Foundations of the PsyCap dimensions

In the following section, the foundations of the PsyCap dimensions are presented. The PsyCap dimensions are rooted in the more general constructs of optimism, self-efficacy, resilience, and hope.

2.7.6.1 Optimism.

In this section, various approaches to optimism as found in the literature are presented.

2.7.6.1.1 Approaches to optimism.

According to Seligman (1990) optimism as an explanatory style, attributes positive events to personal, permanent and pervasive causes and interprets negative events in terms of external, temporary, and situation specific factors. In contrast, an individual with a pessimistic explanatory style, interprets positive events with external, temporary, and situation-specific attributes, and explain negative events in terms of personal, permanent, and pervasive causes.

Another approach to optimism relies on the assumption that people’s expectancies for the future derive from their view of the causes of events in the past (Peterson &

Seligman, 1984; Seligman, 1991). According to this approach (Peterson & Seligman, 1984; Seligman, 1991), if explanations for past failures focus on causes that are stable, the person’s expectancy for the future in the same domain will be for bad outcomes, because the cause is seen as relatively permanent and thus likely to remain in force. Wrosch and Scheier (2003) suggest that in contrast to the attributional

approach to optimism, dispositional optimism does not differentiate the basis of expectation.

Dispositional optimism can be defined as a person’s positive outlook towards life events (Ebert, Tucker, & Roth, 2002; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). According to these authors, optimists believe that good outcomes will occur in life and can therefore appraise stressful events more positively and mobilise their resources to take direct action in response to a stressor.

2.7.6.2 Self-efficacy.

In the following section, the antecedents of self-efficacy as found in the literature are presented.

2.7.6.2.1 Antecedents of self-efficacy.

Bandura (1997) claims the development of self-efficacy is influenced primarily by two interacting factors. Firstly, it is influenced by the development of the capacity for symbolic thought, particularly the capacity for self-observation and self-reflection.

Secondly, the development of efficacy beliefs is influenced by the responsiveness of environments, more especially social environments. Environments which are responsive to an individual’s behaviour and actions assist in developing efficacy beliefs, whereas non-responsive environments impede this development.

According to Bandura (1997) efficacy beliefs develop throughout the life-span from five main sources:

Performance experiences

 One’s own attempts to control the environment are the most powerful source of self-efficacy information. Successful attempts at control that one attributes to one’s own efforts will strengthen self-efficacy for that behaviour, while perceptions of failure at attempts to control, usually diminish self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In line with Bandura (1997), Stajkovic and Luthans (1998a) point out that research shows that succeeding in a challenging task, termed as

an “enactive mastery experience” provides the strongest information for changing efficacy beliefs.

Vicarious experiences

 According to Bandura (1997), one’s self-efficacy beliefs are influenced by one’s observations of the behaviour of others and the consequences of those behaviours. Bandura (1997) points out that vicarious experiences seem to generally have weaker effects on self-efficacy expectancy that performance experiences.

Imaginal experiences

 According to Williams (1995), one can influence self-efficacy beliefs by imagining oneself or others behaving effectively or ineffectively in hypothetical situations. This author suggests that such images may be derived from actual or vicarious experiences with situations similar to the one anticipated, or they may be induced by verbal persuasion.

Verbal persuasion

 Efficacy beliefs are influenced by what others say to one, regarding what they believe one can or cannot do (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Snyder & Lopez, 2002). The power of verbal persuasion as a source of self-efficacy will be influenced by the trustworthiness and expertness of the source (Eagly &

Chaiken, 1993; Snyder & Lopez, 2002).

Physiological and emotional states

 Physiological and emotional states influence self-efficacy when one learns to associate poor performance or perceived failure with aversive physiological arousal and success with pleasant feeling states (e.g., Bandura, 1986, 1997).

According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy makes a difference in how people act, think and feel. This author suggests that individual’s self-efficacy levels can either enhance or impede motivation.

2.7.6.3 Resilience.

In the following section, definitions and antecedents of resilience as found in the literature are presented.

2.7.6.3.1 Antecedents of resilience.

According to Masten and Reed (2002) predominant themes that arise from the body of research suggest that resilience is founded on at least two building blocks, namely adequate resources and an active mastery motivation system. First, resilience is more likely when individuals have access to a sufficient amount of quality resources (i.e.

human, social, emotional and material capital) so that they can develop competence.

Second, resilience is more likely when an individual’s mastery motivation system is mobilised, that is when individuals have experiences that allow them to encounter success and build self-efficacy and that motivate them to succeed in their future endeavours.

According to Wruck and Jensen (1994), in organisational settings, resilience is engendered when individuals, who are most likely to have relevant and specific knowledge necessary to make a decision and resolve a problem, are given decision-making authority. In addition, these authors claim resilience hinges on individual training, experience and the development of specialised knowledge.

According to Garmezy (1991, p. 459), to be resilient does not ensure success in every instance, but rather it implies a “capacity for recovery or maintained adaptive behaviour that may follow initial retreat or incapacity upon experiencing a stressful event”. The afore-mentioned author suggests that effective action reinforces a sense of competence and efficacy and notes that resilience is an outcome of the self-reinforcing nature of this cycle.

In addition, Masten’s (2001; Masten & Reed, 2002) research supports that resilience can be developed through asset-focused, and process-focused strategies, that are relevant and applicable to the workplace. Bonanno (2004) also supports that the state-like resilience can be developed through training interventions. Moreover, resilience is measurable (e.g., Blocke & Kremen, 1996; Wagnild & Young, 1993) and

has been shown to be applicable and related to performance in the workplace (Coutu, 2002; Harland, Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmaon, 2005; Luthans et al. 2005; Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006; Waite & Richardsen, 2004; Worline, Dutton, Frost, Kanov, Lilius, & Maitlis, 2002; Zunz, 1998).

2.7.6.4 Hope.

In the following section, definitions and the antecedents of hope as found in the literature are presented.

2.7.6.4.1 Antecedents of hope.

According to Snyder (1995a), conceptually, the hope construct derives its uniqueness from equal, additive, and iterative contributions of its agency and pathways components. Although the agency or willpower component of hope is shared with other positive psychological capacities such as optimism, the pathways or waypower component is distinctive of hope. This author suggests that the hope process allows blockages or problems to be perceived as challenges and learning opportunities.

Youssef and Luthans (2007) claim several factors can promote the organisational culture needed for hope development and sustainability. Strategic initiatives emphasising long-term goal-setting, coordination, integration, and contingency planning can create an organisational environment where agency and pathways thinking can thrive. Clearly, the afore-mentioned authors are alluding to organisational climate and culture that stimulate and reinforce such thinking and behaviour.

Youssef and Luthans (2007) claim that hopeful organisations are proactive in seeking and creating opportunities for members, and in controlling the environment to facilitate the achievement of their goals. These authors suggest that open and transparent flows of communication through flat, organic structures, participative decision-making, empowerment, and other flexible, high-engagement techniques, can provide a culture of hope that encourages its members to take initiatives, seek responsibility, accept accountability, and expect to be treated fairly when doing so.

In a survey by Adams, Snyder, Rand, King, Sigman and Pulvers (2002), it was found that organisations in which respondents reported higher levels of hope, tended to be more successful than those with lower levels of hope.