Leadership Development Program and Self-Efficacy Development 87 

As important as leadership self-efficacy is to both leadership performance and leadership development program outcomes, few leadership development programs have acknowledged the relationship. For this reason, little research and even fewer evaluations have explored whether leadership development interventions enhanced leadership self-efficacy and fewer still have investigated how the programs achieved increases in leadership self-efficacy through program content and attributes. Hollenbeck and Hall (2004) examined self-efficacy and its relationship to leader performance and asked the rhetorical question as to why it had taken so long for the importance of it to be incorporated in the leadership literature. Their answer was simple. Leadership self-efficacy seemed so obvious that it had been ignored (Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004). Yet leadership self-efficacy distinguished leaders from non-

leaders and the frequency of attempts at leadership (McCormick et al., 2002). Fortunately, some research, albeit scant, on leadership development programs and leadership self-efficacy development has been undertaken to address the aforementioned gaps.

Gist and Mitchell (1992) and Bandura (1997) agreed that the individuals who were unfamiliar with a situation or task were likely to misjudge their efficacy for performing the necessary skills to accomplish the task until such time as they have had the requisite training to either acquire the skills or understand the task. The training might change the skill level which would lead to an adjustment in the perceived efficacy for the task. At times, however, the intervention or training does not actually change the skill level of an individual. Instead, it potentially changes the efficacy assessment made by individual if it becomes apparent that they have the ability to perform the task with existing skills. Thus, mistaken assessments of self-efficacy can arise when individuals make a faulty assumption that a task or situation is similar to another for which they have skill and experience, when individuals focus on the most difficult aspects of the task, when the environment appears unduly complex or when they are so unfamiliar with a task or situation or when a task or situation is so ill defined that judgment is difficult (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Simply put, “judgment of self-efficacy

requires knowledge of task demands” (Bandura, 1997, p. 64).

Changes to self-efficacy assessments are derived from attribution and feedback (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Individuals with high levels of self-efficacy are likely to attribute failure to lack of effort or bad luck while individuals with low levels of self-efficacy are likely to attribute failure to lack of skill, if appropriate feedback does not clarify the reality of the situation (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Bandura (1997) posited that one’s

situation, even if actual skill level was unaltered but he considered this one potential outcome from a training intervention, the other being skill acquisition and appropriate self- efficacy adjustment. One could not assume that an individual’s efficacy judgements were either exaggerated or overly conservative unless one had measured the understanding that the individual had of the task demands (Bandura, 1997, p. 64).

Mencl et al. (2012) argued that the reappraisal of efficacy based on an inaccurate pre- training assessment has led to inappropriate conclusions relative to the value of training interventions and their positive effect on task specific efficacy. Moreover, the study of 417 sales trainees suggested that inferences about increases in task specific efficacy as a result of training were unfounded when the training resulted in modifications to efficacy appraisals by learners only because they were more aware of their responses (Mencl et al., 2012). Thus, self-efficacy change scores may not be reflective of the value of a training intervention but rather represent more attentiveness to task specific self-efficacy scoring by trainees and a better understanding of the task. Pretest scores had little value. Only the posttest scores represented an accurate assessment of task specific efficacy (Mencl et al., 2012).

Whether a LDP results in skill acquisition, a better understanding of the task or more attentiveness to the self-efficacy assessment related to either a better understanding of the task or requisite skills, the end result is a change in the individual’s belief about the skills and the self-efficacy for the task. Arguably an individual may not have increased their skill level as a result of an intervention but the change in self-efficacy, regardless of the reason, is nonetheless a change in an individual's perception of their ability to complete the task. That is, task specific self-efficacy is not necessarily a proxy for skill level or skill acquisition. Moreover, contrary to the findings espoused by Mencl et al. (2012), Gist and Mitchell (1992)

asserted that regardless of whether a change in self-efficacy was derived from a reappraisal based on a better understanding of the skill required, confirmation of existing skills or the acquisition of new skill, the appraisal of self-efficacy was still affected by the experience.

The findings were considered in the methodology and design of the research as

measurement of LSE change was integral to the investigation. In spite of the findings and interpretations put forward by Mencl et al. (2012) this study assessed the LDP intervention with LSE change scores and comparisons derived from pretest and posttest measurements. Bandura (1997) suggested that causality related to self-efficacy interventions could be measured with a multiple test environment. Therefore, the effect of an LDP on LSE has been evaluated in the first instance by assessing pretest to posttest gains in self-efficacy but the embedded qualitative analysis ensured that conclusions and inferences based on quantitative findings were contextualized and interpreted with the qualitative investigation. Moreover, the recommendations of Mencl et al. were considered in the research design such that

posttest scores were also analyzed in conjunction with the qualitative data in determining the effectiveness of the LDP on LSE development.

In considering leadership self-efficacy development in the context of a leadership

development program, gender (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen, 2008), initial levels of LSE (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; McCormick & Tanguma, 2007; Mencl et al., 2012; Sherer et al., 1982) as well as prior leadership experience and training (Chan & Drasgow, 2001, Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen, 2008; Popper & Mayseless, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007) were found to affect the development of LSE and the effectiveness of the intervention. While gender was significantly related to LSE (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen, 2008) such that males generally exhibited higher levels of LSE than women, the

research did not suggest that gender definitively affected the ability to acquire LSE in development interventions. However, individuals with higher levels of general self-efficacy were more confident in their ability to acquire a skill during training and to apply the skill thereafter than those individuals with lower general self-efficacy (Mencl et al., 2012; Sherer et al., 1982). Thus, males might have been expected to be more confident in skills

acquisition than their female counterparts. Conversely, individuals with lower levels of LSE showed the greatest increases in LSE as a result of an intervention (McCormick & Tanguma, 2007). Those with initial high LSE experienced significant downward changes in LSE (McCormick & Tanguma, 2007) likely as a result of their original misinterpretation of the task (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992), overconfidence or a ceiling effect related to efficacy development (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Thus, the research anticipated potential gender effects.

The complexity of LSE development and the relevance of initial levels of LSE are explained by differentiating preparatory self-efficacy, efficacy during a developmental phase, from performance self-efficacy, efficacy during task performance. For optimal development to occur, preparatory self-efficacy has to be at moderately low levels as individuals with high levels of preparatory self-efficacy see little benefit in investing in additional development or training and those with very low levels of preparatory self-

efficacy are likely stressed in a development environment and not motivated (Bandura, 1997; Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Conversely, for optimum performance to occur, high levels of performance efficacy are necessary to undertake difficult tasks but resilient self-efficacy that which allows individuals to persevere during adversity and rebound after failure is equally important (Bandura, 1997; Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011).

If development interventions are to increase LSE, then they must consider the differences in the composition of LSE from individual to individual. "The degree of change that might be expected in self-efficacy is partly a function of the variability and locus of its

determinants" (Gist & Mitchell, 1992, p. 200). Because self-efficacy can be quite tenuous and dependent on how the belief was acquired, the strength of the belief and intervening experiences, adversity can have detrimental effects (Bandura, 1997). However, resilience implies that self-efficacy beliefs are solid, acquired from mastery experiences or multiple modelling experiences such that an individual can thrive in adversity (Bandura, 1977, 1997). Thus, initial levels and the composition of LSE, particularly preparatory and performance LSE are critical to the success of a development intervention.

Learning self-efficacy, efficacy for learning a new task is not only a pre-requisite to performance LSE but determines the effectiveness of a development intervention (Bandura, 1997; Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Optimum leader development occurs when learning efficacy is also resilient such that developing leaders learn from a serious of challenges, not all of which are performed successfully and the probability of failure is always inherent (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011; Moxley & Pulley, 2004). During this period of

development LSE will necessarily fluctuate. However, to ensure self-efficacy increases rather than diminishes, tasks must have the appropriate degree of difficulty (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). The success of a development intervention is predicated on the inclusion of assessment through feedback and comparison, challenge and peer support (McCauley & Douglas, 2004; Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). Because challenges and subsequent failures can have a detrimental effect on self-efficacy, Bandura (1997)

response, Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) suggested that challenge experiences must not only exist but they must be developmentally appropriate, at the right level and time, so that successful outcomes are likely, and that appropriate feedback, peer support and mentoring complement the experience. Thus, not only do initial levels of LSE affect the success of the intervention but the appropriateness of the development challenges to the level of LSE are also relevant. The complexity of LSE development has been considered in the methodology.

Steyn and Mynhardt (2008) found that additional efficacy information did not have a linear cumulative effect in the formation of self-efficacy perceptions. This finding appeared to dismiss the cumulative and integrative effects that Bandura (1997) asserted the various sources of efficacy provided but it highlighted the potential importance of relative weighting and context in self-efficacy development and integration (Steyn & Mynhardt, 2008). It is not clear, however, whether the ceiling effect identified in some LSE research (Blastorah, 2009; Gist & Mitchell, 1992) and the findings that there was greater plasticity of individuals that were low in LSE as compared to those that were high in LSE (McCormick & Tanguma, 2007) might have affected the results presented by Steyn and Mynhardt. The work of Gist and Mitchell (1992) related to pre-existing levels of self-efficacy best addressed the

importance of context and provided a potential explanation for the contradictory findings in that high levels of pre-intervention self-efficacy were likely to experience ceiling effects while low levels of initial self-efficacy were likely to benefit from multiple sources of efficacy development. Thus, research has shown that the effectiveness of a LDP in

enhancing LSE has been influenced by not only LDP content and other structural attributes but also by the context and the appropriateness of the LDP to the pre-program levels of participant LSE.

As noted above, McCormick and Tanguma (2007) made a significant contribution to the research on LSE development and leadership development interventions. The findings from the non-equivalent control group design suggested that initial levels of LSE had to be considered in both developing a LDP and in assessing the effectiveness of the intervention. The change in LSE as a result of an intervention for individuals with initial low LSE was in the opposite direction than the change experienced by individuals with high LSE. Thus, at a group level, the overall effects of an intervention were masked and deemed to be non- significant compared to a control group. Their findings have been considered in the methodology and analysis.

Not only did experience predict self-efficacy (Chan & Drasgow, 2001, Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007) but most specifically, prior experience as a positional leader (Dugan & Komives, 2007; Owen, 2008) and as part of a group (Owen, 2008) predicted LSE. Furthermore, when leadership development included experiential learning derived from the role as a positional leader, LSE was positively enhanced (Dugan & Komives, 2007). Conversely, neither task specific training nor leadership training provided in an intervention significantly affected LSE of leaders as compared to followers (Murphy, 1992). However, Murphy (1992) found that the LSE of both leaders and the followers, that is, all participants in the intervention, increased

significantly from pre-intervention levels to post intervention levels. Thus, it appears that the intervention affected both leaders and followers, not just the leaders exposed to task specific and leadership training. While Murphy acknowledged some potential weaknesses in the methodology, it is possible that vicarious learning or social persuasion experienced by followers was as significant as the experiential learning of leaders, thus resulting in

significant LSE increases for all participants. As the self-efficacy of group leaders was not easily changed by a single task specific or leadership experience alone it is also possible, as supported by other research, that the experiences or training did not incorporate sufficient experiential learning. In the absence of efficacy enhancing experiences, both task specific and leadership training had little differential impact on LSE.

The importance of developing leadership self-efficacy has been undervalued. Based on the construct put forward by Bandura (1997) it is clear that if leadership development program participants are not motivated to use the leadership skills that they have, they will not lead and if they are not confident then they will neither be motivated to attempt

leadership nor will they engage in leadership regularly. Skill training alone has not been enough to guarantee leadership performance but leadership development programs have resulted in the requisite gains in LSE. Thus, it should have been clear that developing leadership self-efficacy, particularly in professions like librarianship, should have been paramount to the usefulness of leadership training. Without the knowledge gained from research as to how these programs have incorporated leadership self-efficacy development and how they have affected leadership self-efficacy in participants, it has been difficult to evaluate or improve the programs.