The impact of efficacy on work attitudes across cultures

To answer the call for more cross-cultural research, this study analyzed the efficacy and work attitudes of employee samples from the U.S. and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand). The results showed that across these two samples, general efficacy had a significant positive relationship with organizational commitment and a significant negative relationship with intention to turnover. Further analysis also indicated that job satisfaction mediated the relationship between general efficacy and organizational commitment and intention to quit in the U.S. sample. The relationship between general efficacy and organizational commitment was stronger in the U.S. than in the three combined countries sampled in Southeast Asia. Over the years, considerable research, summarized in meta-analytic reviews, have clearly demonstrated that a significant relationship exists between various psychological capacities, such as Big Five personality traits (Barrick & Mount, 1991), self-evaluation traits (Judge & Bono, 2001), specific self-efficacy (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a), and desirable employee work attitudes and performance. But for a few exceptions (e.g., Born & Iwawaki, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), this relationship has not been tested to see if it generalizes across cultures. In addition, neither the complexity nor theoretical richness of the relationship has been tested for possible mediators. Thus, the two-fold purpose of this study was to begin to fill these gaps by first examining whether U.S. and Southeast Asian employees’ job satisfaction mediated the relationship between general self-efficacy and work attitudes (organizational commitment and turnover intention). Secondly, we examined whether the relationship between general self-efficacy and employee attitudes/outcomes, in terms of organizational commitment and turnover intentions, differs between U.S. and Southeast Asian samples. digitalcommons.unl.edu Luthans , Zhu, & Avol io in Journal of World Bus iness 4 1 (2006) 2 1. Theoretical foundation and hypotheses The theoretical foundation for self-efficacy is closely associated with the extensive work of Albert Bandura (1997). His conception of self-efficacy represents a person’s belief and confidence in his or her own capability to perform a specific task in a specific context. This self-efficacy influences a person’s choice of activities, avoiding tasks judged too difficult or impossible, and embracing activities deemed manageable. Taken to the workplace, Stajkovic and Luthans (1998b: 66) defined selfefficacy as “an individual’s conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context”. Bandura (1997) and others have demonstrated a significant positive relationship between this specific self-efficacy and various motivational, affective, and behavioral outcomes in clinical (e.g., Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980; Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984), educational (e.g., Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984; Schunk, 1995), and organizational settings (e.g., Bandura, 1997 and Bandura, 2000; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Stajkovic and Luthans (1998a) in a meta-analysis of 114 studies found a strong (.38) relationship between specific self-efficacy and work-related performance outcomes. Theory-building and research on self-efficacy has been primarily contextually specific. Some organizational behavior researchers, however, have conceptualized and have provided research for a generalized sense of self-efficacy (Eden & Zuk, 1995; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003; Sherer et al., 1982). An argument for general self-efficacy is based on an individual’s past experience with success or failure that results in a general set of expectations that will affect his or her expectations of success across a broad array of new and specific challenges/situations. Eden and Zuk (1995: 629) defined general efficacy as “a generalized trait consisting of one’s overall estimate of one’s ability to effect requisite performances in achievement situations”. For example, Sherer et al. (1982) indicated that individuals with historical and continuous successes in various situations are more likely to have a positive general self-efficacy in a greater variety of situations than those people with less successful experiences. General self-efficacy represents a global sense of confidence in one’s coping ability across a wide range of demanding or difficult situations and reflects a broad and stable confidence in dealing effectively with rather stressful situations (Judge & Bono, 2001). Luthans , Zhu, & Avol io in Journal of World Bus iness 4 1 (2006) 3 There are only a few studies that have examined the influence of general self-efficacy on employee work attitudes (e.g., Judge et al., 2003). In particular, Judge and Bono (2001) indicated that general efficacy, a person’s belief he/she can conduct a task across different situations and contexts, is a major contributor to a positive core evaluation trait. General self-efficacy influences a person’s choice of action, level of effort, perseverance and resilience in the face of difficulties and obstacles, adversity, failures and the characteristics of individual thoughts, which could be self-hindering or self-aiding (Judge et al., 2003; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Sherer et al. (1982) indicated that general self-efficacy is made up of three components—initiative, effort and persistence. These components help determine how much effort people will expend on an activity, how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will be in the face of adverse situations. Although Bandura (1997: 42) argues the prevailing conceptual view that an “efficacy belief is not a decontextualized trait”, there is nevertheless increasing evidence of a strong positive relationship between specific self-efficacy and the more trait-like general efficacy (Judge et al., 2003; Leganger, Kraft, & Roysamb, 2000; Wang, 2000). 1.1. Impact of general self-efficacy on employee attitudes General self-efficacy (Eden & Zuk, 1995; Judge & Bono, 2001) has been shown to have a positive relationship with work-related performance. For example, in a meta-analysis, Judge and Bono (2001) found a .23 relationship between general self-efficacy and job performance. General efficacy is also expected to be related to job satisfaction and turnover because of the significant positive relationship reported between job satisfaction and performance (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). For example, in a meta-analysiss of 312 samples, Judge et al. (2001) found the mean true correlation to be .30. Judge and Bono (2001) and Herold (2000) have argued that general selfefficacy would affect job satisfaction through its association with practical success on the job. Individuals with high self-efficacy deal more effectively with difficulties and persist in the face of failure and obstacles (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Moreover, such individuals are more likely to attain valued outcomes through persistence and thus derive intrinsic satisfaction from their jobs. It then follows that those with higher general self-efficacy are more likely to be satisfied with their job. This was shown Luthans , Zhu, & Avol io in Journal of World Bus iness 4 1 (2006) 4 in the Judge and Bono (2001) meta-analysis that reported a .45 relationship between generalized self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Other studies have shown that efficacy is positively related to organizational commitment (Werbel, Landau, & DeCarlo, 1996) and overcoming burnout (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). 1.2. Mediating role of job satisfaction A major purpose of this study is to examine whether job satisfaction mediates the relationship between employees’ general self-efficacy and their work attitudes across cultures. This research question recognizes the theoretical complexity and richness of the relationship between general-efficacy and employee attitudes. We argue that people with higher general self-efficacy are more likely to be satisfied with their job because they understand their job is making a significant and meaningful contribution to their organization and to their own success. Therefore, those with high efficacy and job satisfaction are more likely to be committed to the organization and have a lower intention to turnover. Considerable theory and research strongly supports a negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intentions (Cote & Morgan, 2002). In general, employees with high job satisfaction are more likely to enjoy their current position and stay in the same organization. On the other hand, those with low job satisfaction are more likely to search for opportunities to leave their present organization. We would expect to find a negative relationship between an employee’s level of job satisfaction and his/her intention to quit. Based on the above background and shown in our proposed conceptual model in Fig. 1, the following hypotheses were developed for this study: Hypothesis 1. The positive relationship between general self-efficacy and organizational commitment is mediated by job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2. The negative relationship between general self-efficacy and turnover intention is mediated by job satisfaction. Luthans , Zhu, & Avol io in Journal of World Bus iness 4 1 (2006) 5 Fig. 1. General self-efficacy and work attitudes: mediating role of job satisfaction and moderating role of the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension. 1.3. Moderating role of the cultural dimension of individualism/ collectivism The cultural dimension of individualism/collectivism is recognized to be a major dimension to differentiate between East and West (Hofstede, 1980, Hofstede, 2001 and Hofstede, 2003). There is considerable support that collectivism/individualism is an effective way to analyze cultures. It has been found to be a coherent, integrated, and empirically testable dimension of cultures (Chiu & Kosinski, 1999). Hofstede, 1980, Hofstede, 2001 and Hofstede, 2003 argued that individualistic societies are characterized by person-centered conscientiousness, autonomy and initiative. He found the United States to be ranked highest on individualism, whereas Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand have been found to be low on individualism and therefore high on group-centered collectivism (Hofstede, 1980, Hofstede, 2001 and Hofstede, 2003). Chan, Gelfand, Triandis, and Tzeng (1996) pointed out that, in collectivist societies, especially Southeast Asia, individuals adhere to basic Confucianism and believe common interests and social harmony are more important than individual interests and enjoyment. At the individual level, Luthans , Zhu, & Avol io in Journal of World Bus iness 4 1 (2006) 6 people in the collective societies are more socio-centric and have an interdependent view of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). It is suggested that collectivists are more inclined to respond to situations and restraint of their own intentions for the greater welfare of the group. Individualistic societies, on the other hand, are egocentric, autonomous, separate, self-contained and independent (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Bond (1991) also posited that people in individualistic societies emphasize the positive, exciting, and fulfilling aspects of life. They hold on to notions that match their personal beliefs and values at work. Trandis et al. (1986) pointed out that individualistic cultures are more likely to consider themselves as independent members of a group. Therefore, it is expected that the individual difference construct of self-efficacy would play a more important role in determining individuals’ work attitudes, such as organizational commitment and turnover intention. More specifically, it would seem to follow that the impact of general self-efficacy on organizational commitment and turnover intention is stronger in individualistic societies than in collectivistic societies. This is because people in collectivistic societies are more likely to be influenced by group values and beliefs while people in individualistic cultures tend to make decisions based more on their own thinking and mindsets. Based on the above background, the following hypotheses were developed for the study. Hypothesis 3. The positive relationship between general self-efficacy and organizational commitment is stronger among more individualistic U.S. employees than among more collectivist Southeast Asian employees. Hypothesis 4. The negative relationship between general self-efficacy and turnover intention is stronger among more individualistic U.S. employees than among more collectivist Southeast Asian employees.