La autenticidad como indicador del bienestar profesional Elena Voitenko 1 , Vasyl Osodlo 2 , Viktoriia Staryk 3 , Kateryna Kushnirenko 4 , Nataliia Boiko 5 1 PhD in psychology, associate professor, Department of Psychology, State University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine (Corresponding author). E-mail: helenmail73@ukr.net; ORCID ID: https://0000-0002-9407-4574 2 Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor, Department of Psychology, State University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine. E-mail: v.osodlo@knute.edu.ua; ORCID ID: https://0000-0003-2893-4721 3 PhD in psychology, associate professor, Department of Psychology, State University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine. E-mail: v.staryk@knute.edu.ua; ORCID ID: https://0000-0001-5193-6034 4 PhD in psychology, associate professor, Department of Psychology, State University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine. E-mail: k.kushnirenko@knute.edu.ua; ORCID ID: https://0000-0003-3922-0388 5 PhD in psychology, associate professor, Department of Psychology, State University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine. E-mail: n.boiko@knute.edu.ua; ORCID ID: https://0000-0002-8673-9476 Resumen. El estudio examina el papel de la autenticidad como factor psicoló- gico que contribuye al bienestar de los empleados. El objetivo fue investigar empí- ricamente la presencia y la naturaleza de la relación entre la autenticidad personal y el bienestar profesional dentro de un marco motivacional y basado en valores, que conceptualiza el bienestar como un estado evaluativo integrado, determinado por el grado en que las necesidades y los valores de un individuo se satisfacen en su actividad profesional. La muestra estuvo compuesta por 167 docentes universitarios. Se empleó un diseño transversal utilizando la Encuesta de Satisfacción Laboral de Spector y la Escala de Autenticidad desarrollada por Alex Wood y colaboradores, que evalúa la autoalienación, la autenticidad en la vida y la aceptación de la inﬂuencia externa. Los hallazgos conﬁrmaron la relación entre autenticidad y bienestar profesional; sin em- bargo, su intensidad y características varían según las distintas dimensiones de la au- tenticidad. En particular, se identiﬁcó la autoalienación como un factor signiﬁcativo Recibido: 11/04/2026 ~ Aceptado: 15/06/2026 INTERACCIÓN Y PERSPECTIVA Revista de Trabajo Social ISSN 2244-808X ~ Dep. Legal pp 201002Z43506 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21170728 Vol. 16 (3): 1043 - 1057 pp, 2026

1044 Voitenko, Osodlo, Staryk, Kushnirenko, Boiko Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 Authenticity as a predictor of professional well-being Abstract. e study examines the role of authenticity as a psychological factor contributing to employee well-being. e aim was to empirically investigate the pres- ence and nature of the relationship between personal authenticity and professional well-being within a motivational and value-based framework, which conceptualizes well-being as an integrated evaluative state shaped by the extent to which an individ- ual’s needs and values are fulﬁlled in their professional activity. e sample consisted of 167 university teachers. A cross-sectional design was employed using the Spector Job Satisfaction Survey and the Authenticity Scale developed by Alex Wood and col- leagues, which assesses self-alienation, authentic living, and acceptance of external inﬂuence. e ﬁndings conﬁrmed the relationship between authenticity and profes- sional well-being; however, its strength and characteristics vary across diﬀerent dimen- sions of authenticity. In particular, self-alienation was identiﬁed as a signiﬁcant factor undermining well-being. Authentic living appears to function as a general personal resource supporting individual well-being, although it does not provide a clear basis for distinguishing groups by well-being levels. External social inﬂuence was not found to play a decisive role, especially in the educational context. ese results expand cur- rent understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying employee well-being and oﬀer new directions for its promotion and the prevention of its decline. Key words: authenticity, professional well being, job satisfaction, motivational-value model, university teachers. INTRODUCTION In the context of constant changes in organizational technologies, work intensiﬁcation, and employment instability – which pose serious challenges for modern employees – the issue of professional wellbeing is becoming increasingly important. As the work environment continues to transform, researchers worldwide report an alarming rise in occupational stress levels (Pace et al., 2019; Hermansyah et al., 2023), high rates of burnout and depression (Conceição & Palma- Moreira, 2025), and decreased motivation and staﬀ turnover resulting from unstable working conditions and work overload (Souisa et al., 2025). ese trends underscore the urgent need to identify an optimal model of professional activity that would create conditions conducive to maintaining employees’ professional wellbeing. que socava el bienestar. La autenticidad en la vida parece funcionar como un recurso personal general que apoya el bienestar individual, aunque no proporciona una base clara para diferenciar grupos según sus niveles de bienestar. No se encontró que la inﬂuencia social externa desempeñara un papel decisivo, especialmente en el contexto educativo. Estos resultados amplían la comprensión actual de los mecanismos psicoló- gicos subyacentes al bienestar de los empleados y ofrecen nuevas perspectivas para su promoción y la prevención de su deterioro. Palabras clave: autenticidad, bienestar profesional, satisfacción laboral, modelo de valor motivacional, profesores universitarios.

La autenticidad como indicador del bienestar profesional 1045 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1043 - 1057 While various aspects of professional wellbeing are predominantly explained through or- ganizational factors (Voitenko, 2022), dispositional personality characteristics – despite their potential contribution to shaping wellbeing – remain insuﬃciently explored. It is wellestablis- hed that certain personal traits can enhance work eﬃciency, inﬂuence goal achievement, and partially determine interindividual diﬀerences in performance among employees (Batsylyeva & Hresko, 2019; Singh et al., 2019). However, there is currently no comprehensive theoretical model that systematically describes how speciﬁc individual characteristics aﬀect the level of professional wellbeing. According to the motivationalvalue model proposed by Voitenko et al. (2024), profes- sional wellbeing is an integrated evaluative state that depends on the realization of individual needs, values, and meanings. Within this framework, identifying variables that inﬂuence an individual’s ability to actualize their own aspirations helps elucidate the mechanisms through which professional wellbeing can be sustained. In this context, authenticity emerges as a po- tentially inﬂuential factor, given that authentic individuals tend to act in accordance with their personal interests and values (Zheng et al., 2020). e purpose of this study was to empirically examine the presence and nature of the relationship between personal authenticity and emplo- yees’ professional wellbeing within the motivationalvalue model. LITERATURE REVIEW Authenticity as a psychological construct Authenticity is commonly understood as the tendency to draw upon one’s personal expe- riences – considering thoughts, emotions, needs, desires, preferences, and beliefs – and to act in accordance with one’s true self, expressing oneself in ways that align with inner experiences (Nicolotti & Magrin, 2021). According to selfdetermination theory, individuals behave authen- tically when their actions reﬂect their true selves, meaning that they are autonomous and self- determined (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Consistent with these perspectives, Van den Bosch and Taris (2018) deﬁne authenticity as the unobstructed expression and operation of one’s true self in everyday activities. Modern psychological conceptions of authenticity are deeply rooted in philosophical thought, beginning with the works of ancient Greek philosophers. Aristotle, in particular, viewed the “highest good” as the activity of the soul in accordance with the best and most com- plete virtues throughout a full life (Aristotle, 2002). D. Hume considered authentic behavior to be reﬂected in speciﬁc actions that express a person’s values (Wilson, 2003). Such actions are closely associated with individuals’ eudaimonic wellbeing (Ménard & Brunet, 2011). From this perspective, wellbeing is achieved through selfrealization – that is, through engaging in activi- ties that reﬂect one’s true calling. e ultimate goal of such activity is a sense of fulﬁllment that emerges from living a life in which a person can fully actualize oneself. ere are several empirical approaches to understanding authenticity: as a construct shaped by culture and immediate social context, and as a variable describing stable individual diﬀeren- ces. Considering authenticity as a property of social interactions (Ryan & Ryan, 2019) opens up

1046 Voitenko, Osodlo, Staryk, Kushnirenko, Boiko Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 the possibility for organizations to inﬂuence employees’ level of authenticity, given its potential signiﬁcance for their professional wellbeing. Within this perspective, authenticity is conceptua- lized as a dynamic process shaped by social interactions, cultural values, and historical narratives (Kapusta, 2025). Understanding authenticity as a dispositional trait helps explain individual diﬀerences in behaviors that align with core personality characteristics, as well as diﬀerences in people’s abi- lity to remain true to themselves across various situations (Sutton, 2020; Wood et al., 2008). Humanistic and existential approaches have emphasized that such individual diﬀerences in authenticity are critically important for understanding wellbeing as a holistic phenomenon and for conceptualizing freedom from psychopathology (Hjelle & Ziegler, 1992). Contem- porary psychology provides substantial empirical support for these theoretical propositions (Sutton, 2020). Research shows that individuals who subordinate their own needs to main- tain close relationships and who accept external inﬂuences to avoid confrontation tend to feel subjectively inauthentic and report lower levels of selfesteem, alongside higher levels of de- pressive symptoms (Neﬀ & Harter, 2002). It is therefore reasonable to assume that the more consistently people remain true to their core values, identity, aspirations, and emotions, the higher their overall wellbeing is likely to be. Conversely, promoting values or expressing emo- tions that contradict one’s internal states typically requires greater psychological eﬀort than acting in ways aligned with one’s genuine beliefs and sense of self (Humphrey et al., 2015). Consequently, authenticity can be viewed as one of the key variables in explaining individual wellbeing. Direct examinations of several theoretical models that conceptualize dispositional authenticity as an integral component of psychological wellbeing have conﬁrmed its strong associations with selfesteem and multiple dimensions of psychological wellbeing (Rivera et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2020). Authenticity and professional well-being Research has shown that authenticity is associated with various positive workrelated outcomes, including higher job performance and job satisfaction (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014), as well as increased organizational commitment and reduced turnover intentions (Ca- ble et al., 2013). Numerous studies have demonstrated links between workplace authenticity and employee wellbeing across diﬀerent organizational contexts. For instance, authentic lea- dership has been found to counteract dysfunctional leadership tendencies and help restore subordinates’ trust in their leaders (Weiss et al., 2018). Additionally, suppressing emotions in interactive work settings has been shown to increase feelings of inauthenticity and emotional burnout (Erickson & Ritter, 2001). Inauthenticity appears to be particularly predictive of negative outcomes among employees who are strongly identiﬁed with their work roles (Sloan, 2007). According to egodepletion theory (Baumeister et al., 1998), the need to pretend, exaggerate, or suppress aspects of oneself requires signiﬁcant psychological eﬀort and nega- tively aﬀects employee wellbeing by increasing stress levels and reducing work engagement. Moreover, employees’ sense of authenticity tends to decrease when role demands and com- munication patterns restrict, devalue, or compromise openness, or when they involve threats of interpersonal conﬂict (Reis et al., 2016).

La autenticidad como indicador del bienestar profesional 1047 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1043 - 1057 Overall, research ﬁndings indicate that authenticity has positive consequences for mul- tiple aspects of professional functioning and may be a key factor in building healthy and sus- tainable work organizations. However, no existing model fully captures its speciﬁc inﬂuence on the level of professional wellbeing. According to the motivational–value model of occupa- tional wellbeing, various factors contribute to employee wellbeing insofar as they support an individual’s ability to realize personal aspirations. Within this framework, authenticity – as the capacity to be aware of one’s needs, desires, preferences, beliefs, and to act in accordance with one’s true self – may meaningfully enhance professional wellbeing by enabling individuals to pursue work that aligns with their inner values and identity. Our study will contribute to the general theory of occupational wellbeing by providing an empirical examination of the theoretical explanations of how dispositional authenticity is related to employee wellbeing. We conceptualize authenticity as a multidimensional construct measured, according to the threecomponent model proposed by Wood et al. (2008), through the following indicators: selfalienation (the extent to which an individual experiences a sense of disconnection from their true self); authentic living (the degree to which a person’s behavior is aligned with their values, beliefs, and feelings); and accepting external inﬂuence (the extent to which an indivi- dual allows external expectations to shape their behavior). e research program is structured around the following hypotheses: H1: Professional wellbeing is positively associated with authentic living. H2: Professional wellbeing is negatively associated with accepting external inﬂuence. H3: Professional wellbeing is negatively associated with selfalienation. METHODS To achieve the aim of the study, a cross-sectional design was employed using the Job Satis- faction Survey (JSS) by Paul Spector (Spector, 2022) and the Authenticity Scale (AS) developed by Alex Wood and colleagues (Wood et al., 2008). e Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) developed by Paul Spector measures an employee’s atti- tudes toward their job across nine dimensions: pay, recognition (monetary and nonmonetary rewards for work achievements), coworkers (satisfaction with colleagues), working conditions (internal regulations and bureaucratic barriers), supervision (immediate supervisor), fringe be- neﬁts, promotion (opportunities for career advancement), the nature of work (content of the tasks performed), and communication (availability of information on workrelated and general issues). It also provides an assessment of overall job satisfaction within the organization. Each aspect is rated on four points, and a total score is calculated from all points. A summative rating scale format is used with six response options for each item ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Although the Job Satisfaction Survey was originally developed by its author for use in the service sector, it is suitable for a wide range of organizational types. e author presents high internal consistency reliability indicators for the scale, based on a sample of 2870 individuals (Spector, 2022).

1048 Voitenko, Osodlo, Staryk, Kushnirenko, Boiko Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 To assess authenticity, the Authenticity Scale (AS) developed by Alex Wood and his colleagues (Wood et al., 2008) was used. e scale consists of 12 items grouped into three subscales, each compri- sing four items: “Authentic Living”, which measures the extent to which a person aligns their behavior and emotions with their beliefs, values, and psychological state; “Accepting External Inﬂuence”, which assesses the respondent’s belief that they should conform to others’ expectations; and “SelfAlienation”, which evaluates how well an individual knows themselves, their values, and their beliefs. Respondents are asked to provide a subjective assessment of how well each item describes them personally, on a scale from 1 (“not at all like me”) to 7 (“very much like me”). e psychometric quality of the Authenticity Scale has been examined and conﬁrmed by several researchers from diﬀerent countries (Grijak, 2017; Wood et al., 2008), which, combined with its concise format and ease of use, makes this diagnostic tool highly in demand in contemporary scientiﬁc research. e selection of statistical tests for processing the research results was based on verifying whether the obtained data conformed to the normal distribution, using the Kolmogorov–Smir- nov λtest. e results, along with the suﬃciently large sample size (n=167), allowed for the use of parametric tests, namely: Student’s ttest to assess diﬀerences between means obtained from two samples; Fisher’s Ftest to evaluate diﬀerences in variance; and oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) to identify trends in the variation of the measured characteristic. Respondents A total of 167 university academic staﬀ members participated in the survey on a voluntary basis. e survey was conducted online using the Google Forms platform. e most important sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. TABLE 1. General characteristics of the sample of study participants (N=167). Age N % Gender N % Status N % 25-35 36-45 46-55 > 56 26 54 48 39 15,6 32,3 28,7 23,4 Male 48 28,7 Head of Department Lecturer Senior Lecturer Associate Professor Professor 6 26 17 95 23 3,6 15,6 10,2 56,9 13,8 Female 119 71,3 Total 167 100 167 100 167 100 Source: compiled by the authors. e representativeness of the sample was ensured through the selection procedure and the suﬃciently large sample size, which meets the statistical requirements for quantitative research. e sample was formed on a voluntary basis, with equal participation opportunities provided to all members of the target population, and no participant had any advantage over others. e resulting sample was not aﬀected by researcher bias and is statistically clean, consisting exclu- sively of university faculty members with no mixed professional backgrounds and no missing responses. is ensured the possibility of applying classical statistical methods without correc- tions. e sample includes participants of diﬀerent genders and ages – from earlycareer lecturers to experienced professors – which reﬂects the typical age structure of the academic community.

La autenticidad como indicador del bienestar profesional 1049 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1043 - 1057 e structure of the sample by job categories reﬂects the typical hierarchy of academic positions: lecturers, senior lecturers, associate professors, full professors, and administrative staﬀ. e dis- tribution of respondents by work experience corresponds to the range typically observed in academic institutions. Such structural diversity aligns with the statistically typical parameters of university personnel and further supports the representativeness of the sample. RESULTS To diﬀerentiate the participants and to transition from quantitative to qualitative indicators, the respondents were classiﬁed into three levels of professional well-being (high, medium, and low) based on the “Overall Job Satisfaction” scale of Paul Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). Since the author of the questionnaire provides only the mean values for the subscales and the overall scale (for n = 3764), the sample can be divided into groups with low, medium, and high levels of profes- sional well-being based on the criterion of deviation from the mean by one standard deviation (σ). us, the medium level corresponds to the range μ ± σ (Moskalov & Lysenko, 2023). According to Paul Spector’s methodology, the normative value for academic employees is μ = 137.2 ± 8.1 (Spector, n.d.). Accordingly, in our study, a low level of professional well-being corresponds to scores ≤129, a medium level to 130–144, and a high level to ≥145. e quanti- tative distribution of respondents across these three levels is presented in Table 2. TABLE 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables (N=167). Variables M SD S K Professional Well-Being Total N=167 Low Level N=66 Medium Level N=39 High Level N=62 Professional Well-Being 136,8 24,1 ,127 -,440 1 Authentic Living 23,26 3,36 -,850 ,802 ,122 ,081 ,025 ,299* Accepting External Inﬂuence 11,11 4,28 ,192 -,541 -,020 -,003 -,042 -,028 Self-Alienation 13,77 3,07 ,722 ,353 -,218* -,293* -,169 ,072 Note: M – mean; SD – standard deviation; S – skewness; K – kurtosis; ** – correlation statistically signiﬁcant at the 0.001 level (2-sided) * – correlation statistically signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level (2-sided) Source: compiled by the authors. To compare the manifestations of authenticity among respondents with diﬀerent levels of professional well-being, Fisher’s analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied (Table 3). e ANOVA statistics indicate signiﬁcant diﬀerences between the groups in the indicator of self- alienation, which allows us to reject the null hypothesis. e analysis of variance did not reveal any diﬀerences in the indicators of authentic living (F = 0.466; p > 0.05) or acceptance of exter- nal inﬂuence (F = 0.466; p > 0.05) across the three levels of employees’ professional well-being.

1050 Voitenko, Osodlo, Staryk, Kushnirenko, Boiko Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 TABLE 3. Diﬀerences in authenticity scores in groups with diﬀerent levels of professional well-being. Variables Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Authentic Living Between Groups 10,574 2 5,287 ,466 ,628 Within Groups 1861,354 164 11,350 Total 1871,928 166 Accepting External Inﬂuence Between Groups 92,174 2 46,087 2,563 ,080 Within Groups 2948,665 164 17,980 Total 3040,838 166 Self-Alienation Between Groups 82,475 2 41,237 4,553 ,012 Within Groups 1485,417 164 9,057 Total 1567,892 166 Source: compiled by the authors. To more clearly identify the changes in the manifestations of authenticity among res- pondents according to their level of professional wellbeing, a comparative analysis was con- ducted between two opposite groups selected from the overall sample. e ﬁrst group con- sisted of respondents with a high level of professional well-being (n₁=62), while the second group (n₂=66) included respondents with a low level of professional well-being. Excluding the group with a medium level of professional well-being (n=39) made it possible to more clearly distinguish the diﬀerences, as the medium level tends to “blur” the results. To ensure a qualitative and comprehensive analysis, a parametric Student’s t-test for independent samples was used. e calculations were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 software pac- kage. Levene’s test indicates homogeneity of variance for all variables (Table 4). TABLE 4. Diﬀerences in authenticity scores between employees with high and low levels of professional well-being. Variables Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t df p* MD SE 95% Conﬁdence Interval of the Diﬀerence F p Lower Upper Authentic Living 4,649 ,033 -,817 126 ,415 -,475 ,581 -1,624 ,675 Accepting External Inﬂuence 3,109 ,080 ,095 126 ,924 ,077 ,808 -1,522 1,675 Self-Alienation 1,116 ,293 2,295 126 ,023 1,283 ,559 ,177 2,388 Note: * – 2-sided. Source: compiled by the authors.

La autenticidad como indicador del bienestar profesional 1051 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1043 - 1057 As shown in Table 4, the t-test revealed statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences in the indicator of selfalienation (t=2.295; p<0.05) between respondents with low and high levels of professional well-being. No statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences were found for authentic living (t =–0.817; p>0.001) or acceptance of external inﬂuence (t=0.095; p>0.05). e selfalienation indicator shows a substantial decrease in the mean value when comparing the groups with low and high levels of professional wellbeing (from 14.62 ± 3.36 to 13.34 ± 2.93) (Table 5). TABLE 5. Descriptive statistics on authenticity indicators in groups with diﬀerent levels of professional well-being (N=167). Variables N M SD SE 95% Conﬁdence Interval for Mean Min Max Lower Bound Upper Bound Authentic Living low 66 23,11 3,583 ,441 22,23 23,99 16 28 medium 39 23,00 3,635 ,582 21,82 24,18 12 28 high 62 23,58 2,934 ,373 22,84 24,33 16 28 total 167 23,26 3,358 ,260 22,74 23,77 12 28 Accepting External Inﬂuence low 66 11,56 4,915 ,605 10,35 12,77 4 20 medium 39 9,77 2,906 ,465 8,83 10,71 4 14 high 62 11,48 4,164 ,529 10,43 12,54 4 21 total 167 11,11 4,280 ,331 10,46 11,77 4 21 Self-Alienation low 66 14,62 3,364 ,414 13,79 15,45 9 23 medium 39 13,00 2,449 ,392 12,21 13,79 9 18 high 62 13,34 2,925 ,371 12,60 14,08 8 20 total 167 13,77 3,073 ,238 13,30 14,24 8 23 Source: compiled by the authors. DISCUSSION e aim of this study was to empirically examine the presence and nature of the relation- ship between authenticity and employees’ professional wellbeing within the framework of the motivationalvalue model (Voitenko et al., 2024). Correlation analysis revealed a moderate po- sitive relationship between authentic living and professional well-being only in the group with a high level of professional wellbeing (r=0.299; p<0.05). is relationship is logical, given that authentic living helps maintain an employee’s inner balance by supporting the fulﬁllment of their psychological needs. Authentic living, understood as the aspiration to be oneself and to live in accordance with one’s values and beliefs (Zheng et al., 2020), enables employees to experience a sense of meaning in their work and to be more engaged in work processes, thereby enhancing intrinsic motivation. Living in alignment with one’s own values frees employees from the need to expend energy on adapting to others’ expectations (Humphrey et al., 2015), which reduces levels of stress and anxiety; it also allows them to express their needs openly and establish boun-

1052 Voitenko, Osodlo, Staryk, Kushnirenko, Boiko Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 daries, facilitating communication. Conversely, discrepancies between organizational values and employees’ personal values and beliefs hinder the satisfaction of their basic needs, including the need for belonging and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2017), and thus become an obstacle to achie- ving professional well-being. e comparative analysis of respondents with low and high levels of professional wellbeing did not reveal statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences in the indicator of authentic living (t=–0.817; p>0.001). e low sensitivity of this indicator to diﬀerentiation by wellbeing level is likely ex- plained by the fact that authentic living, as part of the personality structure, is a stable charac- teristic that develops over years and is associated with personality traits (Nicolotti & Magrin, 2021), selfawareness (Zheng et al., 2020), and intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci). erefore, despite diﬀerences in the degree of authentic living, employees’ level of professional wellbeing – being a more variable state determined primarily by contextual, organizational, and situational factors – does not diﬀer statistically. e absence of diﬀerences between the groups with low and high levels of professional wellbeing may also be related to the professional homogeneity of the sample. In such samples, participants tend to share similar value orientations, approaches to work, and styles of interac- tion, as the professional environment shapes them in comparable ways. Similar professional roles, standards, levels of autonomy, and responsibility reduce the likelihood of detecting statis- tical diﬀerences in authenticityrelated characteristics. No expected negative correlations between acceptance of external inﬂuence and profes- sional wellbeing were found. Within the motivationalvalue model of employee professional wellbeing, the tendency to do what others expect does not necessarily facilitate the fulﬁllment of one’s own needs and values, which we consider the key determinants of professional well- being (Voitenko et al., 2024). e absence of a linear relationship is likely explained by the fact that acceptance of external inﬂuence (the extent to which a person allows external expec- tations to shape their behavior) may represent an adaptive component within the concept of authenticity rather than an indicator of internal conﬂict. Previous research has shown that diﬀerent components of authenticity play diﬀerent roles, and acceptance of external inﬂuence is not inherently negative and does not equate to inauthenticity (Grijak, 2019). Instead, it is a neutral characteristic describing the degree to which a person is inclined to consider others’ opinions, adapt to contextual demands, and remain sensitive to social norms. Modern scien- tiﬁc concepts view authenticity as a coherent process in which external advice, social norms, and cultural narratives can be integrated into one’s identity without diminishing authentici- ty, provided they align with internal values (Dammann et al., 2021). It is emphasized that healthy consideration of external guidance does not constitute a loss of self (Nicolotti & Ma- grin, 2021). A person can remain fully authentic while being open to feedback, leadership, or team-based decisions. External inﬂuence becomes problematic only when it suppresses autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2017). e comparative analysis of respondents with low and high levels of professional wellbeing did not reveal statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences in the indicator of acceptance of external in- ﬂuence (t=0.095; p>0.05). e results obtained may be related to the professional context. In educational work, external requirements – such as standards that deﬁne the content, scope, and

La autenticidad como indicador del bienestar profesional 1053 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1043 - 1057 learning outcomes – are structurally embedded in the professional activities of university ins- tructors. is has been described as a systemic requirement of the profession (Singh, Allen, & Rowan, 2019) and is perceived by academic staﬀ as a norm rather than a source of stress. us, acceptance of external inﬂuence is a variable that does not necessarily reﬂect internal inconsis- tency that could diminish professional wellbeing. A weak negative correlation was identiﬁed between selfalienation and professional well- being (r=–0.218; p<0.05), along with a more pronounced negative correlation between these variables in the group of respondents with a low level of professional wellbeing (r=–0.293; p<0.05). Within the motivationalvalue model of professional wellbeing, this relationship is lo- gically explained: the less an employee understands themselves and their workrelated experien- ces, the fewer opportunities they have to satisfy their own needs and, consequently, to achieve professional wellbeing. is result is consistent with previous research, which has repeatedly demonstrated that selfalienation is a risk factor for professional wellbeing (Van den Bosch & Ta- ris, 2018) and has a negative impact on both job performance and employee wellbeing (Vafeas et al., 2024). e comparative analysis of respondents with low and high levels of professional well- being using the t-test revealed statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences in the indicator of selfaliena- tion (t=2.295; p<0.05). A substantial decrease in the mean value of this indicator in the high wellbeing group compared to the low wellbeing group (from 14.62±3.36 to 13.34±2.93) con- ﬁrms the importance of maintaining a connection with one’s own needs and values for sus- taining professional wellbeing. In the most wellknown empirical model (Wood et al., 2008), selfalienation is deﬁned as a state in which an individual becomes detached from their own feelings, beliefs, needs, and values, essentially “living someone else’s life” and acting according to external norms and expectations rather than internal orientations. It is an indicator of low authenticity that diminishes overall life satisfaction and engagement in everyday activities. erefore, maintaining professional wellbeing is impossible without awareness of one’s level of selfalienation. It is not merely a symptom but a structural component of the model of professional wellbeing, reﬂecting an internal mismatch between one’s lived experience and personal aspirations. CONCLUSIONS According to the results of the study, authenticity was found to be related to employee well- being; however, this relationship is not uniform and does not exhibit the same strength across all of its dimensions. e ﬁndings demonstrate that professional wellbeing largely depends on an individual’s internal coherence: the more authentic a person is and the less selfalienation they experience, the higher their level of professional wellbeing. External social inﬂuences, in con- trast, do not play a determining role, particularly within the educational professional context. e study conﬁrmed that authentic living is statistically signiﬁcantly and positively corre- lated with higher levels of professional wellbeing, indicating the role of internal coherence and alignment with personal values in shaping satisfaction with professional activity. However, the level of authentic living does not diﬀerentiate respondents with low and high levels of professio-

1054 Voitenko, Osodlo, Staryk, Kushnirenko, Boiko Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 nal wellbeing. e absence of betweengroup diﬀerences suggests that authentic living may serve as a general resource that supports professional wellbeing at the individual level, but it is not a factor that determines structural distinctions between diﬀerent levels of wellbeing. e indicator of acceptance of external inﬂuence did not show any relationship with pro- fessional wellbeing. is ﬁnding suggests the neutral role of orientation toward social expec- tations as a factor of professional wellbeing, particularly within the educational professional environment. In contrast, selfalienation demonstrated negative correlations with professional wellbeing, especially pronounced among respondents with low wellbeing, indicating the detri- mental impact of internal disconnection on job satisfaction. e betweengroup analysis showed that the selfalienation scores were signiﬁcantly lower in the group with a high level of professio- nal wellbeing compared to the group with a low level of wellbeing. is ﬁnding conﬁrms the diﬀerential nature of selfalienation and its substantial role as a risk factor undermining profes- sional wellbeing. us, a good understanding of oneself, awareness of one’s workrelated needs, and the aspiration to live in accordance with one’s values and beliefs are clearly associated with higher professional wellbeing. e identiﬁed features of the relationship between diﬀerent aspects of authenticity and pro- fessional wellbeing expand current understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying employee wellbeing and open new perspectives for preventing its deterioration. However, des- pite its academic contribution, the present study has certain limitations. Conducting the survey online made it impossible to fully ensure the voluntariness of participants’ involvement, which may have led some respondents to provide formal or superﬁcial answers, potentially aﬀecting the results obtained. A promising direction for future research is to examine whether the relationship between acceptance of external inﬂuence and employee wellbeing depends on the professional context. CRediT authorship contribution statement Elena Voitenko: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft. Vasyl Osodlo: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Viktoriia Staryk: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Kateryna Kushnirenko: Data curation. Nataliia Boiko: Writing – review & editing. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES • Aristotel (2002). Nikomakhova etyka [Nicomachean Ethics] / Per. z davnohretskoi V. Sta- vniuk. Kyiv: «Akvilon-Plius» [In Ukrainian]. • Batsylyeva, O., & Hresko, I. (2019). Positive self-concept as a resource of a person’s psycho- logical health. Psychological journal, 5(11), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.31108/1.2019.5.11.5 • Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: is the active self a limited resource? Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(5), 1252– 1265. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1252 • Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Breaking em in or Eliciting eir Best? Reframing Socialization around Newcomers’ Authentic Self-expression. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213477098

La autenticidad como indicador del bienestar profesional 1055 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1043 - 1057 • Conceoção, A., & Palma-Moreira, A. (2025). e Relationship Between Occupational Stress, Burnout, and Perceived Performance: e Moderating Role of Work Regime. Admi- nistrative Sciences, 15(10), 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15100377 • Dammann O., Friederichs K.M., Lebedinski S. and Liesenfeld K.M. (2021) e Es- sence of Authenticity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 629654. https://doi.org/10.3389/fp- syg.2020.629654 • Erickson, R.J., & Ritter, C.S. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 146-163. https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:146964022 • Grijak Đ. (2017) Psychometric evaluation of the Authenticity Scale on the sample of stu- dents in Serbia. Psihologija, 50(1), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.2298/psi160504001g • Grijak, Đ. (2019). Authenticity and Its Adaptive and Maladaptive Relations. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 8(2), 33-37. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20190802.11 • Hermansyah., Notosudjono, D., Yusnita. N. (2023). Determinant of Role Stressors on Job Stress and Counterproductive Work Behavior among Employee in Automotive In- dustry. International Journal of Behavior Studies in Organizations, 10, 18-28. https://doi. org/10.32038/JBSO.2023.10.02 • Hjelle, L., & Ziegler, D. (1992). Personality theories: Basic assumptions, research, and applications (3rd ed.). McGraw‑Hill. • Humphrey, R. H., Ashforth, B. E., and Diefendorﬀ J. M. (2015). e bright side of emo- tional labor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 749–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/ job.2019 • Kapusta, A. (2025). e role of authenticity in transformative experience. Culture & Psycho- logy, 32(1), 156-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X251340199 • Ménard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity and well‐being in the workplace: a media- tion model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 331-346. https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:53354358 • Moskalov I. O., Lysenko D. P. (2023). Zastosuvannia metodiv matematychnoi statystyky u psykholoho-pedahohichnykh doslidzhenniakh: navchalnyi posibnyk [Application of mathematical statistics methods in psychological and pedagogical research: a textbook]. Kyiv: NUOU. • Neﬀ, K.D., Harter, S. (2002). e Authenticity of Conﬂict Resolutions Among Adult Couples: Does Women’s Other-Oriented Behavior Reﬂect eir True Selves? Sex Roles, 47, 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021692109040 • Nicolotti, M., Magrin, M.E. (2021). Authenticity: Psychological Perspectives and Opera- tionalizations. In: F. Maggino, (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_104669-1 • Pace, F., D’Urso, G., Zappulla, C., & Pace, U. (2019). e relation between workload and personal well-being among university professors. Current Psychology, 1-8. https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:164458824 • Reis G, Trullen J, Story J (2016). Perceived organizational culture and engagement: the mediating role of authenticity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(6), 1091–1105. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2015-0178

1056 Voitenko, Osodlo, Staryk, Kushnirenko, Boiko Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 • Rivera, G. N., Christy, A. G., Kim, J., Vess, M., Hicks, J. A., & Schlegel, R. J. (2019). Understanding the relationship between perceived authenticity and well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 113–126. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-24520-005 • Ryan R., Deci E. (2017). Self-Determination eory: Basic Psychological Needs in Moti- vation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Press. • Ryan, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2019). Toward a Social Psychology of Authenticity: Explo- ring Within-Person Variation in Autonomy, Congruence, and Genuineness Using Self-De- termination eory. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1037/ gpr0000162 • Singh, P., Allen, J., & Rowan, L. (2019). Quality teaching: standards, professionalism, practices. Asia-Paciﬁc Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 59866X.2019.1557925 • Singh, S. & Pradhan, R. & Panigrahy, N P & Jena, L. (2019). Self-eﬃcacy and workplace well-being: Moderating role of sustainability practices. Benchmarking An International Jour- nal, 26(6), 1692-1708. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2018-0219 • Sloan, M.M. (2007). e “Real Self” and Inauthenticity: e Importance of Self-Concept Anchorage for Emotional Experiences in the Workplace. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 305-318. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145557925 • Souisa, N., Macpal, S. J., & Biay, A. (2025). e Inﬂuence of Workload and Motivation on Employee Performance through Job Satisfaction. Indonesian Journal Economic Review (IJER), 5(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.59431/ijer.v5i1.509 • Spector P. (2022). Job satisfaction: From Assessment to Intervention. New York City: Rout- ledge. • Spector, P. (n.d.). Job Satisfaction Survey norms. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. https://paulspector.com/assessments • Sutton A. (2020). Living the good life: A meta-analysis of authenticity, well-being and en- gagement. Personality and Individual Diﬀerences, 153, 109645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2019.109645 • Vafeas M., Little E. & Vafeas A. (2025). Mitigating work alienation: what can we learn from employee ownership? e International Journal of Human Resource Management, 36(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2024.2439258 • Van de Bosch R., Taris T. (2014). Authenticity at Work: Development and Validation of an Individual Authenticity Measure at Work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1-18. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9413-3 • Van den Bosch R., and Taris T. (2018). Authenticity at Work: Its Relations with Wor- ker Motivation and Well-being. Frontiers in Communication, 3, Article 21. https://doi. org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00021 • Voitenko, E., Myronets, S., Osodlo, V., Pozdnyshev, Y., & Hordynia, N. (2022). e spe- ciﬁcs of the perceptions of professional well-being by teachers of higher educational insti- tutions in Ukraine. Revista Conrado, 18(88), 44-53. https://conrado.ucf.edu.cu/index.php/ conrado/article/view/2563 • Voitenko, E., Zazymko, O., Myronets, S., Staryk, V., & Kushnirenko, K. (2024). e me- diating role of values in the relationship between needs and professional well-being of uni-

La autenticidad como indicador del bienestar profesional 1057 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1043 - 1057 versity academic staﬀ. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 13(1), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2024.60401 • Weiss M., Razinskas S., Backmann J., & Hoegl M. (2018). Authentic leadership and lea- ders’ mental well-being: An experience sampling study. e Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.05.007 • Wilson, F. (2003). David Hume. Treatise of human nature (1740): A genial skepticism, an ethical naturalism. In J. Garcia, G. Reichberg, & B. Schumacher (Eds.), e classics of wes- tern philosophy: A reader’s guide (pp. 291–308). Blackwell Publishing. • Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). e authen- tic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385 • Zheng S., Sun S., Huang C., Zou Z. (2020). Authenticity and subjective well-being: e mediating role of mindfulness. Journal of Research in Personality, 84 (2), 103900. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103900