Authenticity and well‐being in the workplace: a mediation model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the link between authenticity at work and well‐being. First, the relationship between authenticity at work and hedonic and eudemonic well‐being indexes is assessed. Second, the mediating role of meaning of work in the relationship between authenticity at work and subjective well‐being at work is investigated. Design/methodology/approach In total, 360 managers from public organizations completed self‐reported questionnaires. Multiple hierarchical regressions were used to assess the hypotheses. Findings Cognitive and behavioral components of authenticity at work explained a significant proportion of variance in each hedonic and eudemonic well‐being indexes. Authenticity is positively associated with well‐being at work. Moreover, meaning of work is a partial mediator of the relationship between authenticity and subjective well‐being at work. Practical implications The results suggest that meaning of work is a mechanism in the relationship between authenticity and subjective well‐being at work. The study highlighted a growing need to promote authenticity within organizations since it has been associated with public managers' well‐being. Originality/value To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study showing the positive relationship between authenticity and well‐being in the workplace amongst public organizations managers. It sheds a very new light on the importance of authenticity in work settings and on how it could be linked to meaningfulness in managerial roles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it