Next Article in Journal
Scientometric Analysis of Research Work on Mental Workload
Previous Article in Journal
The Virality of TikTok and New Media in Disrupting and Overturning the Election Cancellation Paradigm in Romania
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/admsci15110449
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

When Does Authenticity Benefit Employee Well-Being: A Relational Framework of Authenticity at Work

by
Di Xie
1,* and
Ying Yang
2,*
1
School of Economics, University of Toyama, Toyama-shi 930-8555, Toyama, Japan
2
Institute of Applied Psychology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(11), 449; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15110449
Submission received: 13 September 2025 / Revised: 7 November 2025 / Accepted: 12 November 2025 / Published: 17 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Organizational Behavior)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Authenticity at work has emerged as a critical factor in employee well-being research, with extensive evidence supporting its positive organizational implications. However, the existing literature primarily focuses on individual authenticity effects (either employee or leader authenticity) while neglecting the complex relational dynamics and boundary conditions that may influence the effectiveness of individual authenticity. From a person–environment fit perspective, this study examined dyadic authenticity fit between leaders and employees, an underexplored relational perspective that goes beyond individual-level authenticity effects. We propose that the positive effects of authenticity do not always function well when the dynamic authenticity relationship between employees and leaders diverges. We conducted a polynomial regression and response surface analysis on a valid sample of 412 employees from an IT company operating in China. The results showed that anxiety peaked when leader authenticity diverged from employee authenticity in either direction, indirectly resulting in high turnover tendency. The high-high authenticity fit exhibited superior performance among all fit situations. These findings highlight the critical importance of authenticity fit in leader–follower relationships for promoting employee well-being and organizational retention.

1. Introduction

The pursuit of authenticity, or being true to oneself, represents a fundamental human aspiration, and has long been recognized as essential for optimal performance and well-being across life domains, including the workplace (Hewlin et al., 2020; Sedikides & Schlegel, 2024; Sutton, 2020; Walumbwa et al., 2008). However, the modern work environment presents unprecedented challenges to being authentic, such as crafting professional personas that may diverge from employees’ true selves to meet organizational expectations or to satisfy demanding customers. These challenges have fostered a growing body of research on workplace authenticity (Hewlin et al., 2020; Lux & Lowe, 2024; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014). Empirical works have highlighted the positive organizational implications of employee authenticity, which was positively linked with psychological well-being (Kuntz & Abbott, 2017; Ménard & Brunet, 2011), job satisfaction (Cable et al., 2013; Martinez et al., 2017), and retention or less turnover intention (Cable et al., 2013; Knowles & Mainiero, 2021; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014). Overall, the implicit assumption is often “the more authenticity, the better,” a notion that may oversimplify the complexities of authenticity within workplace interactional contexts.
However, despite these promising findings, some work also suggested that being authentic might be detrimental to employees’ well-being and performance (Niu et al., 2020; Pillemer, 2024). It seemed that moderators or boundary conditions existed for the positive effect of employee authenticity. Given the significant influence of working environments (e.g., leaders’ characteristics), contextual factors should be taken into consideration when investigating the effects of employee authenticity on organizational outcomes like turnover intention.
To address this issue, we develop a contingency model of authenticity at work, drawing upon a Person–Environment (P-E) fit perspective (Edwards et al., 1996; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987; Van Vianen, 2018). P-E fit theory posits “people have an innate need to fit their environments and to seek out environments that match their own characteristics”, which satisfies their need for control and belonging (Van Vianen, 2018, p. 77). Thus, optimal individual outcomes occur when there is compatibility between an individual’s characteristics and their environment, and vice versa (M. C. Howard & Cogswell, 2023; A. L. Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; A. Kristof-Brown et al., 2023). Since supervisors constitute a critical component of employees’ work environment (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987; Zhong et al., 2024), extensive research has examined various forms of leader–follower congruence. For example, studies investigating congruence demonstrate that alignment in work values, ethical orientations, and goal priorities between leaders and followers significantly affects relationship quality, performance outcomes, and employee well-being (e.g., A. L. Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2020; Lan et al., 2023; Van Vianen, 2018; Tsai et al., 2022). Building on this congruence literature, we attempted to provide new insights into authenticity literature by introducing a dyadic construct: authenticity (in)congruence, to capture and explain additional variance of follower psychological and organizational outcomes.
To test this relational framework, we employ polynomial regression with response surface analysis (Chen & Chen, 2025; Edwards, 2002; Edwards & Cable, 2009), which precisely captures both linear and non-linear effects of (dis)agreement between two variables while considering their varying degrees and directions simultaneously (Shanock et al., 2010; Tsai et al., 2022). The methodological advantage of our approach over standard interaction effects lies in its ability to distinguish different types of (mis)fits. Specifically, it allows us to take four situations: (i) deficient misfit (high employee authenticity/low leader authenticity); (ii) excessive misfit (low employee authenticity/high leader authenticity) and fit situations (presence of either consistent (iii) high or (iv) low authenticity between employee and leader) into consideration, to examine how the (in)congruence influences employee psychological and behavioral outcomes. We hypothesize that follower anxiety will be highest when follower and leader authenticity levels diverge either in excessive or insufficient conditions and lower when they align, particularly at high levels of mutual authenticity. Furthermore, we expect that this anxiety will mediate the relationship between authenticity (in)congruence and subsequent turnover intentions.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Authenticity at Work

Authenticity, defined as the extent to which individuals are aware of and behave in accordance with their true selves, has always been highly valued across diverse fields (Sedikides & Schlegel, 2024). Being authentic is increasingly valued in workplaces, with research indicating its associations with both individual flourishing and organizational effectiveness (Cha et al., 2019; Hewlin et al., 2020). Organizational researchers like Van den Bosch and Taris (2014) have adopted Wood et al.’s (2008) tripartite authenticity model, conceptualizing authenticity at work as a three-dimension state-like construct: authentic living (remaining true to and acting in line with themselves at work), accepting external influence (accepting external influence and believing that they meet the expectations of others in work contexts), and self-alienation (the subjective experience of detaching from their core selves at work). Although existing theoretical and empirical evidence supports the notion that being authentic at work is beneficial in enhancing employee well-being and performance (e.g., Knowles & Mainiero, 2021; Maunz & Glaser, 2023; Song et al., 2021; Van den Bosch et al., 2019), such positive effects may be attenuated or even reversed under certain conditions, such as individual personality (Seto & Davis, 2021; Womick et al., 2019) and leadership style (Niu et al., 2020).
As a fundamental component of employees’ work environment, leader authenticity represents a crucial yet underexplored contextual factor affecting employee well-being and work performance. Drawing upon a dyadic lens, we examine the fit between employee and leader authenticity and its implications for employee well-being and organizational outcomes. Generally, authentic leaders act consistently with their true selves, make decisions guided by internalized ethical values and standards rather than external pressures, and share information transparently to cultivate genuine connections and mutual trust with followers (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). These leadership behaviors contribute to the establishment of psychologically safe organizational climates that support follower autonomy and self-determination, which in turn enhances employee work engagement and well-being outcomes (Aubouin-Bonnaventure et al., 2023; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Leroy et al., 2015; Santos et al., 2023; for a meta-analysis, see: Zhang et al., 2021). Meanwhile, authentic leaders often serve as positive behavioral models for their followers, thereby activating followers’ awareness of the authentic standards required in their tasks (Bandura, 1977; Gardner et al., 2011; Lux & Lowe, 2024; May et al., 2003).
However, most research on leader authenticity takes a leader-centric perspective, overlooking how leader authenticity is cognitively appraised by their followers. But high leader authenticity may not be universally beneficial (Grant & Schwartz, 2011; Hannah et al., 2024; Mumford & Fried, 2014). For example, a curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) relationship between authentic leadership and followers’ working outcomes has been found in several empirical studies (e.g., Ames & Flynn, 2007; Niu et al., 2020; Stouten et al., 2013), indicating that both insufficient and excessive authentic leadership can be toxic in some circumstances. Specifically, existing studies lack the relational perspective that considers the inherently dynamic leadership processes at the leader–follower dyadic level (Gardner et al., 2011; Epitropaki et al., 2017; Hannah et al., 2024). In this study, we introduce authenticity (in)congruence as our main construct, proposing that a U-shaped pattern arises when authenticity is inconsistent within the leader–follower dyad, while linear relationships occur only with fit or alignment.

2.2. Authenticity (In)congruence

Based on P-E fit perspective, we explore how the alignment of authenticity between employees and supervisors impacts employee psychological well-being. P-E fit theory suggests that a fit environment can leverage an individual’s attributes, thereby achieving optimal performance of employee well-being (Bright, 2021; Van Vianen, 2018). Conversely, a misalignment between an individual and one’s environment triggers stress, impairing psychological and workplace well-being (Caplan, 1983; Edwards & Cooper, 1990; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987; for a meta-analysis, see: Oh et al., 2014). Within the framework of P-E fit, several types of fit have been proposed including person–supervisor fit, which is relevant to our present work. Person–supervisor or person–leader fit refers to the match between employees’ characteristics (e.g., working values) and those of their leader (Van Vianen, 2018). Person–leader fit fosters high leader–member exchange, and promotes work behaviors concurring with the values and goals of the organization (Vleugels, 2024). However, authenticity mainly refers to individual traits, the extent to which one is aware of and behaves in line with their inner values and motivations (Sedikides & Schlegel, 2024; Wood et al., 2008). Leader-member exchange refers to leader’s tendency to share or teach the organization’s values or rules with or to the follower (Martin et al., 2016), but this process is independent of whether they share their true selves. If the leader and follower possess similar authentic personalities, they will be truer to each other and themselves. In this case, they will develop a closer relationship and be satisfied with each other. Therefore, we predict that authenticity fit is more relevant to well-being (e.g., less anxiety).
To systematically investigate the effects of leader–follower authenticity fit, we identify three scenarios to describe leader–follower authenticity dynamics: excess, deficiency, and fit (Marstand et al., 2017).
We first focus on the fit situation (either high-high or low-low authenticity congruence). When individuals enact high authenticity in their professional conduct within a high authentic leadership context, their psychological resources are easily established due to the value congruence. High authenticity fit facilitates cognitive alignment between leaders and followers, creating aligned views on task interpretation, role expectations, and goals, ultimately promoting workplace well-being (Cha et al., 2019; Song et al., 2021). It may also apply to low-authenticity employees who work with a low-authenticity leader. For employees who adopt inauthentic strategies for performance or career reasons (L. Howard, 2025), a similarly inauthentic leader may reduce their internal conflict coming from inauthenticity, allowing them to maintain their strategy with less psychological resource loss. Moreover, when the context aligns with one’s characteristics, people tend to perceive their environment as predictable, which facilitates psychological well-being (Schmader & Sedikides, 2018).
Conversely, when such employees face highly authentic leaders, they may experience role conflict and moral reproach (Schwepker et al., 1997; Stouten et al., 2013). They question their working approaches or even scrutinize the motives of their leader, such as judging their values and moral standards (Hannah et al., 2024; Monin et al., 2008; Minson & Monin, 2012; Peterson, 2003). Excessive authentic leadership creates a contradictory environment that constrains these employees from adopting their inauthentic strategies. Therefore, followers not only experience psychological discomfort stemming from inauthentic work strategies but also tax their resources and endure the stress of being in a misfit environment, where their inauthentic strategies are unsupported.
In the case of deficiency, highly authentic employees may perceive that their moral and authentic behaviors are undervalued and may become dissatisfied or contemptuous toward the leaders exhibiting low authenticity standards (Hannah et al., 2024). This will also cause internal struggle and role conflict to tax their resources, consequently resulting in anxiety. Additionally, highly authentic employees may encounter difficulties in forming genuine connections with inauthentic leaders, which hinders their ability to transfer authenticity into psychological resources (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Cha et al., 2019; Gardner et al., 2011; Hannah et al., 2024).
Empirical studies have recently explored this asymmetrical effect, highlighting the importance of fit between leader and follower authenticity. Biermeier-Hanson et al.’s (2021) pioneering investigation showed that joint high levels of leader and follower authenticity were associated with superior follower outcomes, including enhanced job satisfaction and organizational commitment, as well as reduced turnover intentions. Hannah et al. (2024) found that incongruence between senior and junior leader authenticity was associated with poorer outcomes for junior leaders, such as reduced performance and increased deviance behaviors.
Although Hannah et al. (2024) reported insignificant slopes along the congruence line, we suggest that the positive effect of fit on reduced anxiety is higher when both leader and follower authenticity have jointly higher rather than at lower levels. High authenticity shared by the follower and leader would facilitate an authentic relationship through interpersonal exchanges, such as increasing transparency and moral perspectives of the leader–follower relationship (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Hannah et al., 2005; May et al., 2003). When followers are in an authentic relationship, they will feel they are allowed to be themselves, thus enhancing self-determination (Ilies et al., 2005), which can activate the benefits of authenticity maximally.
Taken together, authenticity fit enables a more transparent and genuine interaction, where leaders and employees can better comprehend each other’s values and behavioral patterns, thus fostering a more supportive and predictable work environment, which reduces psychological resources consumption (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). Compared with low-low fit, followers and leaders who share high levels of authenticity are likely to establish mutual trust and genuine relationships, which contribute to the development of psychological capital that buffers against anxiety (Ilies et al., 2005; Hannah et al., 2024). In contrast, asymmetrical authenticity creates internal conflict and moral reproach, which in turn leads to negative emotion and anxious reactions.
Hypothesis 1.
Individuals will experience higher levels of anxiety when their authenticity is inconsistent with the leader.
Hypothesis 2.
Anxiety levels of followers will be lower when there is authenticity fit at higher levels (high-high), compared to lower levels (low-low) between the leader and follower.

2.3. Consequences for Turnover Intentions

Individuals whose attributes align with their organizational environment are more likely to report greater job satisfaction and exhibit longer tenure compared to those in misfit environments (Hoffman, 1993; A. L. Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987; Vleugels, 2024). To unpack this psychological process, we draw further from theories on P-E fit and conservation of resources (COR) to clarify how ongoing misfit situations shape turnover intentions (Edwards et al., 1996; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018).
The P-E fit theory suggests that the misfit between a person and her/his environment causes maladaptive emotional responses, such as anxiety, by fostering increased uncertainty and reduced belonging (Edwards & Cooper, 1990; Hobfoll et al., 2018). COR theory suggests that individuals strive to acquire and protect resources they value, and anxiety occurs when these resources are threatened with loss (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018). When individuals experience misalignment, they perceive incongruence as a potential threat to their personal resources, which can trigger anxious responses. Turnover intentions, the willingness to withdraw from the current employer, can be understood as individuals seeking relief from stressors to conserve personal resources (Hanisch & Hulin, 1991; Hobfoll et al., 2018; Jex, 1998). When employees recognize that their current work environment chronically threatens their psychological resources and triggers anxiety, withdrawal becomes a coping strategy to prevent further resource loss (Rodrigues et al., 2025; Steel & Lounsbury, 2009).
Incongruence between employees’ authentic values with their supervisor’s will trigger the process of role conflict, moral reproach, and uncertainty appraisal, which can drain individual cognitive and emotional resources, and finally develop into anxiety. When confronting such misfits, people may also engage in coping mechanisms to mitigate resource depletion by reducing the likelihood of being harmed, such as avoiding this stressful (misfit) situation, often manifesting in absenteeism and turnover behavior (Jensen et al., 2013; Xie & Takahashi, 2022).
Hypothesis 3.
Misfit authenticity between the follower and leader will be indirectly associated with followers’ turnover intention via anxiety.
Based on the foregoing, we propose a conceptual model that delineates the mechanism of misfit authenticity (see Figure 1).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sample

This study has received ethical approval from the second author’s Institutional Review Board (No. TJUE-2025-034). Our survey was conducted in a branch of a national IT enterprise in China. All 583 non-managerial, full-time IT workers were invited to participate in the study. The survey was administered online using Wenjuanxing (www.wjx.cn (accessed on 1 April 2025)), a widely used survey platform in mainland China (similar to Qualtrics). The HR manager sent the initial invitation email containing the survey link and detailed study information to all eligible employees. Participants were given two weeks to complete the questionnaire, with a reminder email sent three days before the deadline to maximize response rates. All participants signed the informed consent agreement before accessing the questionnaire. The questionnaire was voluntary and anonymous to protect participant identity. To ensure confidentiality, data was directly managed by the research team with no access granted to organization personnel.
Eventually, 485 employees completed the online survey (response rate = 83.2%). Given the relatively short nature of the questionnaire (designed to be completed within approximately 10 min), formal attention checks were not incorporated. For data quality assurance, we removed seventy-three responses with completion times shorter than 5 min or longer than 20 min, as well as those showing identical response patterns across all items, including reverse-coded ones.
Among the final valid sample (N = 412), 179 (43.4%) were male and 233 (56.6%) were female; their age ranged from 21 to 59 years old (M = 37.1, SD = 6.8), and their average tenure ranged from 1 to 32 years (M = 12.2; SD = 6.4). Concerning education, sixty-four subjects hold a junior college degree (15.5%); 310 have a bachelor’s degree (75.2%); and thirty-eight attained a master’s degree or above (9.2%).

3.2. Measures

Follower Authenticity was measured with the Chinese version of 12-item Individual Authenticity Measure at Work (IAM Work), which was originally developed by Van den Bosch and Taris (2014) and validated among Chinese employees by Liu and Wang (2016). There are three dimensions: authentic living (α = 0.94), accepting of external influence (α = 0.92), and self-alienation (α = 0.98), with four items for each. Participants provided their responses on seven-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). High scores indicate higher employee authenticity. The overall scale demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.85), supporting its use as a composite measure.
Leader Authenticity was measured using a 14-item scale Authenticity Leadership Inventory (ALI) developed by Neider and Schriesheim (2011). Participants were asked to rate the authenticity of their direct manager on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate a higher level of perceived authenticity of their leader (α = 0.98).
Anxiety was measured with seven anxiety symptoms items from Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Participants rated the frequency with which they experienced these sensations at work, ranging from 1 (did not apply to me at all) and 4 (most of the time). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability for this scale was 0.94.
Turnover intention was measured on a five-point Likert scale with a 2-item turnover intention scale adapted from Mobley et al. (1978). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability for this scale was 0.89.
Control variables include gender, age, education, and job tenure, which may relate to our outcome variables (i.e., anxiety and turnover intention).

3.3. Polynomial Regression Analysis

We conducted polynomial regression and response surface analyses (e.g., Edwards, 2002; Edwards & Cable, 2009; Edwards & Parry, 1993) to test our hypotheses. To test Hypothesis 1, we regressed anxiety (ANX) on two first-order terms representing follower authenticity (F) and leader authenticity (L), along with three second-order terms: the squared main effects (F2, L2) and their interaction term (F × L). Following the guidelines proposed by Shanock et al. (2010), we first transformed the follower authenticity item scale to a five-point Likert scale: new Score = ((original Score − 1)/6) × 4 + 1 (e.g., original score of 6 becomes 4.33), to achieve measurement congruence with the leader authenticity scale. A sensitivity analysis using z-standardization was conducted to confirm the robustness of this transformation strategy (see Appendix A), to measure the congruency between the follower and leader. We then scale-mean-centered the original values of the two independent variables (F and L) to generate the polynomial terms. Control variables were included in the analysis but are not displayed in Equation (1) for clarity and brevity.
ANX = b0 + b1F + b2L + b3F2 + b4(F × L) + b5L2 ……
We used the coefficients from Equation (1) to test our Hypothesis 1 by constructing a three-dimensional response surface (see Figure 2), with F and L as the two perpendicular horizontal axes and ANX as the vertical axis. Two conceptual lines (the congruence and incongruence line) of study interest are presented on the floor of the three-dimensional graph. As shown below, these regression coefficients (b1 ~ b5) were first transformed into the parameters (a1 ~ a4) of the response surface characteristics, which are used for calculating the (in)congruence effects between follower (F) and leader (L) authenticity on anxiety of followers.
Congruence line (F = L):
Slope: a1 = b1 + b2
Curvature: a2 = b3 + b4 + b5
Incongruence line (F = −L):
Slope: a3 = b1 − b2
Curvature: a4 = b3 − b4 + b5
To support Hypothesis 1, the response surface should be curved as a U-shape along the incongruence line (F = −L), which indicates the dependent variable (anxiety) increases along the incongruence line when the two predictors (F and L) diverge from each other in either direction. To test this feature of the response surface, we examined whether the curvature of incongruence line (a4) is positive and different from zero (Edwards & Parry, 1993).
To provide additional support for the hypothesized incongruence effect, we tested another feature of a significant incongruence effect (Edwards & Cable, 2009). That is, the trough representing the bottom of the response surface should go along the congruence line (F = L), such that the dependent variable (ANX) is minimized when follower (F) and leader (L) authenticity are equivalent at every point along the congruence line (Edwards & Cable, 2009). This condition is achieved when the trough of the response surface (that is the second principal axis which is represented as a solid line in Figure 2) runs along the congruence line and has a slope (ρ21) not different than one and an intercept (ρ20) not different than zero (for computational details, see Edwards, 2002; Edwards & Cable, 2009; Edwards & Parry, 1993). We used 95%CIs for ρ21 and ρ20 from 5000 bootstrapped resamples to test the two parameters. This condition strengthens the evidence for the incongruence effect, because it ensures that anxiety is minimized when follower and leader authenticity are congruent and increases as they become incongruent in either direction (Edwards & Cable, 2009), which directly supports Hypothesis 1.
Next, we investigate the relationship between authenticity and anxiety agreement in fit patterns. To support Hypothesis 2, the slope of the congruence line (a1) must be negative, but the curvature of the congruence line (a2) should not be different from zero to ensure the linear relationship.

3.4. Indirect Effect on Turnover Intentions

To verify Hypothesis 3, we employed the curvature parameter of the incongruence line (specifically, the a4 coefficient was previously established in the test of H1) as the “α” path for the first stage of the mediation model. This approach follows recent methodological advances in polynomial regression mediation analysis (Fu et al., 2024; Rosen et al., 2020; Yoon et al., 2023). This method is similar but superior to the block variable approach that is used to test mediation effects in polynomial regression studies. As Rosen et al. (2020) demonstrate, using linear combinations of polynomial terms (such as the incongruence curvature) allows researchers to “concurrently model the effects of the various aspects of (mis)fit” while avoiding the limitations of block variable approaches that conflate different types of effects. This is particularly relevant to our theoretical hypotheses, which specifically focus on the effects of authenticity incongruence on anxiety and subsequent turnover intentions, rather than congruence effects. According to the previous polynomial regression mediation studies (as demonstrated by Fu et al., 2024; Rosen et al., 2020; Yoon et al., 2023; etc.), the incongruence curvature parameter (a4) serves as an appropriate α estimate because it specifically captures the overall effect of authenticity incongruence while controlling for consistency effects. Next, the “β” path for the second stage of the mediation model was estimated by regressing our dependent variable (turnover intention) on the mediator (anxiety) after controlling for the five polynomial terms as well as control variables. The indirect effect (α*β) was tested with the 95%CI from 5000 bootstrapped resamples (Preacher & Selig, 2012).
To ensure the robustness of our findings, we conducted two additional analyses using alternative operationalizations of authenticity incongruence. First, we employed absolute difference scores (|follower authenticity—leader authenticity|) as a direct measure of authenticity mismatch. Second, we applied the block variable approach (Edwards & Cable, 2009). Both alternative approaches provided converging evidence supporting our primary results (detailed analysis procedures and results can be requested from the corresponding authors).

4. Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables and control variables are presented in Table 1.
Before testing the hypotheses, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the discriminant validity among follower authenticity (i.e., authentic living, accepting of external influence, and self-alienation), leader authenticity, anxiety, and turnover intentions, using Mplus Version 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2011). The results suggested that our basis six-factor measurement model (CFI = 0.929, SRMR = 0.041, RMSEA = 0.061) yielded a better fit than other alternative model: the four-factor model collapsing three follower authenticity dimensions (CFI = 0.755, SRMR = 0.192, RMSEA = 0.112), the three-factor model further combining follower and leader authenticity into a single authenticity factor while keeping separated construct of anxiety and turnover intentions (CFI = 0.620, SRMR = 0.186, RMSEA = 0.139), the two-factor model additionally merging anxiety with turnover intention (CFI = 0.604, SRMR = 0.188, RMSEA = 0.142), the single-factor model constraining all measurement items to load on one common factor (CFI = 0.465, SRMR = 0.229, RMSEA = 0.165). These results provide evidence for discriminant validity among all measurement constructs and also indicate that common method variance (CMV) is not a serious concern in our data (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
To further assess common method variance (CMV), we conducted the single-factor test to evaluate the underlying seriousness of common method bias suggested by Harman (1976). According to the unrotated factor analysis of all items in the questionnaire, the first factor accounted for 39.92% lower than the 50% standard (Podsakoff et al., 2003), which did not account for half of the total variance (79.82%), indicating that common method bias might not be an issue in this study.
Table 2 presents the results from the polynomial regressions and the parameters of response surface characteristics. As evidenced in Table 2, the curvature of the incongruence line (a4) was positive and significant (est. = 0.504, p < 0.01, 95% CI = [0.142, 0.876]), providing initial support for Hypothesis 1. The response surface in Figure 2 curved upward (U-shape) along the incongruence line, demonstrating that the anxiety levels increased as follower authenticity deviated from leader authenticity along the incongruence line in either direction. This pattern indicates that anxiety levels increase when employees perceive a disagreement with their supervisors. Non-significant curvature of the congruence line (a2 = 0.135, p = 0.090) demonstrates the linear relationship along the congruence line, indicating that anxiety remained consistently lower when leader authenticity aligned with employee authenticity than when there was a disparity, regardless of whether their authenticity levels were simultaneously high or low.
As introduced in the analysis strategy, we also tested the intercept (ρ21) and slope (ρ20) of the second principal axis to ensure whether the response surface trough is located along the incongruence line. The slope of the second principal axis did not significantly differ from one (ρ21 = 3.484; 95%CI = [−10.924, 21.681]), and its intercept was not different from zero (ρ20 = −3.699; 95%CI = [−15.543, 12.659]). These results provide further support for Hypothesis 1 by demonstrating that anxiety is minimized when follower and leader authenticity are matched (regardless of whether both are high or low) and increases systematically as two authenticity levels diverge.
As we mentioned above, the curvature of the congruence line (a2 = 0.135, p = 0.090) was not significant, demonstrating the linear relationship along the congruence line, rather than curvilinear. At the same time, the slope was negative and significant (a1 = −0.536, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 2. Figure 2 visually depicts the negative slope of the plane as it runs from the front corner of the graph to the back corner along the congruence line, indicating that followers’ anxiety levels will be lower when authenticity fit is at high level (high-high) between the leader and follower, compared to when it is in low-low fit.
Finally, we tested the indirect effect between authenticity congruence and turnover intention (Hypothesis 3). As shown in Table 2, anxiety was positively related to turnover intention (β = 0.310, p < 0.001). The bootstrapping CI for the indirect effect of authenticity incongruence on turnover intention (est. = 0.156, 95% CI [0.034, 0.345]) via anxiety excluded zero, supporting H3.

5. Discussion

Authenticity has been a key theme since the rise of positive psychology for decades (Harter, 2002), and its organizational implications have been valued (Hewlin et al., 2020). Recently, researchers have also valued the situational factors that determine when authenticity works in organizational settings (Pillemer, 2024). Drawing on P-E fit theory, we argued that authenticity fit may account for additional variance of the authenticity effects on employee well-being. The main findings and their theoretical and practical implications are elaborated as follows:

5.1. Main Findings

First, we found that anxiety peaks when leader authenticity diverges from employee authenticity in either direction, underscoring that it is not only the presence of authenticity, but also its alignment within the dyadic relationship that shapes employee psychological experiences. This finding corroborates and extends the finding of curvilinear effects of authentic leadership (Grant & Schwartz, 2011; Stouten et al., 2013). Challenging the conventional assumptions, our findings indicate that excessively high levels of authentic leadership may be equally detrimental to employees with low authenticity, which provides compelling evidence for the “authenticity paradox”. Specifically, such incongruence could create role conflict, moral reproach, and an unpredictable environment for employees, which triggers anxiety. For highly authentic followers, a low-authentic leader makes them unsure about their role performance at work, resulting in self-reflection or frustration because their moral behavior and integrity are not valued, which drains their psychological resources and triggers anxiety. For result-oriented followers or those with career goals, excessive authentic leadership can create pressure and discomfort when they use inauthentic strategies within their daily work. They may perceive their leader as judging the legitimacy of their value and work styles, feeling moral reproach. Conversely, fit conditions create a more predictable environment, which may buffer internal conflict and anxiety triggered by inauthenticity (Schmader & Sedikides, 2018).
Second, our results showed that the high-high authenticity exhibited the most superior performance, further confirming that the benefits of authenticity are manifested only when an individual’s authenticity aligns with that of the environment, particularly in a jointly high authenticity condition. Although low-low fit situations create the certainty to buffer the anxiety induced by inauthenticity, the high-high condition appears optimal for minimizing anxiety. Consistent with Hannah et al.’s (2024) arguments, high authenticity levels of the leader–follower dyad cultivate psychological capital and foster mutual trust, which facilitates the development of authentic relationships (Cha et al., 2019; Ilies et al., 2005). While low-low authenticity may constrain the development of high-quality relationships that promote psychological well-being.
Third, our study found that turnover intention was indirectly influenced by authenticity incongruence through anxiety. This finding complements the narrative of how P-E misfit is associated with turnover, as shown in previous empirical studies (A. L. Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; A. Kristof-Brown et al., 2023; Vleugels, 2024). If an employee feels anxious due to the misfit between personal authenticity and leader authenticity, they may try to escape from such a work setting and tend to quit as a coping strategy (Vleugels, 2024).

5.2. Theoretical Implications

Our work presented a relational framework for understanding authenticity in workplace. Because the nuanced effects of authenticity at the workplace need to be considered when developing and refining theoretical frameworks. Authenticity at work involves not only the awareness and unbiased processing of the inner self, but also (not) accepting the influence of work settings and significant others (e.g., supervisors or leaders) (Hewlin et al., 2020). However, existing theories regarding authenticity explicitly and/or implicitly assume that being authentic is beneficial (Hannah et al., 2024; Pillemer, 2024). As our work suggested, if employees’ authenticity is misfit with their leaders, being authentic may cause anxiety and further trigger turnover intentions. Furthermore, much of the existing literature has focused on the benefits of employee or leader authenticity in isolation, our study advances the understanding of authenticity in the workplace by highlighting the critical importance of “fit”, shifting from an individual-centered perspective to a relational framework.
In addition, we also proposed and tested the mechanism (i.e., anxiety) underlying the effect of employee–leader authenticity fit on employee turnover. Such findings highlighted the significance of psychological mechanisms in understanding turnover behavior. According to COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018), misfit situations are considered a threat to personal resources, resulting in anxious responses and prompting individuals to engage in resource-protective behaviors, such as increasing their withdrawal intentions (e.g., turnover intention) to prevent further resource loss. When employees experience prolonged anxiety due to authenticity incongruence, their intention to leave the organization may increase as a coping mechanism to conserve remaining resources.

5.3. Practical Implications

Our findings offer practical implications for organizational practitioners and employees. Organizations should recognize that fostering workplace well-being is not just about promoting individual authenticity or cultivating authentic leaders in isolation (Pillemer, 2024). A “one-size-fits-all” approach to authentic leadership might be counterproductive if incongruence occurs. A context-sensitive approach is essential; that is, leader authenticity should be balanced against the diverse needs and attributes of followers. Leaders should recognize that their excessive authenticity can create a psychological burden for employees who are employing inauthentic strategies in order to achieve their performance goals. Specifically, leaders should implement periodic misfit checks through guided one-on-one conversations assessing follower needs and preferences for leader authenticity and periodic pulse surveys assessing team climate and leadership style preferences, then adjust their authentic expression accordingly. Therefore, leadership development programs should move beyond simply promoting high authenticity to cultivating leaders’ ability to diagnose and navigate the complex authenticity dynamics within their teams. For employees, they may also endorse strategy to present their authenticity levels, so as to fit in the context (e.g., leader’s authenticity level), as suggested by Pillemer (2024).

5.4. Limitations

This research also has limitations. First, our cross-sectional design may limit the ability of causal inference. Due to this limitation of causal inference, we put effort into theoretical model formulation. The curvilinear relationship between authenticity incongruence and anxiety, along with the proposed mediating model, was based on empirical findings (e.g., Hannah et al., 2024; Stouten et al., 2013), and a solid theoretical rationale by integrating the theory of P-E fit and COR, as well as moral reproach (Monin et al., 2008) and role conflict (Kahn et al., 1964) as the mechanism of misfit authenticity. This theoretical foundation helps reduce the potential for reverse or mutual causality to some extent. However, it is important to note that authenticity in the workplace may fluctuate within an individual across different situations, particularly for those in boundary-spanning roles (Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014). Future research should employ multi-wave longitudinal designs with at least three measurement points to provide stronger tests of the temporal mechanism of authenticity incongruence (Cole & Maxwell, 2003) or experience sampling methodology to establish a more rigorous causality by examining both within-person fluctuations and between-person differences. Such future designs should also incorporate formal attention checks to ensure optimal data quality assurance, particularly when using online survey platforms or broader sampling approaches.
Second, as the sample of this study was from a single IT company in China, the generalizability of the findings might be limited by this specific cultural and industrial context. The effect of authenticity may be more sensitive in certain industries (e.g., pharmaceuticals and healthcare), where ethical considerations are paramount, and in particular occupations (e.g., sales representative) that need more authentic strategies. Additionally, the impacts of authenticity fit with the supervisor dynamics may vary across different cultures (Ramsay et al., 2023). For example, power-distance norms may significantly moderate the significance of authenticity misfit (Hofstede, 2001). In high power-distance cultures, followers may experience less psychological discomfort from authenticity incongruence because hierarchical expectations reduce the ambiguity and moral conflict that typically generate anxiety (Kirkman et al., 2009). Future research should replicate these findings across diverse cultural contexts, industries, and occupational roles, to assess the robustness of this model.

6. Conclusions

This study underscores the critical role of authenticity (in)congruence between employees and leaders in shaping employee anxiety, as well as turnover intentions. Moving beyond the traditional individual-centered view of authenticity, our findings emphasize that “fit matters.” When employee and leader authenticity levels align, particularly at high levels, employees experience less anxiety and are less likely to quit. However, incongruence can be detrimental: employee anxiety peaks when their authenticity levels diverge from the leader, regardless of direction. This research contributes to a more nuanced, relational, and context-sensitive understanding of authenticity at work, urging both researchers and practitioners to consider the dynamics of authenticity fit within the leader–follower relationship.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.X. and Y.Y.; methodology, D.X.; software, D.X.; validation, D.X. and Y.Y.; formal analysis, D.X.; investigation, Y.Y.; resources, Y.Y.; data curation, Y.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, D.X. and Y.Y.; writing—review and editing, D.X. and Y.Y.; visualization, D.X.; supervision, D.X.; project administration, Y.Y.; funding acquisition, D.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, grant number 24K16418.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tianjin University (No. TJUE-2025-034) for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. The Result of Sensitivity Analysis Using the z-Standardized Scale

Table A1. Results of polynomial regression and response surface analysis.
Table A1. Results of polynomial regression and response surface analysis.
VariablesAnxietyTurnover Intention
  BSEBSE
Constant2.014 ***0.2421.854 ***0.473
Control    
Male0.0260.061−0.184 *0.089
Age−0.0070.0070.0150.010
Education−0.144 **0.049−0.0970.089
Job tenure0.0110.007−0.031 **0.011
Polynomial terms     
b1 Follower authenticity (F)−0.347 ***0.038−0.445 ***0.077
b2 Leader authenticity (L)0.0020.039−0.0250.059
b3 F20.131 ***0.0320.208 **0.066
b4 F*L−0.0870.048−0.222 **0.064
b5 L20.0070.0280.0460.046
Mediator    
β Anxiety   0.310 ***0.084
R20.374 ***0.0510.429 ***0.050
Response surface parameters    
Slope of Congruence line
(a1 = b1 + b2)		−0.346 ***0.041  
Curvature of Congruence line
(a2 = b3 + b4 + b5)		0.0500.037  
Slope of Incongruence line
(a3 = b1 − b2)		−0.349 ***0.065  
Curvature of Incongruence line (a4 = b3 − b4 + b5)0.225 **0.084    
Note. N = 412; Scores for both follower authenticity and leader authenticity were standardized. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

References

  1. Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Aubouin-Bonnaventure, J., Fouquereau, E., Coillot, H., Lahiani, F.-J., & Chevalier, S. (2023). A new gain spiral at work: Relationships between virtuous organizational practices, psychological capital, and well-being of workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), 1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  6. Biermeier-Hanson, B., Wynne, K. T., Thrasher, G., & Lyons, J. B. (2021). Modeling the joint effect of leader and follower authenticity on work and non-work outcomes. The Journal of Psychology, 155(2), 140–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bright, L. (2021). Does person organization fit and person-job fit mediate the relationship between public service motivation and work stress among U.S. federal employees? Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Caplan, R. D. (1983). Person-environment fit: Past, present, and future. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Stress research: Issues for the eighties (pp. 37–71). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cha, S. E., Hewlin, P. F., Roberts, L. M., Buckman, B. R., Leroy, H., Steckler, E. L., Ostermeier, K., & Cooper, D. (2019). Being your true self at work: Integrating the fragmented research on authenticity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 633–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, H. Y., & Chen, C. C. (2025). Response surface models in science and technology. Applied Sciences, 15(13), 7206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow, & N. W. Schmitt (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  14. Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1996). Person-environment fit theory: Conceptual and methodological issues. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 289–347). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  16. Edwards, J. R., & Cooper, C. (1990). The person-environment fit approach to stress: Recurring problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(4), 293–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 104–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fu, S., Lee, Y. E., Yoon, S., Dimotakis, N., Koopman, J., & Tepper, B. J. (2024). “I Didn’t See That Coming!” A daily investigation of the effects of as-expected and un-expected workload levels. Personnel Psychology, 77(3), 1311–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 6(1), 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39(1), 110–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hannah, S. T., Bluhm, D., & Avolio, B. J. (2024). Hierarchical leader-leader fit: Examining authentic leader dyads and implications for junior leader outcomes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 31(4), 453–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hannah, S. T., Lester, P. B., & Vogelgesang, G. R. (2005). Moral leadership: Explicating the moral component of authentic leadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development (pp. 43–81). Elsevier Science. [Google Scholar]
  25. Harman, H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago. [Google Scholar]
  26. Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hewlin, P. F., Karelaia, N., Kouchaki, M., & Sedikides, C. (2020). Authenticity at work: Its shapes, triggers, and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 80–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 57–80). Marcel Dekker. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoffman, A. J. (1993). The importance of fit between individual values and organisational culture in the greening of industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2(4), 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  33. Howard, L. (2025). Authenticity and woman’s leadership: A qualitative study of professional business services in the UK. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 17(1), 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Howard, M. C., & Cogswell, J. E. (2023). A meta-analysis of polychronicity: Applying modern perspectives of multitasking and person-environment fit. Organizational Psychology Review, 13(3), 315–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Messersmith, J. G. (2013). High-performance work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1699–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice. SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kim, J., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Eckardt, R., Cheong, M., Tsai, C.-Y., Guo, J., & Park, J. W. (2020). State-of-the-science review of leader-follower dyads research. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Knowles, J., & Mainiero, L. (2021). Authentic talent development in women leaders who opted out: Discovering authenticity, balance, and challenge through the Kaleidoscope Career Model. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kristof-Brown, A., Schneider, B., & Su, R. (2023). Person-organization fit theory and research: Conundrums, conclusions, and calls to action. Personnel Psychology, 76(2), 375–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kuntz, J. R. C., & Abbott, M. (2017). Authenticity at work: A moderated mediation analysis. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(5), 789–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lan, J., Huo, Y., Wong, I. A., & Yuan, B. (2023). How (in)congruence of leader–follower learning goal orientation influences leader–member exchange and employee innovation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(7), 2545–2563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liu, X., & Wang, Y. (2016). Reliability and validity of the individual authenticity measure at work for Chinese employees. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 454–458. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.). Psychology Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  49. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–261). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lux, A. A., & Lowe, K. B. (2024). Authentic leadership: 20-Year review editorial. Journal of Management & Organization, 30(6), 1634–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Marstand, A. F., Martin, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2017). Complementary person-supervisor fit: An investigation of supplies-values (S-V) fit, leader-member exchange (LMX) and work outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(3), 418–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Maunz, L. A., & Glaser, J. (2023). Does being authentic promote self-actualization at work? Examining the links between work-related resources, authenticity at work, and occupational self-actualization. Journal of Business and Psychology, 38, 347–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ménard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 331–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 76–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  63. Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1146–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Niu, C., Liang, F., Meng, X., & Liu, Y. (2020). The inverted U-shaped relationship between authentic leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 48(11), e9416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Oh, I.-S., Guay, R. P., Kim, K., Harold, C. M., Lee, J.-H., Heo, C.-G., & Shin, K.-H. (2014). Fit happens globally: A meta-analytic comparison of the relationships of person–environment fit dimensions with work attitudes and performance across East Asia, Europe, and North America. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 99–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Peterson, D. K. (2003). The relationship between ethical pressure, relativistic moral beliefs and organizational commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(6), 557–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pillemer, J. (2024). Strategic authenticity: Signaling authenticity without undermining professional image in workplace interactions. Organization Science, 35(5), 1641–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ramsay, J. E., Wang, D., Yeo, J. S. E., Khong, Z. Y., & Tan, C. S. (2023). Perceived authenticity, Machiavellianism, and psychological functioning: An inter-domain and cross-cultural investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 204, 112049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rodrigues, I. R., Palma-Moreira, A., & Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2025). Let me know what kind of leader you are, and I will tell you if I stay: The role of well-being in the relationship between leadership and turnover intentions. Administrative Sciences, 15(7), 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rosen, C. C., Dimotakis, N., Cole, M. S., Taylor, S. G., Simon, L. S., Smith, T. A., & Reina, C. S. (2020). When challenges hinder: An investigation of when and how challenge stressors impact employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), 1181–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Santos, R. S., Lousã, E. P., Sá, M. M., & Cordeiro, J. A. (2023). First, be a good citizen: Organizational citizenship behaviors, well-being at work and the moderating role of leadership styles. Behavioral Sciences, 13(10), 811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Schmader, T., & Sedikides, C. (2018). State authenticity as fit to environment: The implications of social identity for fit, authenticity, and self-segregation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 228–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Schwepker, C. H., Ferrell, O. C., & Ingram, T. N. (1997). The influence of ethical climate and ethical conflict on role stress in the sales force. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sedikides, C., & Schlegel, R. J. (2024). Distilling the concept of authenticity. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(8), 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Seto, E., & Davis, W. E. (2021). Authenticity predicts positive interpersonal relationship quality at low, but not high, levels of psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 182, 111072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Song, L., Wang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2021). How employee authenticity shapes work attitudes and behaviors: The mediating role of psychological capital and the moderating role of leader authenticity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(6), 1125–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Steel, R. P., & Lounsbury, J. W. (2009). Turnover process models: Review and synthesis of a conceptual literature. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Stouten, J., Van Dijke, M., Mayer, D. M., De Cremer, D., & Euwema, M. C. (2013). Can a leader be seen as too ethical? The curvilinear effects of ethical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 680–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sutton, A. (2020). Living the good life: A meta-analysis of authenticity, well-being and engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 109645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tsai, C.-Y., Kim, J., Jin, F., Jun, M., Cheong, M., & Yammarino, F. J. (2022). Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(1), 101592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014). Authenticity at work: Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Van den Bosch, R., Taris, T. W., Wilmar, B., Schaufeli, W. B., Peeters, M. C. W., & Reijseger, G. (2019). Authenticity at work: A matter of fit? The Journal of Psychology, 153(2), 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2018). Person-environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 75–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vleugels, W. (2024). Person-environment misfit. In M. Bal (Ed.), Elgar encyclopedia of organizational psychology (pp. 498–504). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Womick, J., Foltz, R. M., & King, L. A. (2019). ‘Releasing the beast within’? Authenticity, well-being, and the dark tetrad. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. 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(3), 385–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Xie, D., & Takahashi, K. (2022). Economic, organizational and psychological determinants of early turnover: Evidence from a pharmaceutical company in China. Employee Relations, 44(2), 356–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Yoon, S., Koopman, J., Dimotakis, N., Simon, L. S., Liang, L. H., Ni, D., Zheng, X., Fu, S. Q., Lee, Y. E., Tang, P. M., Ng, C. T. S., Bush, J. T., Darden, T. R., Forrester, J. K., Tepper, B. J., & Brown, D. J. (2023). Consistent and low is the only way to go: A polynomial regression approach to the effect of abusive supervision inconsistency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(10), 1619–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., Zhang, M., Xu, S., Liu, X., & Newman, A. (2021). Antecedents and outcomes of authentic leadership across culture: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39, 1399–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhong, Y. F., Sluss, D. M., & Badura, K. L. (2024). Subordinate-to-supervisor relational identification: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(9), 1431–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 15 00449 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual/Hypothesis model on (in)congruence authenticity.
Figure 1. Conceptual/Hypothesis model on (in)congruence authenticity.
Admsci 15 00449 g001
Admsci 15 00449 g002
Figure 2. Response surface graph depicting the (in)congruence effect of authenticity on anxiety.
Figure 2. Response surface graph depicting the (in)congruence effect of authenticity on anxiety.
Admsci 15 00449 g002
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.
VariablesNMeanSD1234567
1Sex (male)412  0.4340.496              
2Age40937.1126.831  0.075            
3Tenure41012.1966.413−0.044  0.792 ***          
4Education412  2.9400.494  0.102 *−0.287 ***−0.282 ***        
5Follower authenticity412  4.6690.978  0.066  0.070  0.039  0.082      
6Leader authenticity412  4.1680.715  0.168 ***−0.098 *−0.071  0.129 **  0.317 ***    
7Anxiety412  1.5950.695−0.009  0.014  0.067−0.151 **−0.533 ***−0.112 *  
8Turnover intention412  2.3401.137−0.079−0.055−0.073−0.092−0.557 ***−0.147 **0.479 ***
*** p < 0.001. ** p < 0.01. * p < 0.05.
Table 2. Results of polynomial regression and response surface analysis.
Table 2. Results of polynomial regression and response surface analysis.
VariablesAnxietyTurnover Intention
  BSEBSE
Constant  2.232 ***0.254  2.174 ***0.467
Control        
Male  0.0260.061−0.184 *0.089
Age−0.0070.007  0.0150.010
Education−0.144 **0.049−0.0980.089
Job tenure  0.0110.007−0.031 **0.011
Polynomial terms         
b1 Follower authenticity (F)−0.591 ***0.126−0.568 *0.242
b2 Leader authenticity (L)  0.0560.111−0.0330.198
b3 F2  0.307 ***0.076  0.488 **0.155
b4 F × L−0.1850.103−0.472 **0.137
b5 L2  0.0120.054  0.0880.089
Mediator        
β Anxiety       0.310 ***0.084
R2  0.374 ***0.052  0.429 ***0.050
Response surface parameters        
Slope of Congruence line
(a1 = b1 + b2)		−0.536 ***0.158    
Curvature of Congruence line (a2 = b3 + b4 + b5)  0.1350.079    
Slope of Incongruence line
(a3 = b1 − b2)		−0.647 ***0.178    
Curvature of Incongruence line (a4 = b3 − b4 + b5)  0.504 **0.181    
Note. N = 412; Unstandardized coefficients are reported. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xie, D.; Yang, Y. When Does Authenticity Benefit Employee Well-Being: A Relational Framework of Authenticity at Work. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15110449

AMA Style

Xie D, Yang Y. When Does Authenticity Benefit Employee Well-Being: A Relational Framework of Authenticity at Work. Administrative Sciences. 2025; 15(11):449. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15110449

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xie, Di, and Ying Yang. 2025. "When Does Authenticity Benefit Employee Well-Being: A Relational Framework of Authenticity at Work" Administrative Sciences 15, no. 11: 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15110449

APA Style

Xie, D., & Yang, Y. (2025). When Does Authenticity Benefit Employee Well-Being: A Relational Framework of Authenticity at Work. Administrative Sciences, 15(11), 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15110449

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop