Self-efficacy to spur job performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose With a foundation in conservation of resources theory, the purpose of this paper is to unpack the relationship between employees’ self-efficacy and job performance, investigating the mediating role of job-related anxiety and the moderating role of perceived workplace incivility. Design/methodology/approach Survey data were collected from employees and their supervisors in Pakistani organizations. Findings An important reason that employees’ self-efficacy enhances their job performance is that they experience less anxiety while undertaking their daily job tasks. This mediating role of job-related anxiety is particularly salient to the extent that employees believe that they are the victims of uncivil behaviors. Practical implications Organizations should note that the anxiety-mitigating effect of self-efficacy is particularly strong for generating adequate performance to the extent that rude and discourteous behaviors cannot be completely avoided in the workplace. Originality/value This study establishes a more complete understanding of the benefits of employees’ self-efficacy by revealing how reduced worries about their organizational functioning represent critical mechanisms that connect this personal resource to higher job performance, as well as by showing how employees’ perceptions of workplace incivility invigorate this process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".