e Academy o/Management Review. 1987, Vol. 12. No. 3. 472-485.

Self-Efficacy: Implications forOrganizational Behavior and

Human Resource ManagementMARILYN E. GIST

University of Washington

Self-efficacy (one's belief in one's capability to perform a task) af-fects task effort, persistence, expressed interest, and the level of goaldifficulty selected for performance. Despite this, little attention hasbeen given to its organizational implications. This paper reviews theself-efficacy concept and then explores its theoretical and practicalimplications for organizationalbehavior and human resource manage-ment.

Brief and Aldag (1981) proposed a model ofthe "self" in work organizations that addressedthe role self-beliefs play in task performance.Subsequent studies have shown that self-beliefspredict motivation and task performance in or-ganizational settings. Ellis and Taylor {1983) foundthat task-specific self-esteem predicted key moti-vational and behavioral variables in the jobsearch process. Barling and Beattie (1983)showed that self-efficacy perceptions werestrongly correlated to sales performance amonglife insurance agents. Similarly, Taylor, Locke,Lee, and Gist (1984) noted that self-efficacy wasdirectly related to research productivity amonguniversity faculty members.

These correlational studies indicate a need formore detailed examination of self-efficacy andthe links between it and task performance in or-ganizational settings. Addressing that need, thepresent article explicates the relationships of self-efficacy to organizational behavior. First, the self-efficacy literature is briefly reviewed. The theo-retical linkages between self-efficacy and otherconcepts in the organizational behavior litera-ture are then explored. Finally, practical impli-cations of self-efficacy for organizational behav-ior and human resource management are dis-

cussed. Implications for research are specifiedthroughout the article.

Self-Eificacy and Theozy

Self-efficacy, a key element in Bandura's (1977b,1978b) social learning theory refers to one's be-lief in one's capability to perform a specific task.Self-efficacy arises from the gradual acquisitionof complex cognitive, social, linguistic, and/orphysical skills through experience (Bandura,1982). Individuals appear to weigh, integrate,and evaluate information about their capabilities;they then regulate their choices and efforts ac-cordingly (Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells,1980).

Self-efficacy has three dimensions. Magnitudeapplies to the level of task difficulty that a personbelieves he or she can attain. Strength refers towhether the conviction regarding magnitude isstrong or weak. Generality indicates the degreeto which the expectation is generalized acrosssituations (Bandura, 1977a, p. 194).

Bandura and Adams (1977) emphasized thatbehavior must be measured precisely in theanalysis of efficacy and that measures should betailored to the domain being studied. It is impor-tant to focus on specific tasks and to assess effi-

472

cacy perceptions and performance over a rangeof increasing task difficulty. Bandura's measures(1977a, 1984) reflect a microanalytic researchmethodology and assess the strength, magni-tude, and generality of self-efficacy.

Deveiopmenf of Self-Efficacy. Bandura (1982)identified four information cues that influenceself-efficacy. From most to least influential, theyare enactive mastery, vicarious experience, ver-bal persuasion, and emotional (physiological)arousal. These cues provide important data, butaccording to Bandura it is the cognitive appraisaland integration of these data that ultimately de-termine self-efficacy.

First, enactive mastery, defined as repeatedperformance accomplishments (Bandura, 1982),has been shown to enhance self-efficacy morethan the other kinds of cues (Bandura, 1977a,1982; Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977). Masteryis facilitated when gradual accomplishmentsbuild the skills, coping abilities, and exposureneeded for task performance. Although enac-tive mastery is a powerful enhancer of self-efficacy, in some circumstances, possibly be-cause of fear or incapacity, individuals may notexpose themselves to opportunities for enactivemastery. Further, while positive mastery experi-ences increase self-efficacy, negative ones (fail-ures) tend to decrease self-efficacy.

Second, when enactive mastery is not possible,vicarious experience (modeling) may be benefi-cial, although slightly less influential (Bandura,1977a). Modeling is more effective when the mod-els succeed after overcoming difficulty than whenthey exhibit initially facile performances (Ban-dura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980; Kazdin,1974). Its effects also are enhanced when themodeled behavior produces clear results or con-sequences and when there is a similarity be-tween the subject and the model in terms of age,capability, and other personal characteristics(Bandura, 1977a).

Self-modeling is a special type of vicarious ex-perience often involving videotaped feedback inwhich the subject's mistakes are edited out orcorrected so that the individual sees himself or

herself performing the task correctly. In onestudy, Gonzales and Dowrick (1982) confirmedthat self-modeling led to improved performanceby enhancing self-beliefs. The experiment com-pared a group that received video feedbackshowing only their successful billiard shots (ac-curate though selective information) with a groupshown their unsuccessful shots edited to lookcorrect (selective misinformation). In both groups,subjects who were below the median in task per-formance during the first session improved sig-nificantly over a control group in a subsequentsession. Further, no significant change in profi-ciency was noted among those who were abovethe median.

Although Goldstein and Sorcher (1974) sug-gested that behavior modeling also can lead toimproved supervisory performance, the empiri-cal evidence is equivocal. Some studies show apositive effect of modeling on job-related behav-ior (Burnaska, 1976; Decker, 1983; Meyer & Raich,1983; Moses & Ritchie, 1976). However, Dillon,Graham, and Aidells (1972) found that behaviormodeling inhibited performance. The authorsspeculated that "S's felt overwhelmed and intimi-dated after watching a 'perfect' group" (p. 489).In another study. Brown and Inouye (1978) foundthat negative modeling (modeling of ineffectiveperformance) reduced self-efficacy, persistence,and ultimate performance. These results suggestthat modeling can have negative as well as posi-tive influences on self-efficacy.

Third, another source of efficacy informationis verbal persuasion, which is aimed at convinc-ing a person of his or her capability of perform-ing a task. Verbal persuasion is believed to influ-ence efficacy perceptions in some situations, butit is viewed as less effective than modeling orenactive mastery (Bandura, 1982).

Fourth, an individual's peceptions of his or herphysiological state may be used in assessing per-formance capability. Thus, an individual in anaroused state (e.g., high visceral anxiety whilegiving a presentation) may interpret the arousalas debilitating fear and feel excessively vulnera-ble to failure. Bandura and Adams (1977) found

473

that, in these anxiety-producing situations, mod-eling yielded higher self-efficacy and perfor-mance than psychological desensitization.

Self-Efficacy and Performance. Many studieshave reported significant correlations betweenself-efficacy and subsequent task performance(Bandura, 1982; Bandura & Adams, 1977; Ban-dura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Bandura, Adams,Hardy, & Howells, 1980; Chambliss & Murray,1979; Feltz, 1982; Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko,1984). In studies where efficacy perceptions havebeen altered by various treatments, the result-ing efficacy perceptions still predict subsequentperformance. Although enactive mastery yieldsthe greatest increases in self-efficacy, correla-tions between self-efficacy and performance re-main high for nonenactive modes such as model-ing (Bandura, 1977a).

Several studies have found self-efficacy to bea better predictor of subsequent performancesthan past behavior (Bandura, 1977a; Bandura,1982; Bandura & Adams, 1977; Bandura, Adams,& Beyer, 1977; Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & How-ells, 1980; Chambliss & Murray, 1979). However,in other studies this was not found. Feltz (1982)provided some evidence that as experience witha task increases, past performance may becomemore predictive than self-efficacy. However,Feltz's study involved a task in which subjectswere unable to observe their performance andwere not provided with feedback. Under thesecircumstances, self-efficacy may have lackedveridicality. Locke et al. (1984) found that self-efficacy was a significant predictor of subsequentperformance if past performance were con-trolled. However, the correlation between self-efficacy and past performance was higher thanthe correlation between self-efficacy and futureperformance.

Bandura (1982) indicated that self-efficacy canpredict performance in a variety of domains, aslong as the efficacy measure is tailored to thespecific tasks being assessed. For example, in astudy of life insurance sales representatives.Barling and Beattie (1983) found that self-efficacywas significantly correlated with the number of

calls made per week, the number of policies sold,sales revenue, and a composite performanceindex.

Self-Efficacy and Choice. Self-efficacy arisesfrom the cognitive appraisal of one's capabilities.Bandura (1982) indicated that self-efficacy affectsone's choice of settings and activities, skill ac-quisition, effort expenditure, and the initiationand persistence of coping efforts in the face ofobstacles. Those with moderate to high self-efficacy tend to engage more frequently in task-related activities and persist longer in copingefforts; this leads to more mastery experiences,which in turn enhance self-efficacy. Those withlow self-efficacy tend to engage in fewer copingefforts; they give up more easily under adversityand evidence less mastery, which in turn rein-forces their low self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977a,1982; Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Brown & Inouye,1978). Those who persist tend to gain the correc-tive experiences which enhance self-efficacy;those who cease prematurely tend to retain per-sistent low self-efficacy. Bandura (1977a) sug-gested that efficacy expectations also influencethe choice of environment. For example, if allother factors are held constant, an employee withhigh self-efficacy might choose to apply for anadvertised vacancy that offers more challengeand pay, while an employee with low self-efficacy might choose to remain in a dead-endposition.

Relationship oi Self-Efficacyto Motivational Concepts

Clearly, the role of self-guiding thought is akey element in self-efficacy theory. Brief andAldag (1981) argued that self-management andself-efficacy are related to other concepts inorganizational behavior, but their treatment ofthe topics is limited. This section complementsBrief and Aldag's work by suggesting specifictheoretical links between self-efficacy and otherconcepts pertaining to work motivation andperformance. The relevance of self-efficacy inexplaining variability in task performance isemphasized.

474

Goal Setting

Locke (1968, 1978) and Locke, Saari, Shaw,and Latham (1981) detailed the important role ofgoal setting in employee motivation. A numberof researchers have verified the positive effectsof goal setting on performance in organizationalsettings (Ivancevich, 1977; Latham &Baldes, 1975;Latham & Klinne, 1974; Locke & Latham, 1984).Groups with specific and challenging goals con-sistently have shown higher levels of perfor-mance than groups with no goals, easy goals,or "do your best" goals (Locke et al., 1981; White,Mitchell, & Bell, 1977).

Locke et al. (1984) suggested that self-efficacyprovides an integrating mechanism between so-cial learning theory and goal-setting approachesto performance. Self-efficacy is developed throughsocial learning processes. This in turn leads tomore productive goal setting. In one study ofgoal setting, Mento, Cartledge, and Locke (1980)found that "perceived task ability had a signifi-cant effect on performance even after control-ling all other variables" (p. 419). In a laboratoryexperiment designed to assess the links amongself-efficacy, goal level, and performance, Lockeet al. (1984) found that the magnitude of self-efficacy was positively related to goal level cho-sen in two out of three trials and it was positivelyrelated to task performance in all three trials.This study also found that the strength of self-efficacy perceptions affected the goal level cho-sen, the specificity of goals, goal commitment,and task performance. Further research is neededto determine if these results generalize to taskperformance in field settings.

Feedback

It appears that feedback is important in formu-lating efficacy perceptions that interact with goalsetting to enhance performance motivation (Ban-dura & Cervone, 1983). Self-generated feedbackmay be especially helpful in building self-effi-cacy. In one experiment (Ivancevich & McMahon,1982), a group of engineers generated their ownstructured, continual feedback, reporting prog-ress to their supervisor once per quarter. They

performed better than another group of engi-neers who were given feedback by their supervi-sor once per quarter without self-monitoring inthe interim. The self-monitoring process appearsto have been equivalent to guided enactivemastery, which should lead to high self-efficacyand, hence, to high performance.

Bandura and Cervone (1984) found that unfa-vorable feedback tended to yield negative self-evaluations. This led to increased motivation dur-ing subsequent performance of the task. Whileself-efficacy perceptions independently predictedsubsequent performance in this study, the great-est intensification of effort was observed whenboth self-efficacy and self-dissatisfaction basedon negative feedback were high. When feed-back indicated that performance fell slightly shortof the standard, various reactions were observed.Some individuals became less motivated; othersbecame demoralized, showing decreased self-efficacy and selecting lower goals, whUe still oth-ers remained motivated. It is possible that a re-ciprocal relationship exists whereby performancefeedback affects self-efficacy, but self-efficacy andgoals also affect responses to feedback. Furtherresearch is needed to describe the causal rela-tionship, to determine the conditions under whichdistorted efficacy perceptions may arise fromfeedback, and to determine whether distortedself-efficacy may lead to complacency about sub-sequent performance.

Intrinsic Interest and Reinforcement

Some human behavior persists over the longterm without external inducements, presumablydue to the effects of intrinsic interest and achieve-ment motivation. Deci (1980) conceptualized in-trinsic interest as the "need for competency andself-determination" (p. 34). Similarly, Banduraand Schunk (1981) suggested that "a sense ofpersonal efficacy in mastering challenges is aptto generate greater interest in the activity than isself-perceived inefficacy in producing competentperformances" (p. 587). In an explicit test, theauthors found self-efficacy to relate positively tointrinsic interest. Subjects showing disinterest

475

and extreme weakness on mathematical taskswere engaged in self-directed learning experi-ences involving either short-term subgoals, long-term goals, or no goals at all. Although no in-struction was provided, subjects with short-termsubgoals made rapid progress and developedgreater knowledge of their capabilities via feed-back, which increased self-efficacy and perfor-mance on subsequent tasks. At the end of thetreatment, this group evidenced high self-efficacyand intrinsic interest in mathematical tasks incontrast to their initial low self-efficacy and inter-est scores. Bandura and Schunk posited that in-terest is developed via satisfaction from success,and an increase in self-efficacy is developed froma sense of personal causation. Similarly, Frostand Mahoney (1976) identified an interest-per-formance link. They suggested that interest maybe induced externally for repetitive tasks, but isintrinsic for problem-solving tasks. Further re-search is needed to determine how interest maybe developed when it is lacking for job-relevanttasks. It is possible that short-term goals com-bined with a manipulation of efficacy (throughmastery or modeling) may facilitate interestdevelopment.

Deci (1972) reported that intrinsic motivationtends to decrease when extrinsic rewards areoffered contingent on performance, because ex-trinsic rewards may reduce an individual's senseof personal causation and feelings of compe-tence. In a later study, Pritchard, Campbell, andCampbell (1977), after accounting for method-ological criticisms of Deci's paradigm, found gen-eral support for his conclusions and concurredwith Deci that there are a number of variablesinfluencing intrinsic interest. Pritchard et al. (1977)also suggested that extrinsic rewards may re-duce a determinant of intrinsic interest (e.g., self-determination, feelings of competence, etc.) butthat extrinsic rewards do not directly reduce in-trinsic interest. In a more explicit test. Fisher (1978)found that personal control over performance af-fected intrinsic motivation, but the type of re-ward system did not affect intrinsic motivation.He also found that for high intrinsic interest to be

present high personal control and high compe-tence were needed. Further, it has been shownthat information on competence (presumably as-sociated with self-efficacy) can mitigate the nega-tive effect of external reinforcement on intrinsicinterest (Boggiano & Ruble, 1979). In this study,older subjects whose performance was reportedas superior to that of their peers sustained highlevels of interest under external reinforcement,while those who were told that their performancewas inferior exhibited decreased task interest. Itappears that high self-efficacy leads to self-administered reward (Bandura & Perloff, 1967),and individuals who reward themselves performbetter than those who do not (Bandura, 1980;Flexibrod & O'Leary, 1973). However, researchis needed to clarify the specific roles played byactual and perceived competency in the forma-tion of self-efficacy perceptions.

Expectancy Theory Concepts

Reinharth and Wahba (1975) reviewed the de-velopment of expectancy theory and conducteda comprehensive test that addressed key meth-odological issues arising from earlier studies.Their findings did not support expectancy theoryas a model of work motivation and performance,and they concluded that the model as originallyformulated held little predictive promise. Kopel-man and Thompson (1976) identified severalboundary conditions, including time and task-specific ability, that strengthened the model'spredictions. These findings (and those of Ilgen,Nebeker, & Pritchard, 1981, discussed below)suggest that self-efficacy may represent a morespecific formulation of the rationale underlyingcertain expectancy theory components.

Self-efficacy is sometimes confused with out-come expectations or E2 in expectancy theory(Eastman & Marzillier, 1984). Bandura distin-guished these concepts in the following manner:"An efficacy expectation is a judgment of one'sability to execute a certain behavior pattern,whereas an outcome expectation is a judgmentof the likely consequences such behavior willproduce" (1978a, p. 240). This distinction was sup-

476

ported in a study of life insurance agents byBarling and Beattie (1983). They found that self-efficacy predicted sales performance, but out-come expectations did not.

Bandura (1984) pointed out that efficacy expec-tations refer to the exercise of control over one'sbehavior and actions. In this sense, self-efficacyhas a more obvious relationship to effort-perfor-mance expectancies or E^ in expectancy theory.However, these concepts are not identical. Twodistinctions have been noted. First, while Ej fo-cuses on a belief that effort will lead to desiredperformance, self-efficacy focuses on a convic-tion that one can execute the required behavior.The latter definition implies that judgments ofefficacy depend on more than effort considera-tions and, thereby, subsume variables not in-cluded in Ej. Bandura (1984) suggested that self-efficacy may involve many factors such as copingabilities under stress or various internal motiva-tional states. Therefore, E^ may predict that effortwill lead to desired performance, while self-efficacy may predict that desired performancewill not occur because of an individual's convic-tion that he or she is unmotivated to perform therequired behavior (Bandura, 1978a). Researchis needed to identify the specific cognitive fac-tors involved in the formation of efficacy percep-tions for different types of tasks. It should be notedthat Locke et al. (1984) observed that self-efficacywas a better predictor than past performance ofsubsequent task performance when the efficacymeasures were for moderate to difficult perfor-mance levels. Future studies might explicitly testthe predictive ability of efficacy ratings for differ-ent performance levels.

A second distinction between E\ and self-efficacy arises from measurement differences be-tween the two constructs. Locke et al. (1984) notedfour differences between efficacy measures andeffort-performance measures. First, self-efficacymeasures assess expectations for a wide rangeof performance levels, while typical expectancymeasures assess effort-performance expectancyfor one assigned performance goal. However,the most successful expectancy theory studies

assess expectancies with a method similar to thatof self-efficacy measurement (Ilgen et al., 1981;Locke et al., 1984). A second distinction is thatself-efficacy assessment involves two types ofratings: a dichotomous capability rating for eachlevel of performance and a confidence ratingfor positive responses. A third difference is thatthese confidence ratings might generate differ-ent results than the probability of success esti-mates used in Ej assessment. Finally, self-effi-cacy is assessed for immediately subsequentperformance. Ilgen et al. (1981) suggested thatthe most successful expectancy theory studiesassessed immediate performance rather thangoal levels for performance at a later time. Eachof these differences in measurement may affectthe explanatory and predictive abilities of thetwo constructs. Locke et al.(1984) suggested thatfurther research is needed to determine whateffect these differences may have on the diver-gent validity of expectancy and self-efficacyconstructs.

Pygmalion Effect

The Pygmalion effect refers to enhanced learn-ing or performance resulting from the positiveexpectations of others. This phenomenon hasbeen observed in organizational as well as class-room settings. Variables shown to explain theseresults include preferential treatment, increasedvisibility, more explicit goals or standards, andincreased attention to training (Eden & Shani,1982; Rubovits & Maehr, 1973).

Self-efficacy may be involved in the Pygmalioneffect through the persuasive influence of othersholding positive expectations. Persuasion is animportant source of efficacy information. Bandura(personal communication, 1984) stated that thefollowing types of information affect the successof persuasion: credibility and expertness of thesource, consensus among multiple sources, andfamiliarity of the source with task demands. Aleader's expectations might be viewed as per-suasive input to the subordinate's efficacy per-ceptions, while the strength of the persuasioncould be influenced by the leader's credibility.

477

and so on. Thus, the organizational processes ofidentifying, assessing, and developing high per-formers may be influenced by an interaction be-tween the leader's expectations and the subor-dinate's self-efficacy. Research that controls forpreferential treatment is needed to clarify theextent to which another's expectations may af-fect self-efficacy perceptions and performance.

Locus of Control

Self-efficacy has been compared to internallocus of control. Rotter (1966) defined internal lo-cus of control as a perception that rewards arecontingent on individual behavior, while exter-nal locus of control is the notion that rewards arecontrolled by outside factors, such as chance.However, two important distinctions can be madebetween self-efficacy and internal locus of con-trol. First, internal versus external locus of con-trol (I-E) is a generalized construct covering avariety of situations, whereas self-efficacy is taskspecific, examining the individual's convictionthat he or she can perform a specific task at aspecific level of expertise. Bandura (1977a) statedthat individuals may show strong internal locusof control in general, but believe they have lowskill levels in certain areas, which would lead tolow efficacy perceptions on relevant tasks.

A second difference is that locus of control asmeasured by Rotter's I-E scale includes outcomeexpectancies in addition to behavior expectan-cies. Thus, in expectancy theory terms, many I-Eitems are measuring E2 rather than E^.

In spite of these differences, there is evidenceof a relationship between the two constructs ascurrently measured. Chambliss and Murray(1979) observed an interaction effect in their re-search on smoking reduction: Internal locus ofcontrol combined with high self-efficacy led tothe greatest reduction in smoking. Research ex-ploring this interaction would contribute to a bet-ter understanding of theoretical differences be-tween the two constructs. Further, since self-effi-cacy was found to affect goal level chosen andgoal committment (Locke et al., 1984), a three-

way interaction may exist among self-efficacy,locus of control, and goal setting.

Behavior Modification

Behaviorism sometimes acknowledges thoughts(including efficacy judgments) as epiphenome-nal accompaniments of conditioned autonomicresponses. In this view, the environment is seenas causing behavioral response in a unidirec-tional manner without involving cognition orvolition. Bolles (1972) argued, however, that rein-forcement leads to change because an underly-ing reinforcement process suggests value ap-praisal and, thereby, cognition. Bandura (1980)pointed out that if efficacy judgments were epi-phenomenal of autonomic responses, arousalwould be an equally good predictor of behavior.Because this is not so, Bandura suggested thatbehavioral changes that are brought about byreinforcement are influenced by many things,including self-monitoring, goal setting, socialsurveillance, and the causal influence of antici-patory thought.

While social learning theory does not posit afixed relationship between autonomic responseand behavior, the role cognition plays in self-regulation is explicitly acknowledged. Accord-ingly, self-efficacy theory may partly explainwhen reinforcement will work. A high self-effi-cacy perception might be needed to facilitateoperant conditioning (i.e., a belief that one cantake the action that brings reward). Future re-search might explore the cognitive mechanismsthrough which the environment and person in-teract to influence behavior.

Implications forOrganizational Behavior and

Human Resource Management

Research on self-efficacy generally has sup-ported a high correlation between efficacy per-ceptions and subsequent performance. The fol-lowing implications for selection, leadership,training, and vocational counseling are offered

478

in light of that research. However, validation ofa high correlation between efficacy perceptionsand performance in work settings would be re-quired before such practices are adopted. Be-cause the correlation between the two is imper-fect, implications are discussed for interactionswith locus of control, equal employment opportu-nity (EEO), performance appraisal, goals, andincentives. Suggestions for extending efficacytheory to groups and for developing an instru-ment for broader prediction also are made.

Selection

Self-efficacy appears to be relevant to selec-tion in several ways. Because the selection ofhigh-performing individuals is important to or-ganizations, self-efficacy, as a predictor of per-formance, may be helpful. Research is neededto determine if self-efficacy is generalizable tojob situations and to specify the conditions un-der which it might be used.

When selection instruments are used, someassessment of self-efficacy might be useful in con-junction with a battery of other measures. Jobinterviews are a potential setting for assessingself-efficacy, although response bias (faking) mayneed to be controlled.

Implications of self-efficacy for selection extendto placement and career planning. Periodic as-sessment of employee efficacy perceptions on avariety of tasks may reflect clusters of poten-tial abilities that could be relevant to career ad-vancement. As positions become vacant, individ-uals with high self-efficacy for relevant skillsmight then be considered.

Leadership

Early leadership research focused on leadertraits as the key causal variable in subordinateperformance (Bass, 1981). Other studies have ex-amined the impact of leader behavior or style onsubordinate performance. However, some con-cern remains that these concepts have not provenvery successful in predicting performance andthat new approaches are needed (Bass, 1981;House & Baetz, 1979; Yukl, 1981).

A competency-based approach to leadershiphas developed from the job analysis concept inpersonnel management (Boyatzis, 1982). Boyatzisdefined job competency as an underlying char-acteristic of a person (e.g., efficiency orientation,proactivity, etc.) that results in effective or supe-rior performance in a job. It is expressed in spe-cific actions or demonstrated behavior that is ge-neric to the job.

Identifying critical managerial competenciesis of potential importance to the field of organiza-tional behavior. There may be a significant cor-relation between perceived and actual compe-tencies (performance) because perceived com-petency has much in common with self-efficacy.A perceived competency could be defined asgeneralized self-efficacy, the conviction that onecan successfully carry out a range of actions.

Following Katz (1955), managerial competen-cies could be categorized into three broad class-es: technical, conceptual, and human relations.Within each category, numerous skills are re-quired for competence at different manageriallevels. Research is needed to validate competen-cies for managerial success at specific levels andacross diverse fields. If self-perceived competen-cies were found to be a causal variable in per-formance, assessing both actual competenciesand self-perceived competencies could be use-ful in predicting managerial performance andin prescribing training and counseling.

Training and Vocational Counseling

The implications of self-efficacy for training(or organizational development) are numerous.First, low self-efficacy may pinpoint specific train-ing needs. Research is needed to determine themost useful methods for increasing competency-based efficacy perceptions. Although enactivemastery and modeling have been the most suc-cessful methods for enhancing self-efficacy (Ban-dura & Adams, 1977; Bandura, Adams, & Beyer,1977), many training sessions focus more on lec-tures and verbal persuasion, imparting relevantknowledge but doing little to relieve debilitatinglow self-efficacy. Further, while pxjrticipants may

479

engage in small group work sessions, the experi-ences are sometimes dissimilar to the actual com-petencies required in their positions. If the self-efficacy paradigm is transferable to work settings,self-efficacy could be used as one criterion intraining. Goldstein and Sorcher (1974) suggestedthat behavior modeling can be used effectivelyfor organizational training. Films might be devel-oped and tested to model successful performancefor training purposes. Also, classes might be usedto allow participants guided mastery experiencesin key performance areas. These could be cou-pled with self-modeling videotapes for importantskills.

Another implication of self-efficacy in the train-ing area is that specific problems sometimes maybe traced to low self-efficacy. Collins (1982) foundthat self-efficacy aided in predicting mathemat-ics performance even when self-efficacy was in-dependent of relevant skills. This study alsoshowed that interest in math was positively cor-related with math self-efficacy but not with mathability. Research is needed to determine if thesefindings apply to work situations. If so, trainingto enhance self-efficacy also may improve inter-est and attitudes.

Similarly, a self-efficacy approach to voca-tional counseling could be used to augment in-terest measures. Individuals who are unsure ofnew career directions could be tested for per-ceived competencies in a variety of occupations.They might then be advised of the chances ofsuccess in fields in which they score high. Incases where career opportunities are good butperceived competencies are low, a trial enac-tive mastery period might be offered.

Interactions with Locus of Control

Correlations and interactions between self-efficacy and locus of control need to be specifiedbecause they have implications for the perfor-mance improvement of individuals and groupsin organizations. Several studies have foundpositive behavioral correlates with internal lo-cus of control (Anderson, Hellriegel, & Slocum,1977; Anderson & Schneier, 1978; Goodstadt &

Hjelle, 1973). It is likely that persons with an inter-nal locus of control may need fewer enactivemastery experiences to improve efficacy percep-tions and performance. They also may respondmore readily to modeling, because they tend tobelieve that they, like the models, generally arein control of their environments. It has beenshown that modeling is most effective when sub-jects can identify with the model's ability andpersonal characteristics (Kazdin, 1974; Meichen-baum, 1971).

In contrast, persons with an external locus ofcontrol may be inclined to view enactive mas-tery experiences as luck. They also may rejectmodeling because of a tendency to attribute themodel's success to skills the observers doubt theyhave. For those individuals with an external lo-cus of control, efficacy intervention might be en-hanced by guided enactive mastery coupled withverbal persuasion to increase their internal lo-cus of control for key behaviors. Brockner andGuare (1983) also suggested that, in order to im-prove performance, verbal persuasion might beused to encourage low self-efficacy subjects toattribute their intermediafe performance difficul-ties to the complexity of the task (external) asopposed to their capabilities (internal) in order toimprove performance. Other forms of interven-tion may be tested to determine which forms yieldthe greatest efficacy and performance improve-ments.

Equal Employment Opportunity

Hackett and Betz (1981) suggested that self-efficacy is relevant to EEO. Weak efficacy per-ceptions could be viewed as internal barriers toadvancement; they also may inhibit the abilityto cope effectively with external barriers.

In the EEO context, it is important to note thedistinction between self-efficacy, which is taskspecific, and general self-esteem, which is nottask specific. In the past, it had been assumedthat members of disadvantaged groups had lowgeneral self-esteem (Clark, 1965; Proshansky &Newton, 1968). However, in a thorough reviewof the literature, Wylie (1978) concluded that there

480

was no significant difference in self-esteem be-tween members of disadvantaged and nondis-advantaged groups. Rosenberg (1979) noted thatthe discrepancy between theory and researchdeveloped from the choice of referent groupthat individuals used in gathering vital self-es-teem information: Although society may have dis-criminated against certain women and minoritygroups and held them in low esteem, the disad-vantaged group members held a more positiveview of themselves because they used their ownsubgroups as referents instead of the broadersociety.

Given these findings, no differences would beexpected when using self-esteem as a predictorof behavior. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, istask specific and arises primarily from the influ-ences of mastery, modeling, and persuasion. If,as Rosenberg suggested, members of disadvan-taged groups focused on their own subgroupsas referents in order to sustain self-esteem, thenthese subgroups also could be expected to serveas more powerful sources of mastery, modeling,and persuasive influences for self-efficacy. It ispossible that there are dual levels of self-efficacyoperating on behavior. An individual who feelshighly efficacious about his or her skills in inter-personal relations when compared to the refer-ent subgroup may lack self-efficacy in a broadersetting. When compounded by a shortage of rolemodels, self-doubts could become significant in-ternal barriers to performance. Research in thisarea might reveal that efficacy training couldhelp members of disadvantaged groups to mini-mize these barriers to success.

Periormance Appraisal, Goals, and Incentives

Organizational objectives of performance ap-praisal systems include performance improve-ment, employee development, and motivationthrough goal setting (Carroll & Schneier, 1982).Because feedback may be a persuasive input toefficacy perceptions and because negative feed-back may reduce motivation (Bandura & Cer-vone, 1984), research is needed to examine the

effects of performance appraisal feedback onthese objectives.

Low self-efficacy may be induced by negativeperformance appraisals. If so, low self-efficacymay inhibit effort even when skill is present, andit may lead to easy discouragement. Researchis needed to determine if performance can beimproved by enhancing efficacy perceptions; italso is needed to develop efficient mechanismsfor enhancing efficacy perceptions in conjunc-tion with performance appraisals.

Bandura and Cervone (1984) also maintainedthat self-regulation is important in human moti-vation and that goal setting and self-evaluativereactions are indispensable to this process. Lockeet al. (1984) found that self-efficacy mediates theeffects of goal setting on performance. Researchis needed to determine the extent to which thesuccessful use of goals and specific incentivetechniques (e.g., compensation, bonuses, jobenrichment, and participative decision making)requires high self-efficacy and whether the ma-nipulation of self-efficacy may change the rela-tive effectiveness of these techniques.

Generality of Performance Prediction

Self-efficacy is measured as it relates to spe-cific tasks. Little research has been done to deter-mine how efficacy perceptions could be genera-lized. If an analogue can be found in the re-search on self-esteem and performance (Thar-enou, 1979), it appears that predictive power issacrificed as the measure becomes more gener-al. If so, it would be more promising to gen-eralize self-efficacy perceptions by aggregatingacross a number of related but domain-specificmeasures (e.g., a cluster of specific competen-cies within verbal skills) than by attempting todevise a broad omnibus test. An omnibus mea-sure is likely to offer convenience, but this proba-bly will be at great expense to predictive power.

Research may be able to ascertain if any keyfactors generally are predictive of success. Onepossibility is an individual's conviction that he orshe can master new situations. Those who have

481

experienced past mastery in new situations mayfeel efficacious when faced with other new situ-ations; therefore, they may set higher goals forthemselves, may be more persistent in overcom-ing difficulty, and ultimately may perform better.

Identifying key efficacy perceptions may beuseful in determining who will be high perfor-mers, particularly when there is little history ofpast performance or when past performance hasbeen marginal. Specific self-efficacy measuresmight be tailored to unique organizations suchas hospitals, academic institutions, or sportsteams. For example, academic institutions mightuse specific self-efficacy measures in conjunc-tion with aptitude test scores during assessmentfor admission. While aptitude test scores corre-late well with performance, there are cases inwhich test scores and transcripts present dis-crepancies. In these or other marginal situations,using a validated self-efficacy instrument mayenhance final decisions.

Groups and Organizational Performance

Bandura suggested that self-efficacy theory canbe extended to groups as large as nations. If so,research is needed to develop an assessmentinstrument for group efficacy. One approachmight be to aggregate individual efficacy per-ceptions and connpare them to subsequent groupperformance measures. Another might be tohave individuals rate their own perceptions ofthe group's efficacy and then to average theirresponses. A third possibility would be usinggroup consensus responses to a single efficacyquestionnaire. It would be important to deter-mine the superior method in predicting subse-quent performance.

By using a valid instrument, research mayshow that group perceptions of efficacy are re-lated to group performance. If this is the case,there are implications for an efficacy approachto group training and team-building along thesame lines as those discussed for individuals.This could be applied at all levels of organiza-tional analysis. For example, corporate efficacymight be examined at the strategic level for func-tions such as planning and forecasting.

The concept of group efficacy also could beexamined in the context of organizationcd change.Resistance to change, a common phenomenon,sometimes may be caused by low efficacy expec-tations and a fear of failure. Research is neededto determine if efficacy intervention could aidorganizational change.

In contrast, self-efficacy could be too high,thus producing overconfidence and poor perfor-mance. Groupthink might be explored as aneffect of unrealistically high efficacy perceptions.Janis (1972) cited an illusion of invulnerability asone of the symptoms of groupthink. This was de-scribed as an excessive optimism that tends toencourage the group members to take extremerisks. Janis noted that such an attitude was prev-alent among members of President Kennedy'sinner circle, and that it led to the fiasco in South-east Asia. In describing the group's mood dur-ing the first few months after Kennedy took office,Arthur Schlesinger is quoted as saying, "eu-phoria reigned; we thought for a moment thatthe world was plastic and the future unlimited"(Janis, 1972, p. 36). The genesis of this optimismmight be found in Kennedy's own enactive mas-tery: his emergence as the national leader againstexceptional odds. While his success certainlyshould have generated strong feelings of efficacy,it also may have led to unrealistically high effi-cacy perceptions among his top aides.

Applications

In a stable environment, managing human re-sources could be viewed as a relatively routinefunction. However, as the pace of environmen-tal change increases, organizations sometimesrespond in ways that demand wide-scale shiftsin personnel. Some common examples includemergers, acquisitions, divestitures, rapid expan-sion, reduction in force, internal realignment offunctions, and strategic changes in mission orproduct/service lines. AT&T's divestiture illus-trates some of the potential applications of self-efficacy in human resource management.

The restructuring of AT&T may have led todifferent managerial roles. The company for-merly had identified relevant skills (job compe-

482

tencies) that predicted managerial success (Bray,Campbell, & Grant, 1974). To the extent that thesecompetencies would generalize to the new posi-tions, assessment of self-efficacy on these compe-tencies might have been useful in the selectionprocess. It is possible that the company coulddevelop a more generalized self-efficacy mea-sure for management development by aggregat-ing across competencies that have been foundto predict management success within the firm.This approach also would apply to selections andtraining needs for other types of positions.

Because of the extent of reorganization in thiscase, it is likely that new work groups wereformed. These groups may have been composedof new members who faced new tasks. To the

extent that the group must function as a team,^ performance on these tasks could be influencedby group efficacy perceptions. Traditional team-building approaches might have been aug-mented by an assessment of group efficacy. Asan example, a survey feedback approach mighthave been beneficial for enhancing group effi-cacy as well as task performance.

While the suggestions in this case presumethat empirical support will be found for self-efficacy in the organizational context, they areoffered as an example of how the construct mightbe of practical value in an organizational setting.However, research is still needed to determinethe extent to which self-efficacy is relevant inhuman resource management.

References

Anderson, C , Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. (1977) Managerialresponse to environmentally induced stress. Academy ofManagement Journal, 20, 260-272.

Anderson, C. R., & Schneier, C. E. (1978) Locus of control,leader behavior and leader performance among manage-ment students. Academy of Management Journal, 21,690-698.

Bandura, A. (1977a) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theoryof behavioral change. Psychoiogicai fleview, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1977b) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

BoDidura, A. (1978a) Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances inBehavioral Research and Therapy, 1, 237-269.

Bandura, A. (1978b) The sell system in reciprocal determin-ism. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358.

Bandura, A. (1980) In search of pure unidirectional deter-minants. Behavior Therapy, 12, 30-40.

Bandura, A. (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agen-cy. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1984) Recycling misconceptions of perceivedself-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 231-255.

Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977) Analysis of self-efficacytheory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Re-search, 1, 287-310.

Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977) Cognitive pro-cesses mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 35, 124-139.

Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N.(1980) Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cogni-tive Therapy and Research, 4, 39-66.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983) Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects ofgoal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 45, 1017-1028.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1984) Differential engagementof self-reactive influences in cogrnifiveJy-based moMvafion.Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.

Bandura, A., & Perloff, B. (1967) Relative efficacy of self-monitored and externally imposed reinforcement systems.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 7. 111-116.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981) Cultivating competence,self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41, 586-598.

Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983) Self-efficacy beliefs and salesperformance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-agement, 5, 41-51.

Bass, B. (1981) Stogdill's handbook of leadership (2nd ed.).New York: Free Press.

Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N. (1979) Competence and theoverjustification effect: A developmental study. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 37, 1462-1468.

Bolles, R. (1972) Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning.Psychological Review. 79, 394-409.

483

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982) The competent manager. New York:Wiley.

Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., 8c Grant, D. L. (1974)Formativeyears in business. New York: Krieger.

Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1981) The "self" in work organiza-tions: A conceptual review. Academy of Management Re-view. 6, 75-58.

Brockner, I., & Guare, I. (1983) Improving the performance oflow self-esteem individuals: An crttributional approach.Academy of Management Journal. 26, 642-656.

Brown, I., & Inouye, D. K. (1978) Learned helplessnessthrough modeling: The role of perceived similarity incompetence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy. 36, 900-908.

Bumaska, R. F. (1976) The effects of behavior modeling train-ing upon managers' behaviors and employees' percep-tions. Personnel Psychology, 29, 329-335.

Carroll, S., & Schneier, C. (1982) Performance appraisal andreview systems. New York: Scott, Foresman.

Chambliss, C , & Murray, E. I. (1979) Cognitive proceduresfor smoking reduction: Symptom attribution versus effi-cacy attribution. CognitiveTherapy and Research. 3, 91-95.

Clark, K. B. (1965) Dark ghetto: Dilemmas of social power.New York: Harper & Row.

Collins, J. (1982) Self-efficacy and ability in achievementbehavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New York.

Deci, E. L. (1972) The effects of contingent and noncontingentrewards and controls on intrinsic motivation. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Performance. 8, 217-229.

Deci, E. L. (1980) The psychology of self-determination.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Decker, P. J. (1983) The effects of rehearsal group size andvideo feedback in behavior modeling training. PersonnelPsychology. 36, 763-773.

Dillon, P. C , Graham, W. K., & AideUs, A. L. (1972) Brain-storming on a "hot" problem: Effects of training and prac-tice on individual and group performance. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 56, 487-490.

Eastman, C , & MarzlUier, J. (1984) Theoretical and method-ological difficulties in Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Cog-nitive Therapy and Research, 8, 213-229.

Eden, D., & Shani, A. (1982) Pygmalion goes to boot camp:Expectancy, leadership, and trainee performance. Journalof Applied Psychology, 67, 194-199.

Ellis, R. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1983) Role of self-esteem withinthe job search process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68,632-640.

Feltz, D. L. (1982) Path analysis of the causal elements inBandura's theory of self-efficacy and an anxiety-basedmodel of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology. 42, 764-781.

Fisher, C. D. (1978) The effects of personal control, compe-tence, and extrinsic reward systems on intrinsic motivation.Organizafionai Behavior and Human Performance. 21,273-288.

Flexibrod, J., & O'Leary, K. D. (1973) Effects of reinforcementof children's academic behavior as a function of self-determined and externally imposed contingencies. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis. 6, 241-250.

Frost, P. J., & Mahoney, T. A. (1976) Goal setting and the taskprocess. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 17, 328-350.

Goldstein, A. P., & Sorcher, M. (1974) Changing supervisorbehavior. New York: Pergamon Press.

Gonzales, F., & Dowrick, P. (1982) Mechanisms of self-modeling: An investigation of skills acquisition versus self-belief. Unpublished manuscript. University of Alaska,Anchorage.

Goodstadt, B. E., & Hjelle, L. A. (1973) Power to the powerless:Locus of control and the use of power. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology. 27, 190-196.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981) A self-efficacy approach tothe career development of women. Journal of VocationalBehavior. 18, 326-339.

House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979) Leadership: Some empiri-cal generalizations and new research directions. In B. M.Staw (Ed.), Research in organizafionai behavior (Vol. 1,pp. 341^24). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ilgen, D. R., Nebeker, D. M., &Pritchard, R. D. (1981)Expec-tancy theory measures: An empirical comparison in anexperimental simulation. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 28, 189-223.

Ivancevich, J. M. (1977) Different goal setting treatments andtheir effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academyof Management Journal. 20, 406—419.

Ivancevich, J. M., &McMahon, J. T. (1982) The effects of goalsetting, external feedback, and self-generated feedbackon outcome variables: A field experiment. Academy ofManagement Journal. 25, 359-372.

Janis, I. (1972) VictiTuso/groupfhini. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Katz, R. L. (1955) Skills of an effective administrator. HarvardBusiness Review, 33(1), 33-42.

Kazdin, A. E. (1974) Covert modeling, model similarity, andreduction of avoidance behavior. Behavior Therapy. 5,325^40.

484

Kopelman. R. E., & Thompson, P. H. (1976) Boundary condi-tions for expectancy theory of work motivation and jobperformance. Academy o/Management 7ourna/, 19, 237-258.

Latham, G. P., & Baldes, J. J. (1975) The 'practical signifi-cance' of Locke's theory of goal setting. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 60, 122-124.

Latham, G. P., & Klinne, S. B. (1974) Improving job perfor-mance through training in goal setting. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 59, 187-191.

Locke, E. A. (1968) Toward a theory of task motivation andincentives. OrganizaMonai Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 3, 157-189.

Locke, E. A. (1978) The ubiquity of the technique of goal set-ting in theories of and approaches to employee motiva-tion. Academy of Management Review, 1, 594-601.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C , & Bobko, P. (1984) Theeffect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on taskperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984) Goai setting: A motiva-tional technique that works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E. A., Saari, L. M., Shaw, K. N., StLatham, G. P. (1981)Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Meichenbaum, D. H. (1971) Examination of model character-istics in reducing avoidance behavior. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 17, 298-307.

Mento, A. J., Cartledge, N. D., & Locke, E. A. (1980) Mary-land vs. Michigan vs. Minnesota: Another look at the rela-tionship of expectancy and goal difficulty to task {perfor-mance. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 25, 419-440.

Meyer, H. H., & Raich, M. S. (1983) An objective evaluationof a behavior modeling training program. Personnel Psy-chology, 36, 755-761.

Moses, J. L., & Ritchie, R. R. (1976) Sup)ervisory relationshipstraining: A behavioral evaluation of a behavior modelingprogram. Personnel Psychology, 29, 337-343.

Pritchard, R. D., Campbell, K. M., & CampbeU, D. J., Jr. (1977)Effects of extrinsic financial rewards on intrinsic motivation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 9-19.

Proshansky, H., & Newton, P. (1968) The nature and mean-ing of Negro self-identity. In M. Deutsch, I. Katz, & A. R.Jensen (Eds.), Social class, race, and psychological devel-opment. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Reinharth, L., & Wahba, M. A. (1975) Expectancy theory asa predictor of work motivation, effort expenditure, and jobperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 520-537.

Rosenberg, M. (1979) Conceiving the self. New York: BasicBooks.

Rotter, J. (1966) Generalized experiences for internal versusexternal control of reinforcement. Psychological Mono-graphs, 80, (1, Whole No. 609).

Rubovits, P., & Maehr, M. (1973) Pygmalion black and white.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 210-218.

Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C , & Gist, M. E. (1984)TypeA behavior and faculty research productivity: What arethe mechanisms? Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 34, 402-418.

Tharenou, P. (1979) Employee self-esteem: A review of theliterature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 316-346.

White, S. E., MitcheU, T. R., & Bell, C. H. (1977)Goal setting,evaluation apprehension, and social cues as determinantsof job performance and job satisfaction in a simulatedorganization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 665-673.

Wylie, R. (1978) The self-concept: Theory and research onselected topics (rev. ed., Vol.2). Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska Press.

Yukl, G. (1981) Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Marilyn E. Gist (Ph.D., University of Maryland) is anAssistant Professor in the School of Business Adminis-tration (Organizational Behavior), University of Wash-ington. Correspondence regarding this article may besent to her at: Graduate School of Business Adminis-tration, Department of Management and Organization,155 MacKenzie Hall, DJ-10, University of Washington,Seattie, WA 98195.

The author thanks Edwin A. Locke, Albert Bandura,and Thomas Jerdee for their helpful comments.

485