Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, and Rich (2007) performed a meta-analysis, which explored the impact of self-efficacy on task- and work-related performance, while holding individual variables constant. Through performing a multivariate analysis of these data, they found that the impact of self-efficacy on work performance was affected by several variables. Judge et al. (2007) found that self-efficacy provided greater incremental validity, or value added, when the complexity of the relevant job or task was low, rather than when it was medium or high. They also found that when individual variables, such as personality, ability, and job/task experiences, where not held constant, self-efficacy provided diminished predictive validity. Their study of
…show more content…
Throughout the semester, we have explored the importance of considering individual’s unique skills and interests. According to the Theory of Work Adjustment, individual’s abilities, whether they are strengths in areas including special-mechanical, verbal-linguistic, or numerical-quantitative, in conjunction with their interests as can be illustrated by the RIASEC model, inform that individual’s most optimal work environment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Placement in a job that is conducive to that individual’s abilities and interests will increase the likelihood that the particular individual will experience satisfactoriness and satisfaction with their profession. The current article by Judge et al. (2007) holds these individual variables constant and measures the impact of self-efficacy on task- and work-related performance in isolation, to find the unique ways in which self-efficacy impacts performance. They found that when individual differences variables were included, the predictive validity of self-efficacy on work-performance was significantly reduced in most contexts. The authors assert that this demonstrates the importance of studying the incremental validity of self-efficacy to find the added value that using self-efficacy data has on our ability to make predictions about work performance. Even in situations where self-efficacy had greater predictive validity, such as when …show more content…
Dawis and Lofquist (1984) describe celerity as the quickness of interacting with the environment, pace as the effort required for interacting with the environment, rhythm as the pattern of the pace, and endurance as the length of interaction maintained in the environment. In the meta-analysis performed by Judge et al. (2007), personality factors, such as those captured by the Big 5, were held constant. However, they analyzed other moderator variables, including variations in experimental conditions performed in the articles included in the analysis, to find the unique impact of self-efficacy on work-related performance in multiple conditions. For example, whether the task occurred in a laboratory or field setting could be uniquely impacted by each of these personality styles. An individual’s optimal level of celerity could impact their task- or work-related performance based on whether the individual’s performance occurred in a lab or field environment. Perhaps, the individual works optimally under timed conditions and thus exhibits better performance than an individual who works optimally in conditions with low celerity. Pace and rhythm could also be impacted because individuals being assessed in a lab environment may not be required to effortfully engage in their environment the same way
Throughout the semester, we have explored the importance of considering individual’s unique skills and interests. According to the Theory of Work Adjustment, individual’s abilities, whether they are strengths in areas including special-mechanical, verbal-linguistic, or numerical-quantitative, in conjunction with their interests as can be illustrated by the RIASEC model, inform that individual’s most optimal work environment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Placement in a job that is conducive to that individual’s abilities and interests will increase the likelihood that the particular individual will experience satisfactoriness and satisfaction with their profession. The current article by Judge et al. (2007) holds these individual variables constant and measures the impact of self-efficacy on task- and work-related performance in isolation, to find the unique ways in which self-efficacy impacts performance. They found that when individual differences variables were included, the predictive validity of self-efficacy on work-performance was significantly reduced in most contexts. The authors assert that this demonstrates the importance of studying the incremental validity of self-efficacy to find the added value that using self-efficacy data has on our ability to make predictions about work performance. Even in situations where self-efficacy had greater predictive validity, such as when …show more content…
Dawis and Lofquist (1984) describe celerity as the quickness of interacting with the environment, pace as the effort required for interacting with the environment, rhythm as the pattern of the pace, and endurance as the length of interaction maintained in the environment. In the meta-analysis performed by Judge et al. (2007), personality factors, such as those captured by the Big 5, were held constant. However, they analyzed other moderator variables, including variations in experimental conditions performed in the articles included in the analysis, to find the unique impact of self-efficacy on work-related performance in multiple conditions. For example, whether the task occurred in a laboratory or field setting could be uniquely impacted by each of these personality styles. An individual’s optimal level of celerity could impact their task- or work-related performance based on whether the individual’s performance occurred in a lab or field environment. Perhaps, the individual works optimally under timed conditions and thus exhibits better performance than an individual who works optimally in conditions with low celerity. Pace and rhythm could also be impacted because individuals being assessed in a lab environment may not be required to effortfully engage in their environment the same way