IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v34y2023i6p2332-2351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The (Bounded) Role of Stated-Lived Value Congruence and Authenticity in Employee Evaluations of Organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Vontrese Deeds Pamphile

    (George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia 20052)

  • Rachel Lise Ruttan

    (Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada)

Abstract

A growing body of research documents that audiences reward organizations perceived to be authentic with positive evaluations. In the current work, we adopt a mixed-methods approach—using data collected from Glassdoor.com and two experiments—to establish that perceptions of authenticity are elicited by perceived congruence between an organization’s stated values (i.e., the values it claims to hold) and its lived values (i.e., values members perceive as embodied by the organization), which in turn lead to more positive organizational evaluations. We then explore the conditions under which audiences are less likely to respond favorably to organizational authenticity, finding that the positive effects of stated-lived value congruence on evaluations are attenuated when audiences have a lower preference for stated values. Although scholars have often explored whether and how organizations can successfully make themselves appear authentic to reap rewards, our findings suggest that the perceived authenticity that results from stated-lived value congruence may not prove fruitful unless the audience holds a higher preference for an organization’s stated values.

Suggested Citation

  • Vontrese Deeds Pamphile & Rachel Lise Ruttan, 2023. "The (Bounded) Role of Stated-Lived Value Congruence and Authenticity in Employee Evaluations of Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 2332-2351, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:6:p:2332-2351
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2022.1578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1578
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2022.1578?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:6:p:2332-2351. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.