Psychology and Behavioral Sciences

2015; 4(4): 170-173

Published online July 12, 2015 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/pbs)
doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20150404.15
ISSN: 2328-7837 (Print); ISSN: 2328-7845 (Online)

Self Efficacy and Work Performance: A Theoretical

Framework of Albert Bandura's Model, Review of Findings,
Implications and Directions for Future Research
Manasseh N. Iroegbu
Department of psychology, University of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria

Email address:
[email protected]

To cite this article:

Manasseh N. Iroegbu. Self Efficacy and Work Performance: A Theoretical Framework of Albert Bandura's Model, Review of Findings,
Implications and Directions for Future Research. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 4, No. 4, 2015, pp. 170-173.
doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20150404.15

Abstract: The article examined the relationship between Self Efficacy and Work Performance using Albert Bandura's Social
Cognition Theory as a theoretical framework. Bandura's main proposition was that individuals with high self efficacy believe
in themselves and go on to exhibit high performance while individuals with low self efficacy do not have confidence in
themselves and end up with low performance. The review of Iiterature revealed that findings have been varried with some
studies having a positive relationship between self effficacy and work performance, some a negative relationship and some no
relationship between the variables. However it was discovered from the studies that several interveining variables such as
nature of the task, inteligence, personality, skill level, motivation, supervision, training, level of the worker, education, etc
mediated the relationship between self efficacy and work performance. Thus, Bandura's Social Cognition theory has great
implications for the world of work and performance in organisations, but may not necessarily act in isolation, but in
conjunction with other organisational variables to foster optimum job performance.

Keywords: Work Performance, Self Efficacy, Organisations, Social Cognition Theory

According to Bandura’s description of the human

1. Introduction cognitive self-regulation system, self-efficacy beliefs are the
1.1. Theoretical Framework most central and pervasive influence on the choices people
make, their goals, the amount of effort they apply to a
In the past 20 years, there has been a growing research particular task, how long they persevere at a task in the face
interest in the contribution which social learning theory (or of failure or difficulty, the amount of stress they experience
social cognition theory) can make in the area of work and the degree to which they are susceptible to depression.
performance. For example, in an earlier review of personnel Self-efficacy is a central tenet of Albert Bandura’s (1977)
training and development, Campbell believed there was social cognitive theory. Self-efficacy is the belief, or
promise in Bandura’s description of training methodologies confidence, that one can successfully execute a behaviour
which included both modeling and vicarious learning, which required to produce an outcome such that the higher the level
have become central constructs in Bandura’s social cognition of self-efficacy, the more an individual believes he or she can
theory framework. Since that time, extensive empirical execute the behaviour necessary to obtain a particular
evidence has given strong support to the validity and utility outcome (Bandura, 1977). One tends to avoid situations
of social learning theory and to the existence of strong links believed to exceed his or her abilities and get involved,
between task performance, motivation, and self-efficacy. without hesitation, in activities for which he or she feels
Self-efficacy, a social cognition construct (social learning) capable (Bandura, 1977). A central idea posed in social
which refers to a person’s self-beliefs in his or her ability to cognitive theory is that success experiences raise self-
perform specific tasks, has been shown to be a reliable efficacy but repeated failures lower self-efficacy. Moreover,
predictor of both motivation and task performance, and to enhanced self-efficacy, secondary to repeated successes often
influence personal goal setting. generalizes to new situations (Bandura, 1977).
 Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2015; 4(4): 170-173 171

Bandura (1994) described self-efficacy as a person’s successful in work place performance.

judgment of his or her ability to achieve or accomplish an To what extent do empirical evidence, studies and findings
action and supports the importance of a determinant for support this theoretical framework of Bandura 1977 social
behavioural performance. The beliefs that people with high cognitive theory. Here in lies the rationale for this review: to
self-efficacy hold influence on what they feel and think about authenticate Bandura’s theoretical framework and or identify
others, thus motivating them to action. In other words, other variables or constructs that may be directly or indirectly
individuals who are efficacious and capable of performing a involved in the self-efficacy/work performance relationships.
given behaviour are often found to be socially engaged in
rendering supportive services to peers, family relatives and 1.2. Review of Findings
others in a target behaviour more frequently than those ones Lunenburg (2011) posited that self-efficacy (beliefs about
who feel unskilled (Bandura, 1994; Schwarzer & one’s ability to accomplish specific tasks) influences the
Luszczyuska, 2007). tasks employees choose to learn and the goals they set for
For instance, self-efficacy is related to specific situations themselves. Self-efficacy also affects employees’ level of
and tasks, than personality trait, this is because it is rather a effort and persistence when learning difficult tasks. Four
temporary characteristics, because individuals sometimes sources of self-efficacy are past performance, vicarious
identify behaviours that they would like to change and experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional cues. Mainly
activities in which they would like to participate; however, due to the work of Albert Bandura, self-efficacy has a widely
most people do realize that a gap exists between their desire acclaimed theoretical foundation (Bandura, 1986), an
to make a change and their ability to actually put that desire extensive knowledge base (Bandura, 1997; Maddux, 1995,
into action. Self-efficacy plays a critical role in closing the 2002), and a proven record of application in the workplace
gap between thought and action, aiding individuals in (Bandura, 1997, 2004; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Nine
moving towards behavioural changes. People who receive large-scale meta-analyses consistently demonstrated that the
and accept positive verbal encouragement from others efficacy beliefs of organization members contribute
demonstrate a reduction in self-doubt and therefore present a significantly to their level of motivation and performance
higher-self efficacy. Acquiring the ability to minimize (Bandura & Locke, 2003).
negative thoughts and keep a positive outlook when facing Judge et al (2007) in their research estimated the unique
difficult or challenging tasks help individuals achieve a level contribution of self-efficacy to work-related performance
of self-efficacy and lower their negative emotional arousal as controlling for personality (the Big 5 traits), intelligence or
well as social relationships (Bandura, 1994; 1997; Luszynska general mental ability, and job or task experience. Results,
& Scwarzer, 2008; Schwarzar & Luszcynska, 2007). based on a meta-analysis of the relevant literature, revealed
Strong self-efficacy beliefs enhance human that overall, across all studies and moderator conditions, the
accomplishment and personal well-being in many ways. contribution of self-efficacy relative to purportedly more
People with a strong sense of personal competence in a distal variables was relatively small. Within moderator
domain approach difficult task in that domain as challenges categories, there were several cases in which self-efficacy
to be mastered rather than as dangers to be avoided; have made unique contributions to work-related performance. For
great intrinsic interest in activities, set challenging goals and example, self-efficacy predicted performance in jobs or tasks
maintain a strong commitment to them, heighten their efforts of low complexity but not those of medium or high
in the face of failure, more easily recover their confidence complexity, and self-efficacy predicted performance for tasks
after failures or setbacks and attribute failure to insufficient but not for job performance. Overall, results suggested that
effort or deficient knowledge and skills which they believe the predictive validity of self-efficacy was attenuated in the
they are capable of acquiring. High self-efficacy helps create presence of individual differences, though this attenuation
feelings of serenity in approaching difficult tasks and does depend on the context.
activities. Recent theory and research have begun to emphasize the
Conversely, people with low self-efficacy may believe that role of self-efficacy in performance accomplishment. The
things are tougher than they really are, a belief that fosters present study attempted to examine the relationship between
stress, depression and a narrow vision of how best to solve a self-efficacy and work performance. The data were collected
problem. As a result of these influences, self-efficacy beliefs from 300 scientists (150 from National Dairy Research
are strong determinants and predictors of the level of Institute, Karnal and 150 from Agriculture Extension Centers
accomplishment that individual finally attain. For these in Haryana). The results showed significant positive
reasons, Bandura (1997) had made strong claim that beliefs correlation between job specific self-efficacy and work
of personal efficacy constitute the factors of human agency performance. This signified that the higher the job specific
while, self-efficacy in general refers to one’s confidence in self-efficacy, the higher will be the work performance of
executing courses of action in managing a wide array of employees. Comparative analysis done to measure
situations. Work self-efficacy assesses workers’ confidence in differences between the two groups of scientists revealed that
managing work place experiences. The theoretical the two groups did not difer significantly on the measures of
underpinning is that individuals with higher work self- self-efficacy and work performance.
efficacy are more likely to look forward to and to be Gist and Mitchell (1992) in their study posited that the
172 Manasseh N. Iroegbu: Self Efficacy and Work Performance: A Theoretical Framework of Albert Bandura's Model,
Review of Findings, Implications and Directions for Future Research

construct of self-efficacy has received increasing empirical tasks, has been shown to be a reliable predictor of both
attention in the organizational behaviour literature. People motivation and task performance and to influence personal
who think they can perform well on a task do better than goal setting. Despite this, little attention has been given to its
those who think they will fail. Differences in self-efficacy organizational implications. The General Self-Efficacy
were associated with bona fide differences in skill level: questionnaire (GSE), and an Employee Commitment (CM)
however, self-efficacy perception also may be influenced by questionnaire based on the Conversion Model were used as
differences in personality, motivation, performance and the measuring tools. The results of this study indicated that there
task itself. The article reviewed the antecedent processes and was a positive correlation between self-efficacy and
information cues involved in the formation of self-efficacy employee commitment (Ambassador, Career oriented,
and how it influenced performance. A model of the Company oriented). Uncommitted employees showed a
determinants of self-efficacy was proposed that enhances lower level of self-efficacy. Further research from a
understanding of both the complexity and the malleability of predictive validity perspective was suggested in order to
the construct. Determinants that facilitate the most immediate substantiate the findings and to improve the generalizability
change in self-efficacy were identified, and appropriate thereof.
change strategies were highlighted. According to Hax (2000) recruitment consultants today are
Stajkovic and Fred (1998) researched on the self-efficacy faced with considerable stress and challenges as a result of
and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. This meta- their work. They must cope effectively with these challenges
analysis (114 studies, k = 157, N = 21,616) examined the in order to deliver effective job performance, which is crucial
relationship between self-efficacy and work-related to an organization’s survival. In this study the relationship
performance. Results of the primary meta-analysis indicated between sense of coherence, self-efficacy and job
a significant weighted average correlation between self- performance amongst recruitment consultants were
efficacy and work-related performance, G(r±) = .38, and a investigated. The orientation to Life Questionnaire,
significant within-group heterogeneity of individual Generalized Self-efficacy Scale and job performance
correlations. To account for this variation, the authors measure comprising key performance indicators were used.
conducted a 2-level theory-driven moderator analysis by The study was conducted with 99 recruitment consultants at a
petitioning the k sample of correlations first according to the national recruitment organization in South Africa. While a
level of task complexity (low, medium, and high), and then theoretical relationship was determined, this was not
into 2 classes according to the type of study setting supported by the empirical investigation. Relationships did,
(simulated-lab vs. actual-field). New directions for future however, emerge for the comprehensibility component of
theory development and research were suggested, and sense of coherence to job performance total and for two of its
practical implications of the findings were discussed. dimensions (namely customer service and productivity). A
Cherian and Jacob (2013) aimed at performing a meta- regression model, comprising comprehensibility and
analysis which analysed the individual research findings meaningfulness, emerged as a significant predictor of total
which pertained to the relationship between self-efficacy, job performance.
employee motivation and work related performance of the Rubina and Azam (2004) conducted a study to explore the
employees. From the results of the study, it was observed that relationship between teachers’ stress, teachers’ job
self-efficacy theory can be applied to work related performance and self-efficacy of women school teachers. The
performance in terms of motivating different employee study was carried out with a sample of four hundred and
related facets as well as organization pursuits. In this study twenty (420) teachers selected at random at the researcher’s
the researcher attempted to assess the influence of self- school of choice. Results of the study showed that teachers
efficacy on the performance of individuals at workplace and displayed moderate level of stress and highest scores were
the mechanism by which self-efficacy of an individual displayed on work related stressors. Significant negative
determined his/her work related performance and motivation. correlation was found between teachers’ stress, job
Thus, it became necessary to identify the practical performance and teacher’s self-efficacy. The moderated
implications of the outcomes related to improving employee multiple regression analysis could play a moderate role in the
self-efficacy in order to motivate them and improve their relationship of teachers’ stress and job performance.
performance. Zellars et al (2002) conducted a research on the
Hurter (2008) posited that committed employees were relationship between job related self-efficacy and
increasingly becoming a valued asset in organizations. For withstanding organizational stress. They found that job
the purpose of this study employee commitment was viewed related self-efficacy contributed to the enhancement of skill
as commitment to the organization as well as employees’ needed or necessary to cope with strenuous work in an
commitment to their occupations. The purpose of the organization, by helping the employees to accept difficult
research was to determine whether there was a correlation tasks in their domain as challenges to be tackled and provide
between perceived self-efficacy and employee commitment possible solution to it, rather than viewing it as a tough and
in a South African sugar manufacturing company. Self- stressful situation. The study employed a correlational design
efficacy, a social cognition construct, which refers to a with self-efficacy and organizational work load as the
person’s self-beliefs in his/her ability to perform specific variables of consideration. The results showed that there was
 Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2015; 4(4): 170-173 173

a significant relationship between high self-efficacy and [2] Bandura, A. (1994). Exercise of Personal and Collective
ability to cope with work load. Efficacy in Changing Societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-
efficacy in Changing Societies (pp. 1-45). New York:
1.3. Implications of Previous Findings and Directions for Cambridge University Press.
Future Research [3] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control.
New York: Freeman.
1. Bandura’s social cognitive theory of self-efficacy may
not apply directly to performance, but may act as a [4] Bandura, A. (1998). Social Cognitive Theory of Personality. In
factor in the midst of or combination with other factors L.A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality:
Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York: The
or variables. Therefore, the extent to which self-efficacy Guilford Press.
alone, outside other factors impact on performance is
not known. This is an area or line of direction for future [5] Cherian, J. & Jacob, J. (2013). The Impact of Self Efficacy on
research. Motivation and Performance of Employees. International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8, No. 14
2. In all the researches examined, there seems to be no
direct effect of self-efficacy on work performance. [6] Gist, M. E. and Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-Efficacy: A
3. Several intervening, moderating and mediating Theoretical Analysis of its Determinants and Malleability. The
variables were discovered to be involved in the self- Academy of Management Review Vol. 17, No. 2.
efficacy/work performance relationships. [7] Hax, G. (2010) Self Efficacy and Work related Performance: A
4. The intervening and moderating variables included, but Metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (2) 240-261.
not limited to intelligence, the nature of the task, skill
[8] Hurter, N. (2008). The Role of Self-Efficacy in Employee
level, personality, motivation, level of the worker, Commitment
supervision etc. There is therefore a need for future http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitsream/handle/10500/2309/dissertation
studies that will incorporate these variables or control .pdf?sequence=1.
them in order to obtain clearer results.
[9] Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A. and Rich,
5. The summary of findings is that there is no consensus B. L. (2007). Self-Efficacy and Work-Related Performance:
amongst researchers on the impact of self-efficacy on The Integral Role of Individual Differences. Journal of
performance. Whereas some found a positive Applied Psychology. Vol. 92, No. 1, 107-127.
correlation between the variables (Hurter, 2008), others
[10] Lunenburg, F. (2011). Self-Efficacy in the Workplace:
found a negative correlation (Rubina and Azam 2004) Implications for Motivation and Performance. International
and others further found that the effect of self efficacy Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 14(1).
on performance was small and varied from task to task.
(Judge et al 2007). More indepth studies are therefore [11] Luszczynska, A. & Schwarzer, R. (2008) Planning and Self-
Efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of breast study
needed in this direction; and the control of already examination: A longitudinal study of self-regulatory
identified and unidentified intervening variables and cognitions. Psychology and health, 18, 93-108.
confounding variables need to be done in order to
guarantee true results. [12] Rubina, E. & Azam, S. A. (2004) Self Efficacy: Implication
for Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource
Management. Academy of Management Review, Vol 12, No 3
2. Conclusion [13] Schwarzer, R. E. Luszczynska, A. (2007) Self-Efficacy. In M.
The review of findings on influence of self efficacy on Job Gerrard & K. O. McCaul (Eds). Health Behaviour Constructs:
Theory, Measurement and Research. National Cancer Institute
performance have shown that there is no conclusive evidence Website. Retrieved June 11, 2008.
on a negative or positive impact of one on the other, as
several mediating variables also had a role to play. [14] Stajkovic, A. D. and Fred, L. (1998). Self-Efficacy and Work-
Related Performance: A Metal-Analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, Vol 124(2), Sep. 1998, 240-261.

References [15] Zellars, A; Donald, O. & Taft, G. (2002) Issues in

Performance and Worth of Employee’s Self. Journal of
[1] Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory Applied Psychology, 85, 765-774.
of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191 –
215. Doi:10.1037/0033 – 295x.84.2.191.