Feeling and Appearing Authentic: New Insights on Their Social Outcomes and Conceptual Clarity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Authenticity is the sense of alignment with one’s true self (Harter, 2002; Kernis, 2003; Sedikides, Slabu, Lenton, & Thomaes, 2017). When studying authenticity in organizations, three common understandings emerge from the literature: 1) authenticity can be considered a side effect of self-regulatory strivings in that it results from the consonance between one’s values and organizational goals (Hewlin, 2003; Markus, 1977; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999), 2) authenticity can be inferred from behavioral expression of one’s values, attitudes, and emotions, while social and organizational influence largely erodes authenticity (Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 2015; Schlenker, 2002), and 3) feeling authentic benefits psychological health (Gino, Kouchaki & Galinsky, 2015; Kifer, Heller, Qi, Perunovic, & Galinsky, 2013; Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt, & King, 2009) and may also positively affect job satisfaction (Cable, Gino, & Staats, 2013; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2013). Although largely corroborating the current workplace trend of “be yourself”, this literature offers little clarity on the conceptualization of authenticity and its social outcomes. To address this gap, employing a diverse mix of laboratory and field studies, the current symposium examines two previously overlooked social outcomes of authenticity, and offers some refreshing conceptual clarity regarding the experience vs appearance of authenticity and the role of others’ influence in the social construction of authenticity. First, Huang investigates how individuals’ sense of inauthenticity shapes the development of their social attitudes, showing that the sense of lacking control associated with inauthenticity encourages a unique attributional pattern conducive to cynical views and damaging to value-based organizational commitment. Next, Pillemer demonstrates that behaving authentically is not always beneficial and that, when encouraged to be authentic in interviews, men were rated worse than women as they decreased skilled emotional regulation, or deep acting. Then, Abi-Esber, Kouchaki, Jachimowicz, and Gino empirically develop the distinction between felt vs. displayed authenticity and examine their differential effects on objective vs. self-rated performance. Finally, Rees, Ramanujam, Victor, and Lehman offer a new perspective wherein they argue that authenticity might be less about being “true to oneself” and more about “remaining true to the authentic self one has created in conjunction with others.” By demonstrating a social attitudinal outcome of inauthenticity, a negative impression management implication of authenticity, and the different performance implications of felt vs. displayed authenticity, and by applying an social lens on the conceptualization of authenticity, we gain a better understanding of how inauthenticity affects individuals’ perception of others, how the perception of authenticity as deep vs. no acting affects others’ view of individuals, how felt vs. displayed authenticity are conceptually and empirically distinct, as well as how it is possible to incorporate others’ influence rather than seeing it as a form of erosion of the true self, and identify potential areas for future research and theory building. To Thine Own Self Be True, Or Others Would Seem False Too Presenter: Li Huang; INSEAD Bounded Authenticity: The Paradox of Being Genuine in Professional Interactions Presenter: Julianna Pillemer; New York U. What Are We Studying When We Study Authenticity? Presenter: Nicole Abi-Esber; Stanford GSB Presenter: Maryam Kouchaki; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Presenter: Jon Michael Jachimowicz; Harvard Business School Presenter: Francesca Gino; Harvard U. The Enactment of Authenticity as a Process of Sensemaking Presenter: Laura L. Rees; Queen's U. Presenter: Rangaraj Ramanujam; Vanderbilt U. Presenter: Bart Irwin Victor; Vanderbilt U. Presenter: David Lehman; U. of Virginia
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».