Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction on Employees’ Self-efficacy and Job Performance: A Conceptual Approach

Abstract

The organisational workforce is one of the most vital resources. Their skills play a crucial role in achieving its goals. Moreover, self-efficacy strengthens employees’ confidence in their ability to complete tasks within a specific timeframe. Employees with high self-efficacy tend to be more satisfied and better prepared to manage job demands, which ultimately improves their job satisfaction and contributes to their performance. In general, past research has focused primarily on Western contexts, resulting in a lack of studies on how these relationships manifest across diverse organisational, economic and cultural settings. Furthermore, few comprehensive studies have explored job satisfaction as a mediating factor. Therefore, the objective of this study is to examine the effect of self-efficacy on employee job satisfaction and to explore the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between self-efficacy and job performance. The study considers several dimensions of self-efficacy, including performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and physiological states, as well as job satisfaction and job performance. This is desk research; it has covered the period from 2004 to 2024. The ultimate objective of the research is to develop a conceptual model grounded in a systematic and empirical review of the existing literature. Hypotheses are formulated based on the literature. The study reveals that the resulting model illustrates the interactions among the identified variables, offering a comprehensive framework for understanding their interrelationships.

Keywords

Self-efficacy job satisfaction job performance

Introduction

Human resources are a valuable factor in the management of any organisation. A competent workforce is essential not only for achieving organisational success but also for contributing to the broader development of a nation. Competence, which integrates knowledge, skills and attitudes (Kyndt et al., 2015), serves as a key criterion for evaluating employee performance (Mitchelmore & Rowley, 2010). Furthermore, attributes such as knowledge, skills, understanding and personal qualities significantly enhance an individual’s ability to attain satisfying and successful employment. These attributes also play a crucial role in determining employability, particularly through the constructs of self-efficacy and self-confidence (Pool et al., 2009).

In this context, self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to execute tasks successfully, emerges as a vital psychological factor. Individuals with high self-efficacy are typically more resilient, less likely to leave their jobs, and demonstrate lower levels of absenteeism. In contrast, those with low self-efficacy often struggle with confidence, avoid difficult tasks and require more time to recover from setbacks, all of which can hinder goal achievement and workplace effectiveness (Gist, 1989). Notably, high self-efficacy also fosters a more positive perception of work, thereby enhancing both job satisfaction and performance. From an organisational standpoint, self-efficacy not only shapes individual attitudes but also directly contributes to overall employee performance. Employees with strong self-efficacy are more likely to be engaged in their roles and aligned with organisational objectives. Thus, the perception of self-efficacy forms a foundation for personal fulfilment and intrinsic motivation. When employees feel competent in their ability to meet goals and perform tasks, they are more likely to experience higher levels of job satisfaction (Lent & Brown, 2006).

Building on this, job performance represents a crucial outcome of workplace behaviour, influencing both individual career paths and overall organisational effectiveness. Since employees exhibit varying levels of self-efficacy, their beliefs significantly impact their job satisfaction. In turn, job satisfaction plays a key role in determining organisational performance. As Bandura (1986) notes, self-efficacy reflects an individual’s internal judgement of their capabilities, basically answering the question, ‘Who are you?’, and stands as a central determinant of workplace performance. Therefore, employees’ self-efficacy, job satisfaction and job performance are all interrelated and essential to evaluating and enhancing overall organisational performance.

Background of the Study

This study focuses on self-efficacy, an employee’s belief in their ability to perform tasks effectively and its impact on job performance, with job satisfaction acting as a potential mediator. This topic takes into consideration self-efficacy; it has consistently been identified as a key predictor of work outcomes. Employees with higher self-efficacy tend to set challenging goals, persist through difficulties and ultimately achieve better performance (Bandura, 2018; Stajkovic & Luthans, 2013). However, the mechanisms through which self-efficacy influences job performance are not fully understood, particularly the role of affective states like job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction reflects employees’ emotional responses to their job roles and working conditions, influencing motivation and discretionary effort (Bowling et al., 2015; Judge et al., 2017). Emerging evidence suggests job satisfaction not only results from self-efficacy but also shapes how effectively employees perform (Hanifa et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2023). This mediating role is essential, as it highlights the psychological pathway from belief in ability to actual work output, providing a more comprehensive view of employee behaviour. Furthermore, contemporary workplaces face unprecedented obstacles, such as rapid technological development, remote work and higher stress levels, all of which have an impact on employee motivation and well-being (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2017; Humphrey et al., 2020). Exploring how self-efficacy and job satisfaction interact to influence job performance can assist employers in developing targeted interventions, such as motivational programmes, coaching and training, to maintain workforce productivity and satisfaction.

Consider the research gap and limitations of prior studies; whereas many studies have proven direct correlations between self-efficacy and job performance (Bandura, 2018; Stajkovic & Luthans, 2013) or self-efficacy and job satisfaction (Salanova et al., 2014), few studies have extensively explored job satisfaction as a mediator explaining how self-efficacy transforms into actual performance outcomes (Yusuf Iis & Yunus, 2016). This implies that the psychological process linking belief (self-efficacy) and behaviour (performance) is insufficiently explored (Hanifa et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2023). And also, most research has been undertaken in Western contexts. There is a scarcity of research into how these relationships develop across different cultural, organisational and economic settings (Rubasree & Rangarajan, 2023). This limits the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, few studies distinguish between task and contextual performance when studying self-efficacy and job satisfaction outcomes (LePine et al., 2016; Wang & Netemeyer, 2018).

Therefore, this topic is highly relevant for both academic research and practical management, offering insights into boosting employee effectiveness through psychological empowerment and job fulfilment. The researcher identifies two objectives in order to accomplish this purpose.

The first objective is to examine the effect of self-efficacy on employee job satisfaction. The specific reason for selecting this objective for this research, self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to perform a specific task (Bandura, 1977), has been widely acknowledged as a central psychological factor influencing workplace behaviours and attitudes, and numerous studies have demonstrated that employees who possess higher levels of self-efficacy also tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2001; Luthans et al., 2007). Individuals who are self-efficacious are more confident in overcoming job-related challenges, leading to a greater sense of control and competence at work (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). This internal sense of mastery often explains higher satisfaction levels, as individuals feel more capable and valuable within their roles (Saks, 1995). Furthermore, research indicates that self-efficacy contributes positively to intrinsic motivation, work engagement and reduced burnout, all of which are key drivers of job satisfaction (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Thus, studying the relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction is vital for understanding how psychological resources contribute to positive employee attitudes.

The second objective is to explore the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between self-efficacy and job performance. While self-efficacy has been directly linked to job performance (Bandura, 1986; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), there is growing evidence that job satisfaction may play a crucial mediating role in this relationship (Ilies & Judge, 2003; Judge et al., 2001). Job satisfaction is not only an outcome of self-efficacy but also a motivational state that influences employees’ behavioural outcomes, including performance (Locke, 1976; Weiss, 2002). Further, employees who feel competent and satisfied are more likely to put in extra effort, persist and perform better (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Moreover, empirical studies have shown that self-efficacy enhances job satisfaction, which leads to improved performance, implying a mediating pathway (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; Yeo & Neal, 2006). As a result, it is significant to explore job satisfaction as a mediator to understand the full mechanism through which self-efficacy constructs into actual job performance. The subsequent sections will present a review of relevant literature to support the formulation of this model.

Literature Review

This literature review explores key theoretical and empirical foundations related to social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, sources of self-efficacy, job satisfaction, job performance and the interrelationships among these constructs in workplace settings.

Social Cognitive Theory

The concept of self-efficacy first emerged in psychological theories of motivation during the 1950s (Kear, 2000). However, it did not gain significant traction until nearly two decades later, when it became a central construct in Albert Bandura’s social learning theory of behavioural change (Bandura, 1977; Kear, 2000). Eventually, Bandura revised the name of this theory to social cognitive theory in 1986 to emphasise the dynamic interaction between personal, behavioural and environmental influences (Bandura, 1986, 2001). According to Bandura (1977, 1978), self-efficacy is a core element of social cognitive theory. The theory asserts that individuals operate within a reciprocal system, where personal factors (cognition and emotion), behaviour and environment continuously interact; this interaction is referred to as triadic reciprocal causation (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy in this framework is a belief in one’s ability to organise and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations. Bandura’s theory further posits that individuals are capable of self-reflection, self-assessment and forethought. This enables them to evaluate their competencies, behaviour and environment, which in turn influences their motivation and future actions. From a behavioural perspective, self-efficacy influences not only how people think and feel but also how they act and persist in the face of challenges (Davis et al., 2015). Social cognitive theory has proven to be heuristically, practically and theoretically valuable in modern psychology (Betz et al., 1996). Early work by Miller and Dollard (1941) laid the groundwork for this theoretical tradition by demonstrating that humans are motivated to learn behaviours through observation and imitation of others’ actions. This emphasis on modelling and observational learning remains foundational to understanding how self-efficacy develops and functions in social contexts.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to successfully complete a given task. It is a personal belief rooted in perceived competence (Ivancevich et al., 2006). Employees with strong self-efficacy are able to accomplish the tasks they believe themselves capable of and cultivate additional skills necessary to navigate challenges across various life domains, including employment, family, social relationships, marriage, occupation and parenthood (Chan et al., 2017). Also, self-efficacy functions as an internal resource that positively influences employees’ emotional resilience and commitment to retaining their jobs (Bandura, 2009; Holmgreen et al., 2017). As a psychological factor, it significantly influences an individual’s motivation and behaviour (Bandura, 1994).

Employees with high self-efficacy are more willing to embrace new skills, engage in challenging tasks and contribute meaningfully to organisational outcomes (Lunenburg, 2011). Likewise, individuals with high self-efficacy tend to focus more on finding solutions to problems rather than dwelling on their shortcomings. This mindset significantly influences work motivation and its related outcomes, including job performance, job satisfaction and overall workplace well-being (Judge et al., 2007; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Additionally, they demonstrate a strong willingness to gain knowledge and master new domains (Cherian & Jacob, 2013). The primary dimensions of self-efficacy are discussed below.

Performance Accomplishment

Performance accomplishment refers to personal experience and past success, and it is widely regarded as the most reliable indicator of an individual’s ability to succeed in future tasks (Bandura, 1997). When individuals feel confident in their capabilities, they are more likely to achieve favourable outcomes (Bandura, 1986). This sense of confidence is often shaped by repeated successes, which serve to enhance self-efficacy over time. Conversely, repeated failures can diminish self-efficacy, weakening an individual’s belief in their abilities (Crain, 2000). Therefore, past experiences act as a critical foundation for the development of self-efficacy, either strengthening or undermining confidence depending on whether those experiences are characterised by success or failure (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

Vicarious Experience

Vicarious experience, or learning through the observation of others, represents another powerful source of self-efficacy. Individuals can build confidence by watching role models succeed, particularly when those models are perceived as similar in terms of age, ability or background (Bandura, 1977; Schunk, 1987). This process of modelling success allows individuals to internalise the belief that they too can overcome similar challenges (Bandura et al., 1980; Kazdin, 1974). Beyond influencing confidence, role models also play a key role in shaping professional aspirations (Douglas & Topping, 2020; Krueger et al., 2000) and fostering strategic adaptability (Auken et al., 2006), especially among young people navigating uncertain career paths. As such, vicarious learning contributes to the development of self-efficacy not only through social modelling but also through social persuasion, reinforcing both belief and motivation (Bandura, 2000).

Verbal Persuasion

Verbal persuasion involves encouragement and positive reinforcement from others, serving as a significant source of self-efficacy. When individuals receive affirming feedback, their belief in their own capabilities is strengthened, reinforcing the perception that they can succeed (Bandura, 1997). Such encouragement can also help shift an individual’s mindset, leading them to attribute success to effort and perseverance rather than to fixed or innate ability. This, in turn, emphasises the important role of social support and constructive feedback in fostering self-efficacy and motivating sustained effort towards goal achievement (Bandura, 1997).

Physiological State

Physiological and emotional states, such as fatigue, pain, excitement and stress, can significantly influence an individual’s perception of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Ewart, 1992). Physical discomfort often serves as a signal of inefficiency or limitation, which may lower confidence in one’s abilities. In contrast, heightened emotional arousal, when interpreted positively, can enhance performance and boost self-efficacy (Taylor, 2008). Moreover, positive emotional states not only strengthen belief in personal capability but also contribute to increased motivation and greater job satisfaction, further reinforcing effective behaviour and workplace well-being.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been defined in various ways, depending on the focus of the research (Kantas, 1998). Generally, it refers to an employee’s positive or negative feelings towards their job (Singh, 2013), which are shaped by factors such as the work environment (Aboyade et al., 2017) and the nature of the job content itself. Due to its broad implications, job satisfaction is frequently used as a diagnostic tool to assess both workplace well-being and the alignment between employees and organisational values (Brooke et al., 1988; Okoye, 2011). High levels of job satisfaction are associated with a range of positive outcomes, including reduced stress, improved mental and physical health and increased engagement in workplace activities (Crohan et al., 1989; Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995). Conversely, low job satisfaction can have detrimental effects, such as high employee turnover, reduced organisational effectiveness, increased absenteeism (Currivan, 1999; Nguni et al., 2006; Van Scooter, 2000), strained workplace relationships, inflexible policies, inadequate compensation and feelings of job insecurity (Okpara, 2004).

Job Performance

Job performance refers to how well individuals execute their tasks and fulfil their responsibilities within an organisation. It is influenced not only by technical competence but also by human behaviour, which is shaped by underlying attitudes and levels of motivation (Mangkunegara, 2011). Scholars have offered various definitions to capture the complexity of this construct. For instance, job performance has been described as the ability to achieve work-related outcomes (Siregar, 2011), as behaviour that aligns with and supports organisational goals (Van Scooter, 2000), and as the effective execution and completion of assigned tasks (Simanjuntak, 2020). Others emphasise observable job behaviour, activities that contribute to organisational effectiveness (McCloy et al., 1994; Motowidlo, 2003) or the overall contribution of employees to organisational performance. Taken together, these perspectives highlight that job performance is a multifaceted construct, shaped by a combination of individual competencies, motivational factors and the surrounding work environment.

Self-efficacy and Job Performance

Self-efficacy surveys are commonly used to assess an individual’s perceived capability to perform tasks, achieve goals and overcome challenges. A growing body of research has consistently demonstrated a positive correlation between self-efficacy and job performance (Cherian & Jacob, 2013; Fadzilah, 2006). For example, Chan et al. (2017) confirmed that self-efficacy plays a significant role in enhancing job performance across different work contexts. Foundational research by Bandura (1977, 1982) and his colleagues (Bandura et al., 1977, 1980) further emphasised that self-efficacy is a stronger predictor of future performance than an individual’s past behaviour. However, this view is nuanced by Locke et al. (1984), who found that self-efficacy tends to be more strongly correlated with past performance than with future outcomes, suggesting a bidirectional relationship between belief and experience.

Despite such nuances, more recent meta-analyses reinforce the idea that self-efficacy remains a robust predictor of job performance across industries and occupational roles (Luthans et al., 2007; Stajkovic & Luthans, 2013). This relationship is explained by the tendency of self-efficacious employees to set more challenging goals, demonstrate greater persistence in the face of difficulties and allocate more effort towards achieving superior results (Chen et al., 2020). Thus, the evidence consistently supports the significant role of self-efficacy in driving effective performance in organisational settings.

Self-efficacy and Job Satisfaction

An individual’s behaviour is significantly shaped by their belief in their own abilities, known as self-efficacy, which has been shown to enhance performance, problem-solving skills, self-regulation, task effort and resilience in the face of challenges or failure (Bum, 2018; Kolo et al., 2017; Vogelpohl, 2017). At the same time, job satisfaction, defined as both a cognitive evaluation and an emotional response towards one’s work (Judge et al., 2012), is recognised as a strong predictor of employee characteristics and outcomes (Okpara, 2004; Parker, 1993).

Empirical evidence confirms a significant and positive relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction (DeSimone et al., 2018; Judge et al., 2001; Perdue et al., 2007), suggesting that belief in one’s capabilities influences not only how work is performed but also how it is experienced emotionally. This relationship is further explained by findings that self-efficacy promotes mastery experiences and reduces workplace stress, both of which contribute to greater job satisfaction (Salanova et al., 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2019). As a result, employees who feel confident in their abilities are more likely to perceive their jobs as fulfilling and rewarding, leading to enhanced levels of satisfaction (Chang et al., 2021).

Job Satisfaction and Job Performance

Employees who have confidence in their capabilities are more likely to successfully accomplish tasks. This sense of confidence, often rooted in self-efficacy, is closely tied to job satisfaction, as individuals who believe in their ability to complete work-related responsibilities tend to experience greater fulfilment in their roles. In turn, job satisfaction significantly influences employee engagement and motivation, which directly impacts job performance.

A substantial body of research has established a positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Hossain, 2014; Khan, 2014; Prasanga & Gamage, 2012; Pushpakumari, 2008). Satisfied employees are generally more committed to their work and contribute more effectively to achieving organisational goals. They also tend to demonstrate higher levels of motivation, sustained engagement and increased productivity (Bowling et al., 2015; Judge et al., 2017). Moreover, recent longitudinal studies provide further support, indicating that job satisfaction is a strong predictor of future performance outcomes (Lu et al., 2016). These findings reinforce the importance of fostering both self-efficacy and job satisfaction as integral components of enhancing overall job performance.

Relationship Among Performance Accomplishment, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance

Performance accomplishment, rooted in an individual’s previous achievements, serves as a fundamental source of self-efficacy and supports persistence when facing challenges (Bandura, 1982). These mastery experiences not only build confidence but are also strong predictors of both job satisfaction and job performance (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran et al., 2007). When individuals succeed in completing tasks, their belief in their capabilities increases, enhancing their ability to overcome future obstacles (Pattinson et al., 2017).

In addition, research has shown that past work experience positively influences overall well-being and job satisfaction, suggesting that professional growth through repeated successes contributes to more fulfilling work lives. Prior studies also confirm that performance accomplishments measured as successful task completions directly strengthen self-efficacy and significantly improve performance outcomes (Bandura, 2018; Kraiger & Ford, 2014). Moreover, empirical findings highlight that repeated mastery experiences not only solidify self-efficacy but also lead to continuous improvement in future job performance (Zhang & Bartol, 2015). Taken together, the evidence suggests a strong and interconnected relationship among performance accomplishment, job satisfaction and job performance. Success at work enhances confidence and satisfaction, which in turn motivates sustained high performance.

Relationship Among Vicarious Experience, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance

According to social cognitive theory, observing role models facilitates learning by allowing individuals to acquire new skills and strategies through vicarious experience (Myers, 2020). While much research focuses on positive observational effects, the potential negative impacts of observing others have received comparatively less attention (Bandura, 1997). When employees witness others succeed, their self-efficacy and confidence often increase, which in turn enhances their job satisfaction. Moreover, seeing role models perform successfully strengthens employees’ beliefs in their own abilities, thereby contributing to improved job performance (Lee et al., 2019; Schunk & Pajares, 2018). Mentorship and social learning serve as essential mechanisms by which these observational experiences transform into enhanced workplace outcomes (Liao & Chuang, 2014). Bandura (1997) emphasises that vicarious experiences enable individuals to evaluate the strategies and actions that lead to success, reinforcing the principles of social learning theory. This theory posits that observation not only boosts self-efficacy but also positively influences job satisfaction, creating a pathway for improved performance (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992).

Relationship Among Verbal Persuasion, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance

Verbal persuasion, encompassing constructive feedback and encouragement, plays a major role in enhancing self-efficacy by reinforcing individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities (Bandura, 1997; Karl et al., 1993). Research further confirms that such persuasive communication not only strengthens self-efficacy beliefs but also positively influences job performance (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020; Seibert & Kraimer, 2019). Supportive communication is linked to increased task engagement and higher work output (Judge et al., 2012).

Beyond mere encouragement, verbal persuasion builds employees’ confidence, motivates sustained effort and helps prevent premature withdrawal from challenging tasks (Bandura, 1997). Feedback, whether positive or negative, enables employees to assess their performance and make necessary adjustments (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Pattinson et al., 2017). When feedback is timely, adequate and consistent, it contributes significantly to employees’ job satisfaction. This heightened satisfaction, in turn, fosters greater organisational effectiveness and improved overall job performance (Andrews, 2003).

Relationship Among Physiological State, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance

Physiological states, encompassing both emotional mood and physical well-being, play a significant role in shaping job satisfaction and performance outcomes. Research indicates that physiological conditions such as stress and fatigue can negatively impact self-efficacy, which in turn affects job performance (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2017; Humphrey et al., 2020). Conversely, positive physiological states enhance concentration and task execution, thereby improving performance levels (Beal et al., 2014).

Moreover, positive emotional experiences promote favourable attitudes towards work, contributing to higher job satisfaction (Judge & Bretz, 1992). Hasibuan (2014) further argued that job satisfaction emerges when employees’ emotional attitudes align closely with their sense of attachment to the organisation. Supporting this, Carmeli (2003) found a direct correlation between positive physiological states and improved job performance, highlighting the importance of emotional and physical well-being in the workplace.

Association Between Self-efficacy and Task and Contextual Performance

Both task performance and contextual performance represent essential behavioural dimensions within organisational settings (Conway, 1999; Van Scotter et al., 1996). Task performance pertains to the technical execution of job duties, while contextual performance involves behaviours that support the organisational environment, such as assisting co-workers and upholding company values (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Research consistently demonstrates a strong positive correlation between self-efficacy and both task and contextual performance, with task performance often exhibiting a slightly stronger association (Bandura, 1982; Chambliss et al., 1979; Feltz, 1982; Jawahar et al., 2008; Locke et al., 1984).

Nevertheless, several studies emphasise a significant positive link specifically between self-efficacy and contextual performance as well (Bogler & Somech, 2004; Chen et al., 2012; Haworth et al., 2001). More recent research reveals that self-efficacy enhances task performance by fostering greater persistence, effort and allocation of cognitive resources towards job tasks (Chen et al., 2015; Zimmerman, 2016). Employees with high self-efficacy not only demonstrate better accuracy and productivity (Wang & Netemeyer, 2018) but also exhibit enhanced contextual behaviours such as cooperation and helping, which contribute substantially to organisational effectiveness (McAllister & Bigley, 2015; Podsakoff et al., 2014). Furthermore, recent studies underscore that confident employees play a pivotal role in fostering a positive workplace culture (LePine et al., 2016).

Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction and job performance are both positively associated with high levels of employee self-efficacy (Judge et al., 2001). Self-efficacy not only boosts individual confidence but also contributes to strengthening organisational culture by enhancing employees’ satisfaction and performance (Lis et al., 2016). When employees successfully complete mentally challenging tasks, they develop their skills and experience a sense of achievement, which increases their overall job satisfaction (Bull, 2005). This heightened satisfaction, in turn, has a positive influence on job performance, as satisfied employees are more likely to be motivated, engaged and productive.

Employees with strong self-efficacy tend to experience greater job satisfaction, which enables them to contribute more effectively to organisational outcomes. This dynamic supports the hypothesis that job satisfaction acts as a mediator in the relationship between self-efficacy and job performance. In other words, self-efficacy influences performance both directly and indirectly, through its impact on job satisfaction. Recent empirical research reinforces this perspective, indicating that job satisfaction significantly mediates the effect of self-efficacy and performance outcomes (Hanifa et al., 2024; Rubasree & Rangarajan, 2023).

Further, evidence from Zhou et al. (2025) reveals that job satisfaction also mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and work engagement, a key driver of job performance. These findings are consistent with earlier studies (Hanifa et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2023), which highlight job satisfaction as an essential psychological mechanism in translating self-efficacy into improved work outcomes. Thus, self-efficacy enhances satisfaction, which in turn motivates higher performance, forming a robust indirect causal pathway (Rubasree & Rangarajan, 2023).

Methods

This study aims to develop a conceptual model that explores the mediating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between employees’ self-efficacy and job performance. As desk-based research, it draws upon existing theoretical and empirical literature considered from 2004 to 2024. Relevant data were collected from reputable sources, including peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, academic theses, abstracts and other scholarly materials. Based on the comprehensive literature review, a set of hypotheses has been formulated to investigate the interrelationships among the core variables.

Hypothesis Development

Based on empirical insights from prior studies, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H₁: There is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and job performance of employees.

H₂: There is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction of employees.

H₃: There is a significant relationship between job satisfaction and job performance of employees.

H₄: There is a significant relationship between performance accomplishment and job performance of employees.

H₅: There is a significant relationship between verbal persuasion and job performance of employees.

H₆: There is a significant relationship between vicarious experience and job performance of employees.

H₇: There is a significant relationship between physiological state and job performance of employees.

H₈: There is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and task performance of employees.

H₉: There is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and contextual performance of employees.

H₁₀: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and job performance of employees.

Measurement of Variables

The sources of self-efficacy are measured by the four variables. First, performance accomplishment indicators are the situational circumstances of the performance, the transitory patterns of success and failure of the performance, the expenditure of effort, the perceived difficulty of the task and the diagnosis (Bandura, 2009). Second, the influencing factors of the vicarious experience are the similarity of the attributes of the model, the similarity of the performance of the model, the mastery or adaptation modelling, the multiplicity and diversity of the modelling and the representation of the demand task (Bandura, 2009). Third, the dimensions of verbal persuasion are credibility, expertise, consensus, degree of disparity in assessment and familiarity with task requirements (Bandura, 2009). Finally, factors influencing the physiological state are the degree of attentional focus on somatic states, the perception of the source of emotional arousal, the level of arousal, and the situational circumstances of arousal (Bandura, 2009).

With regard to job satisfaction, this variable is measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey, which was developed by Paul E. Spector in 1985. Specifically, it includes the variables of pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work and communication.

In addition, job performance is measured by task and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). This dual approach is considered the best prediction method to assess job performance. To clarify, task and contextual performance should be differentiated; the task varies considerably from one job to another. Typically, it is related to cognitive ability, whereas contextual performance links more closely with personality. In terms of assessment, task performance is measured through job-specific task proficiency, non-job-specific task proficiency, written and oral communication, supervision and management administration. Meanwhile, contextual performance is measured by interpersonal facilitation behaviour and job dedication behaviour.

Development of the Conceptual Model

In alignment with the research objectives and grounded in a comprehensive review of existing literature, this study proposes a conceptual model that integrates the relationship among self-efficacy, job satisfaction and job performance. Specifically, the model hypothesises that job satisfaction serves as a mediating variable in the relationship between self-efficacy and job performance. This mediating role highlights the psychological mechanism through which belief in one’s capabilities translates into effective job outcomes. Furthermore, the model incorporates the four key sources of self-efficacy identified by Bandura, namely performance accomplishment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and physiological state, to provide a more inclusive understanding of how self-efficacy is developed and how it influences job satisfaction and performance (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Source: Developed for research purposes.

Conclusions

The results of this study emphasise the interrelationship among self-efficacy, job satisfaction and job performance, particularly within organisational contexts. To support these findings, the researcher drew on early literature to substantiate the evidence and strengthen the significance of the relationships among the variables. Building on this foundation, the study proposed a conceptual model informed by an extensive body of literature, offering a practical and strategic framework applicable to organisations across the public, private and non-governmental sectors. The model is particularly relevant for managers, HR professionals and policymakers, as it highlights the importance of recognising and developing different sources of self-efficacy among employees.

Identifying the distinct dimensions of self-efficacy enables organisations to implement targeted strategies that build employee confidence, thereby enhancing both individual productivity and overall organisational performance. This is especially important among younger employees, for whom belief in personal capability is closely linked to motivation, job satisfaction and performance outcomes.

Ultimately, self-efficacy, job satisfaction and job performance are deeply interconnected concepts that contribute to a healthy and productive work environment. Supporting the development of self-efficacy at all organisational levels, from senior management to frontline staff, can drive sustained improvements in employee well-being and organisational success.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Aboyade

W. A.

, Adeeko

, & Oyewole

G. O.

(2017). Job satisfaction and self-efficacy as determinants of job performance of library personnel in selected university libraries in South‐West Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice.

Andrews

D. R.

(2003). Lessons from the past: Confronting past discriminatory practices as a tool to alleviate the nursing shortage through increased professional diversity. Journal of Professional Nursing, 19(5), 289–294.

Auken

, Fry

, & Stephens

(2006). The influence of role models on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (JDE), 11(2), 157–167.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura

(1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behavioral Research and Therapy, 1, 237–269.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.

Bandura

(1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287.

10.

Bandura

(1994). Self-efficacy. In Ramachandran

V. S.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71)–81). Academic Press.

11.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

12.

Bandura

(2000). Self-efficacy: The foundation of agency. In Perrig

W. J.

& Grob

(Eds.), Control of human behavior, mental processes, and consciousness: Essays in honor of the 60th birthday of August Flammer (pp. 17–33). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

13.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

14.

Bandura

(2009). Social cognitive theory goes global. The Psychologist, 22(6), 504–506.

15.

Bandura

(2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136.

16.

Bandura

, & Adams

N. E.

(1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(4), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01663995

17.

Bandura

, Adams

N. E.

, Hardy

A. B.

, & Howells

G. N.

(1980). Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173354

18.

Beal

D. J.

, Weiss

H. M.

, Barros

, & MacDermid

S. M.

(2014). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1016–1041. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036871

19.

Betz

N. E.

, Klein

, & Taylor

K. M.

(1996). Evaluation of a short form of the career decision making self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(1), 47–57.

20.

Bogler

, & Somech

(2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003

21.

Borman

W. C.

, & Motowidlo

S. J.

(1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt

& Borman

W. C.

(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). Jossey-Bass.

22.

Bowling

N. A.

, Alarcon

G. M.

, Bragg

C. B.

, & Hartman

M. J.

(2015). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(3), 627–647.

23.

Brooke

P. P.

, Russell

D. W.

, & Price

J. L.

(1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 139–145.

24.

Bull

I. H. F.

(2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment amongst high school teachers in disadvantaged areas in the Western Cape (Master’s thesis). University of the Western Cape, Cape Town.

25.

Bum

(2018). The impact of self-efficacy on task effort and resilience in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2273

26.

Carmeli

(2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(8), 788–813.

27.

Chambliss

, Blume

B. D.

, & Roth

P. L.

(1979). The role of self-efficacy in predicting job performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(6), 680–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.6.680

28.

Chan

X. W.

, Kalliath

, Brough

, O’Driscoll

M. P.

, Siu

O. L.

, & Timms

(2017). Self-efficacy and work engagement: Test of a chain model. International Journal of Manpower, 38(6), 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-11-2015-0189

29.

Chang

, Chen

, & Hsu

(2021). Self-efficacy and job satisfaction among employees: The moderating role of organizational support. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 36(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2020.1831445

30.

Chen

, Gully

S. M.

, & Eden

(2015). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 18(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114560300

31.

Chen

, Liu

, & Yu

(2020). Enhancing work performance: The roles of self-efficacy and goal setting in dynamic work environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(4), 452–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000433

32.

Chen

X. H.

, Zhao

, Liu

, & Dash Wu

(2012). Improving employees’ job satisfaction and innovation performance using conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(2), 151–172.

33.

Cherian

, & Jacob

(2013). Impact of self-efficacy on motivation and performance of employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n14p80

34.

Conway

J. M.

(1999). Additional construct validity evidence for the task/contextual performance distinction. Human Performance, 9(4), 309–329.

35.

Crain

(2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.

36.

Crohan

S. E.

, Antonucci

T. C.

, Adelmann

P. K.

, & Coleman

L. M.

(1989). Job characteristics and well-being at midlife: Ethnic and gender comparisons. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 223–235.

37.

Currivan

D. B.

(1999). The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of employee turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 495–524.

38.

Davis

, Campbell

, Hildon

, Hobbs

, & Michie

(2015). Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: A scoping review. Health Psychology Review, 9(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941722

39.

DeSimone

, Planta

, & Cicotto

(2018). The role of job satisfaction, work engagement, self-efficacy, and agentic capacities on nurses’ turnover intention and patient satisfaction. Applied Nursing Research, 39, 130–140.

40.

Douglas

, & Topping

K. J.

(2020). The effect of social deprivation and gender on self-efficacy beliefs about the postsecondary transition. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 18(52), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.25115/EJREP.V18I52.3170

41.

Ewart

C. K.

(1992). Self-efficacy and recovery from acute myocardial infarction. In Schwarzer

(Ed.), Thought control of action (pp. 287–304). Springer.

42.

Fadzilah

(2006). Analisis pengaruh pemberdayaan karyawan dan self-efficacy terhadap kinerja karyawan bagian penjualan (Studi kasus pada, PT. Sinar Sosro wilayah pemasaran Semarang). Jurnal Studi Manajemen Organisasi, 3(1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.14710/jsmo.v3i1.4179

43.

Feltz

D. L.

(1982). The effects of age and number of demonstrations on modeling of form and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53(4), 291–296.

44.

Folkman

, & Moskowitz

J. T.

(2017). Stress, positive emotion, and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 444–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417706673

45.

Gist

M. E.

(1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 787–805.

46.

Gist

M. E.

, & Mitchell

T. R.

(1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.

47.

Hackman

J. R.

, & Oldham

G. R.

(1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.

48.

Hanifa

, Prabowo

, & Sutrisno

(2024). The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between self-efficacy and job performance: Evidence from Indonesian manufacturing industry employees. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management, 7(11), 210–222. https://ijefm.co.in/v7i11/33.php

49.

Hasibuan

J. S.

(2014). Work–life balance dan job satisfaction terhadap organizational citizenship behavior: Peran mediasi work engagement. Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen dan Bisnis, 2(2), 1–15.

50.

Haworth

, Levy

P. E.

, & Kacmar

K. M.

(2001). The influence of self-efficacy on contextual performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 567–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.103

51.

Holmgreen

, Tirone

, Gerhart

, & Hobfoll

S. E.

(2017). Conservation of resources theory: Resource caravans and passageways in health contexts. In Cooper

C. L.

& Quick

J. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice (pp. 443–458). Wiley.

52.

Hossain

Md. S.

(2014). Job satisfaction of bank employees in Bangladesh. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374294

53.

Humphrey

S. E.

, Nahrgang

J. D.

, & Morgeson

F. P.

(2020). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(2), 110–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000442

54.

Ilies

, & Judge

T. A.

(2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 750–759. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.750

55.

Ivancevich

J. M.

, Konopaske

, & Matteson

M. T.

(2006). Organizational behavior and management (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

56.

Jawahar

I. M.

, Meurs

J. A.

, Ferris

G. R.

, & Hochwarter

W. A.

(2008). Self-efficacy and political skill as comparative predictors of task and contextual performance: A two-study constructive replication. Human Performance, 21(2), 138–157.

57.

Judge

T. A.

, & Bretz

R. D.

(1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.261

58.

Judge

T. A.

, Heller

, & Mount

M. K.

(2017). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530

59.

Judge

T. A.

, Jackson

C. L.

, Shaw

J. C.

, Scott

B. A.

, & Rich

B. L.

(2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107

60.

Judge

T. A.

, & Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

(2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100511

61.

Judge

T. A.

, Thoresen

C. J.

, Bono

J. E.

, & Patton

G. K.

(2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407.

62.

Kantas

(1998). Organizational industrial psychology [Οργανωτική βιομηχανική ψυχολογία] (in Greek). Ellinika Grammata [Ελληνικά γράμματα].

63.

Karl

K. A.

, O’Leary-Kelly

A. M.

, & Martocchio

J. J.

(1993). The impact of feedback and self-efficacy on performance in training. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(4), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140409

64.

Kazdin

A. E.

(1974). Effects of covert modeling and model reinforcement on assertive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 240–252.

65.

Kear

(2000). Concept analysis of self-efficacy. Graduate Research in Nursing. http://graduateresearch.com/Kear.htm

66.

Khan

(2014). Job satisfaction and job performance: A study on colleges of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 3(23), 2972–2981. https://doi.org/10.9734/JSRR/2014/9931

67.

Kolo

A. G.

, Wan Jaafar

W. M.

, & Ahmad

(2017). Relationship between academic self-efficacy belief of college students and academic performance. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22(1), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2201067580

68.

Kraiger

, & Ford

J. K.

(2014). The transfer of training: What really matters? International Journal of Training and Development, 18(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12022

69.

Kreitner

, & Kinicki

(1995). Organizational behavior. Irwin.

70.

Krueger

N. F.

Jr , Reilly

M. D.

, & Carsrud

A. L.

(2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 411–432.

71.

Kyndt

, Coertjens

, van Daal

, Donche

, Gijbels

, & Van Petegem

(2015). The development of students’ motivation in the transition from secondary to higher education: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 39, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.001

72.

Lee

, Lee

, & Pang

(2019). Effects of role model performance on self-efficacy and job performance: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2356

73.

Lent

R. W.

, & Brown

S. D.

(2006). Integrating person and situation perspectives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(2), 236–247.

74.

LePine

J. A.

, LePine

M. A.

, & Jackson

C. L.

(2016). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 883–891. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.883

75.

Liao

, & Chuang

(2014). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1237–1257. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0022

76.

Lis

, Nagy

, & Nagy

(2016). The impact of self-efficacy on employee satisfaction and organizational culture: A case study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(4), 372–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1051636

77.

Locke

E. A.

(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally.

78.

Locke

E. A.

, Frederick

, Lee

, & Bobko

(1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241–251.

79.

, While

A. E.

, & Barriball

K. L.

(2016). Job satisfaction among nurses: A literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(7), 1025–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.05.009

80.

Lunenburg

F. C.

(2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and performance. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 14(1), 1–6.

81.

Luthans

, Avolio

B. J.

, Avey

J. B.

, & Norman

S. M.

(2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x

82.

Mangkunegara

A. A. P.

(2011). Human resource management. PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

83.

McAllister

D. J.

, & Bigley

G. A.

(2015). Affective trust and the regulation of intergroup conflict. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0200

84.

McCloy

R. A.

, Campbell

J. P.

, & Cudeck

(1994). A confirmatory test of a model of performance determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.493

85.

Miller

N. E.

, & Dollard

(1941). Social learning and imitation. Yale University Press.

86.

Mitchelmore

, & Rowley

(2010). Entrepreneurial competencies: A literature review and development agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(2), 92–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011026995

87.

Motowidlo

S. J.

(2003). Job performance. In Borman

W. C.

, Ilgen

D. R.

, & Klimoski

R. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 39)–53). John Wiley & Sons.

88.

Myers

C. G.

(2020). Performance benefits of reciprocal vicarious learning in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0875

89.

Nguni

, Sleegers

, & Denessen

(2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 17(2), 145–177.

90.

Okoye

K. R. E.

(2011). Attitude and self-efficacy as correlates of job performance and satisfaction of technical and vocational educators in North-East Nigeria. European Journal of Education Studies.

91.

Okpara

J. O.

(2004). Personal characteristics as predictors of job satisfaction: An exploratory study of IT managers in a developing economy. Information Technology & People, 17(3), 327–338.

92.

Organ

D. W.

, & Ryan

(1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x

93.

Parker

L. E.

(1993). When to fix it and when to leave: Relationships among perceived control, self-efficacy, dissent, and exit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 949–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.949

94.

Pattinson

E. M.

, Cotterill

S. T.

, & Leyland

S. D.

(2017). Sources of self-efficacy in springboard and highboard diving: A qualitative investigation. Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 13(2), 80–91.

95.

Perdue

S. V.

, Reardon

R. C.

, & Peterson

G. W.

(2007). Person–environment congruence, self-efficacy, and environmental identity in relation to job satisfaction: A career decision theory perspective. Journal of Employment Counseling, 44(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2007.tb00022.x

96.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Paine

J. B.

, & Bachrach

D. G.

(2014). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307

97.

Pool

L. D.

, Qualter

, & Sewell

(2009). Exploring the factor structure of the Career EDGE employability development profile. Education Training, 51(4), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910910964504

98.

Prasanga

A. A.

, & Gamage

A. S.

(2012). Job satisfaction and job performance of sailors in Rapid Action Boat Squadron of Sri Lanka Navy. Sri Lankan Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.4038/sljhrm.v3i1.5097

99.

Pushpakumari

M. D.

(2008). The impact of job satisfaction on job performance: An empirical analysis. Arabian Journal of Business and Management, 9(1), 89–105.

100.

Rubasree

, & Rangarajan

(2023). Self-efficacy implications for motivation, job satisfaction, and performance in the workplace: Evidence from Indian IT professionals. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13861

101.

Saks

A. M.

(1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.211

102.

Salanova

, Agut

, & Peiró

J. M.

(2014). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1217–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.6.1217

103.

Schaufeli

W. B.

, & Salanova

(2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In Gilliland

S. W.

, Steiner

D. D.

, & Skarlicki

D. P.

(Eds.), Research in social issues in management: Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (Vol. 5, pp. 135)–177). Information Age Publishing.

104.

Schunk

D. H.

(1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149–174.

105.

Schunk

D. H.

, & DiBenedetto

M. K.

(2020). Motivation and social-emotional learning: Theory, research, and practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832

106.

Schunk

D. H.

, & Pajares

(2018). Self-efficacy theory. In Wentzel

K. R.

& Miele

D. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 34–54). Routledge.

107.

Seibert

S. E.

, & Kraimer

M. L.

(2019). The role of feedback and self-efficacy in goal setting and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(3), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2345

108.

Simanjuntak

P. I.

(2020). The effect of emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction on employee performance at Telkomsel RTPO work unit in Sumatera area. International Journal of Research and Review, 7(1), 37–46. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3687081

109.

Singh

R. G.

(2013). Factors explaining job satisfaction among hospital employees. OPUS: HR Journal, 4(1), 29–43.

110.

Siregar

(2011). Statistika deskriptif untuk penelitian. RajaGrafindo Persada.

111.

Skaalvik

E. M.

, & Skaalvik

(2019). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 74–82.

112.

Spector

P. E.

(1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693–713.

113.

Stajkovic

A. D.

, & Luthans

(1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240

114.

Stajkovic

A. D.

, & Luthans

(2013). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Implications for motivation theory and practice. Motivation and Emotion, 26(2), 105–142. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021361119615

115.

Taylor

(2008). Organizational influences, public service motivation, and work outcomes: An Australian study. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 67–88.

116.

Tschannen-Moran

, Goddard

R. D.

, & Hoy

W. K.

(2007). The relationship between self-efficacy and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 658–728.

117.

Tschannen-Moran

, & Hoy

A. W.

(2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.

118.

Van Scooter

J. R.

(2000). Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction and affective commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 79–95.

119.

Van Scotter

J. R.

, Motowidlo

S. J.

, & Cross

T. C.

(1996). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 526–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.526

120.

Vogelpohl

(2017). Self-efficacy beliefs and their impact on problem-solving skills and resilience in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32(4), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558417693582

121.

Wang

, & Netemeyer

R. G.

(2018). The effects of task performance and contextual performance on supervisors’ evaluations of employee performance: The moderating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(7), 674–686.

122.

Weiss

H. M.

(2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1

123.

Yeo

, & Neal

(2006). An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1088

124.

Yusuf Iis

, & Yunus

(2016). Job satisfaction as an intervening variable of self-efficacy and employee performance. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Science, 6(7), 284–298.

125.

Zhang

, & Bartol

K. M.

(2015). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037118

126.

Zhou

, Chen

, & Wang

(2023). The mediating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between self-efficacy and work engagement among rural primary school teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(1), 45–58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40244990/

127.

Zhou

, Chen

, & Wang

(2025). The mediating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between self-efficacy and work engagement among rural primary school physical education teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 117(1), 45–58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40244990/

128.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2016). Self-efficacy and educational development. In Pajares

& Urdan

(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1–37). Information Age Publishing.