1. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic SELF-EFFICACY Alex Stajkovic, Ph.D. The Procter and Gamble Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior Wisconsin School of Business University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. ©20010Alex Stajkovic PRINCIPLE BUILD SELF-EFFICACY FOR PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT

3. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic SELF-EFFICACY SELF-EFFICACY IS AN INDIVIDUAL’S BELIEF ABO UT HER/HIS CAPABILITIES TO SUCCESSFULLY EXECUTE A SPECIFIC TASK WITHIN A GIVEN CONTEXT How strongly I believe that I CAN DO IT

4. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic The Efficacy Process 1)Before they select their choices and initiate their effort, people tend to: evaluate and integrate information about their perceived capabilities.evaluate and integrate information about their perceived capabilities. 2)Beliefs of self-efficacy (confidence) determine whether work behavior will be: initiated,initiated, how much task-related effort will be expended, andhow much task-related effort will be expended, and how long that effort will be sustained in times of difficulty.how long that effort will be sustained in times of difficulty. 3)Especially relevant to work performance is that: High self-efficacy employees will activate more effort, better task strategies, and are more likely succeed at work.High self-efficacy employees will activate more effort, better task strategies, and are more likely succeed at work. Low self-efficacy employees are more likely to cease their efforts prematurely and fail on the task.Low self-efficacy employees are more likely to cease their efforts prematurely and fail on the task.

5. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic Self-Efficacy Dimensions 1)The Magnitude of Self-Efficacy Beliefs which refers to the level of task difficulty that a person believes he or she is capable of executing.which refers to the level of task difficulty that a person believes he or she is capable of executing. 2)The Strength of Self-Efficacy Beliefs which refers to whether the judgment about magnitude iswhich refers to whether the judgment about magnitude is –strong (perseverance in coping efforts despite disconfirming experiences), or –weak (easily questioned in the face of difficulty).

6. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic Self-Efficacy Measurement A) Magnitude - Whether you believe that you are capable or not (yes, no) of performing this task next time at each of the levels outlined in this scale. Please use column A for these responses. B) Strength - How certain you are (0 - 100 %) about each yes/no response. For example, 0% would indicate no chance, whereas 100% would indicate absolute certainty. Please use column B for these responses. Magnitude = Sum of Yes Strength = Sum of certainty for the number of Yes

7. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic Determinants of Self-Efficacy Successful Past Performance Provides the Strongest Information for Enhancing Efficacy Beliefs Provides Direct Performance Information Leads to the Formation of More Accurate Efficacy Judgments ENACTIVEMASTERY

8. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic Determinants of Self-Efficacy Observing Others Perform and Be Reinforced by a Similar Task MODELING Behavioral Modeling Strategy Development Verbal Persuasion Gaining (Successful) Enactive Mastery Increase in Self-efficacy VICARIOUSLEARNING

9. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic Determinants of Self-Efficacy Verbal Encouragement by: Credible (trustworthy) Others Expertise Others VERBALPERSUASION

10. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic Determinants of Self-Efficacy PHYSIOLOGICALSTATE Physical Fatigue PSYCHOLOGICALAROUSAL Vulnerability to Stress, Fear, Anxiety EMOTIONALAROUSAL PA/NA

11. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic Determinants of Self-Efficacy After a Failure on a Task Entity Acquirable Skill Controllable Uncontrollable CONCEPTION OF ABILITY CONTROLABILITY OF THE TASK

12. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic Self-Efficacy Work Correlates Self-Efficacy Work Correlates : Managerial Performance Sales Learning and Task Related Achievement Job Search Research Productivity Adaptability to Advanced Technology Career Choice and Academic Behavior Coping With Career Related Events Skill Acquisition Newcomer Adjustment to the Organizational Setting Naval Performance at Sea

13. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic Stajkovic & Luthans (1998) Meta-Analysis s = 114 studies k = 157 correlation estimates Total sample size N = 21,626 Goal-Setting (10 - 20%) (Wood et al., 1987), Feedback Interventions (14%) (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) Reinforcement Theory (17%) (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997) Gr =.38 = 28% increase in performance

14. ©2010 Alex Stajkovic TAKE-HOME MESSAGE 28 % Average performance improvement due to self-efficacy