Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and performance

Some human resource applications

Steven H. Appelbaum
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Self-efficacy as a mediator

33

Alan Hare
Management Consultant, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Introduction Work organizations seek to optimize the performance of their human resources in order to achieve high levels of productivity, efficiency and effectiveness. Centrally important human resources activities including job selection, orientation, skill -training, performance appraisal, compensation, human resource planning and career development are all related to improving and sustaining organizational performance. In the past 20 years, there has been a growing research interest in the contribution which social learning theory (or social cognition theory) can make in the area of work performance. For example, in an earlier review of personnel training and development, Campbell[1, p. 571] believed there was promise in Banduras description of training methodologies which included both modelling and vicarious learning, which have become central constructs in Banduras social cognition theory framework[2, p. 254]. Since that time, extensive empirical evidence has given strong support to the validity and utility of social learning theory and to the existence of strong links between task performance, motivation, and selfefficacy[3, p. 472]:
The use of social learning theory principles in conjunction with extrinsic rewards for performance may provide a most effective combination of motivational approaches [4, p. 223].

Self-efficacy, a social cognition construct (social learning) which refers to a persons self-beliefs in his or her ability to perform specific tasks[2, p. 257], has been shown to be a reliable predictor of both motivation and task performance[5, p. 365], and to influence personal goal setting[6, p. 197]. According to Banduras[2, p. 257] description of the human cognitive self-regulation system, self-efficacy beliefs are the most central and pervasive influence on the choices people make, their goals, the amount of effort they apply to a particular task, how long they persevere at a task in the face of failure or

Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, 1996, pp. 33-47. MCB University Press, 0268-3946

Journal of Managerial Psychology 11,3 34

difficulty, the amount of stress they experience and the degree to which they are susceptible to depression. Human resource management application The changeable aspect of self-efficacy beliefs[7, p. 198] should be of great interest to the human resource management professional: the potential to influence directly task performance through increasing self-efficacy beliefs. A number of studies have demonstrated significantly higher task performance following manipulations designed to enhance self-efficacy, including managerial problem-solving training[8, p. 803], general analytic skill development[9, p. 94], job attendance[10, p. 415], complex decision-making tasks[6, p. 197], and management retraining[11, p. 198]. Self-efficacy beliefs have also been shown to be correlated with and predictive of burnout[12, p. 745], stress[5, p. 371], supervisor ratings of performance[13, p. 80], and role adjustments of newcomers to organizations[14, p. 274]. These findings point to the previously identified centrality of self-efficacy beliefs with respect to performance and key human resource implications. The specific applications arising from the theoretical and empirical frameworks associated with selfefficacy and which have utility in human resource management applications are a major focus of this research. The field of human resources management has (apparently) been slow to address and technically incorporate the applied aspects of social cognition theory and self-efficacy, despite the impressive empirical support it has received. Gist[3, p. 472], in an article addressing the implications of self-efficacy for organizational behaviour and human resources management, further points out that there is little evidence that much attention has been paid to organizational applications. Considering the empirical evidence, however, it would seem that the application of social cognition theory is a future trend in these areas and, by extension, an important area to be considered by human resources management. In recent years, management practices in the area of work motivation and performance have typically reflected goal-setting theory and the notion of instrumentality of rewards. Goal-setting theory has shown that the setting of reasonably challenging goals leads to increased performance. Similarly, the matching of incentives and rewards to individual preferences has also been shown to enhance motivation and performance[15, p. 642]. Performance appraisal systems and compensation schemes have therefore embraced some aspects of current motivation theory, yet have overlooked the measurement and modification of subjective evaluations of task competence (self-efficacy) and outcome expectations. The objective of this article is to examine the theoretical framework and empirical support for self-efficacy as a mediator of motivation, goal setting and performance, and to examine the specific (applied) implications of self-efficacy beliefs for the human resources management field. This undertaking will

conclude with the possibilities for an increasingly important role for self- Self-efficacy as a efficacy theory with respect to current and future trends.. mediator Self-efficacy: a theoretical framework This research will begin with self-efficacy in terms of how it is defined, characterized and measured. Sources of beliefs will be examined as well as the dynamic determinants of these beliefs. Individual differences will be explored and followed by an analysis of goal setting and its impact on performance. Social cognition theory, based on a model of triadic reciprocal causation, emphasizes the interplay between behaviour, environmental influences and personal subjective factors including cognition to explain human psychosocial functioning[5, p. 361]. The role of cognition that aspect of our mental life involving conscious thought processes (including such key elements as reasoning, problem solving, decision making and evaluative judgements) is given special emphasis within this conceptual framework. In a description of social cognitive theory, Bandura[2, p. 248] argues for the existence of central (cognitive) self-regulation processes which mediate experience and behaviour. Bandura suggests that much of human behaviour is regulated by forethought, allowing people to behave in a proactive fashion and engage in goal setting, thus channelling motivation. He considers this capacity of self-directedness to be mediated by self-reflective and self-reactive capabilities which are in a state of constant interplay with environmental influences. It is from such selfreflective and self-reactive capabilities that self-efficacy beliefs are thought to emerge. Self-efficacy: definition, characteristics and measurement The construct of self-efficacy refers to peoples beliefs about their capability to exercise control over their own level of functioning and over events that affect their lives[2, p. 257]. Self-efficacy beliefs are considered to be the outcome of a process of weighing, integrating, and evaluating information about ones capabilities, and which, in turn, regulate the choices people make and the amount of effort they apply to a given task[3, p. 472]. Self-efficacy judgements vary over time on the basis of new information and experience[7, p. 184]. Thus, self-efficacy is a dynamic concept. Self-efficacy beliefs are also associated primarily with specific task conditions, even though, as will be noted later, there is considered to be a degree of generalization of self-efficacy beliefs across related task situations and of a persons general sense of efficaciousness[2, p. 258]. Three dimensions of self-efficacy are identified: magnitude, strength and generality[3, p. 472]. Magnitude refers to the level of task difficulty a person believes he or she can attain; strength refers to the degree of conviction that a given level of task performance is attainable; and generality refers to the extent to which a given self-efficacy judgement applies across different situations. Magnitude and strength of self-efficacy judgements are the basis of most measurements of self-efficacy. Typically, a person may be asked to indicate with a yes or no answer whether they feel that they can attain various specified

35

Journal of Managerial Psychology 11,3 36

levels of task performance and, second, indicate how confident they are to reach each attainable level of performance as an example, by assigning a number from 1 to 100. Magnitude is then determined by aggregating total yes responses, and strength determined by aggregating confidence responses[8, p. 797]. It should be noted that generality is not normally measured. Sources of self-efficacy beliefs Four major sources of self-efficacy beliefs have been identified[5, p. 364]; enactive mastery experiences, modelling, social persuasion and psychological states. Each of these sources has particular significance when considering applications in organizational work environments. Enactive mastery experiences refer to the strengthening of self-efficacy beliefs as a result of task accomplishment. Within the triadic reciprocal causation model, this source is associated with the influence of behaviour on self-efficacy beliefs. It is suggested that a resilient sense of efficacy is developed when a person is able to overcome challenging obstacles through perseverance, an experience which provides assurance of ones capabilities and which allows a person to endure setbacks and failures without loss of confidence. Easy successes result in an expectation of quick results, leading to rapid discouragement in the face of failure. As will be seen, the strengthening or weakening of self-efficacy beliefs through task experience has major implications for work experiences, particularly with respect to the success or lack of success experienced by a person in his/her position and the task conditions which can be adjusted to facilitate that success. Vicarious experience or modelling[3, p. 473] is a second important source of self-efficacy beliefs and is primarily associated with environmental influences. Modelling refers to the observation of another person the model performing the task in question. The model, through successful efforts, conveys to the observing person possible task strategies, a basis for (social) comparison and judgement of their own abilities, and encouragement to believe that through effort, despite setbacks, the task can be successfully accomplished. The effects of modelling are related to the similarity between the model and the observer (for example age and capability). The desire to imitate models can be very powerful. Modelling first manifests itself in childhood, when children imitate adults and other siblings. In organizations, a desire to imitate superior performers or supervisors may be strong in some individuals. Certainly, the taking of roles and the imitation of previously witnessed behaviour illustrate the subtle influences of social learning[4, p. 222]. The impact in organizational settings of this source of self-efficacy has implications both in everyday uncontrolled situations where one person observes another doing the same task as part of the normal flow of work, and with respect to training activities where modelling can be applied systematically as a learning methodology. Verbal or social persuasion (an environmental influence), although less effective than enactive mastery or modelling, is considered to be an important source of self-efficacy beliefs. This objective of verbal persuasion is to convey to

the person faced with the task of utilizing their ability to succeed, is to not create Self-efficacy as a unrealistically high expectations which may well affect the person negatively if mediator they fail at the task. Social persuasion is used on a widespread, ad hoc basis as a normal form of encouragement; however, the strategic use of this technique within a skill development setting can result in greater task-directed effort which is particularly useful in the early stages of skill development. 37 A persons perception of his/her physiological state (subjective personal influences), will influence his/her judgement of self-efficacy. If they feel fearful, anxious, or tense, they may judge themselves less capable to accomplish a given task. Fatigue or pain will negatively affect self-efficacy judgements related to tasks involving physical exertion[5, p. 365]. Efforts to improve either psychological or physical states, through efforts to reduce stress or improve physical condition, can be considered as ways to improve self-efficacy judgements. Through the ongoing influence of these information sources, self-efficacy beliefs are gradually acquired and consolidated through experience. As was briefly noted, each of these four sources has particular implications in the area of work organizations and human resources management. However, there are a variety of other factors which influence the development of self-efficacy beliefs and will be examined. Dynamic determinants of self-efficacy beliefs: two experiments Some of the major factors which influence development of self-efficacy include beliefs in the nature of ability[7, p. 190], information or assumptions which link successful performance to internal or external factors[2, p. 357], estimations of controllability, feedback received regarding previous efforts[16, p. 65], attributions made regarding the outcome of previous experiences[17, p. 293], specific task requirements and the degree of interdependence on the efforts of others. In a key experiment which addressed self-efficacy and goal -setting with respect to complex decision-making tasks in an organizational context, Wood and Bandura[5, p. 371] demonstrated the effects of a number of these dynamic determinants on self-efficacy. Using a computer-simulated organizational environment, business school students engaged in managerial decision-making tasks with the goal of attaining higher organizational performance. The participants were provided with descriptions of each productive activity in the organization, together with information regarding each employees characteristics, including skills, experience, motivation, work preference and work quality standards. Each participant engaged in a series of 16 trials, allowing changes in performance to be measured with increasing experience. In one control group, students were led to believe (manipulated) that (cognitive) ability as a manager was either an acquirable skill or a fixed inherent capacity. A further description of this structured experiment was supplied by Wood and Bandura:

Journal of Managerial Psychology 11,3 38

Managers who were led to construe their decision-making ability as reflective of their inherent cognitive aptitude were beset by increasing doubts about their managerial efficacy as they encountered problems. They became more and more erratic in their decisional activities, they lowered their organizational aspirations, and they achieved progressively less with the organization they were managing. In marked contrast, managers with an induced conception of ability as an acquirable skill fostered a highly resilient sense of personal efficacy. Even though they were assigned taxing goals that were difficult to fulfil, these managers remained steadfast in their perceived managerial self-efficacy, they continued to set for themselves challenging organizational goals, and they used analytical strategies in ways which aided the discovery of optimal managerial decision rules. Such a self-efficacious orientation, which is well-suited to handling adversity, paid off in uniformly high organization attainments[5, p. 373].

A second manipulation encouraged participants to believe that organizations are either relatively controllable or uncontrollable. This manipulation led to similar outcomes: those who believed that organizations are controllable applied a persistent and high level of effective effort across trials, whereas those who were led to believe that organizations are uncontrollable showed deteriorating performance across trials. A third manipulation provided feedback to the student managers which indicated performance superiority or decline relative to other managers. Again, those who received negative feedback experienced a decline in self-efficacy judgements and decremental performance. The performance of those receiving positive feedback varied according to the nature of the feedback. Those who were led to believe that they had easily achieved mastery tended to set lower goals for themselves compared with those who believed that they had achieved mastery through persistent effort. These results indicate two important characteristics of self-efficacy: first, performance is clearly linked to self-efficacy beliefs and, second, self-efficacy judgements are dynamically influenced by externally provided information. This malleability of self-efficacy judgements[7, p. 202] can have both positive and negative consequences on task performance, depending on the nature of the information available to the person. Thus, building a high and resilient sense of self-efficacy with employees[5, p. 380] and avoiding a downward spiralling of performance, referred to as an exacerbation cycle[7, p. 202] should be of concern to human resource professionals in terms of management development. Individual differences It appears that self-efficacy judgements are influenced greatly by information from the environment and the effect that such information has on the beliefs held by the person. However, other determinants of self-efficacy beliefs, related to relatively stable characteristics of the person, need to be considered. These aspects include level of ability, the persons general state of perceived efficaciousness and general beliefs and attribution style regarding internal versus external locus of control[7, p. 204]. A persons knowledge or skill relating to a specific task places a limit on the ability to succeed: no amount of effort or motivation will substitute for insufficient development of prerequisite attainments. If an assigned task requires an ability beyond the persons attained level, a low self-efficacy judgement for that task can be realistically expected.

Second, people vary greatly in their overall sense of efficaciousness. Self-efficacy as a Pervasive psychological conditions including depressive tendencies[2, p. 274] mediator and high stress levels[5, p. 365] can have a strong influence on judgements of self-efficacy, as can an individuals subjective assessment of his/her overall experience with success and failure itself. As Wood and Bandura note[5, p. 366], highly efficacious individuals visualize success scenarios that provide 39 positive guides for performance, whereas those who judge themselves as inefficious are more inclined to visualize failure scenarios, which undermine performance. This can be demonstrated in cases where highly efficacious individuals have a tendency to attribute failure to a lack of effort, whereas those who consider themselves to be inefficacious attribute failure to a lack of ability[2, p. 258]. Perceived locus of control[3, p. 480] considered as a personality attribute is also thought to influence the development of self-efficacy. Those who have an internal locus of control those who feel that they, in general, are in control of their environment would be likely to require less enactive mastery experiences to develop a strong sense of efficacy and respond better to modelling compared with those who have an external locus of control (those who feel controlled by their environments). The implication of this theory in terms of application is important. Internally- and externally-oriented individuals differ in the kinds of rewards they prefer. Externally-oriented individuals prefer intrinsic rewards (pay and job security). In contrast, internally-oriented individuals prefer intrinsic (self-supplied) rewards such as feelings of accomplishment or achievement. The implication is fairly clear: managers who understand their subordinates loci of control can better tailor their reward systems to reflect individual needs. Taking charge of our own careers is what locus of control is about[4, pp. 97-8]. Individual differences, some of which are closely related to what are generally termed personality traits, would appear to represent a greater challenge for the human resource management professional than do the more highly variable and largely environmentally-based determinants of self-efficacy beliefs. This challenge revolves around the assessment of individual differences and the modification of intervention strategies to assessed individual differences. Such an effort would require sophistication in both assessment instruments and in the area of managerial skills and training activities in general. Considering the relatively small-scale adoption of social cognition theory within the human resources field to date (as discussed previously), such sophistication would best be seen as a long-term goal for most organizations. Self-efficacy and goal setting To date, self-efficacy has been discussed from the point of view of generative and dynamic influences and its association with performance. An important additional area to consider is the importance of goals both personal and assigned and their interaction with self-efficacy and performance. The operation of goals continues to be a central topic in motivation theory. In

Journal of Managerial Psychology 11,3 40

developing his motivation framework, Locke[17, p. 293) proposes that goals affect action by affecting the intensity, duration, and direction of action, noting the well-documented validity of goal-setting theory. This process has significant implications for the human resource management process in terms of performance actualization. Self-efficacy beliefs, as noted previously, influence the goals which people set for themselves (personal goals). Normally, however, in an organizational context, people must deal with pre-assigned goals, those goals which are related to productive activity in the workplace. Assigned goals provide a sense of direction and purpose, stimulate action and effort, serve as a standard on which performance capabilities can be measured, and serve as guidelines for developing a sense of efficacy. The achievement of subgoals (proximal) leading towards major (distal) goals provides a sense of task mastery and competence, supporting the development of strong self-efficacy beliefs, which in turn lead to increased perseverance. Assigned goals influence personal goals through goal acceptance and commitment, and serve to establish normative expectations around which personal goals can evolve[9, p. 83]. The setting of assigned goals has an impact on self-efficacy. Goals which are set too high result in performance failure and can have a negative impact on self-efficacy and future performance, whereas goals which are easily attainable create a false sense of self-efficacy and lead to rapid discouragement in the face of failure. Taking self-efficacy beliefs into account, assigned goals which are challenging yet attainable are considered to lead both to the highest performance levels and conjointly to resilient selfefficacy beliefs[3, p. 475]. Personal goals are determined in part by self-efficacy beliefs[2, p. 258]. Selfefficacy beliefs are suggested to influence the choice of, degree of challenge and commitment to personal goals. The interactive and ongoing relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and their influence on personal goal setting, selfevaluation of performance and feedback against such goals, and subsequent adjustment of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goals is a central mechanism ascribed to the self-regulation system of social cognitive theory. Enhanced selfefficacy beliefs lead to the setting of more challenging goals and diminished self-efficacy beliefs lead to more modest goal setting and a more realistic and attainable motivational framework. Self-efficacy, goal setting and performance The preceding discussion illuminates self-efficacy beliefs as a major mediation factor in relation to personal goal-setting and performance. Assigned (externally imposed) goals are assumed to play a dual role of establishing performance standards on which task-specific self-efficacy beliefs are judged and evolve, and setting normative standards which establish, through goal acceptance and commitment, a basis for congruency between personal goals and organizational goals. It is a basic assumption of this theory that conditions of congruency between personal goals and organizational goals (high

organizational commitment) which are challenging but attainable, matched Self-efficacy as a with strong self-efficacy beliefs will lead to high motivation and performance mediator levels. Conversely, incongruence between personal and organizational goals (which are either easily attainable or unattainable and unrealistic) and low levels of self-efficacy are all considered to be predictors of diminished motivation and decremental performance. Self-efficacy is seen to be the critical 41 component, representing the persons evaluation of his/her capabilities against external standards (organizational goals) and a principal basis for the establishment and re-adjustment of personal goals. Strengthening self-efficacy beliefs through the control of various external factors (such as information content and quality of task experience) and the careful management of organizational goal setting is considered as the direction to take, leading to higher motivation and organizational performance. Relevant organizational performance characteristics such as setting challenging work goals, rapid learning of new skills, high and sustained task effort and persistence in the face of setbacks, obstacles and failures are all associated with strong self-efficacy beliefs. Given the proposition that self-efficacy beliefs play a central role in human self-regulation and have strong directive influences on personal goal setting, and that self-efficacy beliefs are strong predictors of both motivation and performance in organizational settings[3, p. 472], the possibility of transferring self-efficacy theory into the workplace is an important human resource management consideration in determining its usefulness to organizational practices. The following section examines self-efficacy theory from the point of view of its human resource management application and utility in organizational settings. Self-efficacy and human resources management This section of the research will examine selection, training, performance appraisal and absenteeism, as significant human resource management variables affecting and being affected by self-efficacy. In an article examining the application of social cognitive theory to organizational environments, Wood and Bandura[5, p. 380] state:
Social cognitive theory provides explicit guidelines about how to equip people with the competencies, the self-regulatory capabilities, and the resilient sense of efficacy that will enable them to enhance both their well-being and their accomplishments.

Further to this, Gist identified possible implications and applications for human resources management but emphasized the lack of empirical evidence from applied settings to validate the relationship between self-efficacy and performance[3, p. 478]. More recently, Gist and Mitchell[7, p. 207] suggest that the significance of self-efficacy for motivation and performance in work settings has been well demonstrated, and offer specific strategies for changing self-efficacy beliefs. On the strength of this research, self-efficacy appears to be moving quickly out of the abstract theoretical framework of social cognitive

Journal of Managerial Psychology 11,3 42

theorists and into the technical repertoire of human resource management professionals. Specific areas of human resources management where self-efficacy theory has been considered, include selection, training needs assessment and training methodology, performance appraisal, and absenteeism. Each of these areas will be examined briefly in terms of their utility and adoption to this undertaking. Selection The application of self-efficacy in this area of the human resources function is speculative at best. The possible utility of self-efficacy assessment as a component of the selection process is proposed in order to identify those individuals most likely to be high-performers in the future[3, p. 479]. In a study examining the response of newcomers adjustment to organizations, it was found that when formalized and institutionalized socialization tactics were used (where organizational commitment and uniformity of behaviour are key cultural values), those low in self-efficacy developed a considerably stronger (and desirable) custodial orientation in contrast to those with high selfefficacy[14, p. 274]. In this study, selection of persons with low self-efficacy was associated with higher levels of adoption of organizational norms and goals. This is consistent with the notion of locus of control, where a low sense of efficaciousness is linked with an external locus of control, a situation where one might predict a high responsiveness to control of environmental factors such as that found in formal orientation and socialization programmes. The availability of assessment tools[18, p. 666] and relative ease of administration opens the door to further examine the usefulness of self-efficacy measures in the selection process. Training needs assessment and training methodology Perhaps the most extensive application of self-efficacy has been in the area of training. In addressing needs assessment initially, it can be demonstrated that knowledge of an employees self-efficacy expectations may help to identify specific training needs which might otherwise go unnoticed and which possibly hinder improved performance. Social learning theory contends that people develop expectancies about their capacity to behave in certain ways and the probability that such behaviour will result in rewards. The first of these expectancies relates to how they perceive their own competence, while the second pertains to outcomes and is analogous to the concepts of expectancy theory. Therefore, organizational training programmes that rely on films, lectures and roleplaying techniques (i.e. the vast majority of organization-sponsored training programmes) are using an approach based on social learning theory principles. The self-administration of rewards is also an important part of social learning theory. Modelling, or imitative behaviour, serves as a standard for administering self-reinforcement in the form of increased personal satisfaction and enhanced self-image[4, p. 222].

In a study of managers faced with retraining as a consequence of corporate Self-efficacy as a reorganization, downsizing, or adoption of participative management mediator programmes where the transition from direct structure to that of coach is involved, self-efficacy (related to advancement potential and perceived training) was found to be a key determinant of success in following a retraining programme[11, p. 197]. It can be suggested that the self-efficacy of managers be 43 assessed prior to implementation or evaluation of retraining programmes, especially regarding the participants learning beliefs: that they can actually learn what is being taught. In examining the interaction of training needs and self-efficacy from a different angle, Tannenbaum et al.[19, p. 767] studied the interaction of trainees expectations of training and training outcomes on self-efficacy beliefs. It was found that new employees whose training expectations were unsatisfied left training with lower levels of self-efficacy and lower subsequent work performance compared with trainees whose expectations were satisfied through training. The authors suggest that this finding implies that organizations need to consider trainee expectations through a thorough training needs analysis and make an effort to fulfil such needs and expectations through flexible training programmes, thereby contributing to a higher sense of self-efficacy once the new employee begins actually to transfer the training to her/his job. It can be hypothesized that training programmes are mandated to optimize the development of new skills considered to be valuable to improving the performance of the organization. Participants enter these training programmes with different levels of self-efficacy which are further adjusted as the training proceeds. Assuming a superordinate goal of enhancing task-related self-efficacy, several specific recommendations arise from social cognition theory. The first is the use of guided mastery modelling[5, p. 363], which is comprised of three steps: (1) Step I. In this step a skilled model is utilized demonstrating key elements of the skills required for the trainee for task success. Normally, for observable skills, behavioural modelling is used; however, for such tasks as idea generation or complex decision-making tasks which are not visually observable, the use of cognitive modelling has been used to advantage[8]. Cognitive modelling involves the verbal modelling of thought processes involved in performing the required task. As discussed earlier, modelling or vicarious learning is a rich source of information used in the development of self-efficacy beliefs necessary for effective training. (2) Step II. Requires the learner to perform the skill under the careful and supportive supervision of the trainer in a simulated situation until proficiency is achieved. This step allows for incremental mastery and minimized failure (failure in simulated situations is relatively contingence-free), promoting the development of a sense of task competence and self-efficacy.

Journal of Managerial Psychology 11,3 44

(3) Step III. Requires practising the skill in the actual setting with support and guidance until mastery is achieved. Utilizing this approach, successful skill acquisition under conditions of enhanced self-efficacy is assured. In a study dealing with the learning of computer software skills, the effectiveness of modelling was compared with tutorial methods[20, p. 890]. Across all subjects grouped according to low, medium, or high pre-training computer self-efficacy, the modelling condition resulted in higher performance, with the low self-efficacy participants showing the greatest performance increase. This indicates that the use of modelling under low efficacy conditions is a highly-effective training strategy. Participants in the modelling scenario also reported more positive working styles, less negative effect during training, and greater satisfaction with training. Another key recommendation arising from social cognition theory involves the strategic provision of information needed to influence the attribution processes which affect self-efficacy beliefs prior to, during and following training. Information regarding specific task attributes, complexity, task environment and the way in which these factors can be controlled, together with information regarding expected effort, physical, analytical and psychological task demands, and strategies required to influence performance should be strategically and appropriately communicated. Through the provision of this information, concerns related to controllability, the nature of ability, degree of effort required and the like are addressed maximally, providing the basis for optimal self-efficacy judgements regarding the to be learned skill[7, p. 203]. It is suggested that this information be provided as an integral part of the training process through modelling, feedback, and social persuasion. Feedback during training has been shown to have an impact on the development of self-efficacy. This was demonstrated in two separate studies, one involving a pencil-and-paper task[16, p. 49] and the other involving microcomputer training in an applied setting[21, p. 571]; negative feedback on performance resulted in decremental self-efficacy beliefs, whereas positive feedback resulted in enhanced self-efficacy. These findings underline the importance of how feedback can be provided and the changeable nature of self-efficacy beliefs. Although the focus in this section has been on formal training situations, the same principles can be readily applied to management tasks: providing for subordinates (with reference to the traditional hierarchical model) with realistic and individually designed goals, supplying information which guides the attributional process and maximizes self-efficacy, ultimately ensuring positive and supportive feedback. This approach acknowledges that future performance is founded on experience, current successes and failures. It also places individual differences and active thought (cognitive) processes of the individual in the foreground. Performance appraisal Much of the previous discussion lays the groundwork for the specific implications of self-efficacy theory for the performance appraisal process.

Performance appraisal, as a formal process, is the focus of performance Self-efficacy as a improvement, employee development and motivation through goal setting. The mediator nature of feedback (as an important determinant of self-efficacy judgements) provided through the performance appraisal process must be considered carefully, particularly with respect to the findings reported previously which suggested a strong connection with the valence of feedback and self-efficacy judgements. As with feedback under training conditions, the provision of 45 positively worded and supportive feedback, particularly for employees with low self-efficacy, is likely to be an important consideration[3, p. 481]. Goals set within performance appraisals should also be challenging yet attainable, with the availability of training for goals which require either new skills or skills which the employee appears to be having difficulty attaining. Ideally, within the context of social cognition theory, an assessment of self-efficacy across job skills could be incorporated into the appraisal process, allowing the identification of training needs which otherwise would not be apparent. Absenteeism An interesting replication study conducted with unionized government employees[10, p. 415] indicates a broader range of implications for self-efficacy theory in work organizations. In an effort to reduce high levels of absenteeism, a group of employees was given a self-management training course where they were trained to set short- and long-term attendance goals for themselves, establish a contract with themselves for providing self-selected rewards and sanctions, self-monitor their attendance and brainstorm possible attendance obstacles and solutions. As a result of this training intervention, self-efficacy ratings increased as did work attendance. Perhaps most intriguing is the longterm impact of the training intervention since nine months following the training, both self-efficacy ratings and job attendance remained close to posttraining levels. It may well be that training in personal goal setting and selfregulation, similar to the content of the training in this study, which effectively increases personal self-efficacy, holds promise across a wide range of organizational performance contexts for human resource management. Obviously, more research dealing with these previous factors and relationships would be strongly suggested. Some directions There has been a deliberate attempt in this article to omit competing theories of motivation, including goal-setting theory and expectancy theory. Time and space do not allow adequate comparative analysis and discussion with respect to the importance of social cognition theory. The treatment of social cognition theory has also been somewhat unidimensional and cursory: motivation theories must account for a diverse array of (hypothetical) constructs, interactions and influences as they attempt to account comprehensively for human motivation and behaviour. The theme of this article has been to attempt to isolate the concept of self-efficacy to examine its utility in the area of human resources management. The body of the evidence via relevant literature in this

Journal of Managerial Psychology 11,3 46

area suggests that the leading theories of motivation are getting close to a point of convergence and possible agreement. In an article undertaken to integrate the theoretical framework and empirical evidence for goal-setting theory, expectancy theory, and social-cognitive theory, Locke[17, p. 297] concludes:
All three theories have been quite successful in getting consistently positive results. I would like to call the goal/self-efficacy/performance linkage the motivational hub the motivational hub is where the action is. I would like to suggest that such theoretical convergence indicates that some fundamental motivational truths have been discovered, viz., that what people do is powerfully (though not solely) influenced by their goals or intents and by their perceived confidence in being able to take the actions in question.

On the strength of such a conclusion, there well may be a slow but inevitable shift in the theoretical framework of motivation and performance, as an integral mediating function of self-efficacy between goals and performance. The emergence of self-efficacy as a central concept in motivation theory coincides and meshes with the dominant trend in North American business: the movement towards total quality management[22, p. 303]. The common denominator with all corporate moves to improve quality is organizational change, whether it be training production employees in quality techniques, empowering employees with decision-making responsibility, developing quality circles and self-managed work teams, eliminating management layers, establishing cross-functional teams, or retraining supervisors to become coaches. In all of these activities, the need for all employees (who may have been working in routine job functions for many years) to take on new and unfamiliar roles and tasks is a critical implication of such change. Self-efficacy theory has much to offer with respect to understanding the impact of such change on employees and specific actions to take with respect to training and retraining communication programmes, feedback systems, and goal-setting activities. In looking at empowerment, for example, where an employee would make confident and effective bottom-line decisions, this creates requirements for that person to have a sense of competence to make that decision, in other words a strong sense of decision-making self-efficacy. Assessment and development of that sense of self-efficacy can be viewed as a parameter for training efforts supported by, for example, guided mastery training utilizing cognitive modelling. Utilizing this example, the immediate and relevant application of the self-efficacy concept is an indication of the utility of the concept for human resource management. Self-efficacy, as an organizing construct for motivation theory, holds a great deal of promise for organizational behaviour studies in general but not exclusively in the area of human resources development and performance. It is, however, a construct in need of a more accessible name. Efficacy is a rare word to begin with: taking it one step further as a self-concept probably makes it inaccessible to most people. This is unfortunate, considering that people need to accommodate the label and relate it unambiguously to the conceptual notion it stands for before they can fully integrate it into a usable knowledge framework. Hopefully, this will not inhibit the transfer of theory into practice.

References 1. Campbell, J.P., Personnel training and development, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 22, 1971, pp. 565-95. 2. Bandura, A., Social cognitive theory of self-regulation, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 248-87. 3. Gist, M.E., Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource management, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, 1987, pp. 472-85. 4. Vecchio, R.P. and Appelbaum, S.H., Managing Organizational Behavior: A Canadian Perspective, Dryden-Harcourt Brace & Company Canada, 1995, pp. 222-3. 5. Wood, R. and Bandura, A., Social cognitive theory of organizational management, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, 1989, pp. 361-84. 6. Wood, R., Bandura, A. and Bailey, T., Mechanisms governing organizational performance in complex decision-making environments, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 46, 1990, pp. 181-201. 7. Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R., Self-efficacy, a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, 1992, pp. 183-211. 8. Gist, M.E., The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42, 1989, pp. 787-805. 9. Earley, P.C. and Lituchy, T.R., Delineating goal and efficacy effects: a test of three models, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 1, 1991, pp. 81-98. 10. Latham, G.P. and Frayne, C.S., Self-management training for increasing job attendance: a follow-up and a replication, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, 1989, pp. 411-16. 11. Hill, L.A. and Elias, J., Retraining midcareer managers: career history and self-efficacy beliefs, Human Resources Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, Summer 1990, pp. 197-217. 12. Lee, R.T. and Ashforth, E.B., On the meaning of Maslachs three dimensions of burnout, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6, 1990, pp. 743-7. 13. Lee, C. and Gillen, D.J., Relationship of Type A behavior pattern, self-efficacy perceptions on sales performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, 1989, pp. 75-81. 14. Jones, G.R., Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers adjustments to organizations, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, 1986, pp. 262-79. 15. Eden, D., Pygmalion, goal setting, and expectancy: compatible ways to boost productivity, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, 1988, pp. 639-52. 16. Podsakoff, P. M. and Farh, J.-L., Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 44, 1989, pp. 45-67. 17. Locke, E.A., The motivational sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 288-99. 18. Sherer, M., Maddux, J.D., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B. and Rogers, R.W., The self-efficacy scale: construction and validation, Psychological Reports, Vol. 51, 1982, pp. 663-71. 19. Tannenbaum, S.L., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Meeting trainees expectations: the influence of training fulfilment on the development of commitment, selfefficacy, and motivation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 6, 1991, pp. 739-69. 20. Gist, M.E., Schwoerer, C. and Rosen, B., Effects of alternative training methods on selfefficacy and performance in computer software training, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 6, 1989, pp. 884-91. 21. Martocchio, J.J. and Webster, J., Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on performance on microcomputer software training, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45, 1992, pp. 553-78. 22. Olian, J.D. and Rynes, S.L., Making total quality work: aligning organizational processes, performance measures, and stakeholders, Human Resources Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, 1991, pp. 303-33.

Self-efficacy as a mediator

47