Brown S.D., Lent R. (Editors). Career development and counseling: putting theory and research to work

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

486 C

AREER

NTERVENTIONS ACROSS THE

IFE

PAN

Components that might be shared across several, but not all, jobs (e.g., super-

vision/leadership).

Campbell’s model and the grouping according to generalizability provide a guide

for counselors. When assisting clients who lack the confidence required to change

jobs, it is worth emphasizing those aspects of performance that are common across

jobs, such as demonstrating effort and maintaining personal discipline.

An alternative and more parsimonious model, which has been extensively ex-

amined in empirical studies, is Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993) division of per-

formance into task and contextual performance. Task performance refers to the

technical aspects of a job, involving either executing the technical processes or

maintaining and servicing the technical requirements (Borman & Motowidlo,

1997). Contextual performance refers to activities that contribute to maintaining the

broader organizational, social, or psychological environment. Examples in

clude

Table 20.1

Models of Performance

Borman and Motowidlo

(1993) Factors

Campbell

(1990) Factors

Description

of Factors

Task performance

Non-job-specific task

proficiency

Performance on tasks that are

shared with other jobs in the

same organization.

Written and oral

communication

Making formal written and oral

presentations.

Supervision/ leadership Influencing subordinates’ perfor-

mance including training, reward-

ing, disciplining, counseling.

Management/

administration

Developing and facilitating organi-

zational goals including planning,

problem solving, decision making,

allocating resources, monitoring

progress.

Job-specific task

proficiency

Performance on tasks and respon-

sibilities for a particular job.

Contextual performance Demonstrating effort

Showing the willingness to consis-

tently expend effort under normal

and adverse conditions.

Maintaining personal

discipline

Avoidance of behaviors that dis-

rupt performance or are against

the rules and regulations.

Facilitating peer and

team performance

Support given to coworkers and

commitment to group goals.

Source: “Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance,” by

W. C. Borman and S. J. Motowidlo, in Personnel Selection in Organizations, N. Schmitt, W. C. Bor-

man, and Associates, (Eds.), 1993, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

c20.qxd 8/5/04 9:15 AM Page 486

Counseling for Work Adjustment 487

helping coworkers, cooperating, following rules, supporting the organization’s

goals, and volunteering for additional tasks (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).

As shown in Table 20.1, the task/contextual model can be considered a

broader or higher level approach than Campbell’s (1990) model. Borman and

Motowidlo (1993) argued that the components of task performance vary among

jobs whereas the components of contextual performance are likely to be rela-

tively similar across jobs.

These two models, considered either separately or together, can be used to

help clients understand that performance appraisals at work are dependent on

more than just an individual’s task performance and that contextual perfor-

mance indicators are also important (Conway, 1999). These models can also be

used to help counselors identify sources of a client’s performance difficulties so

that intervention can be more specifically targeted. In context of the need to

change jobs, use of these models can encourage clients to understand that con-

textual skills are transferable.

According to the TWA, performance results from a good match between the

person and his or her environment, implying that performance is not a stable

construct. Studies show that performance initially increases with time spent

doing the job but then plateaus (Quinones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995). Murphy

(1989) described this trajectory in terms of two stages of performance: transition

and maintenance. The transition stage occurs when individuals are new to the

job or when tasks are novel. This is a time when counseling interventions to fa-

cilitate newcomer socialization can be applied (Lance et al., 2000). The mainte-

nance stage occurs once task accomplishment becomes automatic. Frequent and

rapid changes common to today’s workplace mean that many employees cycle

between the transition and maintenance stages continually, not just when they

are new to a job. This demand to keep adjusting to new conditions is not ade-

quately accounted for in the traditional models of performance described here.

Therefore, Allworth and Hesketh (Allworth, 1997; Allworth & Hesketh, 1999)

developed the concept of adaptive performance, which is described in more de-

tail later in this chapter.

ATISFACTION AND

ENTAL

EALTH

Job satisfaction is a person’s psychological response to his or her job and includes

cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (Hulin & Judge, 2003). Distinc-

tions are made between a broad summary response, referred to as overall job satis-

faction, and responses to particular job features, such as working conditions, pay,

or independence in decision making, referred to as facet-specific satisfactions

(Fritzsche & Parrish, Chapter 8, this volume).

Satisfaction is a function of correspondence between the reinforcer system of the

work environment and an individual’s needs. Person-environment fit research con-

sistently supports this proposal. For example, Lauver and Kristof-Brown (2001)

found that subjective estimates of person-job fit and person-organization fit both

predicted job satisfaction. Likewise, Cable and Scott De Rue (2002) showed that

perceived needs-supplies fit was a significant predictor of job and career satisfac-

tion. Counselors often have to help clients reconsider their expectations of work

because it is not always possible to find an exact fit.

c20.qxd 8/5/04 9:15 AM Page 487

488 C

AREER

NTERVENTIONS ACROSS THE

IFE

PAN

Other research shows that both the component parts of the fit (i.e., person fac-

tors and environment factors) independently affect satisfaction. Examples of the

independent influence of the environment include investigations stemming from

Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics model, which show that char-

acteristics of the work itself, such as the degree of autonomy and feedback pro-

vided, are related to satisfaction and motivation (e.g., Frye, 1996). Similarly,

research ex

amining dispositional influences on job satisfaction recognizes the

importance of person factors. Most recently, Judge and Bono (2001) conducted a

meta-analysis of correlations between core self-evaluation traits—self-esteem, gen-

eralized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—and job satisfac-

tion. A composite of all four traits correlated 0.37 with job satisfaction.

As discussed more fully in Hesketh and Myors (1997), valuable information is

lost if you do not examine the person and environment characteristics in addition

to their interaction (fit). From a practical view, the preceding results illustrate the

importance of independently assessing the individual and the environment, as

well as the fit between the two, when planning interventions.

Originally, TWA gave primary attention to satisfactoriness and satisfaction as

the indicators of work adjustment. Others have since expanded these criteria to in-

clude related concepts such as organizational commitment and job involvement

(Tziner & Meir, 1997) and mental health and well-being (Warr, 1991). Warr sug-

gested that job satisfaction is a specific aspect of job-related well-being, which in

turn is a component of mental health. Aspects of the work environment thought to

be significantly associated with well-being include level of control, opportunity for

skill use, variety, and workload (Warr, 1990). Because stable individual difference

factors, such as neuroticism, affect well-being (Judge & Bono, 2001), it is not clear

to what extent job design initiatives alone can improve mental health.

ENURE

In TWA, tenure is used to indicate the length of the relationship between employee

and employer. Tenure can be terminated as the result of voluntary departure by the

individual or by termination of employment by the employer. The probability that

an organization will terminate a person’s employment is inversely related to satis-

factory performance, and the probability that an individual will chose to leave is

inversely related to satisfaction. A significant body of research supports these two

propositions (Hesketh & Griffin, in press).

At least two additional factors are likely to affect voluntary departure. First,

the current focus on self-managed career advancement may result in individuals

proactively moving elsewhere to better position their future prospects, explain-

ing why apparently satisfied employees choose to leave. Second, lack of job alter-

natives (particularly in times of economic downturn) will keep dissatisfied

individuals employed in the job (Hulin, 1991). It is often these clients who seek

counseling, and interventions may well aim to adjust expectations, while main-

taining output.

Tenure, along with turnover and retirement intentions, is a manifestation of

a group of behaviors labeled job withdrawal. A second group of behaviors, la-

beled work withdrawal (i.e., remaining in the job but disengaging from work

tasks), includes absenteeism, lateness, and intentional misbehavior (Hanisch &

Hulin, 1991). These withdrawal behaviors might be a more likely manifestation

c20.qxd 8/5/04 9:15 AM Page 488

Counseling for Work Adjustment 489

of poor work adjustment in employees who have limited job options. Dissatis-

fied workers who stay because of a lack of alternatives show increases in work

withdrawal behaviors (Krausz, Koslowsky, & Eiser, 1998), and the counseling

challenge is to discourage such withdrawal. Tziner and Meir (1997), therefore,

extended the TWA to include work withdrawal behaviors in addition to job

withdrawal behaviors.

C HANGES IN THE WORKPLACE

About a decade ago, many writers started drawing attention to the pace of change

that was occurring in the workplace. At that time, the specific issues related to

the impact of information and communication technologies, globalization, and

large-scale mergers and acquisitions. More recently, concepts associated with se-

curity, terrorism, and public health have dominated as causes of disruption and

change. For example, the combination of increasing travel and globalization of

business and trade has opened the world to threats arising from diseases such as

SARS. These issues will continue to dominate for many years and will be joined

over the next decades by challenges associated with local transportation, deterio-

rating infrastructures, aging populations, and environmental issues.

When thinking about these changes and their possible impact on careers, it is

valuable to engage in exercises that facilitate planning over a longer time frame. In

Table 20.2, we provide a primer for a brainstorming exercise that can be useful in

Table 20.2

Change Exercise

Year Major Development

1975 Mainframe computers for accounting, data management, and analysis.

1980 Desktop and portable computers, computer-controlled machining.

1985

Computerized manufacturing—shift from hand-eye coordination to cognitive skills

required.

1990 World Wide Web—and capacity to process information off-line.

1995

Enterprisewide information technology systems radically altering job requirements.

2000

Mobile communications, wireless networks, palms, short message service (SMS),

genomic developments leading to the sequencing of the human genome.

2005

Visualization and virtual worlds and grid computing. Security consciousness, re-

duced travel requirements. Solar power, photonic communication (very high-speed

communication). Medical interventions targeted to genetic structure

2010 Environmental requirements faced by industry, construction, town planning.

Scientific possibility of using genetic information in workplace selection—social

issues unresolved.

2015 Secure environments.

2020 Self-driven non-gas-powered vehicles.

2025 Biomimetic approaches where technology and work organizations mimic what

has been learned by biological systems through centuries of evolution.

c20.qxd 8/5/04 9:15 AM Page 489

490 C

AREER

NTERVENTIONS ACROSS THE

IFE

PAN

encouraging clients to think back over the sorts of events that have caused major

change in the workplace and attempt to anticipate future changes with implica-

tions for the nature of work and careers. For this exercise, we have identified major

developments that have radically altered the nature of work, hence, the skills re-

quired in work over the past 25 years. The examples we have chosen tend to relate

to information and communication technologies, but readers may wish to include

different areas. The timing of the events listed in Table 20.2 is not precise and may

differ slightly in different countries and organizations, but the basic idea is worth

considering. We have also listed changes that might affect work over the next 25

years. These are more speculative, as it is easier to look back and recognize change

than it is to predict the major drivers of future changes. An awareness of the con-

text of change should help clients to maintain the skills and attitudes needed to

cope with change. These skills and attitudes are discussed next.

AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE

THEORY OF WORK ADJUSTMENT

The nature and pace of change in today’s workplace have created a situation

where adaptability is a competency increasingly recognized as important, and

possibly even essential, for survival and success (Hannigan, 1990). However, de-

spite this widespread recognition of the need for people to be able to adapt to

changing conditions in order to operate effectively, adaptability remains a poorly

understood construct. Researchers in the fields of both selection and training

have connected work adjustment to adaptability, adopting a P-E fit approach to

understanding the process of adaptation. Chan (2000, p. 4) provides the following

definition: “Individual adaptation refers to the process by which an individual

achieves some degree of fit between his or her behaviors and the new work de-

mands created by the novel and often ill-defined problems resulting from chang-

ing and uncertain work situations.”

In this section, we discuss how the traditional concepts used in work adjustment

counseling can be updated to better meet the needs of those facing the demands of

changing, uncertain work environments.

DAPTIVE

ERFORMANCE

Extant models of performance, which we reviewed earlier, tend to view jobs as

stable across time and, therefore, do not account for changing task demands

(Hesketh & Allworth, 1997; Landis, Fogli, & Goldberg, 1998). To address this gap

in the performance domain, Allworth and Hesketh (Allworth, 1997; Allworth &

Hesketh, 1999) extended Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993) dichotomous model of

task and contextual performance to include a third dimension, that of adaptive

performance, referring to those aspects of performance related to coping with

change. Allworth and Hesketh demonstrated the uniqueness of adaptive perfor-

mance by showing that it could be distinguished from task and contextual perfor-

mance using factor analysis and differential prediction.

Building on the concept of adaptive performance, Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and

Plamondon (2000) developed a taxonomy of the domain based on an extensive lit-

erature review and an analysis of a large set of critical incidents collected from

c20.qxd 8/5/04 9:15 AM Page 490

Counseling for Work Adjustment 491

incumbents employed in a cross-section of jobs. They proposed that adaptive per-

formance includes eight separate dimensions:

1. Solving novel or complex problems.

2. Dealing with emergencies or crises.

3. New learning (of tasks, technologies, and procedures).

4. Demonstrating interpersonal adaptability.

5. Demonstrating cultural adaptability.

6. Demonstrating physically oriented adaptability.

7. Coping with work stress.

8. Coping with uncertain or ambiguous work situations.

Table 20.3 provides definitions for these dimensions.

Table 20.3

Taxonomy of Adaptive Performance

Dimension Title Dimension Definition

Solving novel or complex Generating new ideas, looking for new approaches to solve

problems problems, entertaining wide-ranging options, and develop-

ing innovative methods of using resources.

Dealing with emergencies

Reacting appropriately, analyzing options quickly, remaining

and crises

clear and focused in thinking, and maintaining emotional

control.

New learning Showing enthusiasm for learning new approaches and

tech

nologies, keeping knowledge and skills current, learning

new skills quickly, adjusting to new work processes,

anticipat-

ing changes in work demands, and participating in training/

assignments that will prepare self for change.

Demonstrating inter- Being flexible and open-minded, listening to others’ views,

personal adaptability being open to criticism, developing effective relationships

with diverse personalities, demonstrating insight into others’

behavior, and tailoring own behavior to influence and work

effectively with others.

Demonstrating cultural Learning about others’ needs/values/beliefs, adjusting be-

adaptability havior to comply with others’ customs, and understanding

the implications of your actions.

Demonstrating physically Adjusting to heat/cold/dirtiness, pushing self physically, and

oriented adaptability adjusting physical fitness for the requirements of the job.

Coping with work stress Remaining calm in difficult circumstances, demonstrating

resilience, and acting as a calming influence for others.

Coping with uncertainty Taking effective action without needing to have all the facts

and ambiguity at hand; adjusting plans, goals, and priorities; imposing

structure to focus as much as possible; not being paralyzed

by uncertainty.

Source: ”Adaptability in the Workplace,” by E. D. Pulakos, S. Arad, M. S. Donovan, and K. E. Plam-

ondon, 2000, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, pp. 612–624.

c20.qxd 8/5/04 9:15 AM Page 491

492 C

AREER

NTERVENTIONS ACROSS THE

IFE

PAN

Pulakos et al.’s (2000) research found that although jobs differed in the extent

and mix of adaptive behavior requirements, such requirements are more likely to

generalize across jobs. As Herr (1993) argues, the skills necessary for adaptive be-

havior are not only more likely to transfer across jobs but also less likely to be-

come obsolete than the job-specific skills typical of task performance. Therefore,

work adjustment counseling that includes enhancing adaptive skills as well as

task and contextual skills has potential long-term benefit for clients.

Although this eight-dimension taxonomy can facilitate counseling by clarify-

ing and elaborating the content of adaptive performance, the possibility remains

that the taxonomy is not a comprehensive list and that other dimensions might be

identified. For example, Pratzner and Ashley (1985) added transfer skills (i.e.,

those enabling a person to adjust previous learning and experience to different

situations), and Ashford (1986) included feedback seeking. Furthermore, the tax-

onomy is not based on an underlying theory that might explain how or why the

behaviors are adaptive. We, therefore, provide an organizing framework for these

eight adaptive performance dimensions based on the TWA, which not only allows

us to identify and classify additional adaptive behaviors but also explains the pro-

cess by which they result in adjustment.

In the context of the environmental change experienced by many modern or-

ganizations, it is likely that a person’s skills, knowledge, and abilities that origi-

nally fit the requirements of the prechange job no longer correspond to the new

requirements of the changed environment. Likewise, in light of the trend for em-

ployees to manage their own career trajectories, it is possible that the incentives

and other reinforcers provided by an organization may no longer fit the changing

requirements of the person employed in that organization. In both cases, a state of

mismatch (discorrespondence) results, which, according to the TWA, causes a de-

cline in performance and satisfaction. As outlined by Dawis (Chapter 1, this vol-

ume), improved correspondence between a person and his or her environment is

achieved through one of several different styles of adjustment. Taken from the in-

dividual’s perspective, active adjustment involves changing the environment to

achieve a better fit, reactive adjustment occurs when the individual changes him-

self or herself to improve fit, and flexibility is tolerating a mismatch. Adjusting

terms slightly, we propose that the behaviors within the adaptive performance do-

main be defined as:

1. Proactive behavior: person-initiated actions to change the environment.

Reactive behavior: changing or modifying self to better suit the new

environment.

Tolerant behavior: being able to continue functioning despite changed cir-

cumstances and when either proactive or reactive behavior may not be

appropriate.

The Pulakos et al. (2000) dimensions can be summarized into this framework.

Thus, proactive behavior would include solving novel problems and dealing with crises.

New learning, interpersonal, cultural, and physically-oriented adaptability would be re-

active behaviors. Tolerant behavior would include coping with stress and coping

with uncertainty. Griffin (2003) provided support for this classification using ex-

ploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.

c20.qxd 8/5/04 9:15 AM Page 492

Counseling for Work Adjustment 493

The proposed framework easily incorporates research on proactivity in orga-

nizational settings (e.g., Bateman & Crant, 1993; Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Crant,

2000; Parker, 2000; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). For example, the con-

text of organizational entry has been described as an example of an individual

adaptation process (Chan & Schmitt, 2000), and recent emphasis has been on the

proactive behaviors enacted by new hires that facilitate adaptation. Proactivity is

described as workers actively taking steps to change their environment to

increase person-environment fit (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). It in-

volves taking initiative and actively creating environmental change (Bateman &

Crant, 1993). The parallels with the TWA description of active mode of adjust-

ment are obvious.

The inclusion of both proactive and reactive behaviors in the adaptive perfor-

mance domain is further supported by the considerable comment across a broad

spectrum of research suggesting that adaptability involves not only reacting to the

environment but also being assertive and creative in forming it (Ashford & Taylor,

1990; Chown, 1959; De Leeuw & Volberda, 1996; Kirton, 1985; Pratzner & Ashley,

1985; Sternberg, 1997). The distinction between these types of behaviors has im-

plications for counseling, coaching, and training clients to adjust to change.

Further, although the focus in career counseling is most often on the individual,

the TWA alerts us to the possibility that the organization can also adjust in proac-

tive, reactive, and tolerant ways to maximize fit with an employee. Maintaining an

organizational perspective extends the choice of interventions that might be used

and, as discussed later, highlights the importance of “learning” organizations to

facilitate adaptation.

ATISFACTION WITH

HANGE

Over the past decade, a major challenge for organizations was the resistance to

change on the part of employees. From both the organizational and the individual

perspective, it would be more advantageous if employees could enjoy the chal-

lenge of change and see it as an opportunity to add to their skill repertoire. We,

therefore, suggest traditional outcome measures assessing job satisfaction be up-

dated to include a satisfaction with change dimension.

ERSON

ACTORS

Having suggested that the indicators of work adjustment should include adaptive

performance and satisfaction with change, we, therefore, need to identify the

person factors that might relate to an individual’s being likely to have high adap-

tive performance and satisfaction with change.

Cognitive Factors It is well established that general cognitive ability is a good

predictor of performance (Arvey, 1986; Hunter, 1986; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).

However, the finding that cognitive ability predicts performance best when the

tasks are complex or novel (Murphy, 1989) suggests that it may be particularly

important for adaptive performance. Indeed, Hesketh and Allworth (1997) and

Pulakos et al. (2002) found that popular tests of cognitive ability were good pre-

dictors of adaptive performance, and LePine, Colquitt, and Erez (2000) showed

c20.qxd 8/5/04 9:15 AM Page 493

494 C

AREER

NTERVENTIONS ACROSS THE

IFE

PAN

that cognitive ability was more highly correlated with postchange (adaptive) per-

formance than prechange (task) performance.

Stankov (1988) argued that it is the fluid intelligence (Gf) component of general

cognitive ability that relates most closely to problem solving and verbal reasoning.

Therefore, measures of Gf may be more useful than general ability measures in

identifying a person’s capacity for adaptive performance. An even more specific

component of Gf, cognitive flexibility, maps most closely onto the construct of

adaptability (Griffin & Hesketh, 2003). Griffin (2003) reported the predictive va-

lidity of cognitive flexibility in several studies. For example, cognitive flexibility

predicted the adaptive performance of insurance industry employees and of new

hires within the public service.

Another individual difference factor that is cognitive in emphasis is flexible

role orientation (FRO; Parker, 2000). Those with high FRO recognize the impor-

tance of taking on broader responsibilities, being proactive, and using initiative,

while those with low FRO have a “that’s not my job” mentality to their work

(Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997). Parker (2000) reports that FRO predicted employee

initiative and good performance in autonomous teamwork situations. It was also

related to, but distinct from, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Personality Factors Meta-analytic findings over the past decade have shown that

personality variables are important in enhancing positive work adjustment. In par-

ticular, two of the Big Five factors, conscientiousness and emotional stability, have

been identified as being significant predictors of satisfactory performance (Bar-

rick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). However, much of the research examining these two

factors has focused on the outcomes of overall job performance and satisfaction in

relatively stable work environments. In fact, a growing body of research indicates

that the dependability facets of conscientiousness (order, dutifulness, and deliber-

ation), while having a positive influence on normal task and contextual behavior,

may not be beneficial for adaptive performance (LePine et al., 2000). Griffin (2003;

Griffin & Hesketh, 2001) showed that the dependability facets were either not re-

lated or negatively related to adaptability, whereas the achievement facets of con-

scientiousness (achievement-striving, competence, and self-discipline) were related

to adaptability. We, therefore, suggest that other personality factors will be impor-

tant for employees working in fluid, changing contexts.

Openness to experience appears to be the most relevant of the five factors to

adaptability. In fact, Caligiuri, Jacobs, and Farr (2000) summarized the construct as

“flexibility of one’s attitudes and behaviors” (p. 29). Individuals high in openness

are described as being inquisitive, flexible, and tolerant (McCrae & Costa, 1997).

They seek new and varied experiences, are tolerant of alternative viewpoints, and

are likely to cope with diversity and cross-cultural differences (Chan, 2001; McCrae

& Costa, 1997). Its consistent relationship with training performance suggests that

openness is involved in both learning new tasks and being willing to participate in

learning experiences (Judge & Barrick, 2001). Hesketh and Allworth (1997) showed

that openness to experience predicted adaptive performance (but not task or con-

textual performance), and it was significantly correlated with postchange (but not

prechange) performance in a dynamic laboratory task (LePine et al., 2000). Other

adjustment outcomes relating to openness to experience include problem solving

(Ferguson & Patterson, 1998), managerial creativity (Scratchley & Hakstian, 2001),

and coping with organizational change (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999).

c20.qxd 8/5/04 9:15 AM Page 494

Counseling for Work Adjustment 495

Lower order personality traits that also relate to adaptability include change

receptiveness (Parker, 2000), tolerance of ambiguity (Judge et al., 1999), and

proactivity (Bateman & Crant, 1993). A counselor might discuss a more detailed

personality profile with the client, highlighting areas where the client may need

to take special care in maintaining flexibility.

Motivation Factors People’s interests, values, and needs are factors that motivate

their engagement in work. The traditional measures of these factors (see Hansen,

Chapter 12, this volume; Rounds & Armstrong, Chapter 13, this volume) can be

updated to include change constructs such as interest in change, interest in vari-

ety, value of changing environments, and value of opportunities for new learning.

Those who value learning and are self-directed learners are thought to be partic-

ularly valuable in the modern workplace (London & Mone, 1999).

A further motivational factor, self-efficacy, has been identified as an important

predictor of work adjustment. Self-efficacy is the individual’s belief that he or she

can perform certain behaviors (see Lent, Chapter 5, this volume). It is not what the

person actually does, but rather what he or she feels capable of doing (Parker, 1998),

and it is specific to a particular domain or task. A number of authors (e.g., Ashford

& Taylor, 1990; Fay & Frese, 2001; Martin & Rubin, 1995) argue for self-efficacy as

an essential component of adjustment because adaptive behavior is unlikely to

occur unless an individual first has the confidence to perform such behavior. Here

we are referring to self-efficacy for adjusting to, and coping with, change.

According to Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is not a gen-

eralized trait but a motivational construct that relates to a specific task. Bandura,

Adams, and Beyer (1977), therefore, argued that measures should be tailored to the

domain of interest. In frequently changing work environments, this would mean

measuring self-efficacy for behaving adaptively. For example, Parker’s (1998) “role

breadth self-efficacy” assesses the extent to which employees feel confident in car-

rying out an extended and more proactive role than would be expected in a tradi-

tional job requirements situation.

There is increasing evidence that self-efficacy relates to adjustment outcomes:

It has predicted coping with the introduction of new technology (Hill, Smith, &

Mann, 1987), adjustment to organizational settings by a group of newcomers

(Saks, 1995), change acceptance in the face of major restructuring (Wanberg &

Banas, 2000), and finding reemployment after job loss (Caplan, Vinokur, Price, &

van Ryn, 1989). Hesketh and Allworth (1997) showed that self-efficacy for change

predicted supervisor ratings of adaptive performance in a large sample of public

servants, and Ford, Quinones, Sego, and Sorra (1992) found that it affected the

breadth of experience gained and type of tasks performed. Furthermore, Major

and Kozlowski (1997) found that self-efficacious new hires adopted more innova-

tive role orientations compared to the traditional roles preferred by those low in

self-efficacy.

NVIRONMENT

ACTORS

Just as individual factors specific to coping with change are needed for a new con-

ceptualization of work adjustment, so environmental factors that affect adaptabil-

ity need to be identified. We have already discussed the changing requirements of

the modern workplace and will later address the possibility that individuals who

c20.qxd 8/5/04 9:15 AM Page 495