Authenticity at work – a job-demands resources perspective

Abstract

Purpose
– Previous research has demonstrated strong relations between work characteristics (e.g. job demands and job resources) and work outcomes such as work performance and work engagement. So far, little attention has been given to the role of authenticity (i.e. employees’ ability to experience their true selves) in these relations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship of state authenticity at work with job demands and resources on the one hand and work engagement, job satisfaction, and subjective performance on the other hand.

Design/methodology/approach
– In total, 680 Dutch bank employees participated to the study. Structural equation modelling was used to test the goodness-of-fit of the hypothesized model. Bootstrapping (Preacher and Hayes, 2008) was used to examine the meditative effect of state authenticity.

Findings
– Results showed that job resources were positively associated with authenticity and, in turn, that authenticity was positively related to work engagement, job satisfaction, and performance. Moreover, state authenticity partially mediated the relationship between job resources and three occupational outcomes.

Research limitations/implications
– Main limitations to this study were the application of self-report questionnaires, utilization of cross-sectional design, and participation of a homogeneous sample. However, significant relationship between workplace characteristics, occupational outcomes, and state authenticity enhances our current understanding of the JD-R Model.

Practical implications
– Managers might consider enhancing state authenticity of employees by investing in job resources, since high levels of authenticity was found to be strongly linked to positive occupational outcomes.

Originality/value
– This study is among the first to examine the role of authenticity at workplace and highlights the importance of state authenticity for work-related outcomes.

Full text

Journal of Managerial Psychology
Authenticity at work – a job-demands resources perspective
U. Baran Metin Toon W. Taris Maria C. W. Peeters Ilona van Beek Ralph Van den Bosch
Article information:
To cite this document:
U. Baran Metin Toon W. Taris Maria C. W. Peeters Ilona van Beek Ralph Van den Bosch ,
(2016),"Authenticity at work – a job-demands resources perspective", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 483 - 499
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2014-0087
Downloaded on: 08 March 2016, At: 10:07 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 26 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Qiao Hu, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Toon W. Taris, (2016),"Extending the job demands-resources
model with guanxi exchange", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 127-140 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-04-2013-0102
Fu Yang, Rebecca Chau, (2016),"Proactive personality and career success", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 467-482
Ulla Kinnunen, Taru Feldt, Saija Mauno, (2016),"Authentic leadership and team climate: testing cross-
lagged relationships", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 331-345
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:213934 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

Authenticity at work –a
job-demands resources
perspective
U. Baran Metin, Toon W. Taris, Maria C.W. Peeters and
Ilona van Beek
Social and Organizational Psychology Department, Utrecht Universiteit,
Utrecht, The Netherlands, and
Ralph Van den Bosch
Department of Research and Organizational Development,
Dilemma Foundation, Zwolle, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose –Previous research has demonstrated strong relations between work characteristics (e.g. job
demands and job resources) and work outcomes such as work performance and work engagement.
So far, little attention has been given to the role of authenticity (i.e. employees’ability to experience
their true selves) in these relations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship of state
authenticity at work with job demands and resources on the one hand and work engagement, job
satisfaction, and subjective performance on the other hand.
Design/methodology/approach –In total, 680 Dutch bank employees participated to the study.
Structural equation modelling was used to test the goodness-of-fit of the hypothesized model.
Bootstrapping (Preacher and Hayes, 2008) was used to examine the meditative effect of state authenticity.
Findings –Results showed that job resources were positively associated with authenticity and, in
turn, that authenticity was positively related to work engagement, job satisfaction, and performance.
Moreover, state authenticity partially mediated the relationship between job resources and three
occupational outcomes.
Research limitations/implications –Main limitations to this study were the application of self-
report questionnaires, utilization of cross-sectional design, and participation of a homogeneous sample.
However, significant relationship between workplace characteristics, occupational outcomes, and state
authenticity enhances our current understanding of the JD-R Model.
Practical implications –Managers might consider enhancing state authenticity of employees by
investing in job resources, since high levels of authenticity was found to be strongly linked to positive
occupational outcomes.
Originality/value –This study is among the first to examine the role of authenticity at workplace
and highlights the importance of state authenticity for work-related outcomes.
Keywords Authenticity, Job satisfaction, Work engagement, Job performance, JD-R Model
Paper type Research paper
Questions regarding being authentic have attracted the attention of philosophers,
psychologists, aestheticians, and many other disciplines due to its fundamental nature
(Kernis and Goldman, 2006). Authenticity can be briefly explained as an individual’sability
to act in accordance with his/her true self (Harter, 2002). It is the unobstructed operation
of one’strueorcoreselfinone’s daily activities (Goldman and Kernis, 2002). High levels of
divergence from authenticity are assumed to lead to psychopathology (Schmid, 2005).
In other words, well-being can be affected negatively by the dissonance between
behaviours that are conducted and feelings that are authored by the self. Therefore,
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 31 No. 2, 2016
pp. 483-499
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/JMP-03-2014-0087
Received 15 March 2014
Revised 31 October 2014
6July2015
5 August 2015
Accepted 7 September 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
483
Authenticity
at work
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

contemporary counselling approaches construe authenticity as a core dimension of
well-being and healthy functioning (May, 1981; Rogers, 1961; Wood et al., 2008).
In this study, we consider state authenticity as a central aspect of workplace
well-being and performance. Most people spend a large amount of time at work and it
seems crucial to understand the impact of experiencing authenticity within the work
environment. However, only few empirical studies investigated the deep-lying
functions of authenticity at work (Sheldon, 2004). One important reason for the dearth
of relevant empirical research on this issue is that at present there are only few valid
measures of authenticity (Wood et al., 2008). Moreover, most of these measures tap
authenticity in general and as a stable trait, rather than in relation to a specific context
(e.g. at work) and as a state. The latter implies that most of the currently
available measures are not well-suited for examining authenticity as a consequence
of environmental characteristics, since these measures assume authenticity –as a
trait –to be more or less stable across contexts and time, and should therefore not be
sensitive to changes across and within contexts.
The first aim of the present study is to examine how particular workplace
characteristics are associated with workplace authenticity. As authenticity is
considered to be a solid determinant of general well-being (Rogers, 1961), insight in
the relationship between workplace characteristics and authenticity might give us
indications on how to increase employee well-being at work.
A second aim is to examine the relationship between authenticity, indicators of
well-being at work (i.e. job satisfaction and work engagement) and job performance. By
doing so, we aim to demonstrate that authenticity is not only relevant for general
well-being but also for well-being at work and job performance. Recently, Van den
Bosch and Taris (2014) addressed the relevance of authenticity, using the person-
centred conception of Wood et al. (2008). In this study, we used the same conception in
order to compare the findings in a new sample.
A person-centred conception of authenticity
In their seminal paper, Wood et al. (2008) built on the person-centred model of Rogers
(1961) to define the tripartite structure of authenticity. In the present study, we also
consider this person-centred approach as the fundamental structure of authenticity.
According to this model, a person’s subjective and psychological well-being depends
strongly on the balance of three dimensions: self-alienation, authentic living, and social
influence. Self-alienation refers to the discrepancy between the true self and the
conscious awareness. The subjective experience of not being aware of oneself or feeling
out of touch with the actual self is an indicator of self-alienation (Van Den Bosch and
Taris, 2014).
The second dimension of authenticity is authentic living, which stands for the
expression of the emotions and behaviours in a way consistent with one’s conscious
awareness of physiological states, emotions, beliefs, and cognitions. Authentic living is
the expressed behaviours and experiences due to one’s conscious awareness of
physiological states, emotions, beliefs, and cognitions. Rogers (1961) argues that a
perfect match between a person’s actual physiological states, emotions, deep-lying
cognitions, and their consciously perceived environment is almost never possible, yet a
good fit is linked with well-being.
Finally, the third dimension is social influence. This dimension concerns the
influence of the environment (i.e. external influence) on an individual’s behaviour.
Humans are fundamentally social beings and they are affected by the influence of their
484
JMP
31,2
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

social environment. Hence, the interaction of this environment and an individual’s
deep-lying cognitions is an essential determinant of authenticity (Schmid, 2005). That is,
external influences may interfere with one’s true self and conscious state or could affect
this conscious state, possibly affecting one’s behaviour or emotions. As a result, the
degree to which the influence of the social environment is accepted or withstood takes a
central role in determining both self-alienation and authentic living (Wood et al.,2008).
According to Schmid (2005), the level of experienced self-alienation and authentic
living might be influenced strongly by the social environment, thus may lead to
changes in experienced subjective authenticity. For instance, Sheldon et al. (1997)
reported variations in individuals’experienced authenticity levels across different
roles. This shows that the authenticity level of an individual is not just a personality
characteristic or a trait, but may also be conceptualized as a state that facilitates the
adjustment of an individual to his/her particular role or functions.
Workplace characteristics and state authenticity: the job demands-resources
model (JD-R Model)
One of the main purposes of this research is to examine to what degree workplace
characteristics are related to authenticity. By doing so, we aim to find out which aspects
of the workplaces are strongly related to authenticity. By promoting these job
characteristics it might be possible to encourage them to express their true selves at
work, which could in turn yield a more favourable employee well-being. For instance, a
manager might invest in these relevant workplace characteristics in order to increase
workplace authenticity and the associated positive outcomes. To this aim, the JD-R
Model was used as the theoretical framework for understanding the relations between
workplace aspects and outcomes (e.g. Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). The JD-R Model
distinguishes between two broad categories of job characteristics, namely job demands
(the physical, social, and organizational aspects of the job that require physical
and/or psychological effort, and that are associated with certain physiological and/or
psychological costs) and job resources (physical, social, and organizational aspects of
the job that are functional in achieving work-related goals). Job demands are strongly
associated to negative work outcomes such as burnout and impaired health, through an
energetic process; whereas the presence of job resources are related to positive work
outcomes, such as work engagement and organizational commitment, through
motivational process (Demerouti et al., 2001; De Jonge et al., 2014).
In understanding the relationship between workplace aspects and authenticity, the
role of motivation is crucial. Ryan et al. (2005) addressed the importance of authenticity
within Self-Determination Theory (SDT) for understanding subjective well-being. SDT
(Deci and Ryan, 2000) is a theoretical framework that places different types of
individual motivational regulation for a particular activity on a continuum ranging
from fully intrinsic (the action is considered as inherently satisfying and enjoyable) to
fully extrinsic (performing this activity for its instrumental value). Intrinsically
motivated individuals perform their actions with a sense of volition and their actions
are autonomous; whereas the enactment of extrinsically motivated people depends on
the perception of a contingency between the behaviour and a desired consequence
(Gagné and Deci, 2005). The satisfaction of three psychological needs (for autonomy,
belongingness, and competence, respectively) are important for optimal functioning
(Deci and Ryan, 1985). When functioning authentic, people tend to think, feel, and
behave in ways that represent the fulfilment of such needs (Rogers, 1961). SDT argues
that individuals are authentic when their actions are congruent with their core self;
485
Authenticity
at work
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

thus, when they are autonomous and self-determining. There is considerable research
to show that satisfaction of these needs are linked to well-being (Kernis and Goldman,
2006; Sheldon and Elliot, 1999). Bettencourt and Sheldon (2001) also found that feeling
autonomy and belongingness in social roles were related with well-being, thus it is
plausible to expect people with satisfied needs at work (social role) to feel authentic and
report more favourable well-being. Findings of Van den Broeck et al. (2010) support this
expectation within the work context, as the degree of satisfaction of these three basic
needs was found to be strongly related to higher levels of task autonomy, social
support, job satisfaction, vigour, performance and intrinsic motivation, and low levels
of exhaustion.
In the present study, we measured three types of job demands (workload, mental
demands, emotional demands) and four types of job resources (autonomy, opportunities
for learning and development, supervisory support, and colleague support), which are in
line with the SDT research (Van Beek et al., 2012). Previous research has shown that job
resources stimulate intrinsic motivation by promoting growth, learning, development; and
they can fulfil basic human needs (Bakker and Derks, 2010). Therefore, a workplace with
high levels of autonomy, support, and opportunities for personal development might give
individuals a feeling of self-determination, belongingness, and competence through the
motivational process. As a result, we expect job resources to stimulate intrinsic motivation
by satisfying psychological needs and to be positively related with authenticity:
H1. Job resources are positively related to authenticity.
Conversely, high job demands have often been found to be related to negative
individual (i.e. ill-health) and organizational (i.e. exhaustion, etc.) outcomes (Hakanen
et al., 2008; Nahrgang et al., 2011; Roelen et al., 2007), possibly because of the energy
required to meet these high demands. From the point of view of SDT, high job demands
might thwart psychological needs through the psychophysiological costs and efforts
needed to meet these demands. For example, Van den Broeck et al. (2008) reported a
negative relationship between job demands and need satisfaction, with the latter in
turn leading to exhaustion. Employees with a high workload must exert much time and
effort in addressing these and may therefore be unable to find the opportunity to
satisfy their needs for autonomy, belongingness, and competence. In this sense, high
job demands can affect workers’opportunities to act authentically at work through the
energetic process of the JD-R Model. From a slightly different angle, strong evidence for
the adverse effects of behaving inauthentically stems from the body of research on
emotional labour (e.g. Grandey et al., 2005). This research has shown that high levels of
emotional demands can lead individuals to exhibit emotional cues which are not really
experienced (surface acting), i.e., to act differently than they would when acting in
agreement with their authentic state. In short, both lines or reasoning lead us to expect
that highly demanding jobs might restrict individuals’ability and/or opportunity to
act authentically:
H2. Job demands are negatively associated to authenticity.
Authenticity as a mediator of the association between workplace
characteristics and work outcomes
This section focuses on how experiencing state authenticity at work may be associated
with certain work outcomes, and more importantly, on authenticity as a possible
mediator of the associations between work characteristics and work outcomes. There is
486
JMP
31,2
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

ample empirical evidence that workplace characteristics are strongly related to
employee well-being, such as work engagement, and several job-related outcomes, such
as absenteeism, turnover intention, job satisfaction, and performance (among others,
Koopmans et al., 2011; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2009; Van Beek et al.,
2012). However, the psychological processes linking the experience of authenticity at
work to work-related outcomes have as yet not been examined.
As defined earlier, authenticity is the degree to which an individual’s values, beliefs,
and characteristics (or shortly, their true self) fit his/her environment. Whether
individuals “feel authentic”will often not be immediately evident, not even to the
individuals themselves. Rather, a process of cognitive evaluation is required in which
the degree of fit between one’s true self and the work environment (the job or the
organization) is assessed. In this sense, authenticity is a cognitive-affective
phenomenon (cf. Lenton et al., 2013). Since people spend a large part of their lives at
work, it seems reasonable to assume that having a job that fits one’s true self is
beneficial for the employee him/herself as well as for the organization (Ménard and
Brunet, 2011; Van Beek et al., 2012). This meshes well with Van den Bosch and Taris’s
(2014) finding that authenticity and job satisfaction are positively related. Although the
processes underlying this association are not entirely clear, it can be assumed that
authenticity (as a positive, cognitive-affective phenomenon) will be associated with
high satisfaction and positive work outcomes (Wood et al., 2008):
H3. Authenticity is positively related to job satisfaction.
Work engagement can be defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind,
which is characterized by vigour (high levels of energy and mental resilience at work),
dedication (high levels of pride, challenge, significance, and enthusiasm regarding
work), and absorption (being fully concentrated and happily engrossed by the work)
(Bakker et al., 2008). Research on work engagement has shown that it is strongly
related to other positive work-related (such as organizational commitment, reduced
turnover intention, and good performance) and non-work-related (e.g. good health, and
marital satisfaction) outcomes (Bakker et al., 2005; Demerouti et al., 2009). Moreover,
Van Beek et al. (2012) found that employees who find their jobs interesting and
enjoyable and who find their jobs consistent with their own values experience higher
levels of work engagement. Based on Van Beek et al.’s (2012) findings, we also expect
that employees who experience high levels of authenticity at work report high levels of
work engagement:
H4. Authenticity is positively related to work engagement.
Finally, we examine the relation between authenticity and job performance. Koopmans
et al. (2011) reported that job performance is an important outcome since it will often be
associated with higher levels of productivity. They argue that performance is
facilitated by the presence of job resources, such as communication, feedback,
politeness, and collaboration. As outlined above, such characteristics may also promote
authenticity. For example, previous research on the so-called “happy-productive
worker”hypothesis has shown that “happy”(i.e. satisfied, low stress) workers tend to
be more productive than others (e.g. Taris and Schreurs, 2009). A job that agrees with
one’s values, beliefs, and interests might motivate an individual to invest more energy
in their work, thus enhancing performance (Gagné and Deci, 2005):
H5. Authenticity is positively associated with job performance.
487
Authenticity
at work
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

Figure 1 summarizes the expected relationships among the study variables. We expect
that job demands and resources are positively related to employees’levels of
experienced authenticity. In turn, a high level of authenticity will be positively related
to job satisfaction, work engagement, and performance. Authenticity constitutes the
core point of this model, suggesting that authenticity mediates the relationships
between job characteristics on the one hand and satisfaction, engagement and
performance on the other:
H6. Authenticity at least partially mediates the relationship between job demands
and resources on the one hand and work performance, work engagement, and
job satisfaction on the other hand.
Method
Sample
An online survey was delivered among 2,023 employees of a large Dutch organization
in the banking and finance sector. In total, 680 surveys were completed and returned
(33.7 percent response rate). Of these 680 employees, 464 were male (68.2 percent).
Participants were on average 40 years-old (SD ¼8.92) and 80.6 percent held a college or
university degree. Respondents had been working in their current position for on
average 3.9 years (SD ¼6.64), and they worked for on average 42.7 hours per week
(SD ¼8.47).
Measures
Job demands. Three types of job demands were measured, namely, workload (five
items, such as “Do you have to work very fast?”), mental demands (five items, for
example “Does your job require much concentration?”), and emotional demands (three
items, such as “Does your work put you in emotionally upsetting situations?”).
The items were taken from the Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of
Work (QEEW; Van Veldhoven and Meijman, 1994). In all cases, a five-point frequency
scale was employed (1 ¼“never”,5¼“always”).
Job resources. Autonomy was measured by three items, e.g., “Can you decide how to
perform your work?”. The opportunities for learning and development were assessed
by three items, including “Can you develop yourself within the company?”Supervisor
support was measured by three items, including “If necessary, can you ask your direct
manager for help?”Lastly, colleague support was assessed by three items, such as
“Can you count on your colleagues when you come across difficulties in your work?”
All items were scored on a five-point frequency scale (1 ¼“never”;5¼“always”).
Again, all items were taken from the QEEW (Van Veldhoven and Meijman, 1994).
Work Authenticity was measured with the Individual Authenticity Measure at
Work (IAM Work, Van den Bosch and Taris, 2014). The IAM Work is a 12-item
adaptation of Wood et al.’s (2008) authenticity scale. Whereas the items of Wood et al.’s
scale refer to context-free, dispositional authenticity, the items of the IAM Work
explicitly refer to work as the context in which authenticity is experienced. Moreover,
rather than considering authenticity as a stable personal property, the IAM Work
construes authenticity as a concept that is contingent upon changes in the presumed
antecedents of authenticity –i.e., as a variable that reacts to and reflects such variation.
Consistent with Wood et al.’s (2008) original instrument, the IAM Work consists of
three dimensions; self-alienation (including “At work, I feel alienated from myself”),
488
JMP
31,2
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

Autonomy WORKPLACE
CHARACTERISTICS
Learning and
Development
Supervisory
Support
Colleague
Support
Emotional
Demands
Mental
Demands
Workload
Job
Resources
Job
Demands
Authenticity
At Work
Self-
Alienation
Authentic
Living
Social
Influence
H6
H2
H1 H3
H4
H5
OCCUPATIONAL
OUTCOMES
Job
Satisfaction
Work
Engagement
Job
Performance
Figure 1.
Proposed model
(model M
1
) for the
associations between
job demands,
job resources,
authenticity and its
presumed outcomes
489
Authenticity
at work
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

authentic living (e.g. “At work, I am true to myself”), and social influence (e.g., “At work,
I usually do what others tell me”). Each dimension was measured with four items
(1 ¼“strongly disagree”,7¼“strongly agree”). Reliability analyses showed that the
reliability of the social influence subscale was low (α¼0.43). After removing one item
(“I make my own choices at work”), Cronbach’sαincreased to 0.67. Post-hoc CFA
confirmed the original three-factor structure of the IAM Work scale ( χ
2
(df ¼44,
n¼680) ¼271.334, po0.001; GFI ¼0.93, AGFI ¼0.90, CFI ¼0.93, TLI ¼0.92,
RMSEA ¼0.09) over a single-factor solution (Δχ
2
(2) ¼1,270.10, po0.001).
Job Satisfaction was measured with three items devised by Van Veldhoven and
Meijman (1994), e.g., “I am satisfied with my current work”(1 ¼“strongly disagree”,
7¼“strongly agree”).
Work Engagement was evaluated by the short form of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006). This measure assesses vigour, dedication,
and absorption with three items for each dimension. Sample items are “At work, I feel
strong and vigorous”(vigour), “I am enthusiastic about my job”(dedication), and “I feel
happy when I am working intensely”(absorption; 0 ¼“never”,6¼“always”). Schaufeli
et al. (2006) recommend using the composite score of these three dimensions, thus,
participants’scores on these three dimensions were averaged to yield a single score for
work engagement.
Finally, job performance was assessed by a single self-report item taken from the
World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (Kessler et al.,
2003). Since objective performance data could not be obtained, self-reported performance
was measured. The participants were asked to assess their overall work performance
using the item “On a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst performance and 10 is the
top performance, how would you rate your overall job performance on the days you
worked during the past 4 weeks?”There were three reasons for using a single-item
self-report global scale. First, this item was found to be a valid and inclusive measure of
job performance (Kessler et al., 2003). Second, it is difficult to obtain objective data on
performance levels of anonymous participants. Lastly, most of the existing surveys
consider particular occupations, thus have items referring to aspects that are relevant to
specific occupations, rather than aspects of performance in general. This scale has also
successfully been used in the past (Shimazu and Schaufeli, 2009).
Before testing the study hypotheses, the fit of the overall measurement model was
tested. Our hypothesized six-factor model (with all 17 scales loading on their respective
latent variables, cf. Figure 1) was tested and compared to a model with all scales
loading on one latent variable (one-factor solution) and a model with the 17 scales
loading on three separate latent variables (workplace characteristics, authenticity, and
occupational outcomes, three-factor solution). CFA showed that the proposed overall
measurement model fitted the data better ( χ
2
(53) ¼205.24, po0.001, GFI ¼0.96,
CFI ¼0.96, TLI ¼0.94, RMSEA ¼0.06) than the one-factor (Δχ
2
(12) ¼433.25,
po0.001) and three-factor solutions(Δχ
2
(9) ¼288.50, po0.001).
Results
Table I shows the means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities (Cronbach’sα), and the
correlations for the study variables. All job resources (i.e. autonomy, opportunities for
learning and development, colleague support, and supervisor support) correlated positively
with all three work outcomes (work engagement, performance, and job satisfaction).
Interestingly and contrary to previous research (e.g. Bakker and Demerouti, 2007;
490
JMP
31,2
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

MSD12345678910111213
1. Autonomy 3.74 0.67 (0.77)
2. Learning and development 3.49 0.83 0.41 (0.82)
3. Supervisory support 3.84 0.91 0.40 0.52 (0.87)
4. Colleague support 3.87 0.74 0.30 0.42 0.52 (0.84)
5. Workload 3.04 0.73 0.10 0.04 0.01 −0.02 (0.85)
6. Mental demands 3.63 0.62 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.46 (0.79)
7. Emotional demands 1.94 0.64 0.01 −0.08 −0.13 −0.15 0.39 0.24 (0.78)
8. Self-alienation 5.73 1.11 0.38 0.34 0.36 0.37 −0.07 −0.01 −0.25 (0.87)
9. Authentic living 5.49 0.87 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.00 0.12 −0.07 0.33 (0.77)
10. Social influence 4.07 1.20 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.08 −0.07 −0.06 −0.09 0.24 0.11 (0.67)
11. Work engagement 4.54 1.02 0.40 0.45 0.41 0.35 0.11 0.14 −0.08 0.47 0.24 0.12 (0.92)
12. Job satisfaction 5.60 1.20 0.43 0.55 0.49 0.38 0.03 0.10 −0.18 0.58 0.26 0.17 0.67 (0.94)
13. Performance 7.88 0.87 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.17 −0.01 −0.09 −0.10 0.26 0.07 0.07 0.26 0.28 –
Notes: n¼680. Internal consistency scores of the related scales are reported on the diagonal. Correlations of 0.09 and over are significant at po0.05;
correlations of 0.11 and over are significant at po0.01
Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, and
correlations for the
model variables
491
Authenticity
at work
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

Schaufeli et al., 2009), the associations between the three job demands
(workload, mental demands, and emotional demands) and the work outcomes varied.
Workload and mental demands were positively related to work engagement, whereas
emotional and mental demands were negatively related to performance. Emotional
demands were also negatively related to job satisfaction. Job demands showed a very
weak relationship with authenticity dimensions. Only significant relationships were
between authentic living and mental demands (r¼0.12, po0.01) and emotional
demands and social influence (r¼−0.09, po0.05). As expected, the three dimensions
of authenticity (self-alienation, authentic living, and social influence) were significantly
and positively related to work engagement and job satisfaction. The only positive
relationship among the authenticity dimensions and performance was obtained for
self-alienation.
Testing the proposed model
Structural equation modelling was implemented in AMOS 16.0 (Arbuckle, 2007) to test
the goodness-of-fit (Byrne, 2009) for the hypothesized relationships and the partial
mediation model (M
1
). M
1
showed a good fit to the data ( χ
2
(df ¼53) ¼194.11, po0.001,
GFI ¼0.96, AGFI ¼0.93, CFI ¼0.94, TLI ¼0.91, RMSEA ¼0.06) and yielded better fit
indices than the full mediation model (M
2
:χ
2
(df ¼62) ¼273.39, po0.001, GFI ¼0.94,
AGFI ¼0.91, CFI ¼0.91, TLI ¼0.88, RMSEA ¼0.07, M2−M1 Δx
2
(df ¼9,
n¼680) ¼79.28, po0.001).
As shown in Figure 2, job resources were positively associated with workplace
authenticity ( β¼0.61, po0.01; H1 confirmed). The relationship between job demands
and workplace authenticity was not significant, rejecting H2. Workplace authenticity
was positively associated with job satisfaction ( β¼0.49, po0.01, H3 confirmed), work
engagement ( β¼0.43, po0.01, H4 confirmed) and job performance ( β¼0.17, po0.01,
H5 confirmed). In short, except for H2, we found empirical support for all of our
hypotheses regarding relationships among study variables.
Mediation analyses. Bootstrapping (Preacher and Hayes, 2008) was used to examine
the possible mediation effects of authenticity on workplace characteristics on the one
hand and occupational outcomes on the other hand (M
1
). Bootstrap samples were
generated from the data set (n¼680) and partial mediation model for M
1
was tested
2,000 times. Our results indicate that authenticity partially mediated the relationship
between job resources on the one hand, and engagement ( β¼0.18, po0.01) and
satisfaction ( β¼0.22, po0.01) and fully mediated job performance ( β¼0.01, p¼ns).
In total, 95 percent confidence interval bounds, standardized weights, and explained
variances are displayed at Table II. The direct and the indirect relationships are also
displayed in Figure 2 (direct effects are shown in parenthesis).
Discussion
The main purposes of this study were to investigate how characteristics of the work
environment are related to workplace authenticity and, in turn, how workplace
authenticity is related to three different kinds of work outcomes: job satisfaction, work
engagement, and job performance. By doing so, the present study is among the first to
examine authenticity in the workplace.
Interestingly, whereas high levels of job resources were –as expected –associated
with increased authenticity at work, job demands were unrelated to authenticity.
Van den Bosch and Taris (2014) found a weak but significant relationship between job
492
JMP
31,2
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

Autonomy
Learning and
Development
Supervisory
Support
Colleague
Support
Emotional
Demands
Mental
Demands
Workload
Job
Resources
Job
Demands
Authenticity
At Work
Self-
Alienation
Authentic
Living
Social
Influence
Job
Satisfaction
Work
Engagement
Job
Performance
0.57*
0.72*
0.73*
0.61* 0.61*
0.22* (0.49*)
0.18* (0.43*)
0.01* (0.17*)
0.80*
0.74*
0.14*
0.38*
–0.09 –0.89* 0.37* 0.27* 0.51* 0.14*
0.47*
0.83*
0.04 (–0.01)
0.09 (0.11)
0.04 (–0.02)
0.55*
Notes: Coefficients represent standardized estimates. Direct effects from job demands and resources to occupational
outcomes are presented within the parenthesis. *p<0.01
Figure 2.
Final model M
1
of
the relationships
between job
resources,
authenticity at work
and positive
occupational
outcomes
493
Authenticity
at work
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

demands and authenticity; however, in this study this association was not replicated.
Cooley and Yovanoff (1996) distinguished between two types of work characteristics,
namely; alterables and givens. This study assessed only hindering job demands and
supported the findings of Tims et al. (2013). They found that, even though employees
were given the chance of engaging in job crafting (the proactive redesign of the job by
the employees with the consideration of seeking resources, seeking challenges and
reducing the demands, cf. Berg et al., 2010), they did not decrease hindering job
demands. However, job resources and challenging job demands, which might fall into
the alterables category of Cooley and Yovanoff (1996) were increased. It shows that job
demands might be perceived as “given”characteristics of a job, thus large-scale
interventions would be needed to change them; whereas job resources were likely to be
increased by the employees. Therefore, managers might focus on helping employees
to increase their job resources in order to promote their authenticity, rather than to
decrease their job demands.
With regard to the work-related outcomes, our results showed that authenticity was
positively linked with job satisfaction, work engagement and performance (cf. M
1
)
partially mediating the effects of job resources. These findings show that not only the
characteristics of a job, but also the experience of one’s true self is a good indicator of
occupational well-being. These relationships are in line with previous findings (Ménard
and Brunet, 2011; Van den Bosch and Taris, 2014), and the robustness of these results
might encourage managers to take state authenticity at work into consideration in
order to obtain positive outcomes. Authenticity might in fact be functional for the
motivational process of JD-R Model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) and is strongly
related with positive occupational outcomes via work engagement. However, it is
important to underline the strong relationship among these variables rather than
offering a causal interpretation.
Study limitations
There are several limitations of this study. First, the participants filled in self-report
scales, which may have resulted in common-method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
The concepts measured in this study, referring to workers’levels of authenticity,
engagement, satisfaction and feelings on the characteristics of their jobs, are
notoriously difficult to observe objectively. Therefore, self-report surveys were
appropriate to map these experiences. Even though Spector (2006) argues that the
consequences of common-method variance are often overestimated, our results should
be interpreted carefully. Although it is hard to measure our study concepts objectively,
Indirect effects Bootstrapping
BC 95% CI
x→m→yEstimate SE Lower Upper
Explained variance in y
(%)
Job resources→authenticity→work
engagement 0.18* 0.04 0.10 0.28 43
Job resources→authenticity→job
performance 0.17* 0.04 0.10 0.27 9
Job resources→authenticity→job
satisfaction 0.21* 0.05 0.14 0.32 57
Notes: n¼680. *po0.01
Table II.
Specific indirect
pathways after
executing
bootstrapping
494
JMP
31,2
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

we would encourage future researchers to use non-self-report means, such as company
records for performance, in order to avoid common-method variance.
Second, due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, causal interpretations of the
findings are not warranted. Although longitudinal data are needed to further validate
the relationships among the study variables, it should be noted that the present
findings mesh well with those obtained in previous research (Ménard and Brunet, 2011;
Van den Bosch and Taris, 2014). In this sense, the findings reported here are robust
across studies. The cross-sectional design also prevented us from testing
double-mediation models (Taris and Kompier, 2006), therefore we analyzed job
performance and satisfaction not as outcomes of work engagement (Bakker and Bal,
2010). Rather, all three concepts were analyzed at the same level as overall work-related
positive outcomes. Although this is not in line with the traditional JD-R framework,
it should be noted that the significant relationships between authenticity and
occupational outcome variables constitute the heart of this research, rather than the
associations among the outcome variables.
Further, our data set was relatively homogeneous, consisting of Dutch bank
employees only. This implies that the strength of the associations among the study
variables may have been estimated conservatively due to restriction-of-range effects.
A final limitation relates to the low internal consistency (α¼0.67) of the social
influence dimension of the authenticity scale. Although one of its items was excluded in
order to improve its reliability, the final αcoefficient for this scale was still below the level
of 0.70 (Nunnaly, 1978). However, Schmitt (1996) criticizes the applicability of a “sacred”
coefficient level, arguing that even low αcoefficients (around 0.50) do not seriously
attenuate the validity coefficients and can still be useful. In the study of Van den Bosch
and Taris (2014) the external influence dimension yielded also the lowest αscore of all
three dimensions. Even though this limitation will usually not severely affect the study
findings (as authenticity will be generally measured as the combination of the three
subscales), findings regarding the social influence subscale deserve additional attention
when interpreting due to the dearth of research on workplace authenticity.
Scientific and practical implications
From a scientific point of view, the present study finds support for utilization of IAM
Work as an adequate measure for empirical studies by supporting the findings of
Van den Bosch and Taris (2014). However, we encourage researchers to investigate the
relation between authenticity and other individual (e.g. personality, motivation,
employability perceptions, etc.) or organizational (i.e. organizational citizenship
behaviour, turnover intention, and presenteeism) aspects in longitudinal designs to
enhance our understanding of the underlying dynamics of expressing true self at work.
From a practical point of view, our findings underline the importance of state
authenticity as a relevant concept in OHP, showing that job resources and job outcomes
might not be only related to worker well-being and performance through the
motivational process proposed in the JD-R Model (e.g. Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), but
also through authenticity, which can be considered as an additional resource and may
influence positive organizational outcomes. Apparently, since state authenticity is a
cognitive-affective concept, cognitions and affect are also relevant dimensions in the
interface between job resources and work outcomes.
Our findings might help managers to improve their subordinates’workplace
conditions in order to obtain more favourable outcomes. The positive links between
job resources, authenticity, and positive work outcomes generate the most important
495
Authenticity
at work
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

findings of this study. These results suggest that managers could consider increasing
job resources in order to nurture self-determination processes among their employees,
as these resources are related to both high levels of authenticity and positive work
outcomes. Note that resources are considered as more changeable than job demands
(Tims et al., 2013), and it should therefore be easier to achieve positive outcomes
through changing job resources than by focusing on job demands. Indeed, in the
present study job demands were not associated with state authenticity, which is
consistent with the idea that from a practical point of view job resources are more
important for obtaining positive outcomes than job demands.
Concluding notes
The present study is among the first to investigate the role of authenticity in the
workplace. The results provide strong evidence for the relevance of authenticity in
the area of OHP, since this concept is linked to both job resources and work outcomes
such as job satisfaction, work engagement, and job performance. Moreover, this study
provided additional evidence for the validity of a newly developed state measure of
authenticity at work, the availability of which could spur interest in research on
authenticity in the workplace. All in all, this study suggests that paying attention
to employee authenticity could help companies to sustain a more positive working
environment by enhancing employee well-being and their fit to their jobs in the
long run.
References
Arbuckle, J.L. (2007), Amos (Version 16) (Computer Software), SPSS, Chicago, IL.
Bakker, A.B. and Bal, M.P. (2010), “Weekly work engagement and performance: a study
among starting teachers”,Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83
No. 1, pp. 189-206.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2010), “Positive occupational health psychology”, in Leka, S. and
Houdmont, J. (Eds), Occupational Health Psychology, 1st ed., Blackwell, West Sussex,
pp. 194-224.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2005), “The crossover of burnout and work
engagement among working couples”,Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 661-689.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008), “Work engagement: an
emerging concept in occupational health psychology”,Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 187-200.
Berg, J.M., Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2010), “Perceiving and responding to challenges in
job crafting at different ranks: when proactivity requires adaptivity”,Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 158-186.
Bettencourt, B.A. and Sheldon, K. (2001), “Social roles as mechanisms for psychological need
satisfaction within social groups”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81
No. 6, pp. 1131-1143.
Byrne, B.M. (2009), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Programming,
and Applications, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Cooley, E. and Yovanoff, P. (1996), “Supporting professionals-at-risk: evaluating interventions to
reduce burnout and improve retention of special educators”,Exceptional Children, Vol. 62
No. 4, pp. 336-355.
496
JMP
31,2
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

De Jonge, J., Demerouti, E. and Dormann, C. (2014), “Current theoretical perspectives in work
psychology”, in Peeters, M.C.W., de Jonge, J. and Taris, T.W. (Eds), An Introduction to
Contemporary Work Psychology, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 89-114.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior,
Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), “The ‘what’and ‘why’of goal pursuits: human needs and the
self-determination of behavior”,Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the
Advancement of Psychological Theory, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-268.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Geurts, S.A.E. and Taris, T.W. (2009), “Daily recovery from
work-related effort during non-work time”, in Sonnentag, S., Perrewé, P.L. and Ganster, D.C.
(Eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Wellbeing, Vol. 7, Emerald Group Publishing,
Bingley, pp. 85-123.
Demerouti,E.,Bakker,A.B.,Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job
demands –resources model of burnout”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3,
pp. 499-512.
Gagné, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), “Self-determination theory and work motivation”,Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 331-362.
Goldman, B.M. and Kernis, M.H. (2002), “The role of authenticity in healthy psychological
functioning and subjective well‐being”,Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association,
Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 18-20.
Grandey, A.A., Fisk, G.M. and Steiner, D.D. (2005), “Must ‘service with a smile’be stressful?
The moderating role of personal control for American and French employees”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 893-904.
Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W.B. and Ahola, K. (2008), “The job demands-resources model:
a three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work
engagement”,Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 224-241.
Harter, S. (2002), “Authenticity”, in Snyder, C.R. and Lopez, S.J. (Eds), Handbook of Positive
Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 382-394.
Kernis, M.H. and Goldman, B.M. (2006), “A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity:
theory and research”,Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 283-357.
Kessler, R.C., Barber, C., Beck, A., Berglund, P., Cleary, P.D., McKenas, D., Pronk, N., Simon, G.,
Stang, P., Ustun, T.B. and Wang, P. (2003), “The World Health Organization Health and
Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ)”,Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 156-174.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt, V.H., Schaufeli, W.B., De Vet, H.C.W. and
Van der Beek, A.J. (2011), “Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance:
a systematic review”,Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 53 No. 8,
pp. 856-866.
Lenton, A.P., Slabu, L., Sedikides, C. and Power, K. (2013), “I feel good, therefore I am real: testing
the causal influence of mood on state authenticity”,Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 1202-1224.
May, R. (1981), Freedom and Destiny, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Ménard, J. and Brunet, L. (2011), “Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: a mediation
model”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 331-346.
Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P. and Hofmann, D.A. (2011), “Safety at work: a meta-analytic
investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and
safety outcomes”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 71-94.
497
Authenticity
at work
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

Nunnaly, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”,Behavior Research Methods,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Roelen, C.A.M., Koopmans, P.C., de Graaf, J.H., van Zandbergen, J.W. and Groothoff, J.W. (2007),
“Job demands, health perception and sickness absence”,Occupational Medicine, Vol. 57
No. 7, pp. 499-504.
Rogers, C.R. (1961), On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy, Constable, London.
Ryan, R.M., Laguardia, J.G. and Rawsthome, L.J. (2005), “Self-complexity and the authenticity of
self-aspects: effects on well-being and resilience to stressful events”,North American
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 431-448.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”,Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study”,Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and van Rhenen, W. (2009), “How changes in job demands and
resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism”,Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 893-917.
Schmid, P.F. (2005), “Authenticity and alienation: towards an understanding of the person
beyond the categories of order and disorder”, in Joseph, S. and Worsley, R. (Eds),
Person-Centred Psychopathology, PCCS Books, Ross-on-Wye, pp. 75-90.
Schmitt, N. (1996), “Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha”,Psychological Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 350-353.
Sheldon, K.M. (2004), “Integrity (honesty/authenticity)”, in Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (Eds),
Character Strengths and Virtues, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 249-272.
Sheldon, K.M. and Elliot, A.J. (1999), “Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well‐being:
the self‐concordance model”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3,
pp. 482-497.
Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., Rawsthorne, L.J. and Ilardi, B. (1997), “Trait self and true self:
cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological
authenticity and subjective well-being”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 1380-1393.
Shimazu, A. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Is workaholism good or bad for employee well-being?
The distinctiveness of workaholism and work engagement among Japanese employees”,
Industrial Health, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 495-502.
Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232.
Taris, T.W. and Kompier, M.A. (2006), “Games researchers play –extreme-groups analysis and
mediation analysis in longitudinal occupational health research”,Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment & Health, Vol. 32, pp. 463-472.
Taris, T.W. and Schreurs, P.J.G. (2009), “Well-being and organizational performance: an
organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis”,Work & Stress,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 120-136.
498
JMP
31,2
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2013), “The impact of job crafting on job demands,
job resources, and well-being”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 230-240.
Van Beek, I., Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Schreurs, B.H.J. (2012), “For fun, love, or
money: what drives workaholic, engaged, and burned-out employees at work?”,Applied
Psychology: An International Journal, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 30-55.
Van den Bosch, R. and Taris, T.W. (2014), “Authenticity at work: development and validation of
an Individual authenticity measure at work”,Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 1-18.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H. and Lens, W. (2008), “Explaining the
relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: the role of basic
psychological need satisfaction”,Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 277-294.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., de Witte, H., Soenens, B. and Lens, W. (2010), “Capturing
autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: construction and initial validation of the
work-related basic need satisfaction scale”,Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 981-1002.
Van Veldhoven, M. and Meijman, T.F. (1994), The Measurement of Psychosocial Strain at Work:
The Questionnaire Experience and Evaluation of Work, NIA, Amsterdam (in Dutch).
Wood, A.M., Linley, A.P., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M. and Joseph, S. (2008), “The authentic
personality: a theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the
authenticity scale”,Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 385-399.
Further reading
Akaike, H. (1987), “Factor analysis and AIC”,Psychometrika, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 317-332.
Corresponding author
U. Baran Metin can be contacted at: u.b.metin@uu.nl
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
499
Authenticity
at work
Downloaded by Universiteit Utrecht At 10:07 08 March 2016 (PT)