Log in / Register
Home arrow Geography arrow Leading an African Renaissance: Opportunities and Challenges


Bandura defined self-efficacy as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances”.26 According to Bandura, four main sources of influence are responsible for a person’s self-efficacy: “performance attainments; vicarious experiences ofobserving the performances ofothers; verbal persuasion and allied types of social influences that one possesses certain capabilities; and psychological states from which people partly judge their capableness, strength, and vulnerability to perform”.27

Bandura also distinguished between self-efficacy and self-esteem, pointing out that while self-efficacy involves people’s perception of their capability to complete a task, self-esteem relates to people’s perception of their self-worth. The development of self-efficacy is related to having successfully achieved tasks and outcomes and can be accomplished through “breaking down complex skills into easily mastered sub skills and organizing them hierarchically” .28 Bandura stressed collective self-efficacy, which he noted is “agroup’sshared beliefin its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses ofaction required to produce given levels ofattainment” .29 This is of special interest, as leaders can impact their followers’ perceptions of their capabilities, and according to Cerff, “building collective efficacy is vital in the development of leaders, particularly for those with low self-efficacy”.30 It follows that high levels of self-efficacy positively influence “career pursuits, leadership, and the achievement of success”31 Bandura pointed out that “beliefs of personal efficacy affect aspirations to leadership”.32 Hartsfield agreed with this perspective, noting that “relating the construct of selfefficacy to leadership creates a conceptual framework for understanding how self-confidence can play a vital role in the successful performance ofleadership duties” 3 Cerff argued: “If this is true, then this study should find that there is a positive link between hope, self-efficacy, and MU.”34


Chan’s MTL is an individual difference construct that is primarily reliant on personality characteristics, in which the processes “affect a leader’s or leader-to-be’s decisions in relation to the assumption of leadership training, roles and responsibilities, his or her intensity of effort at leading, and his or her persistence as a leader of a group”3 Chan noted that factors that influence the behavioral criteria may include individual differences and situational variables, and focused on clarifying the former in their effect on MTL. According to Chan, the individual differences may be “relatively stable over time, barring any major interventions or life events”36 and may “interact with the person’s vocational or life-domain interests and abilities to predict leadership behaviors”.37 Chan asserted that training and experience in leadership can affect change of individual differences and that “individual differences are an immediate outcome ofone’s leadership self-efficacy and accumulated leadership experience which are in turn affected by cultural values and beliefs, personality, cognitive and social responsibilities” 3 Chan borrowed the self-efficacy construct from Bandura’s general cognitive theory, thereby accounting for “ individual differences in MTL”29 and noted that “individual differences are indirectly related to performance criteria, that non-cognitive constructs such as personality and values may be linked to leadership performance through the process ofleadership development” .40

Chan et al. identified three correlated dimensions in which to conceptualize and measure MTL, namely “Affective/Identity MTL”,*1 in which people who scored highly like to lead and consider themselves as leaders, are inclined to be both social and extrovert, have more leadership experience than their peers, and are confident in their leadership ability, which indicates high levels of self-efficacy. People who achieved high scores in the second dimension, “Social-Normative MTL”*2 are motivated by a sense of social duty and obligation and are accepting of social hierarchies. Individuals who score highly in this dimension have similar qualities in the sphere of leadership experience and confidence in their leadership abilities to those with high scores in Affective/Identity MTL. The third dimension, “Non-Calculative MTL”,43 indicates individuals who are not calculative about leading. According to Chan et al., socio-cultural values play a more important role in Non-Calculative MTL and are collectivistic in nature, while individualistic values are negatively related to Non-Calculative MTL. Chan et al. note, “agreeableness and emotional stability are fairly consistently and significantly related to Non-Calculative MTL, while leadership self-efficacy and past experience are not consistently or significantly related to Non-Calculative MTL”.**

Ericksen researched the relationships between individual differences, leadership self-efficacy, leadership experience, collective efficacy and MTL, underscoring the work of Chan, and noted, “the MTL construct is valid and reliable in settings similar to this sample and those studied previously” .*5 One of the recommendations which Ericksen made was in reference to the influence of leadership training on MTL, which Cerff indicated was important “in the development ofleaders in the South African context”.*6

Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >
Business & Finance
Computer Science
Language & Literature
Political science