Impact of a health promoting leadership intervention on emotional self-efficacy and work engagement

Full text

(1)

Impact of a health promoting

leadership intervention on

emotional self-efficacy and work

engagement

(2)

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

(3)

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%)

(4)

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

(5)

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

(6)

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

(7)

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

(8)

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

(9)

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)

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)

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)

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

(13)

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

(14)

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

(15)

Thank you for your

attention!

Contact: carina.loeb@mdh.se

Re-Su-Lead web page

www.uta.fi/projects/resulead

(16)

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.

16

(17)

The Re-Su-Lead project is a collaboration between researchers

from the University of Leipzig (Germany), University of

Mälardalen (Sweden), and University of Tampere (Finland) –

funded by national authorities within the

NEW-OSH-ERA-framework

General Aims and Goals:



How can rewarding, sustainable health promoting

leadership be described and measured?



Explore causal links, processes, and important moderating,

and mediating variables linking leadership behavior with

employees' health and well-being



Develop an intervention program to enhance health

promoting leadership and evaluate it in two countries

(Germany and Sweden)



Investigate cultural, and gender

differences

Figur

Updating...

Referenser

Updating...

Relaterade ämnen :