Reconsidering Workplace Motivation (Part I): Self-Efficacy

Motivation is basically the inner engine that drives us to set goals and move toward them.

When our motivation is high, we are more driven to achieve and more ready to invest our time, energy, and emotions to reach something that feels important. When it is low, the opposite happens: goal setting itself becomes weaker, and the effort we put in naturally drops.

In a workplace context, this shift is directly tied to how satisfied people are in their jobs, how happy they are at work, how well they perform, and how strongly they feel connected to the broader goals of their team or company(1)(2). Over time, sustained low motivation and its accompanying effects can wear down both sides: the individual employee and the organization as a whole.

In this blog series, we will examine workplace motivation through three major motivational theories. Instead of focusing only on how to “boost” motivation, we will explore the psychological mechanisms that shape it. 

In this first article, we begin with Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy and look at how beliefs about competence influence motivation at work. We will also outline the critical questions that both employees can ask themselves to better understand their own experience, and leaders can ask to assess and support their teams more effectively.

Competence Beliefs: Self-Efficacy

When people are given a task, first, often very quickly and almost automatically, they evaluate it through a simple question: Am I capable of doing this?

This evaluation is shaped by what psychology calls self-efficacy, a concept introduced by Albert Bandura(3). Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in their ability to successfully accomplish a specific task or goal. It is not about actual skill alone, but about the belief in one’s capability.

If a person believes that the demands of a task exceed their knowledge or competence, they are less likely to fully engage. They may delay starting, invest less effort, or struggle to regulate their focus and emotions effectively. Over time, this directly affects performance.

Bandura argued that self-efficacy plays a central role in motivation because it influences the goals people choose, how much effort they invest, and how long they persist when things become difficult. In workplace settings, higher self-efficacy has consistently been linked to better learning outcomes, stronger commitment, higher motivation, and improved performance (4)(5).

In simpler terms, sometimes what we label as “low motivation” or disengagement or even laziness is actually a belief problem: not “I do not want to,” but “I am not sure I can.”

Where Does Self-Efficacy Come From?

Bandura describes four major sources that shape self-efficacy: performance accomplishments, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal.

1. Performance Accomplishments

The strongest source of self-efficacy is our own past experience. If we have successfully completed similar tasks before, our belief in our competence increases. Success builds confidence. Repeated failure, on the other hand, can weaken that belief and shape more negative expectations about future goals(6).

In everyday work, this is simple: if someone has successfully led projects before, they are more likely to volunteer again. If they have repeatedly struggled or been criticized without support, hesitation becomes more likely.

2. Verbal Persuasion

Feedback and encouragement from others also play a role. But not all feedback is equal.

Research suggests that detailed, descriptive feedback combined with concrete guidance has a stronger impact than generic supportive statements(7). Saying “You’re doing great” feels good, but saying “Your analysis is clear and your argument structure is strong. Let’s refine the conclusion together” strengthens perceived competence much more effectively.

3. Vicarious Learning

We also learn by observing others. Bandura states that when we see someone succeed at a similar task, it increases our belief that we might succeed too.

However, here similarity also matters (8). If the model feels too distant (“They are just naturally talented” or "They are already more experienced than me."), the effect weakens. If the person feels comparable (“They started at the same level as me”), the task appears more attainable.

Therefore, in teams, visible peer success can inspire or discourage, depending on perceived closeness.

4. Emotional Arousal

Finally, emotional reactions influence self-efficacy. Stress, anxiety, or physiological tension during task performance can be interpreted as signals of inability. If someone experiences strong stress responses, they may appraise the situation as overwhelming and doubt their competence.

Interestingly, it is not stress itself but how it is interpreted that matters (8). The same arousal can be framed as “I am anxious because I am not capable” or “I am activated because this matters.”

What Questions Should We Ask When the Motivation Drops?

If we take Bandura’s four sources of self-efficacy, low motivation should not be treated as a vague attitude problem. It should trigger specific questions.

For example:

1. Do employees show signs of stress, low mood, or visible restlessness when assigned a task?

Such reactions may signal more than temporary discomfort. They can reflect anxiety about meeting task demands, fear of failure, or hopelessness about succeeding. In other words, low self-efficacy.

2. What has their recent performance in similar tasks looked like?

Have they succeeded before?

Or did they encounter difficulties that led to negative outcomes or strong stress reactions?

3. How were those past experiences interpreted?

A setback can either be framed as “I need a better strategy next time” or as “I am not capable of this.” If someone carries a history of real or perceived failures, they may anticipate similar outcomes in the future and disengage before even starting.

4. Is the issue individual or shared within the team?

If several team members show hesitation, the issue may lie in the absence of effective modeling. Perhaps no one in the group visibly demonstrates how the task can be handled successfully. This limits opportunities for vicarious learning.

If only one person seems disengaged, the situation may be different. That employee might perceive themselves as less competent than their peers, due to differences in experience, age, educational background, or training. When perceived similarity is low, observing others succeed does not strengthen self-efficacy. Instead, it may reinforce feelings of inadequacy.

Low motivation is often a signal.

Through these questions, what appears as “low motivation” can often be traced back to how individuals interpret their past experiences, their emotional reactions, and their position within the team. 

Understanding self-efficacy shifts the conversation, and that single shift in perspective might be where motivation starts to return.

Understanding self-efficacy shifts the conversation, and that single shift in perspective might be where motivation starts to return.

In the coming articles, I will continue unpacking workplace motivation through two additional theoretical lenses and translate these insights into research-based implications for employees and leaders alike. Thank you for taking the time to read.

REFERENCES

(1) Fernet, C., Austin, S., & Vallerand, R. J. (2012). The effects of work motivation on employee exhaustion and commitment: An extension of the JD-R model. Work & Stress, 26(3), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.713202

(2) Salleh, S. M., Zahari, A. S. M., Said, N. S. M., & Ali, S. R. O. (2016). The Influence of Work Motivation on Organizational Commitment in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 6(5S), 139–143.

(3) Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122

(4) Alessandri, G., Borgogni, L., & Truxillo, D. M. (2014). Tracking job performance trajectories over time: A six-year longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(4), 560–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2014.949679

(5) Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of Self Efficacy on Motivation and Performance of Employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n14p80

(6) Lyons, P., & Bandura, R. (2019). Self-efficacy: core of employee success. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 33(3), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/dlo-04-2018-0045

(7) Warkentin, M., Johnston, A. C., & Shropshire, J. (2011). The influence of the informal social learning environment on information privacy policy compliance efficacy and intention. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.72

(8) Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7(2), 112–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209508406961