Current issue
Archive
About the Journal
About
Editorial Office
Scientific Board
Abstract & Indexing
Contact
Reviewers list
Editorial Policies
Authorship & COI
Ethical principles
Crossmark
Principles of Transparent Checklist
Open access
Reviewing procedure
Instruction for Authors
Guidelines for Authors
Manuscript Types
Manuscript structure
How to submit
SCIENCE ARTICLE
Self-efficacy as a resource in managing the engagement of local government employees
1
Department of Management, WSB University, Poland
2
Department of Management of Higher Education Institutions, Jagiellonian University, Poland
3
Institute of Management and Social Affairs, University of the National Education Commission in Krakow, Poland
Submission date: 2025-11-10
Final revision date: 2026-01-18
Acceptance date: 2026-01-30
Online publication date: 2026-02-09
Publication date: 2026-02-09
Management 2025;(2):638-664
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
M12
M51
J24
D23
H83
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Research background and purpose:
The article analyzes the importance of self-efficacy in shaping the work engagement of local government administration employees. Referring to Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory and the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model, it discusses the relationships between individuals’ beliefs in their own effectiveness and their levels of energy, dedication, and engagement at work. The aim of the study was Explorer tje relationship between sel-efficacy and the declared level of professional engagement, as well as to identify the areas in which local government employees rate their personal effectiveness the highest.
Design/methodology/approach:
The study was conducted using a quantitative method based on the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) developed by R. Schwarzer and M. Jerusalem, adapted into Polish by Z. Juczyński. The sample included 163 employees of a local government administration unit located in southern Poland. Data were analyzed using nonparametric tests (Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA, and Spearman’s rank correlation). The measurement of work engagement was exploratory in nature and based on simplified self-assessment by the respondents.
Findings:
The results showed that respondents rated their ability to solve problems and cope with difficult situations the highest, indicating the dominance of the task-oriented component in the structure of self-efficacy.These findings suggest that the ability to overcome obstacles may constitute a potentially relevant personal resource for work engagement in a public-sector context, although no direct, statistically significant relationship was found between overall self-efficacy and declared engagement.
Value added and limitations:
The article contributes to the development of research on the psychological resources of public sector employees, presenting self-efficacy as a potential yet context-dependent factor supporting professional engagement. It also formulates practical recommendations for building a work environment based on trust, cooperation, and appreciation. The study’s limitations include its cross-sectional design, purposive sampling, and simplified measurement of engagement. The obtained results are exploratory and constitute a starting point for further research using the full Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES).
The article analyzes the importance of self-efficacy in shaping the work engagement of local government administration employees. Referring to Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory and the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model, it discusses the relationships between individuals’ beliefs in their own effectiveness and their levels of energy, dedication, and engagement at work. The aim of the study was Explorer tje relationship between sel-efficacy and the declared level of professional engagement, as well as to identify the areas in which local government employees rate their personal effectiveness the highest.
Design/methodology/approach:
The study was conducted using a quantitative method based on the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) developed by R. Schwarzer and M. Jerusalem, adapted into Polish by Z. Juczyński. The sample included 163 employees of a local government administration unit located in southern Poland. Data were analyzed using nonparametric tests (Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA, and Spearman’s rank correlation). The measurement of work engagement was exploratory in nature and based on simplified self-assessment by the respondents.
Findings:
The results showed that respondents rated their ability to solve problems and cope with difficult situations the highest, indicating the dominance of the task-oriented component in the structure of self-efficacy.These findings suggest that the ability to overcome obstacles may constitute a potentially relevant personal resource for work engagement in a public-sector context, although no direct, statistically significant relationship was found between overall self-efficacy and declared engagement.
Value added and limitations:
The article contributes to the development of research on the psychological resources of public sector employees, presenting self-efficacy as a potential yet context-dependent factor supporting professional engagement. It also formulates practical recommendations for building a work environment based on trust, cooperation, and appreciation. The study’s limitations include its cross-sectional design, purposive sampling, and simplified measurement of engagement. The obtained results are exploratory and constitute a starting point for further research using the full Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES).
REFERENCES (56)
1.
Ashfaq, F., Abid, G., & Ilyas, S. (2021). Impact of ethical leadership on employee engagement: Role of self-efficacy and organizational commitment.European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(3), 962–974. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe....
2.
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta‐analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.2....
4.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands–Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/026839....
5.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job Demands–Resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp000....
6.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2....
7.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-0....
9.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annure....
10.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
11.
Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. (2023). Government-wide findings: Private sector comparison. Retrieved October 20, 2025, from https://bestplacestowork.org/a....
12.
Bidzan, M., Bidzan-Bluma, I., Szulman-Wardal, A., Stueck, M., & Bidzan, M. (2020).Does self-efficacy and emotional control protect hospital staff from COVID-19 anxiety and PTSD symptoms?. Psychological functioning of hospital staff after the announcement of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 552583. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.....
13.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.1....
14.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744....
15.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9....
16.
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00193....
17.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
18.
Czechowska-Bieluga, M., Stachyra-Sokulska, A. K., Różański, A., Sarzyńska-Mazurek, E., & Chojak, M. (2023). Poczucie własnej skuteczności i odporność pracowników administracji publicznej. Kontekst pracy zdalnej [Self-efficacy and resilience of public administration employees: The context of remote work] Journal of Modern Science, 52(3), 314–336. https://doi.org/10.13166/jms/1....
19.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self‐determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annure....
20.
Ding, M., & Wang, C. (2023). Can public service motivation increase work engagement? A meta-analysis across cultures. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1060941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.....
21.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2015). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajt....
22.
Fida, R., Marzocchi, I., Arshad, M., Paciello, M., Barbaranelli, C., & Tramontano, C. (2025). Selfefficacy and nontask performance at work: A meta-analytic summary. Personality and Individual Differences, 241, 113179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid....
23.
Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2018). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
24.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5....
25.
Juczyński, Z. (1999). Narzędzia pomiaru w promocji i psychologii zdrowia [Measurement tools in health promotion and health psychology] Przegląd Psychologiczny, 42(4), 43–56.
26.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits- Self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability- With job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021....
27.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
28.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231–241.
29.
Lavigna, B. (2019). Why employee engagement matters for government financial management. Government Finance Review. Retrieved October 20, 2025, from https://www.cpshr.us/wp-conten....
30.
Lenart-Gansiniec, R., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2021). Epistemologia, metodologia i metody badań w naukach o zarządzaniu i jakości [Epistemology, methodology and research methods in management and quality sciences]. Społeczna Akademia Nauk.
31.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-0....
32.
Łuszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The General Self-Efficacy Scale: Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.1....
33.
Młyński, J., Sułkowski, Ł., Seliga, R., Wójcik-Chodorowska, J., & Jung-Konstanty, S. (2024). The role of social security and appreciative inquiry in the work of a social service manager. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 12(4), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_V....
34.
Ni, Y., Li, L., Bao, Y., You, G., & Li, J. (2024). Relationship between perceived organisational support, self-efficacy, proactive personality and career self-management among nurses: A moderated mediation analysis.BMJ Open, 14(6), e081334. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjope....
35.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
36.
Postuła, A., Pasieczny, J., & Rosiak, T. (2024). Employee engagement in the public sector amid unstable systemic solutions. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization and Management Series, 199, 505-515. https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-....
37.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annure....
38.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9....
39.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.20....
40.
Rosiak, T., Pasieczny, J., & Postuła, A. (2024). Paradoxes in the operation of public administration: opportunity or barrier to the sustainable development of organisations? Administratie si Management Public, 43, 172-183. https://doi.org/10.24818/amp/2....
41.
Saks, A. M. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 6(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-....
42.
Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Xanthopoulou, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The gain spiral of resources and work engagement: Sustaining a positive worklife. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 118–131). Psychology Press.
43.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.24....
44.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2013). A critical review of the Job Demands–Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94....
45.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON.
46.
Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943....
47.
Shuck, B., Collins, J. C., Rocco, T. S., & Diaz, R. (2016). Deconstructing the privilege and power of employee engagement: Issues of inequality for management and human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 15(2), 208–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/153448....
48.
Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.) & M. P. Leiter, Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 25–38). Psychology Press.
49.
Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2....
50.
Sulaiman, A. A., Effendi, A. A., & Aladwan, S. I. (2024). Relationships between self-efficacy, autonomy, employee engagement, and performance in Nigerian public sector organizations. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 16(4s), 1188–1204.
51.
Sułkowski, Ł., & Lenart-Gansiniec, R. (2023). Metody badań mieszanych w naukach o zarządzaniu- istota i znaczenie badań mieszanych [Mixed methods in management sciences: The essence and significance of mixed methods research]. In Ł. Sułkowski & R. Lenart-Gansiniec (Eds.), Badania mieszane w naukach o zarządzaniu [Mixed methods research in management sciences] (pp. 7–16). Akademia WSB.
52.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2008). New public management values and person-organization fit: A sociopsychological approach and empirical examination among public sector personnel. Public Administration, 86(1), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467....
53.
Wójcik-Chodorowska, J. (2025). Znaczenie i rola dyskursu doceniającego w zarządzaniu zmianą organizacyjną. Analiza na przykładzie formacji militarnej [The meaning and role of appreciative inquiry in managing organizational change: An analysis based on a military formation]. Przegląd Policyjny, 158(2), 129-151.https://doi.org/10.5604/01.300....
54.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5....
55.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317....
56.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1....
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2299-193X |
| ISSN: | 1429-9321 (1997-2019) |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
