Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While past work has demonstrated that experienced authenticity is important for well-being, the interpersonal consequences of perceiving oneself as authentic are less well-understood. This paper fills this gap in the literature using theory and research on behavioral integrity, highlighting the perceptual filters that exist when conveying one's authenticity to others and thus the importance of political skill to help counter misinterpretations of one's authenticity. We tested our hypothesized model in a time-lagged, multi-source survey study of 78 teams. Our results demonstrated that leaders’ experienced authenticity was negatively related to followers’ perception of leader behavioral integrity unless the leader was politically skilled. Additionally, behavioral integrity was a key mechanism in our moderated-mediation model explaining why leader authenticity and political skill combine to predict team performance.

Keywords

behavioral integrity authenticity political skill and team performance

Our paper contributes to the ongoing debate on whether and under which circumstances it is wise for people, especially leaders, to be themselves at work. While the advice to “be yourself” has ancient philosophical roots and contemporary scientific support, its application in workplace contexts requires nuance. A recent review by Cha et al. (2019) highlights a critical distinction: experienced authenticity consistently produces positive internal outcomes (well-being, reduced stress, higher engagement), but its effects on interpersonal outcomes remain underexplored. Moreover, there's limited research on how leaders’ experienced authenticity translates to others’ perceptions of their authenticity. This creates what Pillemer (2024) describes as a “paradox of self-presentation” in that authenticity needs to be balanced with professional image management. For leaders specifically, whose effectiveness depends on influencing others (Goffee & Jones, 2005), this tension becomes particularly salient. Without proper interpersonal bridging mechanisms, a leader's subjective sense of authenticity may become a liability, creating what some have termed the “authentic jerk” phenomenon (Iszatt-White et al., 2021, p. 468), where adherence to internal states alienates others without consideration for social context and professional norms. We distinguish between leaders who experience authenticity (Wood et al., 2008) and the ‘authentic leadership’ construct (Walumbwa et al., 2008). The former focuses on authenticity without interpersonal components, whilst the latter focuses on multiple components, including leaders who express their ‘true self’ openly through their words (relational transparency) and deeds (internalized moral perspective). They are also willing to adapt to relational demands by staying receptive to input (balanced processing) and seeking feedback (self-awareness) (Kernis & Goldman, 2006).

In this paper, we focus specifically on “experienced authenticity”—how leaders subjectively experience alignment between their values and behavior—rather than the broader construct of authentic leadership. This focused approach is supported by recent critiques demonstrating the inherent paradoxes within the multi-component authentic leadership construct (Iszatt-White et al., 2021). By isolating experienced authenticity, we can examine specific psychological processes without the complications identified in broader leadership frameworks. Following Cha et al.'s (2019) framework, we propose that leadership effectiveness requires a bridge between intrapersonal experiences (how leaders feel) and interpersonal outcomes (how followers respond). We position behavioral integrity (BI; Simons, 2002) as a critical mediating mechanism because it represents followers’ perceptions of their leader's word-deed alignment—the observable manifestation of authenticity in leadership contexts. This framework allows us to explore the “authentic jerk” phenomenon (Iszatt-White et al., 2021) — when leaders who strongly experience authenticity become disconnected from relational expectations and express their views without considering how they may impact others, potentially alienating followers rather than inspiring them.

Behavioral integrity (BI) refers to followers’ perceptions of alignment between a leader's words and deeds—essentially, whether the leader is seen to “walk the talk” (Simons, 2002). Although BI is important for leader credibility, it is a follower-perceived construct and may not accurately reflect a leader's internal experience of authenticity. Indeed, leaders may feel authentic but still be perceived as lacking integrity due to perceptual filters or contextual ambiguity. Simons (2002) identified several barriers that can obscure or distort the expression of felt authenticity, making it difficult for leaders’ internal alignment to be recognized externally. Expanding on this, Effron et al. (2018) outlined nine ways leaders’ behaviors can be misconstrued, concluding that leaders must shift from “avoiding misalignment” to “managing misalignment.” This insight underscores a core challenge of conveying authenticity: it is not simply about aligning word and deed, but about skillfully navigating and communicating one's inner state in ways that foster mutual understanding. Political skill, therefore, plays a critical role in helping leaders express authenticity in ways that are legible to others (Simons et al., 2013).

Figure 1 displays our hypothesized model, which proposes that political skill helps leaders to translate their experienced authenticity in such a way that it is understood by followers as walking the talk. Political skill provides the necessary social competence, enabling leaders to express their authentic selves while remaining attuned to relational expectations and follower perspectives—what Pillemer (2024) describes as “strategic authenticity,” or the ability to signal authenticity while maintaining a professional image. In turn, followers get clear messages on how to perform in line with the leader's expectations. While, at first glance, a focus on politics may seem antithetical to being authentic (Gino et al., 2020), understanding the perceptual filters highlighted within BI theory helps us understand how authenticity and political skill complement rather than oppose each other to achieve leader effectiveness (Douglas et al., 2005). Our work thus extends prior literature to build a more contextualized understanding of the effects of experienced authenticity in the workplace (Cha et al., 2019). By highlighting the challenges for authentic individuals to attain valued social outcomes (e.g., follower performance) as well as the role of social skills (i.e., political skill), we develop a more nuanced understanding of the usefulness of the advice to “be oneself in the workplace.”

Figure 1.
Hypothesized theoretical model.

Theory and Hypotheses

The Concept of Experienced Authenticity and Behavioral Integrity

In their review of prior conceptualizations, Cha et al. (2019) noted that most definitions of experienced authenticity: “emphasize alignment between a person's internal sense of self and outward behavior (Caza et al., 2017; Harter, 2002 ; Roberts et al., 2009)” (p. 4). In our paper, we align with that core definition using the conceptualization of authentic living as: “behaving and expressing emotions in such a way that is consistent with […] one's values and beliefs” (Wood et al., 2008, p. 386). This experienced authenticity is distinct from the multi-dimensional authentic leadership construct, which incorporates additional components such as self-awareness, balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, and relational transparency (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Our focus is specifically on the subjective experience of authenticity—the feeling of internal alignment between one's values and beliefs and one's behavior.

Recent critiques have questioned traditional conceptualizations of authenticity in several important ways. First, the assumption that a singular “true self” exists and is knowable is increasingly contested (Iszatt-White et al., 2021). Leaders may actually experience multiple selves and face the challenge of navigating competing values and identities across different contexts. Second, Pillemer (2024) suggests that authenticity signals—such as social deviations and self-expressions—often undermine professional image, creating practical tensions in workplace settings. Third, newer theoretical frameworks suggest authenticity should be reconceptualized to include both self-directed and other-directed components, rather than focusing exclusively on internal alignment (Leroy et al., 2021). While acknowledging these important theoretical developments, our study deliberately focuses on experienced authenticity—the subjective sense of internal alignment—to examine its specific relationship with follower perceptions of behavioral integrity within the complex social context of leadership.

These conceptualizations assume that individuals who experience authenticity also express their true self to at least some degree (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Lopez & Rice, 2006). Whether this driven by an attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), increase external validation of their self-views (Swann, 1983), or their desire to connect with others in ways that are open (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), authentic living assumes some behavioral expression of one's authenticity observable to others. In support of this, prior research has found a positive relationship between experienced authenticity and measures of self-disclosure and voice (Knoll & van Dick, 2013; Kouchaki et al., 2017).

Our choice to focus on authentic living follows the calls of prior work to carefully align the choice of concept with the research question at hand (Lemoine et al., 2019; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). For instance, others have focused on self-alienation (“feeling out of touch with the true self”; Wood et al., 2008, p. 386), emphasizing how such experienced dissonance may distract from well-being (Gino et al., 2010; Gino et al., 2015). In contrast, our paper intends to move beyond the well-established well-being outcomes of authenticity to highlight the implications of experienced authenticity on others. As Cha et al. (2019) note in their review, authenticity research has primarily focused on intrapersonal consequences (such as well-being and engagement), while its interpersonal consequences remain less understood. This contrast between intrapersonal benefits and interpersonal risks is particularly important for leaders whose effectiveness depends on how their behavior impacts others. To have an impact on others, experienced authenticity needs some form of behavioral manifestation. In other words, a leader's authenticity needs to be expressed in some way (e.g., in words and deeds) in order to influence others. We refer to Leroy et al. (2020), who used a similar behavioral measure of authenticity to demonstrate the social consequence of experienced authenticity on effective teamwork.

In the same fashion, our choice of BI (focusing on word-deed alignment) was carefully selected for theoretical reasons. Harter (2002) originally argued that authenticity is essentially self-referential because outside observers do not have access to a person's ‘true self’. While we recognize that self-perceptions are an important way of understanding authenticity, we also recognize that outside observers make inferences about authenticity, albeit without access to a person's internally experienced ‘true self’. For instance, Leroy et al. (2012) argued and showed that followers use both words and deeds (and the alignment between them) to gauge a person's authenticity. Similarly, Cha et al. (2019) suggested that BI is a construct that can be considered as “implying authenticity” (p. 46). This distinction between experienced and externally perceived authenticity is critical—what Cha et al. (2019) identify as a key conceptual differentiation across authenticity studies. Recent empirical research confirms that an individualvs felt authenticity does not necessarily translate to others seeing them as authentic (Bailey & Levy, 2022; as cited in Pillemer, 2024). While experienced authenticity refers to self-rated alignment between internal states and behavior, externally perceived authenticity refers to others’ evaluations of that alignment. Moreover, behavioral integrity theory emphasizes, these evaluations may not always correspond. In sum, in this paper, we carefully chose BI (i.e., word-deed alignment) as the central construct by which people interpret authenticity from their leaders.

The Relationship Between Experienced Authenticity and Behavioral Integrity

One might assume that experienced alignment between internal states and behaviors (authenticity) and perceived alignment between words and deeds (BI) are positively correlated. Specifically, the perceptual filters that exist in authenticity evaluations can create situations where strong adherence to one's internal states may alienate others. This reflects broader concerns that authentic expression may sometimes have negative interpersonal consequences, particularly for leaders who don’t conform to traditional expectations (Iszatt-White et al., 2021), and that authenticity signals without careful consideration of context may undermine onevs professional image (Pillemer, 2024).

BI theory highlights that experienced authenticity may not consistently translate to perceptions of behavioral integrity due to perceptual filters: “The subjective nature of the BI construct means that the perceiver is intimately involved in the way BI is construed and that BI is likely to be influenced by the actor, by the relationship between the actor and the perceiver, and by the attributes, history, and state of mind of the perceiver” (Simons, 2002, p. 13). Effron et al. (2018) identified nine different perceptual filters that can lead observers to misinterpret someone's authenticity including the “hypocrisy effect” (where claiming to be authentic creates higher moral standards), temporal mismatch (when observers focus on recent rather than overall behavior), and relationship quality effects (where poor relationships amplify perceptions of inconsistency). Specifically, leaders who experience high authenticity but lack political skill may paradoxically be seen as lower in behavioral integrity because they: (1) express values more assertively, creating more opportunities for perceived inconsistencies; (2) may appear judgmental when expressing values without social sensitivity; and (3) often misread how followers interpret their behaviors, leading to unintended perceived inconsistencies. For instance, as authenticity is often equated with morality (Gino et al., 2015), followers may develop moral resentment toward leaders who present themselves as authentic, encouraging them to view any misalignment as evidence that the leader is not as moral as claimed. The existence of these perceptual filters leads us to question the straightforward relationship between leader experienced authenticity and BI, suggesting the need for a moderator. While we do not directly test these specific perceptual mechanisms in this study, their existence provides theoretical justification for why political skill may moderate the authenticity-BI relationship.

This reasoning aligns with Douglas et al.'s (2005) theorizing about the complementary nature of authenticity and political skill. They suggest that both qualities are necessary for effective leadership, with political skill providing the social awareness and influence needed to effectively translate one's authentic self into the social context of leadership. Without this skill, experienced authenticity may fail to generate the positive interpersonal outcomes that leaders intend.

The Moderating Role of Leader Political Skill

Political skill reflects “the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one's personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ahearn et al., 2004, p. 311). Political skill was initially conceptualized as a combination of social astuteness as well as interpersonal influence (Ahearn et al., 2004).¹

This view aligns with Goffee and Jones (2005) concept of “skillful authenticity”—knowing which aspects of yourself to reveal in which contexts to create meaningful connections. Rather than viewing political skill as corrupting authenticity, we see it as facilitating the translation of authenticity into socially effective behavior. Leaders with political skill can better anticipate how their authentic expressions might be misinterpreted due to the perceptual filters identified by Simons (2002) and take steps to ensure their authentic self is accurately perceived.

Political skill thus serves as critical facilitator between a leader's internal experience of authenticity and followers’ perceptions of behavioral integrity. Specifically, it provides the social awareness to understand how one's behaviors might be interpreted and the interpersonal influence to communicate effectively across potential perceptual barriers. Without this facilitator, a leader's experienced authenticity may fail to translate into positive perceptions of behavioral integrity.

By being socially astute, politically skilled leaders are better able to consider the perspectives of followers, and thus better understand how their followers may interpret their actions. This skill is particularly important given the complex realities of balancing perceived authenticity with professional image demands, as highlighted by Pillemer (2024). Politically skilled leaders recognize that certain authenticity signals—like spontaneity, nonconformity, transparency, or vulnerability—may be perceived differently by different followers, allowing them to choose signals that are contextually appropriate. For instance, leaders who are socially astute will understand that their claim to promote more collaborative behavior in the team may be received with skepticism if the leader rewards potentially competing values such as meeting deadlines and working efficiently (Windscheid et al., 2016). Without social awareness, the leader may not notice followers’ reactions (e.g., frowns, comments) when the leader announces a new teamwork-policy, thereby missing signals that the values he/she espouses are seen as hypocritical in light of how he/she manages and rewards the team (Dineen et al., 2006; Greenbaum et al., 2015).

The importance of contextual awareness in the expression of experienced authenticity is highlighted in recent work by Pillemer (2024), who found that the same signals of authenticity can be received very differently depending on individual and contextual factors. For experienced authenticity to translate effectively to followers, leaders must understand which expressions of authenticity are appropriate in their specific context. Political skill provides leaders with this contextual awareness, enabling them to express their authentic selves while navigating the complex social expectations of leadership roles. This skill is particularly important given findings by Lee and van Knippenberg (2022) that the impact of supervisor authenticity on followers is moderated by relational factors.

Not only are politically skilled leaders more aware of how others view them, they use that information to interpersonally influence others in desired directions (Ferris et al., 2007). In other words, leaders who have the skill to interpersonally influence their followers, will be more effective at providing convincing social accounts when their authenticity aligns or does not align with their actions, both prior to anticipating or after misalignment. Political skill serves as a critical interpersonal bridge, enabling leaders to express their authentic selves while remaining attuned to relational expectations and follower perspectives. As demonstrated by research on authenticity paradoxes in leadership (Iszatt-White et al., 2021), the question is not whether authenticity or political skill is better for leaders, but rather how these seemingly opposing qualities can complement each other to enhance leadership effectiveness. Realizing that there may be perceived inconsistencies in words and deeds, these leaders may pre-emptively explain or communicate the process that led to the decision so that their followers can understand how the decision was made. For instance, when leaders advocate a new policy towards more safety behaviors (Leroy et al., 2012), a politically skilled leader will take extra care in announcing this policy, so followers understand how these safety values fit within an existing, for example, performance-oriented, culture. Thus, reducing confusion that their followers may have in trying to reconcile how two seemingly opposing goals can operate at the same time.

The preceding arguments may lead one to question whether a leader only needs political skill to foster positive perceptions of BI. Theory on BI, however, (e.g., Simons et al., 2011) would advocate that political skill alone is not enough. Leaders are pulled in many, sometimes opposing, directions by competing organizational demands (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Wagner et al., 2020). Political skill can help a leader to convey how they live their values within the constraints of various situations; however, these leaders still need a clear set of underlying values to be able to communicate clear messages to others. This reasoning is not just aligned with BI theory, but the literature on leader political skill would equally suggest that some level of authenticity is important to employ political skill effectively (Douglas et al., 2005; Munyon et al., 2014). Finally, various scholars on authenticity have advocated that authenticity and political skill complement each other (Goffee & Jones, 2005; Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010; Molinksy, 2013): Individuals who are authentic and politically skilled attempt to stay true to a core sense of self, while also adjusting their interactions to make sure that their authenticity is apparent in the form of word-deed alignment.

These arguments lead us to argue that political skill qualifies the relationship between experienced authenticity and BI as either positive or negative. On the one hand, without political skill, the established perceptual filters for BI suggest that followers may misinterpret the leaders’ experienced authenticity as a lack of word-deed alignment. On the other hand, with political skill, leaders will be more careful and effective at communicating their authenticity, such that it is understood by followers as walking the talk. In sum, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: Political skill moderates the effect of leader experienced authenticity on follower perceptions of BI such that the effect is negative when political skill is low and positive when political skill is high.

The Mediating Role of Behavioral Integrity

Prior research has established that leaders’ BI is positively related to team performance (Simons et al., 2015). By consistently aligning their words and deeds, BI instigates a shared understanding of what the leader expects from the team, thus making it easier for the team to perform in line with their expectations. For leaders’ BI to impact the team as a whole, it is important that the whole team has a similar perception of the leader's words and deeds and the alignment between them (Palanski et al., 2010). In other words, we assume that different followers of the same leader will have similar perceptions of their leader's BI.

Building on the understanding that expressing authenticity effectively is more complex than simply “being yourself,” we can better understand how BI functions as a mediator between experienced authenticity and team performance. Cha et al. (2019) describe the tension between personal authenticity and interpersonal outcomes, noting that “behaving in a way that is authentic may pose a threat to one's professional image” (p. 651). This tension is particularly relevant for leaders, where authenticity's interpersonal value depends on how it's perceived by followers. As Pillemer (2024) argues, observers (in this case, followers) perceive authenticity through specific behavioral signals, but these same signals might be interpreted differently depending on the social context. Similarly, Iszatt-White et al. (2021) question whether the assumption of a single “true self” that is consistently perceived by others is realistic. Using these insights, we extend Hypothesis 1 to suggest that whether leaders are perceived to practice what they preach (BI) is a key ingredient to understanding how leaders’ experienced authenticity impacts team performance. As Cha et al. (2019) emphasize in their review, we must consider how “societal or cultural expectations assigned to individuals… are likely to impact the effectiveness of behaviors that increase colleague perceptions of authenticity” (p. 651). Integrating this insight with behavioral integrity theory helps explain the process through which authentic leadership affects team performance (i.e., through the mediational role of follower perceptions of word-deed alignment). The disconnect between leaders’ experienced authenticity and followers’ perceptions of BI may help explain why leaders believe they have conveyed their authentic expectations clearly to their followers and do not understand why followers do not follow suit (Argyris, 1994, 1998). More specifically, we argue that leaders who lack political skill may not consider followers’ subjective lens of their BI. In other words, leaders who lack political skill believe they are promoting behavior A, but the perceived lack of consistency between words and deeds to foster behavior A suggests to followers that A is not really that important to the leader (Kerr, 1975). In contrast, when leaders have political skill, experienced authenticity will be a positive driver of team performance as followers clearly understand what the leader expects from them, such that the leader can reap the performance benefits of experienced leader authenticity. In sum, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2: Political skill moderates the indirect effect of leader experienced authenticity on team performance through perceived BI such that the effect is negative when political skill is low and positive when political skill is high.

Method

Sample and Procedure

Twenty-seven medium-to-large service organizations in Belgium (52% for-profit, 26% healthcare, and 22% governmental) agreed to participate in a survey study on leader authenticity. In return, we offered each company anonymized benchmark reports on the survey results at the aggregated, company-level. Our sampling focused on identifying established teams within these organizations. For this study, we considered a team to be composed of one team leader and a minimum of three team members who reported directly to the team leader. In consideration of time constraints that, if exceeded, would hinder daily operations, we randomly selected from a pool of teams in each organization. This process yielded 78 teams, and no teams were removed based on the 65% follower response-rate criterion. Team sizes ranged from three to twelve members. The organization provided the research team with the e-mail addresses of 594 followers and 78 team leaders. We did not conduct a formal nonresponse bias test because all team leaders responded at both time points, allowing us to retain complete team-level data despite variation in follower response rates.

Our survey was administered online in three stages, consistent with recommendations from Cha et al. (2019) to measure experienced and externally perceived authenticity as distinct constructs. At stage 1, we asked leaders to rate their own experienced authenticity (and the control variable of conscientiousness). At stage 2, one month later, we asked followers to rate their leader's political skill and BI (and the control variables of person-leader fit and organizational BI). For team members, we received 386 surveys, which constitute a response rate of 65%. We only retained teams where at least three team members responded. At stage 3, one month later, we asked the leader to rate the team's performance. Team members had a tenure of 12.36 years on average (SD = 9.38), and the average age was 40.61 (SD = 8.31). Fifty-three percent of the team members were female. For team leaders, we received 78 surveys at both measurement points, constituting a 100% response rate. The average tenure of the leaders in the organization was 16.63 years (SD = 9.94), the average tenure in their function was 2.4 years (SD = 2.4), and the average age was 45.75 years (SD = 8.94). Thirty-five percent of the leaders were females.

Measures

Experienced Authenticity

We used the 4-item subcomponent of authentic living from the authentic personality scale (Wood et al., 2008) to measure authenticity as the alignment of one's internal states and behavior (Cha et al., 2019). This measurement approach reflects our commitment to precision in authenticity research, as called for by Lemoine et al. (2019) and Cha et al. (2019). Rather than using broader authentic leadership measures that combine multiple components (e.g., self-awareness, balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, and relational transparency), we specifically focus on the core experience of authenticity—the subjective feeling of alignment between inner states and external behavior. This precise approach enables us to isolate the specific effects of experienced authenticity, distinct from other leadership qualities that may be captured in multidimensional measures. By using this focused measure, we can more accurately assess the relationship between a leader's felt authenticity and followers’ perceptions of behavioral integrity, providing clarity about this specific aspect of the authenticity puzzle. An example item: “I live in accordance with my values and beliefs.” Leaders rated themselves on a 7-point Likert-scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was .81.

Behavioral Integrity. We used a 6-item scale for BI validated by Paustian-Underdahl and Halbesleben (2014). Items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = totally agree and 5 = totally disagree. Followers rated items like: “My leader practices what he/she preaches.” For analysis purposes, we reverse-coded these items so that higher scores represent higher behavioral integrity, making interpretation more intuitive (i.e., higher scores reflect greater perceived alignment between words and deeds). The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was .95. The ratings of BI provided by each member of a leader's team were aggregated across team members. In support of aggregation (Bliese, 2000), we found an average rwg of .87 (Mdn = .88), an ICC(1) of .35, and an ICC(2) of .69.

Political Skill

We used a 6-item version of the political skill inventory originally developed by Ferris et al. (1999), which was later expanded into the 18-item Political Skill Inventory (Ferris et al., 2005). Both measures are considered to reflect the same core construct, and this shorter unidimensional scale has been used in previous research where the focus was on examining the effects of the global political skill construct (e.g., Ahearn et al., 2004; Brouer et al., 2011; Perrewé et al., 2004). The shortened measure was necessary due to survey length constraints in our field study of multiple teams across organizations. Followers rated items like “My leader finds it easy to envision himself/herself in the position of others” (social astuteness) and “My leader is good at getting others to respond positively to him/her” (interpersonal influence) on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = totally disagree and 5 = totally agree (α = .88). Because of our interest in political skill as an ability the leader actually possesses rather than a subjective and idiosyncratic interpretation of specific followers, we aggregate political skill to the team level of analysis. In support of aggregation (Bliese, 2000), we found an average r_wg of .74 (Mdn = .75), an ICC(1) of .19, and an ICC(2) of .49. While the ICC(2) value is somewhat low, indicating moderate reliability of the group means, the r_wg suggests high interrater agreement and the ICC(1) shows significant between-group variance, collectively supporting aggregation (Chen & Bliese, 2002).

We recognize that self-reported political skill is the norm in the political skill literature, reflecting the view that effective political skill should be subtle and not explicitly recognized by others (Ferris et al., 2007). However, our theoretical interest is specifically in how followers perceive their leader's ability to understand social situations and influence others effectively—a perception that is best captured through follower ratings. This approach is consistent with our focus on the social translation process through which experienced authenticity becomes effective in interpersonal contexts.

Team Performance

To measure team performance, we used Mott's (1972) three-item scale, designed to measure the quality, quantity, and efficiency of job performance. Leaders were asked to rate the team on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = their quality is poor and 7 = their quality is excellent. The Cronbach alpha for this scale obtained in our study was .83.

Control Variables

In this study, we included personal, relational, and organizational factors that were proposed as alternative theoretical antecedents of BI (Simons, 2002). First, certain personality traits, particularly conscientiousness, reflect individual differences in whether leaders show the personal discipline to follow through on commitments. We controlled for conscientiousness because it reflects a general tendency toward consistency that could influence perceptions of behavioral integrity, independent of authenticity. While we acknowledge that some conscientiousness items (e.g., “I make plans and stick to them”) relate to consistency, conscientiousness encompasses broader traits, such as orderliness and dutifulness, that are conceptually distinct from authenticity. To measure conscientiousness, leaders rated five items from the IPIP (Goldberg, 1999) using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. An example item is “I make plans and stick to them.” The Cronbach alpha was .70. Our study highlights that regardless of leader actual follow-through, followers may be biased in their perceptions of leader BI.

Second, we controlled for perceived person-supervisor fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002) to isolate the effect of experienced authenticity on behavioral integrity beyond general value congruence or relational similarity. When followers share values with their leader or generally like them, they may rate behavioral integrity more favorably regardless of the leader's actual word-deed alignment—a form of halo effect (Tomlinson et al., 2014). By controlling for person-supervisor fit, we can examine how experienced authenticity specifically influences perceptions of behavioral integrity, rather than capturing effects due to general value similarity or positive regard. Followers were asked to rate these items on a 5-point Likert-scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. An example item is: “The values of my supervisor match my own values.” The Cronbach alpha was .95.

Third, we also controlled for organizational BI to address an important contextual factor that might influence leader behavioral integrity perceptions. Leaders may fail to walk the talk because higher management requires them to espouse values that are inconsistent with what the organization actually practices, potentially creating attributional challenges for followers about whether inconsistencies stem from the leader or the organizational context (Simons, 1999). By controlling for organizational BI, we can better isolate the effects of leader experienced authenticity on perceptions of leader BI. The BI scale was adapted by replacing the word manager with organization (Simons et al., 2007). Followers rated items like: “My organization practices what it preaches.” Items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = totally agree and 5 = totally disagree. The alpha was .95.

Results

Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability coefficients of the variables in this study. While our sample size at the team level of analysis (N = 78) does not provide the power necessary for a confirmatory factor analysis for our measurement model (Muthén & Muthén, 2002), the size of the correlations does not suggest strong overlap between our variables. To examine our hypotheses, we used hierarchical linear regression, regressing the control variables, authenticity, political skill, and their interaction on BI and team performance.

Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations among Study Variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Control Variables

1 Leader Conscientiousness 3.48 .63 .70

2 Person-Supervisor Fit 3.66 .88 −.15 .95

3 Organizational Behavioral Integrity 3.76 .81 −.18 .27** .95

Independent Variables

4 Leader Experienced Authenticity 4.21 .44 −.06 .03 −.06 .81

5 Leader Political Skill 3.62 .75 −.25* .67 .51 .17 .88

Dependent variables

6 Leader Behavioral Integrity 3.89 .85 .05 .56 .64 −.18 .52 .95

7 Team Performance 4.09 .70 −.04 .06 .33 .15 .21 .28* .83

Note: Reliability coefficients are represented in bold on the diagonal. N = 78. All p-values are two-tailed. *p < .05. **p < .01.

In Table 2, we summarize the results of our hierarchical linear model. In the first step (model 1), we regress our control variables of conscientiousness (β = .19, t = 2.20, p = .03), person-leader fit (β = .31, t = 3.03, p = .01) and organizational BI (β = .49, t = 4.85, p = .01) on leader BI. Adding to these effects (model 2), we found the following significant effects for experienced authenticity (β = −.19, t = −2.33, p = .02) and political skill (β = .27, t = 2.41, p = .02) on leader BI. In model 3, we find a significant interaction between experienced authenticity and political skill (β = .17, t = 2.03, p = .04) on BI. Additional analyses suggest that this interaction effect holds with or without control variables (Becker, 2005). The pattern of this interaction effect is depicted in Figure 2, differentiating between one standard deviation below and above the mean (Aiken & West, 1991). Whereas for low political skill the effect of experienced authenticity on BI is significant and negative (β = −.49, t = −3.47, p = .01), for high political skill the effect of experienced authenticity on BI is non-significant (β = −.03, t = −.05, p = .96).

Figure 2.
Interaction between leader experienced authenticity and political skill on behavioral integrity.

Table 2.
Hierarchical Linear Regression Predicting Leader Behavioral Integrity and Team Performance.

Leader Behavioral Integrity Team Performance

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Control variables

Leader Conscientiousness .19* .21* .18* −.09 −.06 −.07 −.07

Person-Supervisor Fit .31 .18 .21 .17 .08 −.23 .09

Organizational Behavioral Integrity .49 .42 .38 .32** .28* .27* .27*

Independent variable

Leader Experienced Authenticity −.19* −.24** .08 .08 .08

Leader Political skill .27* .23* .12 .11 .12

Interaction effects

Leader Experienced Authenticity×Leader Political Skill .17* −.03 .04

Mediator variable

Leader Behavioral Integrity .45

ΔR² .46 .05* .03* .14 .04 .01 .08

Note: N = 78. All p-values are two-tailed. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Our findings indicate that experienced authenticity is negatively related to BI when leaders have low levels of political skill. While high levels of political skill mitigate this negative effect, they do not appear to help leaders who experience authenticity be perceived as having greater BI.

We further looked at how these variables predicted team performance. In model 4 we regressed our control variables of leader conscientiousness (β = −.09, t = −.78, p = .44), person-leader fit (β = .17, t = 1.47, p = .14) and organizational BI (β = .32, t = 2.71, p = .01) on team performance. Adding to these effects (model 5), we found the following non-significant effects for experienced authenticity (β = .08, t = .74, p = .46) and political skill (β = .12, t = .72, p = .47) on team performance. In model 6 we did not find a significant interaction effect between experienced authenticity and political skill (β = .03, t = .36, p = .72) on team performance. In model 7 we add BI to our model and demonstrate that BI significantly influences team performance over and above the variables already included (β = .45, t = 2.99, p = .01).

As revealed from the results for models 4–6 in Table 2, there is no direct interaction effect for experienced authenticity and political skill on team performance; however, recent literature suggests that a direct effect is not necessary to establish a mediation process (Zhao et al., 2009). Accordingly, we followed the guidelines of Preacher et al. (2007) and used the PROCESS macro to calculate indirect effects at various levels of our moderator. Our index of moderated mediation was .19 (CI: [.01; .47]). We find that the indirect effect was non-significant when the team was high in political skill (indirect effect = −.01 CI: [−.08; .03]) and negative when the team was low in political skill (indirect effect = −.14, CI: [−.34; −.03]). The full results for the direct and indirect effects of self-assessed authenticity on team performance are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Leader Authenticity on Team Performance at High and Low Levels of Leader Political Skill.

Direct Effect of Experienced Authenticity on Team Performance Indirect Effect of Leader Experienced Authenticity on Team Performance through BI

BC 95% CI

Moderator Point Estimate Point Estimate SE Lower Upper

Low Political Skill .15 −.14* .08 −.34 −.03

High Political Skill .12 −.01 .03 −.08 .03

R ² .12 .39

F 2.56 15.67

Note: Bias-corrected (BC) 95% confidence intervals (Preacher et al., 2007) are used to interpret significance of the effect sizes. N = 78. All p-values are two-tailed. *p < .05; **p < .01. Variables centered prior to analysis.

In sum, our findings provide partial support for both hypotheses. For Hypothesis 1, experienced authenticity is negatively related to behavioral integrity when leaders have low levels of political skill, aligning with the authenticity paradox highlighted by Cha et al. (2019) and Pillemer (2024). While high levels of political skill mitigate this negative effect, they primarily function as a protective factor rather than an enhancing one. For Hypothesis 2, we find a significant indirect negative effect on team performance through BI under conditions of low political skill but a non-significant indirect effect under conditions of high political skill. This demonstrates that the link between experienced authenticity and team performance is more complex than previously thought, answering Cha et al.'s (2019) call for research on authenticity's interpersonal consequences.

Post Hoc Curvilinear Test

We conducted a post hoc test to examine the possibility of a curvilinear relationship between experienced authenticity and behavioral integrity. The quadratic term was positive but did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (B = .211, SE = .122, t = 1.73, p = .087), while the linear term remained negative (B = −.177, SE = .099, t = −1.79, p = .078). The overall model was marginally significant, F(2,75) = 2.74, p = .071. Although these results do not provide evidence of a curvilinear relationship in the present study, the direction and marginal nature of the quadratic effect suggest a potentially promising pattern that future research could examine more directly.

Discussion

This study set out to examine how leader experienced authenticity is linked to team performance grounded in theorizing on BI. BI theory indicates that the link between experienced authenticity and team performance is uncertain, requiring political skill to identify whether leader experienced authenticity is a good or bad thing for team performance. We found support for the argument that leaders who experience more authenticity but lack political skill would be perceived as having lower BI, thus fostering worse performance. However, we did not find support for a relationship in which leaders who experience more authenticity and have political skill are seen by others as having a greater BI and as a result stronger team performance. This suggests that political skill primarily serves a protective function—mitigating the potential negative effects of experienced authenticity—rather than an enhancing function that amplifies positive outcomes. Several factors may explain this asymmetric pattern. First, followers may have baseline expectations for behavioral integrity that, once met, show diminishing returns. Second, the perceptual filters identified in BI theory may be more sensitive to detecting inconsistencies (creating negative effects) than recognizing exceptional alignment (creating positive effects). Third, our measure of experienced authenticity may capture a threshold effect where moderate levels are sufficient for positive outcomes, and higher levels do not provide additional benefits when coupled with political skill.

The negative relationship we found between experienced authenticity and behavioral integrity (at low political skill levels) offers important theoretical insights about the mechanisms underlying authenticity's interpersonal risks. This finding suggests that experienced authenticity might actually create psychological processes that heighten, rather than reduce, perceptions of inconsistency. Three theoretical mechanisms might explain this counterintuitive effect. First, leaders who strongly experience authenticity may explicitly articulate more values and commitments, creating more opportunities for perceived inconsistencies (Simons, 2002). Second, these leaders may face heightened follower scrutiny due to what Effron et al. (2018) term the “hypocrisy effect,” where claiming authenticity creates higher moral standards against which actions are judged. Third, leaders experiencing high authenticity might paradoxically become less attentive to how their behaviors are perceived by others, creating unintended perception gaps. The negative relationship between experienced authenticity and behavioral integrity (at low levels of political skill) does not assume dark or corruptive natures inside leaders. Rather, we propose that it may reflect the perceptual filters that exist in interpersonal perception (Simons, 2002). Our theoretical model suggests that translation of internal states to external perceptions requires social facilitation rather than presuming leaders need to hide their true selves through image management. These mechanisms, combined with our finding that political skill mitigates but does not enhance the authenticity-BI relationship, reinforce that political skill primarily serves a protective function in the authenticity translation process.

The absence of a positive effect for experienced authenticity, even at high levels of political skill, was unexpected but theoretically informative, suggesting that authenticity alone may not be sufficient for exceptional leadership outcomes and that political skill serves primarily as a protective rather than enhancing factor. Beyond demonstrating these protective effects, our research addresses key theoretical gaps in authenticity research. These results contribute to ongoing debates about authenticity in leadership by offering a more nuanced perspective than simplistic authenticity advice. While Avolio and Gardner's (2005) authentic leadership theory emphasizes the positive outcomes of leader authenticity, our findings reveal that experienced authenticity alone—without the complementary components of self-awareness, balanced processing, and relational transparency—may have unintended negative consequences. This helps explain why some leaders who feel highly authentic—based on their own self-perception— may struggle to achieve positive follower outcomes: they lack the political skill needed to navigate the social complexities of authenticity expression. Our research also addresses a key theoretical tension identified by Cha et al. (2019): the potential conflict between authenticity's personal benefits and its interpersonal consequences. By demonstrating that political skill moderates this relationship, we offer insight into how leaders can navigate what Pillemer (2024) describes as the “paradox of self-presentation.” Rather than viewing political skill as corrupting authenticity, our findings suggest it serves as mitigating factor.

This finding underscores the complexity of authenticity in leadership contexts and highlights several important theoretical implications. First, our post hoc quadratic test did not reveal a significant curvilinear relationship, which supports the interpretation of diminishing returns rather than a threshold effect; once followers perceive sufficient word–deed alignment, additional increases in a leader's authenticity do not appear to provide further benefits. Although our post hoc analysis did not yield statistical support for a curvilinear relationship, the marginal nature of the quadratic effect suggests a potentially informative direction for future research. Conceptually, this pattern aligns with the idea that once followers perceive sufficient word–deed alignment, additional authenticity may yield diminishing perceptual returns. Importantly, this interpretation remains speculative in the present study and should be examined more directly in future research using larger samples, alternative operationalizations, or different organizational contexts. Second, it indicates that authenticity alone—without the complementary qualities of self-awareness and balanced processing found in authentic leadership theory—may not be sufficient for exceptional leadership outcomes. Rather than contradicting research on authentic leadership, this finding highlights that political skill serves as a crucial safeguard, preventing the interpersonal costs of experienced authenticity while maintaining baseline levels of perceived behavioral integrity.

Our findings complement authentic leadership theory (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) by highlighting a potential explanatory mechanism for when and why authentic leadership might fail to achieve its intended effects. The components of authentic leadership—particularly balanced processing and relational transparency—may serve similar functions to political skill in facilitating the translation of authenticity into perceived behavioral integrity. We acknowledge the conceptual overlap between our constructs and emotional intelligence as political skill shares elements with emotional intelligence's social awareness and relationship management components. However, political skill is distinct in its focus on understanding organizational dynamics and leveraging social capital (Ferris et al., 2005), while emotional intelligence BIemphasizes general emotional awareness. Future research could examine how these constructs differently moderate the authenticity-BI relationship. While our study is conceptually adjacent to authentic leadership theory (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), we clarify that our focal constructs operate differently. Political skill, for instance, involves social astuteness and interpersonal influence but does not necessarily involve transparency or openness, as relational transparency does. Likewise, behavioral integrity is a perceptual construct concerning follower evaluations of word-deed alignment, whereas balanced processing reflects internal cognitive fairness in decision-making. Clarifying these differences reinforces our contribution to understanding how discrete elements of self-expression, social competence, and leader-follower perception interact in shaping leadership outcomes.

Beyond these theoretical connections, we offer two potential explanations, in need of further study, for our failure to identify a positive effect. First, these results cast doubt on whether experienced authenticity (as conceptualized in this study) is indeed as laudable a quality, as prior research has us believe, when it comes to leader effectiveness (see also; Ibarra, 2015; Pfeffer, 2015). There may be diminishing returns or ceiling effects for behavioral integrity perceptions—once leaders demonstrate adequate social competence, additional experienced authenticity may not provide incremental benefits. Moreover, experienced authenticity as we measured it (values-behavior alignment) may be insufficient without other authenticity components. Decades of research on self-monitoring personality (Day et al., 2002) and impression management (Bolino et al., 2008; Roberts, 2005) suggests that individuals who are attentive to differences in social situations and present themselves accordingly achieve relational success. This led some to portray authentic individuals as a potential liability in that they: “insist on being themselves, no matter how incongruent their self-expression with the … social situation” (Mehra et al., 2001, p. 124). This line of research supports the idea that expressing one's authenticity without regard for the situation may indeed be a social liability for leaders.

Second, additional factors may need to be considered. Iszatt-White et al. (2021) suggest that the common assumption of a single “true self” is problematic, challenging “the framing of selfhood as something that is singular and static, rather than plural, fluid and contingent” (p. 467). This perspective suggests that authenticity might need to be reconceptualized as a more dialectical process rather than simple alignment with a singular true self. Political skill accounts for others’ perceptual filters in regard to their assessment of a leader's BI but does not account for perceptual filters in rating one's own authenticity. Other theories, for instance authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), include accurate self-awareness as an essential ingredient to being authentic: Before individuals can stay true to themselves, they first need to have an accurate understanding of the self. Similarly, Cha et al. (2019) suggest; “individuals, lacking self-awareness, could deceive themselves into thinking they are authentic” (p. 634). Accurate self-awareness may be the missing ingredient that is needed for experienced authenticity to positively influence leader BI. Self-awareness however is difficult to measure and those who are self-aware may show humility and underreport their authenticity (Morris et al., 2005). In the face of these difficulties, accounting for self-awareness is an important challenge for future research.

Theoretical Contributions

Our findings contribute to the scholarly knowledge of authenticity, political skill, BI, and team performance. First, our study makes contributions to the literature on experienced authenticity and political skill. While some have argued that being focused on one's personal values (i.e., authenticity) and relational demands (i.e., self-monitoring) are opposing constructs (Bedeian & Day, 2004; Snyder, 1974), others have suggested that concepts like political skill do not oppose but compliment experienced authenticity in predicting work-related effectiveness (Douglas et al., 2005; Gardner et al., 2009).

Our results suggest that political skill mitigates the potential negative interpersonal consequences of experienced authenticity rather than amplifying its positive effects. By demonstrating that political skill specifically moderates the experienced authenticity—behavioral integrity relationship, our findings conceptually support propositions that authenticity requires integration of self-expression with relational awareness, while also showing that political skill mitigates rather than amplifies the effects of experienced authenticity (Leroy et al., 2021; Pillemer, 2024). In doing so, we answer calls for empirical investigation of this interplay (Gardner et al., 2011; Munyon et al., 2014) and establish that these seemingly contradictory qualities can prevent leadership ineffectiveness when combined appropriately. Our study further contributes to scholarly literature on BI. First, we follow prior research that suggests, thus far without empirical test, that experienced authenticity (Leroy et al., 2012; Vogelgesang et al., 2013) and political skill (Basik, 2010) are non-competing and complementary antecedents to BI (Simons et al., 2011). In this way, our study begins to fill the gap in the existing research on the antecedents of BI (Simons et al., 2011). Additionally, while Cha et al. (2019) identified research on perceptions of authenticity as underdeveloped compared to felt authenticity, our study provides empirical evidence on how leaders’ internal feelings of authenticity translate (or fail to translate) into follower perceptions through the construct of behavioral integrity. Additionally, while the effects of BI on followers’ individual performance are well-established (Simons et al., 2015), there is less research that looks at BI at the team level of analysis, including examining how BI influences team performance (Leroy et al., 2012; Palanski et al., 2010; Palanski & Yammarino, 2009). In this paper, we add to previous explanations (e.g., team psychological safety, team behavioral integrity) of the relationship between BI and team performance by theorizing that when leaders walk their talk, teams perform better because there is less ambiguity about what the leader really desires (Argyris, 1998).

Limitations and Future Research

Our results suggest that expressing one's experienced authenticity might be a high-risk strategy for leaders: highlighting one's true self has the potential to influence followers (Simons, 1999) but also opens the door to criticism of misalignment when not accompanied by political skill. In contrast, leaders who do not experience authenticity show less of a need to express strong values, making it more difficult for followers to evaluate whether they “walk their talk.” Indeed, the results of the current study suggest that this may be the case as individuals with low experienced authenticity were also perceived as having relatively high levels of BI. As Iszatt-White et al. (2021) suggest, this finding raises questions about whether authenticity should be conceptualized as a single “true self” or as a more complex process of managing the inherent paradoxes between authentic self-expression and professional role requirements. Future research is needed to examine how type (e.g., explicit versus implicit) and frequency/duration (e.g., short but strong versus less intense but more frequent) of communication helps form perceptions of BI.

Our study demonstrates that political skill moderates the authenticity-BI relationship, consistent with perceptual filter theory, but we do not directly test which specific perceptual mechanisms are at play. Future research should investigate which specific perceptual filters identified by Effron et al. (2018) are most relevant in different contexts and how political skill specifically helps leaders navigate these perceptual challenges. Future research should also replicate these findings while controlling for emotional intelligence, as facets of EI may substitute for or amplify the effects of experienced authenticity and political skill. This would provide deeper insight into the mechanisms through which social competence facilitates the translation of experienced authenticity into perceived behavioral integrity.

Future research could also build on the present findings to study the tension that may exist between individual (e.g., well-being) and group (e.g., performance) outcomes of experienced authenticity (Leroy et al., 2016). As Cha et al. (2019) highlight in their review, a fundamental tension appears to exist between the personal benefits of authenticity for well-being and the potential interpersonal costs that arise when authenticity is expressed without social awareness. While experienced authenticity might have a self-enhancing benefit (e.g., Erickson & Ritter, 2001), it may also alienate the person from others. Furthermore, whereas perceptions of BI have been shown to drive performance (Simons et al., 2015), cultivating these perceptions may also be self-alienating and impede personal well-being. In this way, the perceptual filters may not only drive a wedge between experienced authenticity and perceived BI, but equally between personal well-being and relational effectiveness. Future research should investigate how experienced authenticity relates to achieving this optimal balance between leadership effectiveness and personal well-being. An interesting framework in this regard is the theory on optimal distinctiveness between a self-enhancing need for uniqueness and a relationally oriented need for belongingness (Brewer, 1991).

Future research may also investigate how contextual factors may influence our present model. In this paper, we included organizational BI as a relevant control variable to account for the fact that some followers may attribute a lack of leader BI to the organization rather than the leader. For example, contextual factors identified by Cha et al. (2019) and Pillemer (2024), such as organizational culture, power dynamics, and social identity characteristics, might influence how authenticity is both experienced and perceived. We expect that in environments with low cultural norms for authenticity, authenticity may be even more problematic as there may be a general cynicism towards authenticity, especially by leaders who are seen as agents of the organization (Simons, 1999). In contrast, a context that has a high authenticity norm might soften the potential negative impact of experienced authenticity, as such authentic behavior is a norm and therefore expected in this environment (Bennis et al., 2008; Culbert, 2008).

Future research should explore alternative conceptualizations of authenticity that go beyond the notion of a singular “true self.” As Iszatt-White et al. (2021) suggest, leaders may navigate multiple, fluid aspects of selfhood across different contexts, raising questions about how these various aspects of self relate to perceptions of BI. Additionally, research could investigate how specific types of authenticity signals identified by Pillemer (2024)—such as social deviations (nonconformity and spontaneity) versus self-expressions (transparency and vulnerability)—affect followers’ perceptions of leader BI. These more nuanced approaches to authenticity could provide greater insight into when and how leaders’ experienced authenticity translates effectively to followers.

Finally, future research should replicate our findings to account for methodological shortcomings. Our study design showed strengths in limiting common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), including using multiple raters, separating the collection of data across time, and using an interaction effect that does not suffer from common method bias (Siemsen et al., 2010). Excluding common method bias, however, does not fully support causal claims. To that end, it would be interesting to manipulate experienced authenticity and political skill and look at how training designed to enhance both may affect BI and performance. Additionally, in looking at the service industry in one country, our results are limited in terms of generalizability. There is reason to believe that in certain countries (e.g., collectivistic cultures) or professions (e.g., politicians) (in)authentic behavior will be valued differently. While this may attenuate or strengthen the current findings, we do not think a different national or professional culture will change the interpretation or importance of authenticity (Slabu et al., 2014) and thus nullify the results of our study.

Conclusion

Leaders are increasingly advised to maintain their authenticity to provide themselves and others with a ‘true north’ (George, 2007). Our study, however, cautions against the popular advice of ‘just be yourself’—aligning with recent critiques by Iszatt-White et al. (2021) and Pillemer (2024)—as we demonstrate that experiencing authenticity does not automatically translate into being perceived as walking your talk and that leaders need political skill to avoid being misunderstood (Goffee & Jones, 2005). At first glance, the idea that authenticity and political skill are compatible may seem counterintuitive, but this thinking lacks an understanding of the perceptual filters that exist in communicating one's authenticity to others. This understanding of the subjective nature of authenticity is important, as our results show that it is only by clearly conveying their authenticity that leaders foster higher team performance.

		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Control Variables
1	Leader Conscientiousness	3.48	.63	.70
2	Person-Supervisor Fit	3.66	.88	−.15	.95
3	Organizational Behavioral Integrity	3.76	.81	−.18	.27**	.95
Independent Variables
4	Leader Experienced Authenticity	4.21	.44	−.06	.03	−.06	.81
5	Leader Political Skill	3.62	.75	−.25*	.67**	.51**	.17	.88
Dependent variables
6	Leader Behavioral Integrity	3.89	.85	.05	.56**	.64**	−.18	.52**	.95
7	Team Performance	4.09	.70	−.04	.06	.33**	.15	.21	.28*	.83

	Leader Behavioral Integrity	Team Performance
Control variables
Leader Conscientiousness	.19*	.21*	.18*	−.09	−.06	−.07	−.07
Person-Supervisor Fit	.31**	.18	.21	.17	.08	−.23	.09
Organizational Behavioral Integrity	.49**	.42**	.38**	.32**	.28*	.27*	.27*
Independent variable
Leader Experienced Authenticity		−.19*	−.24**		.08	.08	.08
Leader Political skill		.27*	.23*		.12	.11	.12
Interaction effects
Leader Experienced Authenticity×Leader Political Skill			.17*			−.03	.04
Mediator variable
Leader Behavioral Integrity							.45**
ΔR²	.46**	.05*	.03*	.14**	.04	.01	.08**

	Direct Effect of Experienced Authenticity on Team Performance	Indirect Effect of Leader Experienced Authenticity on Team Performance through BI
Low Political Skill	.15	−.14*	.08	−.34	−.03
High Political Skill	.12	−.01	.03	−.08	.03
R ²	.12	.39
F	2.56**	15.67**

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Brenda Nguyen

Hannes Leroy

Kristin Cullen-Lester

Carol Gill

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Brenda Nguyen is an Associate Professor at the Dhillon School of Business, University of Lethbridge. Her research examines leadership, judgment, integrity, and decision-making in organizational contexts, with particular attention to how individual values, relational processes, and organizational systems shape behavior at work. Her work spans organizational behavior, human resource management, and leadership studies, and includes both theoretical and applied research.

Kristin Cullen-Lester is an Associate Professor of Management and School of Business Fellow at the University of Mississippi. Her research examines how professional networks impact workplace effectiveness, career growth, and well-being. Her contributions, which bridge science and practice, have been recognized with the 2021 SIOP Award for Distinguished Early Career Contributions to Practice and the 2024 Network of Leadership Scholars Mid-Career Standout Scholar Award.

Hannes LeRoy, Academic Director of the Erasmus Center of Leadership. He helps to oversee the quality of leadership development at different levels in Erasmus University (undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate, and executive education). Furthermore, as steward of the League of Leadership initiative he helps to oversee an international consortium of top business schools across the world with the mission of collectively enhancing quality standards of leadership development. Aligned with these efforts, he has published numerous studies on leadership and its development in top journals, has taught a wide variety of leadership classes and is principal coordinator of various leadership development curricula.

Carol Gill is an Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Melbourne Business School. Carol’ research explores personal, behavioral, and organizational integrity. In particular, she is interested in Leadership in organizations and work teams. Her recent focus has been on authentic leadership and alignment of employees to strategic imperatives and organizational values through Human Resource Management Systems.

References

Ahearn

K. K.

Ferris

G. R.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Douglas

Ammeter

A. P.

(2004). Leader political skill and team performance. Journal of Management, 30(3), 309-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.004

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Argyris

(1994). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 77-85. https://6-30partners.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Chris-Argyris-Good-Communication-that-Blocks-Learning.pdf

Argyris

(1998). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 98-105. https://www.oarsijournal.com/article/S1063-4584(23)00595-2/pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

Bailey

J. O.

Levy

N. S.

(2022). Distinguishing perceived from felt authenticity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(2), 380-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211056623

Basik

(2010). Expanding the boundaries of behavioral integrity in organizations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation thesis). The Florida State University.

Becker

T. E.

(2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021

Bedeian

A. G.

Day

D. V.

(2004). Can chameleons lead? The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 687-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.005

10.

Bennis

Goleman

O’Toole

Biederman

P. W.

(2008). Transparency: How leaders create a culture of candor. John Wiley & Sons.

11.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analyses. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). Jossey-Bass.

12.

Bolino

M. C.

Kacmar

K. M.

Turnley

W. H.

Gilstrap

J. B.

(2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080-1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324325

13.

Brewer

M. B.

(1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001

14.

Brouer

R. L.

Harris

K. J.

Kacmar

K. M.

(2011). The moderating effects of political skill on the perceived politics-outcome relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 869-885. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.718

15.

Cable

D. M.

DeRue

D. S.

(2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875

16.

Caza

B. B.

Moss

Vough

(2017). From synchronizing to harmonizing: The process of authenticating multiple work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 703-745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217733972

17.

Cha

S. E.

Hewlin

P. F.

Roberts

L. M.

Buckman

B. R.

Leroy

Steckler

E. L.

Ostermeier

Cooper

(2019). Being your true self at work: Integrating the fragmented research on authenticity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 633-671. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0108

18.

Chen

Bliese

P. D.

(2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 549-556. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.549

19.

Culbert

(2008). Beyond Bullsh*t: Straight-talk at work. Stanford University Press.

20.

Day

D. V.

Shleicher

D. J.

Unckless

A. L.

Hiller

N. J.

(2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 390-401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.390

21.

Dineen

B. R.

Lewicki

R. J.

Tomlinson

E. C.

(2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 622-635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.622

22.

Douglas

Ferris

G. R.

Perrewé

P. L.

(2005). Leader political skill and authentic leadership. In Gardner

Avolio

Walumbwa

(Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origin, effects and development (pp. 139-154). Elsevier.

23.

Effron, D. A., O'Connor, K., Leroy, H., & Lucas, B. J. (2018). From inconsistency to hypocrisy: When does “saying one thing but doing another” invite condemnation? Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.10.003

24.

Erickson

R. J.

Ritter

(2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 146-163. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090130

25.

Ferris

G. R.

Berkson

H. M.

Kaplan

D. M.

Gilmore

D. C.

Buckley

M. R.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Witt

L. A.

(1999). Development and initial validation of the political skill inventory. In Paper presented at the 59th annual national meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago (pp. 6-11).

26.

Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Kacmar

C. J.

Douglas

Frink

D. D.

(2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31(1), 126-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271386

27.

Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

Perrewe

P. L.

Brouer

Douglas

Lux

(2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 290-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300813

28.

Festinger

(1957). A Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

29.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007

30.

Gardner

W. L.

Fischer

Hunt

J. G.

(2009). Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to authenticity? The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 466-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.011

31.

George

(2007). Authentic leadership: Discover your authentic leadership. Jossey-Bass.

32.

Gino

Kouchaki

Galinsky

A. D.

(2015). The moral virtue of authenticity: How inauthenticity produces feelings of immortality and impurity. Psychological Science, 26(7), 983-996. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615575277

33.

Gino

Norton

M. I.

Ariely

(2010). The counterfeit self: The deceptive costs of faking it. Psychological Science, 21(5), 712-720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610366545

34.

Gino

Sezer

Huang

(2020). To be or not to be your authentic self? Catering to others’ preferences hinders performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 83-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.003

35.

Goffee

Jones

(2005). Managing authenticity: The paradox of great leadership. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 86-94. https://www.getyourbigon.com/images/File/ManagingAuthenticity.pdf

36.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7(6), 7-28. https://ipip.ori.org/A%20broad-bandwidth%20inventory.pdf

37.

Greenbaum

R. L.

Mawritz

M. B.

Piccolo

R. F.

(2015). When leaders fail to “walk the talk” supervisor undermining and perceptions of leader hypocrisy. Journal of Management, 41(3), 929-956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312442386

38.

Harter

(2002). Authenticity. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382-394). Oxford University Press.

39.

Ibarra

(2015). The authenticity paradox. Harvard Business Review, 16(1/2), 52-59. https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-authenticity-paradox

40.

Ibarra

Barbulescu

(2010). Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 135-154. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.45577925

41.

Iszatt-White

Stead

Elliott

(2021). Impossible or just irrelevant? Unravelling the ‘authentic leadership’ paradox through the lens of emotional labour. . Leadership, 17(4), 464-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715021996928

42.

Kernis

M. H.

Goldman

M. B.

(2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9

43.

Kerr

(1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.2307/255378

44.

Knoll

van Dick

(2013). Do I hear the whistle…? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1308-4

45.

Kouchaki

Brodsky

Gino

(2017). Positive deviance: How authenticity leads to speaking up. Harvard Business School Working Paper.

46.

Lee

van Knippenberg

(2022). Supervisor authenticity and follower outcomes: The role of relational authenticity and relational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(2), 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420954236

47.

Lemoine

G. J.

Hartnell

C. A.

Leroy

(2019). Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 148-187. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0121

48.

Leroy

Buckman

Steckler

(2016). Feeling good or being liked: Exploring tensions in authenticity research. Academy of Management Conference, Anaheim, CA.

49.

Leroy, H., Hoever, I., Vangronsveldt, K., & van den Broeck, A. (2020). There is more than one “I” in teams. How team Averages in Authentic Living and Perspective-Taking Personalities Relate to Team Information Elaboration and Team Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology.

50.

Leroy

Palanski

Simons

(2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 255-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1036-1

51.

Leroy

Weiss

Adler

(2021). Bridging selfhood and relationality: A dual-process model of authenticity in leadership. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 172-191. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0161

52.

Lopez

F. G.

Rice

K. G.

(2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 362-371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.362

53.

Meglino

B. M.

Ravlin

E. C.

(1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351-389. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400304

54.

Mehra

Kilduff

Brass

D. J.

(2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 121-146. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667127

55.

Molinksy

(2013). The psychological processes of cultural retooling. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 683-710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0492

56.

Morris

J. W.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Urbanksi

J. C.

(2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323-1350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705059929

57.

Mott, P. E. (1972). The characteristics of effective organizations. Harper & Row.

58.

Munyon

T. P.

Summers

J. K.

Thompson

K. M.

Ferris

G. R.

(2014). Political skill and work outcomes: A theoretical extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 143-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12066

59.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(4), 599-620. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8

60.

Palanski

M. E.

Kahai

S. S.

Yammarino

F. J.

(2010). Team virtues and performance: An examination of transparency, behavioral integrity, and trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0650-7

61.

Palanski

M. E.

Yammarino

(2009). Integrity and leadership: A multi-level conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.008

62.

Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

Halbesleben

J. R.

(2014). Examining the influence of climate, supervisor guidance, and behavioral integrity on work–family conflict: A demands and resources approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 447-463. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1883

63.

Perrewé

P. L.

Zellars

K. L.

Ferris

G. R.

Rossi

A. M.

Kacmar

C. J.

Ralston

D. A.

(2004). Neutralizing job stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 141–152. https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/20159566

64.

Pfeffer

(2015). Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time. HarperCollins.

65.

Pillemer

(2024). Strategic authenticity: Signaling authenticity without undermining professional image in workplace interactions. Organization Science, 35(5), 1641-1659. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.14807

66.

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(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

67.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

68.

Roberts

L. M.

(2005). Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 685-711. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.18378873

69.

Roberts

L. M.

Cha

S. E.

Hewlin

P. F.

Settles

I. H.

(2009). Bringing the inside out: Enhancing authenticity and positive identity in organizations. In Roberts

L. M.

Dutton

J. E.

(Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 149-169). Routledge.

70.

Siemsen

Roth

Oliveira

(2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241

71.

Simons

(2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543

72.

Simons

Basik

Leroy

(2013). Four Key Steps in Developing Leader Integrity. In Wankel

Stachowicz-Stanuch

(Eds.), Management Education for Integrity – Ethically Educating Tomorrow’s Business Leaders (pp. 123-142). Emerald Publishing.

73.

Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A., & McLean Parks, J. (2007). Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and “trickle down” among black and non-black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 650-665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.650

74.

Simons

Leroy

Collewaert

Masschelein

(2015). How leader alignment of words and deeds impacts followers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 831-844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2332-3

75.

Simons

Tomlinson

Leroy

(2011). Research on behavioral integrity: A promising construct for positive organizational scholarship. In Cameron

Spreitzer

(Eds.), Handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 323-334). Oxford University Press.

76.

Simons

T. L.

(1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819910263640

77.

Slabu

Lenton

A. P.

Sedikides

Bruder

(2014). Trait and state authenticity across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(9), 1347-1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114543520

78.

Snyder

(1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037039

79.

Swann, W. B. Jr. (1983). Self–verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. M. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33–66). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303134083_Bringing_social_reality_into_harmony_with_the_self

80.

Tomlinson, E. C., Lewicki, R. J., & Ash, S. R. (2014). Disentangling the moral integrity construct: Values congruence as a moderator of the behavioral integrity–citizenship relationship. Group & Organization Management, 39(6), 720–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114551023

81.

Van Knippenberg

Sitkin

S. B.

(2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.759433

82.

Vogelgesang

Leroy

Avolio

(2013). The mediating effects of leader integrity with transparency in communication and work engagement/performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(3), 405-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.004

83.

Wagner

Korschun

Troebs

(2020). Deconstructing corporate hypocrisy: A delineation of its behavioral, moral, and attributional facets. Journal of Business Research, 114(1), 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.041

84.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913

85.

Windscheid

Bowes-Sperry

Jonsen

Morner

(2016). Managing organizational gender diversity images: A content analysis of German corporate websites. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(4), 977–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3292-6

86.

Wood

A. M.

Linley

P. A.

Maltby

Baliousis

Joseph

(2008). The authentic 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

87.

Zhao

Lynch

J. G.

Chen

(2009). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257

	Leader Behavioral Integrity			Team Performance
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7
Control variables
Leader Conscientiousness	.19*	.21*	.18*	−.09	−.06	−.07	−.07
Person-Supervisor Fit	.31**	.18	.21	.17	.08	−.23	.09
Organizational Behavioral Integrity	.49**	.42**	.38**	.32**	.28*	.27*	.27*
Independent variable
Leader Experienced Authenticity		−.19*	−.24**		.08	.08	.08
Leader Political skill		.27*	.23*		.12	.11	.12
Interaction effects
Leader Experienced Authenticity×Leader Political Skill			.17*			−.03	.04
Mediator variable
Leader Behavioral Integrity							.45**
ΔR²	.46**	.05*	.03*	.14**	.04	.01	.08**

	Direct Effect of Experienced Authenticity on Team Performance	Indirect Effect of Leader Experienced Authenticity on Team Performance through BI
				BC 95% CI
Moderator	Point Estimate	Point Estimate	SE	Lower	Upper
Low Political Skill	.15	−.14*	.08	−.34	−.03
High Political Skill	.12	−.01	.03	−.08	.03
R ²	.12	.39
F	2.56**	15.67**

How Leaders’ Experienced Authenticity Influences Team Performance: A Behavioral Integrity Lens

Abstract

Keywords

Theory and Hypotheses

The Concept of Experienced Authenticity and Behavioral Integrity

The Relationship Between Experienced Authenticity and Behavioral Integrity

The Moderating Role of Leader Political Skill

The Mediating Role of Behavioral Integrity

Method

Sample and Procedure

Measures

Experienced Authenticity

Political Skill

Team Performance

Control Variables

Results

Post Hoc Curvilinear Test

Discussion

Theoretical Contributions

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Notes

Author Biographies

References