Chapter 4: Do Management Scholars Mistakenly Believe in the Capacity of Self-Efficacy?

Self-efficacy, which is one’s belief in one’s capacity to perform, has become one of the most popular concepts in management and psychological research (Latham & Pinder, 2005). For example, Bandura’s (1986) book on social cognitive theory, in which self-efficacy is the “key mechanism,” and his 1997 book devoted to self-efficacy are the two most highly cited references in organizational psychology between 2001 and 2005 (Landers, 2009). Moreover, the large number of studies involving self-efficacy has spawned several meta-analyses that document positive relationships with performance and other outcomes (see, for instance, Bandura & Locke, 2003, where they cite nine meta-analyses). Because of this research and the appealing nature of the idea, organizational researchers have endorsed the concept, suggesting that organizations would do well to increase self-efficacy beliefs among their employees (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001; Wood & Locke, 1987). In this chapter, we question the usefulness of that advice. Instead, we suggest that the research used to buttress the concept is often, though not always, seriously flawed and the theoretical underpinning somewhat questionable. Our position is that although self-efficacy is beneficial in some cases (i.e., manipulations to increase self-efficacy might improve performance or increase motivation in desired directions) in other cases it might undermine performance, motivation, or other desired outcomes of the organization. However, what is likely the most common result of attempts to increase self-efficacy is no effect; or at least none that are lasting. In this chapter, we discuss the empirical flaws and the theoretical problems as well as the possible reasons scholars have largely ignored these problems, instead embracing the self-efficacy concept.