Impact of a health promoting
leadership intervention on
emotional self-efficacy and work
engagement
Self-efficacy in
organizational settings
Vast support for positive outcomes in
everyday work life
●
Commitment
●
Control
●
Goal setting
●
Mood
●
Motivation
●
Performance
●
Well-being
2
1. Theoretical backgound
2. Aim 3.Hypothesis 3. Method
4. Results
5. Discussion
About self-efficacy beliefs:
”Among psychological structures attesting
to individuals´ agentic
power, none has
proved to exert a more pervasive
influence over thought, motivation and
action than peoples judgments about
their capacity to cope effectively with life
challenges and to face demanding
Previous research on
self-efficacy training
●
Reemployment
(Eden & Aviram, 1993)
Looking at the unemployed who initially had low self-efficacy in both
experiment- and control group two months after the self-efficacy training:
●
23% in the control group were reemployed
●
63%
in the experiment group were reemployed
For those with high initial self-efficacy – no significant differences between
control- (82%) and experimental group (63%)
●
To investigate changes in
occupational emotional self-efficacy
before and after an intervention and
how it may affects work
engagement of employees
4
Aim of this study
1.
Are there differences between the intervention- and
control group in emotional self-efficacy?
Hyp 1. The intervention group is expected to obtain an increase in emotional
self-efficacy from T1 to T2
2. Are there differences in work engagement between the
intervention- and control group?
Hyp 2. The intervention group is expected to have higher level of work engagement
than the control group after the intervention
3. Who benefits from participating in the intervention, in
terms of well being (work engagement) when comparing
individuals with initial low and high emotional self-efficacy?
Hyp 3. Individuals with low initial emotional self-efficacy benefit the most from
participating in the intervention
5
Research questions and
hypotheses
T1
pretest
Training
16 months
T2
after
training
T3
6 months
after T2
Longitudinal study, including an intervention/control group design
Involve team members
Regular team meetings used for work shops, observations and feedback
Action plans based on questionnaire results
Leaders get support from other leaders
Involve different activities (lectures, workshops, observation, feedback, coaching, diary writing to
increase self reflection)
General Study Design
Sample size at T1 and T2
T1
(2011)
T2
(2012)
Country
Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control
Germany
118
1258
88
867
Sweden
162
62
144
43
Total
280
1320
232
910
●
Dependent variable
Well being (Work engagement –
Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006
)
Emotional self-efficacy
●
Independent variables:
Emotional self-efficacy (low/high)
Group (control/intervention)
Time (T1/T2)
●
Control variable:
Country (Germany/Sweden)
8
Measures used
●
Definition: An employee`s confidence in his or her ability
to perceive, understand, regulate and use emotional
information at work
9
Occupational emotional
self-efficacy
Items
Other-oriented
1 (perceive)
Correctly identify when other people are feeling
negative emotions at work
2 (understand)
Realize what causes other people to feel negative
emotions at work
3 (regulate)
Help other people at work tackle their negative
emotions
4 (facilitate)
Help other people at work get into the mood that
best suits the situation
10
Emotional self-efficacy at T1 and T2
Covariate: Country (Germany/Sweden)
Main effect for Time (p < .001, η
2= .059 )
Main effect for Group (P < .05, η
2= .004)
Interaction effect for Time x Group (p < 0.001, η
2= .028)
Scale 0-5
1. Theoretical backgound 2. Aim 3.Hypothesis 3. Method
4. Results
5. Discussion
11
Work engagement at T1 and T2
Scale 0-6
Covariate: Country (Germany/Sweden)
No Main effect for Time
Main effect for Group (P < .001, η
2= 0.010)
No Interaction effect for Time x Group
1. Theoretical backgound 2. Aim 3.Hypothesis 3. Method
4. Results
5. Discussion
12
Work engagement at T2 among Experimental
and Control participants of Low and High initial
emotional self-efficacy (T1)
Scale 0-6
Covariate: Country (Germany/Sweden)
Main effect for Emotional self-efficacy (p < .05, η
2= 0.004 )
Main effect for Group (P < .001, η
2= 0.013)
Interaction effect for Time x Group (p < 0.05, η
2= 0.005)
1. Theoretical backgound 2. Aim 3.Hypothesis 3. Method
4. Results
5. Discussion
The intervention seems to have had an influence on
the participants level of emotional self-efficacy in a
positive direction
The intervention group had higher levels of work
engagement both at T1 and T2.
Individuals with low initial emotional self-efficacy
seems to benefit the most from participating in the
intervention
13
Conclusions
Limitations:
●
Initial differences between intervention and control group
●
Self-reported data
●
It was not a self-efficacy training program
Implications
1.
Emotional self-efficacy can be useful in applied psychological
research and it seems that planned interventions can alter it
in a positive direction
2.
Some training methods work better for some individuals due
to their level of self-efficacy – individuals with low
confidence in certain areas could be the ones that benefits
the most
3.
For leaders it could be desirable paying extra attention to
employees with lower emotional self-efficacy
14
Limitations and implications
Thank you for your
attention!
Contact: carina.loeb@mdh.se
Re-Su-Lead web page
www.uta.fi/projects/resulead
●
Literature
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74, 769-782.
Chen, G. L., Goddard, T. G., & Casper, W. J. (2004). Examination of the relationships among general and work-specific self-evaluations, work-related control beliefs, and job attitudes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 349–370. Choi, S., Kluemper, D., H., & Sauley, K. S. (2012). Assessing emotional self-efficacy: Evaluating validity and dimensionality
with cross-cultural samples. Applied Psychology: An international review. DOI: 10.111/j.1469-0597.2012.00515.x Dacre Pool, L., & Qualter, P. (2012). Improving emotional intelligence and emotional self-efficacy through a teaching
intervention for university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 306-312.
Eden, D., Aviram, A. (1993). Sefl-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping people to help themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 352-360.
Eklund, J., Loeb, C., Hansen, E., & Andersson Wallin, A-C. (2012). Who cares about others?: Empathic self-efficacy as an antecedent to prosocial behavior. Current Research in Social Psychology, 31-41. http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc Gundlach, M., J., Martinko, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2003). Emotional intelligence, causal reasoning and the self-efficacy
development process. The international Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 229-246.
Heuven, E. Bakker, A. B., Schaefeli, W. B., & Husiman, N. (2006). The role of self-efficacy in performing emotion work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 222-235.
Kirk, B., A Schutte, N., S., & Hine, D., W. (2011). The effect of an expressive-writing intervention for employees on emotional self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, affect, and workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 179-195. Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behaviour: A review and meta-analysis. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 42, 139–152.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire. A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998), Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin,
124, 240-61.
