The treatment of self‐efficacy among psychology and management scholars

Elias, Steven M.; Barney, Chet E.; Bishop, James W.

doi:10.1111/jasp.12007

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 76 publications

(116 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We chose the middle ground of domain-specificity LDE for a number of reasons. First, generalized measures are less predictive than domain- or task-specific efficacy measures (Elias et al, 2013). Second, although a domain-specific measure of leader efficacy exists, LDE targets leader development.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although both contribute to variations in motivation and performance, extensive evidence in the motivation literature suggests that domain-specific self-efficacy is more strongly linked to task-specific performance than generalized efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Bandura & Adams, 1977; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). In other words, research consistently demonstrates that specific self-efficacy is a better predictor of specific goals and performance behaviors, than general self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Elias, Barney, & Bishop, 2013). Taken together, it may be more meaningful to look at domain-specific efficacy (i.e., LDE) as opposed to generalized efficacy when it comes to predicting engagement in leader developmental activities.…”

Section: Self-efficacy: a Driver Of Self-regulation Effort And Persmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Believing Is Becoming

Reichard

Walker

Putter³

et al. 2016

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Self-efficacy: a Driver Of Self-regulation Effort And Persmentioning

confidence: 99%

Believing Is Becoming

Reichard

Walker

Putter³

et al. 2016

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous studies in a range of occupational settings (e.g. clinical, educational and organisational) have provided empirical evidence that self-efficacy predicts and improves work performance, behaviour and learning (Elias et al, 2013;Sousa et al, 2012). Research conducted in work settings, and in the context of workplace learning, has shown that self-efficacy serves as a precondition to work-related learning (Elias et al, 2013).…”

Section: Self-efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…clinical, educational and organisational) have provided empirical evidence that self-efficacy predicts and improves work performance, behaviour and learning (Elias et al, 2013;Sousa et al, 2012). Research conducted in work settings, and in the context of workplace learning, has shown that self-efficacy serves as a precondition to work-related learning (Elias et al, 2013). This relationship is plausible because of self-efficacy's motivational aspects; many work settings offer professionals opportunities to take responsibility for their own learning and for the acquisition of new knowledge and skills.…”

Section: Self-efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Using workplace changes as learning opportunities

Hetzner

Heid

Gruber

2015

Journal of Workplace Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – This paper aims to contribute to an understanding of how individual characteristics and perceived contextual conditions shape reflection in professional work, particularly in workplaces that provide a variety of work experiences related to changes. The authors examine the effects of personal initiative, self-efficacy and perceived psychological safety in work relations with colleagues and supervisors on individuals’ reflection at work. Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 84 client advisors who had recently been affected by major changes in retail banking workplaces participated in the study. The participants completed a questionnaire consisting of instruments to map their self-rated personal initiative, self-efficacy beliefs, reflection at work and perception of psychological safety in work relations with colleagues and supervisors. The data were analysed by performing correlation analyses and hierarchical regression analyses. Findings – The results revealed that both individuals’ personal initiative and self-efficacy significantly positively affect reflection at work. An individual’s perception of psychological safety – particularly among peers – positively predicts reflection. Originality/value – This paper enriches the research on reflection in professional work, particularly against the backdrop of workplace changes. This is done by emphasising the power of individuals’ proactive role and initiative-taking work behaviour; positive beliefs in their own capabilities, e.g. managing the various opportunities involved in workplace changes; and their perception of a psychologically safe environment within a work group that is characterised by interpersonal trust, mutual respect and supportive cooperation.

show abstract

“…Perceived selfefficacy is the belief a person has that he or she has the capability to accomplish what he or she has set out to do in a task situation (Bandura, 1997). This can be a perspective applied to tasks and situations in general, generalized self-efficacy, or within a particular domain or behavior type, task-specific self-efficacy (Elias, Barney, & Bishop, 2013). A person's level of self-efficacy impacts what goals he or she sets and the effort the person puts toward the goal (Bandura, 1997;Latham & Sejits, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The need for goal-setting theory and motivation constructs in Lean management

Schmidt

2019

Ind. Organ. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Balzer, Brodke, Kluse, and Zickar (2019) do a good job of highlighting how industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology as a discipline could be beneficial to Lean management theory and practice. There exist significant concerns in the current Lean literature on successful implementation of Lean and how it can sustain over time (Bhasin, 2012; Cochran & Kawada, 2012; Scherrer-Rathje, Boyel, & Deflorin, 2009). Although historical analysis of Lean's success in Toyota has shown the crucial role individual factory workers have played in suggesting and making Lean improvements (Holweg, 2007), little analysis of individual-level phenomena has been done. One area of potentially significant impact is motivation theories, particularly goal-setting theory. Although Harris, Stone, Mayeshiba, Componation, and Farrington (2014) called for greater understanding of worker motivation in Lean, to date scant research has looked into this area, with the exception of Cochran, Schmidt, Oxtoby, Hensley, and Barnes (2017). Cochran et al. (2017) looked specifically at how the Lean-related collective system design approach could be conceptualized as a way to better communicate organization goals to workers to develop agreement and understanding. Whereas Cochran et al. (2017) looked at a particular application of goals and motivation, Lean processes as a whole need greater examination related to motivation. Motivation in most definitions from our field focuses on the direction, intensity, and persistence of actions (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, 2008). Organizations need workers to be focused on Lean-related concerns and on putting effort toward Lean initiative success. Continuous improvement and waste reduction can only function when workers direct their attention appropriately and persist at relevant behaviors. This commentary will highlight how aspects of goal-setting theory could help explain worker behavior in Lean initiatives and the success or failure of Lean initiatives. It will also highlight how there are potential areas of tension between how Lean is implemented and existing I-O psychology knowledge related to how people are motivated. Goal-setting theory Goal-setting theory is one of the most prominent theories in the field of I-O psychology (Latham & Sejits, 2016; Locke & Latham, 2002). Through a significant body of empirical work, strong evidence has been found for specific and difficult goals having the greatest positive impact on individual performance (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002; Sejits, Latham, & Woodwark, 2013). Three major types of goals have primarily been examined in the literature: performance goals (outcomeand result-focused), learning goals (knowledge-or competency-acquisition focused), and behavioral goals (certain desired behaviors are done; Latham, Seijts, & Slocum, 2016). The positive benefit of specific and difficult goals is weakened or removed when some important psychological conditions are not met. One major condition is goal commitment/acceptance.

show abstract

The treatment of self‐efficacy among psychology and management scholars

Cited by 15 publications

References 76 publications

Believing Is Becoming

Believing Is Becoming

Using workplace changes as learning opportunities

The need for goal-setting theory and motivation constructs in Lean management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About