Running head: SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
1
Self-Efficacy Theory on Work Motivation
Name
Institution
SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
2
Self-Efficacy Theory on Work Motivation
Problem Statement
Research on self-efficacy has largely focused on academic performance while minimally
looking at effect of the theory on work motivation (Çetin and Aşkun, 2018; Touré‐Tillery &
Fishbach, 2014). This creates a gap in the current literature regarding the effect of self-efficacy
as a promoter of work motivation in behavioral change. Work motivation research has shown
that self-efficacy is correlated with high motivation for work (Peterson, 2020). The attenuated
differences among workers, however, depend on the context in which the workers operate.
Similarly, Çetin and Aşkun (2018) researched connection between self-efficacy and work
performance, including intrinsic motivation as a mediator. However, suggestions for further
research in these studies show the need for identification of the value of self-efficacy in behavior
change.
While research on self-efficacy effects on performance has been conducted, its’
effectiveness on behavior change has not been adequately studied hence leaving a gap in the
literature. Many managers and leaders work to change the attitudes and approaches of their
workers towards better performance. Current literature fails to adequately study whether the selfefficacy theory can be used in creating extrinsic motivation for staff for behavioral change. This
research identifies the apparent gap in the literature and seeks to fill it through mixed-methods
study of the theory’s effectiveness.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to explore the connection between self-efficacy and motivation for
behavioral change in organizational settings. The research paradigm will be a mixed method
SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
3
approach employing quasi-experimental and observational designs to determine the effects of
self-efficacy on behavioral change and the mediating role of motivation.
Research Questions
1. How does self-efficacy theory explain work motivation as a promoter for behavioral
change?
2. What is the effects of self-efficacy on behavioral change?
3. Does extrinsic motivation mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and behavioral
change?
Several constructs may be measured in connection to the three research questions. In
question 1, work motivation is a major construct to be measured. In measuring work motivation,
cognitive and affective measures may be used. For instance, goal activation can be measured
using an individual’s ability to remember, recall, and recognize concepts and objects connected
to a specific goal (Touré‐Tillery & Fishbach, 2014). Such cognitive tests can be used to
determine the level of motivation a person has towards their job and work performance. It is
important to measure motivation in all three research questions to quantify it in determining its
mediating role between self-efficacy and behavioral change.
Behavior change is another construct which should be measured when exploring the
research questions. Behavior change can be measured using observable behaviors and tracking
them over time. For example, employee reporting time to work may change over time hence
creating measurable behavior change trends. Similarly, self-efficacy can be measured as the
independent variable. Scales and questionnaires may be used in measuring the construct. For
instance, the Strengths Self-Efficacy Scale (SSES) by Tsai et al. (2014) is a peer-reviewed scale
SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
4
for measuring self-efficacy in day to day activities. These questionnaires are important for
standardizing behavior and assessing self-efficacy as a construct.
Hypotheses
The research problem is determining the mediating effect of motivation in using self-efficacy to
promote behavioral change in an organizational work environment.
1. How does self-efficacy theory explain work motivation as a promoter for behavioral
change?
Hypothesis: Self-efficacy can be increased through extrinsic motivation resulting in a positive
behavioral change.
Extrinsic motivation is a covariate variable affecting self-efficacy and leading to behavioral
change.
2. What is the effects of self-efficacy on behavioral change?
Null hypothesis H0: Self-efficacy has no significant correlation with behavioral change among
workers
Alternative hypothesis Ha: Self-efficacy has a positive correlation with behavioral change
among workers
3. Does extrinsic motivation mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and behavioral
change?
Null hypothesis H0: Extrinsic motivation has no significant effects on the correlation between
self-efficacy and behavioral change among workers
Alternative hypothesis Ha: Extrinsic motivation has a significant positive effect on the
correlation between self-efficacy and behavioral change among workers
SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
5
SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
6
References
Çetin, F., & Aşkun, D. (2018). The effect of occupational self-efficacy on work performance
through intrinsic work motivation. Management Research Review, 41(2), 186-201.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2017-0062
Peterson, R. A. (2020). Self-efficacy and personal selling: review and examination with an
emphasis on sales performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 40(1),
57-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2019.1654390
Touré‐Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2014). How to measure motivation: A guide for the
experimental social psychologist. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 328341. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12110
Tsai, C. L., Chaichanasakul, A., Zhao, R., Flores, L. Y., & Lopez, S. J. (2014). Development and
validation of the strengths self-efficacy scale (SSES). Journal of Career
Assessment, 22(2), 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713493761
Method Section
write the “Method Section” of your paper. Consider research methodologies and designs
appropriate to solve your research problem. Then decide which research paradigm, i.e.,
qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methodology, you plan to use in your study. In addition,
describe your strategies for data collection and analysis. Below are key areas you need to address
to complete the Methods Section.
Participants (1–2 pages)
● Population
o Define the population.
o State criteria for selecting participants.
o State population size (if known) or approximate/estimated size.
● Sample and Sampling Procedures
o Identify and justify the type of sampling strategy.
o Explain specific procedures for how the sample will be drawn.
▪ Sampling frame (Inclusion and exclusion criteria)
o Use a power analysis to determine sample size and include:
▪ Justification for the effect size, alpha level, and power level chosen
▪ Citation of the source of calculation or the tool used to calculate sample
size
Procedures (1–2 pages)
● Procedures For Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection (students
collecting their own data)
o Thoroughly describe recruiting procedures and particular demographic
information that will be collected.
o Describe how participants will be provided informed consent.
o Describe how data are collected.
o Explain how participants exit the study (for example, debriefing procedures, etc.).
o Describe any follow-up procedures (such as requirements to return for follow-up
interviews, treatments, etc.).
● Procedures For Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection (students using
archival data)
o Include all procedures for recruitment, participation, and/or data collection
associated with the main study.
o Describe the bounds of the data to be extracted (e.g., records from 2005-2008).
o Describe the procedure for gaining access to the data.
o Describe necessary permissions to gain access to the data (with permission letters
located in the IRB application).
Measures/Instrumentation (2–3 pages)
● Instrumentation and Operationalization of Constructs
o Identify each data collection instrument and source (published or researcher
produced)
o For published instruments provide:
▪ Name of developer(s)
▪ Appropriateness to the current study
▪ Mention of permission from developer to use which permission letter
included in the appendix
▪ Published reliability and validity values relevant to their use in the study
▪ Where/with what populations used previously and how validity/reliability
are/were established in the study sample
o For researcher-developed instruments provide:
▪ Basis for development
● Literature sources
● Other bases (such as pilot study)
● Evidence of reliability (internal consistency, test-retest, etc.)
● Evidence of construct validity
▪ Establish sufficiency of instrumentation to answer research questions
o For studies involving an intervention or the manipulation of the IV:
▪ Identify materials/programs applied as treatment or manipulation.
▪ Provide information on the developer of the
materials/programs/manipulations.
● If published, state where, how, and with what populations used
previously
● If researcher developed, state basis for development and how
developed.
▪ Provide evidence that another agency will sponsor intervention studies
(such as clinical interventions).
o Operationalization: For each variable describe:
▪ Its operational definition
▪ How each variable is measured or manipulated
▪ How the variable/scale score is calculated and what the scores represent
Data Analysis Plan (1–2 pages)
o Identify software used for analyses.
o Provide explanation of data cleaning and screening procedures as appropriate to
the study.
o Restate the research questions and hypotheses here as written in Chapter 1.
o Describe in detail the analysis plan including the elements below including:
▪ Statistical tests that will be used to test the hypothesis
▪ Rationale for inclusion of potential covariates / confounding variables
▪ How results will be interpreted (key parameter estimates, confidence
intervals/probability values, odds ratios, etc.)
Running head: Background
1
Introduction
Work motivation is a critical factor determining employee willingness to cultivate
their efforts toward achieving organizational and individual professional goals. Motivated
employees tend to find satisfaction in their jobs, and in return, give their best in
accomplishing organizational goals. For decades, psychologists have been studying
motivation theories and coming up with different models that can be used to understand work
motivation (Badubi, 2017). While this project aims to develop background information on the
self-efficacy theory of work motivation, it is essential to look at other relevant theories that
apply to work motivation and how they either supplement or complement each other. It is
worth noting that several motivational theories can be used to work motivation. However,
this section will look at some of the standard and widespread theories. Some of the theories
include Hertzberg's two-factor theory, the Hawthorne effect, the three-dimensional theory of
attribution, and the Porter-Lawler model. The two-factor theory explains that employees are
motivated to perform better when the incentives like achievement, recognition, the job itself,
responsibility, and advancement led to job satisfaction (Badubi, 2017). Hertzberg proposed
this theory after conducting a study on 200 accountants and 50 engineers about what makes
an individual happy (Alshmemri, 2017).
The three-dimensional attribution theory by Bernard Weiner assumes that individuals
attempt to attach reasons to how other people act, which in turn affects their behaviors in the
future (M. Badubi, 2017). On the other hand, the Hawthorne theory, first described by Henry
a. Landsberger in 1950, shows that when employees perceive a certain level of attention
directed towards them, then they become motivated and perform better. Lastly, the PorterLawler model is a comprehensive and more complete motivation theory, inclusive of diverse
aspects (M. Badubi, 2017). Hence, it is notable that the factors or situations that can either
impede or facilitate work motivation are several. Each of them focuses on either a single
Background
2
aspect or a wide array of issues. However, self-efficacy theory, which can be defined as a
person's trust in their ability to show behaviors needed to attain explicit performance
accomplishments, focuses more on individual-based factors than physical characteristics, as
is familiar with most theories. The proposed study's main objective is to provide a clear
understanding of the self-efficacy theory and how it works as a work motivation factor in
facilitating behavior change through literature review. This theory is significant within the
workplace setting because it can be activated by factors such as word of mouth to achieve
specific outcomes.
Zeigler-hill and Shackelford (2020) define self-efficacy as one of the most common
and often researched cognitive theories of motivation. Since this study's main objective is to
provide a clear understanding of the self-efficacy theory and how it works as a work
motivation factor in facilitating behavior change, it is essential to understand the fundamental
features. The authors argued that the two critical components of behavior are anticipated selfefficacy and expectancies-perceived positive and negative consequences. They claimed that
the self-efficacy theory provides a comprehensive basis, which can partially house the
impacts of self-talk on performance and provide a basis for motivating employees to achieve
the best for themselves and the company.
The study on the direct and indirect relationship between job satisfaction,
productivity, and overall work motivation has been well documented. Chan et al. (2015)
studied the mediating role of self-efficacy and work-life balance of job and family
satisfaction. Through empirical analysis of 12-month apart data collection from a
heterogeneous sample of Australian employees, the employees found that self-efficacy had an
indirect impact on employee motivation. Based on the study outcomes, job satisfaction had a
positive relationship with motivation by promoting the work-life balance-a flexible way of
balancing between work and life, commonly used as a motivational mechanism. This is an
Background
3
indication of the significance of self-efficacy on achieving productivity and enhanced job
satisfaction.
Self-efficacy can be applied in the learning institution to determine what makes
students perform better in technical sources like information technology. The basis for such
studies is to determine the overall impact of this motivation theory across several
frameworks, upon which similar findings can be translated into human resource contexts to
formulate strategies for successful task performance and job satisfaction. Hatlevik,
Throndsen, Loi, and Gudmundsdottir (2018) conducted a study to determine how selfefficacy can be contextualized with information and communication technology in 15
countries, using data from the international computer and information literacy study 2013.
Based on the study outcomes, the authors established a clear positive relationship between
computer literacy and self-efficacy when variables such as gender-based issues and socioeconomic factors are controlled. Such findings are in line with those of Ireland, c. (2016).
The latter reported on the significance of self-efficacy in reducing oral presentation
apprehension in public speaking among students. The author noted that "focuses on the
development of self-efficacy, which has been identified to be a key area for reducing oral
communication apprehension in public speaking contexts" (1474). The study's
contextualization provides a basis that can be used in the application of self-efficacy theory in
work motivation; after all, learning is a form of work that requires the motivation to achieve
success.
When compared with other theoretical models of motivation, self-efficacy is
associated with success, not only in the context of work motivation but coming back from
success. Hsu, Wiklund, and Cotton (2017) conducted an empirical assessment to determine
the conflicting predictions of self-efficacy and prospect theory in the context of success and
failure for failed entrepreneurial attempts. The evaluation's basis was to determine the
Background
4
motivational incentives that promote successful or failed reentry into a market where one had
failed before. The study outcomes indicated that "prospect theory explains reentry intentions
of entrepreneurs who have lost money when their self–efficacy is moderate or low."
However, the study results were based on only two empirical research outcomes, which is a
relatively smaller sample size to determine the validity and generalizability of the study
conclusions.
Similar to the findings of Hsu, Wiklund, and Cotton (2017), other studies have
compared self-efficacy theory and its significance as physical activity (pa) behavior. In
research that involved comparing between personal activity and self-efficacy models, (Lewis,
Williams, Frayeh & Marcus, 2015) shown that enjoyment seeking attributes overcame the
need for achieving self-efficacy in physical activity performances and that the focus for
interventions should be on promoting or strengthening perceived enjoyment, rather than the
self-efficacy aspect of the motivational approach. However, the scholars noted a gap in
understanding the relationship between self-efficacy and perceived enjoyment and their
overall effect on physical activity, leaving a window for further studies. The implications of
such studies on self-efficacy and physical activity as a motivational factor can be related to
the findings of Romain and Bernard (2018). The duo reported on the significance of
psychological, motivational interventions to promote physical activity among mentally ill
patients. Through self-efficacy, the patients see the value for being active participants, dive
into the activities, and use their perceived ability as the driving force towards long-term
success. Hence, both findings on the effects of pa seem to contradict each other, but show the
potential for the theory on work motivation.
Ozyilmaz, Erdogan, and Karaeminogullari (2017) looked at the link between
individual's trust with oneself abilities, or self-efficacy, have a significant relationship with
the trust on the organizational process, and creates an overall effect on behavioral attitude on
Background
5
their respective tasks, with positive relations leading to better outcomes. In other words, high
trust in organization buffers the impacts self‐efficacy has on intentions to terminate their
employment. Hence, as the authors put it, the findings show that "the motivational value of
trust in oneself is stronger to the degree to which employees also have high trust in the
system, whereas low trust in the system neutralizes the motivational benefits of self‐efficacy"
(p. 181).
Motivation is an outcome of confidence in one's ability to succeed in any activity.
This is the conclusion of a study to investigate self-efficacy's role in performance (Stankov,
Kleitman & Jackson, 2015). The trio argues that the trait of confidence has a high correlation
with self-efficacy, citing the relationship between the two and how each impacts each other.
In contrast, confidence has high validity in their predictive abilities. Self-efficacy tends to lag
in that power. Specifically, they argue that while self-efficacy is domain-oriented, confidence
is comprehensive and cuts across several domains. Regardless, they conclude that while the
two might have distinctions based on factors such as predictive power, broadness, and
practical functionality, the two are in some aspects related, especially in terms of
motivational applicability. People who believe that they can do specific tasks are said to have
a strong efficacy, similar to those who believe in achieving positive outcomes from executing
the task.
Physical actions are a response to the processes that take place in the human brain. An
individual can perform an act if the biological response is favorable to the brain nerve cell
simulations. This forms the basis for the definition of allostatic self-efficacy, which is a
metacognitive layer that updates beliefs about the brain's capacity to successfully regulate
bodily states (Stephan et al., 2016). The authors performed an in-depth analysis of allostatic
self-efficacy, which is arguably the foundations for the neurological processes behind the
perceived ability to execute responsibilities. The study findings indicate an opportunity for
Background
6
understanding depression and fatigue, factors that are associated with situations that
demoralize an individual to perform specific tasks.
Applying the self-efficacy successfully in the workplace as a motivational approach to
increase productivity requires understanding how to disentangle motivation from selfefficacy. Most of the studies that have been reviewed in this section seem to focus on the
overall implications of self-efficacy without going deep into how it helps achieve motivation.
In disentangling motivation from self-efficacy: implications for measurement, theorydevelopment, and intervention, Stephan et al. (2016) provide something unique: the approach
that can be used to harness motivation from self-efficacy. This is significant because while
some people can understand self-efficacy literally and accept that they can perform some
activities, they may lack the ability to do so due to lack of capabilities such as physical
strength or intellectual capacity, and may require a different approach and motivation.
A social cognitive theory of self-regulation encompasses another central mechanism
of self-directedness that exerts a substantial impact on human thought, affect, motivation, and
action. This is the self-efficacy mechanism, which plays a central role in the exercise of
personal agency. It is a crucial factor in self-regulation and a driver for causal processes. Selfregulation plays a critical role in behavioral activities' motivation apart from forming the
basis for purposeful behaviors. These are some of the main arguments that form the
foundation of a study by Usher and Schunk (2018) in the social cognitive theoretical
perspective of self-regulation. Self-efficacy is among the social cognitive theories that
explain human behavior and self-regulation.
The integration of technology in the teaching platform can be of significance in
helping employees improve their self-efficacy, motivating them to work towards reaching the
organizations' objectives as they strengthen their professional abilities. This in line with the
Background
7
arguments of (Mertasari & Candiasa, 2019). Using the case of mathematics teachers in the
education sectors, the authors found that including the teachers in the teaching community's
online platform increases their self-efficacy, which translates into a motivated workforce to
deliver their best. Technology opens up new learning opportunities and helps the workforce
gain an information-based experience in what they do, allowing them to focus on maximizing
their outputs (Getachew & Birhane, 2016). Hence, it applies across both workers and
employees and has an overall effect on organizational performance.
As a model for work motivation, self-efficacy theory is attached to its ability to
modify and facilitate job satisfaction, organizational perception, and task execution. These
are the conclusions of (Machmud, 2018) in the influence of self-efficacy on satisfaction and
work-related performance. The study's primary arguments were that self-efficacy, through
high job satisfaction and positive attitudes towards organizational processes, help improve
performance. Based on a survey-based data collection and a structural equation-based data
analysis using the SmartPLS 3 program, the author found that "self-efficacy improves the
employee's perceptions regarding relationships with work and satisfaction in work," which
enables them to work towards accomplishing the long-term organizational goals.
In almost all of the above articles, the significance of self-efficacy at work has been
based on the cognitive and task-based dimensions. Loeb (2016) took a different approach
towards explaining the implications of self-efficacy on work outcomes. The author looked at
the social and emotional dimensions, alongside the cognitive context. Expanding on the other
two dimensions, Loeb notes, will expand existing research on the implications of selfefficacy as a work motivation tool that can be used to achieve both short-term and long-term
success.
Background
8
Intrinsic motivation is the belief that to perform a particular task, one must be
motivated. This belief is the foundation of the self-efficacy theory. Understanding this notion,
Dabas and Pandey (2015) argued that human resources should understand how best to
increase employee motivation. The claim that among the factors that determine self-efficacy
is the work environment, which also significantly impacts performance, motivation, and
productivity. Creating a diverse workplace culture, supporting talent development, and
employee development opportunities create a workplace environment that supports selfefficacy, motivating employees to stay and increase their productivity.
Self-efficacy is not all about benefiting the organization; it is a tool that can be used to
develop talent and accomplish individual goals. Work motivation is not all about increasing
productivity but growing career expertise and developing professional abilities. An employee
with a high level of self-efficacy is most likely to achieve more than those who lack the
confidence in achieving what they want. These are arguments presented by Khalique and
Singh (2019). The authors argue that despite performance being at the center of employee
motivation through increased self-efficacy, the results do not always need to be traced to the
organization's profit margin, public value, or success, but how best the employee meets their
individual goals. These goals include decision making and problem-solving skills, team
management, and people relations, among other factors. After all, a motivated employee
without the best decision-making skill has a limited chance of attaining long-term
organizational success.
Organizations should differentiate between self-efficacy and self-esteem as these are
terms that can be easily confused. However, most importantly, to achieve the best outcomes
in employing this theory of motivation, there is a need to identify self-efficacy deficiencies
among employees and design the best approaches to cultivate them. Widyawati (2020)
supports the strategic employment of measures to improve employees' confidence in
Background
9
executing specific tasks for optimal performance. Making self-efficacy development a
priority helps nurture each one's confidence, increase employee performance, and improve
organizational productivity.
Several studies have shown a high potential of achieving high productivity, talent
development, employee retention, and overall improved performance through self-efficacy.
However, some studies have shown otherwise, with areas of improvement, such as a need for
research on the relationship between perceived enjoyment and self-efficacy and their impact
on motivation to work harder on achieving the best outcomes in PA. Studies that have
compared self-efficacy theory on motivation with other motivation theories like prospect
theory, attributions theory, and several others have shown a mixture of findings, with some
contradicting other outcomes. Nonetheless, self-efficacy is a component of each person's
existence, although this trait's strength or awareness varies. With the self-efficacy theory,
employees and organizations have a great deal of attaining better outcomes in their daily
processes and life encounters (Çetin & Aşkun, 2018). It only requires identifying the areas an
employee is good at and investing in making the best of it through improved self-efficacy.
Conclusion
As we begin developing and having different educational encounters, our feeling of
self keeps on fortifying itself. Good emotions like self-rule, love, and backing from family,
instruction, and consolation go about as impetuses to self-efficacy. An individual with high
self-efficacy is bound to feel sure, see disappointments as chances to attempt once more, and
an extraordinary group entertainer. Self-efficacy continues developing all through life as we
obtain new abilities, have new encounters, face challenges, and continue investing energy to
succeed. It is significant for a representative to manufacture a definite feeling of self-efficacy
to perform well and adapt to difficulties in the work environment.
Background
10
References
Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L., & Maude, P. (2017). Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life
Science Journal, 14(5), 12-16.
Badubi, R. M. (2017). Theories of motivation and their application in organizations: A risk
analysis. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 3(3), 43-50.
https://doi.org/doi: 10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.33.2004
Beauchamp, M. R. (2016). Disentangling motivation from self-efficacy: Implications for
measurement, theory-development, and intervention. Health Psychology Review,
10(2), 129-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1162666
Çetin, F., & Aşkun, D. (2018). The effect of occupational self-efficacy on work performance
through intrinsic work motivation. Management Research Review, 41(2), 186-201.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2017-0062
Chan, X. W., Kalliath, T., Brough, P., Siu, O., O'Driscoll, M. P., & Timms, C. (2016). Work–
family enrichment and satisfaction: The mediating role of self-efficacy and work–life
balance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(15), 1755-1776.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1075574
Dabas, D., & Pandey, N. (2015). Dabas, D., & Pandey, N. (2015). Role of self efficacy and
intrinsic motivation on work place environment. International Journal of Education
Background
11
and Psychological Research, 4(1), 51-55.
http://ijepr.org/panels/admin/papers/159ij12.pdf
Getachew, K., & Birhane, A. (2016). Improving students’ self-efficacy and academic
performance in Applied Mathematics through innovative classroom-based strategy at
Jimma University, Ethiopia Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 4(1), 119-143.
https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-4(1)-2016pp119-143
Hatlevik, O. E., Throndsen, I., Loi, M., & Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2018). Students’ ICT selfefficacy and computer and information literacy: Determinants and relationships.
Computers & Education, 118, 107-119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.011
Klaas, E. S., Zina, M. M., Christoph, D. M., Lilian A.E. Weber, Paliwal, S., Gard, T.,
Tittgemeyer, M., Stephen, M. F., Haker, H., Anil, K. S., & Frederike, H. P. (2016).
Allostatic self-efficacy: A metacognitive theory of dyshomeostasis-induced fatigue
and depression. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00550
Hsu, D., Wiklund, J., & Cotton, R. (2017). Success, failure, and entrepreneurial reentry: An
experimental assessment of the veracity of self–efficacy and prospect
theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 19-47. doi: 10.1111/etap.12166
Ireland, C. (2016). Student Oral Presentations: Developing Skills and Reducing the
Apprehension. Inted2016 Proceedings, 10(11), 1474–1483.
https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2016.1317
Background
12
Khalique., S., & Singh., M.K. (2019). Role of Self Efficacy in Improving Employees
Performance. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (Ijert)
Ncriets 7 (12)
Lewis, B. A., Williams, D. M., Frayeh, A., & Marcus, B. H. (2016). Self-efficacy versus
perceived enjoyment as predictors of physical activity behaviour. Psychology &
Health, 31(4), 456-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2015.1111372
Loeb, C. (2016). Self-Efficacy at Work: Social, Emotional, And Cognitive Dimensions.
Mälardalen University Press.
Machmud, S. (2018). The influence of self-efficacy on satisfaction and work-related
performance. International Journal of Management Science and Business
Administration, 4(4), 43-47. doi: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.44.1005
Mertasari, N., & Candiasa, I. (2020). Improving self-efficacy in the teaching of prospective
mathematics teachers by involving them in the online teacher community. Paper
presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series, , 1516(1) 012038. doi:
10.1088/1742-6596/1516/1/012038
Mustika, I. N., & Widyawati, S. R. (2020). The influence of employee engagement, self
esteem, self-efficacy on employee performance in small business. International
Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, 11(04), 21771–21775-21771–21775.
Ozyilmaz, A., Erdogan, B., & Karaeminogullari, A. (2018). Trust in organization as a
moderator of the relationship between self‐efficacy and workplace outcomes: A social
cognitive theory‐based examination. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 91(1), 181-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12189
Background
13
Romain, A. J., & Bernard, P. (2018). Behavioral and psychological approaches in exercisebased interventions in severe mental illness. In B. Stubbs, & S. Rosenbaum (Eds.),
Exercise-based interventions for mental illness physical activity as part of clinical
treatment (pp. 187-207). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12812605-9.00010-1
Stankov, L., Kleitman, S., & Jackson, S. A. (2015). Measures of the trait of confidence. In G.
J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske & G. Matthews (Eds.), (pp. 158-189). Elsevier Academic
Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00007-3
Usher, E. L., & Schunk, D. H. (2018). Social cognitive theoretical perspective of selfregulation. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook
series. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 19–35).
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Widyawati, S. (2020). The Influence of Employee Engagement, Self Esteem, Self-Efficacy
on Employee Performance in Small Business. International Journal of Contemporary
Research and Review, 11(04). doi: 10.15520/ijcrr.v11i04.799
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2020). Encyclopedia of Personality and
Individual Differences. Self-Efficacy Theory, 56–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-28099-8
Running head: Introduction
1
Introduction: Self-efficacy theory
Some of the factors that limit people from achieving their goals, objectives, or
responsibilities; both professional and personal lack of trust in one's ability. They lack the
motivation to go beyond their doubts towards achieving the required or expected goals.
However, with good self-esteem and believe that they can do so, individuals have been found
to have a high potential of achieving more outstanding outcomes. One of the theories used to
explain the possibility or the potentiality of an individual to achieve more remarkable results
is the self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy can be defined as a person’s trust in their ability to
show behaviors needed to attain explicit performance accomplishments.
The proposed study's main objective is to provide a clear understanding of the selfefficacy theory and how it works as a work motivation factor in facilitating behavior change.
Self-efficacy theory is a part of Bandura's (1997) social cognitive theory. The two critical
features of behavior are anticipated self-efficacy and expectancies-perceived positive and
negative consequences. This theory is significant within the workplace setting because it can
be activated by factors such as word of mouth to achieve specific outcomes.
Hence, the selection of this topic relies on two primary factors. First, this theory has
been central in the context of human motivation and can easily be applied across several
workplace settings based on this feature. Secondly, the self-efficacy theory provides a
comprehensive basis, which can partially house the impacts of self-talk on performance.
Although verbal persuasion impacts are limited in promoting productivity on performance,
Bandura and others have noted its significance as a self-efficacy source.
Introduction
2
Reference Section
Beauchamp, M. R. (2016). Disentangling motivation from self-efficacy: implications for
measurement, theory-development, and intervention. Health Psychology Review,
10(2), 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1162666
Çetin, F., & Aşkun, D. (2018). The effect of occupational self-efficacy on work performance
through intrinsic work motivation. Management Research Review, 41(2), 186-201.
doi: 10.1108/mrr-03-2017-0062
Chan, X. W., Kalliath, T., Brough, P., Siu, O.-L., O'Driscoll, M. P., & Timms, C. (2015).
Work-family enrichment and satisfaction: the mediating role of self-efficacy and
work-life balance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
27(15), 1755–1776. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1075574
Dabas, D., & Pandey, N. (2015). Role of Self Efficacy and Intrinsic Motivation on Work
Place Environment. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research
(IJEPR), 4(1), 52-55. Retrieved from http://ijepr.org/panels/admin/papers/159ij12.pdf
Getachew, K., & Birhane, A. (2016). Improving students’ self-efficacy and academic
performance in Applied Mathematics through innovative classroom-based strategy at
Jimma University, Ethiopia. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 4(1), 119. doi:
10.18543/tjhe-4(1)-2016pp119-143
Hatlevik, O., Throndsen, I., Loi, M., & Gudmundsdottir, G. (2018). Students’ ICT selfefficacy and computer and information literacy: Determinants and
relationships. Computers & Education, 118, 107-119. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.011
Introduction
3
Hsu, D., Wiklund, J., & Cotton, R. (2017). Success, Failure, and Entrepreneurial Reentry: An
Experimental Assessment of the Veracity of Self–Efficacy and Prospect
Theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 19-47. doi:
10.1111/etap.12166
Ireland, C. (2016). Student Oral Presentations: Developing the Skills and Reducing the
Apprehension. Inted2016 Proceedings, 10(11), 1474–1483.
https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2016.1317
Khalique., S., & Singh., M.K. (2019). Role of Self Efficacy in Improving Employees
Performance. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (Ijert)
Ncriets 7 (12)
Lewis, B., Williams, D., Frayeh, A., & Marcus, B. (2015). Self-efficacy versus perceived
enjoyment as predictors of physical activity behaviour. Psychology & Health, 31(4),
456-469. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2015.1111372
Loeb, C. (2016). Self-Efficacy at Work: Social, Emotional, And Cognitive Dimensions.
Mälardalen University Press.
M. Badubi, R. (2017). Theories of Motivation and Their Application in Organizations: A
Risk Analysis. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 3(3),
44-51. doi: 10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.33.2004
Machmud, S. (2018). The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Satisfaction and Work-Related
Performance. International Journal of Management Science and Business
Administration, 4(4), 43-47. doi: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.44.1005
Introduction
4
Mertasari, N., & Candiasa, I. (2020). Improving self-efficacy in the teaching of prospective
mathematics teachers by involving them in the online teacher community. Journal Of
Physics: Conference Series, 1516, 012038. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1516/1/012038
Ozyilmaz, A., Erdogan, B., & Karaeminogullari, A. (2017). Trust in organization as a
moderator of the relationship between self-efficacy and workplace outcomes: A social
cognitive theory-based examination. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 91(1), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12189
Romain, A., & Bernard, P. (2018). Behavioral and Psychological Approaches in ExerciseBased Interventions in Severe Mental Illness. Exercise-Based Interventions for
Mental Illness, 187-207. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-812605-9.00010-1
Stankov, L., Kleitman, S., & Jackson, S. A. (2015). Measures of the Trait of Confidence.
Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs, 158–189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-386915-9.00007-3
Stephan, K., Manjaly, Z., Mathys, C., Weber, L., Paliwal, S., & Gard, T. et al. (2016).
Allostatic Self-efficacy: A Metacognitive Theory of Dyshomeostasis-Induced Fatigue
and Depression. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10. doi:
10.3389/fnhum.2016.00550
Usher, E. L., & Schunk, D. H. (2018). Social cognitive theoretical perspective of selfregulation. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook
series. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (p. 19–35).
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Widyawati, S. (2020). The Influence of Employee Engagement, Self Esteem, Self-Efficacy
on Employee Performance in Small Business. International Journal of Contemporary
Research and Review, 11(04). doi: 10.15520/ijcrr.v11i04.799
Introduction
5
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2020). Encyclopedia of Personality and
Individual Differences. Self-Efficacy Theory, 56–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-28099-8
Literature Search Strategy
The procedure for locating the identified peer-reviewed articles in the Reference
Section involved two main steps. First, I developed a research question that would guide me
through identifying most of the articles. The research question was: How does self-efficacy
theory explain work motivation as a promoter for behavioural change? Using a "research
question that corresponds with the purpose of your research ... to go to get the information
needed to complete their paper rather than using sources available" is an effective way of
conducting literature search ("Topic, Research Purpose and Research Question", 2018, p. 34).
The research question helped identify articles in databases such as SAGE, Library databases,
ProQuest, and PwC research. Secondly, the procedure was based on the use of keywords,
phrases, and truncated themes: work motivation, behavioural changes, self-efficacy, selfefficacy theory. Using Google Scholar, these keywords and phrases helped capture peerreviewed articles from both narrowed and broad topics.
Introduction
6
References
Bandura, Albert (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman, p. 604,
Topic, Research Purpose and Research Question. (2018). Retrieved 18 August 2020, from
https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/87236_book_item_87236.pdf
Purchase answer to see full
attachment