 | This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.(July 2022) |
| This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.(July 2022) |
Most efforts to measure self-efficacy have focused on a subject's expectations about performing specific tasks or what is referred to as "domain-specific" or "situation-specific" efficacy beliefs. However, researchers such as Sherer et al. [1] and Chen, Gully, and Eden [2] have validated general scales with the belief that individuals who have a history of varied and numerous experiences of success can be expected to have positive self-efficacy expectancies in a variety of situations. Accordingly, these expectancies are thought to generalize to actions beyond any specific target behavior. Noted to be a different construct than task-specific self-efficacy, though a possible predictor, general self-efficacy is thought to be a motivational state, whereas task-specific self-efficacy a motivational trait. [3] [4] [5] Though both share similar antecedents, general efficacy is thought to be more resistant to ephemeral influences and more tied to other self-evaluation constructs such as self-esteem or locus of control. [6]
While the debate on the value of a general self-efficacy construct goes on, there is also the question of whether there might be an intermediate zone between a general expectancy and a specific task domain. In particular, might there be value in defining one's expectations about performance in a general context, such as at work or at school. When it comes to work, for example, there is interest in knowing what makes some workers more capable of adjusting to new work contexts than others. Some administrators of work training and cooperative education programs have also asked what is in the "black box" of training that makes some trainees more successful than others. [7]
There has been reference to work self-efficacy in the literature through such studies as Woodruff and Cashman [8] Bosscher and Smit [9] Chen and Gully [10] and Kirk and Brown. [11] However, the measure used for work-domain self-efficacy in these studies was not derived from any specific theoretical work trying to understand and outline specific dimensions attending to the work context. Rather, these studies in each case chose items from Sherer et al.'s [1] general self-efficacy scale presumed to apply to work. In the Kirk and Brown study, noted above, the work-domain self-efficacy scale was culled to merely 11 items from the general scale, but the authors did not use theory to guide their selection; rather they eliminated items which did not load robustly on the general scale. In examining the Scherer scale, although a few items refer specifically to work ("If I can't do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can"), most do not ("When I make plans, I am certain that I can make them work"). It could be argued that any development of a work self-efficacy inventory should progress on the basis of an explicit selection of items that apply specifically within a work context.
A published article from International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy describes a study constructed on the self-efficiency of adolescent, especially on high school teenagers, with previous work experience. The study showed that those with employment lasting for a firm duration than those with random pattern of employments has a stronger self-efficiency. In turn, the heightened self-efficiency increases the confidence level of young adults for the future anticipations of family lives, community participations, personal health and economic achievements. [12]
Perhaps the first suggestion to consider self-efficacy as a theoretical framework to explain how especially novices adjust to the workplace was by Fletcher, [13] who argued that self-efficacy may help differentiate students making the transition from pupil to practitioner. Specifically, Fletcher suggested that workplace experiences can increase self-efficacy through performance accomplishments, one source of efficacy information. Successful experiences can result in a feedback loop where performance accomplishments lead to increased self-efficacy, which, in turn, enhances a person's performance, further strengthening self-efficacy beliefs.
Numerous research studies have refined and elaborated on the application of self-efficacy theory to career development and workplace learning. [14] [15] There was nevertheless the task of assembling its constituents. Evidence from the value of cooperative education programs have long suggested that any persistent advantages accruing to participants in these programs are more tied to the non-technical than the technical skills they afford. [16] [17] [18] By non-technical, work training administrators focus on the social skills or what is also referred to as the "soft" skills rather than the hard, subject-matter skills. In turn, authors reference social skills as human relations aptitudes considered critical in interpersonal communication. [19] [20] [21] The soft skills focus as well on communication competencies, especially empathy and sensitivity, and competencies involving interacting with others, such as teamworking and giving and receiving feedback. [22]
The self-efficacy and work performance literatures are helpful in distinguishing some of the other constituents necessary to develop a work self-efficacy scale. We know, for example, that it is not sufficient to "empower" workers and expect improved work performance without considering individual differences that might be differentiated by self-efficacy and related constructs. In particular, workers' learning orientation helps them facilitate achievement of goals that are important to them, evaluate their own competency, and enhance their self-efficacy. [23] [24] [25] [26] Further, efficacy can be augmented by the belief that one has personal control over his or her job situation, much of which emanates from an understanding and determination of one's role expectations. [27] [28] Self-efficacy is also shaped by how new workers become socialized into the organization or how, for example, they adjust to the politics of the new organization. [29] Zellars et al. [30] found that job-related self-efficacy contributed to the political skill necessary to cope with strain relationships inside an organization. Previous research has also found significant relationships between self-efficacy and ability to cope with pressure. [31] [32] Saks, [33] for example, found that newcomers with high self-efficacy may be more self-sufficient and capable of coping and surviving entry experiences.
Self-efficacy has been associated with active jobs, in particular, jobs which promote active vs. passive problem-solving. [34] [35] [36] [37] Self-efficacy has also been studied as a moderator of sensitivity and interpersonal communication especially among young people. [38] Finally, self-efficacy on particular work tasks in teams has been linked to teamwork performance. [39] [40]
The work self-efficacy inventory was developed in the belief that there is benefit in assessing especially new or prospective workers' confidence in managing workplace experiences. Since efficacy is a malleable property, there are methods for employees to achieve relative success in their jobs within the workplace by increasing their confidence about performing a range of social behaviors. This inventory allows workers to assess and develop their work self-efficacy along a number of distinct dimensions.
Norms for the WS-Ei have set the average score for each of the dimensions and the overall composite score at 3.8 with a standard deviation of .6. The inventory has been submitted to both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and has consistently shown itself to be highly reliable (with Cronbach Alphas in the .80 range for both subscores and overall score) and to have strong convergent and discriminant validity. It has been used in a variety of studies both in the United States and abroad, and has been linked to work performance as well as to a range of educational dimensions, such as support and retention, and to other facets of efficacy, such as academic and career.
The WS-Ei has two forms, self and other.
The self version is completed by the respondent on himself or herself. The survey typically takes no more than ten to fifteen minutes to complete.
The other-rated version (which can also be filled out by the self) is a single-item test.
Industrial and organizational psychology "focuses the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I-O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations." It is an applied discipline within psychology and is an international profession. I-O psychology is also known as occupational psychology in the United Kingdom, organisational psychology in Australia and New Zealand, and work and organizational (WO) psychology throughout Europe and Brazil. Industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology is the broader, more global term for the science and profession.
Job satisfaction, employee satisfaction or work satisfaction is a measure of workers' contentment with their job, whether they like the job or individual aspects or facets of jobs, such as nature of work or supervision. Job satisfaction can be measured in cognitive (evaluative), affective, and behavioral components. Researchers have also noted that job satisfaction measures vary in the extent to which they measure feelings about the job. or cognitions about the job.
Expectancy theory proposes that an individual will behave or act in a certain way because they are motivated to select a specific behavior over others due to what they expect the result of that selected behavior will be. In essence, the motivation of the behavior selection is determined by the desirability of the outcome. However, at the core of the theory is the cognitive process of how an individual processes the different motivational elements. This is done before making the ultimate choice. The outcome is not the sole determining factor in making the decision of how to behave.
Locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they, as opposed to external forces, have control over the outcome of events in their lives. The concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality psychology. A person's "locus" is conceptualized as internal or external.
Goal setting involves the development of an action plan designed in order to motivate and guide a person or group toward a goal. Goals are more deliberate than desires and momentary intentions. Therefore, setting goals means that a person has committed thought, emotion, and behavior towards attaining the goal. In doing so, the goal setter has established a desired future state which differs from their current state thus creating a mismatch which in turn spurs future actions. Goal setting can be guided by goal-setting criteria such as SMART criteria. Goal setting is a major component of personal-development and management literature. Studies by Edwin A. Locke and his colleagues, most notably, Gary Latham have shown that more specific and ambitious goals lead to more performance improvement than easy or general goals. Difficult goals should be set ideally at the 90th percentile of performance, assuming that motivation and not ability is limiting attainment of that level of performance. As long as the person accepts the goal, has the ability to attain it, and does not have conflicting goals, there is a positive linear relationship between goal difficulty and task performance.
In industrial and organizational psychology, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a person's voluntary commitment within an organization or company that is not part of his or her contractual tasks. Organizational citizenship behavior has been studied since the late 1970s. Over the past three decades, interest in these behaviors has increased substantially.
In psychology, self-efficacy is an individual's belief in their capacity to act in the ways necessary to reach specific goals. The concept was originally proposed by the psychologist Albert Bandura in 1977.
Affective events theory (AET) is an industrial and organizational psychology model developed by organizational psychologists Howard M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano to explain how emotions and moods influence job performance and job satisfaction. The model explains the linkages between employees' internal influences and their reactions to incidents that occur in their work environment that affect their performance, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. The theory proposes that affective work behaviors are explained by employee mood and emotions, while cognitive-based behaviors are the best predictors of job satisfaction. The theory proposes that positive-inducing as well as negative-inducing emotional incidents at work are distinguishable and have a significant psychological impact upon workers' job satisfaction. This results in lasting internal and external affective reactions exhibited through job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
Expectancy–value theory has been developed in many different fields including education, health, communications, marketing and economics. Although the model differs in its meaning and implications for each field, the general idea is that there are expectations as well as values or beliefs that affect subsequent behavior.
Onboarding or organizational socialization is the American term for the mechanism through which new employees acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and behaviors to become effective organizational members and insiders. In standard English, this is referred to as "induction". In the United States, up to 25% of workers are organizational newcomers engaged in onboarding process.
Job performance assesses whether a person performs a job well. Job performance, studied academically as part of industrial and organizational psychology, also forms a part of human resources management. Performance is an important criterion for organizational outcomes and success. John P. Campbell describes job performance as an individual-level variable, or something a single person does. This differentiates it from more encompassing constructs such as organizational performance or national performance, which are higher-level variables.
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is employee's behavior that goes against the legitimate interests of an organization. This behavior can harm the organization, other people within it, and other people and organizations outside it, including employers, other employees, suppliers, clients, patients and citizens. It has been proposed that a person-by-environment interaction (the relationship between a person's psychological and physical capacities and the demands placed on those capacities by the person's social and physical environment.) can be utilized to explain a variety of counterproductive behaviors. For instance, an employee who is high on trait anger is more likely to respond to a stressful incident at work with CWB.
Goal orientation, or achievement orientation, is an "individual disposition towards developing or validating one's ability in achievement settings". In general, an individual can be said to be mastery or performance oriented, based on whether one's goal is to develop one's ability or to demonstrate one's ability, respectively. A mastery orientation is also sometimes referred to as a learning orientation.
Core self-evaluations (CSE) represent a stable personality trait which encompasses an individual's subconscious, fundamental evaluations about themselves, their own abilities and their own control. People who have high core self-evaluations will think positively of themselves and be confident in their own abilities. Conversely, people with low core self-evaluations will have a negative appraisal of themselves and will lack confidence. The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) and involves four personality dimensions: locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem. The trait developed as a dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, but has expanded to predict a variety of other outcomes. Core self-evaluations are particularly important because they represent a personality trait which will remain consistent over time. Furthermore, the way in which people appraise themselves using core self-evaluations has the ability to predict positive work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance. These relationships have inspired increasing amounts of research on core self-evaluations and suggest valuable implications about the importance this trait may have for organizations.
Technological self-efficacy (TSE) is "the belief in one's ability to successfully perform a technologically sophisticated new task". TSE does not highlight specific technological tasks; instead it is purposely vague. This is a specific application of the broader and more general construct of self-efficacy, which is defined as the belief in one's ability to engage in specific actions that result in desired outcomes. Self efficacy does not focus on the skills one has, but rather the judgments of what one can do with his or her skills. Traditionally, a distinguishing feature of self efficacy is its domain-specificity. In other words, judgments are limited to certain types of performances as compared to an overall evaluation of his or her potential. Typically, these constructs refer to specific types of technology; for example, computer self-efficacy, or internet self-efficacy and information technology self-efficacy. In order to organize this literature, technology specific self-efficacies that technology specific self-efficacies can be considered sub-dimensions under the larger construct of technological self-efficacy.
Work motivation is a person's internal disposition toward work. To further this, an incentive is the anticipated reward or aversive event available in the environment. While motivation can often be used as a tool to help predict behavior, it varies greatly among individuals and must often be combined with ability and environmental factors to actually influence behavior and performance. Results from a 2012 study, which examined age-related differences in work motivation, suggest a "shift in people's motives" rather than a general decline in motivation with age. That is, it seemed that older employees were less motivated by extrinsically related features of a job, but more by intrinsically rewarding job features. Work motivation is strongly influenced by certain cultural characteristics. Between countries with comparable levels of economic development, collectivist countries tend to have higher levels of work motivation than do countries that tend toward individualism. Similarly measured, higher levels of work motivation can be found in countries that exhibit a long versus a short-term orientation. Also, while national income is not itself a strong predictor of work motivation, indicators that describe a nation's economic strength and stability, such as life expectancy, are. Work motivation decreases as a nation's long-term economic strength increases. Currently work motivation research has explored motivation that may not be consciously driven. This method goal setting is referred to as goal priming.
Adaptive performance in the work environment refers to adjusting to and understanding change in the workplace. An employee who is versatile is valued and important in the success of an organization. Employers seek employees with high adaptability, due to the positive outcomes that follow, such as excellent work performance, work attitude, and ability to handle stress. Employees, who display high adaptive performance in an organization, tend to have more advantages in career opportunities unlike employees who are not adaptable to change. In previous literature, Pulakos and colleagues established eight dimensions of adaptive performance.
Bullying is abusive social interaction between peers and can include aggression, harassment, and violence. Bullying is typically repetitive and enacted by those who are in a position of power over the victim. A growing body of research illustrates a significant relationship between bullying and emotional intelligence.
Alex Stajkovic is an Organizational Behavior (OB) professor who has conducted research on confidence and goal priming. He holds the Dean's Professorship in Business at the Wisconsin School of Business at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. His research bears on self-efficacy, confidence, and primed goals. Stajkovic co-authored papers with Albert Bandura, Edwin Locke, and Fred Luthans. Stajkovic is a contributing editor to the Journal of Applied Psychology, as well as a member of the Midwestern Psychological Association and Society for Science of Motivation.
The Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) is an introspective psychological inventory consisting of 24 items pertaining to an individual's Psychological Capital (PsyCap), or positive psychological state of development. The PCQ was constructed by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey with the goal to assess the dimensions of PsyCap. The PCQ measures four dimensions of PsyCap: hope, efficacy, resiliency, and optimism. The PCQ takes between 10–15 minutes to complete and can be administered to individuals or groups. The PCQ is protected by copyright law and published by Mind Garden, Inc.