Introduction to the four sources

In many circumstances, findings suggest higher self-efficacy is beneficial for salespeople, with only non-sales literature suggesting that only in certain scenarios will self-efficacy reduce subsequent performance (i.e. when individuals overestimate their goal progress). Accordingly, it is important to understand exactly how managers can manipulate self-efficacy within their salespeople. Extant sales literature examines self-efficacy only at a single time- point, with those variables discussed as antecedents established through correlations between self-efficacy and the specified antecedent8. Additionally, despite the plethora of sales self- efficacy studies, some variables are discussed as antecedents, but are not empirically tested (e.g. physiological symptoms such as sales anxiety). Sales research is yet to examine how these sources influence salespeople’s self-efficacy trajectories over time. Consequently, a further aim of the present study is to examine how different sources of self-efficacy influence self-efficacy beliefs, over time.

Self-efficacy is known to be attainable from four types of source: performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states

(Bandura, 1977). Beginning with performance accomplishments, these are personal mastery

8

Although causality can be difficult to establish, and almost always requires experimental designs, longitudinal research can provide more confident assumptions related to causality (Rindfleisch et al., 2008)

59

experiences by the individual relevant to the present task. Positive experiences enhance self- efficacy, whereas failures reveal insufficient mastery of the given task, lowering self-efficacy. In respect of salespeople in particular, successfully attaining their sales objectives over a specified period may demonstrate to the individual that they have the ability to undertake their role successfully. This achievement would provide positive reinforcement to the

salesperson that they are a capable salesperson when looking ahead to future sales objectives and would result in enhanced sales self-efficacy levels. In contrast to this, since failure demonstrates an inability to successfully complete the task at hand, a salesperson's failure to achieve their sales objectives over a specified period may reduce their efficacy. A salesperson may have ‘just had a bad month’. Thus, it is quite plausible that experiencing only one failure will not significantly influence self-efficacy levels. However, it may cause a small reduction in self-efficacy, which would become much greater if the salesperson consistently fails to achieve their sales objectives. Additionally, SCT suggests that self-efficacy and performance demonstrate a reciprocal relationship (Talsma, Schüz, Schwarzer, & Norris, 2018). Self- efficacy influences performance, which in turn, influences future self-efficacy. Furthermore, Sitzmann and Yeo’s (2013) meta-analysis finds the relationship between past performance and self-efficacy to be stronger than the relationship between self-efficacy and subsequent performance.

Vicarious experiences are another type of source put forth by SCT, and refer to individuals learning by watching others behave, and identifying the consequences of these behaviors (Rich, 1997). By experiencing things vicariously individuals can learn indirectly how to perform a task successfully; meaning that individuals can learn from others’ behaviors (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2003). For salespeople, this vicarious experience means that a salesperson witnesses a colleague successfully perform their selling duties, and the

salesperson may relate these successful behaviors to successful attainment. The salesperson can then mimic these behaviors in the future. Salespeople may mimic the behaviors of either their sales manager or fellow salespeople who demonstrate desirable results.

The third source type, verbal persuasion, consists of encouragement from an external individual regarding the salesperson’s ability to successfully complete a task (Bandura, 1977). Verbal persuasion acts as encouragement to reinforce an individual as to their ability to successfully undertake their sales duties. Furthermore, it is important that the support is accepted and recognized by the salesperson (Nease, Mudgett, & Quinones, 1999), as there may be a discrepancy between the amount of support given by others and the perceived

60

amount received. Physiological responses are the final type of source. However, here it is the absence of these symptoms that provides a foundation for an individual to reaffirm their self- efficacy beliefs. When these symptoms are experienced they can reduce an individual’s self- efficacy (Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005). The symptoms that researchers believe can reduce self-efficacy beliefs include increased heart rate, sweating, and shaking (all symptoms of anxiety), and these symptoms are believed to represent signs that signify one is not entirely capable of successfully executing the task (Bandura, 1977).

The above sources combine to help determine an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs. Having multiple sources positively reinforcing the individual’s self-efficacy beliefs, rather than a single source, may help develop their self-efficacy further, and/or provide a stronger belief in their self-efficacy. The sources are seen to operate in different ways; for example, mastery experiences provide an individual with a firm reason to believe they can execute the task again successfully in the future as the individual has already completed the task in the past. Vicarious learning, on the other hand, allows one to observe, and consequently mimic specific behaviors and strategies, and is said to be affected by the similarity in personal characteristics between the observer and the observed (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2003). Verbal persuasion operates through a different mechanism to mastery and vicarious experiences. Specifically, the individual’s skill or ability is not influenced. Rather, verbal persuasion acts as a reinforcement that an individual has the capabilities to succeed in the task, promoting individuals to cognitively appraise events in a positive manner (Bandura, 1977). Finally, the presence of physiological symptoms acts as a symbol that one is dysfunctional or vulnerable (Bandura, 1997), and ultimately can lead to self-doubt in low-efficacious individuals if the symptoms occur, reducing their self-efficacy.

As set out above, mastery experiences are said to be the strongest form of efficacy

(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). Seeing another perform successfully, being told that others believe you can perform a task successfully, or experiencing a lack of physiological

symptoms, will likely not provide concrete evidence that an individual can undertake a task successfully. However, previous successful experience in a task will allow an individual to truly believe they have the capability to succeed. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) posit that the other sources of self-efficacy only become relevant for individuals who have little

mastery experience. It is not known the extent to which vicarious experiences and social persuasion can influence self-efficacy above and beyond mastery experiences.

61

The four sources of self-efficacy originally proposed by Bandura (1977) apply to all contexts, but the variables considered to be sources are contingent upon the specific environment and task type. For example, salespeople are mainly judged against sales objectives, with these used as an indicator of mastery experience. However, in an educational setting, average student grades are seen as the mastery metric. Accordingly, successful performance is compared to different metrics in different contexts. Each variable discussed as a source of self-efficacy operates via the mechanism of at least one of the sources outlined above. It is not always easy to distinguish the mechanism by which the variables influence self-efficacy. Feedback, for example, is seen by some researchers as a form of mastery experience, as positive feedback merely reinforces successful behaviors (Achterkamp, Hermens, & Vollenbroek-Hutten, 2015). Conversely, other researchers argue that a salesperson may receive positive feedback but unless the behaviors result in a positive outcome, then the experience cannot truly be a mastery experience, and thus feedback is a form of verbal persuasion (Alqurashi, 2015). Another example concerns job autonomy, which also has elements of enactive mastery and verbal persuasion (Wang & Netemeyer, 2002). If a salesperson perceives themselves to have job autonomy, then this perception may lead the salesperson to believe that they demonstrate the ability to successfully perform their role independently. However, if a manager informs the salesperson of their autonomy, it may be a form of verbal persuasion because the salesperson is explicitly told that another indvidual has a belief that the salesperson is capable of successfully undertaking the task alone. Regardless, research demonstrates that these variables are related to self-efficacy. Extant sales literature has studied self-efficacy extensively; however, research determining the influence of

different sources of self-efficacy on self-efficacy over time is non-existent. Accordingly, the current study looks to understand how these sources influence intra-individual change in self- efficacy. The literature that covers the different sources of self-efficacy will now be

reviewed.