Enhancing

Enhancing worker self- worker

efficacy: an approach for self-efficacy

reducing negative reactions to

41
technological change
Tracy McDonald and Marc Siegall
Department of Management, California State University, Chico, USA

Chris repairs and installs telephones for a large telecommunications company on the West
Coast. Recently, his job has undergone a major technological change and he is not sure
whether he has the ability to continue performing his job successfully. He simply does not feel
competent in learning the new technology. As time goes on he feels less satisfied with his job,
is less committed to the company, and his productivity and quality of work have decreased.
His supervisor has noticed that he has been absent and late with greater frequency since the
technological change.
Claire, on the other hand, has responded to the technological change completely differently.
Almost from the start she felt extremely confident in her ability to perform her job
successfully after the technological change. She is very satisfied with her job, committed to the
telecommunications company for which she works and is producing a large amount of high
quality work. She has not missed any days of work nor has she been late since the
technological changeover was made.

In order to increase quality and production and in order to better compete in the
international market, companies are more and more frequently introducing
changes which result in workers’ jobs becoming more sophisticated
technologically. For example, one often hears of technological changes being
made in the automobile, the telecommunications, health care, and even in the
retail industries. In the future, American workers’ jobs will probably undergo
more technological change than at any time in history. The scenario described
above is based on very real findings of a study we conducted examining
employee reactions to technological changes in their jobs.

Self-efficacy
What determines whether an employee will react like Chris or like Claire to a
technological change? One characteristic of workers that can help in
understanding the answer to this question is perceived self-efficacy, or the belief
in one’s ability to perform a task successfully. Research has shown that people
have differing levels of self-efficacy. Some people have a lot of confidence in their
ability to perform a new task whereas others are very unsure of themselves.
More importantly, when individuals have high efficacy expectations they will
expend more effort and they will work longer. Moreover, they are more
motivated and perform at a higher level. One study has shown that insurance Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 11 No. 2, 1996, pp. 41-44.
agents with high levels of self-efficacy sell more insurance that those with lower © MCB University Press, 0268-3946
Journal of levels. Another has shown self-efficacy to be related to research productivity
Managerial among university faculty.
Psychology
An example: perceived self-efficacy among telecommunications
11,2 workers
We had the opportunity to study the role of self-efficacy in workers’ reactions to
42 technological change. A large telecommunications company was preparing to
change part of its field service technicians’ job. These technicians respond to
customer service requests to repair or install telephone lines. Each morning,
they are given their first repair or installation assignment (known as a “ticket”)
by their supervisors. Under the old job design, each technician would call an
operations centre on completion of the first ticket. An operator at the centre
would take the necessary information to “close out” the ticket (e.g. type of
problem found and repair action taken) and give the technician his or her next
assignment.
The job change involved the ticket assignment and close out system.
Technicians were trained to use a hand held computer. Through this computer
the technicians contact a central mainframe computer. The technician then
transmits the ticket close out information to, and receives the next ticket from,
the mainframe. Contact with the operations centre is now for only extremely
unusual situations. For the purposes of this article, we will call the new system
Computerized Access for Technicians (CAT).
Since CAT represented a major technological change to the technicians’ job,
we wanted to know whether technicians with high levels of perceived self-
efficacy would fare better after the changeover compared with technicians with
lower levels of self-efficacy. We defined technological self-efficacy (TSE) as the
belief in one’s ability to perform successfully a technologically sophisticated
new task and measured it using a survey containing the following five items:
(1) When I have to learn a new task that is high tech, my first reaction is that
I am sure I can do it.
(2) In terms of my ability to learn new tasks that are high tech, I would
describe myself as one of the best in my workgroup.
(3) In the past, I have had a great amount of experience (either on or off the
job) working on high tech tasks.
(4) I am extremely confident that I can learn to use CAT on my job.
(5) CAT will allow me to perform my job better and more efficiently.
(The term “high tech” is consistent with the technicians’ everyday language.)
For each item, the technician responded with (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3)
neither agree nor disagree, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree. In total, 205
technicians responded to our survey. We used other well-established scales to
measure job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
We found that technicians with high levels of TSE were significantly more
satisfied with their jobs and more committed to the organization after the
changeover compared with workers with low levels of TSE. In addition, high Enhancing
TSE technicians reported performing more work of a higher quality since CAT worker
and were absent and late less frequently compared with low TSE technicians. self-efficacy
These findings are very strong evidence that there are many positive outcomes
for companies when workers perceive themselves as self-efficacious in
anticipation of a technological change.
43
What can companies do to enhance self-efficacy when making a
technological change?
Companies obviously want their workers to respond favourably to a
technological change and avoid the negative attitudes and behaviours exhibited
by workers with low TSE in the study described above. Since some degree of
technological change is unavoidable for most modern-day companies,
managers will probably want to use the following principles to enhance the
success of change.
Introduce the technological change gradually. Upper management and
workers’ immediate supervisors should inform workers of the impending
change well in advance. By doing so, workers will not be taken by surprise and
will have plenty of time to ask questions, have discussions, and gradually get
used to the idea of technological change.
Instill confidence in workers through training of both workers and managers.
This is probably the most important principle. As in sports, workers need
plenty of experience practising their newly changed job in order to gain
confidence in their ability. The best type of training in this situation is through
simulation whereby the worker practises the new job using the new technology
in an off-the-job setting where mistakes do not matter.
It is equally important that managers be trained not only in using the new
technology, but also in instilling confidence in workers. Managers must be
trained to concentrate on successes on the part of their workers and avoid
paying attention exclusively to shortcomings. Managers should be taught
techniques of giving positive reinforcement and specific feedback.
Point to past successes. If the company has made technological changes in the
past and workers have adjusted successfully to the changes, remind workers of
their previous success. Nothing builds confidence better than previous success.
Give workers time to get used to the change. Let workers know that once the
technological changeover is made, that it is expected that they will make
mistakes and that perfect performance is not expected. Do not plan any
performance appraisals for at least six months after the changeover.
Select workers with high levels of self-efficacy. If jobs exist in your company
that require the use of complex skills or that frequently undergo technological
change, you might consider selecting job applicants who perceive themselves as
being technologically self-efficacious. Company interviewers may be trained to
ask questions geared towards assessing self-efficacy. Alternatively, a testing
specialist in your human resource department might be asked to develop a test
measuring perceived self-efficacy.
Journal of Conclusion
Managerial Research was described here which demonstrates how workers react differently
Psychology when their jobs are changed technologically. One worker characteristic which
seems to prevent negative reactions to technological change is the degree to
11,2 which workers perceive themselves as technologically self-efficacious.
Strategies were described for improving the level of perceived self-efficacy so
44 that negative reactions to technological change can be avoided.

Further reading
Bandura, A., “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84, 1977, pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A., Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
Bandura, A., “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37, 1982,
pp. 122-47.
Bandura, A., “Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy”, Cognitive Therapy and
Research, Vol. 8, 1984, pp. 231-55.
Bandura, A. and Adams, N.E., “Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioural change”, Cognitive
Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, 1977, pp. 287-310.
Bandura, A. and Schunk, D.H., “Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic interest
through proximal self-motivation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 41, 1981,
pp. 586-98.
Bandura, A., Adams, N.E., and Beyer, J., “Cognitive processes mediating behavioural change”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 35, 1977, pp. 124-39.
Bandura, A., Adams, N.E., Hardy, A.B., and Howells, G.N., “Tests of the quality of the generality
of self-efficacy theory”, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 4, 1980, pp. 39-66.
Barling, J. and Beattie, R., “Self-efficacy and sales performance”, Journal of Organizational
Behaviour Management, Vol. 5, 1983, pp. 41-51.
Buchanan, B., “Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work
organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, 1974, pp. 533-46.
Chambliss, C. and Murray, E.J., “Cognitive procedures for smoking reduction: symptom
attribution versus efficacy attribution”, Cognitive Therapy Research, Vol. 3, 1979, pp. 91-5.
Locke, E.A., Frederick, E., Lee, C. and Bobko, P., “The effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task
strategies on task performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, 1984, pp. 241-51.
Porter, L.W. and Lawler, E.E., Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1968.
Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P. and Cammann, C. (Eds), “Observing and measuring
organizational change: a guide to field practice”, Wiley, New York, NY, 1982.
Taylor, M.S., Locke, E.A., Lee, C. and Gist, M.E., “Type A behavior and faculty research
productivity: what are the mechanisms?”, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, Vol. 34, 1984, pp. 402-18.