International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2012, Volume 27

Gerard P. Hodgkinson, J. Kevin Ford, Gerard P. Hodgkinson, J. Kevin Ford

• Éditeur: Wiley-Blackwell
• Année: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781118311066
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Psychology
• Sous-sujet: Industrial & Organizational Psychology

Continuing the series' tradition of providing scholarly reviews and updates of theory and research, this twenty-seventh volume surveys developments in established areas, such as stress and well-being, consumer behavior, and employee trust, as well as newer topics such as methodological issues in the development and evaluation of multiple regression models, and an examination of the psychological impact of the physical office environment. For advanced students, academics and researchers, as well as professionals, thisis the most authoritative and current guide to new developments and established knowledge in the field.

Chapter 1

THE SELF-CONCEPT IN ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: CLARIFYING AND DIFFERENTIATING THE CONSTRUCTS

John Schaubroeck

Department of Psychology and Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

You Jin Kim and Ann Chunyan Peng

Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Organizational psychologists and scholars representing other organizational disciplines have in recent years become increasingly interested in self-concept constructs. Scholars have applied the root constructs of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and identity to a wide range of topics. Research examining these constructs has also spawned other organizational research examining cognate constructs such as self-uncertainty (Thau, Aquino, & Wittek, 2007), self-concept clarity (Bechtoldt, De Dreu, Nijstad et al., 2010), and self-complexity (Hannah, Woolfolk, & Lord, 2009). These add to the suite of constructs which researchers must come to understand if they seek to extend the literature concerning the influence of self-concept on how people interact with their work environments.

Self-concept variables have significant motivational implications because they may predict effort and performance in ways that are unaccounted for by established motivation models (e.g., expectancy theory, equity theory) (Leonard, Beauvais, & Scholl, 1999).The self-concept is also an “interpersonal being” (Baumeister, 1998) that arises from and influences one's social interactions (Gecas, 1982). How one views oneself affects one's interpretations, attitudes, and behavior toward others (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

Despite its importance to behavior in organizations, research is rather scattered and it is often unclear how work with one concept (e.g., self-efficacy) relates to another (e.g., self-esteem). Organizational researchers have borrowed constructs or perspectives on the self from the broader psychology or sociology literatures which have different foci and terminologies. For example, the term “self-concept” has been used interchangeably with self-esteem in much of the educational or developmental psychology research (e.g., Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, & Baumert, 2006; Rosenberg, 1979), whereas sociologists and social psychologists have emphasized the role-dependent nature of the self, as within social identity perspectives (Hogg & Hains, 1996; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Therefore, organizational researchers have come to define self-concept constructs differently and adopt different terms (e.g., self-construal vs. self-identity). These differences can lead to confusion and hinder knowledge sharing. In this chapter we provide a fairly comprehensive overview of research conducted by organizational psychologists and management researchers relating to the self-concept, with special attention to the differences in self-concept domains under investigation.

We introduce the theories and perspectives on self-concept, followed by a categorization of the various types of self-concept variables. We then review studies that focused on self-concept variables in the literature of organizational behavior/psychology since 2004. In particular, we focus on three of the most researched self-constructs: self efficacy, self-esteem, and self-construal (i.e., identity and identification). The review for each self-construct is further organized by cognate constructs (e.g., global self-esteem vs. organization-based self-esteem), with conclusions and suggestions for future research at the end of each section.

SELF-CONCEPT RESEARCH

The self-concept refers to the organized knowledge system one has about oneself as “a physical, social, and spiritual or moral being” (Gecas, 1982, p. 3). It is the “totality of an individual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object” (Rosenberg, 1979, p. 7). The self-concept is viewed as a dynamic system arising from one's interactions with the world which guides behavior (Epstein, 1973).

There have been attempts in the literature to categorize different types of self-concepts. One useful distinction is between self-conceptions and self-evaluations (Gecas, 1982). Self-conceptions concern the content and the frame of self-image (e.g., role-based identities), whereas self-evaluations involve the evaluative and emotional aspects of self (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy). We examine self-concept constructs concerning one's personal attributes (e.g., competency beliefs) and one's opinions of his or her social relationships as content-related self-constructs. Among these content-related self-beliefs, some are evaluative and others are non-evaluative in nature. Evaluative self-beliefs are judgments of valence that range from very negative to very positive. One example would be self-esteem, the overall evaluation of oneself as competent, likable, and worthy of respect (Rosenberg, 1979). Other examples include self-efficacy, physical attractiveness, and integrity. In contrast, non-evaluative self-constructs concern self-beliefs that are not necessarily good or bad. Examples include levels of identity (or self-construal), and gender role identity.

How self-beliefs are organized also denotes an important set of self-concept characteristics. Individuals differ in how strongly their self-beliefs are inter-related (self-complexity), how different self-beliefs are from each other (self-differentiation), how clearly people understand themselves (self-concept clarity) and how resistant to change domain self-beliefs are over specified periods (self-concept stability). These constructs commonly emphasize the organization of self-beliefs in the self-concept system, and therefore we label them as structural self-constructs. To date, little research has examined the role of these structure-related self-constructs in the organizational context. The most significant distinction we make in our review is among the content constructs in terms of whether they are clearly self-evaluative (e.g., self-esteem) or merely descriptive (e.g., identity).

SELF-EFFICACY AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

Self-efficacy refers to the belief that one can effectively utilize one's resources to achieve certain outcomes (Bandura, 1997). Since Bandura introduced this concept in his social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), self-efficacy has been one of the most extensively researched constructs in organizational studies. A keyword search with self-efficacy or collective efficacy in PsycINFO shows that over 7,000 studies incorporating one or both of these constructs have been published from 2005 through 2011. As there are so many studies, even within the narrower organizational psychology literature, we focus on efficacy studies that constitute thematic areas of interest to many researchers.

Whereas self-efficacy was viewed as being task-specific in its original conceptualization (Bandura, 1986, 1997), researchers have expanded the construct space by developing efficacy constructs which concern a broader set of activities or roles, as well as constructs referring to the shared beliefs in a group (i.e., collective self-efficacy). At the individual level, self-efficacy constructs differ in levels of generality, ranging from the global construct of general self-efficacy (GSE) to self-efficacy pertaining to a specific task. Self-efficacy is more state-like as the scope is more task-specific (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001). At the other end of this continuum of generality, GSE refers to an individual's belief in his/her capabilities to mobilize the physical, intellectual, and emotional resources needed to have control over the events in one's life (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). Compared to self-esteem, GSE is narrower in terms of the domains that the individual evaluates. As noted by Chen, Gully, and Eden (2004), self-esteem is a more affective evaluation of oneself whereas GSE emphasizes the motivational components associated with one's competency beliefs. Task-specific self-efficacy constructs refer to one's beliefs about accomplishing specific tasks (e.g., typing); yet the scope of activities contained by a task can be narrower or broader, and therefore task-specific self-efficacy still varies in its generality. For example, computer self-efficacy defined as perceptions of ability to use computers to accomplish a task (Compeau & Higgins, 1995) is more general than efficacy in typing.

We apply the label role-specific self-efficacy to constructs that refer to one's capabilities to conduct a set of tasks within a particular role. One example would be job self-efficacy, which is defined in terms of one's confidence in performing one's job effectively (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Similarly, Abele and Spurk (2009) developed a similar concept pertaining to the occupational level. There are also narrower role-specific efficacy constructs that refer to a specific type of job (e.g., teacher self-efficacy, counselor self-efficacy), or job position (e.g., leader self-efficacy, or managerial self-efficacy).

Task-specific Self-efficacy

One area in which self-efficacy has been particularly prominent concerns the connection between efficacy and goal setting. Although the vast majority of studies support positive influences of self-efficacy on task performance (Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), Vancouver and his colleagues (Vancouver & Kendall, 2006; Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001) have demonstrated that very high self-efficacy can under some circumstances have a debilitating effect on performance. Their earlier experimental studies were criticized for arbitrarily raising the subjects’ self-efficacy without any enactive experiences (Bandura & Locke, 2003). They subsequently conducted field studies that provided further support for a negative within-person correlation between efficacy and performance (Vancouver & Kendall, 2006). More recently, Goncalo, Polman, and Maslach (2010) found that the negative efficacy-performance relationship can be generalized to the group level. The findings of their first study indicated that collective self-efficacy at the beginning of a project was negatively related to final performance assessed at the end of the project. In the subsequent study, they surveyed the teams in another class project at five different observation points and replicated the findings of the first study. Process conflict during the project explained this negative effect of collective self-efficacy on team performance. Conversely, in a stock market simulation conducted across 20 days of trials, Seo and Ilies (2009) found a positive within-person correlation between self-efficacy and performance. Goal level partially mediated this positive efficacy-performance relationship.

A few recent studies examined interventions to alter self-efficacy beliefs. For example, Ellis, Ganzach, Castle, and Sekely (2010) showed that participation in an after-event review raised participants' self-efficacy, leading to higher subsequent performance. In a field experiment, McNatt and Judge (2008) implemented an intervention to improve newcomer's self-efficacy. Results showed that, compared to the control group, newcomers in the intervention condition had significantly higher job self-efficacy and a lower turnover rate five months later.

Job search self-efficacy/Reemployment self-efficacy: Wanberg, Glomb, Song, and Sorenson (2005) defined job search self-efficacy as “an individual's belief that he or she can successfully perform job-search behaviors” (p. 412). They surveyed unemployment insurance recipients over an 18-week period, yielding ten waves of observations with a two-week separation between waves. Job-search efficacy was positively related to job-search intention and job-search intensity, and job-search intensity was positively related to reemployment. Wanberg, Zhu, and Van Hooft (2010) coined the term reemployment efficacy to refer to individuals’ confidence in finding an acceptable job. They found that perceived progress in job searching was related to positive affect and reemployment efficacy, which in turn led to increased job search effort the next day.

Creative self-efficacy: Tierney and Farmer (2002) introduced the construct of creative self-efficacy and developed a 13-item creative self-efficacy scale. In a more recent study, Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) examined both the antecedents and consequences of creative self-efficacy. They found that creative self-efficacy mediated the positive effects of employee learning orientation and transformational leadership on employee creativity as rated by his/her supervisor. Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2007) found creative self-efficacy moderated the relationship between employees’ expectations of their creativity at work and their degree of invol...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• About the Editors
• List of Contributors
• Editorial Foreword
• Chapter 1: The Self-Concept in Organizational Psychology: Clarifying and Differentiating the Constructs
• Chapter 2: The Effect of Subconscious Goals on Organizational Behavior
• Chapter 3: Combating Stress in Organizations
• Chapter 4: E-Learning at Work: Contributions of Past Research and Suggestions for the Future
• Chapter 5: Human Dynamics and Enablers of Effective Lean Team Cultures and Climates
• Chapter 6: Personnel Selection and the Competitive Advantage of Firms
• Chapter 7: The Processes of Team Staffing: A Review of Relevant Studies
• Chapter 8: Strategic Hrm Moving Forward: What Can We Learn From Micro Perspectives?
• Index
• International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology