The different ways of being true to self at work: A review of divergence among authenticity constructs

IF 4.5 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Human Relations Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1177/00187267241288109
Caroline Rook, Hannes Leroy, Jingtao Zhu, Moran Anisman-Razin
{"title":"The different ways of being true to self at work: A review of divergence among authenticity constructs","authors":"Caroline Rook, Hannes Leroy, Jingtao Zhu, Moran Anisman-Razin","doi":"10.1177/00187267241288109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the number of publications demonstrating the benefits and risks of being authentic at work grows, so does the variety of interpretations of what it means to be authentic—and with it increasing inconsistencies and contradictions in conceptualizations of authenticity and its outcomes. We propose that the reasons for these inconsistencies stem from differing underlying assumptions on what authenticity is and thus what it means to be “true to self”. To better understand these differences, we conducted a systematic review of authenticity constructs in organization science, concentrating on the divergence among definitions and underlying theoretical assumptions of authenticity constructs. We identified two dimensions underlying authenticity constructs’ assumptions. First, constructs differed in whether the self was oriented more toward independence (emphasis on the self as distinct from others) or toward interdependence (self as relationally oriented). Second, constructs ranged in their perspectives on the self as fixed (self as stable) to more malleable (self as changing). In this review, we delineate the different ways of “staying true to one’s self” at work and show the inherent complexities in the process of being authentic in the workplace, explaining how these differences may lead to seemingly contradictory work-related outcomes of authenticity.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241288109","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the number of publications demonstrating the benefits and risks of being authentic at work grows, so does the variety of interpretations of what it means to be authentic—and with it increasing inconsistencies and contradictions in conceptualizations of authenticity and its outcomes. We propose that the reasons for these inconsistencies stem from differing underlying assumptions on what authenticity is and thus what it means to be “true to self”. To better understand these differences, we conducted a systematic review of authenticity constructs in organization science, concentrating on the divergence among definitions and underlying theoretical assumptions of authenticity constructs. We identified two dimensions underlying authenticity constructs’ assumptions. First, constructs differed in whether the self was oriented more toward independence (emphasis on the self as distinct from others) or toward interdependence (self as relationally oriented). Second, constructs ranged in their perspectives on the self as fixed (self as stable) to more malleable (self as changing). In this review, we delineate the different ways of “staying true to one’s self” at work and show the inherent complexities in the process of being authentic in the workplace, explaining how these differences may lead to seemingly contradictory work-related outcomes of authenticity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
工作中忠于自我的不同方式:回顾真实性构建之间的分歧
随着证明工作中真实的益处和风险的出版物数量不断增加,对真实含义的各种解释也越来越多,对真实及其结果的概念化的不一致和矛盾也随之增加。我们认为,造成这些不一致的原因在于,人们对 "真实性 "以及 "忠于自我 "的含义有着不同的基本假设。为了更好地理解这些差异,我们对组织科学中的真实性建构进行了系统回顾,重点关注真实性建构的定义和基本理论假设之间的分歧。我们发现了真实性建构假设的两个基本维度。首先,在自我更倾向于独立(强调自我有别于他人)还是相互依存(自我以关系为导向)的问题上,各种构造存在差异。其次,各种建构对自我的看法也不尽相同,有的认为自我是固定的(自我是稳定的),有的认为自我是可塑的(自我是变化的)。在这篇综述中,我们划分了在工作中 "忠于自我 "的不同方式,并展示了在工作场所保持真实的过程中固有的复杂性,解释了这些差异如何可能导致与工作相关的、看似矛盾的真实结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Human Relations
Human Relations Multiple-
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
7.00%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.
期刊最新文献
Relations between reflexivity and institutional work: A case study in a public organisation Inspired to be transformational: The interplay between employee voice type and manager construal level Cultivating dispersed collectivity: How communities between organizations sustain employee activism The different ways of being true to self at work: A review of divergence among authenticity constructs Embodying wilfulness: Investigating the unequal power dynamics of informal organisational body work through the case of women in stand-up comedy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1