Authenticity

Abstract

The concept of authenticity informs a number of central topics in management studies. On the surface, it might seem that a consensus exists about its meaning; there is indeed widespread agreement that authenticity refers to that which is “real” or “genuine” or “true.” Below the surface, however, there is much less agreement; scholars use the same lexical term but often approach the concept from different perspectives and apply different meanings. This review outlines three fundamental but distinct perspectives found in the literature: authenticity as (1) consistency between an entity’s internal values and its external expressions, (2) conformity of an entity to the norms of its social category, and (3) connection between an entity and a person, place, or time as claimed. The aim of this review was to critically appraise the various research themes within each perspective, highlighting similarities, differences, and relationships between them. In doing so, this review represents an initial step toward an integrated framework of authenticity, which provides new insights into our understanding of the existing literature and a useful guide for future research.

Full text

AUTHENTICITY
Journal:
Academy of Management Annals
Manuscript ID
ANNALS-2017-0047.R3
Document Type:
Article
Keywords:
IDENTITY, PERCEPTION, PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY
Academy of Management Annals

AUTHENTICITY
David W. Lehman
a
University of Virginia
PO Box 400173
Charlottesville, VA 22904 USA
Tel: (434) 243-2309
Email: lehman@virginia.edu
Kieran O’Connor
a
University of Virginia
PO Box 400173
Charlottesville, VA 22904 USA
Tel: (434) 243-0887
Email: oconnor@virginia.edu
Balázs Kovács
b
Yale University
165 Whitney Avenue
New Haven, CT 06511 USA
Tel: (623) 202-4323
Email: balazs.kovacs@yale.edu
George E. Newman
b
Yale University
165 Whitney Avenue
New Haven, CT 06511 USA
Tel: (203) 432-1046
Email: george.newman@yale.edu
The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful editorial guidance from Profs. Kimberly
Elsbach and Elizabeth George as well as two anonymous reviewers. The authors also wish to
thank Emily Bagdasarian for administrative support, Christi Lockwood for helpful comments on
an earlier version of this manuscript, Glenn R. Carroll for the inspiration to study this fascinating
concept, and participants in the Annual Authenticity Workshop for stimulating dialogue.
a,b
Authors are listed in alphabetical order; both contributed equally.
Page 1 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 2 of 97
AUTHENTICITY
The concept of authenticity informs a number of central topics in management studies. On the
surface, it might seem that a consensus exists about its meaning; there is indeed widespread
agreement that authenticity refers to that which is “real” or “genuine” or “true”. Below the
surface, however, there is much less agreement; scholars use the same lexical term but often
approach the concept from different perspectives and apply different meanings. This review
outlines three fundamental but distinct perspectives found in the literature: Authenticity as (1)
consistency between an entity’s internal values and its external expressions, (2) conformity of an
entity to the norms of its social category, and (3) connection between an entity and a person,
place, or time as claimed. The aim of this review is to critically appraise the various research
themes within each perspective, highlighting similarities, differences, and relationships between
them. In doing so, this review represents an initial step toward an integrated framework of
authenticity, which provides new insights into our understanding of the existing literature as well
as a useful guide for future research.
Page 2 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 3 of 97
INTRODUCTION
Authenticity is in high demand. Lionel Trilling’s (1972) seemingly prophetic treatise on
the topic nearly a half century ago anticipated the rise of authenticity in response to
modernization. Indeed, one does not have to look far today to find self-help books focused on the
“true self,” organizations touting themselves as “authentic,” and ongoing debates about who and
what should be called “real” versus “fake.” As but one indication of the extent to which
authenticity has entered into our public discourse, a recent Google search for “authentic”
produced over half a billion hits; according to Google Books, the number of books published on
the topic has nearly doubled since Trilling’s seminal work. Several scholars (e.g., Arnould &
Price, 2000; Beverland, 2009; Fine, 2004; Grazian, 2003; Taylor, 1991) and social critics (e.g.,
Guignon, 2004; Lindholm, 2008; Potter, 2010) alike have joined Trilling in conjecturing about
what has given rise to the appeal of authenticity in contemporary society, with many suggesting
that we most often seek authenticity because it is the very thing that seems to be lacking in our
lives and in the world around us. Whatever the reason, the concept of authenticity carries great
appeal indeed. As Potter (2010, p. i) proclaimed, “the demand for authenticity…is one of the
most powerful movements in contemporary life.”
It is thus no surprise that management scholars have become equally enamored by the
topic in recent years. Over the past decade, the number of articles on authenticity in management
journals has more than doubled. These studies together show that the search for authenticity has
significant implications for employees (e.g., Cable, Gino & Staats, 2013; Hewlin, Dumas &
Burnett, 2017; Molinsky, 2013), managers (e.g., Gardner, Cogliser, Davis & Dickens, 2011;
Leroy, Palanski & Simons, 2012; Peus, Wesche, Streicher, Braun & Frey, 2012), social
relationships in the workplace (e.g., Grandey, Foo, Groth & Goodwin, 2012; Hennig-Thurau,
Page 3 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 4 of 97
Thorston, Groth, Paul & Gremler, 2006; Yagil & Medler-Liraz, 2013), consumers (e.g.,
Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Leigh, Peters & Shelton 2006; Rose & Wood, 2005), organizations
(e.g., Frake, 2017; Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Howard-Grenville, Metzger & Meyer, 2013; Verhaal,
Khessina & Dobrev, 2015), and social movements (e.g., Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000; Negro,
Hannan & Rao, 2011; Weber, Heinze & DeSoucey, 2008). Of course, this work is also informed
by related research in marketing, psychology, and sociology, among others. In short, the
importance of authenticity seems to transcend a host of academic domains as well as research
paradigms. Given its ubiquity in popular culture as well as academic research, an understanding
of the meaning of the concept is of critical importance.
On the surface, there might seem to be widespread agreement about the meaning of
authenticity. Most scholars agree that it refers to that which is “real” or “genuine” or “true”
(Dutton, 2003: 258). In this sense, authenticity refers to some sort of verification process in that
it “describes the evaluation of some truth or fact” (Newman, 2016: 296) even if “it is ultimately
not about the facts per se but rather about interpretations regarding those facts” (Kovács, Carroll
& Lehman, 2014: 460). As such, authenticity is not a property of entities but, instead, “a claim
that is made by or for [them] … and either accepted or rejected by relevant others” (Peterson,
2005: 1086). In short, there indeed exists a general consensus amongst scholars in the social and
behavioral sciences that authentic entities – whether they are individuals, collectives, or objects –
“are what they appear to be or are claimed to be” (Trilling, 1972: 92).
Despite this apparent consensus, however, there is much less agreement below the
surface. Indeed, various scholars use the same term “authenticity” but in different ways.
Consider the following questions: Are you your “true self” at work? (Guerrier & Adib, 2003). Is
your favorite pair of Levi’s jeans genuine or fake? (Newman & Dhar, 2014). Was last night’s
Page 4 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 5 of 97
symphonic performance of L’Enfance du Christ true to the genre of classical music? (Glynn &
Lounsbury, 2005). Is your boss an authentic leader? (Sparrowe, 2005). Was the wine served at
last night’s dinner party real Barolo? (Negro et al., 2011). Is Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre really
located at its original site? (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). Does your favorite Thai restaurant
actually serve traditional Thai cuisine? (Kovács et al., 2014). Is Waylon Jennings an authentic
musician and, if so, is it because of his unique style of music, his cowboy hat, or perhaps even
his “hillbilly roots”? (Peterson, 1997). Do you even know who you really are at the end of the
day? (Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt & King, 2009). In each of these cases, the label of “authenticity” or
some synonymous term is invoked and the attribution entails a verification process of whether or
not someone or something is “real” or “genuine” or “true”. Yet, upon closer inspection, it
becomes apparent that each case involves the application of a different meaning of the concept.
Of course, this notion that authenticity can take on different meanings is not entirely new.
As Dutton (2003: 258) noted, authenticity is a “‘dimension word’… a term whose meaning
remains uncertain until we know what dimension of its referent is being talked about.” In other
words, an entity is authentic because it is a “real” what? Or a “genuine” what? Or “true” to what?
The referent at the root of an authenticity attribution – the to what? – is thus of paramount
importance. Yet various streams of research have emerged out of disparate theoretical
foundations, each with its own emphasis on different referents and each carrying different
underlying assumptions about the nature of the concept and how attributions about it are made or
not. Consequently, as others have noted, “authenticity is implicitly a polemical concept”
(Trilling, 1972: 94) because the facts involved can point in different directions and lead to
different conclusions.
Page 5 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 6 of 97
Still lacking, however, is a systematic and comprehensive conceptual framework for
understanding these different possible meanings of authenticity. Our review of the literature
reveals that many scholars either acknowledge the possibility of different meanings of
authenticity but then proceed to settle on an interpretation that is overly general and frequently
confounds the different meanings just acknowledged, or focus exclusively on one meaning at the
total neglect of other possibilities. This all-too-common application of multiple or different
meanings of authenticity is problematic for at least two related reasons. First, it leaves scholars
unable to communicate meaningfully with one another, which creates further conceptual
confusion and streams of related work that proceed in isolation from one another. Second, it
carries the risk of missing the big picture. We suggest that, when viewed together, the full body
of research offers new insights into the nature of authenticity and points to promising new lines
of inquiry about it, neither of which are readily apparent when just one meaning of authenticity is
considered in isolation. A conceptual framework that clarifies the different possible meanings of
authenticity – as well as key similarities, differences, and relationships – thus stands to advance
our understanding of this important concept. Accordingly, we conducted a review of the extant
literature with two specific objectives in mind.
The first objective is to provide some much-needed construct clarity (see Suddaby, 2010).
We do so by outlining the three different meanings of authenticity that emerged from our review
of the literature. The first meaning is rooted in foundational philosophical works ranging from
the Ancient Greeks (Aristotle, Socrates) to the Existentialists (Heidegger, 1962; Sartre, 1943), as
well as classic mid-century scholarship on impression management (Goffman, 1959). It
interprets authenticity as consistency between an entity’s internal values and its external
expressions; research themes within this perspective include work on the self-concept (Harter,
Page 6 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 7 of 97
2002; Kernis & Goldman, 2003; Cable et al., 2013), self-presentation (Grandey, 2000;
Hochschild, 1983) and, more recently, organizational and brand identity (Baron, 2004;
Beverland, 2005; Holt, 2002). The second meaning is rooted in early work in the cognitive
sciences on categorization and schemas (Murphy & Smith, 1982; Rosch, 1973) as well as
foundational work in sociology on institutional categories (Hannan & Freeman, 1977) and genres
(DiMaggio, 1987). It interprets authenticity as conformity of an entity to the norms of its social
category; research themes within this perspective have examined the consequences of category
membership (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005; Lu & Fine, 1995) as well as the process of changes to
categorical boundaries (Negro et al., 2011; Weber et al., 2008). The third meaning is rooted in
work on psychological essentialism (Gelman, 2003; Medin & Ortony, 1989) and semiotics
(Baudrillard, 1983; Mick, 1986; Peirce, 1940). It interprets authenticity as connection between
an entity and a person, place, or time as claimed; research themes within this perspective have
conceptualized authenticity as a matter of connection via provenance (Dutton, 2003; Newman &
Dhar, 2014), transference (Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Frazier, Gelman, Wilson & Hood, 2009),
or symbolism (Hahl, 2016; Leigh et al., 2006; MacCannell, 1973). In sum, three different
meanings of authenticity emerged from our review: consistency, conformity, and connection.
The second objective of this review is to offer an initial step toward an integrated
framework of authenticity. Based on our review, we suggest that the three different meanings of
authenticity share key similarities; however, they are indeed conceptually and practically
distinct. On the one hand, authenticity according to each of the perspectives references that
which is intangible, involves a threshold in making the attribution, and is generally regarded as a
positive attribution worth pursuing. On the other hand, each perspective makes different
underlying assumptions about whether an authenticity attribution implies uniqueness or
Page 7 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 8 of 97
sameness, whether authenticity is interpreted in subjective or objective terms, and whether the
authentication process unfolds from lay judgments or expert knowledge. We discuss each of
these similarities and differences in detail along with patterns that emerged from our review of
the literature regarding how the three meanings are related to one another.
Taken together, we hope to provide a lens for better understanding existing research on
authenticity and, at the same time, offer a useful guide for future inquiry on the topic. The
remainder of this article is structured as follows. In the next section, we discuss the methodology
used to conduct our review of the literature. Then, we outline the three meanings of authenticity
that emerged from the review. Next, we discuss similarities and differences across these
perspectives as well as patterns in the literature regarding interrelationships. Finally, we offer an
agenda for future research by discussing a range of theoretical and methodological implications
as well as opportunities for new lines of inquiry.
REVIEW METHOD
Research on the topic of authenticity spans a wide range of disciplines. In order to
reasonably bound our review, we focused on articles appearing in outlets most central to
management scholars. However, in an effort to highlight the breadth of the concept, we also
discuss some of the rich theoretical foundations that have informed existing research in this area.
To compile a set of articles for the review, we employed a multi-step approach.
First, we conducted a broad search of the existing literature. Specifically, we searched
Web of Science for articles containing “authentic*” as a keyword or in the title; the search was
conducted in September 2017. A journal was included in the search if it fit either of the
following criteria: (1) it was listed in the Financial Times Top 50 list in management or
marketing, and is targeted primarily at an academic audience; or, (2) it was listed in the U.K.
Page 8 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 9 of 97
Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Guide as a 4 or 4* (i.e., the top two tiers)
outlet in the management, marketing, psychology, or sociology categories. Table 1 provides a
complete list of journal titles. In total, this search yielded 452 articles.
------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here.
------------------------------
Second, we narrowed the set to the most relevant articles to be included in the review.
We first removed book reviews (16 articles), retractions (6 articles), and corrections or
addendums (2 articles; these were “paired” with the original articles so as to be included but not
double counted). We then reviewed and parsed the list in order to identify those articles for
which authenticity was a/the core construct in the paper. Among those identified as not relevant,
members of the author team revisited each omitted article to ensure that it was not erroneously
removed from the set. In the end, 124 articles were removed for lack of relevance.
Third, we added to the set a few relevant articles that did not result from the search. In
several cases, articles were added because they were forthcoming at the time of the search and
have since appeared in print (8 articles). In other cases, articles were added because they were
published in outlets typically considered less relevant for management scholars and thereby not
included in the search, but which were frequently cited by papers that did appear in it (8 articles).
In the remaining cases, articles were added because they were part of a larger program of
research focused on authenticity, but the authors of those articles did not include “authenticity”
in the title or keywords for whatever reason (e.g., articles early in a line of work, as one example;
7 articles). In total, 23 articles were added to the set.
Page 9 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 10 of 97
The final set for the review thus included a total of 327 articles. Table 1 provides a
breakdown of articles by discipline and decade. In addition, we referenced throughout the review
process relevant books, chapters, and edited volumes as appropriate, as well as work in related
research areas. Many of these sources are cited throughout the review but are not included in the
counts of articles outlined above.
After compiling this set of articles, the author team met regularly to discuss patterns and
emergent themes across an initial subset of the articles. To compile this subset, each member of
the author team read all of the articles in one of the four disciplines noted above and selected
those that were particularly impactful on the field (i.e., highly cited), current (i.e., recently
published), and/or offered unique perspectives on the topic. In the end, 96 articles (29% of the
full set) were included in this subset. All four members of the author team then read all of these
articles in their entirety in an effort to identify broad patterns and themes.
We reviewed this subset of articles with three guiding questions in mind: (1) Who or
what is the referent at the root of the authenticity judgment? We initially approached the
literature with two preliminary referents in mind: internal versus external to the entity at hand. In
other words, the referent – the to what? – appeared to be the entity itself in some cases (i.e.,
whether the entity is true to itself) whereas, in other cases, it appeared to be distinct from or
outside of the entity that was the target of the authenticity judgment (i.e., whether the entity is
true to some other criterion). However, upon further reading and discussion, it became clear that
the latter could fruitfully be divided further. Specifically, some studies conceived of the referent
in terms of a social category (e.g., a genre) whereas others conceived of it in terms of a particular
person, place, or time (e.g., an origin). (2) Who or what is the entity that is the target of the
authenticity judgment? Some studies focused on the authenticity of individuals, others on
Page 10 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 11 of 97
organizations or brands, and others on objects or performances. (3) Who is the audience that is
making the authenticity judgment? In some cases, the audience and the entity were one and the
same (e.g., the self); in other cases, the two were distinct (e.g., consumers and products). As we
reviewed this initial subset of articles, all authors took extensive notes and considered how each
of these three guiding questions might best organize the body of literature. In conversation with
one another, we agreed that the first question – who or what is the referent? – effectively
organized the literature into thematic categories or perspectives that parsimoniously captured the
different meanings of authenticity. Importantly, it became apparent that each of these
perspectives was rooted in distinct theoretical foundations. In addition, the second and third
questions provided a useful way to organize distinct research themes within each of the three
perspectives. Table 2 provides a summary of these three perspectives along with the respective
theoretical foundations and current research themes.
------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here.
------------------------------
We then categorized all of the articles in the full set according to these three perspectives
and respective themes. The first two members of the author team completed this process. To
ensure consistency when categorizing the articles, both authors independently reviewed a
random sample of 25 articles, discussing and resolving any inconsistencies. Each then reviewed
separately the remaining articles, frequently conferring with one another along the way. Some
articles fell into a single perspective and theme whereas others fell into two or more; patterns
regarding the latter are discussed in a later section of this review. Throughout this process and at
the end, the author team discussed and refined our collective understanding of the literature. In
Page 11 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 12 of 97
doing so, we remained open to additional perspectives and themes represented in the literature
but concluded that the full range of articles included in the review were accurately characterized
by the initial framework.
In sum, three different perspectives of authenticity emerged from the review: (1)
authenticity as consistency between an entity’s external expressions and its internal values and
beliefs; (2) authenticity as conformity to the social category to which an entity has been assigned
or that it has claimed for itself; and, (3) authenticity as connection to a person, place, or time as
claimed. In the sections that follow, we discuss each of these perspectives in detail along with the
respective theoretical foundations and current research themes.
AUTHENTICITY AS CONSISTENCY
Meaning of Authenticity
According to this first meaning of authenticity, an entity is authentic to the extent that it
is consistent in terms of its external expressions on the one hand, and its internal values and
beliefs on the other hand. Returning to the questions posed earlier, considerations of your “true
self” at work (Guerrier & Adib, 2003) and whether or not you do – or even can – know who you
really are (Schlegel et al., 2009; Schlegel, Hicks, King, & Arndt, 2011) would both be invoking
this meaning of authenticity. If your evaluation of Waylon Jennings rests on the fact that he
chose to write and perform music that reflected his personal values and beliefs, defying along the
way the conventions of the Nashville music establishment (Peterson, 1997), then it, too, would
be invoking this interpretation of the concept. In short, the referent at the root of an authenticity
attribution according to this meaning is the entity itself: Is it true to itself?
Page 12 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 13 of 97
Theoretical Foundations
This first meaning has the oldest theoretical foundations, rooted in classical philosophical
works by the Ancient Greeks (e.g., Socrates, Aristotle) as well as later work by thinkers from the
Enlightenment (e.g., Rousseau) and Existentialist movements (e.g., Kierkegaard, 1983 [1849];
Heidegger, 1962; Sartre, 1943). Classic mid-century scholarship on impression management has
also been highly influential (e.g., Goffman, 1959). We offer a brief overview of each.
Classical Philosophy. The earliest references to authenticity date back to the Ancient
Greeks (for an historical overview, see Kernis & Goldman, 2003). For example, Socrates
emphasized the importance of self-understanding and reflection: “The unexamined life is not
worth living.” Aristotle, on the other hand, focused on the importance of action but, even here,
the emphasis was on living in accordance with one’s daimon or “true self” (Nichomachean
Ethics; see Waterman, 1990). Indeed, achieving consistency between one’s actions and true self
was critical for achieving eudaimonia or “happiness” and a virtuous life. Such ideas created
ripples throughout history in later philosophical works. During the Enlightenment, for example,
Rousseau emphasized the importance of “exploring and revealing one’s essential nature…as an
absolute good” (Lindolm, 2008: 8). During the Existentialist movement, Kierkegaard (1983
[1849]: 130) called for one to “become what one is.” Heidegger (1962) and Sartre (1943) echoed
this emphasis on individual agency and the importance of exercising the authority to choose to
be one’s own in a society filled with seemingly infinite alternatives.
1
Contemporary scholars
have speculated that the importance of one’s true self emerged from life in this existential
vacuum (see Arnould & Price, 2000; Holt, 2002). Whereas past societies lived according to a set
of shared values, such as religions or other traditions that guided individuals toward appropriate
1
Note that “authenticity” and “authority” share the same etymological roots; as such, the former has been taken by
some to mean “acting on one’s own authority.”
Page 13 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 14 of 97
action and a meaningful life, individuals in modern societies with fewer commonly shared values
have turned inward toward themselves in search of meaning. Of course, it is worthwhile to note
that the broad impact of these classical philosophers has extended throughout history to literary
traditions as well; as Polonius instructed Laertes in Hamlet (Act 1, Scene iii): “This above all: to
thine own self be true”.
Impression Management. As the Enlightenment and Existentialist thinkers recognized
and emphasized, the self does not exist in isolation but, instead, in a social context. Here again,
literary traditions capture and echo the philosophical foundations of authenticity, as Jaques
pronounces in As You Like It (Act 2, Scene iii): “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and
women merely players…and so he plays his part”. Goffman (1959) famously invoked this
metaphor of the theater to highlight the distinction between the inner or private (i.e., “back
stage”) and outer or public (i.e., “front stage”) spheres of our lives. Like actors in a play, the
individual in social life “plays a part…offers his performance and puts on his show ‘for the
benefit of other people’” (p. 17). On the one hand, “sincere” individuals believe that their own
words and actions are in line with their true self, “convinced that the impression of reality which
he stages is the real reality” (p. 10).
2
On the other hand, “cynical” individuals feel obliged to play
a part for the benefit of customers, clients, patients, or the like. For Goffman (citing Sartre), such
roles are wholly ceremonial: “The public demands of them that they realize it as ceremony; there
is the dance of the grocer, of the tailor, of the auctioneer, by which they endeavor to persuade
their clientele that they are nothing but a grocer, a tailor, an auctioneer…” (p. 76) even if “the
back region will be the place where the performer can reliably expect that no member of the
audience will intrude” (p. 113). This notion of impression management – that is, the expressions
of the performer intended to manage the impressions formed by audiences – as a form of
2
Note that the title and text of Trilling’s (1972) influential book shares this same label: Sincerity and Authenticity.
Page 14 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 15 of 97
misalignment between the front and back stages of life fascinated Goffman’s contemporaries as
well. Classical work on related topics such as cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and self-
monitoring (Snyder, 1974) equally imply a true self operating the back stage, which may produce
inconsistencies between it and the front stage presented to others. Together, these theoretical
foundations reveal longstanding traditions that explore self-understanding and awareness, and in
turn, how individuals express in both word and deed their true selves to others.
Current Research Themes
Our review revealed three general research themes that have adopted the perspective of
authenticity as consistency. In line with the theoretical foundations out of which these themes
have arisen, the primary focus has been on individuals even though other entities have also been
considered. The common thread across each of the three themes discussed below is a concern
with consistency between the “front” and “back” stages (Goffman, 1959). Each assumes that the
back stage represents the “true self” whereas the front stage may or may not be an accurate
portrayal of it. However, each emphasizes the front versus back stages in distinct ways.
Self-Concept. Research within this first theme focuses primarily on the back stage. This
work builds largely on the theoretical foundations in classical philosophy outlined above that
have considered how to conceptualize the self. Common definitions generally reflect this focus
on how one views oneself. For example, authenticity has been defined as “the unobstructed
operation of one’s true, or core, self” (Kernis & Goldman, 2006: 293), “behavior that is
phenomenally experienced as being authored by the self” (Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi,
1997), alignment of “our internal experiences with our external expressions” (Cable et al., 2013:
6), “act[ing] in accordance with one’s own sense of self, emotions, and values” (Gino, Kouchaki
& Galinsky, 2015: 984), and, more simply, “that sense of ‘who we really are’” (Costas &
Page 15 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 16 of 97
Fleming, 2009: 356). Other specific definitions abound, but all are similarly focused on the back
stage and treat the true self as moral (Christy, Seto, Schlegel, Vess & Hicks, 2016; Newman, de
Freitas & Knobe, 2015), fundamentally good (Newman, Bloom & Knobe, 2014), and the ideal
version of one’s self (Strohminger, Knobe & Newman, 2017) which one ought to pursue
(Svejenova, 2005; Vieira, Pappamikail & Resende, 2013).
A number of different factors have been shown to give rise to the feeling that one is
acting in accordance with her true self. Most commonly, scholars have considered how different
psychological states prompt such feelings; for example, high levels of nostalgia (Baldwin,
Biernat & Landau, 2015), power (Chen, Langner & Mendoza-Denton, 2009; Joshi & Fast, 2013;
Kifer, Heller, Perunovic & Galinsky, 2013; Kraus, Chen & Keltner, 2011), positive mood
(Lenton, Bruder, Slabu & Sedikides, 2013; the suppression of negative moods has the opposite
effect: Le & Impett, 2016), autonomy (Heppner, et al., 2008), and attachment security (Gillath,
Sesko, Shaver & Chun, 2010), among others, all enhance feelings of authenticity. Alternatively,
some behaviors such as making personal sacrifices (Kogan et al., 2010), doing meaningful work
(Endrissat, Islam & Noppeney, 2015), and participating in particular consumption experiences
(Firat & Venkatesh, 1995; Hahl, Zuckerman, & Kim 2017; Leigh et al., 2006; Rose & Wood,
2005; van der Laan & Velthuis, 2016) have also been shown to increase authenticity. Finally,
some organizational practices, such as newcomer socialization (Cable et al., 2013), have been
shown to elicit employees’ true selves; others, such as high-commitment management practices,
have been shown to suppress them (Fleming & Sturdy, 2011). Taken together, various individual
states, behaviors, and contextual factors all tend to elicit the true self.
In turn, the feeling that one is acting in accordance with her true self has been shown to
predict a range of positive outcomes for the individual as well as others. In general, it tends to
Page 16 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 17 of 97
produce positive psychological benefits such as increased well-being (Bettencourt & Sheldon,
2001; Cross, Gore & Morris, 2003; Kifer et al., 2013; Seligman & Csikszentmihaly, 2014; Suh,
2002), higher self-esteem (Heppner et al., 2008), shame-free guilt (Vess, Schlegel, Hicks &
Arndt, 2014), and a greater sense of meaning (Schlegel et al., 2009, 2011). Feelings of authentic
(vs. hubristic) pride have been shown to have similar positive effects (Ashton-James & Tracy,
2012; Huang, Dong & Mukhopadhyay, 2014; McFerran, Aquino & Tracy, 2014; Tracy &
Robins, 2007; Weidman, Tracy & Elliot, 2016). In addition, feelings of authenticity can also lead
to social benefits such as a greater sense of belonging (Newheiser & Barreto, 2014). The
converse of these findings also seems to be true: feelings of inauthenticity can produce negative
outcomes such as feelings of immorality and impurity (Gino, Norton & Ariely, 2010). Beyond
the self, various positive outcomes associated with authenticity have significant implications
within organizations related to hiring decisions, work engagement, employee satisfaction, and
employee turnover (see Cable et al., 2013; Moore, Lee, Kim & Cable, 2017).
In sum, studies within this body of research have focused on the back stage and assume
that it represents the true self. However, one notable point of unsettled debate is the nature of the
true self over time: Is it constant or evolving? As reflected by the measurement scales of
authenticity most commonly-used within this theme, several scholars suggest that the true self is
constant, akin to a personality trait (i.e., Kernis & Goldman, 2003; Wood, Linley, Maltby,
Baliousis & Joseph, 2008), whereas others would suggest that it is a state that is prone to develop
or change over time (e.g., Harter, 2002). The evidence is not entirely clear on the issue (see
Chen, English & Peng, 2006; English & Chen, 2007, 2011; Fleeson & Wilt, 2010; Showers,
Ditzfeld & Zeigler-Hill, 2015) but does suggest that the notions of trait and state authenticity are
at least distinct from one another (Lenton et al., 2013). Perhaps most interesting is that lay
Page 17 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 18 of 97
theories on the matter seem to vary (Johnson & Boyd, 1995; Schlegel, Vess & Arndt, 2012). The
dominant view, at least in Western cultures, is that the true self is essentialized (Schlegel et al.,
2009) and, as such, to be “‘discovered’ rather than created through an effort of will” (Johnson,
Robinson & Mitchell, 2004: 627). However, others point to the importance of “self-referential
behaviors that reveal or produce the true self” (Arnould & Price, 2000: 8). Such distinctions raise
interesting questions about whether authenticity is more about being “true to self” versus
“remaining true to the authentic self one has created” (Peterson, 2005: 1089). Despite the more
recent arrival of these topics into studies of workplace behavior, such questions are, of course, by
no means new; debates on the matter date back decades (see Sartre, 1943) if not centuries (e.g.,
Aristotle). Such fundamental questions will undoubtedly persist for years to come and offer
exciting new directions for management scholars.
Self-Presentation. Research within this second theme focuses primarily on the front
stage of the self. It, too, draws on the theoretical foundations in classical philosophy outlined
above; however, it also builds largely on the foundations in impression management that have
considered how individuals present themselves to external audiences in social settings. Scholars
within this theme acknowledge the many apparent advantages of consistency between the front
and back stages of the self; at the same time, however, they also emphasize that social and
organizational pressures often compel individuals to present themselves in ways that are
misaligned with their true selves. Scholars have studied the presentation of the self in a range of
social relationships, including casual and intimate partnerships (e.g., DePaulo & Kashy, 1998;
Knee, Nanayakkara, Vietor, Neighbors & Patrick, 2001; Lemay & Clark, 2008a, 2008b; Lemay
& Dudley, 2011; Swann, de LaRonde & Hixon, 1994). However, the vast majority of research
included in the review and within this theme falls within one of two rather well-defined research
Page 18 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 19 of 97
streams: emotional labor and authentic leadership.
3
With few exceptions (e.g., Gardner, Fischer
& Hunt, 2009; Humphrey, 2012), these two streams have developed in isolation of one another
despite the shared theoretical foundations and focus. Accordingly, we discuss each in turn.
The first stream is emotional labor, which is “the process of regulating both feelings and
expressions for organizational goals” (Grandey, 2000: 97; see also Gross, 1998). This general
definition of the public expression of personal emotions draws on Hochschild’s (1983) seminal
work that coined the term and focused on employees’ customer service encounters, as well as
later work that focused on other workplace relationships (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993;
Morris & Feldman, 1996). The language frequently used to discuss emotional labor is evocative
of Goffman’s (1959) metaphor of the theater: “acting”. Surface acting refers to the regulation of
observable expressions and is considered “fake” whereas deep acting refers to the regulation of
feelings such that expressed emotions are “truly felt inside” (Cote, Hideg & van Kleef, 2013:
453); in other words, the former is considered inauthentic and the latter authentic. Others have
invoked different but related language. For example, “facades of conformity” refer to “false
representations [of the self] created by employees to appear as if they embrace organizational
values” (Hewlin, 2003: 633). The dominant emphasis across each of these studies is on the front
stage and the primary interest is in understanding the causes and outcomes of inauthenticity.
A number of different factors have been shown to give rise to the inauthentic expressions
of one’s true emotions. Following Hochschild’s (1983) initial emphasis on the impact of role
demands in the workplace environment, much subsequent work has also focused on
organizational settings where customers expect “service with a smile” (Grandey, Fisk, Mattila,
3
It is worthwhile to note that extensive reviews exist for both of these streams. Among others, for emotional labor,
see Grandey (2000); for authentic leadership, see Avolio and Gardner (2005). Of course, our aim here is not to
conduct yet another review of these literatures per se but, rather, to review them through the lens of authenticity and
to situate them within a broader conceptual framework of the construct.
Page 19 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 20 of 97
Jansen & Sideman, 2005) such as retail (e.g., Pounders, Babin & Close, 2015), tourism (e.g.,
Guerrier & Adib, 2003) and healthcare (e.g., Grandey et al., 2012; Hayward & Tuckey, 2011).
The general consensus across these studies and others is that workplace roles that demand
affective displays are more likely to elicit surface acting. In addition, individual factors have also
been shown to predict inauthentic expressions, including collectivism (Hewlin, 2009), male
gender (Averill, 1999), and specific leadership types (Griffith, Connelly, Thiel, & Johnson,
2015). Contextual factors have also been examined, such as job insecurity (Hewlin, Kim & Song,
2016) and sleep deprivation (Barnes, Guarana, Nauman & Kong, 2016). Across the various
studies, the common theme is that individuals frequently feel compelled to display emotions that
are not aligned with their true feelings.
These false presentations of one’s self have generally been shown to produce negative
outcomes. Again, following Hochschild’s (1983) initial emphasis, many studies have shown that
surface acting by employees has a negative impact on customers’ satisfaction (Grandey et al.,
2005), loyalty (Wang et al., 2017), and even emotional states (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). Other
studies have demonstrated negative effects on employees themselves in the form of reduced
well-being and job satisfaction (Martinez, Sawyer, Thoroughgood, Ruggs & Smith, 2017; Pugh,
Groth & Hennig-Thurau, 2011), stress (Bono & Bey, 2007), and turnover (Hewlin, 2009; Hewlin
et al., 2016). These negative outcomes, however, can be buffered by stronger relationships
(Wang & Groth, 2014) and organizational cultures that embrace authentic self-expression
(Grandey et al., 2012). Recent studies have even demonstrated some of the “bright sides” of
emotional labor (see Humphrey, Ashforth & Diefendorff, 2015). At a basic level, surface acting
can sometimes enable one to carry out tasks the employee finds important albeit emotionally
exhausting (Hayward & Tuckey, 2011). In addition, even faked positive emotions can help to
Page 20 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 21 of 97
form favorable first impressions (Trichas & Schyns, 2012) and elicit positive affect from others
via emotional contagion (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). Taken together, most studies in this first
stream point to the negative outcomes of false presentations of the self, even as some positive
outcomes of individual and organizational importance have also been noted.
The second research stream is authentic leadership. Although it has been defined in
various subtly different ways, those who developed the most commonly-used measure (i.e.,
Authentic Leadership Questionnaire) define it as “a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon
and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate to foster
greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information,
and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-
development” (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing & Peterson, 2008: 94). These four
dimensions are aligned with and borrow heavily from the conceptualization of authenticity
proposed by Kernis and Goldman (2003; for similar conceptualizations and measures of
authentic leadership, see Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Ilies, Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2005). Yet,
even though scholars frequently refer to such research that focuses on the back stage or “true
self” (e.g., Harter, 2002; Kernis & Goldman, 2003), the dominant emphasis is on the front stage
or the presentation of the self from the viewpoint of others, namely followers.
Although some studies have examined various antecedents of authentic leadership (e.g.,
leader enactment: Weischer, Weibler & Peterson, 2013; gender: Eagly, 2005; Monzani, Bark,
van Dick & Maria Peiro, 2015; various individual differences: Peus et al., 2012), the vast
majority has sought to demonstrate the range of positive outcomes of it. Early studies focused on
individual-level benefits for followers, including both psychological outcomes such as well-
being (Rahimnia & Sharifirad, 2015), psychological capital (Wang, Sui, Luthans, Wang, & Wu,
Page 21 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 22 of 97
2014), trust in (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans & May, 2004; Norman, Avolio &
Luthans, 2010) and satisfaction with the leader (Peus et al., 2012), and even authentic
followership (Leroy, Anseel, Gardner & Sels, 2015). Behavioral outcomes include increased job
performance (Leroy et al., 2012), helping and other extra-role behaviors (Hirst, Walumbwa,
Aryee, Butarbutar & Chen, 2016; Hsiung, 2012; Liu, Liao & Wei, 2015; Mehmood, Hamstra,
Nawab & Vriend, 2016), and ethical decision-making (Cianci, Hannah, Roberts & Tsakumis,
2014). Responding to calls for multi-level research (e.g., Yammarino, Dionne, Shelley,
Schriesheim & Dansereau, 2008), more recent studies have demonstrated team-level benefits
such as productivity (Hannah, Walumbwa & Fry, 2011; Lyubovnikova, Legood, Turner &
Mamakouka, 2017) and performance (Rego, Reis Junior & Pina e Cunha, 2015), commitment
(Rego, Vitoria, Magalhaes, Ribeiro & Pina e Cunha, 2013), ethical climate (Zhu, Avolio, Riggio
& Sosik, 2011), and workplace inclusion (Boekhorst, 2015). In short, leaders perceived as
authentic appear to engender a host of positive outcomes for individuals as well as teams.
Although authentic leadership has enjoyed a great deal of positive attention amongst
leadership scholars over the past decade, it has also faced two specific critiques. First, the
conceptual and empirical distinctions between it and other forms of positive leadership (see
Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009; Cooper, Scandura & Schriesheim,
2005), such as transformational (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Price, 2003), ethical (Brown &
Trevino, 2006; Toor & Ofori, 2009), responsible (Pless & Maak, 2011), and servant leadership
(Sun, 2013), among others (e.g., Hannah, Avolio & Walumbwa, 2011; Tomkins & Simpson,
2015; Whittington, Pitts, Kageler & Goodwin, 2005) has been less than clear. Indeed, a recent
meta-analysis concluded that “the relationship between authentic and transformational leadership
is large in magnitude, suggesting construct redundancy” (Banks, McCauley, Gardner & Guler,
Page 22 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 23 of 97
2016: 634). Others have suggested that these overlapping theories merely capture affective
responses such that followers are simply “more dedicated to leaders they ‘like’” (Hannah,
Sumanth, Lester, & Cavarretta, 2014: 608). Roughly half of the authentic leadership articles
included in this review were non-empirical and many focused on this issue of conceptual
distinction. Perhaps for this reason, some scholars have recently begun to examine some of the
dimensions of the construct in isolation (e.g., Vogelgesang, Leroy & Avolio, 2013). Second, the
inherent ethical component of the construct has raised concerns by some scholars. Whereas some
would argue that this ethical component is part of “the point” in studying positive organizational
behavior (Luthans & Avolio, 2009), others would argue that “authenticity is not intrinsically
ethical” (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012: 118) and that the two have been confounded (Mumford
& Fried, 2014; see also Liu, Cutcher & Grant, 2017). We echo both of these critiques and, at the
same time, acknowledge the important role of authenticity in the domain of leadership.
In sum, both streams of research – emotional labor and authentic leadership – view
authenticity as consistency between one’s front and back stages, and both have generally
emphasized the front stage. Moreover, both assume – and sometimes even show – that others
(e.g., customers, co-workers, followers) can detect authenticity based on a view of the front stage
alone. At the same time, the two streams also differ in at least one important way. As noted in
our discussion of the self-concept theme, here, too, the temporal nature of the true self is not
entirely clear. Nearly all of the studies in the emotional labor stream would suggest that
authenticity changes over time depending on the context. As noted by Guerrier and Adib (2011:
1399) in their study of tour representatives, individuals often “actively seek spaces… that they
see as reflecting their authentic selves.” Alternatively, most studies in the authentic leadership
stream would suggest that authenticity is inherently stable, which is reflected in the
Page 23 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 24 of 97
conceptualization and measurement of the construct (see Walumbwa et al., 2008). Of course, a
few offer a divergent view, suggesting that authentic leadership “is emergent from [a] narrative
process” (Sparrowe, 2005: 419) and even go so far as to claim that “inauthenticity is inevitable”
at times (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012: 118), but these seem to represent a minority
perspective. Taken together, the two streams highlight once again the tension between the
constant versus evolving nature of the true self, here, as it relates to one’s presentation of the self.
Organizational and Brand Identity. Research within this third theme has generally
been an extension of the second (i.e., self-presentation) and, to a lesser extent, the first (i.e., self-
concept), to entities other than individuals, namely organizations and their brands. Scholars
within this theme frequently draw on the theoretical foundations in both classical philosophy and
impression management as well as the work in the first two themes outlined above. Here,
research does not fall quite as cleanly into distinct streams; however, in general, studies focus on
either the identity of an organization or of a brand. Accordingly, we discuss each in turn.
First, some research has focused on the authenticity of organizations. In defining
organizational authenticity, scholars tend to draw explicit links to the theoretical foundations in
classical philosophy as well as work from psychology within the self-concept theme. For
example, Carroll and Wheaton (2009: 261) suggest that “…by analogy, an organization would be
authentic to the extent that it embodies the chosen values of its founders, owners or members…”
The emphasis in such definitions is on organizational values (i.e., the back stage; see also Baron,
2004) but, at the same time, most empirical studies tend to focus on audience perceptions of
organizational action (i.e., the front stage). Audiences have been shown to make authenticity
attributions on the basis of observed production processes (Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000;
Voronov, De Clercq & Hinings, 2013; Weber et al., 2008), product names (Verhaal et al., 2015),
Page 24 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 25 of 97
advertising campaigns (Moeran, 2005), ownership structure (Frake, 2017; Kovács et al., 2014),
the extent to which it is “local” (Cutcher, 2014), and even CEO portraits (Guthey & Jackson,
2005). Such attributions of authenticity tend to translate into audience appeal for the organization
and its products and services. In addition, audiences have been shown to evaluate the authenticity
of an organization on the specific basis of its corporate social responsibility programs (Beckman,
Colwell & Cunningham, 2009; Cuypers, Koh & Wang, 2016; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015;
McShane & Cunningham, 2012; Skilton & Purdy, 2017) as well as the manner in which such
programs are publicized or not (Carlos & Lewis, 2017). Although most research has focused on
audience perceptions of the front stage, some has considered how organizational members
collectively understand and even construct the back stage (e.g., Brown & Humphreys, 2002;
Cording, Harrison, Hoskisson & Jonsen, 2014; Liedtka, 2008), often via an agentic use of its
own history (Hatch & Schultz, 2017); such considerations have also extended beyond the
boundaries of the organization to communities and other collective identities (Blaikie, 2001;
Etzioni, 1996; Howard-Grenville et al., 2013). In sum, this collection of research may seem
disparate at first blush, but the common thread is an interest in organizational authenticity,
conceived as the consistency between the organization’s values and its actions.
Second, other research has focused on the authenticity of brands. Here, too, scholars tend
to emphasize the back stage in conceptual definitions of authenticity but focus on the front stage
in empirical examinations of it. As Holt (2002: 83) put it: “To be authentic, brands must be
disinterested; they must be perceived as invented and disseminated by parties without an
instrumental economic agenda, by people who are intrinsically motivated by their inherent
value.” Drawing on this early work, others have similarly emphasized notions of “faithfulness”
and “truth” (Morhart, Malar, Guevremont, Girardin & Grohmann, 2015: 203), “consistency”
Page 25 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 26 of 97
(Spiggle, Nguyen & Caravella, 2012: 969), “sincerity” (Beverland, 2005: 1008), and “trust”
(Fueller, Schroll & von Hippel, 2013). Several studies have shown how audiences, and
consumers in particular, make authenticity attributions on the basis of emotional branding tactics
(see Thompson, Rindfleisch & Arsel, 2006) such as storytelling (Beverland, 2005; Chiu, Hsieh
& Kuo, 2012; Morhart et al., 2015). Others have shown the impact of such factors as craft
production methods (Beverland, 2005) and the perception of value alignment between the brand
and its employees (Sirianni, Bitner, Brown & Mandel, 2013) or consumers (Kates, 2004). Brand
authenticity tends to engender such positive responses as brand identification and attachment
(Baker, Rapp, Meyer & Mullins, 2014; Morhart et al., 2015), product adoption (Fueller et al.,
2013), and sales (Beverland, 2005). In sum, research on brand authenticity is a bit more coherent
than that on organizational authenticity in that the former has primarily come from a smaller
circle of scholars; however, the two are generally conceptualized in similar ways.
Taken together, research within this theme conceptualizes authenticity as consistency but
extends this conceptualization to entities other than individuals, namely organizations and their
brands. Both of the bodies of research highlighted here point to related tensions raised by the
first two themes. On the one hand, most scholars would acknowledge that organizational and
brand identities change over time. On the other hand, findings suggest that audiences demand
that organizations and their brands be consistent not only in terms of their values and actions, but
also over time. Such expectations pose challenges for organizations operating in dynamic
environments (Holt, 2002). Consequently, images of authenticity are often “partly true and partly
rhetorical” as managers attempt to maintain an authentic identity over time (Beverland, 2005:
1008). Compounding the challenge is that touting one’s own authenticity can backfire, making
one come off as anything but authentic (Kovács, Carroll & Lehman, 2017). This tension between
Page 26 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 27 of 97
the constant versus evolving nature of authenticity is thus highlighted once again when one
considers organizations and brands.
Summary
Authenticity has been conceptualized here as consistency between an entity’s external
expressions on the one hand, and its internal values and beliefs on the other hand. Some scholars
have emphasized the latter whereas others have emphasized the former; in addition, a growing
number of scholars have applied this conceptualization to organizational and brand identities.
Regardless of the emphasis or entity of interest, the referent in any case is the entity itself: Is it
true to itself? As such, this meaning of authenticity continues to reverberate from its roots in
individual self-understanding. When considering other entities, then, it is intriguing that scholars
and audiences alike seem to personify organizations and even brands as if they were individuals
with a “true self” at their core. Organizations are referred to as “moral” (Frake, 2017) and
“sincere” (Cuypers et al., 2016) to the extent that they “walk the talk and live up to their claims”
(Skilton & Purdy, 2017: 104; see also Cording et al., 2014; Dhanani & Connolly, 2015). Brands
are similarly accorded a “personality” (Thompson et al., 2006: 50) that might be considered
“sincere” or even “rugged” (Sundar & Noseworthy, 2016: 58), and are evaluated on the basis of
whether or not they will “betray” the consumer (Morhart, 2015: 213). Yet even if any of these
entities indeed express their true selves, the temporal nature of such identities remains unclear as
discussed in each of the themes above. Moreover, access to the “back stage” is challenging at
best, even for one’s own self or organization. As Freeman and Auster (2011: 19) note: “‘Know
thyself’ is easy to say and hard to accomplish.” Of course, scholars working within the self-
presentation theme assume that the front stage is the only glimpse one has into another’s back
stage; however, even within the self-concept theme, scholars have shown that individuals vary in
Page 27 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 28 of 97
the extent to which they believe they can access their true self (e.g., Schlegel et al., 2011).
Within the organizational and brand identity theme, identities are frequently perceived
differently by various stakeholders, whether they be internal (e.g., Hatch & Schultz, 2017;
Howard-Grenville et al., 2013) or external (e.g., Baker et al., 2014; Kates, 2004) to the
organization. Taken together, we suggest that the conceptualization of authenticity as
consistency across these three themes could be strengthened through a richer consideration of the
temporal nature of such identities.
AUTHENTICITY AS CONFORMITY
Meaning of Authenticity
According to this second meaning, an entity is authentic to the extent that it conforms to
the social category to which it has been assigned or that it has claimed for itself. Returning again
to the questions posed earlier, deliberations about whether or not last night’s symphonic
orchestra was true to the genre of classical music (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005), if the hosts of
your most recent dinner party poured real Barolo wine (Negro et al., 2011)
4
, or if your favorite
eatery down the street really serves traditional Thai cuisine (Kovács et al., 2014) would all be
invoking this meaning of authenticity. In addition, if your evaluation of Waylon Jennings rests
not on his expression of a unique personality but, instead, on whether or not he conforms to the
category of country music – perhaps because he appears to fit the part in his cowboy boots and
hat (Peterson, 1997) – then it, too, would be invoking this interpretation. In short, the referent at
the root of an authenticity attribution according to this meaning can be found outside of the
entity: Is it acting in accordance with the norms and expectations of its social category?
Theoretical Foundations
4
This particular example points to possible relationships between the meanings of authenticity, which are discussed
further in a later section of this review.
Page 28 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 29 of 97
This second meaning has more contemporary foundations, rooted in work in cognitive
psychology on schemas (Medin & Smith, 1984; Rosch, 1973) as well as work in sociology on
institutional categories (e.g., Hannan & Freeman, 1977; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) and genres (e.g.,
Becker, 1982; DiMaggio, 1987). We offer a brief overview of each.
Cognitive Categories and Schemas. Cognitive psychologists have long emphasized the
role that concepts and categories play in structuring human cognition. Dating to early cognitive
linguistic work on concepts by Wittgenstein (1953), the main thrust of the argument is that
categories are cognitive devices that individuals use to organize, recall, and communicate
information (for an excellent overview, see Murphy 2002; see also Goldstone, Kersten, &
Carvalho, 2003; Medin & Smith, 1984). For example, individuals do not need to remember that a
given object is red, weighs eight ounces, and is edible; instead, they simply remember that it is
an apple. Deviating from the prevailing view of category membership based on Aristotelian logic
at the time, Rosch (1973, 1975) noted that not all members of a given category are the same.
Instead, the human mind organizes concepts according to the internal structure of typical
category members or even a summary representation of a category as a whole, such as the extent
to which entities share common features (Rosch & Mervis, 1975) or aims (Barsalou, 1985); for
example, most individuals might claim that an apple is a more typical fruit than an avocado.
Cognitive categories and schemas thus provide a more coherent understanding of entities
(Markman, 1999; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977) and aid in identifying new members (Murphy &
Brownwell, 1985), learning new categories (Horton & Markman, 1980; Murphy & Smith, 1982),
and remembering (Posner & Keele, 1967) and communicating abstract information (Murphy &
Medin, 1985), all of which are foundational to authenticity as conformity.
Page 29 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 30 of 97
Institutional Categories and Genres. The study of categories from institutional and
ecological approaches in sociology and organization theory take a more macro view, focusing on
the norms and processes that shape categories (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Hannan & Freeman,
1977; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The main argument here is that the ways in which categories
emerge and evolve are shaped by societal level processes. Consistent with the idea of cognitive
schemas above, “organizations that display a common pattern are treated as belonging to a form”
(Hannan, Pólos, & Carroll, 2007: 30). This is important insofar as it helps to make sense of and
group similarities among a range of entities. When there is enough agreement about a set of
entities that share commonalities, categories emerge and are labeled accordingly. Such categories
are similar to the classification systems used by sociologists (e.g., genres) and defined as the
different “kind” or “type” of entities (e.g., artists) that share similar form or content, social
relations, or are otherwise “classified together on the basis of perceived similarities” (DiMaggio,
1987: 441; see also Becker, 1982; Lena & Peterson, 2008). This process of category emergence
and evolution is important because the identity of an entity consists of “social codes, or sets of
rules, specifying the features that an organization is expected to possess” (Hsu & Hannan, 2005:
475). Conformity to these codes or categories is generally rewarded and deviations penalized
(see Negro, Koçak & Hsu, 2010; Phillips & Zuckerman, 2001; Zuckerman, 1999, 2000). What
these theoretical foundations share, whether discussing forms, categories, or genres, is a focus on
the classification of entities by external audiences engaging in a perceptual organizing and
sensemaking process; such processes are central to understanding authenticity as conformity.
Page 30 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 31 of 97
Current Research Themes
Our review revealed two research themes that have adopted the perspective of
authenticity as conformity. In line with the theoretical foundations out of which these themes
have arisen, the primary focus of study has been on organizations – or, more generally, producers
– even though other entities have been considered as well. The common thread across both is
whether or not an entity conforms to its social category. Given that this interpretation of
authenticity is rooted in more contemporary theoretical foundations, it is not surprising that the
two research themes that emerged here are more closely aligned with one another compared to
the themes outlined in the previous section. Indeed, scholars within both themes define
authenticity in similar ways. Davies (2001: 203) offers perhaps the most straightforward
definition of authenticity as conformity: “Authenticity reflects a concern with correct
classification” and, as such, an entity “is an authentic X if it is an instance or member of the class
of Xs.” Others have offered similar definitions, suggesting that authenticity refers to whether or
not an entity conforms to “an idealized representation of reality” (Grazian, 2003: 10), “the
conventions of a category or genre” (Rao, Monin & Durand, 2005: 969), “the criteria for group
membership” (Jimenez, 2008: 1530), or, simply put, “is true to its associated type or category or
genre” (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009: 257). At the same time, however, some scholars have
emphasized the perceptions of external audiences whereas others have focused more on an
entity’s active and agentic engagement with the category, often in attempts to reshape the
boundaries of it (for discussions of this distinction beyond the scope of authenticity, see Hannan
et al., 2007; Hsu, Hannan & Kocak, 2009); we discuss each in turn.
Category Membership. Research within this theme emphasizes the role of audiences in
defining the boundaries of social categories and determining membership within them. Scholars
Page 31 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 32 of 97
here operate according to “the classical sociological notion that social identity is granted by
external agents” and that “audience members grant a producer’s membership in a category” (Hsu
et al., 2009: 152). As such, it is audiences who determine whether or not an entity is authentic
(see McKendrick & Hannan, 2014). Empirical studies generally focus on the range of rewards
conferred upon entities that audiences deem authentic. Various types of audience members play a
role in defining categories and determining membership within them (see Pontikes, 2012).
Audience members such as consumers use categories as a way to locate and evaluate
authenticity. One way they do so is through public discourse; for example, several sets of studies
have used text analysis to show that consumers rely on authenticity-laden language on online
review websites to evaluate the authenticity of producer organizations and communicate this
information to others (Frake, 2017; Kovács
et al., 2014; Verhaal et al., 2015). Enthusiasts tend to
play a particularly powerful role in determining the extent to which producers conform to a given
category as well as the appeal of the category itself (McKendrick & Hannan, 2014). Consumers
also tend to make assessments about conformity to categories on the basis of visible features that
are closely associated with category membership, such as particular production methods
(Beverland, 2009; Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000; Hirsch & Tene, 2013). Finally, membership in
multiple categories generally reduces perceptions of authenticity (Kovács
et al., 2014; see also
studies on the topic of stereotypes, e.g., Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2010). Indeed, it is clear that
consumers play a central role in determining whether or not entities are authentic by assessing
their fit within existing and generally-accepted social categories and, in doing so, shaping the
evolution of those categories over time.
Audience members such as critics, regulators, and even professional associations tend to
take a more active role by using categories to control the criteria for authenticity attributions. For
Page 32 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 33 of 97
example, Glynn and Lounsbury (2005: 1031) provide evidence from reviews of symphonic
orchestra performances of how critics serve as “gatekeepers for the authenticity of cultural
genres” by patrolling the boundaries that define the category. As one would expect, the power of
critics in policing authenticity is especially high in cultural fields where critics are able to define
the identity of producers, such as labeling some as “self-taught” (Fine, 2004) or even others
along racial lines (Anthony, 2012; Grazian, 2003); critics have also been shown to play a similar
role in related domains such as dining (Rao et al., 2005) and wine (Beverland, 2005; Voronov et
al., 2013), among others. Similarly, regulators sometimes play an active role in determining
whether or not an entity is an authentic member of particular categories by establishing such
rules as those concerning the production of foie gras (DeSoucey, 2010) or the origins of
ingredients for champagne (Guy, 2003). Professional associations frequently take on comparable
roles (Frake, 2017; Verhaal, Hoskins, & Lundmark, 2017). In short, “there is a cycle of
authentication involving everyone active in the field” (Peterson, 2005: 1091) as a range of
audience members play a role not just in determining whether an entity is authentic, but also in
defining the criteria used to make such judgments.
Both types of audiences tend to reward entities that are deemed authentic due to category
membership. Of course, sociologists have long studied audience reactions to organizational
membership in single as well as multiple categories (e.g., Hsu, 2006). To the extent that such
assessments of membership are associated with authenticity, consumers tend to reward entities
with higher ratings (Frake, 2017; Kovács
et al., 2014; Lehman, Kovács, & Carroll, 2014; Verhaal
et al., 2015), greater willingness to pay (O’Connor, Carroll & Kovács, 2017), increased sales
(Beverland, 2005; McKendrick & Hannan, 2014) and the like. Consistent with these findings,
critics, regulators, and professional associations bestow upon authentic entities greater legitimacy
Page 33 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 34 of 97
among other rewards (Anthony, 2012; DeSoucey, 2010; Frake, 2017; Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005;
Guy, 2003; Verhaal et al., 2017). Some research points to the idea that such rewards may depend
on which category is in question. Several studies on cultural consumption suggest that audiences
may be especially inclined to reward authentic entities if the category in question is exotic
(Johnston & Baumann, 2007; Zukin, Lindeman & Hurson, 2017) or even “lowbrow” (Fine,
2004; Hahl et al., 2017). In addition, some audience members may be more (or less) inclined
than others to reward category membership (Goldberg, Hannan & Kovács, 2016). In general,
however, audiences tend to reward entities deemed authentic due to category membership.
In sum, research within this theme has emphasized the role of audiences in defining the
boundaries of social categories and determining membership within them. In doing so, it has
tended to focus on the roles of consumers on the one hand, and critics, regulators, and
professional associations on the other hand. In addition, it has emphasized the various rewards
that an entity stands to gain from authenticity. In general, the criteria for category membership is
assumed to remain relatively stable over time and the role of audiences is to determine whether
or not entities fit within the boundaries of existing categories. Even though scholars have
examined how debates about category membership are resolved and which logics apply in
making authenticity attributions (e.g., Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005), the dominant focus is on
whether and how organizations conform to existing categories from the viewpoint of audiences.
Category Reinterpretation. Research within this theme emphasizes the entity’s active
and agentic engagement with a category and its boundaries. In other words, scholars within this
theme assume that entities must devote a finite set of resources to “learning about the preferences
of the audience for each category, tailoring the offering to those tastes, and developing
authenticity” (Hsu et al., 2009: 155). These scholars tend to assume that social categories and the
Page 34 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 35 of 97
categories that define them are in “continual flux” (Lu & Fine, 1995: 538); accordingly, entities
engage in “authenticity work” to situate themselves within those categories and, importantly, to
redefine the boundaries of them in order to make authenticity claims. As such, many of these
scholars suggest that authenticity can ironically be “manufactured” (Jones, Anand & Alvarez,
2005) or even “fabricated” (Peterson, 1997).
Entities actively engage with a category and its boundaries in pursuit of authenticity in
various ways. For example, Rao and colleagues (2005: 972) showed how French chefs borrowed
from opposing categories of classical and nouvelle cuisine to effectively redraw the boundaries
of the culinary categories; importantly, they found that “high-status actors…can innovate
through cross-category borrowing and still be protected against accusations that they are not
authentic.” Weber and colleagues (2008) showed how small-scale farmers and other producers
engaged directly with audiences in order to form a grassroots movement, creating a new category
for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Harrison and Corley (2011) offer a unique perspective on
category reinterpretation; that is, a producer might “cultivate” the broader culture by exporting
cultural materials in an attempt to align the category with itself. In each case, “producers are not
subservient to critics but, instead, redefine boundaries for the critics to recognize” (Rao et al.,
2005: 989). In other words, the producer engages with the category and various audiences in
deliberate ways so as to achieve or even create authenticity.
Entities are especially inclined to engage in category reinterpretation under particular
conditions. In their study of Italian winemakers, Negro and colleagues (2011: 1460) suggest that
entities tend to actively engage in efforts to reinterpret category boundaries when there exists
“competing views of authenticity based on differing interpretations of categorical schemas.”
Similarly, Grazian’s (2003) ethnography of Chicago blues clubs showed how existing members
Page 35 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 36 of 97
of a category seek to (re)define its boundaries at the exclusion of new entrants to it. Others
suggest that entities tend to engage in category reinterpretation as a way to manage the tensions
created by membership within multiple categories at the same time (e.g., Archer, 2012; Jimenez,
2008). Taken together, entities appear to pursue authenticity via category reinterpretation when
the category or their position within it is threatened or otherwise at risk.
In sum, research within this theme has emphasized the role of entities in reinterpreting
the boundaries of social categories in pursuit of authenticity. Studies within this theme generally
agree that entities stand to benefit from being deemed authentic. However, the emphasis here is
primarily on the agentic pursuit and claims of authenticity; the rewards of authenticity are
generally regarded as a taken-for-granted assumption. Somewhat contrary to the studies in the
previous theme, categories are treated here more as evolving over time. When tensions arise,
producers exert their own influence to create and shape boundary definitions. The result, then, is
that authenticity is not just a question of whether or not an entity belongs to an existing category
or which logic is employed, but also about understanding the evolution of categories themselves.
Summary
Authenticity has been conceptualized here as conformity of an entity to the social
category to which it has been assigned or that it has claimed for itself. Some scholars have
emphasized the role of external audiences whereas others have emphasized the role of entities
themselves. Of course, the two themes are by no means mutually exclusive; indeed, several
studies suggest that both audiences and entities play an active – and often joint – role in
determining who is authentic and who is not (e.g., Beverland, 2005; Peterson, 2005). However,
we contend that the distinction is conceptually useful here given its application to other work on
institutional categories beyond the scope of authenticity (e.g., Hannan et al., 2007; Hsu et al.,
Page 36 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 37 of 97
2009). Regardless of the emphasis or entity of interest, the referent in any case is the social
category. That is, does the entity adhere to the norms and expectations of its category? Scholars
who have adopted this meaning of authenticity have tended to remain close to its theoretical
foundations, studying organizations or other producers; and, when studying other entities, they
tend to do so through an organizational lens. Particularly interesting is the tension about the
temporal nature of authenticity that is highlighted once again by the two research themes
discussed above. Entities operate within the context of existing categories and audiences make
authenticity attributions on the basis of conformity to norms and expectations inherent in those
categories. At the same time, the boundaries of those categories change over time and entities
may play an active role in the process. Once again, extant research points to interesting questions
about the temporal nature of authenticity but is unable as of yet to offer many solid answers. We
suggest that the conceptualization of authenticity as conformity could thus also be strengthened
through a richer consideration of how categories emerge and evolve over time.
AUTHENTICITY AS CONNECTION
Meaning of Authenticity
According to this third meaning, an entity is authentic to the extent that it is connected to
a person, place, or time as claimed. Returning one more time to the questions posed earlier,
concerns about the authenticity of your favorite pair of Levi’s jeans (Newman & Dhar, 2014) or
of Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre (Grayson & Martinec, 2004) would both be invoking this
interpretation of authenticity. If your evaluation of Waylon Jennings is based on whether or not
his live performances were accurate portrayals of his original recordings (Peterson, 1997), then
it, too, would be invoking this meaning, as would a debate about whether or not he indeed played
a particular guitar in question or about whether or not he was born on a small farm in rural Texas
Page 37 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 38 of 97
as claimed. In short, the referent at the root of an authenticity attribution according to this
meaning can also be found outside of the entity but, here, is a specific person, place, or time: Is
the entity connected to it as claimed?
Theoretical Foundations
This third meaning is rooted in work on both psychological essentialism (e.g., Gelman,
2003; Medin & Ortony, 1989) and semiotics (e.g., Baudrillard, 1983; Mick, 1986; Peirce, 1940).
Scholars have drawn on both of these foundations, often in tandem, to conceptualize authenticity
as connection. We offer a brief overview of each.
Psychological Essentialism. Accounts of psychological essentialism date back at least to
Plato’s allegory of the cave as well as later work by John Locke and other Enlightenment
thinkers on human understanding (see Gelman, 2004; Medin & Ortony, 1989). The main
argument is that certain entities contain an “essence” or a quality that audiences cannot directly
observe (Gelman, 2003). Stemming from related research on concepts and categories outlined
above, much of this work treats the notion of essentialism as part of a larger study of how the
human mind organizes and makes sense of the world, often through the lens of linguistics and
psychological development. Essentialist scholars make a notable distinction that the question of
essence is not simply a metaphysical one (i.e., it is not “out there” somewhere in physical reality)
but, rather, one of psychological representation (i.e. it is how individuals represent in their own
minds the physical world around them), something that even young children can distinguish
(Bloom, 2000; Flavell, Flavell, & Green, 1983). Importantly, not only is an entity’s essence
nonvisible, inherent, and difficult to remove, it can be passed from one entity to another without
diminishing it (Gelman, 2003). As such, individuals tend to psychologically represent nonvisible
concepts through the process of contagion. Consider, for example, a sweater worn by Hitler or a
Page 38 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 39 of 97
faux-pearl necklace once belonging to Jaqueline Onassis (Rozin & Nemeroff, 1990). “One does
not become Hitler by wearing his sweater; one does not become Jackie O. by wearing her pearls.
Rather, you possess a bit of their being” (Gelman, 2003: 307; emphasis in original), perhaps like
carrying strands of hair in a locket, or keeping fragments of saints’ bones. Such matters of
essence and contagion are foundational for the notion of authenticity as connection.
Semiotics. In line with the work in psychology outlined above, work in philosophy on
semiotics addresses how reality acquires meaning through symbols, such as words, signs,
gestures, and the like (see Baudrillard, 1983; Mick, 1986). For instance, semiotic analysis might
ask how the faux pearls worn by Jaqueline Onassis produce meaning related to and
representative of the First Lady. Following Hippocrates’ understanding of symptoms as signs or
signals about unobservable physical and mental states, recent work has focused on the process of
creating meaning through linking signs with concepts. One type of link is an “indexical”
relationship in which an object has a physical spatiotemporal connection to something specific in
the real world (Peirce, 1940). Similar to the notions of essence and contagion, indices might refer
to Jackie O’s pearls, a coin minted during the French revolution, or a ticket stub from the
Beatles’ first concert. A second type of link is that of an “iconic” relationship (Peirce, 1940);
unlike a factual connection to a person, place, or time, an icon produces analogous experiences
such that “the sensation we get from perceiving the sign is similar to the sensation we get when
perceiving the object” (Grayson & Shulman, 2000: 18). Thus, an “iconic sign relates to its object
insofar as it imitates or resembles the object” such as “an actor portraying Benjamin Franklin”
(Mick, 1986: 199), modern reproductions of Jackie O’s pearls, a replica coin made to resemble
one from the French revolution, or a reprint of one of the Beatles’ first concert tickets. Both
types of linkages are also pertinent to understanding authenticity as connection.
Page 39 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 40 of 97
Current Research Themes
Our review revealed three general research themes that have adopted the perspective of
authenticity as connection. In line with the theoretical foundations out of which these themes
have emerged, the primary focus of study has been on the authenticity of objects even though
other entities have also been considered. The common thread is a concern with a connection to a
person, place, or time as claimed. However, each of the three themes outlined below emphasizes
different types of connections that might be associated with an attribution of authenticity.
Provenance. Research within this first theme emphasizes physical spatiotemporal
connections to the source of an entity. Various scholars have assigned different labels and
definitions for authenticity that reflect this focus. Perhaps the most commonly used label is that
of “nominal authenticity” in the evaluation of artwork, which is defined as “the correct
identification of the origin, authorship or provenance of an object” (Dutton, 2003: 259). For
example, nominal authenticity distinguishes a painting that was actually created by Picasso
versus one that was not (see also Trilling, 1972). Similarly, the notion of “indexical authenticity”
builds directly on Peirce’s (1940) foundational work and concerns indices or cues embedded
within an entity that have “a factual and spatiotemporal link with something else” (Grayson &
Martinec, 2004: 298), which, in many cases, is the author or source of the entity. The notion of
“pure authenticity” (also referred to as “literal authenticity”) also points to the importance of
indexical cues and is similarly concerned with “unbroken” links to a place of origin (Beverland,
Lindgreen & Vink, 2008). In each of these cases, an authenticity attribution arises out of a
perceived – and often objectively verifiable – spatiotemporal connection to the source of the
entity. Studies generally show that such attributions result in higher valuations and appeal;
however, this value might arise through different mechanisms.
Page 40 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 41 of 97
One relatively straightforward mechanism through which a connection to the source of an
entity generates value is that of perceived quality. That is, the origin of an object provides a
signal about its quality or market value. For example, an authentic Picasso painting is valued
more highly because it would be considered of higher quality and, therefore, worth more on the
market than a forgery (Frazier et al., 2009). Of course, students of aesthetics raise interesting
questions about how much of the painting had to be completed by the artist himself for it to be
considered authentic (Baugh, 1988; Becker, 1982; Benjamin, 1968); nevertheless, a connection
to the producer is generally associated with higher quality and, therefore, value. The same is true
not only of one-of-a-kind objects such as artworks, but consumer goods as well. For example,
physical spatiotemporal links to production (Newman & Dhar, 2014) and geographic (van
Ittersum & Wong, 2010; see also Bilkey & Nes, 1982) sources of origin have been shown to
produce higher perceptions of quality. Alternatively, counterfeits are typically viewed as being of
inferior quality because they lack such connections (Qian, 2014; Qian, Gong, & Chen, 2015).
A second mechanism through which a connection to the source of an object might
generate value is that of contagion. Studies on the contagion of authenticity draw on the
foundations of psychological essentialism outlined above to show that objects perceived as
authentic generate value not because they are of higher quality, per se, but, rather, because they
contain the “essence” of their source (Newman, 2016). For example, the value of handmade
objects comes from the fact that such objects contain “love” (Fuchs, Schreier & Stijn, 2015: 98),
the “face” or personality of the craftsperson (Johnston & Baumann, 2007: 184), or some other
form of essence from the producer (Carfagna, Dubois & Fitzmaurice, 2014; West, 2010).
Interestingly, the extent to which individuals believe an object contains the essence of its
producer appears to vary depending on spatiotemporal proximity (Newman, Diesendruck &
Page 41 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 42 of 97
Bloom, 2011). As such, objects produced in an original factory (Newman & Dhar, 2014), those
that are originals rather than perfect duplicates (Newman & Bloom, 2012), and those with lower
serial numbers in limited edition sets (Smith, Newman & Dhar, 2016) all tend to be considered
more authentic because they are “closer to the creator” and, therefore, contain more of the
essence of that creator. Taking this one step further, to the extent that the producer has creative
control over the production process, objects are also perceived to contain more of the essence of
the producer (Valsesia, Nunes & Ordanini, 2016).
In sum, research within this theme has shown that entities are considered authentic to the
extent that a physical spatiotemporal connection can be drawn to their origins. Authenticity may
be valued on the basis of perceived quality or the belief that the object contains the essence of its
producer. Of course, both mechanisms might jointly occur, and the extent to which one operates
over the other may vary across individuals (Fuchs et al., 2015; Newman & Dhar, 2014).
Nevertheless, individuals across cultural contexts appear to consider objects more authentic to
the extent that they can verify connections to their source (Frazier et al., 2009). Interestingly, this
notion of contagion might help explain why some people believe they can achieve “authenticity
by appreciation” (Hahl et al., 2017); if the essence of a producer is inherent in an object then, by
extension, that essence might transfer to the owner of that object.
Transference. Research within this second theme focuses not on the source of an entity
but, instead, on connections to other people, places, or times that might engender value. For
example, the label of “objective authenticity” in the domain of tourism is used to describe
whether or not an item in question has a particular, verifiable history (Wang, 1999). The notion
of “indexical authenticity” would also apply here in cases where the point of connection is not
the source of origin but a physical spatiotemporal link is still at the heart of the matter (Grayson
Page 42 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 43 of 97
& Martinec, 2004). Most studies here, too, show that such attributions of authenticity result in
higher valuations and appeal. However, the types of objects considered and the mechanism
through which value is generated is different.
Studies within this theme tend to focus not on artistic creations or one-of-a-kind objects
but, instead, on everyday objects that have been “‘contaminated’ via physical contact” and are,
therefore, “‘layered’ with distinctive meanings” (Grayson & Shulman, 2000: 17). As such,
objects are authentic in that they provide “perceived evidence” (Grayson & Martinec, 2004: 302)
that the person, place, or time to which an object is connected indeed exists. For example, an
article of clothing worn by a celebrity might be valuable to her fans because the item provides
evidence of a connection to that individual (Newman et al., 2011; see also O’Guinn, 1991). The
celebrity did not produce the item but a physical spatiotemporal connection between it and the
celebrity warrants an attribution of authenticity. Scholars have studied the authenticity of objects
as significant as an individual’s birthplace (Grayson & Martinec, 2004) or family heirlooms
(Frazier et al., 2009; Ture & Ger, 2016) and as seemingly insignificant as a ticket stub (Grayson
& Shulman, 2000), among others.
In short, the findings from this set of studies suggests that any object, regardless of its
origins, can be deemed authentic if it has a meaningful physical spatiotemporal connection with
a person, place, or time of significance. The distinction between the previous theme and the
current one is a subtle but important one. Whereas research within the former would suggest that
an object “is” authentic by virtue of its origins, research here would suggest that an object can
“become” authentic via a connection, even if the connection arises long after its creation. This
distinction again points to interesting questions about the temporal nature of authenticity.
Page 43 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 44 of 97
Symbolism. Research within this third theme is not concerned with physical
spatiotemporal connections but is focused, instead, on how entities exhibit symbolic connections
that produce an attribution of authenticity. Nevertheless, the referent is still a particular person,
place, or time of interest. Scholars have used a range of labels to capture similar interpretations
of the construct. For example, the notion of “expressive authenticity” has been used to contrast
nominal authenticity in the domain of art, and refers to whether “an object’s character [is] a true
expression of an individual’s or a society’s values and beliefs” (Dutton, 2003: 259). Expressive
authenticity distinguishes whether or not a contemporary artistic production instances its topic
work or, similarly, whether a recording accurately represents the live performance it is made to
simulate (Davies, 2001); in either case, the question of authenticity is a matter of capturing the
symbolic aims of the original rather than of accurately determining the origins or authorship.
Similarly, the notion of “iconic authenticity” builds directly on Peirce’s (1940) foundational
work and has been used to contrast indexical authenticity; it refers to something that “resembles”
the real thing (Grayson & Martinec, 2004: 298).
5
The label of “approximate authenticity”
contrasts literal authenticity and refers to “stylized links” to a place or person of origin
(Beverland et al., 2008: 8). Analogous to these notions of authenticity, the label of “authentic
5
The notion of an iconic sign shares etymological roots with that of religious icons, which are objects that resemble
a person of religious significance (in Greek, eikon refers to the “likeness” of a person); similarly, an iconic sign
points to a specific person, place, or time of interest (see Mick, 1986; Peirce, 1940). Iconic authenticity can be
understood in similar terms. Consider, for example, Salvator Mundi, which was purportedly painted by Leonoardo
da Vinci circa 1500 and sold at auction for $450M in 2017. One might conclude that the painting is iconically
authentic inasmuch as it is a credible depiction of the person of Jesus Christ. (By the same token, any one of the
many later versions of the painting might be deemed authentic if it is a credible reproduction of da Vinci’s original.)
At the same time, one might conclude that the painting is indexically authentic to the extent that its authorship can
indeed be attributed to da Vinci, a point of considerable debate. Both are questions of authenticity as connection, but
the former is a matter of symbolism whereas the latter is a matter of provenance. In addition, the painting’s unique
history could point to matters of transference; one might conclude that it is authentic upon verification of its
supposed previous ownership by King Louis XII of France. Of course, an iconic sign could also conform to a
relevant social category; in the present example, one might also consider the painting to be authentic inasmuch as it
conforms to the genre of Renaissance artwork. Yet again, the referent – the to what? – points to the meaning (here,
connection vs. conformity). Relationships between the three meanings are discussed in the next section.
Page 44 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 45 of 97
reproduction” has been used to refer to “credible” representations of original events or
performances (Peterson, 1997: 208). In each of these cases, an entity is authentic to the extent
that it reproduces a “symbolized and remembered” past (Howard-Grenville et al., 2013: 119).
Research within this theme has typically focused on reproductions of objects or spaces, on the
one hand, or performances or processes, on the other hand. We discuss each in turn.
First, several studies have focused on objects or spaces that are deemed authentic on the
basis of a symbolic connection. For example, a restored vintage automobile might be deemed
authentic if it possesses the vehicle’s original qualities, even if many of its parts are in fact new
(Leigh et al., 2006).
6
Similarly, individuals use “contagious and imitative magic” to view
replicas as authentic objects (Fernandez & Lastovicka, 2011: 278) or retro products as having an
“aura” of authenticity (Hollenbeck, Peters & Zinkhan, 2008: 344). Particularly interesting is that
objects and physical sites can apparently be deemed authentic on the basis of symbolic
connections even to fictional people (Grayson & Martinec, 2004) or places (Jones & Smith,
2005). Of course, attributions of authenticity tend to be enhanced to the extent that such
symbolic connections – to fictional or nonfictional points of interest – are precise (Johnston &
Baumann, 2007). In each of these examples, objects are accepted as “symbols of authenticity”
(Hahl, 2016: 933) because they signal or point to an original, even if it is commonly known that
the object at hand is indeed not the original.
Second, several studies have focused on performances or processes. Scholars interested
in the authenticity of artistic performances, ranging from the musical (e.g., Davies, 2001) to the
culinary arts (e.g., Fine, 1996) remind us that all performances, even those by the artist herself,
6
Such examples point to classic philosophical questions. For example, Plutarch famously perplexed his students
with Theseus’s Paradox: If a ship is restored by replacing all of its parts, is it still the same ship? Thomas Hobbes
and John Locke posed similar puzzles. Perhaps most germane to the discussion here is that the Ship of Theseus
could be considered “indexically authentic” as an original piece but then “iconically authentic” as a restored or
reproduced piece.
Page 45 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 46 of 97
are, in a sense, reproductions. However, they are authentic to the extent that they are “credible”
or “believable” reproductions (Bruner, 1994; Peterson, 1997). Similarly, organizational
processes that harken back to its own past are authentic for the same reasons (Beverland et al.,
2008; Hatch & Schultz, 2017). Scholars interested in tourism would offer similar insights.
MacCannell (1973) even invoked Goffman’s (1959) metaphor of the theater to suggest that most
tourist experiences involve “staged authenticity”. In other words, “tourism addresses a tension
between space and time as avenues for accessing the past” (Reynolds, 2016: 346). Nevertheless,
even tourist sites (Wright, 2006) and events (Penaloza, 2000; Rahman & Lockwood, 2011) are
frequently considered authentic by audiences to the extent that they are credible or believable
reproductions of the past. Of course, some offer a more cynical view, noting that tourism
“consumes and destroys the very object it searches for” (Howard, 2016: 368). Finally, it is worth
noting that even discussions of ethnographic reports employ a similar notion of authenticity in
that such scholars are called to “emphasize being genuine to the field experience” (Golden-
Biddle & Locke, 1993: 599; see also Maclean, Harvey & Clegg, 2016).
In sum, research within this theme emphasizes symbolic connections that are associated
with attributions of authenticity. Diverging from the work in the previous two themes, studies
here suggest that physical spatiotemporal links are unnecessary for an entity to be deemed
authentic. Instead, individuals “are motivated to focus on those particular cues in objects that for
them convey authenticity” (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010: 838). These studies thus highlight the
ways in which audience members draw symbolic connections in their own ways, thereby
“coproducing” authenticity (see Debenedetti, Oppewal & Arsel, 2014; Rose & Wood, 2005).
Page 46 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 47 of 97
Summary
Authenticity has been conceptualized here as a connection between an entity and a
person, place, or time as claimed. Scholars who have adopted this interpretation have
emphasized different types of connections that might give rise to an authenticity attribution:
provenance, transference, and symbolism. Most of this research has focused on the authenticity
of objects, although some have considered historic sites and processes as well as people.
Regardless of the emphasis or entity of interest, the referent in any case is the point of
connection. Research across the three themes together point to an intriguing tension. On the one
hand, authenticity as connection tends to be viewed as a matter of “fact” or “evidence” (Grayson
& Martinec, 2004). On the other hand, it is often, in reality, a matter of “stylized versions of real
events” (Beverland, 2005: 1007). As such, the power of authenticity might be most impressive in
its reach within this perspective. Whereas questions of provenance might be the most
straightforward, questions of authenticity become more complex as the spatial or temporal
distance between an entity and its origin grows. Objects that merely come into contact with a
person, place, or time of interest may be enough to evoke attributions of authenticity. Even
reproductions can be enough to prompt such assessments. This tension, then, between factual
evidence and stylized versions of it grows stronger over time, pointing yet again to interesting
questions about the temporal nature of the concept.
TOWARD AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK
In the previous sections, we discussed the three different meanings of authenticity that
emerged from our review: (1) authenticity as consistency between an entity’s external
expressions and its internal values and beliefs; (2) authenticity as conformity to the social
category to which an entity has been assigned or that it has claimed for itself; and, (3)
Page 47 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 48 of 97
authenticity as connection to a particular person, place, or time as claimed. In doing so, we
discussed how the theoretical foundations of each meaning have informed the various research
themes within each perspective. Given that authenticity as consistency has the oldest theoretical
foundations, it is no surprise that it is the predominant perspective within the literature; however,
both of the other perspectives indeed represent large and growing bodies of research on the topic.
We discussed each of these three meanings separately for expositional ease; however, in
reality, scholars frequently borrow from one or more as they seek to define authenticity. For
example, some invoke multiple meanings in a single definition: “For our purposes, authenticity
can be defined as a ‘story that balances industrial…and rhetorical attributes to project sincerity
through the avowal of commitments to traditions, …passion for craft and production excellence,
and the public disavowal of the role of modern industrial attributes and commercial
motivations’” (Beverland, 2005: 1005). In this example, one can see elements of authenticity as
consistency (e.g., “sincerity” and “the public disavowal of…commercial motivations”) and
connection (e.g., “commitments to traditions”); interestingly, this study also refers to the notion
of authenticity as conformity among luxury winemakers who sought to “define the standard for
the category” (p. 1025). Others opt for a more general approach: “Although scholars have
defined different types of authenticity… I adopt the general meaning of the term, which
describes whether an actor is considered genuine and acts in accordance with their true
character” (Frake, 2017: 2). This example seems to be most aligned with authenticity as
consistency; however, this study goes on to assess authenticity as a measure of category fit
within craft beer brewing as defined by The Brewers Association. Others refrain from adopting a
particular meaning of authenticity at all and, instead, rely on text analysis in an effort to “take
consumers’ expressed attributions about authenticity at face value” (Kovács
et al., 2014: 461).
Page 48 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 49 of 97
Yet, even here, the keywords used for the text analysis invoke elements of authenticity as
consistency (e.g., “sincere”), conformity (e.g., “typical”), and connection (e.g., “historical”). Still
others adopt multi-dimensional scales that invoke multiple meanings of the concept (e.g.,
Morhart et al., 2015). These examples, along with many others, highlight the complexity of the
construct and, in many cases, the challenges posed by rich field contexts.
Although scholars frequently draw on and even confound the multiple meanings of
authenticity, we contend that these meanings are indeed conceptually distinct and these
distinctions are critical for understanding the complexity of the concept. Accordingly, we offer a
discussion of key similarities and differences across the three meanings followed by a brief
discussion of a few particular patterns regarding how the three meanings are interrelated.
Similarities Across Meanings
We began by suggesting that there appears on the surface to be widespread agreement
about the meaning of authenticity; it refers to that which is “real” or “genuine” or “true”. Indeed,
all three interpretations would agree with such general labels. As such, it is worthwhile to
highlight some of the key similarities across the three meanings.
Authenticity references the intangible. All questions of authenticity involve a
verification process that asks whether an entity aligns with a specific referent, revealing whether
a person is consistent with her true self, whether a producer conforms to its social category, or
whether an object connects to a specific person, place, or time. When we consider these three
perspectives, a pattern emerges: the referent – the to what? – is most often intangible even if
authenticity attributions rely on tangible cues. Indeed, questions of authenticity as consistency
pertain to one’s true self, which has been interpreted primarily as something that is “invisible”
(Strohminger et al., 2017: 553), “private” (Kernis & Goldman, 2003: 302), “hidden” (Martinez et
Page 49 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 50 of 97
al., 2017: 216), “unobservable” (Humphrey et al., 2015: 751) “secret” (Slepian, Chun, & Mason,
2017: 2), and even “tucked away” (Roberts, 2005: 696). In short, the back stage is unseen by and
inaccessible to audiences outside oneself; others must, therefore, rely on tangible cues from the
front stage to make judgments about the intangible back stage (Goffman, 1959). Similarly,
questions of authenticity as conformity depend on social codes and institutional logics, most of
which “refer to higher order belief systems that shape cognition and action” (Glynn &
Lounsbury, 2005: 1032). A producer’s authenticity depends on whether it conforms to a social
category yet those classification structures are themselves intangible, leaving audiences to rely
on tangible representations that may signal individual components within those larger categories.
Although producers might strategically display some of the features that are associated with a
given a category (Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000; Carroll & Wheaton, 2009), ultimately, the
category itself is inherently intangible (DiMaggio 1987; Hollenbeck et al., 2008: 352). Last,
questions of authenticity as connection refer to a particular person, place, or time, all of which
are often intangible. Of course, some individuals have seen the moon from which a moon rock
was taken (Frazier et al., 2009), witnessed Barry Manilow wearing his glove in concert (Grayson
& Martinec, 2004), or enjoyed the original performance of a classical orchestra piece (Davies,
2001); however, most have not. Instead, the referent is most often intangible and individuals
must rely on other tangible cues such as photographs or stories in order to verify authenticity
claims. Even in those cases where the referent is tangible, its tangibility is limited in time and
space. Importantly, that which accords value via authenticity as connection is also by definition
intangible: an essence, or that “nonvisible part, substance, or quality in each individual”
(Gelman, 2003: 306). Such essences “are frequently discussed as unobservable conceptual
placeholders” (Newman, 2016: 295) that “rather than observable properties, [are] the primary
Page 50 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 51 of 97
source of value” (p. 299). Because questions of authenticity across the three meanings reference
that which is intangible, an intriguing tension arises: audiences often place tremendous value on
authenticity while, at the same time, they often lack sufficient access to distinguish the sincere
from phony, the authentic from inauthentic, and the real from fake. Precisely what is intangible is
what is needed to determine authenticity.
Authenticity attributions involve a threshold. A second similarity across the three
meanings is that questions of authenticity involve both dichotomous and continuous judgments.
Linguistically, scholars and laypersons alike treat authenticity as a binary dimension: an entity is
either authentic or it is not. This treatment is consistent across the three meanings: people are
deemed as either “living as an authentic person” or a “fraud” (Martinez et al., 2017: 218);
producers are either in a category or they are not (Frake, 2017); and, objects are either “real” or
“counterfeit” (Qian, 2014). Entities are rarely, if ever, expressed with any linguistic qualifier;
scholars and laypersons alike generally do not refer to people as “kind of authentic,” producers
as “sort of phony,” or objects as “somewhat counterfeit”. Yet individuals appear to be sensitive
to gradations of authenticity even if attributions are not expressed with such language. Relative
distinctions in authenticity are made between different leaders (Walumbwa et al., 2008) or
brands (Morhart et al., 2015). Producers represent to greater or lesser degrees the category to
which they belong (Kovács & Johnson, 2014). Objects are deemed more or less authentic to the
extent that they are spatiotemporally proximal to their creator (Smith et al., 2016). It seems that
authenticity is, therefore, “not an all or nothing distinction but a matter of degree” (Cooper et al.,
2005: 490). Even though it is discussed in dichotomous terms, individuals appear to be sensitive
to gradations, thereby responding to it in more continuous terms. Taken together, we suggest that
authenticity attributions according to any of the three meanings involve a threshold. Individuals
Page 51 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 52 of 97
appear to act on authenticity as if it were continuous but talk about it as if it is dichotomous,
reserving the label of “authentic” for instances when some threshold has been met.
Authenticity is highly valued. Across all three meanings, it is exceedingly clear that
“authenticity is an overwhelmingly positive trait in our culture” (Johnston & Baumann, 2007:
179). Indeed, individuals tend to believe that there is a moral quality to being authentic (Grauel,
2016). Authenticity attributions tend to produce a range of positive outcomes, whether
authenticity is conceptualized as consistency, conformity, or connection. Of course, the value
that is derived from authenticity depends on the appeal of the referent at play. For example,
leaders who are true to themselves tend to elicit greater employee effort and promote
organizational performance; however, these outcomes are contingent upon the appeal of the
leader’s values (Cha & Edmondson, 2006). Diners rate more highly those eateries that fit clearly
within their cuisine category; however, these ratings are predicated on the appeal of the cuisine
(Kovács et al., 2014). Individuals are willing to pay more for political posters with earlier serial
numbers; however, these effects are moderated by the appeal of the politician (Smith et al.,
2016). In short, the value generated by authenticity according to any of the three meanings
depends on the extent to which the referent at play carries appeal. Yet, when it does, the power
of authenticity might be so great that it can even compensate for an entity’s other shortcomings
(e.g., Lehman et al., 2014). Of course, inauthenticity may counterintuitively lead to positive
outcomes on occasion such as helping (Gino et al., 2015) or increases in sales of genuine
products (Qian, 2014). Notwithstanding, the unequivocal conclusion across all three meanings is
that authenticity is a good thing – so long as the referent carries appeal.
Page 52 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 53 of 97
Differences Across Meanings
As outlined above, the three meanings of authenticity share several key similarities. At
the same time, a few notable differences point to the important conceptual distinctions
underlying the three meanings.
Authenticity implies uniqueness or sameness vis-à-vis others. As discussed above,
authenticity according to each of the perspectives references the intangible. Different across the
three meanings, however, are underlying assumptions about what alignment with these
intangible referents entails for entities vis-à-vis others. In some cases, an attribution of
authenticity implies that the entity is different from others. In other cases, an attribution of
authenticity implies that the entity is similar to others.
On the one hand, authenticity as consistency implies uniqueness. For individuals and
organizations alike, authenticity involves the sincere expression of the backstage. An underlying
assumption is that an individual’s “true self provides each person with a unique life philosophy”
(Schlegel et al., 2009: 474); in other words, each person’s back stage is inherently distinctive
(Cable et al., 2013). This same assumption applies to organizations and brands as they are
personified and authenticity thus entails a “unique brand identity” (Beverland, 2005: 1003);
indeed, the notions of uniqueness and authenticity are frequently used interchangeably (see
Cattani et al., 2017; Hatch & Schultz, 2017; also see Carroll & Wheaton, 2009). Authenticity as
consistency thus implies uniqueness in that there can only be one authentic X.
On the other hand, authenticity as conformity implies sameness. According to this
perspective, authenticity demands that one “adheres to conventions associated with the genre”
(Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005: 1046). Authentic entities will thus display “features that are
considered typical of [their] category” (Negro et al., 2001: 1449) thereby becoming “idealized
Page 53 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 54 of 97
representations” of it (Grazian, 2003: 10). As such, entities that are similar to others in the same
category will be deemed authentic whereas those that are dissimilar or even span multiple
categories will be deemed inauthentic (Kovács et al., 2014). Authenticity as conformity thus
implies sameness in that any entity can be an authentic X so long as “it is an instance or member
of the class of Xs” (Davies, 2001: 203).
Authenticity as connection often implies a balance between uniqueness and sameness. Of
course, many questions of provenance pertain to one-of-a-kind creations (e.g., Newman &
Bloom, 2012) and many questions of transference to irreplaceable possessions (e.g., Grayson &
Shulman, 2000; Newman et al., 2011); such questions imply uniqueness. Yet, many other
questions of provenance pertain to mass-produced consumer goods (e.g., Newman & Dhar,
2014) and many other questions of transference pertain to objects that are one of many linked to
the same person, place, or time (e.g., Ture & Ger, 2016; Wang, 1999). Similarly, questions of
symbolism pertain to “authentic reproductions” (Peterson, 1997: 208) that merely “resemble” an
original (Grayson & Martinec, 2004: 298). In such cases, authenticity as connection implies a
balance in that an entity is authentic to the extent that it is the same as other entities that share a
common point of origin or interest and, at the same time, a certain level of uniqueness in that
these points of connection distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic.
In sum, research across the three meanings of authenticity point to different assumptions
about how an authentic entity compares to others. Entities might be deemed authentic on the
basis of being uniquely themselves, of sharing features common to other category members, or
of balancing this tension. Of course, uniqueness and sameness are matters of degree.
Nevertheless, this difference highlights that an entity’s authenticity hinges on which meaning is
invoked and the underlying assumptions of uniqueness or sameness implied by it.
Page 54 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 55 of 97
Authenticity attributions are based on subjective or objective assessments. As
discussed above, authenticity attributions according to each of the perspectives involve a
threshold. Different across the three meanings, however, are implicit assumptions about the
interpretive nature of the concept. In some cases, whether an entity is authentic or not is a
question to which a correct answer does not necessarily exist. In other cases, it is a question that
can be answered based on factual evidence.
At one end of this spectrum, authenticity as consistency is conceptualized in subjective
terms. Some scholars have even used the label of “subjective authenticity” (e.g., Fleeson & Wilt,
2010; Kogan et al., 2010). Others describe authenticity as a “feeling” (e.g., Gan & Chen, 2017;
Gino et al., 2015; Gino et al., 2010; Lenton et al., 2013; Schlegel et al., 2011), highlighting the
“twin constructs of emotion and authenticity” (Howard-Grenville et al., 2013: 119; see also
Hatch & Schultz, 2017). Of course, this subjective nature of the concept is consistent with the
private nature of the back stage to which access is controlled and limited (Goffman, 1959). In
short, authenticity as consistency is conceptualized in relatively subjective terms.
At the other end of this spectrum, authenticity as connection is conceptualized in more
objective terms. As noted earlier, some scholars have used the label of “objective authenticity”
(e.g., Wang, 1999) and others have used similar language about “knowable facts” (O’Connor et
al., 2017: 2), treating authenticity as “a verifiable link between the product and past traditions”
(Beverland et al., 2008: 8) or “an objectively measurable quality” (Morhart et al., 2015: 201).
Similarly, the inauthenticity of counterfeits can often be detected on the basis of particular
qualities that can be seen or experienced (Qian, 2014). Authenticity as connection is, therefore,
conceptualized in relatively objective terms.
Page 55 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 56 of 97
Finally, authenticity as conformity is conceptualized in the middle of the spectrum. What
is deemed authentic by one might be perceived as fraudulent by another (Peterson, 1997). At the
same time, a consensus about what is authentic or not often emerges in any given cultural
context even though disagreements from one person to the next can and do exist (Kovács
et al.,
2014). Moreover, audiences often point to objective attributes as necessary but not sufficient
criteria for inclusion in what might otherwise be a subjective category, such as geographic
origins (DeSoucey, 2010; Guy, 2003) or production scale (Frake, 2017; Verhaal et al., 2017),
among others. Audiences are consequently able to make decisions about authenticity by looking
to a few objective qualities (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010). Of course, even these objective cues
often shift over time, but they are objective nonetheless. Authenticity as conformity is thus
conceptualized in both subjective and objective terms.
In sum, research across the three meanings of authenticity points to different assumptions
about the interpretive nature of the concept. Of course, objectivity and subjectivity are also
matters of degree. Nevertheless, an appreciation of these differences helps us to further
understand the conceptual distinctions between the three meanings and also points to differences
in the authentication process.
Authenticity relies on lay judgments or expert evaluations. This third difference
follows from the previous one; because authenticity carries different assumptions about
subjectivity versus objectivity, the authentication process varies across each of the three
meanings. In each case, authentication refers to a verification process and an authenticity
attribution is typically valued as discussed earlier; however, who has the authority or standing to
act as an arbiter of authenticity differs for each of the three meanings.
Page 56 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 57 of 97
For authenticity as consistency, the authentication process relies more heavily on lay
judgments. Authenticity is conceptualized in subjective terms and greater emphasis is placed on
the role of emotions and feelings in making authenticity attributions. Moreover, only one person
has access to each backstage (Goffman, 1959) – the actress herself – and even that access may be
limited at best (Schlegel et al., 2011). Other individuals must rely on cues from the front stage to
make assessments about whether or not a person is authentic. However, no observer is in a better
position than others to make these judgments (with the possible exception of intimate partners;
e.g., Swann et al., 1994). Such assumptions about the authentication process are evident even in
the measures used to assess authenticity; each customer is equally able to make her own
assessment of whether or not a service employee is sincerely offering “service with a smile”
(Grandey et al., 2005); the same is true of followers and leaders (Walumbwa et al., 2008) as well
as consumers and brands (Morhart et al., 2015). Because authenticity attributions rely more
heavily on lay judgments, they often vary from observer to observer as well as over time.
For authenticity as connection, on the other hand, the authentication process relies more
heavily on expert evaluations. Authenticity is conceptualized in objective terms and greater
emphasis is placed on the role of knowable facts. There even often exists a separate marketplace
for the verifiability of those facts, such as art experts (Frazier et al., 2009), museum curators
(Hollenbeck et al., 2008), and historians (Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Reynolds, 2016). In other
cases, groups of individuals opt to develop expertise for the sake of their own consumption;
consider brand communities (Leigh et al., 2006) or even the academic peer review process
(Guetzkow, Lamont & Mallard, 2004). In short, authenticity attributions rely more heavily on the
judgment of experts or those observers who have obtained the knowledge required to make the
Page 57 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 58 of 97
attribution. Here, authenticity attributions tend to change less over time; once an entity is deemed
authentic, it most often remains authentic, at least amongst the same audience.
For authenticity as conformity, the authentication process is more democratic and
negotiated in nature. Authenticity is conceptualized in both subjective and objective terms;
category boundaries are subjective in nature but objective cues are frequently put in place as
necessary, albeit insufficient, criteria for category membership. Disputes about authenticity arise
when observers either disagree with respect to the classification criteria or its application;
however, such disputes are usually resolved and diminish over time as audiences engage with
one another. Yet it is important to note that these processes often involve multiple audience
members, including consumers, both casual (Kovács
et al., 2014) and serious (Frake, 2017;
McKendrick & Hannan, 2014; Verhaal et al., 2017), critics (Anthony & Joshi, 2017; Fine, 2004;
Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005), and regulators (DeSoucey, 2010), not to mention producers
themselves (Negro et al., 2011; Weber et al., 2008). Moreover, the influence of different
audience members in the authentication process changes over time (Peterson, 2005).
Authenticity attributions thus rely on a democratic and negotiated process and, as such, do
sometimes change over time but often in an evolutionary fashion with fits and starts.
In sum, research across the different meanings of authenticity point to different
authentication processes, each of which are related to the respective assumptions about
subjectivity versus objectivity. Importantly, each of the meanings point to different audiences
who have the authority or standing to act as an arbiter of authenticity. Taken together, these
patterns point to important differences in how authenticity attributions come about, who is able
to make them, and how they change over time.
Page 58 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 59 of 97
Relationships Between Meanings
Taking these similarities and differences together, our review revealed a few particular
patterns regarding how the three meanings are related to one another. We briefly discuss these
relationships below and then turn to an agenda for future research directions.
First, authenticity as consistency is often conceptualized as oppositional to the notion of
conformity. As noted above, authenticity as consistency emphasizes “being unique rather than
‘the same’” (Fleming & Sturdy, 2011: 186). Indeed, an underlying assumption is that the back
stage is inherently unique (Schlegel et al., 2009). In order to fit in, “people who alter or mute
their unique values…create a sense of alienation from themselves” (Cable et al., 2013: 6). This
oppositional nature of authenticity as consistency versus conformity is seen in studies of
individuals who sometimes put on the “façade of conformity” (Hewlin, 2003; see also Kyratsis,
Atun, Phillips, Tracey, & George, 2017; Molinsky, 2013; Moore et al., 2017; Yagil & Medler-
Liraz, 2013) or “attempt to fit in by conforming” (Gino et al., 2015: 986) as well as organizations
that strive to balance the “tension between innovation and control” (Rao et al., 2005: 972; see
also Delmestri, Montanari, & Usai, 2005; Harrison & Corley, 2012; Peterson, 1997). Of course,
an entity might be authentic according to both perspectives of consistency and conformity;
however, scholars frequently conceptualize the two as oppositional.
Second, authenticity as conformity is sometimes conceptualized as requiring the notion of
connection. That is, the criteria for category membership relies at times on verifiable links to
people, places, or periods. Even categorical labels frequently borrow from a particular place or
group of people; consider, for example, ethnic cuisines (Johnston & Baumann, 2007; Kovács
et
al., 2014) or genres associated with a national identity (e.g., Delmestri et al., 2005; Lena &
Peterson, 2008). This relationship between authenticity as conformity and connection is most
Page 59 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 60 of 97
evident among studies that focus on producers in cultural domains. For example, to fit in a
particular category of wine, a winery must use ingredients connected to a specific region (Guy,
2003; Negro et al., 2011); similarly, a brewery might be required to employ processes linked to a
specific group of people (Beverland et al., 2008); or, a musician to demonstrate that they have
“real hillbilly roots” (Peterson, 1997: 1095). Authenticity as conformity thus incorporates
elements of connection in some cases.
Third, authenticity as connection may sometimes offer a “window” into authenticity as
consistency. This seems to be particularly true for audiences seeking to assess the authenticity of
producers in cultural domains. As Dutton (2003: 270) puts it: “Establishing nominal authenticity
serves purposes more important than maintaining the market value of an art object. It enables us
to understand the…expression of values, beliefs, and ideas.” In other words, products and
practices deemed authentic on the basis of a connection can sometimes serve as a window into
the alignment of the producer’s front and back stages (e.g., Beverland et al., 2008; Cattani,
Dunbar & Shapira, 2017; Verhaal et al., 2017). Moreover, organizations can highlight evidence
of authenticity as connection in order to offer to audiences a window into their back stage (e.g.,
Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000; Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Howard-Grenville et al., 2013).
Authenticity as connection is, therefore, sometimes able to provide a more objective window into
the more subjective authenticity as consistency.
Finally, authenticity as consistency can be enhanced for individuals via the consumption
of authenticity according to any of the three meanings. This particular relationship is especially
apparent in studies focused on consumers. As noted by many scholars, consumers seek
“authentic cultural resources” (Holt, 2002: 84) in an effort to “reveal or produce the true self”
(Beverland & Farrelly, 2010: 838), and the frequent explanation is that “authenticity is sought
Page 60 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 61 of 97
because authenticity is lacking” (Hahl et al., 2017: 830). Individuals seek to enhance their own
authenticity by consuming authenticity according to any of the three meanings, whether it be in
the form of artwork from “lowbrow” artists who come off as authentic because they are above
economic motivations (Hahl et al., 2017), eateries (Johnston & Baumann, 2007; Lu & Fine,
2004) and musicians (Grazian, 2003) that conform to their genre, or vintage objects restored to
original condition (Leigh et al., 2006). Moreover, this search for authenticity can be triggered by
encounters with inauthenticity (Gino et al., 2010; Hahl, 2016). Individuals thus seek to enhance
their own authenticity via the consumption of authenticity in the world around them.
Taken together, these similarities, differences, and relationships represent an initial step
toward an integrated framework of authenticity. We hope that the present review provides a
useful guide for doing so.
AN AGENDA FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Theoretical Implications
A view of the full body of research on the topic of authenticity offers new insights into
the nature of the concept that are not readily apparent when any one of its meanings is viewed in
isolation. We discuss here two fundamental implications that come out of the review that should
shape future theoretical development.
Authenticity is in the eye of the beholder. Authenticity involves a verification process
about whether or not an entity is real, genuine, or true. At the crux of this review, then, an
authenticity attribution depends on the referent: Is it a real what? Or a genuine what? Or true to
what? An entity might be deemed authentic because it is true to itself, a genuine representation
of its social category, or possesses a real connection to a person, place, or time as claimed.
Importantly, the different meanings of authenticity might point in different directions and lead to
Page 61 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 62 of 97
different conclusions. As such, an entity might simultaneously be deemed authentic by some
observers and inauthentic by others. This might happen in one of two possible ways.
First, different observers might apply different meanings and therefore arrive at different
conclusions. For example, Weber and colleagues (2008) observed that farmers engaged in social
movements for grass-fed beef and dairy were “sincere, transparent, and connected to self” (p.
539) even as they operated outside of “a recognized, distinct, and valued category” (p. 547).
Stated differently, one observer might conclude that these farmers were authentic from the
perspective of consistency even as others might suggest that they were inauthentic from the
perspective of conformity. Peterson (2005: 1095) reports that many country music legends
lauded as authentic were actually “professionally trained performers who took on the guise of a
hillbilly.” In other words, these musicians might be deemed authentic when viewed through the
lens of conformity, even as they might alternatively be viewed as inauthentic for deceiving
audiences about their true selves or lacking any connection to real hillbilly roots. Finally, Dutton
(2003: 258) noted that “a Han van Meegeren forgery of a Vermeer is at one and the same time
both a fake Vermeer and an authentic van Meegeren.” That is, the forged artwork does not have
a physical spatiotemporal connection to Vermeer as claimed; however, even art historians agree
that van Meegeren forgeries adhere to relevant criteria for the genre, not to mention that they are
arguably symbolic representations of Vermeer’s original work. In short, whether or not an entity
is authentic depends on which meaning is invoked by an observer.
Second, different observers might apply the same meaning but still come to different
conclusions. For example, studies of authentic leadership rely exclusively on follower
perceptions of the leader; however, a follower might conclude that a particular leader is authentic
even if the leader might feel like a fraud (Gardner et al., 2009; Humphrey, 2012). The leader and
Page 62 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 63 of 97
follower are both adopting the perspective of authenticity as consistency but are doing so from
different vantage points and thus possibly drawing different conclusions. Critics and consumers
might come to different conclusions about whether or not an artist conforms to its genre (Glynn
& Lounsbury, 2005); both are adopting the perspective of authenticity as conformity but might
be applying different institutional logics to the category. An antiques collector might regard a
teapot as inauthentic upon discovering that it is merely a replica whereas a family member might
consider it an authentic treasure because it is a family heirloom (Grayson & Shulman, 2000; Ture
& Gur, 2016); both are adopting the perspective of authenticity as connection but drawing
different conclusions because one is concerned with provenance and the other with transference.
Whether or not an entity is authentic thus depends also on whose perspective is considered.
In sum, authenticity is in the eye of the beholder. Yet this notion that an entity can
simultaneously be considered authentic by some observers and inauthentic by others is only
apparent when one considers the three different meanings of the concept together. This insight
points to two important questions – a checklist of sorts – that scholars should ask themselves
when developing further theory about authenticity. By doing so, scholars will be able to offer
greater insights into the nature of authenticity and, perhaps, even inauthenticity.
Which meaning is invoked? As noted above, many studies are surprisingly unclear on this
matter. Scholars frequently either invoke multiple meanings at once or a single meaning at the
neglect of others. Such lack of clarity not only creates conceptual confusion and limits the ability
to communicate amongst scholars (Suddaby, 2010), it also limits the ability to theorize with
precision about relationships between authenticity and other constructs (Bacharach, 1989; Sutton
& Staw, 1995). Of course, we acknowledge the need to strike a balance between precision and
abstraction; a construct must be conceptualized narrowly enough so as to be useful for
Page 63 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 64 of 97
communicating and theorizing and, at the same time, broadly enough so as to allow for creativity
and flexibility in the research process (Hirsch & Levin, 1999). Our assessment is that research on
authenticity seems to veer toward both ends of this spectrum without benefiting from such
balance. Some scholars conceptualize it in such broad terms that it is unclear what is being
studied whereas others conceptualize it in such narrow terms that it precludes the discovery of
possible insights related to the other meanings of authenticity. In our view, the three perspectives
of authenticity outlined here provide a framework that allows for a balance between these “large
bucket” and “small bucket” approaches to the conceptualization of constructs (Hirsch & Levin,
1999; also see Suddaby, 2010). Each of the three perspectives is large enough so as to reflect the
complexity and richness of the concept. At the same time, the themes within each perspective
provide smaller buckets that should enable scholars to more precisely theorize about it as well as
possible mediating and moderating mechanisms. We encourage scholars to more clearly
articulate the meaning of authenticity that is being invoked and, as appropriate, situate their
research within or in relation to these themes. The three guiding questions with which we
initially approached this literature review should serve as a useful guide for doing so.
Whose perspective is being considered? With few exceptions, most studies tend to focus
on a single perspective with little consideration given to other possibilities. A lack of clarity
about whose perspective is being considered – and why – limits theorizing or, worse, runs the
risk of omitting an alternative perspective that may be of equal or greater importance. We
encourage scholars to consider two issues when asking this question: relevance and variance.
Regarding relevance, some audiences might have more or less relevance for the authentication
process. This might be particularly true when considering authenticity as conformity where the
authentication process tends to be more democratic and negotiated amongst multiple audiences.
Page 64 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 65 of 97
For example, scholars should consider whether the perspectives of consumers and critics (see
Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005) or different types of consumers (see McKendrick & Hannan, 2014)
would lead to similar or different conclusions for the research question at hand. Regarding
variance, some authenticity judgments might vary widely across individual observers within a
given audience whereas others might vary across audience types. The former might be
particularly true when considering authenticity as consistency where the authentication process
tends to rely more heavily on lay judgments. The latter might be particularly true when
considering authenticity as connection where the authentication process tends to rely more
heavily on expert judgments. The meanings and values attached to authenticity might also vary
widely across geographical regions and cultures, but the literature is curiously silent on this issue
(c.f., Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000; Peus et al., 2015). In sum, we encourage scholars studying
authenticity to consider whose perspective is being considered with respect to both theorizing as
well as empirical study.
Authenticity presents a paradox over time. Labels such as “real” and “genuine” and
“true” seem to imply some level of permanence or stability. Lay beliefs seem to tell us that what
true today should be true tomorrow (see Trilling, 1972). Indeed, research across all three
perspectives suggests that individuals implicitly expect authenticity to remain constant.
However, as highlighted within each of the perspectives, there exists some degree of tension
about the temporal nature of the concept: the true self might be discovered or even created over
time, social categories might evolve over time, and spatiotemporal connections might be
reinterpreted as time goes on. Consequently, attributions of authenticity might change over time
even if an entity itself remains unchanged. This, too, might happen in one of two possible ways.
Page 65 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 66 of 97
First, the same observers might apply different meanings over time. For example, Weber
and colleagues (2008) discuss how the same farmers who were viewed by some as inauthentic
through the lens of conformity came to be viewed as authentic through the lens of consistency;
over time, however, the dominant perspective once again shifted as grass-fed dairy and beef
emerged as its own category, creating a new social code to which they conformed. Alternatively,
Frake (2017) discusses how craft brewers once viewed as authentic through the lens of
conformity came to be viewed as “sell-outs” after being acquired and, therefore, inauthentic as
consumers shifted their perspective to a lens of consistency. (Notably, this study exploits a
natural experiment in online review websites to show that consumers unaware of the acquisition
did not come to apply a different meaning of authenticity, suggesting that the beers in question
indeed remained the same.) Cattani and colleagues (2017) offer an interesting case study of how
Steinway & Sons was previously viewed as authentic through the lens of conformity; however,
as the category has disappeared over time, its authenticity now rests on the notion of connection
and its ability to sell pianos that are representative of its iconic originals. In each of these cases
and others, observers invoked different meanings of authenticity over time.
Second, the same observers might apply the same meaning but the referent might change
over time. This may be especially true in the case of authenticity as conformity given that
category boundaries are negotiated over time in a somewhat democratic fashion. For example,
Negro and colleagues (2011) discuss how “traditionalist” winemakers came to be viewed as
inauthentic after “modernists” spurred changes to category boundaries. Of course, the referent
might evolve in cases of authenticity as connection or even consistency as well. Beverland and
colleagues (2008) show how some Trappist beers came to be viewed as inauthentic after
distinctions emerged between different types of connections to the respective abbeys. Schlegel
Page 66 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 67 of 97
and colleagues (2012) show how individuals often create or discover their “true selves” over
time and, as the back stage evolves, might come to realize that their front and back stages are
misaligned. In each of these cases, the same meaning of authenticity is applied but the referent
changes over time, thereby posing a threat to authenticity. Of course, such changes may also
present opportunities. Chefs once deemed inauthentic might become authentic as category
boundaries change (Rao et al., 2005); surface acting (i.e., inauthenticity) might evolve into deep
acting (i.e., authenticity) as individuals come to identify more strongly with a particular role
(Humphrey et al., 2015); and, even “fake” jewelry might become “real” if worn by a famous
person (Gelman, 2003). In each of these cases, the meaning of authenticity remains the same but
observers rely on different referents against which to verify authenticity over time.
Despite lay expectations that authenticity ought to be stable, therefore, the attribution
may come and go even if the entity itself remains relatively unchanged. As such, authenticity
presents a paradox over time such that what is real or sincere today can become phony tomorrow
– or vice versa. This insight is also more readily apparent when one considers the three different
meanings of the concept together and, once again, points to two important questions that scholars
should ask themselves when developing further theory about authenticity.
How might the meaning change over time? The vast majority of studies tends to focus on
a single point in time and suggests, even if implicitly, that the conclusions drawn would be
equally applicable to the past or the future. However, this may not be a fair assumption if
meanings of authenticity might change over time. For example, individuals might be increasingly
inclined to view entities through the lens of consistency to the extent that their particular
economy advances and becomes more globalized, perhaps prompting new existential questions
(Arnould & Price, 2000; Hahl et al., 2017). The lens of conformity may become more or less
Page 67 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 68 of 97
dominant in the face of macro trends of category emergence and decline (Carroll &
Swaminathan, 2000). Or the lens of connection may be especially pertinent when individuals or
communities develop nostalgic leanings (Brown & Humphrey, 2002). Even if scholars are only
able to study authenticity at a single point in time, theories offered and conclusions drawn would
be enriched by considering how dominant perspectives or meanings of authenticity might change
over time; we encourage a deeper consideration of these possibilities.
How might the referent change over time? Implicit assumptions about the stability of
referents over time might be equally unwarranted. For authenticity as consistency, many
individuals view their true self as constantly evolving (Schlegel et al., 2012) or multi-
dimensional such that “multiple selves” make up their back stage (Suh, 2002). Similarly,
organizations frequently seek to rediscover and even reshape their identity in new ways (Hatch &
Schultz, 2017). For authenticity as conformity, category boundaries frequently shift as different
audiences serve as gatekeepers (Peterson, 2005). For authenticity as connection, the past is
frequently being rewritten by those in the present (Beverland et al., 2008; also see Suddaby &
Greenwood, 2005). Taken together, scholars would do well to consider how a referent might
change over time. Returning to the notion of construct clarity, we would also encourage scholars
to offer “context specific” conceptualizations (Suddaby, 2010: 348) of authenticity when
possible and as appropriate by situating definitions not only within the framework discussed here
but also within the dynamic cultural contexts in which individuals make authenticity attributions;
doing so will enable readers to draw more appropriate conclusions from reported findings.
Page 68 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 69 of 97
Methodological Implications
The theoretical implications discussed above point to important methodological
considerations as well. We offer here a few pieces of guidance that we see as particularly
important for the study of authenticity moving forward.
Following from issues of construct clarity above are matters of construct validity. In
some studies, measures confounded multiple meanings of authenticity. In others, measurement
and conceptualization were simply misaligned. For field-based research, measurement scales
must be carefully selected or created; some are multi-dimensional and different dimensions
might invoke different meanings and thus produce different findings (e.g., Morhart et al., 2015);
others are so general that the meaning invoked is unclear. Text analysis offers new possibilities
to capture and preserve distinctions among meanings (see O’Connor et al., 2017), but careful
consideration needs to be given to the similarities and differences across them. Similarly,
creative proxy measures are under-utilized (c.f., Frake, 2017) and represent exciting
opportunities if appropriately aligned with the conceptualization. For qualitative studies, probing
inquiries might uncover alternative meanings of authenticity to be relevant. For experimental
research, manipulations and comparisons of distinct meanings might prove particularly
promising. Regardless of methodological approach, measures at varying levels of analysis may
add complexity to conceptual and measurement alignment. For instance, assessing the
authenticity of a brewery as opposed to a brewer or a beer may produce divergent results that
vary within meaning or even shift the meaning invoked; researchers should thus be deliberate
and clear about the particular entity of interest. Our review suggests that both discriminant
validity between meanings and predictive validity related to unique outcomes may be even more
important than previously considered. Of course, these implications are compounded by potential
Page 69 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 70 of 97
changes in authenticity over time. Measures that are sensitive to contextual cues as well as a
temporal perspective will undoubtedly yield greater understanding. In sum, we encourage
scholars to pay equal attention to construct clarity and validity and to carefully align
conceptualization and measurement.
Of equal importance are issues of sample selection that echo the focus on audience
relevance and variance above. Studies in this review varied widely in terms of samples, including
undergraduate students (Vess et al., 2014), MTurk participants (O’Connor et al., 2017), cross-
cultural respondents (English & Chen, 2007), art critics (Anthony, 2012), retail employees and
customers (Grandey et al., 2005), leaders and employees across diverse settings (Gardner et al.,
2011), online reviewers (Kovács et al., 2014), auction bidders (Smith et al., 2016), organizational
newcomers (Cable et al., 2013) and historians (Hatch & Schultz, 2017), and tourists (Grayson &
Martinec, 2004), among many others. Each of these may be more or less appropriate for a given
research question. Most studies focused on a single sample and those that included multiple
samples tended to do so with the aim of generalizing findings rather than detecting potential
differences across samples. In our view, such differences represent a rich opportunity for
insightful findings. Replications with different samples or in different study contexts could also
prove promising. In short, coupling conceptual and construct alignment with a relevant sample
points to new possibilities to theorize and develop our understanding further.
Finally, longitudinal or archival designs might open the most promising new directions
for conceptual development. For example, a sample that suggests the authenticity of an entity at
one point in time may seem to contradict a different sample purporting its inauthenticity at
another point in time. Yet, an archival or longitudinal study that captures a longer timespan may
detect systematic patterns, rates of change, and mechanisms that can explain seemingly fickle
Page 70 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 71 of 97
attributions, rather than surrendering to comments about inconsistent or inconclusive evidence.
Many scholars in our sample have, admirably, already taken these routes; we encourage even
more to follow suit. One challenge with such analyses is that, in examining such rich study
contexts, we often learn just as much or more about a specific context (e.g., a single site
brewery) or domain (e.g., craft brewing) as we do about a theoretical generalization of
authenticity. As such, it would seem important for scholars to explore the robustness of context-
specific studies through replications in other contexts and domains. It is here where studies on
authenticity might provide even broader theoretical developments in understanding macro
patterns that extrapolate to insights about wide-ranging industries and audiences.
New Research Directions
What do we not yet know about authenticity? Several fruitful lines of inquiry arise from
the implications outlined above. We hope that this review prompts scholars to creatively tackle
questions of authenticity in new ways. To aid in that endeavor, we discuss here a few general
directions that come out of this review and that we see as most promising.
First, how are different meanings of authenticity invoked? That is, what might prompt an
individual to evaluate whether or not Waylon Jennings is authentic through the lens of
consistency versus conformity or connection? Prior work has not addressed this question
directly but does offer some hints. One possibility might be that such variations are associated
with individual differences of observers. For example, sensitivity to contagion (Newman &
Dhar, 2014), personality traits (Sheldon et al., 1997), and age (Grayson & Shulman, 2000),
among others, have been associated with increased perceptions of authenticity; however, in each
of these studies, a single meaning of authenticity was assumed. Even so, such individual
differences might also prompt observers to view entities through a particular meaning of
Page 71 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 72 of 97
authenticity. Another possibility might be that such variations are associated with audience
factors, such as culture (Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000), role (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005), or
consumer type (McKendrick & Hannan, 2014). Alternatively, differences might stem from the
entity itself. Returning to the theoretical foundations, it is possible that observers would be
inclined to evaluate an individual musician through the lens of consistency, a band through the
lens of conformity, and a song or even musical instrument through the lens of connection. Given
the different meanings of authenticity, such questions represent exciting new directions.
Second, how are the different meanings of authenticity related with one another? As
discussed in the previous section, some interesting patterns emerged from the review about
relationships among meanings; however, more work remains to be done in in this regard. For
example, it is possible that some combinations of the meanings might serve as complements (see
Beverland, 2005); Waylon Jennings might be considered even more authentic if he is viewed as
not only conforming to the category of country music but also connected to country roots.
Alternatively, some combinations of the meanings might serve as substitutes, possibly even
through compensatory mechanisms (see Weber et al., 2008); he might be perceived as authentic
through the lens of consistency because he refused to conform to the norms of the music
establishment. We noted earlier that authenticity is in the eye of the beholder and, as such, an
entity might be considered authentic by some observers but inauthentic by others. To the extent
that prior studies have considered multiple meanings of authenticity, they have generally focused
on such across-observer differences in meanings of authenticity. However, is it possible for
individuals to simultaneously hold conflicting views about an entity’s authenticity? For example,
would an observer ever conclude that Waylon Jennings is authentic because he is true to himself
and, at the same time, inauthentic because he refuses to conform to the norms of the genre of
Page 72 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 73 of 97
country music? If so, how would she resolve such conflicting views? It is likely that such
conflicts would be resolved based on which referent carries greater appeal for the individual:
Jennings’ values and beliefs (i.e., his back stage) or the genre of country music (i.e., the social
category). However, few studies ventured into such within-observer differences in meanings of
authenticity (c.f., Rose & Wood, 2005) and extant research thus has little to say about these
questions. Greater clarity about how the different meanings of authenticity are related across as
well as within observer will begin to provide some answers.
Third, what triggers shifts in meanings or referents over time? It is possible that
authenticity according to any one meaning might be more or less stable, and shifts in meanings
or referents might pose either threats or opportunities to entities seeking an authentic identity.
For example, given that authenticity as connection tends to rely on more objective assessments, it
is possible that an entity is better able to retain its authenticity from this perspective than from
that of consistency or conformity. Conversely, authenticity as conformity may introduce threats
within the meaning (i.e., shifting category norms) or across meanings (i.e., no longer true to self).
Considering such shifts over time may also aid in understanding how assessments of authenticity
change in different ways for different observers. For example, multiple observers might conclude
that a particular winery is authentic but, for some, the attribution might be made on the basis of
its adherence to its values rooted in organic production; for others, on the basis of its conformity
to a type of wine; or for others, because its ingredients are certified local and originate from a
specific geographic region. Such cases in which authenticity attributions are made but for
different reasons are problematic without an appreciation for those different reasons because
changes to the entity may or may not result in changes to the attributions. Such shifts can be
Page 73 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 74 of 97
better understood if one acknowledges the different meanings of the concept. More work is
needed to understand when and how such shifts occur over time.
Fourth, how do observers react to the different meanings of authenticity? Based on extant
research, it is unclear how exactly authenticity is related to audience responses. It is reasonable
to assume that, at least in some cases, particular outcomes may be associated with one meaning
but not another. For example, we suggested that authenticity as consistency is viewed as a more
subjective assessment whereas authenticity as connection is viewed as more objective. As such,
it is possible that individuals might respond in systematically different ways to questions about
Waylon Jennings when asked through the lens of consistency versus conformity or connection.
In short, even when individuals or collectives are shown to act on authenticity, it is unclear what
exactly is the independent variable. Often equally unclear are mediating and moderating
mechanisms that might be part of the processes at play. Greater clarity about which meaning of
authenticity is being invoked will aid in studying such questions.
Finally, how can entities effectively engage in “authenticity work”? Such questions are
particularly challenging given that multiple meanings must be managed simultaneously across
multiple audiences over time. For example, authenticity as consistency might require impression
management via amplifying some claims (McDonnell & King, 2013) or even silencing others
(Carlos & Lewis, 2017); however, this comes with a risk of not feeling true to one’s self over
time. Authenticity as conformity might require efforts to redefine one’s own identity relative to
others (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001) or to reshape categorical boundaries (Rao et al., 2005);
however, doing so may come off as hypocritical if inconsistent with one’s own past (Effron,
Lucas & O’Connor, 2015). Finally, authenticity as connection might require the ability to
manage carefully any critical spatiotemporal ties (Beverland et al., 2008), or to recreate such
Page 74 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 75 of 97
connections if they have disappeared (Hahl, 2016); however, these efforts may need to consider
any current or anticipated constraints posed by relevant social categories. Of course, any blatant
claims to authenticity are tenuous at best and often liable to backfire (Kovács et al., 2017).
Greater clarity about which meaning of authenticity is being invoked and from whose
perspective will allow for greater insights into how individuals and organizations alike might be
able to create and project an image of authenticity in the long run. Regardless of which meaning
of authenticity is invoked, authenticity work appears to be just as much temporal work as
anything else. As Orwell (1949: 44) noted: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who
controls the present controls the past.”
CONCLUSION
In this review, we set out to better understand authenticity and its multiplicity of
meanings. Despite an apparent consensus that authenticity refers to that which is real, genuine,
and true, our review revealed that distinct interpretations diverge from these shared qualities. As
such, authenticity attributions depend in large part on the referent at hand – the to what? We
have developed here a framework that organizes and clarifies the multiple meanings of
authenticity and their relationships. Looking back, it offers conceptual clarity and provides a
structure to understand extant research. Looking forward, it offers insights, implications, and
guidance as an agenda for scholars approaching these intriguing questions with fresh ideas.
A compelling afterthought arises from our analysis. Authentication resembles a truth-
seeking process (Kreuzbauer & Keller, 2017). However, it refers to that which is intangible and
seemingly unstable. The essence that makes an object authentic is by definition unobservable and
dependent on spatiotemporal proximity (Gelman, 2003). Categories and boundaries are elusive
and seem guaranteed to evolve (Hannan et al., 2007). Even our backstage may be as inaccessible
Page 75 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 76 of 97
to us as it is to others, making us feel like “strangers to ourselves” (Wilson, 2004). This
intangible and unstable nature of authenticity is further compounded by questions of objective
versus subjective cues, which are debated among audiences applying the same or different lenses
that evolve over time. If authenticity rests on such shifting qualities beyond our reach, it may be
natural to ask whether any entity can actually ever be truly authentic. Indeed, some critics have
wondered whether the human experience is so reliant on the subjective perception of a system of
signs and symbols that, to us, reality itself is just a simulation (Baudrillard, 1983). Perhaps
authenticity is similar: simply a series of changing perceptions of signs and symbols represented
in the mind as a compelling truth, but where “imagination demands the real thing and, to attain it,
must fabricate the absolute fake” (Eco, 1983: 8). Through authentication processes, individuals
test an entity against a referent and, in doing so, perhaps “simulation threatens the difference
between the ‘true’ and the ‘false,’ the ‘real’ and the ‘imaginary’ (Baudrillard, 1994: 3). Is it
possible that authenticity is merely imagined fantasy?
Such questions probe deeper meanings of authenticity and even those connected to
perceptions of reality itself. Regardless of how one opts to address them, however, it is clear that
authenticity – whatever it is and however it is interpreted – produces a range of important and
very real outcomes for organizations and their various stakeholders. If the attribution seems
intangible and even elusive, the outcomes are more concrete. Even if authenticity itself may be at
times difficult to define or verify, there seems to be clear proof that it has a powerful pull on
audiences and markets regardless of whatever meaning is invoked and wherever it arises. At a
time when interest in the topic has never been greater, sustained scholarship should continue to
promote important theoretical as well as practical implications for some time to come. We hope
that our review and analysis will offer guidance for those who wish to do so.
Page 76 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 77 of 97
REFERENCES
Ahmadi, R., & Yang, B. R. 2000. Parallel imports: Challenges from unauthorized distribution
channels. Marketing Science, 19(3): 279–294.
Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. 2012. Radical Authentic Leadership: Co-creating the
conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. Leadership
Quarterly, 23(1): 118–131.
Anthony, A. K. 2012. Racialized Authentication: Constructing Representations of the Florida
Highwaymen. Sociological Quarterly, 53(3): 394–421.
Anthony, A. K., & Joshi, A. 2017. (In)authenticity work: Constructing the realm of
inauthenticity through Thomas Kinkade. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(3): 752–773.
Archer, L. 2012. Between authenticity and pretension’: parents’, pupils’ and young
professionals’ negotiations of minority ethnic middle-class identity. Sociological Review,
60(1): 129–148.
Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. 2000. Authenticating acts and authoritative performances: Questing
for self and community, in S. Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick & C. Huffman (Eds.) The Way of
Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires,
London: Routledge, 140-163.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1993. Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of
identity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 88-115.
Ashton-James, C. E., & Tracy, J. L. 2012. Pride and Prejudice: How Feelings About the Self
Influence Judgments of Others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4): 466–
476.
Averill, J. R. 1999. Individual differences in emotional creativity: Structure and correlates.
Journal of Personality, 67(2): 331–371.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. 2005. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3): 315–338.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. 2004. Unlocking the
mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and
behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6): 801–823.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. 2009. Leadership: Current Theories, Research,
and Future Directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421–449.
Bacharach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of
Management Journal, 14: 496-515.
Baker, T. L., Rapp, A., Meyer, T., & Mullins, R. 2014. The role of brand communications on
front line service employee beliefs, behaviors, and performance. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 42(6): 642–657.
Baldwin, M., Biernat, M., & Landau, M. J. 2015. Remembering the Real Me: Nostalgia Offers a
Window to the Intrinsic Self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1):
128–147.
Page 77 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 78 of 97
Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. 2016. A meta-analytic review of
authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. Leadership Quarterly,
27(4): 634–652.
Baron, J. N. 2004. Employing identities in organizational ecology. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 13: 3-32.
Barnes, C. M., Guarana, C. L., Nauman, S., & Kong, D. T. 2016. Too Tired to Inspire or Be
Inspired: Sleep Deprivation and Charismatic Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
101(8): 1191–1199.
Barsalou, L. W. 1985. Ideas, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of
graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 11: 629-654.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership
behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 181–217.
Baudrillard, J. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Baudrillard, J. 1983. Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e).
Baugh, B. 1988. Authenticity revisited. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 46: 477-487.
Becker, H. S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Beckman, T., Colwell, A., & Cunningham, P. H. 2009. The Emergence of Corporate Social
Responsibility in Chile: The Importance of Authenticity and Social Networks. Journal of
Business Ethics, 86(2): 191–206.
Benjamin, W. 1968. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, New York:
Schocken.
Bettencourt, B. A., & Sheldon, K. 2001. Social roles as mechanisms for psychological need
satisfaction within social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6):
1131–1143.
Beverland, M. B. 2005. Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines. Journal of
Management Studies, 42(5): 1003–1029.
Beverland, M. B. 2009. Building Brand Authenticity: 7 Habits of Iconic Brands, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. J. 2010. The Quest for Authenticity in Consumption:
Consumers’ Purposive Choice of Authentic Cues to Shape Experienced Outcomes.
Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5): 838–856.
Beverland, M. B., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M. W. 2008. Projecting authenticity through
advertising: Consumer judgments of advertisers’ claims. Journal of Advertising, 37: 5-
15.
Bilkey, W. J. & Nes, E. 1982. Country-of-origin effects of product evaluations. Journal of
International Business Studies, 13: 88-99.
Blaikie, A. 2001. Photographs in the cultural account: contested narratives and collective
memory in the Scottish Islands. Sociological Review, 49(3): 345–367.
Page 78 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 79 of 97
Bloom, P. 2000. How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boekhorst, J. A. 2015. The Role Of Authentic Leadership In Fostering Workplace Inclusion: A
Social Information Processing Perspective. Human Resource Management, 54(2): 241–
264.
Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. 2007. Personality and emotional performance: Extraversion,
neuroticism, and self-monitoring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2):
177–192.
Brown, A. D., & Humphreys, M. 2002. Nostalgia and the narrativization of identity: A Turkish
case study. British Journal of Management, 13(2): 141–159.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.
Leadership Quarterly, 17(6): 595–616.
Bruner, E. M. 1994. Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction: A critique of postmodernism.
American Anthropologist, 96: 397-415.
Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. 2013. Breaking Them in or Eliciting Their Best?
Reframing Socialization around Newcomers’ Authentic Self-expression. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 58(1): 1–36.
Carfagna, L. B., Dubois, E. A., Fitzmaurice, C., Ouimette, M. Y., Schor, J. B., et al. 2014. An
emerging eco-habitus: The reconfiguration of high cultural capital practices among
ethical consumers. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2, SI): 158–178.
Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W. 2017. Strategic silence: Withholding certification status as a
hypocrisy avoidance tactic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-40.
Carroll, G. R., & Swaminathan, A. 2000. Why the microbrewery movement? Organizational
dynamics of resource partitioning in the U.S. brewing industry. American Journal of
Sociology, 106: 715-762.
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.
Cattani, G., Dunbar, R., & Shapira, Z. 2017. How commitment to craftsmanship leads to unique
value: Steinway & Son’ differentiation strategy. Strategy Science, 2: 13-38.
Chen, S., English, T., & Peng, K. P. 2006. Self-verification and contextualized self-views.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7): 930–942.
Chen, S., Langner, C. A., & Mendoza-Denton, R. 2009. When Dispositional and Role Power Fit:
Implications for Self-Expression and Self-Other Congruence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96(3): 710–727.
Chiu, H.-C., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Kuo, Y.-C. 2012. How to Align your Brand Stories with Your
Products. Journal of Retailing, 88(2): 262–275.
Christy, A. G., Seto, E., Schlegel, R. J., Vess, M., & Hicks, J. A. 2016. Straying From the
Righteous Path and From Ourselves: The Interplay Between Perceptions of Morality and
Self-Knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(11): 1538–1550.
Page 79 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 80 of 97
Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R. P., & Tsakumis, G. T. 2014. The effects of authentic
leadership on followers’ ethical decision-making in the face of temptation: An
experimental study. Leadership Quarterly, 25(3): 581–594.
Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. 2006. When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and
disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 17: 57-78.
Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. 2005. Looking forward but learning from
our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic
leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3): 475–493.
Cording, M., Harrison, J. S., Hoskisson, R. E., & Jonsen, K. 2014. Walking the talk: A
multistakeholder exploration of organizational authenticity, employee productivity, and
post-merger performance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28: 38-56.
Costas, J., & Fleming, P. 2009. Beyond dis-identification: A discursive approach to self-
alienation in contemporary organizations. Human Relations, 62(3): 353–378.
Cote, S., Hideg, I., & van Kleef, G. A. 2013. The consequences of faking anger in negotiations.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3): 453–463.
Cross, S. E., Gore, J. S., & Morris, M. L. 2003. The relational-interdependent self-construal, self-
concept consistency, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85(5): 933–944.
Cutcher, L. 2014. Bringing Back the Bank: Local Renewal and Agency through Community
Banking. Organization Studies, 35(1): 103–119.
Cuypers, I. R. P., Koh, P.-S., & Wang, H. 2016. Sincerity in Corporate Philanthropy,
Stakeholder Perceptions and Firm Value. Organization Science, 27(1): 173–188.
Davies S. 2001. Musical Works and Performances: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Debenedetti, A., Oppewal, H., & Arsel, Z. 2014. Place Attachment in Commercial Settings: A
Gift Economy Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5): 904–923.
Delmestri, G., Montanari, F., & Usai, A. 2005. Reputation and strength of ties in predicting
commercial success and artistic merit of independents in the Italian feature film industry.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 975–1002.
DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. 1998. Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1): 63–79.
DeSoucey, M. 2010. Gastronationalism: Food Traditions and Authenticity Politics in the
European Union. American Sociological Review, 75(3): 432–455.
Dhanani, A., & Connolly, C. 2015. Non-governmental organizational accountability: Talking
the talk and walking the walk? Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3): 613-637.
DiMaggio, P. 1987. Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52: 440-455.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-
160.
Page 80 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 81 of 97
Dutton D. 2003. Authenticity in art. In J. Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics,
New York: Oxford University Press: 258-274.
Eagly, A. H. 2005. Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?
Leadership Quarterly, 16(3): 459–474.
Eco, U. 1986. Travels in Hyperreality: Essays. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
Effron, D. A., Lucas, B. J., & O’Connor, K. 2015. Hypocrisy by association: When
organizational membership increases condemnation for wrongdoing. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 130: 147-159.
Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. 2001. Defining who you are by what you're not:
Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization
Science, 12: 393-413.
Endrissat, N., Islam, G., & Noppeney, C. 2015. Enchanting Work: New Spirits of Service Work
in an Organic Supermarket. Organization Studies, 36(11): 1555–1576.
English, T., & Chen, S. 2007. Culture and self-concept stability: Consistency across and within
contexts among Asian Americans and European Americans. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93(3): 478–490.
English, T., & Chen, S. 2011. Self-Concept Consistency and Culture: The Differential Impact of
Two Forms of Consistency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6): 838–
849.
Etzioni, A. 1996. The responsive community: A communitarian perspective - 1995 Presidential
address. American Sociological Review, 61(1): 1–11.
Fernandez, K. V, & Lastovicka, J. L. 2011. Making Magic: Fetishes in Contemporary
Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2): 278–299.
Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fine, G. A. 2004. Everyday Genius: Self-Taught Art and the Culture of Authenticity. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Fine, G. A. 1996. Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Firat, A. F., & Venkatesh, A. 1995. Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of
consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 22: 239-267.
Flavell, J. H., Flavell, E. R., & Green, F. L. 1983. Development of the appearance-reality
distinction. Cognitive Psychology, 15: 95-120.
Fleeson, W., & Wilt, J. 2010. The Relevance of Big Five Trait Content in Behavior to Subjective
Authenticity: Do High Levels of Within-Person Behavioral Variability Undermine or
Enable Authenticity Achievement? Journal of Personality, 78(4): 1353–1382.
Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. 2011. "Being yourself" in the electronic sweatshop: New forms of
normative control. Human Relations, 64(2): 177–200.
Frake, J. 2017. Selling Out: The Inauthenticity Discount in the Craft Beer Industry. Management
Science, 63(11): 3930–3943.
Page 81 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 82 of 97
Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., Wilson, A., & Hood, B. 2009. Picasso paintings, moon rocks and
hand-written Beatles lyrics: Adults’ evaluations of authentic objects. Journal of
Cognition and Culture, 9: 1-14.
Freeman, R. E., & Auster, E. R. 2011. Values, Authenticity, and Responsible Leadership.
Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1, SI): 15–23.
Fuchs, C., Schreier, M., & van Osselaer, S. M. J. 2015. The Handmade Effect: What’s Love Got
to Do with It? Journal of Marketing, 79(2): 98–110.
Fueller, J., Schroll, R., & von Hippel, E. 2013. User generated brands and their contribution to
the diffusion of user innovations. Research Policy, 42(6–7): 1197–1209.
Gan, M., & Chen, S. 2017. Being Your Actual or Ideal Self? What It Means to Feel Authentic in
a Relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4): 465–478.
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. 2011. Authentic leadership: A
review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6, SI): 1120–
1145.
Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. 2009. Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to
authenticity? Leadership Quarterly, 20(3): 466–482.
Gelman, S. A. 2004. Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(9):
404-409.
Gelman, S. A. 2003. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gillath, O., Sesko, A. K., Shaver, P. R., & Chun, D. S. 2010. Attachment, Authenticity, and
Honesty: Dispositional and Experimentally Induced Security Can Reduce Self- and
Other-Deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5): 841–855.
Gino, F., Kouchaki, M., & Galinsky, A. D. 2015. The Moral Virtue of Authenticity: How
Inauthenticity Produces Feelings of Immorality and Impurity. Psychological Science,
26(7): 983–996.
Gino, F., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. 2010. The Counterfeit Self: The Deceptive Costs of Faking
It. Psychological Science, 21(5): 712–720.
Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. 2005. From the critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive
change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management
Studies, 42(5): 1031–1055.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh Social Science Research Centre.
Goldberg, A., Hannan, M. T., & Kovacs, B. 2016. What does it mean to span cultura boundaries?
Variety and atypicality in cultural consumption. American Sociological Review, 81: 215-
241.
Goldenbiddle, K., & Locke, K. 1993. Appealing work - an investigation of how ethnographic
texts convince. Organization science, 4(4): 595–616.
Page 82 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 83 of 97
Goldstone, R. L., Kersten, A., & Carvalho, P. F. 2003. Categorization and concepts. In A. F.
Healy & R. W. Proctor (eds.), Handbook of Psychology, Volume 4 – Experimental
Psychology (2
nd
Edition): 607-630. New York: Wiley.
Grandey, A. A. 2000. Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize
emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 95-110.
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. 2005. Is "service
with a smile" enough? - Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1): 38–55.
Grandey, A., Foo, S. C., Groth, M., & Goodwin, R. E. 2012. Free To Be You and Me: A Climate
of Authenticity Alleviates Burnout From Emotional Labor. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 17(1): 1–14.
Grauel, J. 2016. Being authentic or being responsible? Food consumption, morality and the
presentation of self. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3): 852–869.
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. 2004. Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their
influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer Research,
31(2): 296–312.
Grayson, K., & Shulman, D. 2000. Indexicality and the verification function of irreplaceable
possessions: A semiotic analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1): 17–30.
Grazian, D. 2003. Blue Chicago: The Search for Authenticity in Urban Blues Clubs. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Griffith, J., Connelly, S., Thiel, C., & Johnson, G. 2015. How outstanding leaders lead with
affect: An examination of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Leadership
Quarterly, 26(4, SI): 502–517.
Gross 1998. Antecedent-and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences for
experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(1): 224-237.
Guerrier, Y., & Adib, A. 2003. Work at leisure and leisure at work: A study of the emotional
labour of tour reps. Human Relations, 56(11): 1399–1417.
Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. 2004. What is originality in the humanities and the
social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69(2): 190–212.
Guignon, C. 2004. On Being Authentic. New York: Routledge.
Guthey, E., & Jackson, B. 2005. CEO portraits and the authenticity paradox. Journal of
Management Studies, 42(5): 1057–1082.
Guy, K. M. 2003. When Champagne Became French. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Hahl, O. 2016. Turning Back the Clock in Baseball: The Increased Prominence of Extrinsic
Rewards and Demand for Authenticity. Organization Science, 27(4): 929–953.
Hahl, O., Zuckerman, E. W., & Kim, M. 2017. Why Elites Love Authentic Lowbrow Culture:
Overcoming High-Status Denigration with Outsider Art. American Sociological Review,
82(4): 828–856.
Page 83 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 84 of 97
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. 2011. Relationships between Authentic
Leadership, Moral Courage, and Ethical and Pro-Social Behaviors. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 21(4): 555–578.
Hannah, S. T., Sumanth, J. J., Lester, P., & Cavarretta, F. 2014. Debunking the false dichotomy
of leadership idealism and pragmatism: Critical evaluation and support of newer genre
leadership theories. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5): 598–621.
Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Fry, L. W. 2011. Leadership in action teams: team leader
and members’ authenticity, authenticity strength, and team outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 64(3): 771–802.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American
Journal of Sociology, 82: 929-964.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. R. 2007. Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences,
Codes, and Ecologies. Princeton University Press.
Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2011. Clean Climbing, Carabiners, and Cultural Cultivation:
Developing an Open-Systems Perspective of Culture. Organization Science, 22(2): 391–
412.
Harter, S. 2002. Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder and S. Lopez (eds.), Handbook of Positive
Psychology: 382-394. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. 2017. Toward a Theory of Using History Authentically:
Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4): 657–697.
Hayward, R. M., & Tuckey, M. R. 2011. Emotions in uniform: How nurses regulate emotion at
work via emotional boundaries. Human Relations, 64(11): 1501–1523.
Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time. London: SCM Press.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M., & Gremler, D. D. 2006. Are all smiles created equal?
How emotional contagion and emotional labor affect service relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 70(3): 58–73.
Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Foster, J., Lakey, C. E., et al. 2008. Within-Person
Relationships Among Daily Self-Esteem, Need Satisfaction, and Authenticity.
Psychological Science, 19(11): 1140–1145.
Hewlin, P. F. 2003. And the award for best actor goes to. . .: Facades of conformity in
organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 28: 633–642.
Hewlin, P. F. 2009. Wearing the cloak: Antecedents and consequences of creating facades of
conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 727–741.
Hewlin, P. F., Dumas, T. L., & Burnett, M. 2017. To thine own self be true?: Façades of
conformity, values incongruence, and the magnifying impact of leader
integrity. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 178-199.
Hewlin, P. F., Kim, S. S., & Song, Y. H. 2016. Creating facades of conformity in the face of job
insecurity: A study of consequences and conditions. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 89(3): 539–567.
Page 84 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 85 of 97
Hirsch, D., & Tene, O. 2013. Hummus: The making of an Israeli culinary cult. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 13(1): 25–45.
Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. 1999. Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle
model. Organization Science, 10: 199-212.
Hirst, G., Walumbwa, F., Aryee, S., Butarbutar, I., & Chen, C. J. H. 2016. A Multi-level
Investigation of Authentic Leadership as an Antecedent of Helping Behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics, 139(3): 485–499.
Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hollenbeck, C. R., Peters, C., & Zinkhan, G. M. 2008. Retail Spectacles and Brand Meaning:
Insights from a Brand Museum Case Study. Journal of Retailing, 84(3): 334–353.
Holt, D. B. 2002. Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and
branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1): 70–90.
Horton & Markman 1980. Developmental differences in the acquisition of basic and
superordinate categories. Child Development, 51(3): 708-719.
Howard-Grenville, J., Metzger, M. L., & Meyer, A. D. 2013. Rekindling the flame: processes of
identity resurrection. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 113–136.
Howard, C. A. 2016. Touring the consumption of the Other: Imaginaries of authenticity in the
Himalayas and beyond. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(2, SI): 354–373.
Hsiung, H.-H. 2012. Authentic Leadership and Employee Voice Behavior: A Multi-Level
Psychological Process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3): 349–361.
Hsu, G. 2006. Jacks of all trades and masters of none. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51:
420–450.
Hsu, G., & Hannan, M. T. 2005. Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization
Science, 16: 474-490.
Hsu, G., Hannan, M. T., & Koçak, Ö. 2009. Multiple category memberships in markets: An
integrative theory and two empirical tests. American Sociological Review, 74: 150-169.
Huang, X. (Irene), Dong, P., & Mukhopadhyay, A. 2014. Proud to Belong or Proudly Different?
Lay Theories Determine Contrasting Effects of Incidental Pride on Uniqueness Seeking.
Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3): 697–712.
Humphrey, R. H. 2012. How do leaders use emotional labor? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 33(5): 740–744.
Humphrey, R. H., Ashforth, B. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. 2015. The bright side of emotional labor.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6): 749–769.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. 2005. Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-
being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3): 373–394.
Jimenez, T. R. 2008. Mexican immigrant replenishment and the continuing significance of
ethnicity and race. American Journal of Sociology, 113(6): 1527–1567.
Page 85 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 86 of 97
Johnson, J. T., & Boyd, K. R. 1995. Dispositional traits versus the content of experience - actor
observer differences in judgments of the authentic self. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21(4): 375–383.
Johnson, J. T., Robinson, M. D., & Mitchell, E. B. 2004. Inferences about the authentic self:
When do actions say more than mental stress? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87(5): 615–630.
Johnston, J., & Baumann, S. 2007. Democracy versus distinction: A study of omnivorousness in
gourmet food writing. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1): 165–204.
Jones, C., Anand, N., & Alvarez, J. L. 2005. Manufactured authenticity and creative voice in
cultural industries. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 893–899.
Jones, D., & Smith, K. 2005. Middle-earth meets New Zealand: Authenticity and location in the
making of the Lord of the Rings. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 923–945.
Joshi, P. D., & Fast, N. J. 2013. I Am My (High-Power) Role: Power and Role Identification.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7): 898–910.
Kates, S. M. 2004. The dynamics of brand legitimacy: An interpretive study in the gay men’s
community. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2): 455–464.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. 2006. A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity:
Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38: 283-357.
Kierkegaard, S. 1983 [1849]. The Sickness Unto Death (H. F. Hong & E. H. Hong, Trans.).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Galinsky, A. D. 2013. The Good Life of the
Powerful: The Experience of Power and Authenticity Enhances Subjective Well-Being.
Psychological Science, 24(3): 280–288.
Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neighbors, C., & Patrick, H. 2001. Implicit theories
of relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7): 808–819.
Kogan, A., Impett, E. A., Oveis, C., Hui, B., Gordon, A. M., et al. 2010. When Giving Feels
Good: The Intrinsic Benefits of Sacrifice in Romantic Relationships for the Communally
Motivated. Psychological Science, 21(12): 1918–1924.
Kovács, B., Carroll, G. R., & Lehman, D. W. 2014. Authenticity and Consumer Value Ratings:
Empirical Tests from the Restaurant Domain. Organization Science, 25(2): 458–478.
Kovács, B., Carroll, G. R., & Lehman, D. W. 2017. The perils of proclaiming an authentic
organizational identity. Sociological Science, 4: 80-106.
Kovács, B., & R. Johnson. 2014. Category spanning, quality, and typicality. Strategic
Organization, 12: 7-37.
Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. 2011. The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept
consistency and authenticity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5): 974–
980.
Kreuzbauer, R., & Keller, J. 2017. The authenticity of cultural products: A psychological
perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(5): 417-421.
Page 86 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 87 of 97
Kyratsis, Y., Atun, R., Phillips, N., Tracey, P., & George, G. 2017. Health systems in transition:
professional identity work in the context of shifting institutional logics. Academy of
Management Journal, 60(2): 610–641.
Le, B. M., & Impett, E. A. 2016. The Costs of Suppressing Negative Emotions and Amplifying
Positive Emotions During Parental Caregiving. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 42(3): 323–336.
Lehman, D. W., Kovacs, B., & Carroll, G. R. 2014. Conflicting Social Codes and Organizations:
Hygiene and Authenticity in Consumer Evaluations of Restaurants. Management
Science, 60(10): 2602–2617.
Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. 2006. The consumer quest for authenticity: The
multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4): 481–493.
Lemay Jr., E. P., & Clark, M. S. 2008a. "Walking on Eggshells": How expressing relationship
insecurities perpetuates them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2):
420–441.
Lemay Jr., E. P., & Clark, M. S. 2008b. "You’re Just Saying That." Contingencies of self-worth,
suspicion, and authenticity in the interpersonal affirmation process. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5): 1376–1382.
Lemay Jr., E. P., & Dudley, K. L. 2011. Caution: Fragile! Regulating the Interpersonal Security
of Chronically Insecure Partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4):
681–702.
Lena, J. C., & Peterson, R. A. 2008. Classification as culture: Types and trajectories of music
genres. American Sociological Review, 73: 697-718.
Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. 2013. How Does "Being Real" Feel? The
Experience of State Authenticity. Journal of Personality, 81(3): 276–289.
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. 2015. Authentic Leadership, Authentic
Followership, Basic Need Satisfaction, and Work Role Performance: A Cross-Level
Study. Journal of Management, 41(6): 1677–1697.
Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. 2012. Authentic Leadership and Behavioral Integrity as
Drivers of Follower Commitment and Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3):
255–264.
Liedtka, J. 2008. Strategy making and the search for authenticity. Journal of Business Ethics,
80(2): 237–248.
Lindholm, C. 2008. Culture and Authenticity. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Liu, H., Cutcher, L., & Grant, D. 2017. Authentic leadership in context: An analysis of banking
CEO narratives during the global financial crisis. Human Relations, 70(6): 694–724.
Liu, S., Liao, J., & Wei, H. 2015. Authentic Leadership and Whistleblowing: Mediating Roles of
Psychological Safety and Personal Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1):
107–119.
Page 87 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 88 of 97
Lu, S., & Fine, G. A. 1995. The presentation of ethnic authenticity - chinese food as a social
accomplishment. Sociological Quarterly, 36(3): 535–553.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. 2009. The "point" of positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30(2): 291–307.
Lyubovnikova, J., Legood, A., Turner, N., & Mamakouka, A. 2017. How Authentic Leadership
Influences Team Performance: The Mediating Role of Team Reflexivity. Journal of
Business Ethics, 141(1): 59–70.
Maccannell, D. 1973. Staged authenticity - arrangements of social space in tourist settings.
American Journal of Sociology, 79(3): 589–603.
Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Clegg, S. R. 2016. Conceptualizing historical organization studies.
Academy of Management Review, 41(4): 609–632.
Markman, A. B. 1999. Knowledge Representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martinez, L. R., Sawyer, K. B., Thoroughgood, C. N., Ruggs, E. N., & Smith, N. A. 2017. The
Importance of Being "Me": The Relation Between Authentic Identity Expression and
Transgender Employees’ Work-Related Attitudes and Experiences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102(2): 215–226.
Mazutis, D. D., & Slawinski, N. 2015. Reconnecting Business and Society: Perceptions of
Authenticity in Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1):
137–150.
McDonnell, M. H., & King, B. 2013. Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and
impression management after social movement boycotts. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 58(3): 387-419.
McFerran, B., Aquino, K., & Tracy, J. L. 2014. Evidence for two facets of pride in consumption:
Findings from luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4): 455–471.
McKendrick, D. G., & Hannan, M. T. 2014. Oppositional Identities and Resource Partitioning:
Distillery Ownership in Scotch Whisky, 1826-2009. Organization Science, 25(4): 1272–
1286.
McShane, L., & Cunningham, P. 2012. To Thine Own Self Be True? Employees’ Judgments of
the Authenticity of Their Organization’s Corporate Social Responsibility Program.
Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1): 81–100.
Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. 1989. Psychological essentialism, in S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony
(Eds.) Similarity and Analogical Learning, New York: Cambridge University Press,
179-95.
Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. 1984. Concepts and concept formation. Annual Review of
Psychology, 35: 113-138.
Mehmood, Q., Hamstra, M. R. W., Nawab, S., & Vriend, T. 2016. Authentic leadership and
followers’ in-role and extra-role performance: The mediating role of followers’ learning
goal orientation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(4): 877–
883.
Page 88 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 89 of 97
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.
Mick, D. G. 1986. Consumer research and semiotics: Exploring the morphology of signs,
symbols, and significance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13: 196-213.
Moeran, B. 2005. Tricks of the trade: The performance and interpretation of authenticity.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 901–922.
Molinsky, A. L. 2013. The psychological processes of cultural retooling. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(3): 683–710.
Monzani, L., Bark, A. S. H., van Dick, R., & Maria Peiro, J. 2015. The Synergistic Effect of
Prototypicality and Authenticity in the Relation Between Leaders’ Biological Gender and
Their Organizational Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4): 737–752.
Moore, C., Lee, S. Y., Kim, K., & Cable, D. M. 2017. The Advantage of Being Oneself: The
Role of Applicant Self-Verification in Organizational Hiring Decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 102(11): 1493–1513.
Morhart, F., Malaer, L., Guevremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. 2015. Brand
authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 25(2): 200–218.
Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. 1996. The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21: 986-1010.
Mumford, M. D., & Fried, Y. 2014. Give them what they want or give them what they need?
Ideology in the study of leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5): 622–
634.
Murphy, G. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Murphy, G., & Brownwell, H. H. 1985. Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality
constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11: 70-84.
Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. 1985. The role of theories in conceptual coherence.
Psychological Review, 92: 289-316.
Murphy, G. L., & Smith, E. E. 1982. Basic level superiority in picture categorization. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21: 1-20.
Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. 2011. The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI):
Development and empirical tests. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6, SI): 1146–1164.
Negro, N., Hannan, M. T., & Rao, H. 2011. Category reinterpretation and defection: Modernism
and tradition in Italian winemaking. Organization Science, 22: 1449-1463.
Negro, G., Koçak, Ö., & Hsu, G. 2010. Research on categories in the sociology of organizations.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 31:1–35.
Newheiser, A.-K., & Barreto, M. 2014. Hidden costs of hiding stigma: Ironic interpersonal
consequences of concealing a stigmatized identity in social interactions. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 52: 58–70.
Page 89 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 90 of 97
Newman, G. E. 2016. An essentialist account of authenticity. Journal of Cognition and Culture,
16: 294-321.
Newman, G. E., & Bloom, P. 2012. Art and Authenticity: The Importance of Originals in
Judgments of Value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3): 558–569.
Newman, G. E., Bloom, P., & Knobe, J. 2014. Value Judgments and the True Self. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2): 203–216.
Newman, G. E., & Dhar, R. 2014. Authenticity Is Contagious: Brand Essence and the Original
Source of Production. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3): 371–386.
Newman, G. E., Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. 2011. Celebrity contagion and the value of
objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38: 215-228.
Newman, G. E., De Freitas, J., & Knobe, J. 2015. Beliefs about the true self explain asymmetries
based on moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 39: 96-125.
Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. 2010. The impact of positivity and transparency on
trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3): 350-
364.
O’Connor, K., Carroll, G. R., & Kovács, B. 2017. Disambiguating authenticity: Interpretations of
value and appeal. PloS One, 12(6): e0179187.
O’Guinn, T. C. 1991. Touching greatness: The Central Midwest Barry Manilow Fan Club. In
Highways and Buyways, R.W. Belk (ed.), 102-111. Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Orwell, G. 1949. 1984. New York: Signet Classics.
Peirce 1991. Peirce on Signs: Writings on Semiotic. (James Hoopes, Ed.). Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Peirce, C. S. 1940. The Philosophy of Peirce: Selected Writings. (Justus Buchler, Ed.) New
York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co.
Penaloza, L. 2000. The commodification of the American West: Marketers’ production of
cultural meanings at the trade show. Journal of Marketing, 64(4): 82–109.
Peterson, R. A. 2005. In search of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 1083–
1098.
Peterson, R. A. 1997. Fabricating Authenticity. The University of Chicago Press.
Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. 2012. Authentic Leadership: An
Empirical Test of Its Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Mechanisms. Journal
of Business Ethics, 107(3): 331–348.
Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. 2001. Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and
empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107: 379-429.
Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. 2011. Responsible Leadership: Pathways to the Future. Journal of
Business Ethics, 98(1, SI): 3–13.
Pontikes, E. G. 2012. Two sides of the same coin: How ambiguous classification affects multiple
audiences’ evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57: 81-118.
Page 90 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 91 of 97
Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. 1967. Decay of visual information from a single
letter. Science, 158(3797): 137-139.
Potter, A. 2010. The Authenticity Hoax: How We Get Lost Finding Ourselves. New York:
HarperCollins.
Pounders, K. R., Babin, B. J., & Close, A. G. 2015. All the same to me: outcomes of aesthetic
labor performed by frontline service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 43(6): 670–693.
Price, T. L. 2003. The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly,
14(1): 67–81.
Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. 2011. Willing and Able to Fake Emotions: A
Closer Examination of the Link Between Emotional Dissonance and Employee Well-
Being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2): 377–390.
Qian, Y. 2014. Counterfeiters: Foes or Friends? How Counterfeits Affect Sales by Product
Quality Tier. Management Science, 60(10): 2381–2400.
Qian, Y., Gong, Q., & Chen, Y. 2015. Untangling Searchable and Experiential Quality
Responses to Counterfeits. Marketing Science, 34(4): 522–538.
Rahimnia, F., & Sharifirad, M. S. 2015. Authentic Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The
Mediating Role of Attachment Insecurity. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2): 363–377.
Rahman, M., & Lockwood, S. 2011. How to `Use Your Olympian’: The Paradox of Athletic
Authenticity and Commercialization in the Contemporary Olympic Games. Sociology-
The Journal of the British Sociological Association, 45(5, SI): 815–829.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. 2005. Border crossing: Bricolage and the erosion of
categorical boundaries in French gastronomy. American Sociological Review, 70: 968-
991.
Rego, A., Reis Junior, D., & e Cunha, M. 2015. Authentic Leaders Promoting Store
Performance: The Mediating Roles of Virtuousness and Potency. Journal of Business
Ethics, 128(3): 617–634.
Rego, A., Vitoria, A., Magalhaes, A., Ribeiro, N., & e Cunha, M. 2013. Are authentic leaders
associated with more virtuous, committed and potent teams? Leadership Quarterly,
24(1): 61–79.
Reynolds, D. 2016. Consumers or witnesses? Holocaust tourists and the problem of authenticity.
Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(2, SI): 334–353.
Roberts, L. M. 2005. Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse organizational
settings. Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 685–711.
Rosch, E. H. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4: 328-350.
Rosch, E. H. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 104(3): 192-233.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of
categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 573-605.
Page 91 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 92 of 97
Rose, R. L., & Wood, S. L. 2005. Paradox and the consumption of authenticity through reality
television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2): 284–296.
Rozin, P., & Nemeroff, C. 1990. The laws of sympathetic magic: A psychological analysis of
similarity and contagion. In J. Stigler, G. Herdt, & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Cultural
Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development: 205-232. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. 1977. The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C.
Anderson, RJ Spiro, & WE Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of
Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sartre, J-P. 1943. Being and Nothingness: Phenomenological Essay on Ontology. Gallimard.
Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., Arndt, J., & King, L. A. 2009. Thine Own Self: True Self-Concept
Accessibility and Meaning in Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2):
473–490.
Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., King, L. A., & Arndt, J. 2011. Feeling Like You Know Who You
Are: Perceived True Self-Knowledge and Meaning in Life. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37(6): 745–756.
Schlegel, R. J., Vess, M., & Arndt, J. 2012. To Discover or to Create: Metaphors and the True
Self. Journal of Personality, 80(4): 969–993.
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2014. Positive psychology: An introduction. In M.
Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.) Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology: 279-298.
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. 1997. Trait self and true self: Cross-
role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological
authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(6): 1380–1393.
Showers, C. J., Ditzfeld, C. P., & Zeigler-Hill, V. 2015. Self-Concept Structure and the Quality
of Self-Knowledge. Journal of Personality, 83(5): 535–551.
Sirianni, N. J., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Mandel, N. 2013. Branded Service Encounters:
Strategically Aligning Employee Behavior with the Brand Positioning. Journal of
Marketing, 77(6): 108–123.
Skilton, P. F., & Purdy, J. M. 2017. Authenticity, Power, and Pluralism: A Framework for
Understanding Stakeholder Evaluations of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(1): 99–123.
Slepian, M. L., Chun, J. S., & Mason, M. F. 2017. The Experience of Secrecy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1): 1–33.
Smith, R. K., Newman, G. E., & Dhar, R. 2016. Closer to the Creator: Temporal Contagion
Explains the Preference for Earlier Serial Numbers. Journal of Consumer Research,
42(5): 653–668.
Snyder, M. 1974. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 30: 526-537.
Page 92 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 93 of 97
Sparrowe, R. T. 2005. Authentic leadership and the narrative self. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3):
419–439.
Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. 2012. More Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity.
Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6): 967–983.
Strohminger, N., Knobe, J., & Newman, G. E. 2017. The true self: A psychological concept
distinct from the self. Psychological Science, 12: 551-560.
Suddaby, R. 2010. Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and
organization. Academy of Management Review, 35: 346-357.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 50: 35-67.
Suh, E. M. 2002. Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6): 1378–1391.
Sun, P. Y. T. 2013. The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior of servant
leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 24(4): 544–557.
Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. 2016. Too Exciting to Fail, Too Sincere to Succeed: The Effects
of Brand Personality on Sensory Disconfirmation. Journal of Consumer Research,
43(1): 44–67.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40:
371-384.
Svejenova, S. 2005. `The path with the heart’: Creating the authentic career. Journal of
Management Studies, 42(5): 947–974.
Swann, W. B., Delaronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. 1994. Authenticity and positivity strivings in
marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5): 857–869.
Taylor, C. 1991. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. 2006. Emotional branding and the strategic value
of the Doppelganger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1): 50–64.
Tomkins, L., & Simpson, P. 2015. Caring Leadership: A Heideggerian Perspective.
Organization Studies, 36(8): 1013–1031.
Toor, S.-R., & Ofori, G. 2009. Ethical Leadership: Examining the Relationships with Full Range
Leadership Model, Employee Outcomes, and Organizational Culture. Journal of
Business Ethics, 90(4): 533–547.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. 2007. The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3): 506–525.
Trichas, S., & Schyns, B. 2012. The face of leadership: Perceiving leaders from facial
expression. Leadership Quarterly, 23(3): 545–566.
Trilling, L. 1972. Sincerity and Authenticity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ture, M., & Ger, G. 2016. Continuity Through Change: Navigating Temporalities Through
Heirloom Rejuvenation. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1): 1–25.
Page 93 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 94 of 97
Valsesia, F., Nunes, J. C., & Ordanini, A. 2016. What Wins Awards Is Not Always What I Buy:
How Creative Control Affects Authenticity and Thus Recognition (But Not Liking).
Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6): 897–914.
van der Laan, E., & Velthuis, O. 2016. Inconspicuous dressing: A critique of the construction-
through-consumption paradigm in the sociology of clothing. Journal of Consumer
Culture, 16(1): 22–42.
van Ittersum, K., & Wong, N. 2010. The Lexus or the olive tree? Trading off between global
convergence and local divergence. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
27(2): 107–118.
Verhaal, J. C., Hoskins, J. D., & Lundmark, L. W. 2017. Little Fish in a Big Pond: Legitimacy
Transfer, Authenticity, and Factors of Peripheral Firm Entry and Growth in the Market
Center. Strategic Management Journal, 38(12): 2532–2552.
Verhaal, J. C., Khessina, O. M., & Dobrev, S. D. 2015. Oppositional product names,
organizational identities, and product appeal. Organization Science, 26: 1466-1484.
Vess, M., Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., & Arndt, J. 2014. Guilty, But Not Ashamed: “True” Self-
Conceptions Influence Affective Responses to Personal Shortcomings. Journal of
Personality, 82(3): 213–224.
Vieira, M. M., Pappámikail, L., & Resende, J. 2013. Forced to deal with the future: uncertainty
and risk in vocational choices among Portuguese secondary school students. The
Sociological Review, 61(4): 745-768.
Vogelgesang, G. R., Leroy, H., & Avolio, B. J. 2013. The mediating effects of leader integrity
with transparency in communication and work engagement/performance. Leadership
Quarterly, 24(3, SI): 405–413.
Voronov, M., De Clercq, D., & Hinings, C. R. 2013. Institutional complexity and logic
engagement: An investigation of Ontario fine wine. Human Relations, 66(12): 1563–
1596.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. 2008.
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34(1): 89-126.
Wang, N. 1999. Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 262: 349-370.
Wang, H., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D., & Wu, Y. 2014. Impact of authentic leadership on
performance: Role of followers’ positive psychological capital and relational processes.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1): 5–21.
Wang, K. L., & Groth, M. 2014. Buffering the Negative Effects of Employee Surface Acting:
The Moderating Role of Employee-Customer Relationship Strength and Personalized
Services. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2): 341–350.
Wang, Z., Singh, S. N., Li, Y. J., Mishra, S., Ambrose, M., et al. 2017. Effects of employees’
positive affective displays on customer loyalty intentions: an emotions-as-social-
information perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1): 109–129.
Page 94 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 95 of 97
Waterman, A. S. 1990. The relevance of Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia for the
psychological study of happiness. Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 10(1): 39-
44.
Weber, K., Heinze, K. L., & DeSoucey, M. 2008. Forage for Thought: Mobilizing Codes in the
Movement for Grass-fed Meat and Dairy Products. Administrative Science Quarterly,
53(3, SI): 529–567.
Weidman, A. C., Tracy, J. L., & Elliot, A. J. 2016. The Benefits of Following Your Pride:
Authentic Pride Promotes Achievement. Journal of Personality, 84(5): 607–622.
Weischer, A. E., Weibler, J., & Petersen, M. 2013. "To thine own self be true": The effects of
enactment and life storytelling on perceived leader authenticity. Leadership Quarterly,
24(4): 477–495.
West, E. 2010. A taste for greeting cards: Distinction within a denigrated cultural form. Journal
of Consumer Culture, 10(3): 362–382.
Whittington, J. L., Pitts, T. M., Kageler, W. V, & Goodwin, V. L. 2005. Legacy leadership: The
leadership wisdom of the Apostle Paul. Leadership Quarterly, 16(5): 749–770.
Wilson, T. D. 2004. Strangers to Ourselves. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. 2008. The authentic
personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the
Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55: 385-389.
Wright, C. 2006. Natural and social order at Walt Disney World; the functions and
contradictions of civilising nature. Sociological Review, 54(2): 303–317.
Yagil, D., & Medler-Liraz, H. 2013. Moments of truth: examining transient authenticity and
identity in service encounters. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2): 473–497.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Schriesheim, C. A., & Dansereau, F. 2008. Authentic
leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level perspective.
Leadership Quarterly, 19(6): 693–707.
Yogeeswaran, K., & Dasgupta, N. 2010. Will the "Real" American Please Stand Up? The Effect
of Implicit National Prototypes on Discriminatory Behavior and Judgments. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(10): 1332–1345.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J. 2011. The effect of authentic
transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5):
801–817.
Zuckerman, E. W. 2000. Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and de-
diversification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 591-619.
Zuckerman, E. W. 1999. The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy
discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104: 1398-1438.
Zukin, S., Lindeman, S., & Hurson, L. 2017. The omnivore’s neighborhood? Online restaurant
reviews, race, and gentrification. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(3): 459–479.
Page 95 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 96 of 97
TABLE 1
Recent Trends in Authenticity Research
Decade Total Management Marketing Psychology Sociology
1990-1999
19 5 2 7 5
2000-2009 100 51 13 22 14
2010-2017 208 110 22 50 26
Total 327 166 37 79 45
Number Empirical 241 91 34 77 39
Percent Empirical 74% 55% 92% 97% 87%
Notes: The counts in this table reflect the articles included in the final database. Journal titles are listed below by discipline. Those marked with an asterisk (
*
)
were included in the initial search but did not yield any relevant results. Those marked with a dagger (
†
) were not included in the search but represent a relevant
article(s) added to the database; see the text for full details. Note that three articles included in the first row above were actually published before that time
period; however, those articles are included in the first row due to the low frequency of articles on the topic in earlier years. The counts of empirical articles
include quantitative and qualitative studies but not conceptual pieces, reviews, and meta-analyses; chapters, books, and edited volumes are not reflected here.
Management: Academy of Management Annals, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly,
British Journal of Management, Business Ethics Quarterly, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
*
, Human Performance
*
, Human Relations, Human
Resource Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Organizational Behavior, The
Leadership Quarterly, Management Science, Organization Science, Organization Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Research
Policy, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal
*
, Strategic Management Journal, Strategy Science
†
.
Marketing: Annals of Tourism Research
†
, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Advertising
†
, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal
of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Retailing, Marketing
Science.
Psychology: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
†
, Annual Review of Psychology, Cognitive Science
†
, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of
Cognition and Culture
†
, Journal of Counseling Psychology
†
, Journal of Experimental Psychology (Applied)
*
, Journal of Experimental Psychology (General),
Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Journal of Personality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, Personnel Psychology, Psychological
Bulletin
*
, Psychological Review
*
, Psychological Science.
Sociology: American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Annual Review of Sociology
*
, Journal of Consumer Culture, Social Forces,
Sociological Quarterly, Sociological Review, Sociological Science
†
, Sociology.
Page 96 of 97Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 97 of 97
TABLE 2
Perspectives in Authenticity Research
Authenticity as… Consistency Conformity Connection
Meaning of Authenticity An entity is authentic to the extent that
it is consistent in terms of its
external expressions and its
internal values and beliefs.
An entity is authentic to the extent that
it conforms to the social category
to which it has been assigned or
that it has claimed for itself.
An entity is authentic to the extent that
it is connected to a particular
person, place, or time as claimed.
Theoretical Foundations Classical Philosophy
Ancient Greeks
Rousseau
Kierkegaard (1849)
Heidegger (1962)
Sartre (1943)
Impression Management
Goffman (1959)
Festinger (1957)
Snyder (1974)
Cognitive Schemas
Murphy & Smith (1982)
Posner & Keele (1967)
Rosch (1973, 1975)
Wittgenstein (1953)
Institutional Categories and Genres
Becker (1982)
DiMaggio (1987)
Hannan & Freeman (1977)
Meyer & Rowan (1977)
Psychological Essentialism
Flavell, Flavell & Green (1983)
Gelman (2003)
Medin & Ortony (1989)
Rozin & Nemeroff (1990)
Semiotics
Baudrillard (1983)
Mick (1986)
Peirce (1940)
Current Research Themes Self-Concept
Cable, Gino & Staats (2013)
Kernis & Goldman (2003)
Harter (2002)
Schlegel, Hicks, King & Arndt (2011)
Sheldon, Ryan & Rawsthorne (1997)
Self-Presentation
Grandey (2000)
Hewlin (2003)
Hochschild (1983)
Leroy, Palanski & Simons (2012)
Walumbwa et al. (2008)
Organizational and Brand Identity
Beverland (2005)
Hatch & Schultz (2017)
Holt (2002)
Morhart et al. (2015)
Category Membership
Carroll & Swaminathan (2000)
Fine (2004)
Glynn & Lounsbury (2005)
Kovács, Carroll, & Lehman (2014)
McKendrick & Hannan (2014)
Peterson (1997)
Category Reinterpretation
Harrison & Corley (2011)
Negro, Hannan & Rao (2011)
Rao, Monin & Durand (2005)
Weber, Heinz & DeSoucey (2008)
Provenance
Dutton (2003)
Frazier, Gelman, Wilson & Hood (2009)
Newman & Dhar (2014)
Smith, Newman & Dhar (2016)
Valsesia, Nunes & Ordanini (2016)
Transference
Grayson & Martinec (2004)
Grayson & Shulman (2000)
Wang (1999)
Symbolism
Davies (2001)
Hahl (2016)
Leigh, Peters & Shelton (2006)
MacCannell (1973)
Underlying Assumption Uniqueness Sameness Varies
Interpretive Nature Subjective Combination Objective
Authentication Process Reliance on Lay Judgments Democratic and Negotiated Reliance on Expert Knowledge
Note: References provided here are intended to be illustrative not exhaustive.
Page 97 of 97 Academy of Management Annals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60