Publication Year
Article Type

The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Satisfaction and Work-Related Performance

Case study

Citation Download PDF

International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration
Volume 4, Issue 4, May 2018, Pages 43-47

The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Satisfaction and Work-Related Performance

DOI: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.44.1005
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.44.1005

Senen Machmud

 Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi Pasundan, Bandung, Indonesia

Abstract: Previous studies show that there is an influence of self-efficacy on task performance. However, there is not much research that relates those variables with job satisfaction and task performance. Therefore, this research aims to know the influence of self-efficacy on satisfaction, work perception, and task performance. The population in this study are the employees. The total sample is 69 employees with purposive sampling technique. Data analysis of this study is a partial least squares approach (PLS). The result shows that there is a significant positive effect of self-efficacy on satisfaction and employee’s job perception that impact on the work-related performance. The results of this study recommend that the self-efficacy improves satisfaction and work perception.

Keywords: Self-efficacy, Work perception, Satisfaction, Work-related performance

The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Satisfaction and Work-Related Performance

1. Introduction

The Resource-based view (RBV) approach emphasizes the use of company’s resources by utilizing a strategic approach (Newbert, 2007; Powell, 2001). Wernerfelt (1984) states that if the resources available in a company is appropriately managed, it leads to the organizational success (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1998; Wagner, 2006; Machnud and Sidharta, 2014; Sidharta and Affandi, 2016). This concept emphasizes on the aligning of company’s internal resources with the existing system efficiently and effectively (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Barney et al., 2001). Then, the Knowledge-Based View (KBV) approach accentuates on the human aspect of improving the organizational performance (Becker, 1975). The role of human resources in the organization needs proper attention in improving its performance, which is supported by satisfaction and perception of the tasks.

Organizational behavior points out the achievement of adequate organizational performance (Luthans, 2006). There is individual behavior within Organizational Behavior (Gibson, 2010; Edwards & Cooper, 1990). The personal behavior is the interaction between individuals within the organization. Communication between the individual and the organization create the performance and satisfaction that in return perceived by the individual within the organization (Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Davis & Newstroom, 2000). Furthermore, Robbins (2006) states employees’ behavior on interaction with the organization and the environment is indicated by job satisfaction.

Wood & Bandura (1989) states that perception in completing a job is self-efficacy. Moreover, self-efficacy relates to someone’s confidence in achieving his/her duties in uncertainty. In addition, it concerns satisfaction, the perception of work and job performance (Chandler, 2008; Baum & Locke, 2004; Hmieleski & Baron, 2008; Jex and Bliese, 1999; Judge and Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2003). Robbins (2006) and LeRouge et al. (2006) believe that individual’s willingness to perform several tasks is supported by their multiple skills. Those skills help individuals in solving obstacles in their work. Sigh & Greenhaus (2004) claim there is an interaction between individual’s abilities, interindividual and the environment in the workplace. The work environment affects the perceptions of individual performance in completing their tasks (Donald et al., 2005), job satisfaction and work performance (Aan et al., 2016; Jex and Bliese, 1999; Lancau and Sandura, 2002; Xiao et al., 2014). Individual satisfaction refers to the nature of the individual in completing his/her task (Newstroom and Davis, 2002). Moreover, the high job satisfaction produces the optimal performance for the organization. (Mangkunegara, 2013). Research by Jex and Bliese (1999) proves that high self-efficacy is related to job satisfaction. In addition, a study by Peng & Mao (2015) and Hakim et al. (2003) show that the individual’s will and ability are related to his/her satisfaction.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to know the effect of self-efficacy on job perception, satisfaction, and task performance. job performance job performance

2. Materials and Methods

This study uses survey method while the data analysis technique is a structural equation which is completed by using Smart PLS 3 program. The sample of this study is 69 employees in one of the local government institutions in Bandung. The research instrument uses the five-point Likert scale. The use of self-efficacy instrument is similar to previous research, The General Self Efficacy in Indonesian version (Schwarzer and Jerusalem, 1995; Luszczynska et al., 2005). Meanwhile, this study adopts the perception of work instrument from Rivai and Sagala (2013) which was validated by Aan et al., (2016). The satisfaction instrument referred to The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionary (MNQ) (Weiss et al., 1967) and was validated by Martins & Proença (2012). Also, the task performance instrument refers to Mathis & Jackson (2012). job performance
job performance job performance
Data analysis utilizes the Partial Least Square to predict the research variables. The measurement criteria use the outer loading value of the indicator as well as the validity and reliability of the indicator of each construct (Chin, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Structural model testing refers to the R-square value with the Tenenhaus Goodness of Fit (GOF) criterion (Kock, 2012). The calculation results show that some indicators do not meet the minimal requirement of external loading. The construct validity and reliability of Cronbach alpha range from 0.707 to 0.833; AVE range from 0.552 to 0, 645; and Composite Reliability values range from 0.709 to 0.873.

3. Result and Discussion

Table 1 shows the results of the path analysis calculation: job performance

Table 1: Path coefficient

Path Coefficient T-Statistic P-Value Criteria
Satisfaction -> Performance 0.294 1.239 0.216 Reject
Self Efficacy-> Satisfaction 0.207 2.904 0.004 Accept
Self-Efficacy-> Performance 0.576 2.907 0.004 Accept
Self-Efficacy-> Work 0.346 2.481 0.013 Accept
Work-> Satisfaction 0.824 15.765 0.000 Accept
Work-> Performance 0.094 0.439 0.661 Reject

Table 2 shows the results of R-squares which has a good model:

Table 2: R-Squares

Variables R-Square T-Statistic P-Value Criteria
Satisfaction 0.839 20.107 0.000 Good
Performance 0.680 12.095 0.000 Good

Figure 1 describes the results:

job performance

Figure 1: Path Analisis Model

Based on the calculation results, it can be seen that the self-efficacy significantly affect the satisfaction, task performance, and work perception. Work perception has a significant effect on satisfaction. While satisfaction and work performance has no significant impact on task performance. job performance

Self-efficacy improves the employee’s perceptions regarding relationships with work and satisfaction in work. This condition indicates that the individual can behave for the achievement of long-term results and interact with individuals in their work environment (Hakim & Bono, 1999; Mangkunegara, 2013). Individuals with high self-efficacy may increase strong self-confidence concerning the task achievement (Peng et al. 2013). Furthermore, they can overcome the obstacles in their tasks (Judge et al., 2003). This evidence shows that the higher the self-efficacy, the more capable the individual in completing the task (Donald et al. 2005). job performance

Some research that supports the results of this study are Jex & Bliese (1999); Faye & Long (2014); Millner-Harlee (2010); Fu & Deshpande (2014); Al-Tit and Suifan (2015); Najafi et al. (2011); McNeese-Smith, D (1996); Falkenburg & Schyns (2007). job performance

4. Conclusion

The results of this study support the previous research on self-efficacy that is closely related to job perception, satisfaction, and task performance. Based on the results it is known that self-efficacy affect the perception of work, satisfaction and task performance. The implications of the research results recommend that improving the self-efficacy will affect employees’ perceptions about job and satisfaction. Therefore, it is necessary for the manager to improve the employee’s self-efficacy to produce job satisfaction. Nonetheless, this needs more in-depth research with more diverse research objects so that the results can be generalized. job performance


  • Al-Tit, A. A., ad Suifan, T. S. (2015). The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics in the Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(9): 215-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n9p215.
  • Barney, J, B., Wright, M., and Ketchen, Jr, D, J,. (2001). The resource-base view of the firm: ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27: 625-641.
  • Baum, R., and Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4): 587-598.
  • Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Chandler, G. N. (2008). Organizational learning and new venture performance. Proceedings, USASBE, 0240-0255.
  • Chin, W. W. (1998), The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modelling. In Marcoulides, G. A. (Ed). Modern Method for Business Research. Mahwah. NJ. Erlbaum.
  • Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., and Robertson, S. (2005). Work environments, stress, and productivity: An examination using ASSET. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(4): 409-423.
  • Edwards, J. R., and Cooper, C. L. (1990). The person‐environment fit approach to stress: Recurring problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of organizational behavior, 11(4): 293-307.
  • Falkenburg, K., and Schyns, B. (2007). Work satisfaction, organizational commitment and withdrawal behaviours. Management Research News, 30(10): 708-723. DOI 10.1108/01409170710823430.
  • Faye, K., and Long, Y. (2014). The Impact of Job Satisfaction in the Relationships between Workplace Politics and Work Related Outcomes and Attitudes: Evidence from Organizations in Senegal. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(5): 160-168. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v9n5p160.
  • Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variable and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39-50.
  • Fu, W., and Deshpande, S. P. (2013). The Impact of Caring Climate, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment on Job Performance of Employees in a China’s Insurance Company. J Bus Ethics, 124:339–349. DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1876-y.
  • Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., Donnelly, J.H., and Konopaske, R. (2006). Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes. 12th edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
  • Griffin, R. W., and Moorhead, G. (2013). Perilaku Organisasi: Manajemen Sumberdaya Manusia, Jakarta: Penerbit Salemba Empat.
  • Hamel, G., and Prahalad, C. K. (1990). Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing. Harvard business review, 69(4): 81-92.
  • Hardiyana, A., Yusup, M., and Sidharta, I. (2016). Perception of Work and Organization Commitment toward Employee Satisfaction on Non-Ministerial Government Agencies in Bandung Indonesia. Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, 6(1):1-15.
  • Hmieleski, K, M., and Baron, R. A. (2008). When does entrepreneurial self efficacy enhance versus reduce firm performance?. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1): 57-72.
  • Jarvenpaa, S, L., and Leidner, D. E. (1998). An informational company in Mexico: extending the resource base view of the firm to developing country context. Information System Research, 9(4): 342-361.
  • Jex, S. M., and Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: a multilevel study. Journal of applied psychology, 84(3): 349-361.
  • Judge, T. A., and Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 86(1): 80-92.
  • Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., and Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self‐evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel psychology, 56(2): 303-331.
  • Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., and Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.Psychological bulletin, 127(3): 376-407.
  • Lankau, M. J., and Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4): 779-790.
  • LeRouge, C., Nelson, A., and Blanton, J. E. (2006). The impact of role stress fit and self-esteem on the job attitudes of IT professionals. Information & Management, 43(8): 928–938.
  • Luszczynska, A., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., and Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self-efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. International Journal of Psychology, 40(2): 80-89.
  • Luthans, F. (2006). Perilaku Organisasi, Edisi 10, Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi.
  • Machmud, S., and Sidharta, I. (2016). Entrepreneurial Motivation and Business Performance of SMEs in the SUCI Clothing Center, Bandung, Indonesia. DLSU Business and Economics Review, 25(2): 63-78.
  • Martins, H., and Proença, T. (2012). Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire – Psychometric Properties and Validation in a Population of Portuguese Hospital Workers, FEP Working Papers October n.471: 1-20.
  • Millner-Harlee, T. (2010). A Multiple Case Study Discovering Part-Time Faculties` Perceptions of Their Professional Needs, Working Conditions, Social Network, and Job Satisfaction at Three Community Colleges. George Washington University.
  • Najafi, S., Noruzy, A., Azar, H. K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., and Dalvand, M. R. (2011). Investigating the relationship between organizational justice, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical model. African Journal of Business Management, 5(13): 5241-5248, DOI: 10.5897/AJBM10.1505.
  • Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource base view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2): 121-146.
  • Newstrom, J. W., and Davis, K. (2002). Organizational behavior (1 Ith ed.). New York: McGrawHill Higher Education.
  • Peng, J., Miao, D., and Xiao, W. (2013). Why are gainers more risk seeking.Judgment and Decision Making, 8(2): 150-160.
  • Peng, Y., and Mao, C. (2015). The impact of person–job fit on job satisfaction: the mediator role of Self efficacy. Social Indicators Research, 121(3): 805-813.
  • Rivai, V., and Sagala, E. J. (2013). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia dari Teori ke Praktek, Jakarta: Penerbit PT Rajagrafindo Persada.
  • Robbins, S. P., and Judge, T. A. (2007). Perilaku Organisasi (Organizaztional Behavior) buku 1. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
  • Schultz, T. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 51(1): 1-17.
  • Schwarzer, R., and Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.
  • Sidharta, I., and Affandi, A. (2016). The Empirical Study on Intellectual Capital Approach toward Financial Performance on Rural Banking Sectors in Indonesia. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(3): 1247-1253.
  • Singh, R., and Greenhaus, J. H. (2004). The relation between career decision-making strategies and person-job fit: A study of job changers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1): 198–221.
  • Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., and Lauro, C. (2005), PLS path modeling. Computational statistics and data analysis, 48(1): 159-205.
  • Wagner, H. T. (2006). Managing the impact of IT on firm success: the link between the resource base view and the IT infrastructure library. IEEE-proceedings of the 39 Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 1-10.
  • Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., and England, G. W. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 22: 120.
  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource base view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 1(2): 171-180.
  • Wood, R. E., and Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management Reviews, 14(3): 361-384.
  • Xiao, W., Zhou, L., Wu, Q., Zhang, Y., Miao, D., Zhang, J., and Peng, J. (2014). Effects of person-vocation fit and core self-evaluation on career commitment of medical university students: the mediator roles of anxiety and career satisfaction. International journal of mental health systems, 8(8): 1-6. DOI10.1186/1752-4458-8-8.
job performance

Comments are closed.