mediation results show that when employees’ feelings of identification with or likability of the organization were added to the model, the indirect effect was insignificant. In contrast to appeal-based judging criteria of external stakeholders, when employees evaluate their organizations’ qualities, they may not invest greater effort in it (i.e., increased performance) just because they “like” it or have a “high regard” for it, but rather rely on more profound, cognitive cues of authenticity, such as having a trustworthy partner in their social exchange relationship (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano et al., 2017).

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

The experimental and research design employed in this study provides several advantages for establishing the conclusions. These advantages begin with a field experiment, which is one of the strongest methods for demonstrating a causal relationship and securing internal validity and external generalizability in organizational settings. In doing so, we respond directly to Lehman and colleagues’ (2019b) call in their review on authenticity to conduct field experimental research, which is rare in authenticity literature. The randomized nature of this experimental study buffers baseline differences, prior experiences, and potential “noise,” while the onboarding platform reinforces this research design and the results. Further, the opportunity to collect initial participant data made it possible to rule out the chance that personality differences (i.e., self-esteem, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism) might be driving the results.

Careful attention was given to aligning the definition and operationalization of organizational authenticity perceptions, addressing a concern identified by Lehman et al. (2019b) that, in authenticity research, “measures confounded multiple meanings of authenticity. In others, measurement and conceptualization were simply misaligned” (p. 28), which led the authors to encourage “scholars to pay equal attention to construct clarity and validity and to carefully align conceptualization and measurement” (p. 29).

Objective performance measures were available at two time points after the field experimental manipulation and 4 months on the job, avoiding reliance on self-reported data. Lastly, conducting the experiment at the onboarding stage enabled a clean experiment and examination of the effects, eliminating employees’ potential biases and confounding variables that might have arisen had employees been exposed to organizational dynamics.

Despite these strengths, this study has several limitations that point to potential opportunities for future research. It advances the authenticity literature on the “why” question by identifying an explanatory mediator through which organizational authenticity perceptions improve employee performance. However, enhancing our understanding of “when,” by exploring potential boundary conditions under which employee perceptions of organizational authenticity can intensify or moderate employees’ positive reactions, is a fruitful research direction. One interesting direction might be to explore whether employee personal-value preferences may serve as a boundary condition in the organizational authenticity–employee performance relationship. One can argue that if employees hold personal values that differ from their organization’s values, perceptions of organizational authenticity may not always produce positive reactions. At the same time, authenticity perceived as consistency is based on the underlying assumption that an audience grants an organization a moral character to the extent that its values and practices are congruent (Radoynovska & King, 2019). Morality is found to have greater priority over competence in individual evaluations (Goodwin, 2015; Goodwin et al., 2014; Landy et al., 2016), even while stating that competence is a highly preferred characteristic (Brambilla et al., 2021). Radoynovska and King (2019) found that authenticity as consistency is associated with greater financial support than competence among investors when making funding decisions. From this view, perceptions of organizational authenticity will lead to positive reactions regardless of preferences, as what matters most is that the organization shows consistency. Nevertheless, future research is recommended to examine whether employee reactions to organizational authenticity perceptions may hinge on personal preferences for an organization’s values and practices.

Future research could also explore additional boundary conditions (i.e., moderators) under which organizational authenticity perceptions become more or less predictive of work performance among employees. Organizational strategies such as extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation, impression management, shared vision, participative leadership, and ethical/fairness, could moderate or intensify the positive effect of organizational authenticity perceptions on employee reactions. For example, even if an organization manifests organizational authenticity, if that authenticity is perceived to be driven by extrinsic profit or impression management motivations, it may moderate the benefits. As individuals new to any organization make their assessment in part based on previous experiences, perceptions of organizational authenticity may also be shaped by those prior experiences. To what extent do prior authenticity perceptions affect employees’ reactions to subsequent organizational authenticity experiences? If, for example, prior experience has been a lack of authenticity (i.e., inconsistency between proclaimed values and lived practices), will employees be more appreciative or skeptical of organizational authenticity efforts? The extent to which prior experience affects how employees perceive and react to organizational authenticity is an important research question for future research.

While this study reveals the impact of organizational authenticity perceptions at two time points of an organizational life (i.e., onboarding and on the job), authenticity literature would be enriched by using archival or longitudinal research designs that consider a longer time span. For example, future research could explore whether perceived authenticity as consistency is still rewarded by employees, not only in terms of values and practices, as found, but also over time. While scholars acknowledge that organizations may reshape their values over time due to environmental dynamics and rapid changes (Hatch & Schultz, 2017), the vast majority of authenticity studies focus on a single point in time, implying that the findings presented would be equally applicable to the present and the future. Future research could explore whether employees would still perceive their organization as authentic and reward it in cases of value-practice changes over time. Moreover, authenticity-associated benefits may also vary based on the type of jobs. For example, professions (i.e., professors in academia, medical doctors) may perceive organizational authenticity as less important because professional norms acquired from education are so important and do not cut across organizations. Pursuing these future directions, research on organizational authenticity perceptions could have broader theoretical advancements in understanding macro patterns that extrapolate to insights about wide-ranging industries and stakeholders.

Further focus on stakeholder preferences and inclinations is recommended as well. Important insights could be formed by comparing external (clients) versus internal (employees) stakeholders. For example, would employees react differently to perceived authenticity mismatches between proclaimed values and lived-practices authenticity than customers? Would they be more willing to overlook incongruence between organizational statements and experienced practices? Would employees react more negatively to inauthenticity perceptions than external stakeholders? Further, would new employees react more negatively to perceived authenticity mismatch than experienced employees? Future research can compare these potential views, shedding light on such differences and providing insights into how authenticity theory may generalize across stakeholders. This line of research could have significant implications for organizations and their need to engage in authenticity across stakeholders.

Practical Implications

The study’s findings also offer implications for practice. First, understanding the underexplored notion of employee perceptions of organizational authenticity can benefit the development of competitive branding and human capital strategies for organizations. The competition for talent requires organizations to identify competitive advantages and differentiate themselves to attract the best employees (Minbaeva & Collings, 2013). Employees look not only for financial rewards in their occupational choices, but also for honest and transparent treatment (e.g., Highhouse, Thornbury, & Little, 2007). Building on the study’s findings, the fact that perceived organizational authenticity positions organizations as more trustworthy provides a competitive advantage to differentiate from competitors in firms’ long-term efforts to attract and retain talented and high-performing employees.

Second, with increased interest in business ethics and corporate social responsibility, organizational authenticity is attracting more academic interest as well as practical and media attention (Hahl & Ha, 2020), and organizations are being pushed to develop more authenticity-oriented branding strategies and HR practices (Rosh & Offermann, 2013). As Grazian (2003: 100) put it, the power of organizational authenticity is in “the credibility or sincerity of a performance [or an object] and its ability to come off as natural and effortless.” Given the study’s evidence of the positive, long-lasting effects of organizational authenticity perceptions on employee performance, why organizations are sometimes reluctant to reveal themselves authentically to their employees remains an interesting question. They may believe employees will be intimidated by authentic signals such as manifesting excellence-derived examples of demanding workplace dynamics, and be concerned about the organization’s ability to handle “costly” cases successfully (e.g., a harassing manager; Ibarra, 2015). Prior studies on organizational authenticity perceptions have pointed to the potential shortcomings by revealing vulnerable sides to prospective clients (Kovács et al., 2014) and sharing sensitive information that may not satisfy the targeted external stakeholder (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Trilling, 1972). In the context of employees, however, the study’s findings identify a different picture, showing that employees reciprocate when they perceive that their organization’s values and practices are congruent (i.e., authenticity) and appreciate their organization’s moral character. This reveals the long-term positive effects and trust-building benefits of presenting authentic organizational views to employees.

Conclusion

Overall, the study’s findings demonstrate the causal relationship between organizational authenticity perceptions and positive performance outcomes of employees. This research provides a nuanced understanding of how an internal stakeholder—employees—rewards organizations they perceive as authentic with greater performance at work and beyond (i.e., extra-role community service activities). As the search for authenticity continues to dominate organizations’ reality, these findings may encourage additional research endeavors on organizational authenticity perceptions to better understand the role of (in)authentic organizations in employee work productivity.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Table B2

Correlations of the Study’s Main Variables

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.	Gender	–
2.	Age	−0.03	–
3.	Previous Experience (Number of Jobs)	−0.15*	0.27***	–
4.	Organizational Authenticity Perceptions	0.07	0.06	0.08	(0.89)
5.	Trust in the Organization	0.04	0.02	0.13^	0.50***	(0.85)
6.	Business Performance (at the End of the Training)	0.04	0.02	−0.008	0.04	0.08	–
7.	On-the-Job Performance (4 Months After Training)	0.15*	−0.04	−0.07	0.05	0.27***	0.23***	(0.90)
8.	Extra-Role Performance (4 Months After Training)	−0.08	0.05	−0.09	0.15*	0.11^	0.37***	0.10*	–

Note. n = 200 (both treatment and control groups); Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are reported on the diagonal in bold; Gender (1 = Male, 2 = Female).

The bolded values are cronbach vlaues and therefore significance is not relevance.

^p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Coller Foundation at Coller School of Management, Tel Aviv University.

ORCID iD

Liat Eldor

Notes

References

Aaker

Vohs

K. D.

Mogilner

2010. Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37: 224-237.

Aryee

Budhwar

P. S.

Chen

Z. X.

2002. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 267-286.

Ashforth

B. E.

Harrison

S. H.

Corley

K. G.

2008. Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325-374.

Ashforth

B. E.

Lee

R. T.

1990. Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model. Human Relations, 43: 621-648.

Aubé

Rousseau

2005. Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9: 189-204.

Baron

J. N.

2004. Employing identities in organizational ecology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13: 3-32.

Baugh

1988. Authenticity revisited. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 46: 477-487.

Becker

H. S.

1960. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66: 32-40.

Beverland

M. B.

2005. Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 1003-1029.

10.

Beverland

M. B.

Farrelly

F. J.

2009. The quest for authenticity in consumption: Consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 36: 838-856.

11.

Blau

1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

12.

Bordia

Restubog

S. L. D.

Tang

R. L.

2008. When employees strike back: Investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1104-1117.

13.

Brambilla

Sacchi

Rusconi

Goodwin

G. P.

2021. The primacy of morality in impression development: Theory, research, and future directions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 64:187-262.

14.

Cable

D. M.

Gino

Staats

B. R.

2013. Breaking them in or eliciting their best? reframing socialization around newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 1-36.

15.

Carroll

G. R.

Swaminathan

2000. Why the microbrewery movement? Organizational dynamics of resource partitioning in the U.S. brewing industry. American Journal of Sociology, 106: 715-762.

16.

Carroll

G. R.

Wheaton

D. R.

2009. The organizational construction of authenticity: An examination of contemporary food and dining in the U.S. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29: 255-282.

17.

Castéran

Roederer

2013. Does authenticity really affect behavior? The case of the Strasbourg Christmas market. Tourism Management, 36: 153-163.

18.

Collier

Esteban

2007. Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16: 19-33.

19.

Colquitt

J. A.

LePine

J. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

Zapata

C. P.

Rich

B. L.

2012. Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 1-15.

20.

Colquitt

J. A.

LePine

J. A.

Wesson

M. J.

2014. Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw Hill.

21.

Cording

Harrison

J. S.

Hoskisson

R. E.

Jonsen

2014. Walking the talk: A multi stakeholder exploration of organizational authenticity, employee productivity, and post-merger performance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28: 38-56.

22.

Coyle-Shapiro

J. A.-M.

Shore

L. M.

2007. The employee-organization relationship: Where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17: 166-179.

23.

Cropanzano

Anthony

E. L.

Daniels

S. R.

Hall

A. V.

2017. Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. The Academy of Management Annals, 11: 479-516.

24.

Cropanzano

Byrne

Z. S.

Bobocel

D. R.

Rupp

D. E.

2001. Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 164-209.

25.

Cropanzano

Benson

2011. Peer justice and teamwork process. Group and Organization Management, 36: 567-596.

26.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31: 874-900.

27.

Cropanzano

Rupp

D. E.

2008. Social exchange theory and organizational justice: Job performance, citizenship behaviors, multiple foci, and a historical integration of two literatures. In Skarlicki

D. B.

Gilliland

S. W.

Steiner

D. D.

(Eds.), Justice, morality, and social responsibility: 63-99. Greenwich CT: Information Age Publishing.

28.

Cropanzano

Rupp

D. E.

Mohler

C. J.

Schminke

2001. Three roads to organizational justice. In Ferris

(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 20: 1-113. Greenwich: JAI Press.

29.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

Mayer

R. C

Tan

H. H.

2000. The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 563-576.

30.

De Jong

Elfring

. 2010. How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 535-549.

31.

Deluga

R. J.

1995. The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate organizational citizenship behavior. Military Psychology, 7: 1-16.

32.

Demetry

2019. How organizations claim authenticity: The coproduction of illusions in underground restaurants. Organization Science, 30: 937-960.

33.

Dirks

K. T.

Ferrin

D. L.

2001. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12: 450-467.

34.

Dukerich

J. M.

Golden

B. R.

Shortell

S. M.

2002. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 507-533.

35.

Earley

P. C.

1986. Trust, perceived importance of praise and criticism, and work performance: An examination of feedback in the United States and England. Journal of Management, 12: 457-473.

36.

Eden

2021. The science of leadership: A journey from survey research to field experimentation. Leadership Quarterly, 32, Article 101472.

37.

Ehrhart

K. H.

Ziegert

J. C.

2005. Why are individuals attracted to organizations? Journal of Management, 31: 901-919.

38.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 500-507.

39.

Fine

G. A.

1995. The presentation of ethnic authenticity: Chinese food as a social accomplishment. The Sociological Quarterly, 36: 535-553.

40.

Fine

G. A.

2004. Everyday genius: Self-taught art and the culture of authenticity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

41.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J.

Glick

2007. Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends Cognitive Science, 11: 77-83.

42.

Frake

2017. Selling out: The inauthenticity discount in the craft beer industry. Management Science, 63: 3930-3943.

43.

Freeman

R. E.

Auster

E. R.

2011. Values, authenticity, and responsible leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98: 15-23.

44.

Fueller

Schroll

von Hippel

2013. User generated brands and their contribution to the diffusion of user innovations. Research Policy, 42: 1197-1209.

45.

Gino

Kouchaki

Galinsky

A. D.

2015. The moral virtue of authenticity: How inauthenticity produces feelings of immorality and impurity. Psychology Science, 26: 983-996.

46.

Gino

Sezer

Huang

2020. To be or not to be your authentic self? Catering to others’ expectations and interests hinders performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158: 83-100.

47.

Goodwin

G. P.

2015. Moral character in person perception. Current Directive Psychology Science, 24: 38-44.

48.

Goodwin

G. P.

Piazza

Rozin

2014. Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality Social. Psychology, 106: 148-168.

49.

Grauel

2016. Being authentic or being responsible? Food consumption, morality and the presentation of self. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16: 852-869.

50.

Grayson

Martinec

2004. Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer Research, 31: 296-312.

51.

Grazian

2003. Blue Chicago: The search for authenticity in urban blues clubs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

52.

Griffin

M. A.

Neal

Parker

S. K.

2007. A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 327-347.

53.

Hahl

2016. Turning back the clock in baseball: The increased prominence of extrinsic rewards and demand for authenticity. Organization Science, 27: 929-953.

54.

Hahl

2020. Committed diversification: Why authenticity insulates against penalties for diversification. Organization Science, 31: 1-22.

55.

Hahl

Zuckerman

E. W.

Kim

2015. Why authenticity is in demand: Overcoming high-status denigration with outsider art. Working paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.

56.

Hahl

Zuckerman

E. W.

Kim

2017. Why elites love authentic lowbrow culture: Overcoming high-status denigration with outsider art. American Sociological Review, 82: 828-856.

57.

Harter

2002. Authenticity. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology: 382-394. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

58.

Hatch

M. J.

Schultz

2017. Toward a theory of using history authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 657-697.

59.

Hayes

A. F.

2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. London & New York: Guilford Press.

60.

Heatherton

T. F.

Polivy

1991. Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60: 895-910.

61.

Heggestad

E. D.

Scheaf

D. J.

Banks

G. C.

Monroe Hausfeld

Tonidandel

Williams

E. B.

2019. Scale adaptation in organizational science research: A review and best-practice recommendations. Journal of Management, 45: 2596-2627.

62.

Heidegger

1962. Being and time. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

63.

Highhouse

Thornbury

E. E.

Little

I. S.

2007. Social-identity functions of attraction to organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103: 134-146.

64.

Holt

D. B.

2002. Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29: 70-90.

65.

Howard-Grenville

Metzger

M. L.

Meyer

A. D.

2013. Rekindling the flame: Processes of identity resurrection. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 113-136.

66.

Ibarra

2015. The authenticity paradox. Harvard Business Review, 93: 13.

67.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

1999. The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2nd ed: 102-138.New York: Guilford Press.

68.

Jones

G. R.

George

J. M.

1998. The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23: 531-546.

69.

Karam

E. P.

Davison

R. B.

Juravich

Nahrgang

J. D.

Humphrey

S. E.

Scott DeRue

2019. Illuminating the ‘face’ of justice: A meta-analytic examination of leadership and organizational justice. Journal of Management Studies, 56: 134-171.

70.

Kernis

M. H.

Goldman

B. M.

2006. A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 38: 283-357. Academic Press.

71.

Konovsky

M. A.

Pugh

S. D.

1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 656-669.

72.

Koopman

Lin

S. J.

Lennard

A. C.

Matta

F. K.

Johnson

R. E.

2020. My coworkers are treated more fairly than me! A self-regulatory perspective on justice social comparisons. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 857-880.

73.

Kovács

Carroll

G. R.

Lehman

D. W.

2014. Authenticity and consumer value ratings: Empirical tests from the restaurant domain. Organization Science, 25: 458-478.

74.

Kovács

Carroll

G. R.

Lehman

D. W.

2017. The perils of proclaiming an authentic organizational identity. Sociological Science, 4: 80-106.

75.

Kovács

Hannan

2015. Conceptual spaces and the consequences of category spanning. Sociological Science, 2: 252-286.

76.

Koys

D. J.

DeCotiis

T. A.

1991. Inductive measures of psychological climate. Human Relations, 44: 265-285.

77.

Landy

J. F.

Piazza

Goodwin

G. P.

2016. When it’s bad to be friendly and smart: The desirability of sociability and competence depends on morality. Personality Social. Psychology, 42: 1272-1290.

78.

Lehman

D. W.

Kovács

Carroll

G. R.

2014. Conflicting social codes and organizations: Hygiene and authenticity in consumer evaluations of restaurants. Management Science, 60: 2602-2617.

79.

Lehman

D. W.

O’Connor

Carroll

G. R.

2019a. Acting on authenticity: Individual interpretations and behavioral responses. Review of General Psychology, 23: 19-31.

80.

Lehman

D. W.

O’Connor

Kovacs

Newman

G. E.

2019b. Authenticity. Academy of Management Annals, 13: 1-42.

81.

Leigh

T. W.

Peters

Shelton

2006. The consumer quest for authenticity: The multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34: 481-493.

82.

LePine

J. A.

Erez

Johnson

D. E.

2002. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 52-65.

83.

Levine

Parkinson

2014. Experimental methods in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

84.

Liedtka

2008. Strategy making and the search for authenticity. Journal of Business Ethics, 80: 237-248.

85.

Liu

Siu

O. L.

Shi

2010. Transformational leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of trust in the leader and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 59: 454-479.

86.

Liu

M. T.

Brock

J. L.

Shi

G. C.

Chu

R. W.

Tseng

T.-H.

2013. Perceived benefits, perceived risk, and trust: Influences on consumers’ group buying behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25: 225-248.

87.

Louis

M. R.

1980. Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 226-251.

88.

Mael

Ashforth

B. E.

1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 103-123.

89.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

1999. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 123-136.

90.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734.

91.

Mayer

R. C.

Gavin

M. B.

2005. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal. 48: 874-888.

92.

McAllister

D. J.

1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 24-59.

93.

Minbaeva

Collings

D. G.

2013. Seven myths of global talent management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24: 1762-1776.

94.

Mitchell

M. S.

Cropanzano

R. S.

Quisenberry

D. M.

2012. Social exchange theory, exchange resources, and interpersonal relationships: A modest resolution of theoretical difficulties. In Törnblom

Kazemi

(Eds.), Handbook of social resource theory: Theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social applications: 99-118. Springer.

95.

Moeran

2005. Tricks of the trade: The performance and interpretation of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 901-922.

96.

Montes

S. D.

Irving

P. G.

2008. Disentangling the effects of promised and delivered inducements: Relational and transactional contract elements and the mediating role of trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1367-1381.

97.

Morhart

Malaer

Guevremont

Girardin

Grohmann

2015. Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25: 200-218.

98.

Morrison

E. W.

Phelps

C. C.

1999. Taking charge at work: Extra role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403-419.

99.

Negro

Hannan

M. T.

Rao

2011. Category reinterpretation and defection: Modernism and tradition in Italian winemaking. Organization Science, 22: 1449-1463.

100.

Newman

G. E.

2016. An essentialist account of authenticity. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 16: 294-321.

101.

Newman

G. E.

Bloom

2012. Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 141: 558-569.

102.

O’Connor

Carroll

G. R.

Kovács

2017. Disambiguating authenticity: Interpretations of value and appeal. PLoS One, 12: 179-187.

103.

Pamphile

V. D.

Ruttan

R. L.

2023. The (bounded) role of stated-lived value congruence and authenticity in employee evaluations of organizations. Organization Science, 34: 2332-2351.

104.

Peterson

R. A.

2005. In search of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 1083-1098.

105.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Bommer

1996. Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22: 259-298.

106.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Moorman

R. H.

Fetter

1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142.

107.

Pratt

M. G.

Lepisto

D. A.

Dane

2019. The hidden side of trust: Supporting and sustaining leaps of faith among firefighters. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 398-434.

108.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36: 717-731.

109.

Radoynovska

King

B. G.

2019. To whom are you true? Audience perceptions of authenticity in nascent crowdfunding ventures. Organization Science, 30: 781-802.

110.

Rich

1997. The sales manager as a role model: Effects of trust, job satisfaction and performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25: 319-328.

111.

Rose

R. L.

Wood

S. L.

2005. Paradox and the consumption of authenticity through reality television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32: 284-296.

112.

Rosh

Offermann

2013. Be yourself, but carefully. Harvard Business Review, 91: 135-139.

113.

Rousseau

D. M.

Sitkin

S. B.

Burt

R. S.

Camerer

1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23: 393-404.

114.

Ruttan

R. L.

Nordgren

L. F.

2016. The strength to face the facts: Self-regulation defends against defensive information processing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137: 86-98.

115.

Saks

A. M.

Gruman

J. A.

2012. Getting newcomers on board: A review of socialization practices and introduction to socialization resources theory. In Wanberg

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization: 27-55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

116.

Saks

A. M.

Uggerslev

K. L.

Fassina

N. E.

2007. Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70: 413-446.

117.

Sartre

P. J.

1940. M. Jean Giraudoux et la philosophie d’aristote. La Nouvelle Revue Française, 54, 339.

118.

Schein

E. H.

2010. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

119.

Schlegel

R. J.

Hicks

J. A.

Arndt

King

L. A.

2009. Thine own self: True self-concept accessibility and meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 473-490.

120.

Schoorman

F. D.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

1996. Empowerment in veterinary clinics: The role of trust in delegation. Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

121.

Schoorman

F. D.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

2007. An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Review, 32: 344-354.

122.

Seligman

M. E. P.

2002. Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.

123.

Trevino

L. K.

Butterfield

K. D.

McCabe

D. L.

1998. The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8: 447-476.

124.

Trilling

1972. Sincerity and authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

125.

Van Maanen

Schein

E. G

. 1979. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 209-264. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

126.

Verhaal

J. C.

Khessina

O. M.

Dobrev

S. D.

2015. Oppositional product names, organizational identities, and product appeal. Organization Science, 26: 1466-1484.

127.

Weber

Heinze

K. L.

DeSoucey

2008. Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 529-567.

128.

Wood

A. M.

Linley

P. A.

Maltby

Baliousis

Joseph

2008. The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization, and the development of the authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55: 385-399.

129.

Zaheer

McEvily

Perrone

1998. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9: 141-159.

130.

Zhao

Peng

Matthews

R. A.

2020. Justice, support, commitment, and time are intertwined: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120: 103-132.