Background to the construct
Most efforts to measure self-efficacy have focused on a subject's expectations about performing specific tasks or what is referred to as "domain-specific" or "situation-specific" efficacy beliefs. However, researchers such as Sherer et al.Scherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R.W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671. and Chen, Gully, and EdenChen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. have validated general scales with the belief that individuals who have a history of varied and numerous experiences of success can be expected to have positive self-efficacy expectancies in a variety of situations. Accordingly, these expectancies are thought to generalize to actions beyond any specific target behavior. Noted to be a different construct than task-specific self-efficacy, though a possible predictor, general self-efficacy is thought to be a motivational state, whereas task-specific self-efficacy a motivational trait.Eden, D. (1988). Pygmalion, goal setting, and expectancy: Compatible ways to raise productivity. Academy of Management Review, 13, 639–652.Gardner, D.G., & Pierce, J.L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context. Group & Organizational Management, 23, 48–70.Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., & Durham, C.C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluation approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188. Though both share similar antecedents, general efficacy is thought to be more resistant to ephemeral influences and more tied to other self-evaluation constructs such as self-esteem or locus of control.Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T.M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A disposition perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
While the debate on the value of a general self-efficacy construct goes on, there is also the question of whether there might be an intermediate zone between a general expectancy and a specific task domain. In particular, might there be value in defining one's expectations about performance in a general context, such as at work or at school. When it comes to work, for example, there is interest in knowing what makes some workers more capable of adjusting to new work contexts than others. Some administrators of work training and cooperative education programs have also asked what is in the "black box" of training that makes some trainees more successful than others.Ricks, F., Cutt, J., Branton, G. Loken, M., & Van Gyn, G. (1993). Reflections on the cooperative education literature. Journal of Cooperative Education, 29(1), 6–23.
Prior experimentation
There has been reference to work self-efficacy in the literature through such studies as Woodruff and CashmanWoodruff, S.L., & Cashman, J.F. (1993). Task, domain, and general efficacy: A reexamination of the self-efficacy scale. Psychological Reports, 72, 423–432. Bosscher and SmitBosscher, R.J., & Smit, J. H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the general self-efficacy scale. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 36(3), 339–343. Chen and GullyChen, G., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Specific self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and self-esteem: Are they distinguishable constructs? Paper presented at the 57th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston. and Kirk and Brown.Kirk, A.K., & Brown, D. F. (2003). Latent constructs of proximal and distal motivation predicting performance under maximum test conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 40–49. However, the measure used for work-domain self-efficacy in these studies was not derived from any specific theoretical work trying to understand and outline specific dimensions attending to the work context. Rather, these studies in each case chose items from Sherer et al.'s general self-efficacy scale presumed to apply to work. In the Kirk and Brown study, noted above, the work-domain self-efficacy scale was culled to merely 11 items from the general scale, but the authors did not use theory to guide their selection; rather they eliminated items which did not load robustly on the general scale. In examining the Scherer scale, although a few items refer specifically to work ("If I can't do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can"), most do not ("When I make plans, I am certain that I can make them work"). It could be argued that any development of a work self-efficacy inventory should progress on the basis of an explicit selection of items that apply specifically within a work context.
A published article from International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy describes a study constructed on the self-efficiency of adolescent, especially on high school teenagers, with previous work experience. The study showed that those with employment lasting for a firm duration than those with random pattern of employments has a stronger self-efficiency. In turn, the heightened self-efficiency increases the confidence level of young adults for the future anticipations of family lives, community participations, personal health and economic achievements.Cunnien, K.A., & Rogers, N.M., & Mortimer, J.T. (2009). Adolescent work experience and self-efficacy. "International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy", 29 (3/4), 164-175.
Development
Perhaps the first suggestion to consider self-efficacy as a theoretical framework to explain how especially novices adjust to the workplace was by Fletcher,Fletcher, Joyce (1990). Self-esteem and cooperative education: A theoretical framework. Journal of Cooperative Education, 26(3), 41–55. who argued that self-efficacy may help differentiate students making the transition from pupil to practitioner. Specifically, Fletcher suggested that workplace experiences can increase self-efficacy through performance accomplishments, one source of efficacy information. Successful experiences can result in a feedback loop where performance accomplishments lead to increased self-efficacy, which, in turn, enhances a person's performance, further strengthening self-efficacy beliefs.
Numerous research studies have refined and elaborated on the application of self-efficacy theory to career development and workplace learning.Lent, R.W. & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 347–382Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., Talleyrand, R., McPartland, E.B., Davis, T., Chopra, S.B., Alexander, M.S., Suthakaran, V., & Chai, C.M. (2002). Career choice barriers, supports, and coping strategies: College students' experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 61–72. There was nevertheless the task of assembling its constituents. Evidence from the value of cooperative education programs have long suggested that any persistent advantages accruing to participants in these programs are more tied to the non-technical than the technical skills they afford.Van Gyn, G. (1996). Reflective practice: The needs of professions and the promise of cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 30(2–3), 103–132.Martin, E. (1997). The effectiveness of different models of work-based university education. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip9619/front.htm.Weisz, M., Atchison, A., Eakins, P., Gowland, D., Reeders, E., Rizetti, J., & Smith, S. (2001). Student staff partnerships in approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Higher Education Research and Development, 24, 195–205. By non-technical, work training administrators focus on the social skills or what is also referred to as the "soft" skills rather than the hard, subject-matter skills. In turn, authors reference social skills as human relations aptitudes considered critical in interpersonal communication.Carkhuff, R. R. (1969). Helping and human relations: A primer for lay and professional helpers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Argyle, M. Ed. (1981). Social skills and work. London: Methuen.Hargie, O., Saunders, C., & Dickson, D. (1994). Social skills in interpersonal communication, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. The soft skills focus as well on communication competencies, especially empathy and sensitivity, and competencies involving interacting with others, such as teamworking and giving and receiving feedback.Strebler, M. N. (1997). Soft skills and hard questions. People Management, 3(11), 20–25.
The self-efficacy and work performance literatures are helpful in distinguishing some of the other constituents necessary to develop a work self-efficacy scale. We know, for example, that it is not sufficient to "empower" workers and expect improved work performance without considering individual differences that might be differentiated by self-efficacy and related constructs. In particular, workers' learning orientation helps them facilitate achievement of goals that are important to them, evaluate their own competency, and enhance their self-efficacy.Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.Anderson, J.C., Rungthusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method. Academy of Management Review, 19, 472–509.Lee, C., & Bobko. P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 364–369.Phillips, J.M., & Gully, S.M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792–802. Further, efficacy can be augmented by the belief that one has personal control over his or her job situation, much of which emanates from an understanding and determination of one's role expectations.Bandura, A., & Wood, R.E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805–814.Gist, M.E., & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211. Self-efficacy is also shaped by how new workers become socialized into the organization or how, for example, they adjust to the politics of the new organization.Jones, G.R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. Zellars et al.Zellars, K. L., Perrewe, P. L., Rossi, A. M., Tepper, B. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2008). Moderating effects of political skill, perceived control, and job-related self-efficacy on the relationship between negative affectivity and physiological strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 549–571. found that job-related self-efficacy contributed to the political skill necessary to cope with strain relationships inside an organization. Previous research has also found significant relationships between self-efficacy and ability to cope with pressure.Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703. Saks,Saks, A.M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 211–225. for example, found that newcomers with high self-efficacy may be more self-sufficient and capable of coping and surviving entry experiences.