See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337387373

Role of Self-Efficacy in The Relationship of Training and Employee Performance

Article · November 2019

DOI: 10.24312/1800077130111

CITATIONS READS
10 5,046

4 authors, including:

Waqas Zaki Asad Ali

University of Central Punjab Hamdard University
5 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bilal Sarwar
University of Central Punjab
8 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Waqas Zaki on 24 May 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Paradigms
Print ISSN 1996-2800, Online ISSN 2410-0854
2019, Vol. 13, No. 1 Page 67-74
DOI: 10.24312/1800077130111
Role of Self-Efficacy in The Relationship of Training and Employee Performance
Waqas Zaki1, Asad Ali2, Abou Bakar3 Bilal Sarwar4
School of Accounting and Finance, University of Central Punjab, Lahore1, Department of Management Sciences, The
Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar Campus, Pakistan2, Department of Management Sciences, The Islamia
University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar Campus, Pakistan3, School of Accounting and Finance, University of Central
Punjab, Lahore4
Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Cite this paper: Zaki, W., Ali, A., Bakar, A., & Sarwar, B. (2019). Role of self-efficacy in the relationship of training and
employee performance. Paradigms, 13(1), 67-74.
This study highlights the significance of incorporating self-efficacy cues into training and its impact on perceived
employee performance. The study examines the mediating role of self-efficacy beliefs of individuals in the relationship
between training and employee performance. The population comprises of permanent employees of the banking sector
of Pakistan. The sample of 384 individuals has been taken for the study. Mediation analysis is performed by using a
regression analysis method. Results of the study confirmed the proposed relationship with partial mediation. The
findings of this study shed light on the role of self-efficacy in the performance enhancement of employees through
training and development.
Key Words: Employee Performance, Training, Self-Efficacy, Mastery Experiences, Vicarious Learning, Verbal
persuasion, Psychological Arousal
INTRODUCTION their beliefs. Previous literature on this perspective suggests
An increase in work-related issues has enhanced the that self-efficacy levels must be escalated in order to get better
importance of training in the recent past. Training is becoming outcomes. Training program by the organizations serves the
the most demanding investment by the managers, to enhance objective of individual and institutional learning (Usher &
the productivity of the organization. As high level of skills, Pajares, 2009; Dicke, Parker, Marsh, Kunter, Schmeck &
abilities, aptitude, attitude, and knowledge are the demands of Leutner, 2014). Bakar, Ali, and Zaki (2016) suggested that if
organizations and so managers focus to identify the talent the source of self-efficacy, that is mastery experience, vicarious
among current human resources who can be equipped with such modeling, social persuasion, and psychological arousals are
skills by providing training. Such skills help the employees to included in the training design self-efficacy of the employees
accomplish not only the ordinary tasks but to cater to the unique will be boosted. Moreover, many researchers have found a
and critical kind of problems. Such skills and behaviors help strong relationship between self-efficacy and employee
organizations to create competitive advantage and for survival performance (Peterson & Arnn, 2005; Schwoerer, May,
(Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008). Further, the investment in training Hollensbe & Mencl, 2005). The use of training in escalating
and development is considered as a central strategy to attract self-efficacy level of employees will be an effort to empirically
the competitive pool in an organization. This investment in relate these three important constructs that lead to the existence
human capital also brings satisfaction to employees and of one another. It seems that there is no study suggesting this
increases their capabilities (Bagès & Martinot, 2012). relationship, though there are studies available, which describe
Employees are critical for organizations and they spend their the relationship between self-efficacy and employee
other resources on upgrading their prime resource of human performance. Studies are also available, which describe the
beings. Organizations increase their attraction ability by their training impact on self-efficacy separately, a joint and
success and repute so that they can exert a pull on the finest cumulative work of such type is not available. The empirical
human resource. Not only in attracting, hiring, and work on this aspect is lacking in our examination, which will
compensation but, also companies nowadays are very be facilitated by this study. The following are the research
considerate about upgrading the skills of their human capital. objectives of this study:
Through the help of training and development, the human  To observe the role of cues of self-efficacy in the
capital is refined, polished, upgraded, and refreshed from time enhancement of self-efficacy if they are included in the
to time, so they can meet the necessary challenges. Ability, training program.
motivation, and situational factors are three basic cues for  To view the impact and performance of employees in
human performance. All of these human perspectives are financial institutions if they have high self-efficacy.
included in the model of performance, which also included a  To signify the inclusion of self-efficacy sources of
new dimension of self-efficacy (Bakar, Ali & Zaki, 2016). This information in training design for performance enhancement.
is because of the fact that individuals’ actions are motivated by

67
And the following are the research questions: help an organization to achieve competitive factors like
 Do training programs affect the self-efficacy beliefs of an flexibility, permanence adaptability in crux it helps an
individual if training content is based on the sources of self- organization to cope with change (Al-Khayyat & Elgamal,
efficacy? 1997). Ghebregiorgis and Karsten (2007) argued that training
 Does self-efficacy belief have an impact on employee provides a practical approach towards the development of skills
performance? attitude, which helps in gaining confidence and overcoming the
 Do training programs enhance employee performance if the mistakes. This confidence makes employees feel more
content of the training is directed to improve their self- equipped. This confidence in their own skills boosts the self-
efficacy beliefs? efficacy of employees. Their belief about their self gets stronger
LITERATURE REVIEW and their attitude becomes very positive towards the job, which
Self-Efficacy enhances their performance (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as an individual’s Many of the indirect effects of training identified to enhance
confidence in himself and his ability to execute tasks employee performance as training enhances the confidence to
effectively. He further suggested that the employee’s perceived perform the task and provides skill learning ability, which
ability affect its performance during tasks. Kanter (2006) drives the performance (Vlachos, 2008). Training helps in the
viewed self-efficacy as self-confidence. Bandura (1977) ultimate motivation to achieve the goals (Griffeth, Hom &
identified four sources of self-efficacy that serve as prominent Gaertner 2000; Joet, Usher & Bressoux, 2011). Moreover,
cues: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social Martocchio and Hertenstein (2003) have noted that training that
persuasion, and physiological responses. According to Bandura results in high self-efficacy is more likely to lead to positive
(2001), the most prominent among them is mastery through outcomes. Self-efficacy is the belief of an individual which is
experiences, as employees when learning through their related to the training in two ways, treating it as an antecedent
previous performance get more confident in their efficacy to training and an outcome as well (Yi & Davis, 2003). Training
beliefs. The second source vicarious experience is by observing programs are significant and vital to boost an employee’s self-
the peers, an individual may get influenced by it. Observing a efficacy, but this training must be designed in a way to deal with
peer succeeding in career increases an individual’s efficacy the mandatory competencies. Training programs can also be
level. The third source of self-efficacy involves acknowledging planned by the inclusion of Bandura’s (1994) experiences in
individuals about their abilities and building confidence in their order to increase the self-efficacy and competency of a trainee.
potential. Chen, Gully, and Eden (2003) suggested that Employee’s Performance
employees get motivated by their leader’s persuasion. Lastly, Human resource management literature is mainly used in
on the existence of a fourth efficacy source, Bandura (2001) measuring and reporting of practices and performance of
argued that physiological cues depict self-efficacy. The level of human resource (Rehman, 2009; Bhatti & Qureshi, 2007).
self-efficacy can be observed by physiological symptoms From previous studies and available knowledge, it is quite
(Jones, Paretti, Hein, and Knott, 2010). evident that there exists a strong relationship between
Self-efficacy has been viewed as a strong predictor in training organizational performance and human resource practices (Paul
and development and performance under varied contexts & Anantharaman, 2003). The traditional concept of personnel
(Kraut, Chandler & Kathlee, 2016). Bandura and Locke (2003) psychologists about performance is that it is a part of the
also validated that employee performance is significantly selection, placement, and training (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982;
affected by self-efficacy beliefs. Sherer and Carol (1983) Louis & Mistele, 2011). Past research works have also
divided self-efficacy into two types; work specific and general suggested that there exists a significant relationship between
self-efficacy. He further explained work specifically as an beliefs of self-efficacy that in turn escalates employees’
individual’s sense of ability related to a specific task, whereas performance as Bandura and Locke (2003) also validated that
general self-efficacy is one’s common confidence in capability employee performance is significantly affected by self-efficacy
to thrive. Bandura (1982) referred to self-efficacy as a construct beliefs.
of social learning theory. Naquin and Holton (2002) suggested Theoretical Framework
that incorporating the issue of self-efficacy in training program Training
leads to positive change in the trainee. Appelbaum and Hare
(1996) suggested that goal-setting theory closely goes with the Mastery Experience
self-efficacy, as challenging goals motivate employees towards
a high level of self-efficacy and in consequence higher Vicarious Experience
performance expectancy. Self-Efficacy Employee performance
Training Social persuasion
Sahinidis and Bouris (2008) defined training as a deliberate
Psychological
and planned practice of human resource management, which Responses
results in enhancing employee performance. Concept of
training came from change by learning and change is necessary This model is proposed by the current study and it examines
for human development (Katz & Stupel, 2015). Training can the mediating role of self-efficacy among the relationship of

70
training and employee performance. Previously performed data is gathered at one point of time by personally administered
studies have analyzed the relationship of self-efficacy with research questionnaire.
training and training with employee performance but the The population of this study comprises of permanent
current study proposes the new model, which covers both employees of the banking sector of Pakistan. The sample of 384
relations as a whole and testing these relations in a series: 1) has been taken for the study. This industry becomes the source
mastery experiences 2) vicarious experiences 3) social of attraction because competition in the financial sector of
persuasion and 4) Physiological responses to experiences, as Pakistan is increasing at an exponential rate. As the growth rate
prominent part of training content. According to Martocchio of 5.98 % is recorded for the year 2017 in the service sector of
and Hertenstein (2003) results suggested that learning Pakistan which contributed GDP by 7.61% according to the
orientation and efficacy showed a strong relationship in the economic survey of Pakistan 2017.
perspective of learning, but not with respect to performance. Moreover, referred from State bank of Pakistan Research
This gap is filled by this study, testing it in a performance bulletin (2017) banking sector in Pakistan operates in
context. Katz and Stupel (2015) suggested that the content of competitive market structure. Growing global and the arrival of
the training can affect self-efficacy level of individuals. new financial instruments are making the operation of banking
Brouwers and Tomic (2000) suggested that perceived self- sector more complex day by day. So, this intense competition
efficacy significantly causes employee burnout and fatigue. compels the banking sector for innovation and higher
This paper tends to minimize these outcomes by increasing self- performance of employees.
efficacy, which leads to performance enhancement. Brouwers The sample size is of 384 respondents who belong to
and Tomic (2000) also studied that decreased self-efficacy financial institutions of Pakistan. Sampling is done by using
comes as an outcome of decreasing performance levels. purposive sampling technique. Purposive sampling was applied
Furthermore, Bandura (2001), explained that mastery because the respondents in this study were not common
experiences and physiological responses are prominently the employees or people from the street; rather they were
two sources of self-efficacy that lead to less fatigue and better employees posted at different supervisory positions in different
performance. Joet, Usher, and Bressoux (2011) suggested that departments.
the four cues of self-efficacy although have been authenticated Results and Analysis
by many researchers, but this research must be done in Hypothesis 1(a)
organizational work settings to validate their impact.  H1(a): If training program includes (1) mastery experiences (2)
Lunenburg (2011) suggested that when choosing employees for vicarious experiences (3) social persuasion and (4)
training and development, self-efficacy levels must also be Physiological responses to experiences then training
considered. Training and development are used to improve positively effects self-efficacy.
employees’ performance (Campbell & Kuncel, 2001). Sources To test this hypothesis, the statistical techniques of linear
of self-efficacy should be included in the training to improve regression is used. Regression analysis shows the degree to
performance (Loo1 &Choy, 2013). which one variable is dependent on the other, representing the
Putting the consideration on all previous literature, the above- impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
mentioned model is worth testing empirically, describing the Table 2: Regression analysis (independent: training,
impact of training on self-efficacy levels, which leads to dependent: self-efficacy)
enhanced employee performance. On the basis of the above β R2 Sig
theoretical modeling and in-depth review of literature following Training-SE .537 .341 0.000
hypothesis are formulated for this study: Regression analysis of training as independent variable and
H1(a): Training programs including 1) mastery experiences 2) self-efficacy which is a main construct of the present study is
vicarious experiences 3) social persuasion and 4) checked as the dependent variable. It is found in an analysis that
Physiological responses to experiences positively affect training contributes significantly towards self-efficacy
self-efficacy. enhancement (β=0.537, R2=.341 and p=0.00)
H1(b): Self-efficacy positively affects the performance of Therefore, H1(a) is accepted fully as training is found
employees. significant predictor of self-efficacy
H1(c): Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between training Hypothesis 1(b)
and performance.  Self-efficacy positively affects the performance of
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY employees.
This research lies in the positivism paradigm as it considers This hypothesis deals with the impact of self-efficacy on the
the assumption of the singular nature of reality. Further, this performance of the employees. Self-efficacy which is playing a
study is congruent with a quantitative approach as statistical mediating role in this study here regressed on employee
data and tests are used in this study to draw the conclusion. The performance in order to check the contribution of self-efficacy
survey method as a research strategy is used to investigate the forwards the performance increase of employees. Table-2
research instrument in the present study and the nature of data shows the result that self-efficacy significantly predicting
is cross-section, as the time horizon is selected because primary employee performance. (β=.495, R2=.355, P<0.000).

71
Table 3: Regression analysis (independent variable: self- Discussions and Findings
efficacy, dependent variable: employee performance) The first hypothesis was proposed to find out whether the
Β R2 Sig training program impacts the self-efficacy beliefs of the
Self-efficacy -Performance .495 .355 0.000 individual in financial institutes provided the training is
Therefore, H1(b) hypothesis is accepted as self-efficacy has designed incorporating the sources of self-efficacy. The
a significant impact on employee performance. The R square relationship was positively significant expressing that training
for some regression is lower that explains that even the designed on cues of efficacy leads to enhanced self-efficacy
relationship is significant, the noise in the system made it that beliefs in employees. Also, the correlation coefficient between
way. As explained by Colton and Bower (2002) low R2 values training content developed through sources of self-efficacy and
can still indicate effects that are statistically significant because efficacy beliefs of the individual is positively significant.
there may be the presence of noise in the system. Findings of this research confirm the think up of Baldwin and
Hypothesis 1(c) Ford (1988) and Hanover and Cellar (1998). Results further
 Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between training and confirmed the findings of Schwoerer, May, Hollensbe, and
performance Mencl (2005) suggesting that training context and content
Hypothesis 1(c) is about the role of self-efficacy between implies considerable impact on the self-efficacy beliefs if
training and employee performance. This study has used the includes the cues of self-efficacy.
Baron and Kenny (1986) test for mediation. Baron and Kenny The second hypothesis was proposed to find out whether self-
(1986) prepare three conditions for running the test of efficacy beliefs of an individual have an impact on his
mediation. These conditions are performance. This research question tends to evaluate and
Independent variable is significantly related to the dependent validate the notion of efficacy beliefs affecting their task
variable performance which resulted in a significant relationship
Independent variable is significantly related to mediating between the two. Results suggested that the self-efficacy beliefs
variable positively influenced the employee performance which infers
The mediating variable is significantly related to the the conclusion that enhanced self-efficacy beliefs lead to better
dependent variable performance and reduced efficacy perceptions lead to poor
Table 4: Regression analysis for mediation employee performance.
β R2 Sig Results of this study regarding employee performance
Training- Performance .567 .361 0.000 affected by self-efficacy of individuals match the results and
Training- Self efficacy .537 .341 0.000
Self-efficacy- Performance .495 .355 0.000 validation of (Meral, Colak & Zereyak, 2012; Lavasani,
Table 4 represents the regression analysis of (1) training and Mirhosseini, Hejazi, & Davoodi, 2011; Judge, Jackson, Shaw,
employee performance (2) training and self-efficacy (3) self- Scott, & Rich, 2007; Pan, sun & chow, 2011).
efficacy and employee performance. Results show that all three The third research question was about the mediating role of
conditions for mediation tests are fulfilled as regression self-efficacy of an individual between training and employee
analysis of training on performance is significant (β=.567, performance. The training program was developed through
R2=.361, P<0.000) further relationship of independent variable self-efficacy cues. Mediation regression analysis showed
training with mediating variable self-efficacy is also significant mediation between training and employee performance. Self-
(β=.537, R2=.341, P<0.000) results also prove the third efficacy of employees, when dealt as a mediator between
condition as relationship of mediating variable self-efficacy and training and employee performance, showed partial mediation.
dependent variable employee performance is significant The results of this study suggested that conducting training
(β=.495, R2=.355, P<0.000). Finally, when the independent programs can positively enhance the performance of employees
variable was entered in the equation while controlling the with the mediating role of the increase in their self-efficacy
effects of the mediating variable, the effect of independent beliefs. The self-efficacy beliefs are escalated through training
variable training on dependent variable employee performance programs directed specifically towards enhancing efficacy.
was reduced partially. Table-4 shows that main effect size is Conclusion
reduced from (β=.567, P<0.000) to (β=.493, P<0.000) further These findings of this study are not only providing
the change in total explained variance is reduced from information regarding the design and content of training
(R2=.361, P<0.000 to R2=.235, P<0.000). Thus these results intervention in order to improve the personal belief about one’s
show that after controlling the effects of mediating variable capabilities but also shed the light on the role of self-efficacy in
total effect is reduced. Hence it is proved that self-efficacy plays performance enhancement of employees. Since the self-
a partial mediating role between training and employee efficacy plays the mediating role towards performance,
performance. therefore, the inclusion of determinants of self-efficacy in the
Table 5: Hierarchal Regression for Mediation training design increases the performance.
Β R2 Sig Managerial Implications
Training-performance .567 .361 0.000 There are several practical implications of the findings which
Training-self efficacy-performance .493 .235 0.004 help in enhancing the self-efficacy through training ultimately
results in higher performance of employees.

72
 The study also discussed that performance-based culture Brown, T. (2003). The effect of verbal self-guidance training on
should be focused on which manager must create effective collective efficacy and team performance. Personnel Psychology,
training programs keeping determinants of self-efficacy in 56(4), 935-964.
view. Also, the manager has focused on strategic organizational Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). Disruptive Student Behavior,
Perceived Self-Efficacy, and Teacher Burnout.
objectives while developing the training programs for Campbell, J. P., & Kuncel, N. R. (2002). Individual and team training.
employees and also incorporate four sources of self-efficacy Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general
which are mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62-83.
persuasion, and psychological arousal to make an effective Chiaburu, D. S., & Lindsay, D. R. (2008). Can do or will do? The
training program for the employees. importance of self-efficacy and instrumentality for training transfer.
Furthermore, the study also suggests that the aim of the Human Resource Development International, 11(2), 199-206.
training is to attempt the positive behavioral change in Colton, K.M., & Bower, L. (2002). Some misconceptions about R2
employees. The influence of self-efficacy while developing the International Society of Six Sigma Professionals Extra Ordinary
training design is the one way to help bridge the gap between Sense, 3(2), 20-22
Cromwell, S. E., & Kolb, J. A. (2004). An examination of work‐
employee performance and expected performance from the environment support factors affecting the transfer of supervisory
employer. Managers must reinforce training in the context of skills training to the workplace. Human Resource Development
self-efficacy because individuals who are at the highest level of Quarterly, 15(4), 449-471.
self-efficacy can perform challenging and desired tasks. For the Dean, P. J., Dean, M. R., & Rebalsky, R. M. (1996). Employee
reason, they will be called the higher performance achievers in perceptions of workplace factors that will most improve their
an organization. performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9, 75-89.
REFERENCES Deckop, J. R., Konrad, A. M., Perlmutter, F. D., & Freely, J. L. (2006).
Al-Khayyat, R. M., & Elgamal, M. A. (1997). A macro model of The effect of human resource management practices on the job
training and development: Validation. Journal of European retention of former welfare clients. Human Resource Management,
Industrial Training, 21(3), 87-101. 45(4), 539-559.
Appelbaum, S. H., & Hare, A. (1996). Self-efficacy as a mediator of Dicke, D., Philip, D., Parker, H., Marsh, H., M., Kunter, M., Schmeck,
goal setting and performance: Some human resource applications. A., and Leutner, D. (2014) Journal of Educational Psychology Self-
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 33-47. Efficacy in Classroom Management, Classroom Disturbances, and
Bagès, C. Martinot, D. (2012). What is the best model for girls and Emotional Exhaustion: A Moderated Mediation Analysis of Teacher
boys faced with a standardized mathematics evaluation situation: A Candidates
hardworking role model or a gifted role model? British Journal of Dittmann-Kohli, F., Lachman, M. E., Kliegl, R., & Baltes, P. B.
Social Psychology, 50, 536-543. (1991). Effects of cognitive training and testing on intellectual
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review efficacy beliefs in elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 46(4),
and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63- P162-P164.
105. Economic Survey of Pakistan (2013), Retrieved from
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of http://finance.govt.pk
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. Ghebregiorgis, F., & Karsten, L. (2007). Human resource management
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. and performance in a developing country: The case of Eritrea. The
American Psychologist, 37(2), 122. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(2), 321-
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. 332.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of
effects revisited. Journal of applied psychology, 88(1), 87. Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis
development. of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update,
Barden, P. (1997). Training and development for library and moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium.
information workers for the future: A Manifesto. Librarian Career Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488.
Development, 5(1), 30-33. Hanover, J., & Cellar, D. F. (1998). Environmental factors and the
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity effectiveness of workforce diversity training. Human Resource
of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462. Development Quarterly, 9(2), 105-124.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator Harrison, A. W., Rainer Jr, R. K., Hochwarter, W. A., & Thompson,
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, K. R. (1997). Testing the self-efficacy-performance linkage of
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social cognitive theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1),
social psychology, 51(6), 1173. 79-87.
Bhatti, K. K., & Qureshi, T. M. (2007). Impact of employee Naquin, S. S., & Holton, E. F., III. (2002). The effects of personality,
participation on job satisfaction, employee commitment, and affectivity, and work
employee productivity. International Review of Business Research commitment on motivation to improve work through learning. Human
Papers, 3(2), 54-68. Resource
Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. (1982). The missing opportunity in Development Quarterly, 13, 357-376.
organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work Joet, G., Usher, E. L., & Bressoux, P. (2011). Sources of self-efficacy:
performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 560-569. An investigation of elementary school students in France. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 649-663.

73
Jones, B. D., Paretti, M. C., Hein, S. F., & Knott, T. W. (2010). An causal model. International Journal of Human Resource
analysis of motivation constructs with first-year engineering Management, 14(7), 1246-1266.
students: Relationships among expectancies, values, achievement Pan, W., Sun, L.-Y., & Chow, I. H. S. (2011). The impact of
and career plans. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 319-336. supervisory mentoring on personal learning and career outcomes:
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. The dual moderating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational
(2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: the integral Behavior, 78(2), 264-273.
role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and
107. performance: RD Irwin Homewood, IL.
Kanter, R. M. (2006). Confidence: How winning streaks and losing Rehman, M. S. (2009). Impact of job analysis on job performance: A
streaks begin and end: Crown Business. study of public sector organizations of Pakistan (Doctoral
Katz, S., & Stupel, M. (2015). Promoting creativity and self-efficacy dissertation, National University of Modern Languages Islamabad).
of elementary students through a collaborative research task in Ripley, D., Hudson, I., Turner, R., & Osman-Gani, A. (2006). Cross‐
mathematics: a case study. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, national similarities and differences in employee perceptions of
4(1), p68. issues in the work environment. Performance Improvement
Katz, R., & Van Maanen, J. (1977). The loci of work satisfaction: Job, Quarterly, 19(1), 41-66.
interaction, and policy. Human Relations, 30(5), 469-486. Sahinidis, A. G., & Bouris, J. (2008). Employee perceived training
Kieffer, K. M., & Henson, R. K. (2000). Development and validation effectiveness relationship to employee attitudes. Journal of
of the sources of self-efficacy inventory (SOSI): Exploring a new European Industrial Training, 32(1), 63-76.
measure of teacher efficacy: ERIC Clearinghouse. Katz, S., & Stupel, M. (2015). Reflection on self-efficacy training and
Kraut, R., Chandler, T., and Hertenstein, K. (2016). The Interplay of skill training to foster student performance in geometry: A case
Teacher Training, Access to Resources, Years of Experience and study. Far East Journal of Mathematical Education, 14(2), 103.
Professional Development in Tertiary ESL Reading Teachers’ Saunders, M. N., Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2011).
Perceived Self-Efficacy. Gist Education and Learning Research Research Methods For Business Students, 5/e: Pearson Education
Journal. 132-151. India.
Labor Force Survey (2009), retrieved from http//:pbs.gov.pk Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning.
Lavasani, M. G., Mirhosseini, F. S., Hejazi, E., & Davoodi, M. (2011). Psychology in the Schools, 22(2), 208-223.
The Effect of Self-regulation Learning Strategies Training on Schwoerer, C. E., May, D. R., Hollensbe, E. C., & Mencl, J. (2005).
Academic Motivation and Self-efficacy. Procedia-Social and General and specific self‐efficacy in the context of a training
Behavioral Sciences, 29, 627-632. intervention to enhance performance expectancy. Human Resource
Levine, D., & Tyson, L. A. (1990), Participation, Productivity, and the Development Quarterly, 16(1), 111-129.
Firm Environment. Paying for Productivity. A Look at the Evidence, Sherer, M., & Carol, H. A. (1983). Construct validation of the self-
Washington: Brookings Institution, 183-243. efficacy scale. Psychological Reports, 53(3), 899-902.
Louis, R. A., & Mistele, J. M. (2012). The differences in scores and Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related
self-efficacy by student gender in mathematics and science. performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(5), Statistical Bulletin (2013 August), retrieved from http://sbp.org.pk
1163-1190. Stewart, D., & Waddell, D. (2003). Future considerations for the
Loo, C., & Choy, J. (2013) Sources of self-efficacy influencing training and development of Australian quality managers. The TQM
academic performance of engineering students. American Journal Magazine, 15(1), 37-42.
of Educational Research, 1(3), 86-92. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary educational
for motivation and performance. International Journal of psychology, 34(1), 89-101.
Management, Business, and Administration, 14(1), 1-6. Van Buren, M. E., & Erskine, W. (2002). The 2002 ASTD state of the
Luthans, F., & Stajkovic, A. D. (1999). Reinforce for performance: industry report. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Training and
The need to go beyond pay and even rewards. Academy of Development.
Management Perspectives, 13(2), 49-57. Vlachos, I. (2008). The effect of human resource practices on
Martocchio, J. J., & Hertenstein, E. J. (2003). Learning orientation and organizational performance: Evidence from Greece. The
goal orientation context: Relationships with cognitive and affective International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 74-
learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 97.
14(4), 413-434. Yi, M. Y., & Davis, F. D. (2003). Developing and validating an
Meral, M., Colak, E., & Zereyak, E. (2012). The relationship between observational learning model of computer software training and
self-efficacy and academic performance. Procedia-Social and skill acquisition. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 146-169.
Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1143-1146.
Paul, A. K., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2003). Impact of people
management practices on organizational performance: analysis of a

74
 © 2019. This work is published under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/(the “License”). Notwithstanding
the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance
with the terms of the License.

View publication stats