Abstract/Summary

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.