Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and performance

Self-efficacy as a mediator
of goal setting and
performance
Some human resource applications
Steven H. Appelbaum
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Alan Hare
Management Consultant, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Self-efficacy as a
mediator
33
Introduction
Work organizations seek to optimize the performance of their human resources
in order to achieve high levels of productivity, efficiency and effectiveness.
Centrally important human resources activities including job selection,
orientation, skill -training, performance appraisal, compensation, human
resource planning and career development are all related to improving and
sustaining organizational performance. In the past 20 years, there has been a
growing research interest in the contribution which social learning theory (or
social cognition theory) can make in the area of work performance. For
example, in an earlier review of personnel training and development,
Campbell[1, p. 571] believed there was promise in Bandura’s description of
training methodologies which included both modelling and vicarious learning,
which have become central constructs in Bandura’s social cognition theory
framework[2, p. 254]. Since that time, extensive empirical evidence has given
strong support to the validity and utility of social learning theory and to the
existence of strong links between task performance, motivation, and selfefficacy[3,
p. 472]:
The use of social learning theory principles in conjunction with extrinsic rewards for
performance may provide a most effective combination of motivational approaches [4, p. 223].
Self-efficacy, a social cognition construct (social learning) which refers to a
person’s self-beliefs in his or her ability to perform specific tasks[2, p. 257],
has been shown to be a reliable predictor of both motivation and task performance[5,
p. 365], and to influence personal goal setting[6, p. 197]. According to
Bandura’s[2, p. 257] description of the human cognitive self-regulation
system, self-efficacy beliefs are the most central and pervasive influence on
the choices people make, their goals, the amount of effort they apply to a
particular task, how long they persevere at a task in the face of failure or
Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 11 No. 3, 1996, pp. 33-47.
© MCB University Press, 0268-3946

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
11,3
34
difficulty, the amount of stress they experience and the degree to which they
are susceptible to depression.
Human resource management application
The changeable aspect of self-efficacy beliefs[7, p. 198] should be of great
interest to the human resource management professional: the potential to
influence directly task performance through increasing self-efficacy beliefs. A
number of studies have demonstrated significantly higher task performance
following “manipulations” designed to enhance self-efficacy, including
managerial problem-solving training[8, p. 803], general analytic skill
development[9, p. 94], job attendance[10, p. 415], complex decision-making
tasks[6, p. 197], and management retraining[11, p. 198]. Self-efficacy beliefs
have also been shown to be correlated with and predictive of burnout[12,
p. 745], stress[5, p. 371], supervisor ratings of performance[13, p. 80], and role
adjustments of newcomers to organizations[14, p. 274]. These findings point
to the previously identified centrality of self-efficacy beliefs with respect to
performance and key human resource implications. The specific applications
arising from the theoretical and empirical frameworks associated with selfefficacy
and which have utility in human resource management applications
are a major focus of this research.
The field of human resources management has (apparently) been slow to
address and technically incorporate the applied aspects of social cognition
theory and self-efficacy, despite the impressive empirical support it has
received. Gist[3, p. 472], in an article addressing the implications of self-efficacy
for organizational behaviour and human resources management, further points
out that there is little evidence that much attention has been paid to
organizational applications. Considering the empirical evidence, however, it
would seem that the application of social cognition theory is a future trend in
these areas and, by extension, an important area to be considered by human
resources management.
In recent years, management practices in the area of work motivation and
performance have typically reflected goal-setting theory and the notion of
instrumentality of rewards. Goal-setting theory has shown that the setting of
reasonably challenging goals leads to increased performance. Similarly, the
matching of incentives and rewards to individual preferences has also been
shown to enhance motivation and performance[15, p. 642]. Performance
appraisal systems and compensation schemes have therefore embraced some
aspects of current motivation theory, yet have overlooked the measurement and
modification of subjective evaluations of task competence (self-efficacy) and
outcome expectations.
The objective of this article is to examine the theoretical framework and
empirical support for self-efficacy as a mediator of motivation, goal setting and
performance, and to examine the specific (applied) implications of self-efficacy
beliefs for the human resources management field. This undertaking will

conclude with the possibilities for an increasingly important role for selfefficacy
theory with respect to current and future trends..
Self-efficacy: a theoretical framework
This research will begin with self-efficacy in terms of how it is defined,
characterized and measured. Sources of beliefs will be examined as well as the
dynamic determinants of these beliefs. Individual differences will be explored
and followed by an analysis of goal setting and its impact on performance.
Social cognition theory, based on a model of triadic reciprocal causation,
emphasizes the interplay between behaviour, environmental influences and
personal subjective factors including cognition to explain human psychosocial
functioning[5, p. 361]. The role of cognition – that aspect of our mental life
involving conscious thought processes (including such key elements as
reasoning, problem solving, decision making and evaluative judgements) – is
given special emphasis within this conceptual framework. In a description of
social cognitive theory, Bandura[2, p. 248] argues for the existence of central
(cognitive) self-regulation processes which mediate experience and behaviour.
Bandura suggests that much of human behaviour is regulated by forethought,
allowing people to behave in a proactive fashion and engage in goal setting,
thus channelling motivation. He considers this capacity of self-directedness to
be mediated by self-reflective and self-reactive capabilities which are in a state
of constant interplay with environmental influences. It is from such selfreflective
and self-reactive capabilities that self-efficacy beliefs are thought to
emerge.
Self-efficacy as a
mediator
35
Self-efficacy: definition, characteristics and measurement
The construct of self-efficacy refers to “people’s beliefs about their capability to
exercise control over their own level of functioning and over events that affect
their lives”[2, p. 257]. Self-efficacy beliefs are considered to be the outcome of a
process of weighing, integrating, and evaluating information about one’s
capabilities, and which, in turn, regulate the choices people make and the amount
of effort they apply to a given task[3, p. 472]. Self-efficacy judgements vary over
time on the basis of new information and experience[7, p. 184]. Thus, self-efficacy
is a dynamic concept. Self-efficacy beliefs are also associated primarily with
specific task conditions, even though, as will be noted later, there is considered to
be a degree of generalization of self-efficacy beliefs across related task situations
and of a person’s general sense of efficaciousness[2, p. 258].
Three dimensions of self-efficacy are identified: magnitude, strength and
generality[3, p. 472]. Magnitude refers to the level of task difficulty a person
believes he or she can attain; strength refers to the degree of conviction that a
given level of task performance is attainable; and generality refers to the extent
to which a given self-efficacy judgement applies across different situations.
Magnitude and strength of self-efficacy judgements are the basis of most
measurements of self-efficacy. Typically, a person may be asked to indicate with
a “yes” or “no” answer whether they feel that they can attain various specified

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
11,3
36
levels of task performance and, second, indicate how confident they are to reach
each attainable level of performance as an example, by assigning a number
from 1 to 100. Magnitude is then determined by aggregating total “yes”
responses, and strength determined by aggregating confidence responses[8,
p. 797]. It should be noted that generality is not normally measured.
Sources of self-efficacy beliefs
Four major sources of self-efficacy beliefs have been identified[5, p. 364];
enactive mastery experiences, modelling, social persuasion and psychological
states. Each of these sources has particular significance when considering
applications in organizational work environments. Enactive mastery
experiences refer to the strengthening of self-efficacy beliefs as a result of task
accomplishment. Within the triadic reciprocal causation model, this source is
associated with the influence of behaviour on self-efficacy beliefs. It is
suggested that a resilient sense of efficacy is developed when a person is able to
overcome challenging obstacles through perseverance, an experience which
provides assurance of one’s capabilities and which allows a person to endure
setbacks and failures without loss of confidence. Easy successes result in an
expectation of quick results, leading to rapid discouragement in the face of
failure. As will be seen, the strengthening or weakening of self-efficacy beliefs
through task experience has major implications for work experiences,
particularly with respect to the success or lack of success experienced by a
person in his/her position and the task conditions which can be adjusted to
facilitate that success.
Vicarious experience or modelling[3, p. 473] is a second important source of
self-efficacy beliefs and is primarily associated with environmental influences.
Modelling refers to the observation of another person – the model – performing
the task in question. The model, through successful efforts, conveys to the
observing person possible task strategies, a basis for (social) comparison and
judgement of their own abilities, and encouragement to believe that through
effort, despite setbacks, the task can be successfully accomplished. The effects
of modelling are related to the similarity between the model and the observer
(for example age and capability). The desire to imitate models can be very
powerful. Modelling first manifests itself in childhood, when children imitate
adults and other siblings. In organizations, a desire to imitate superior
performers or supervisors may be strong in some individuals. Certainly, the
taking of roles and the imitation of previously witnessed behaviour illustrate
the subtle influences of social learning[4, p. 222]. The impact in organizational
settings of this source of self-efficacy has implications both in everyday
uncontrolled situations where one person observes another doing the same task
as part of the normal flow of work, and with respect to training activities where
modelling can be applied systematically as a learning methodology.
Verbal or social persuasion (an environmental influence), although less
effective than enactive mastery or modelling, is considered to be an important
source of self-efficacy beliefs. This objective of verbal persuasion is to convey to

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

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
11,3
38
Managers who were led to construe their decision-making ability as reflective of their inherent
cognitive aptitude were beset by increasing doubts about their managerial efficacy as they
encountered problems. They became more and more erratic in their decisional activities, they
lowered their organizational aspirations, and they achieved progressively less with the
organization they were managing. In marked contrast, managers with an induced conception of
ability as an acquirable skill fostered a highly resilient sense of personal efficacy. Even though
they were assigned taxing goals that were difficult to fulfil, these managers remained steadfast
in their perceived managerial self-efficacy, they continued to set for themselves challenging
organizational goals, and they used analytical strategies in ways which aided the discovery of
optimal managerial decision rules. Such a self-efficacious orientation, which is well-suited to
handling adversity, paid off in uniformly high organization attainments[5, p. 373].
A second manipulation encouraged participants to believe that organizations
are either relatively controllable or uncontrollable. This manipulation led to
similar outcomes: those who believed that organizations are controllable
applied a persistent and high level of effective effort across trials, whereas those
who were led to believe that organizations are uncontrollable showed
deteriorating performance across trials. A third manipulation provided
feedback to the student managers which indicated performance superiority or
decline relative to other managers. Again, those who received negative feedback
experienced a decline in self-efficacy judgements and decremental performance.
The performance of those receiving positive feedback varied according to the
nature of the feedback. Those who were led to believe that they had easily
achieved mastery tended to set lower goals for themselves compared with those
who believed that they had achieved mastery through persistent effort. These
results indicate two important characteristics of self-efficacy: first, performance
is clearly linked to self-efficacy beliefs and, second, self-efficacy judgements are
dynamically influenced by externally provided information. This malleability
of self-efficacy judgements[7, p. 202] can have both positive and negative
consequences on task performance, depending on the nature of the information
available to the person. Thus, building a high and resilient sense of self-efficacy
with employees[5, p. 380] and avoiding a downward spiralling of performance,
referred to as an exacerbation cycle[7, p. 202] should be of concern to human
resource professionals in terms of management development.
Individual differences
It appears that self-efficacy judgements are influenced greatly by information
from the environment and the effect that such information has on the beliefs
held by the person. However, other determinants of self-efficacy beliefs, related
to relatively stable characteristics of the person, need to be considered. These
aspects include level of ability, the person’s general state of perceived
efficaciousness and general beliefs and attribution style regarding internal
versus external locus of control[7, p. 204]. A person’s knowledge or skill relating
to a specific task places a limit on the ability to succeed: no amount of effort or
motivation will substitute for insufficient development of prerequisite
attainments. If an assigned task requires an ability beyond the person’s attained
level, a low self-efficacy judgement for that task can be realistically expected.

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

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
11,3
40
developing his motivation framework, Locke[17, p. 293) proposes that “goals
affect action by affecting the intensity, duration, and direction of action”, noting
the well-documented validity of goal-setting theory. This process has
significant implications for the human resource management process in terms
of performance actualization.
Self-efficacy beliefs, as noted previously, influence the goals which people set
for themselves (personal goals). Normally, however, in an organizational
context, people must deal with pre-assigned goals, those goals which are related
to productive activity in the workplace. Assigned goals provide a sense of
direction and purpose, stimulate action and effort, serve as a standard on which
performance capabilities can be measured, and serve as guidelines for
developing a sense of efficacy.
The achievement of subgoals (proximal) leading towards major (distal) goals
provides a sense of task mastery and competence, supporting the development
of strong self-efficacy beliefs, which in turn lead to increased perseverance.
Assigned goals influence personal goals through goal acceptance and
commitment, and serve to establish normative expectations around which
personal goals can evolve[9, p. 83]. The setting of assigned goals has an impact
on self-efficacy. Goals which are set too high result in performance failure and
can have a negative impact on self-efficacy and future performance, whereas
goals which are easily attainable create a false sense of self-efficacy and lead to
rapid discouragement in the face of failure. Taking self-efficacy beliefs into
account, assigned goals which are challenging yet attainable are considered to
lead both to the highest performance levels and conjointly to resilient selfefficacy
beliefs[3, p. 475].
Personal goals are determined in part by self-efficacy beliefs[2, p. 258]. Selfefficacy
beliefs are suggested to influence the choice of, degree of challenge and
commitment to personal goals. The interactive and ongoing relationship
between self-efficacy beliefs and their influence on personal goal setting, selfevaluation
of performance and feedback against such goals, and subsequent
adjustment of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goals is a central mechanism
ascribed to the self-regulation system of social cognitive theory. Enhanced selfefficacy
beliefs lead to the setting of more challenging goals and diminished
self-efficacy beliefs lead to more modest goal setting and a more realistic and
attainable motivational framework.
Self-efficacy, goal setting and performance
The preceding discussion illuminates self-efficacy beliefs as a major mediation
factor in relation to personal goal-setting and performance. Assigned
(externally imposed) goals are assumed to play a dual role of establishing
performance standards on which task-specific self-efficacy beliefs are judged
and evolve, and setting normative standards which establish, through goal
acceptance and commitment, a basis for congruency between personal goals
and organizational goals. It is a basic assumption of this theory that conditions
of congruency between personal goals and organizational goals (high

organizational commitment) which are challenging but attainable, matched
with strong self-efficacy beliefs will lead to high motivation and performance
levels. Conversely, incongruence between personal and organizational goals
(which are either easily attainable or unattainable and unrealistic) and low
levels of self-efficacy are all considered to be predictors of diminished
motivation and decremental performance. Self-efficacy is seen to be the critical
component, representing the person’s evaluation of his/her capabilities against
external standards (organizational goals) and a principal basis for the
establishment and re-adjustment of personal goals. Strengthening self-efficacy
beliefs through the control of various external factors (such as information
content and quality of task experience) and the careful management of
organizational goal setting is considered as the direction to take, leading to
higher motivation and organizational performance. Relevant organizational
performance characteristics such as setting challenging work goals, rapid
learning of new skills, high and sustained task effort and persistence in the face
of setbacks, obstacles and failures are all associated with strong self-efficacy
beliefs.
Given the proposition that self-efficacy beliefs play a central role in human
self-regulation and have strong directive influences on personal goal setting,
and that self-efficacy beliefs are strong predictors of both motivation and
performance in organizational settings[3, p. 472], the possibility of transferring
self-efficacy theory into the workplace is an important human resource
management consideration in determining its usefulness to organizational
practices. The following section examines self-efficacy theory from the point of
view of its human resource management application and utility in
organizational settings.
Self-efficacy as a
mediator
41
Self-efficacy and human resources management
This section of the research will examine selection, training, performance
appraisal and absenteeism, as significant human resource management
variables affecting and being affected by self-efficacy. In an article examining
the application of social cognitive theory to organizational environments, Wood
and Bandura[5, p. 380] state:
Social cognitive theory provides explicit guidelines about how to equip people with the
competencies, the self-regulatory capabilities, and the resilient sense of efficacy that will
enable them to enhance both their well-being and their accomplishments.
Further to this, Gist identified possible implications and applications for human
resources management but emphasized the lack of empirical evidence from
applied settings to validate the relationship between self-efficacy and
performance[3, p. 478]. More recently, Gist and Mitchell[7, p. 207] suggest that
“the significance of self-efficacy for motivation and performance in work
settings has been well demonstrated”, and offer specific strategies for changing
self-efficacy beliefs. On the strength of this research, self-efficacy appears to be
moving quickly out of the abstract theoretical framework of social cognitive

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
11,3
42
theorists and into the technical repertoire of human resource management
professionals.
Specific areas of human resources management where self-efficacy theory
has been considered, include selection, training needs assessment and training
methodology, performance appraisal, and absenteeism. Each of these areas will
be examined briefly in terms of their utility and adoption to this undertaking.
Selection
The application of self-efficacy in this area of the human resources function is
speculative at best. The possible utility of self-efficacy assessment as a
component of the selection process is proposed in order to identify those
individuals most likely to be high-performers in the future[3, p. 479]. In a study
examining the response of newcomers’ adjustment to organizations, it was
found that when formalized and institutionalized socialization tactics were used
(where organizational commitment and uniformity of behaviour are key
cultural values), those low in self-efficacy developed a considerably stronger
(and desirable) custodial orientation in contrast to those with high selfefficacy[14,
p. 274]. In this study, selection of persons with low self-efficacy was
associated with higher levels of adoption of organizational norms and goals.
This is consistent with the notion of locus of control, where a low sense of
efficaciousness is linked with an external locus of control, a situation where one
might predict a high responsiveness to control of environmental factors such as
that found in formal orientation and socialization programmes. The availability
of assessment tools[18, p. 666] and relative ease of administration opens the
door to further examine the usefulness of self-efficacy measures in the selection
process.
Training needs assessment and training methodology
Perhaps the most extensive application of self-efficacy has been in the area of
training. In addressing needs assessment initially, it can be demonstrated that
knowledge of an employee’s self-efficacy expectations may help to identify
specific training needs which might otherwise go unnoticed and which possibly
hinder improved performance.
Social learning theory contends that people develop expectancies about
their capacity to behave in certain ways and the probability that such
behaviour will result in rewards. The first of these expectancies relates to how
they perceive their own competence, while the second pertains to outcomes
and is analogous to the concepts of expectancy theory. Therefore,
organizational training programmes that rely on films, lectures and roleplaying
techniques (i.e. the vast majority of organization-sponsored training
programmes) are using an approach based on social learning theory
principles. The self-administration of rewards is also an important part of
social learning theory. Modelling, or imitative behaviour, serves as a standard
for administering self-reinforcement in the form of increased personal
satisfaction and enhanced self-image[4, p. 222].

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

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
11,3
44
(3) Step III. Requires practising the skill in the actual setting with support and
guidance until mastery is achieved. Utilizing this approach, successful
skill acquisition under conditions of enhanced self-efficacy is assured.
In a study dealing with the learning of computer software skills, the effectiveness of
modelling was compared with tutorial methods[20, p. 890]. Across all subjects
grouped according to low, medium, or high pre-training computer self-efficacy, the
modelling condition resulted in higher performance, with the low self-efficacy participants
showing the greatest performance increase. This indicates that the use of
modelling under low efficacy conditions is a highly-effective training strategy.
Participants in the modelling scenario also reported more positive working styles,
less negative effect during training, and greater satisfaction with training.
Another key recommendation arising from social cognition theory involves the
strategic provision of information needed to influence the attribution processes
which affect self-efficacy beliefs prior to, during and following training.
Information regarding specific task attributes, complexity, task environment and
the way in which these factors can be controlled, together with information
regarding expected effort, physical, analytical and psychological task demands,
and strategies required to influence performance should be strategically and
appropriately communicated. Through the provision of this information,
concerns related to controllability, the nature of ability, degree of effort required
and the like are addressed maximally, providing the basis for optimal self-efficacy
judgements regarding the “to be learned” skill[7, p. 203]. It is suggested that this
information be provided as an integral part of the training process through
modelling, feedback, and social persuasion.
Feedback during training has been shown to have an impact on the development
of self-efficacy. This was demonstrated in two separate studies, one involving
a pencil-and-paper task[16, p. 49] and the other involving microcomputer
training in an applied setting[21, p. 571]; negative feedback on performance
resulted in decremental self-efficacy beliefs, whereas positive feedback resulted in
enhanced self-efficacy. These findings underline the importance of how feedback
can be provided and the changeable nature of self-efficacy beliefs.
Although the focus in this section has been on formal training situations, the
same principles can be readily applied to management tasks: providing for
subordinates (with reference to the traditional hierarchical model) with realistic
and individually designed goals, supplying information which guides the
attributional process and maximizes self-efficacy, ultimately ensuring positive and
supportive feedback. This approach acknowledges that future performance is
founded on experience, current successes and failures. It also places individual
differences and active thought (cognitive) processes of the individual in the
foreground.
Performance appraisal
Much of the previous discussion lays the groundwork for the specific
implications of self-efficacy theory for the performance appraisal process.

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

Journal of
Managerial
Psychology
11,3
46
area suggests that the leading theories of motivation are getting close to a point
of convergence and possible agreement. In an article undertaken to integrate
the theoretical framework and empirical evidence for goal-setting theory,
expectancy theory, and social-cognitive theory, Locke[17, p. 297] concludes:
All three theories have been quite successful in getting consistently positive results. I would
like to call the goal/self-efficacy/performance linkage the motivational hub … the motivational
hub is where the action is. I would like to suggest that such theoretical convergence indicates
that some fundamental motivational truths have been discovered, viz., that what people do is
powerfully (though not solely) influenced by their goals or intents and by their perceived
confidence in being able to take the actions in question.
On the strength of such a conclusion, there well may be a slow but inevitable
shift in the theoretical framework of motivation and performance, as an integral
mediating function of self-efficacy between goals and performance.
The emergence of self-efficacy as a central concept in motivation theory
coincides and meshes with the dominant trend in North American business: the
movement towards total quality management[22, p. 303]. The common
denominator with all corporate moves to improve quality is organizational
change, whether it be training production employees in quality techniques,
empowering employees with decision-making responsibility, developing
quality circles and self-managed work teams, eliminating management layers,
establishing cross-functional teams, or retraining supervisors to become
coaches. In all of these activities, the need for all employees (who may have been
working in routine job functions for many years) to take on new and unfamiliar
roles and tasks is a critical implication of such change.
Self-efficacy theory has much to offer with respect to understanding the
impact of such change on employees and specific actions to take with respect to
training and retraining communication programmes, feedback systems, and
goal-setting activities. In looking at empowerment, for example, where an
employee would make confident and effective bottom-line decisions, this creates
requirements for that person to have a sense of competence to make that
decision, in other words a strong sense of decision-making self-efficacy.
Assessment and development of that sense of self-efficacy can be viewed as a
parameter for training efforts supported by, for example, guided mastery
training utilizing cognitive modelling. Utilizing this example, the immediate
and relevant application of the self-efficacy concept is an indication of the utility
of the concept for human resource management.
Self-efficacy, as an organizing construct for motivation theory, holds a great
deal of promise for organizational behaviour studies in general but not
exclusively in the area of human resources development and performance. It
is, however, a construct in need of a more accessible name. Efficacy is a rare
word to begin with: taking it one step further as a self-concept probably
makes it inaccessible to most people. This is unfortunate, considering that
people need to accommodate the label and relate it unambiguously to the
conceptual notion it stands for before they can fully integrate it into a usable
knowledge framework. Hopefully, this will not inhibit the transfer of theory
into practice.

References
1. Campbell, J.P., “Personnel training and development”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 22, 1971, pp. 565-95.
2. Bandura, A., “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 248-87.
3. Gist, M.E., “Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, 1987, pp. 472-85.
4. Vecchio, R.P. and Appelbaum, S.H., Managing Organizational Behavior: A Canadian
Perspective, Dryden-Harcourt Brace & Company Canada, 1995, pp. 222-3.
5. Wood, R. and Bandura, A., “Social cognitive theory of organizational management”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, 1989, pp. 361-84.
6. Wood, R., Bandura, A. and Bailey, T., “Mechanisms governing organizational performance
in complex decision-making environments”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 46, 1990, pp. 181-201.
7. Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R., “Self-efficacy, a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, 1992, pp. 183-211.
8. Gist, M.E., “The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among
managers”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42, 1989, pp. 787-805.
9. Earley, P.C. and Lituchy, T.R., “Delineating goal and efficacy effects: a test of three models”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 1, 1991, pp. 81-98.
10. Latham, G.P. and Frayne, C.S., “Self-management training for increasing job attendance: a
follow-up and a replication”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, 1989, pp. 411-16.
11. Hill, L.A. and Elias, J., “Retraining midcareer managers: career history and self-efficacy
beliefs”, Human Resources Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, Summer 1990, pp. 197-217.
12. Lee, R.T. and Ashforth, E.B., “On the meaning of Maslach’s three dimensions of burnout”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6, 1990, pp. 743-7.
13. Lee, C. and Gillen, D.J., “Relationship of Type A behavior pattern, self-efficacy perceptions
on sales performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, 1989, pp. 75-81.
14. Jones, G.R., “Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, 1986, pp. 262-79.
15. Eden, D., “Pygmalion, goal setting, and expectancy: compatible ways to boost
productivity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, 1988, pp. 639-52.
16. Podsakoff, P. M. and Farh, J.-L., “Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and
task performance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 44, 1989,
pp. 45-67.
17. Locke, E.A., “The motivational sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 288-99.
18. Sherer, M., Maddux, J.D., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B. and Rogers, R.W.,
“The self-efficacy scale: construction and validation”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 51, 1982,
pp. 663-71.
19. Tannenbaum, S.L., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A., “Meeting trainees’
expectations: the influence of training fulfilment on the development of commitment, selfefficacy,
and motivation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 6, 1991, pp. 739-69.
20. Gist, M.E., Schwoerer, C. and Rosen, B., “Effects of alternative training methods on selfefficacy
and performance in computer software training”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 74 No. 6, 1989, pp. 884-91.
21. Martocchio, J.J. and Webster, J., “Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on performance
on microcomputer software training”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45, 1992, pp. 553-78.
22. Olian, J.D. and Rynes, S.L., “Making total quality work: aligning organizational processes,
performance measures, and stakeholders”, Human Resources Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
1991, pp. 303-33.
Self-efficacy as a
mediator
47