Leadership self-efficacy: review and leader development implications

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper, on self-efficacy and leadership, has two objectives. First, it comprehensively reviews approximately 25 years of research on leadership self-efficacy (LSE), beginning with LSE measurement and related criticisms. Findings concerning LSE’s relationships with leader effectiveness criteria, as well as individual and contextual influences on LSE, are presented. Second, it examines the evidence on efficacy enhancement interventions and offers some preliminary recommendations for increasing LSE through leadership development programs. Design/methodology/approach The author conducted a comprehensive literature review of the existing research on LSE, covering the main contributors to this research stream and their findings. Findings The review revealed substantial diversity in LSE construct development and measurement approaches. Regarding LSE and leader effectiveness, many studies reported positive relationships with potential, performance and behavioral ratings of leaders. Collective (team) efficacy has emerged as a significant mediator between LSE and group performance. Influences on LSE include several of the Big Five personality traits, while contextual antecedents are under-researched, and potentially fruitful areas for further study. Executive coaching and mentoring, as well as cognitive modeling techniques and training in constructive thought patterns, received support for enhancing LSE in developing leaders. Originality/value This paper’s review and implications should be of substantial value to current and future LSE researchers, as it summarizes past research, synthesizes the findings to draw out common themes and consistent, corroborated findings, and identifies opportunities for future research. For practitioners, the reviewed research on interventions for increasing LSE through leadership development programs provides practical guidance.

Exploring the Relationship between Despotic Leadership and Job Satisfaction: The Role of Self Efficacy and Leader–Member Exchange

“…First, self-efficacy refers to an individual’s speculation and judgment on whether they can complete a certain behavior [ 50 ]. According to social learning theory, people’s sense of self-efficacy often comes from their past social experiences [ 47 ].…”

“…According to social learning theory, people’s sense of self-efficacy often comes from their past social experiences [ 47 ]. For example, independently completing a certain task and achieving success can bring people a satisfactory experience and arouse their ambition to continuously participate and continuously improve this task [ 50 ]. In practice, employees’ sense of self-efficacy first comes from the experience of independently completing a task and achieving success.…”

A two-nation investigation of leadership self-perceptions and motivation to lead in early adulthood: the moderating role of gender and socio-economic status

“…Bandura, 1994). LSE in particular refers to one's perceptions regarding his or her ability to lead others (Dwyer, 2019; Hannah et al , 2008; Murphy, 1992). High LSE has been reported to result in more positive leadership ratings by instructors, peers and observers (Chemers et al , 2000; Courtright et al , 2014; Seibert et al , 2017), more change leadership (Mesterova et al , 2015; Palis and Green, 2002) and better group performance (Hoyt et al , 2003; Kane et al , 2002; Villanueva and Sánchez, 2007).…”

Furthering the Metaphor of the Leadership Labyrinth: Different Paths for Different People

“…Concerning the relationship with oneself, potential leaders must make a personal choice to pursue some of the basic requisites of senior leadership. To self-categorize into this role, they will likely have to develop the ambition to lead as well as the belief they are capable of leading (leadership self-efficacy; e.g., Dwyer, 2019). To be successful in self-categorizing, and gain respect from their peers, they should assimilate some of the prototypical leader characteristics into their self-identity (e.g., DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Hogg & Terry, 2000).…”