The Organizational Context of Individual Efficacy

Abstract

Efficacy-the individuaΓs perceived expectancy of obtaining valued outcomes through personal effort-appears to yield a variety of important effects in school organizations. Efficacy has been identified as a social psychological antecedent to many individual-level outcomes, such as student performance and teacher effectiveness. Program implementation and evaluation studies also increasingly point to efficacy as a significant determinant of resistance to, or persistence of organizational interventions. This paper moves from looking at research on individual efficacy as the antecedent to various school outcomes, to the dependent variable linked to characteristics of organizational structure. First, alternative views of the efficacy construct are reviewed, pertinent to varying interpretations of how the same structural feature may differentially influence alternative forms of efficacy. Second, a distinction is made between organizational and performance efficacy. Then, general images of structural determinants of individual efficacy are outlined from existing organizational theory. The paper concludes with specific propositions related to the pattern of interaction between contiguous structural levels which might guide future research and practice on efficacy in school organizations.Efficacy-the individuaΓs perceived expectancy of obtaining valued outcomes through personal effort-appears to yield a variety of important effects in school organizations. After reviewing research on how efficacy is related both to students' and teachers' performance, we ask what characteristics of the organization influence this component of individual motivation. By pulling together research on structural conditions for improving efficacy, we hope to complement social psychologists' work on how efficacy operates within the individual and leads to action (Stipek & Weisz, 1981).A broad spectrum of research points to the significance of efficacy in efforts to improve individual and organizational performance. First, research on implementing organizational interventions has illuminated the black box lying between legislative action and respiting change (or persistent inertia) of the school structure. We now more clearly realize how local actors can buffer or defeat centralized action that threatens to impede their efficacy in pursuing valued outcomes (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973).

The School Change Feedback Process: Creating a New Role for Counselors in Education Reform

“…The creation of study groups for staff development addressed the conceptual factors regarding mandated tasks and resource exchange and relevancy (Fuller et al, 1982;Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). By organizing staff development around teachers' own beliefs, the process allowed teachers to play a primary role in the implementation of the district's mandated tasks.…”

High School Teachers’ Openness to Adopting New Practices: The Role of Personal Resources and Organizational Climate

“…Notably, when considering the association between organizational climate and personal factors, it has been suggested that organizational conditions can enhance or diminish teachers’ personal resources. For example, the Fuller framework (1982) suggests that teachers’ efficacy is improved by structural conditions such as caring relations among teachers as well as feeling supported by administrators (Fuller, Wood, Rapoport, & Dornbusch, 1982; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Similarly, burnout, another important personal resource, promotes disengagement as demonstrated by the job demands-resources model, which describes how exhaustion and disengagement from work can result from stressful job demands and a lack of external and internal resources (e.g., supervisor support, colleague support; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001).…”

“…Examining the role of teachers’ perceptions of a school’s organizational climate is also necessary in understanding teacher resources as well as openness to adopting new practices (Aarons, 2005; Aarons et al, 2014; Fuller et al, 1982). Principals are curriculum “gatekeepers” and set priorities for the school and thus likely impact teachers’ attitudes towards new practices (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Han & Weiss, 2005).…”

“…The leadership and support that principals provide is one key element of the organizational climate (Hoy & Fedman, 1987; Hoy & Hannum, 1997). The extent to which teachers feel supported directly influences teachers’ efficacy to achieve tasks as well as efforts and motivations to implement new practices (Fuller et al, 1982; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002; Han & Weiss, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Not surprisingly, various studies across all grade levels have linked principal support to implementation fidelity and outcomes (Kam, Greenberg, & Walls, 2003; Payne, Gottfredson, & Gottfredson, 2006).…”

Teacher efficacy of Turkish Physical Education teachers

“…Important antecedents of teacher efficacy have included teacher training and experience (Hoy and Woolfolk, 1993;Ramey-Gassert et al, 1996), the academic ability of one's students (Smylie, 1988), and school and community support (Fuller et al, 1982;Hoy and Woolfolk, 1993;Park, 1992;RameyGassert et al, 1996).…”