ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Self-efficacy’s influence on individual job performance has been well documented in laboratory studies. However, there have been very few rigorous field studies of self-efficacy’s relationship with objectively measured individual job performance in organizational settings. This research history might account for the low take-up of self-efficacy within the business literature as well as within business itself. When it comes to studies of employee engagement, the same lack of rigorous individual studies applies, although several organizational-level studies link employee engagement to organizational performance, while its claimed benefits have been widely discussed in the business literature. Finally, the degree to which employee engagement and self-efficacy have independent and additive effects on individual-level job performance remains unknown. In order to address these issues, a longitudinal field study was undertaken within an Australian financial services firm. Using survey data linked to objectively measured job performance, we found the additive effects of self-efficacy and employee engagement explained 12% of appointments made and 39% of products sold over and above that explained by past performance. This finding suggests human resource management (HRM) practitioners should address both self-efficacy and employee engagement in order to boost job performance while encouraging HRM scholars to incorporate both measures when conducting job performance studies.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
Download by: [Richard Carter] Date: 25 October 2016, At: 11:32
The International Journal of Human Resource
ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage:
The effects of employee engagement and self-
efficacy on job performance: a longitudinal field
W. Richard Carter, Paul L. Nesbit, Richard J. Badham, Sharon K. Parker & Li-
Kuo Sung
To cite this article: W. Richard Carter, Paul L. Nesbit, Richard J. Badham, Sharon K. Parker & Li-
Kuo Sung (2016): The effects of employee engagement and self-efficacy on job performance:
a longitudinal field study, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI:
To link to this article:
Published online: 24 Oct 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
The eects of employee engagement and self-ecacy on
job performance: a longitudinal eld study
W. Richard Cartera, Paul L. Nesbitb, Richard J. Badhamb, Sharon K. Parkerc and
Li-Kuo Sungd
aAIM Business School, Australian Institute of Management, Sydney, Australia; bMacquarie Graduate
School of Management, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; cUWA Business School, The University
of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia; dSchool of International Business Administration, Shanghai
University of Finance & Economics, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
Self-ecacy’s inuence on individual job performance has
been well documented in laboratory studies. However, there
have been very few rigorous eld studies of self-ecacy’s
relationship with objectively measured individual job
performance in organizational settings. This research history
might account for the low take-up of self-ecacy within the
business literature as well as within business itself. When
it comes to studies of employee engagement, the same
lack of rigorous individual studies applies, although several
organizational-level studies link employee engagement to
organizational performance, while its claimed benets have
been widely discussed in the business literature. Finally, the
degree to which employee engagement and self-ecacy
have independent and additive eects on individual-level
job performance remains unknown. In order to address these
issues, a longitudinal eld study was undertaken within an
Australian nancial services rm. Using survey data linked to
objectively measured job performance, we found the additive
eects of self-ecacy and employee engagement explained
12% of appointments made and 39% of products sold over
and above that explained by past performance. This nding
suggests human resource management (HRM) practitioners
should address both self-ecacy and employee engagement
in order to boost job performance while encouraging HRM
scholars to incorporate both measures when conducting job
performance studies.
Self-ecacy refers to peoples judgment of their capabilities to mobilize the
motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given
situational demands (Bandura, 1986).1 Researchers have found a strong and
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Self-efficacy; employee
engagement; job
performance; longitudinal
study; field study
CONTACT Paul L. Nesbit
consistent relationship between self-ecacy and performance in areas such as
sales (Peterson & Byron, 2008), proactive behavior (Parker, Williams, & Turner,
2006), and work-related performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).
e popularity
of self-ecacy as a research topic is evidenced by the nearly 3000 studies identied
as potentially being eligible for inclusion in two meta-analyses of self-ecacy and
work-related performance (Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007; Stajkovic
& Luthans, 1998), suggesting self-ecacy has fullled the claim it would be ‘the
wave of the future’ in work motivation research (Landy, 1989, p. 410).
Notwithstanding the voluminous research on self-ecacy in the human
resource management (HRM) and organizational behavior elds, its use as a
tool for employee motivation has not been widely disseminated in management
publications in contrast to related constructs such as goal setting and feedback
and coaching. Table 1 shows the results of a keyword search of these constructs
from one academic ( and two business management ( and websites.
In the communication outlet channels where academic studies are typically
disseminated, self-ecacy scored a similar number of hits to goal setting, feed-
back, and coaching, whereas the number of hits for self-ecacy in business man-
agement publication outlets was only a fraction of those for these constructs.
e limited reference to self-ecacy may be yet another example of the business
world ignoring research from business schools (Bartunek & Rynes, 2014). One
plausible explanation for low practitioner interest is that self-ecacy research has
been dominated by researchers using student participants in non-work-related
settings (Saks, 2006). erefore, the rst aim of our research was to examine the
eect of self-ecacy within an organizational context using objective indicators
of job performance.
In contrast, the motivational construct of employee engagement had over eight
times as many hits as self-ecacy in business management publication outlets.
Employee engagement has been dened as an individual’s sense of purpose and
focused energy, evident to others in the display of personal initiative, adaptability,
Table 1.Search results for selected keywords.
*The word ‘business’ was added on the search to facilitate comparison with the other sites.
Feedback &
engagement* 955 4062 4479 3074 20450 469
Books 420 2442 2984 1843 16842 37
Journal Articles 301 1088 903 1194 1800 110
Magazine Articles 117 422 500 34 898 269
Newspaper Articles 117 110 92 3 909 53 41 121 62 1 15 79
Books 1 5 5 0 0 7
HBR Articles 11 29 19 0 7 13
HBS Cases 16 35 8 0 1 15
Other Articles 4 20 7 0 3 6
Other 9 32 23 1 4 38 12 23 73 1 173 5
eort, and persistence directed toward organizational goals (Macey, Schneider,
Barbera, & Young, 2009). At the organizational level, research on employee
engagement has consistently found a strong, positive relationship with organ-
izational performance. One study of 65 companies found shareholder value for
companies in the top 25% of a proprietary employee engagement index was more
than double that for companies in the bottom 25% (Macey et al., 2009), while
another study of 125 organizations found statistically signicant correlations
between employee engagement and a range of outcomes including protability,
productivity, and safety incidents (Harter, Schmidt, Killham, & Asplund, 2006).
Employee engagement studies are highly credible with management as they are
conducted in the ‘real’ world of work.
However, although employee engagement’s link to outcomes at the organiza-
tional level of analysis is well established, a recent narrative synthesis concluded
that ‘despite the number of studies, there is in fact still very little about employee
engagement that can be asserted with any degree of certainty’; (Bailey, Madden,
Alfes, & Fletcher, 2015). e authors identied 42 empirical studies of individual
performance outcomes classied as either: (1) In-role task performance (typically
using third party performance ratings) and (2) Extra-role performance (measur-
ing constructs such as citizen behavior) and showed employee engagement was
positively related to both types of job performance. Although the majority of these
studies were conducted at the individual level of analysis, the authors called for
further longitudinal research that provides evidence for causal direction, such as
by evaluating interventions aimed at enhancing employee engagement (Bailey
et al., 2015). In addition, none of the studies used objective measures of job per-
formance. erefore, the second aim of our research was to assess the impact of
employee engagement on objectively measured longitudinal job performance data.
Finally, despite their diering research histories and levels of practitioner
acceptance, there are strong conceptual parallels between employee engagement
and self-ecacy. Both can be categorized as individual-level motivational con-
structs that arguably enhance performance by mobilizing the necessary motivation
and focused energy of employees to achieve organizational goals through persis-
tent eorts. Studies have previously shown high correlations between self-ecacy
and employee engagement (Halbesleben, 2010; Salanova, Peiró, & Schaufeli, 2002;
Schaufeli & Salanova, 2010). Given the underlying theoretical similarities and
reported correlations, questions arise concerning the extent of conceptual overlap
of employee engagement and self-ecacy and their respective roles in inuencing
individual work-related performance (Mauno, Kinnunen, Mäkilkangas, & Feldt,
2010). erefore, the third aim of our study was to conceptually and empirically
explore the manner and degree to which employee engagement and self-e-
cacy have independent, and potentially additive, eects on individual-level job
We next elaborate each of these aims and the underpinning theory.
Hypothesis development
Self-ecacy and job performance
Self-ecacy beliefs are characterized as being task- or domain-specic and are
suggested to motivate better performance in several ways (Bandura, 1986). First,
self-ecacy beliefs aect feelings of competency and condence in ones perceived
skill to perform a required task, which means they strive to reach their goals
(Bandura, 1997). Second, self-ecacy beliefs motivate better performance by
increasing the sense of control or agency an individual has over one’s life cir-
cumstances (Bandura, 1986). Agentic people (that is, those who act intentionally
and proactively in pursuit of their goals) take steps to organize themselves and
their environments, try dierent strategies, and reect on their experiences to
gain insights into regulating their performance better (Bandura, 2006). ird,
self-ecacy beliefs concern a perception that eort will lead to successful out-
comes, which increases the individual’s ability to sustain eort when pursuing
goals (Bandura, 1997). Employees with self-ecacy beliefs are more likely to
exhibit persistence and intensity in their approach to their work roles and seek
out more challenging goals (Bandura, 2006).
Two meta-analyses have examined self-ecacy’s relationship with work-related
performance (Judge et al., 2007; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997). e 1998 meta-anal-
ysis included 114 studies and found a signicant correlation, with a weighted
average correlation between task- or job-specic self-ecacy and work-related
performance of .38, representing a 28% performance gain in performance. is
increase is at least double the eect size of related work motivation constructs
such as goal setting (Locke & Latham, 2004) or feedback and coaching (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996). In contrast, the 2007 meta-analysis by Judge et al., containing 186
studies (including the 114 earlier ones used in the Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998 study)
found that when the inuence of distal variables, such as general mental ability
(GMA), personality, and experience were controlled for, the predictive validity
of self-ecacy on work-related performance fell by 67.4% (Judge et al., 2007).
erefore, while the rst meta-analysis found extensive evidence and support for
the relationship between self-ecacy and work-related performance, the second
analysis conrmed benets but was more qualied in its attribution of signicance.
Overall, however, although the role of self-ecacy beliefs in motivating perfor-
mance has been assessed in many studies, previous research has been criticized
for the predominance of laboratory-based studies using students, the failure to
assess actual job performance, and the lack of longitudinal studies that demon-
strate causality (Pajares, 1997; Saks, 2006). Notably, a detailed examination of the
186 studies included in the second meta-analysis (Judge et al., 2007) found only
four studies (Frayne & Geringer, 2000; Gibson, 2001; Gist, 1989; Gist, Schwoerer,
& Rosen, 1989) measuring the eect of self-ecacy on actual job performance,
while further exploration identied an additional study where employees were
participants (Morin & Latham, 2000). Table 2 provides a summary of these studies.
Table 2.Valid work-related self-efficacy/work performance studies.
*Study limitations that leave self-efficacy/work-related performance issues unresolved.
Study Experimental design Tasks Participants Outcome measures Timing of measures
Gist et al. (1989) Classroom* Computer skills University managers Timed 15-minute performance test* Immediate post-training*
Gist (1989) Classroom* Idea generation Federal scientific agency
Idea quantity and divergence* Immediate post-training*
Frayne and Geringer (2000) Organization Self-management skills Insurance salespeople Objective & subjective performance 3, 6, 9, 12 months
Morin and Latham (2000) Organization Interpersonal communication
Supervisors and Engineers Training reaction & peer assessment* 1 month*
Gibson (2001) Organization Goal setting Nurses Patient surveys* 2 weeks*
e study by Frayne and Geringer (2000) empirically examined the role of
self-ecacy in mediating the relationship between self-management training and
job performance. Self-management is a set of behavioral and cognitive strate-
gies proposed to assist individuals in structuring their environment, establishing
self-motivation, and facilitating behaviors appropriate for attaining performance
standards (Manz, 1986). ese authors found self-ecacy partially mediated two
of the three objective job performance measures studied but did not mediate
the third objective measure nor a fourth subjective one. Frayne and Geringer
(2000) noted that the nding that self-ecacy partially mediated the relationship
between self-management training and two of the performance measures was very
important for theory and practice. With respect to the other studies, two used
third party observational outcomes rather than objective performance measures
(Gibson, 2001; Morin & Latham, 2000) and two were set in classrooms using
articial rather than job outcomes (Gist, 1989).
Although all ve studies provided positive support for the relationship between
self-ecacy and job performance, the use of articial settings or processes in four
of them (Gibson, 2001; Gist, 1989; Gist et al., 1989; Morin & Latham, 2000) limits
their credibility for application. Only the Frayne and Geringer (2000) study for-
mally examined the self-ecacy and job performance relationship using objective
measures and longitudinal data. Although this study’s design clearly showed the
relationship between self-ecacy and job performance, the authors called for more
research as their results found only partial mediation. In addition, their study
was conducted in a single domain (sales) and they used a composite measure of
self-ecacy rather than task-specic one. e absence of empirical evidence from
workplace-based studies may be a contributing factor to the limited reference to
self-ecacy beliefs in business management publications, enhancing the poten-
tial contribution of this study, which directly examines the relationship between
self-ecacy beliefs and job performance in an actual work environment. Our
rst hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1: Self-ecacy has a positive relationship with objectively measured job
performance at the individual-level of analysis.
Employee engagement and performance
Over the past two decades, employee engagement has emerged as a concept of
signicant interest to both academics and practitioners. Academic interest in
employee engagement can be traced to Kahn’s (1990) inuential article in which,
drawing on sociology, Kahn suggested that an individuals attachment to, or
detachment from, their role, varies under a range of conditions. He changed the
terms ‘attachment’ and ‘detachment’ to personal ‘engagement’ and ‘disengage-
ment’, respectively, to account for the psychologically complex social world of
organizational life. Kahn dened engagement as ‘the simultaneous employment
and expression of a persons ‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote con-
nections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, emotional),
and active, full role performances (Kahn, 1990, p. 700). is original concept
of engagement, as well as others we draw on here, considers engagement as a
malleable state that varies within persons as well as between persons (see also
Sonnentag, Dormann, & Demerouti, 2010).
Since Kahn, other denitions of employee engagement have emerged, including
those of ‘a persistent, positive, aective-motivational state of fulllment that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption’ (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter,
2001, p. 417) and ‘an individual’s sense of purpose and focused energy, evident
to others in the display of personal initiative, adaptability, eort, and persistence
directed toward organizational goals’ (Macey et al., 2009, p. 7). Common to these
denitions is the notion that employee engagement is both a ‘motivational state
reected in a genuine willingness to invest focused eort towards achieving organ-
izational goals’ (Mauno et al., 2010, p. 4) and a ‘work-related psychological state
(Macey & Schneider, 2008) in which ‘aect’, dened as the experience of feeling
or emotion, occurs (Hogg, Abrams, & Martin, 2010). It is this emphasis on aect
that makes employee engagement clearly distinct from self-ecacy.
Several scholars have argued that employee engagement is likely to result in
motivated work behavior and, as a result, enhanced job performance (Inceoglu
& Fleck, 2010; Kahn, 1990; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010). One important
argument made for the contribution of employee engagement to performance is
derived from Social Exchange eory, which posits that ‘obligations are generated
through a series of interactions between parties who are in a state of reciprocal
interdependence’ (Saks, 2006, p. 603). e idea is that when employees are pro-
vided with opportunities for learning, social support, and feedback in their work
roles, they seek to balance the exchange by responding with greater eort and
focus. Nevertheless, while this reasoning is compelling, there is an identied need
to conduct longitudinal research on the relationship between employee engage-
ment and individual job performance (Bailey et al., 2015). Although longitudi-
nal studies of employee engagement and outcomes have been conducted at the
organizational-level, relatively few have been undertaken at the individual-level.
Our second hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 2: Employee engagement has a positive inuence on job performance
measured longitudinally at the individual-level of analysis.
Employee engagement and self-ecacy
ere are strong conceptual parallels between employee engagement and self-
ecacy as individual-level motivational constructs. As noted earlier this over-
lap has been reinforced empirically with the high correlations found between
employee engagement and self-ecacy in several meta-analytic studies. However,
as identied in the previous section, there is also conceptual distinctiveness
between employee engagement and self-ecacy. As a motivational state, employee
engagement is similar to self-ecacy in that it focuses on an individual’s cognitive
beliefs in relation to organizational goals. However, as a cognitive state, a per-
ceived ability/inability to express a preferred self or achieve a state of fulllment
at work (engagement) diers from beliefs about one’s condence in their skills
and capabilities and therefore their competency to complete tasks, or such tasks
Most crucially, unlike self-ecacy which is cognitive in emphasis, employee
engagement is an aective motivational state as illustrated by its description in
the literature as ‘being valued’ (Kahn, 1990), ‘being enthusiastic’ (Macey et al.,
2009), or (not) ‘being detached’ (Hochschild, 2003). e role of aect in engage-
ment is also demonstrated through inspection of the Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES), a commonly used and academically rigorous measure of employee
engagement. is scale was developed by replacing the three dimensions of
job burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981) with positive engagement dimensions
(Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá, & Bakker, 2002). Under this approach,
exhaustion was rebadged as vigor, cynicism became dedication, and inecacy
became absorption. Vigor was dened by high levels of energy and mental resil-
ience at work, and the willingness to invest eort in one’s work, and to be per-
sistent even in the face of diculties. Dedication was characterized by a sense of
signicance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge at work. Absorption was
described as being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s work, whereby
time passes quickly and one has diculties detaching oneself from work (Schaufeli
et al., 2002). erefore, using the UWES scale to measure employee engagement
takes into account both aective (i.e. energy, pride, engrossed) and cognitive (i.e.
persistence, mental resilience, fully concentrated) motivational elements.
We propose that, while both self-ecacy and employee engagement are impor-
tant for performance, the aective element of employee engagement will mean
that it plays a unique role for performance beyond the more cognitively oriented
state of self-ecacy. is leads to our exploration of a third hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Employee engagement contributes to individual job performance above
and beyond any eects of self-ecacy on job performance.
Research setting and procedure
e study took place in a large Australian nancial services organization. e
organization had implemented a new customer relationship management (CRM)
system that required customer-facing employees to identify eligible customers for
a free nancial prole appointment with the employee. e employee’s task was
to proactively engage with the customer to make the prole appointment during
a regular over-the-counter (OTC) transaction. is task was considered to be
relatively complex as it required: (1) technical skills (accessing the customer’s
prole on the CRM system); (2) judgment (knowing when it was appropriate to
ask the customer for an appointment and how best to introduce the idea); and (3)
interpersonal skills (handling objections, being sensitive to the customer’s needs)
while still processing the specic transaction the customer attended the branch for
in the rst place. e organization’s CRM system provided individual-level data
on prole appointments. ere was high awareness among employees about the
data as these were used by the organization to recognize and reward individual
employees for outstanding performance as well as identifying under-performance.
All employees from 20 mid-sized branches located in a major metropolitan city
were invited to participate in the study by email with anonymity assured by the
researchers. e survey was conducted via the organizations intranet due to tech-
nical constraints associated with accessing web-based surveys and logistical issues
attached to the use of paper-based surveys. Each branch typically had six employ-
ees: manager, supervisor, and four frontline sta with all employees expected to
perform customer-facing duties. e survey was part of a larger attitude survey
and incorporated seven multiple performance level task-specic self-ecacy ques-
tions as well as employee engagement items. ere were 64 respondents who
completed all survey items (an overall participation rate of 54%). More than half
(55%) of the respondents had worked for the organization for more than 11years,
42% for between 1 and 5 years and 3% for less than 1 year. Of the 64 respondents,
44 (10 managers, 10 supervisors, and 24 frontline sta) were employed at the same
branch for all ve quarters for which performance data were collected.
e nal number of respondents available was lower than the minimum sam-
ple size of 100 initially targeted and the preference for the ratio of participants to
predictors exceeding 20:1 (Tonidandel, Williams, & LeBreton, 2015). However,
although rules of thumb about minimum sample size contain some degree of
truth, they are oen fraught with shortcomings and should not be blindly adhered
to (Tonidandel et al., 2015). Longitudinal studies, by virtue of their within-subject
focus, are more powerful than cross-sectional studies (Judd, Kenny, & McClelland,
2011), so standard prescriptions for sample size make less sense. erefore, we
judged the sample size of the study as sucient to proceed.
Self-ecacy is concerned with perceptions of one’s capability within a specic
domain, so should be measured by context-appropriate items. Very oen, as is
the case here, this involves the creation of a domain-specic measure.
ere has been considerable debate about the appropriate format for items
that measure self-ecacy (Bandura, 1997; Judge et al., 2007; Lee & Bobko, 1994;
Maurer & Pierce, 1998). To illustrate, less than half the number of correlations ana-
lyzed in the meta-analysis by Judge et al. (2007) were based on scales incorporating
the 100-point Grid format recommended by Bandura (1997) with the majority of
correlations being based on Likert scales. Grid format scales ask respondents to
indicate on a scale of 0–100 (in multiples of 10) their level of condence (strength)
in undertaking a specic task at a range of stated performance levels. Aer tak-
ing into account individual dierences such as ability, Judge et al. (2007) found
signicant correlations between job performance and self-ecacy using Grid for
mat scales but not between job performance and self-ecacy using Likert scales.
Given the focus of our research was to assess the self-ecacy/job performance
relationship, we followed Banduras approach and developed self-ecacy scales
utilizing the Grid format.
e recommended starting point for developing self-ecacy measures using
the Grid format is to conduct interviews with people for whom the specic task
is relevant (Bandura, 1997). Interviews provide insight into the perceived degree
of diculty at conducting the task successfully at dierent performance levels.
erefore, we conducted interviews with a range of employees across the three job
classications. rough this process and in consultation with senior management,
we identied seven relevant tasks that underpinned performance of the bank
employees who participated in the study. ese seven tasks were:
(1) Ask a customer an open-ended question during an OTC transaction.
(2) Ask customers to come in for a prole during an OTC transaction.
(3) Point out areas for customer to improve their banking during a prole
(4) Make recommendations to customers based on their specic needs.
(5) Ask the customer for their business where a clear need had been
(6) Communicate appointment benet to customer when making out-
bound sales call.
(7) Ask customers to come in for a prole appointment when making out-
bound sales call.
From this list of seven tasks, the rst two activities – ‘asking customer open-
ended questions’ and ‘asking customers to come in for a prole during an OTC
transaction’ were selected for development into measures of ‘task-specic’ self-
ecacy. In contrast with standardized scales that have been developed for the
holistic construct of general Self-ecacy (for example, see Chen, Gully, & Eden,
2001), Bandura’s ‘Guide for Constructing Self-Ecacy Scales’ (Pajares & Urdan,
2006) stresses the importance of developing scales specic to the designated tasks
of interest rather than using other measures. Both activities were closely associated
with the two objective performance measures – the number of appointments made
and there number of products sold – collected by the organizations customer
relations management system. erefore, developing task-specic self-ecacy
measures was appropriate as objective data were available to assess the relationship
between these measures and job performance.
e two tasks were reworded into two single item measures of self-ecacy. e
task of asking a customer to come in for a proling appointment during an OTC
transaction led to the creation of the self-ecacy measure ‘Make Appointments.
is item asked respondents to ink about your ability right now to ask customers
to come in for a prole appointment during an over the counter transaction when
there’s a long queue. How certain are you about how oen you can do so? e task
of asking a customer for their business where a clear need had been identied
made up the self-ecacy measure ‘Ask for Business. is item asked respondents
to ink about your ability right now to ask customers for their business where a
clear need has been identied but the customer has expressed a concern or a potential
objection. How certain are you about how oen you can do so? e correspondence
of the two self-ecacy measures of ‘Make Appointments’ and ‘Ask for Business
with objective performance measures tracked by management on the organiza-
tion’s CRM system highlights the face validity of these self-ecacy measures.
A common issue in measuring self-ecacy using this format is range restriction
as respondents tend to rate themselves as highly self-ecacious at normal perfor-
mance levels with the resulting highly skewed negative distribution hampering
analysis For example, the mean in one study was 6.29 on a seven-point scale (Rank,
Carsten, Unger, & Spector, 2007). To address this issue, Bandura (1997) recom-
mends measuring self-ecacy strength at six performance levels of increasing dif-
culty (from very easy to very hard) as the most accurate performance predictors
(Bandura, 1997). A factor analysis was conducted on the two self-ecacy measures
(‘Make Appointments’ and ‘Ask for Business’) and yielded a two-factor model for
each measure. For both measures, one factor ‘Easy’ related to the three items with
the lowest degree of self-ecacy diculty, while the other factor ‘Hard’ related to
the three items with the highest degree of diculty. In order to undertakethe most
rigorous test possible of the self-ecacy/job performance relationship, the‘Hard’
factors for ‘Make Appointments’ and ‘Ask for Business’ were used as the two task
specic self-ecacy measures in the analysis. Cronbach alpha for the ‘Hard’ items
for ‘Make Appointments’ was .95 and for ‘Ask for Business’ was .93.
Employee engagement
We used the nine-item UWES that includes three constituent subscales: vigor, ded-
ication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). is scale employs
a seven-point scale (0= never to 6= every day). e UWES has been exten-
sively tested for its three-factor reliability, inter-correlations, internal consistency,
and stability (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Cronbachs alpha for the UWES and
sub-scales ranged from .85 to .87 which are virtually identical to those reported
in the literature (Schaufeli et al., 2006). e UWES measures engagement as a
state variable that can change over time due to specic job or personal resources
(Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). A recent study supports
our decision as it suggests that the UWES captures both trait and state engagement
(Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, & Hetland, 2012).
Job performance
Data on the number of prole appointments made ‘Appointments made’ and
the number of products sold ‘Products sold’ was collected at two points of
time from the organizations CRM system. Specically, for ‘Time 1’ we used
results from the fouth quarter of one calendar year and the rst quarter of the
following calendar year. ‘Time 2’ performance was the mean of the third and
fourth quarter of the same calendar year in which the rst quarter results were
obtained. Historically, these years in which data were collected corresponded
to the third and fourth year of the operation of the organizations CRM pro-
cess. e data were collected at convenient time points corresponding with
access to the rm and allowing a period of time between the two collection
points. While we were assured that data were not seasonally impacted we also
used the mean of two consecutive quarters to further guard against extraneous
inuences on the data.
Table 3 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations for study
Correlation analysis
Table 3 shows there were signicant correlations between the self-ecacy var-
iable ‘Make appointments hard’ with its matching CRM performance measure
of ‘Appointments made’ (r=.40, p<.01) and between the self-ecacy variable
Ask for business hard’ with its matching performance measure of ‘Products sold’
Table 3.Means, standard deviations, and correlations for self-efficacy, employee engagement,
and performance.
**Sig. at .01 level (2-tailed); *Sig. at .05 level (2-tailed); †Sig. at .10 level (2-tailed).
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Make appointment hard 36.13 29.64      
2. Ask for business hard 48.41 28.47 .53**
3. Employee engagement 4.08 .90 .34* .37*
4. Vigor 3.92 .90 .45** .41** .92**
5. Absorption 4.06 1.00 .21 .26† .93** .77**
6. Dedication 4.25 1.00 .29† .36* .95** .82** .83**
7. Appointments made 13.86 8.66 .40** .31* .43** .40** .37* .43**
8. Products sold 7.44 5.29 .31* .54** .53** .48** .47** .53** .70**
(r=.54, p<.01). e mean of these correlations (r=.47) is signicantly positive
which is similar to Stajkovic et al. (1998)’s meta-analysis nding. Table 3 also
shows ‘Employee engagement’ was signicantly correlated with both performance
measures (‘Appointments made’ (r =.43, p<.01) and ‘Products sold’ (r= .53,
p<.01)) and with both self-ecacy measures (‘Make appointments hard’ (r=.34,
p < .05) and ‘Ask for business hard’ (r =.37, p < .05)). ese results support
Hypothesis 1 as both self-ecacy measures were signicantly correlated with job
performance. e results also support Hypothesis 2 as employee engagement was
signicantly correlated with job performance.
Regression analysis
Given the small sample size in the study, we followed the solution suggested by
Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011) to analyze the data using partial least squares
(PLS) regression analysis in addition to the more common ordinary least squares
(OLS) approach. e results using PLS were consistent with OLS and therefore,
we are condent these results are robust across both the OLS and PLS models. For
simplicity, we will only report and analyze the results of OLS regression.
We conducted hierarchical regression analysis with objective performance data
as the dependent variable and self-ecacy and employee engagement as inde-
pendent variables (see Table 4). e distribution of the two performance variables
was rst checked for normality as applying linear regression analysis to count data
can be problematic (Gardner, Mulvey, & Shaw, 1995). e Kolmogorov–Smirnov
test was non-signicant (p=.20) at both Times 1 and 2, indicating the data was
not signicantly dierent from a normal distribution.
In predicting the inuence of our self-ecacy measures with the two objective
performance measures at ‘Time 2’ we entered respective ‘Time 1’ performance
at the rst step and found past performance was a highly signicant predictor of
future performance for both ‘Appointments made’ (Adj. R2 of .29, p= .00) and
‘Products sold’ (Adj. R2 of .16, p=.00). We then added the two self-ecacy variables
Table 4.Hierarchical regression analysis predicting performance at Time 2 holding performance
at Time 1 constant.
**p≤.01 level; *p≤.05 level.
Model Dependent variable R R2Adj. R2R2F Change Sig F Change
Appointments Made Time 2     
1 Appointments Made Time 1 .56 .31 .29
2 Make Appointments Hard .63 .39 .36 .09 5.84* (1,41) .02
3 Appointments Made Time 1 .55 .31 .29
4 Employee Engagement .61 .38 .35 .07 4.69* (1,41) .04
Products Sold Time 2     
5 Products Sold Time 1 .42 .18 .16
6 Ask for Business Hard .64 .41 .38 .23 15.48**(1,40) .00
7 Products Sold Time 1 .42 .18 .16
8 Employee Engagement .70 .49 .46 .31 23.92**(1,40) .00
‘Make appointments hard’ and ‘Ask for business hard’ at the second step matched
against their respective performance variables ‘Appointments made’ and ‘Products
sold’. e self-ecacy measure ‘Make appointments hard’ added incremental Adj.
R2 of .09 (p=.02) to past performance for ‘Appointments made’ at the second step.
Adding the self-ecacy measure ‘Ask for business hard’ yielded incremental Adj. R
of .23 (p=.00) to past performance for ‘Products sold’ at the second step. Overall
the combination of ‘Appointments made’ at Time 1 and ‘Make appointments hard’
explained 36% of the variance in ‘Appointments made’ at Time 2, while the com-
bination of ‘Products sold’ at Time 1 and ‘Ask for business hard’ explained 38% of
the variance in ‘Products sold’ at Time 2. e overall mean of 37% provides further
support for Hypothesis 1 as both self-ecacy measures were signicantly correlated
with job performance aer controlling for past performance.
Next, we carried out hierarchical regressions substituting ‘Employee engage-
ment’ for the two self-ecacy variables ‘Make appointments hard’ and ‘Ask for
business hard’ at the second step. ‘Employee engagement’ added incremental Adj.
of .07 (p=.04) for ‘Appointments made’ and incremental Adj. R
of .31 (p=.00)
for ‘Products sold. e substitution of ‘Employee engagement’ for self-ecacy
at the second step resulted in a lower overall Adj. R2 for predicting performance
at Time 2 compared to ‘Make appointments hard’ but a higher Adj. R2 for pre-
dicting performance at Time 2 compared to ‘Ask for business hard’. Overall, the
combination of past performance and ‘Employee engagement' explained 35% of
the variance in ‘Appointments made’ and 46% of the variance in ‘Products sold’.
e overall mean of 40.5% was slightly higher than the mean for self-ecacy and
provides further support for Hypothesis 2 as ‘Employee engagement’ was not only
signicantly correlated with job performance but explained additional variance
aer controlling for past performance.
Next, we used regression analysis to assess whether the introduction of employee
engagement and self-ecacy concurrently explained additional variance in future
performance aer controlling for past performance. With respect to ‘Appointments
made’, Table 5 shows the addition of ‘Make appointments hard’ resulted in a change
in R2 of .09. e introduction of employee engagement increased R2 a further
Table 5.Hierarchical regression analysis predicting performance at Time 2 holding performance
at Time 1 constant.
**p≤.01 level; *p≤.05 level.
Model Adjustment variable R R2R2F(df) βs.e. Sig.
Appointments Made – Time 2     
1 Appointments Made – Time 1 .55 .31 18.45** (1,42) .79** .18 .00
2 Making Appointments Hard .63 .39 .09* 13.21** (2,41) .09* .36 .02
3 Employee Engagement Time 2 .65 .43 .04 9.97** (3,40) 2.02 1.27 .12
 
Products Sold – Time 2  
4 Products Sold – Time 1 .42 .18 8.89** (1,42) .06** .19 .01
5 Ask for Business Hard .64 .41 .23** 13.75** (2,41) .09** .02 .00
6 Employee Engagement Time 2 .76 .57 .16** 17.35** (3,40) 2.62** .68 .00
.04 but was insignicant. Overall the combination of ‘Appointments made’ at
Time 1, ‘Make appointments hard’ and ‘Employee engagement’ explained 43%
variance of Time 2 performance. With respect to ‘Products sold’ at Time 2, Table
5 shows the addition of ‘Ask for business hard’ resulted in a change in R2 of .23,
while the introduction of ‘Employee engagement’ increased R2 a further .16. e
combination of ‘Products sold’ at Time 1, ‘Ask for business hard’ and ‘Employee
engagement’ explained 57% of the variance of Time 2 performance. ese results
generally show that self-ecacy and employee engagement are independent and
complimentary predictors of job performance.
In order to gain deeper insight into the inuence of employee engagements
aective element on performance, we assessed the impact of the three work
engagement sub-scales (‘Vigor’, ‘Absorption’ and ‘Dedication’) on performance.
Table 3 shows there were highly signicant correlations between each of work
engagements sub-scales with job performance. With respect to the number of
appointments made, both vigor and absorption remained insignicant predictors
of performance above and beyond that made by self-ecacy. In contrast, dedica-
tion was a weakly signicant predictor (p=.09) for the number of appointments
made over and above that made by self-ecacy. Although this result can only be
classied as indicative given the level of signicance, it does suggest that aect,
as characterized by having a sense of signicance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride,
and challenge at work, may play a dierential role in predicting performance.
is longitudinal eld-based research study found a strong and positive relation-
ship between both self-ecacy and employee engagement and job performance,
as well as an independent inuence of employee engagement above and beyond
the eects of self-ecacy. In the examination of the eect of self-ecacy on job
performance, correlation analysis yielded an R-value of .47, an even stronger
positive R-value then the .38 found by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) in their
meta-analysis. In the investigation of the inuence of employee engagement on
job performance, the correlation analysis yielded an R-value of .48, essentially
identical to the R-value of .47 found for self-ecacy. In terms of the independent
eect of employee engagement independent of self-ecacy, the study found that
employee engagement contributed to the prediction of job performance (notably,
the measure of products sold) over and above self-ecacy. ese results sug-
gest that raising self-ecacy beliefs on challenging tasks and concurrently liing
employee engagement are both critical factors to be addressed when seeking to
improve job performance.
Interestingly, the inuence of self-ecacy and employee engagement varied
according to the nature of the task and the specic performance measure used.
To illustrate, for the performance measure ‘Appointments made, self-ecacy was
a better predictor of performance than employee engagement, while conversely
employee engagement was a better predictor than self-ecacy for the performance
measure ‘Products sold. We speculate that this nding suggests that achieving
certain tasks requires greater cognitive motivation while other tasks are more
inuenced by aective motivation. For example, persuading customers to attend
an appointment, a task more aligned with traditional customer service exchanges,
may reect higher cognitive skills and condence to achieve success. By contrast,
asking customers for their business, a task that likely embraces a level of assumed
relationship congruence, may need a stronger emotional display from employees,
requiring stronger feelings of connectedness and engagement with customers to be
successful. us, while both self-ecacy and employee engagement play important
roles in enhancing performance, HRM practitioners of rms seeking to increase
task performance should understand and examine the relative importance of both
cognitive skill and aective display when designing and evaluating selection and
training processes interventions.
Other practical implications also arise from the study. First, in order to enhance
job performance more attention should be given to the assessment and develop-
ment of self-ecacy of employees within HR activities of the rm. For example,
measurement of job outcomes could be extended to include assessment of under-
lying self-ecacy beliefs of employees. Furthermore, processes designed to assess
the impact of skill training and development programs might incorporate the
impact of training on participant’s self-ecacy to reach important performance
outcomes. Additionally, self-ecacy measurement could be incorporated into
broader organizational wide surveys of employees in the same way that employee
engagement is assessed.
Our study also reinforces and extends evidence and argument for the benets
associated with organizational eorts to increase employee engagement. us,
HRM practitioners should seek to incorporate employee engagement into HR
policies and practices (Albrecht et al., 2015). For example, the design of work roles
should be guided by eorts to accentuate the antecedents of employee engagement,
such as increasing opportunities for learning (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011).
Furthermore, training of managers should be designed to provide the requisite
social support and feedback to facilitate employee engagement, in order to help
organizations gain the competitive advantages associated with increase employee
Study limitations
ere are a number of limitations to our study. Most notably, while the statistical
signicance of the ndings are highly suggestive, the relatively low number of
respondents warrants caution in drawing rm conclusions about the inuence
of self-ecacy and employee engagement on job performance. Notwithstanding
this caveat, we believe the approach we took in (1) developing a robust meas-
ure of self-ecacy; (2) using the UWES scale to measure employee engagement;
(3) accessing objective job performance measures to assess performance; and
(4) employing a longitudinal research design, when combined with the signicant
correlations found, means that the ndings are suciently valid to interpret.
A second limitation of our study is that our performance measures were drawn
from the host organizations CRM system without any validation of the reported
results other than by the organization itself. ird, the study was undertaken with
branch-level employees in a nancial services organization so further studies in
other workplaces are needed to be able to generalize the ndings. Fourth, measures
of GMA and personality should be included in future studies to address concerns
about identied factors that have been shown to mediate the self-ecacy/work-re-
lated performance relationship (Judge et al., 2007).
is study strongly suggests a positive and important relationship between each
of self-ecacy and employee engagement with job performance. It makes an
important contribution by nding suggestive data to support the additive inu-
ence of employee engagement and self-ecacy on objectively measured job per-
formance, thereby showing the unique contribution of employee engagement
and self-ecacy as motivational states – self-ecacy’s cognitive element with
employee engagement’s aective one. Our ndings are based on a controlled eld
study of their eect on individual job performance. us, our contribution not
only extends the type of data drawn on but may provide the empirical credibility
necessary to increase the visibility and take-up of self-ecacy research by the man-
agement community. While scholars in related elds have long known the benets
of self-ecacy for increasing job performance, and management practitioners
have intuitively understood the value of employee engagement on organizational
performance, this study has contributed toward bridging the gap between sepa-
rate communities of researchers and users accelerating the diusion of academic
knowledge. We hope our study provides an exemplar for how business schools
might use controlled eld studies to create research that further establishes and
extends its inuence on the business world.
1. In keeping with Bandura’s original conceptualization of self-ecacy as being ‘task-
specic’ and to avoid confusion with the construct ‘general self-ecacy’, any reference
to self-ecacy in this article refers to task-specic self-ecacy. General self-ecacy
is a holistic construct designed to assess an individual’s optimistic self-beliefs used to
cope with a variety of demands in life.
2. e self-ecacy and employee engagement literature refer to both ‘work-related
and ‘job’ performance. For consistency purposes, we use the term ‘job’ performance
throughout our paper with the exception of two meta-analyses studies that include
‘work-related’ in their titles.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee
engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An
integrated approach. Journal of Organizational Eectiveness: People and Performance, 2, 7–35.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2015). e meaning, antecedents and outcomes
of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 1–23. Retrieved from
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New
York NY:Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-ecacy: e exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1, 164–180.
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike the
paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40, 1181–1201.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Hetland, J. (2012). e measurement of state
work engagement. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 305–312.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-ecacy scale.
Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology,
64, 89–136.
Frayne, C. A., & Geringer, J. (2000). Self-management training for improving job performance:
A eld experiment involving salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 361–372.
Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and rates:
Poisson, overdispersed poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin, 118,
Gibson, C. B. (2001). Me and us: Dierential relationships among goal-setting training, ecacy
and eectiveness at the individual and team level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,
Gist, M. E. (1989). e inuence of training method on self-ecacy and idea generation among
managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 787–805.
Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Eects of alternative training methods on self-
ecacy and performance in computer soware training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. e Journal
of Marketing eory and Practice, 19, 139–152.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout,
demands, resources and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement :
A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). Hove: Psychology Press.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. W. (2006). Q12® meta-analysis.
Washington DC:Gallup.
Hochschild, A. R. (2003). e managed heart : Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., & Martin, G. N. (2010). Social cognition and attitudes. In G. N.
Martin, N. R. Carlson, & W. Buskist (Eds.), Psychology (6th ed., pp. 646–677). Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
Inceoglu, I., & Fleck, S. (2010). Engagment as a motivational construct. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.),
Handbook of employee engagement : Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 74–86).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2011). Estimating and testing mediation and
moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115–134.
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-ecacy and
work-related performance: e integral role of individual dierences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 107–127.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). e eects of feedback interventions on performance:
A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.
Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior. Pacic Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-ecacy beliefs: Comparison of ve measures. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 364–369.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). e meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools
for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, MA: Wiley.
Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-inuence processes
in organizations. e Academy of Management Review, 11, 585–600.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). e measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 2, 99–113.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 397–422.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkilkangas, A., & Feldt, T. (2010). Job demands and resources as
antecedents of work engagement: A qualitative review and directions for future research.
In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement : Perspectives, issues, research and
practice (pp. 3–19). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Maurer, T. J., & Pierce, H. R. (1998). A comparison of Likert scale and traditional measures of
self-ecacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 324–329.
Morin, L., & Latham, G. P. (2000). e eect of mental practice and goal setting as a transfer of
training intervention on supervisors' self-ecacy and communication skills: An exploratory
study. Applied Psychology, 49, 566–578.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-ecacy research. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. C. (2006). Self-ecacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: IAP –
Information Age.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive
behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.
Peterson, S. J., & Byron, K. (2008). Exploring the role of hope in job performance: Results from
four studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 785–803.
Rank, J., Carsten, J. M., Unger, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Proactive customer service
performance: Relationships with individual, task, and leadership variables. Human
Performance, 20, 363–390.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and eects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.
Salanova, M., Peiró, J. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Self-ecacy specicity and burnout among
information technology workers: An extension of the job demand-control model. European
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 11, 1–25.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept
and its implications for organizations. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.),
Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135–177). Charlotte, NC: Information
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2010). How to improve work engagement. In S. L. Albrecht
(Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement : Perspectives, issues, research and practice
(pp. 399–415). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). e measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample conrmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). e measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66, 701–716.
Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: e
concept of state work engagement. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and
research, 25–38.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1997). A meta-analysis of the eects of organizational behavior
modication on task performance, 1975–95. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1122–
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-ecacy and work-related performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.
Tonidandel, S., Williams, E. B., & LeBreton, J. M. (2015). Size matters … just not in the way
that you think. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vanderberg (Eds.), More statistical and methodological
myths and urban legends (pp. 162–183). New York, NY: Routledge.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement
and nancial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200.
... According to Bandura (1986), this theory is the interaction among individual's visions, personal goals, objectives, perceptions, and the affecting related factors that control their motivated behaviors. Moreover, SCT emphasizes the fact that self-identity opinions are an important mechanism of human behavior, performing as psychological carters for encouraging behavior change (Carter, Nesbit, Badham, Parker, & Sung, 2018). According to He, Zhou, Zhao, Jiang, and Wu (2020), the theory also proposed self-identity is probably improved when employees in an organization feel motivated, identi es in organizational settings. ...
... In general, self-identity is a label referred to de ne oneself Self-identity is inclined by personal factors (self-e cacy, self-enhancement, self-esteem, self-understanding) and social factors (expectations of other, given roles, demands) (Cook, Kerr, & Moore, 2002). As per (Carter et al., 2018) it is a chosen behavior to complete any task. Clayton (2003) de ed green self-identity as, ''a sense of connection to some part of the nonhuman environment, based on history, emotional attachment, and/or similarity, that affects how we perceive and act toward the world'' (pp. ...
... We expect a signi cant role of self-identity as a main psychosomatic driver of behavioral outcomes. Several previous studies have acknowledged the link of self-identity with objective settings, positive ideas, self-image, etc. (Carter et al., 2018;Khare & Pandey, 2017). Since, organizations with a higher level of identity have more competitive advantages via creative ideas (Y. S. Chen, 2011). ...
Full-text available
This study is purposed to examine how Green human resource management practices increase green creativity. It assesses the mediating role of employees’ green self-identity and green shared vision which was nearly unobserved in the previous studies. The paper opted for an explanatory study using the convenience sampling technique/approach. Data were gathered from the general managers and HR managers of 3-star, 4-star, and 5-star hotels of Pakistan. As they are directly involved with the implementation of “green human resource management practices. 250 questionnaires were distributed and 202 valid responses were used for data analysis through Smart PLS 3.0. The systematic findings showed that the green human resource management practices adequately affect the green creativity of employees which also mediates by green self-identity. Moreover, mediation of green shared vision was rejected by the results. This research is an addition to previous knowledge by adding the constructs i.e., green self-identity and green shared vision to measure the green creativity of employees.Current study fulfill the gap that how green self-identity and green shared vision mediates the relationship of Green HRM and green creativity. This research study offers valued practical implications to the policymakers and upper management, ensuring the obligation of employees towards the application of green human resource management practices and green creativity to accomplish environmental goals.
... Work performance is an essential indicator for the achievement of strategic goals (Callea et al., 2016). In the long-standing debate about the relevance of the self-efficacy construct to organizational life, the relationship between self-efficacy and performance has been of particular interest, and it has also recently attracted studies of organizational behavior and human resource management (Ardakani et al., 2012;Carter et al., 2018). The achievement of satisfactory performance can be attributed to several factors, including employees' abilities (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998), work organization (Tims and Bakker, 2010), and employees' personality traits (Barrick et al., 2005), but the prominent role of self-efficacy has been recognized by many scholars (Bandura and Locke, 2003;Rudolph et al., 2017). ...
... However, these studies were criticized due to the predominance of laboratory experiments in which students and not permanent employees were analyzed (i.e. Carter et al., 2018). Other scholars are not convinced that high levels of selfefficacy are responsible for high performance levels, although low self-efficacy levels may lead to the achievement of lesser results (Bandura and Locke, 2003). ...
Purpose Self-efficacy, or a person’s belief in his/her ability to perform specific tasks, has been correlated with workplace performance and role adjustments. Despite its relevance, and numerous studies of it in the management literature, evidence regarding its function in professionals employed in hybrid roles, such as doctor-managers, is lacking. The aim of this study was to fill this gap by exploring the mediating effect of physicians’ managerial attitude on the relationship between their self-efficacy and workplace performance. Design/methodology/approach Primary and secondary data from 126 doctor-managers were obtained from the Italian National Health Service. A structural equation modeling approach was used for analysis. Findings This study’s results provide for the first time empirical evidence about a surprisingly little-analyzed topic: how physicians’ managerial attitude mediates the relationship between their self-efficacy and workplace performance. The study offers important evidence both for scholars and organizations. Practical implications This study’s results provide valuable input for the human resources management of hybrid roles in professional-based organizations, suggesting a systematic provision of feedback about doctor-managers’ performance, the adoption of a competence approach for their recruitment, and a new design of doctor-managers’ career paths. Originality/value The authors provide new evidence about the importance of managerial traits for accountable healthcare organizations, documenting that behavioral traits of physicians enrolled into managerial roles matter for healthcare organizations success.
... Social Self-Efficacy, Computer Self-Efficacy, and Job Performance Self-efficacy is consistently the strongest indicator of intent among other evaluation measures of perceived behavioral control (Fu et al., 2010). Empirical research findings demonstrate a positive correlation between SE and an employee's performance in different organizational settings (Carter et al., 2018). However, there are still some questions about SE's capacity to influence performance within a complicated FLE's job settings (Krishnan et al., 2013) and the literature lacks studies about the influence of domain-linked SE on employee performance. ...
... SE engenders positive thoughts that impact stress by allowing positive interpretation of stressful situations. SE functions as a cognitive mechanism by which the person responds to stress with a sense of controllability (Bandura, 1997) and provides insight that effort will contribute to successful outcomes (Carter et al., 2018). ...
Full-text available
Technostress is evolving as an imperative area of academic research amid the “new normal” settings of working remotely. Research has investigated the relationships between technostress and job outcomes and proposed individual- and organizational-level approaches to manage it. However, insights into the influence of dynamic personality differences on this relationship are limited. This study ties the concept of self-efficacy to the transactional model of stress and coping, and investigates to what extent computer and social self-efficacy moderate the relationships between technostress creators and frontline employee’s job performance. Findings shift the focus from the negative aspects of technostress and outcomes to both positive and negative aspects. This study’s contributions and implications for theory and practice are discussed.
... promoting self-awareness and self-perception as effective (Hartung and Cadaret, 2017;Ginevra et al., 2018;Marcionetti and Rossier, 2021). In turn, higher levels of career adaptability and self-efficacy can be associated with a positive sense of self, even in carrying out new challenges in professional activities (Gori et al., 2022), favoring job success (Hartung and Cadaret, 2017;Carter et al., 2018) and satisfaction with life (Çelik and Kahraman, 2018;Ng et al., 2020). Therefore, the relationship between resilience and satisfaction with life occurred both directly and indirectly through the chained mediation of career adaptability and self-efficacy (H 5 ). ...
Full-text available
Satisfaction with life is a core dimension of well-being that can be of great importance in the workplace, in light of the close link between worker health and organizational success highlighted by the perspective of healthy organizations. This study aimed at analyzing the factors associated with satisfaction with life, focusing on the role of resilience, career adaptability, self-efficacy, and years of education. A sample of 315 workers (67% women; Mage = 34.84 years, SD = 12.39) filled out the Satisfaction with Life Scale, General Self-Efficacy Scale, Career Adapt-Abilities Scale, the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and a demographic questionnaire. Data were analyzed by implementing a chained mediation model. Results showed a significant and positive relationship between resilience and satisfaction with life, partially moderated by the chained effect of career adaptability and self-efficacy, controlling for education. When inserted as a covariate, education showed a significant and negative association with satisfaction with life. Such findings contribute to enriching the field of research on the factors that contribute to the well-being of workers and may have important practical implications for interventions in organizations.
... Longitudinal studies have ascertained the positive effect of self-efficacy on job performance (Carter et al., 2018), having subsequent implications on organizational performance. Employee self-efficacy has a direct influence on organizational performance (Hom et al., 2019). ...
... Research on self-efficacy in STEM labelled self-efficacy beliefs based on "mastery experience, an individual's taskspecific experiences, and interpretation of those experiences" (Rittmayer and Beier, 2008, p. 2). It also predicts the level of motivation for a specific task and task performance (Bandura and Locke, 2003;Abbas and North, 2018) and job performance (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998;Carter et al., 2018). Since the late 2000s, it has been used to predict STEM performance and perseverance (Rittmayer and Beier, 2008;Jungert et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
The word identity etymologically derives from the Latin expression identitas, from idem, which means same. But the identities each of us has in the same moment and across life stages can be multiple and continuously changing, and are influenced by internal (i.e., personal) and external (i.e., environmental) factors. In this manuscript, I reviewed the existing literature on the theoretical and practical aspects of science identity across school levels. I explored how it can be measured and shed light on the links between science identity, professional identity, mentoring and sense of belonging. Then, I analysed strategies to foster self-efficacy and sense of belonging in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), with the aim of creating a scientific community that is genuinely inclusive and diverse. A set of recommendations to build a community with shared goals and enhanced diversity, with beneficial effects at several societal levels, has been included.
The purpose of this research is to examine the influence of Intrinsic Motivation, Training, and Work Engagement toward Employee Performance for employees in DKI Jakarta. 107 respondents were collected as the research sample using Slovin’s formula with 10% error tolerance and purposive sampling method. The data is analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling approach. The research findings indicate that Intrinsic Motivation has positive and significant relationship toward Employee Performance. On the other hand, Training and Work Engagement have negative and insignificant relationship toward Employee Performance.
Environmental issues have emerged to be a significant challenge for the organizations in twenty-first century and they are striving hard to reduce their environmental footprint. Considering the emerging environmental issues, the study investigates the role of green human resource management (GHRM) toward the environmental performance of hotels. Additionally, the study also focuses on the mediating effect of employees’ green self-efficacy and employee green behavior. The target population consisted of green and non-green hotel employees. Data was collected using a survey questionnaire from 600 employees (300 from green hotels and 300 from non-green hotels) and analyzed through SMART PLS. The findings show that green human resource practices lead to a higher hotel environmental performance. Additionally, motivated employees are highly efficacious then they get engaged in performing the green behavior, leading to enhanced hotel environmental performance. Based on the comparative analysis, this study proposes that HR of the hospitality sector should extensively focus on GHRM practices. The study offers the valuable insights regarding how the HR can boost the self-efficacy of the employees regarding their contribution toward environmental performance improvement.
Full-text available
Given the lowering of trade barriers among nations, the internet revolution, and a resultant increase in the bargaining power of consumers, coupled with the economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic, firms are increasingly forced to make use of a high performing workforce. It is to raise the quality of their products and/or services as global competition for the consumer's money severely punishes inefficiencies. As a result of this, it has become imperative for organizational researchers to determine the important antecedents of employee task performance. Hence, the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between 147 the domain-based self-efficacy and employee task performance. Drawing on the Social Cognitive Theory, we propose that there is a relationship between these two variables, and that the relationship is moderated by emotional intelligence, with the view of shedding light on the inconsistent nature of the results from previous studies. Through the descriptive survey research design, the multi-stage sampling technique was applied in eliciting data from a total of 342 employees of the Nige-rian banking industry who are employed in the customer services sector. From the simple moderation analysis conducted after utilizing the Process macro, results indicate that there is a positive and significant relationship between domain-based self-efficacy and task performance. However, emotional intelligence moderates this relationship in such a way that the positive relationship between self-efficacy and task performance was weaker among subjects who reported a higher level of emotional intelligence. In the light of these findings, it was recommended for managers particularly in the banking industry to set up intervention strategies that have the potentials of promoting a desirable level of domain-based self-efficacy among their employees while also ensuring that an optimal mix of emotional intelligence both within and across components is promoted with the view of achieving a desirable moderating impact of this relationship.
Full-text available
Purpose The present study aims to examine the effects of work from home (WFH) on employees' performance and wellbeing during the second wave of pandemic and to find out the effects of institutional head's support as mediating variables and employees' self-efficacy as moderating variables on employees' performance and wellbeing during WFH. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative approach with causal comparative research design was adopted to collect the data from the respondents. The participants of the study were 586 teachers from public and private universities of Karachi, Pakistan, who were teaching from home during the second wave of pandemic, selected randomly from the population. An adopted questionnaire was used to collect data which consists of six parts. Findings Results found the positive significant effects of WFH on teachers' social wellbeing, negative significant effects on teachers' performance, their physical and mental wellbeing. No significant effects of WFH were found on teachers' financial wellbeing. The study also found that head's support plays a partially mediating significant role in the relationship between WFH and job performance, and social wellbeing, while no mediation on physical, social and financial wellbeing was found. Moderating effects of teachers' self-efficacy exist between the relationship of WFH and teachers' job performance, mental wellbeing and social wellbeing, while no effects exist between the relationship of WFH and teachers' physical and financial wellbeing. Originality/value The new research model will contribute significantly to education practitioners' knowledge, especially the government of Pakistan, which needs to measure their work from home policy's effectiveness during the pandemic.
The Handbook presents comprehensive and global perspectives to help researchers and practitioners identify, understand, evaluate and apply the key theories, models, measures and interventions associated with employee engagement. It provides many new insights, practical applications and areas for future research. It will serve as an important platform for ongoing research and practice on employee engagement.
"In private life, we try to induce or suppress love, envy, and anger through deep acting or "emotion work," just as we manage our outer expressions of feeling through surface acting. In trying to bridge a gap between what we feel and what we "ought" to feel, we take guidance from "feeling rules" about what is owing to others in a given situation. Based on our private mutual understandings of feeling rules, we make a "gift exchange" of acts of emotion management. We bow to each other not simply from the waist, but from the heart. But what occurs when emotion work, feeling rules, and the gift of exchange are introduced into the public world of work? In search of the answer, Arlie Russell Hochschild closely examines two groups of public-contact workers: flight attendants and bill collectors. The flight attendant's job is to deliver a service and create further demand for it, to enhance the status of the customer and be "nicer than natural." The bill collector's job is to collect on the service, and if necessary, to deflate the status of the customer by being "nastier than natural." Between these extremes, roughly one-third of American men and one-half of American women hold jobs that call for substantial emotional labor. In many of these jobs, they are trained to accept feeling rules and techniques of emotion management that serve the company's commercial purpose. Just as we have seldom recognized or understood emotional labor, we have not appreciated its cost to those who do it for a living. Like a physical laborer who becomes estranged from what he or she makes, an emotional laborer, such as a flight attendant, can become estranged not only from her own expressions of feeling (her smile is not "her" smile), but also from what she actually feels (her managed friendliness). This estrangement, though a valuable defense against stress, is also an important occupational hazard, because it is through our feelings that we are connected with those around us. On the basis of this book, Hochschild was featured in Key Sociological Thinkers, edited by Rob Stones. This book was also the winner of the Charles Cooley Award in 1983, awarded by the American Sociological Association and received an honorable mention for the C. Wright Mills Award. © 1983, 2003, 2012 by The Regents of the University of California.
Providing both practical advice, tools, and case examples, Employee Engagement translates best practices, ideas, and concepts into concrete and practical steps that will change the level of engagement in any organization. Explores the meaning of engagement and how engagement differs significantly from other important yet related concepts like satisfaction and commitment Discusses what it means to create a culture of engagement Provides a practical presentation deck and talking points managers can use to introduce the concept of engagement in their organization Addresses issues of work-life balance, and non-work activities and their relationship to engagement at work.