Albert Bandura has refined a theory of human agency with three modes and four core properties within social cognitive theory. Human agency plays a critical role in one’s adaptation, self-development, and self-renewal. Despite its relevance to human resource development (HRD), human agency theory has not been explored or effectively utilized in HRD research and practice.
The Solution
Following Bandura’s human agency theory, a translational and implementational model for HRD was proposed. First, the model integrated the four core properties of human agency (intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-reflectiveness) into a model by altering the sequence to align with major HRD processes. Second, it synthesized triadic reciprocal determinism with the four core properties of human agency by placing the agent at the center of the model. Third, it is an open systems model that describes reciprocal determinism between the agent and the environment at micro, meso, and macro levels, indicating the dynamics of personal, proxy, and collective agency.
The Stakeholders
The model will be useful for career practitioners, coaches, organization development consultants, and other HRD professionals who deliver interventions. HRD researchers and theorists may find it worthwhile to test and validate the model. In addition, regardless of disciplines, researchers, and practitioners who follow social cognitive theory may find some insights from the translational model.
AllenW. C. (2006). Overview and evolution of the ADDIE training system. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8, 430-441. doi:10.1177/1523422306292942
2.
AndreouE. (2015). Narratives of agency in job burnout recovery (Unpublished master’s thesis). School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
3.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
4.
BanduraA. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
5.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
BanduraA. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.44.9.1175
7.
BanduraA. (1992). Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanism. In SchwarzerR. (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 3-38). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
8.
BanduraA. (1996). Reflections on human agency. In GeorgesJ.ManthouliM.KoklreiA. (Eds.), Contemporary psychology in Europe: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 194-210). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe and Huber. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/204579424/citation/F593524059DC4EEFPQ/1.
9.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
10.
BanduraA. (1999a). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 21-41. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00024
11.
BanduraA. (1999b). A sociocognitive analysis of substance abuse: An agentic perspective. Psychological Science, 10, 214-217. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00138
12.
BanduraA. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.
13.
BanduraA. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
14.
BanduraA. (2002a). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European Psychologist, 7(1), 2-16. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.7.1.2
15.
BanduraA. (2002b). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51, 269-290. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00092
16.
BanduraA. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164-180. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
17.
BanduraA. (2008a). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In LopezS. J. (Ed.), Positive psychology: Discovering human strengths (pp. 167-196). Westport, CT: Praeger Books.
18.
BanduraA. (2008b). The reconstrual of “free will” from the agentic perspective of social cognitive theory. In BaerJ.KaufmanJ. C.BaumeisterR. F. (Eds.), Are we free? Psychology and free will (pp. 86-127). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
BanduraA. (2008c). Toward an agentic theory of the self. In MarshH. W.CravenR. G.McInerneyD. M. (Eds.), Self-processes, learning, and enabling human potential (pp. 15-49). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
20.
BanduraA. (2012, July). Toward an agentic theory for the new millennium. Presented at the International Congress of Psychology, Cape Town, South Africa (delivered via video). Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/227965360
21.
BanduraA. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130-136. doi:10.1177/1745691617699280
22.
BurkeW. W.LitwinG. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18, 523-545. doi:10.1177/014920639201800306
23.
BusheG. R. (2013). Generative process, generative outcome: The transformational potential of appreciative inquiry. In CooperriderD. L.ZandeeD. P.GodwinL. N.AvitalM.BolandB. (Eds.), Advances in appreciative inquiry (Vol. 4, pp. 89-113). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. doi:10.1108/S1475-9152(2013)0000004003
24.
BusheG. R.MarshakR. J. (2015). The dialogic organization development approach to transformation and change. In RothwellW. J.StavrosJ.SullivanR. L. (Eds.), Practicing organization development (4th ed., pp. 405-418). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
25.
ByrdM. Y.StanleyC. A. (2009). Bringing the voices together. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 657-666. doi:10.1177/1523422309351817
26.
ChenC. P. (2015). Career human agency theory. In MareeK.FabioA. D. (Eds.), Exploring new horizons in career counselling: Turning challenge into opportunities (pp. 77-97). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-6300-154-0_5
27.
CollinsJ. C.ChlupD. T. (2014). Criticality in practice: The cyclical development process of social justice allies at work. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, 481-498. doi:10.1177/1523422314544295
28.
CooperriderD. L.WhitneyD. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
29.
CoveyS. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
30.
EganT. M.LancasterC. M. (2005). Comparing appreciative inquiry to action research: OD practitioner perspectives. Organization Development Journal, 23, 29-49.
31.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57-74.
32.
FearonC.McLaughlinH.MorrisL. (2013). Conceptualising work engagement: An individual, collective and organisational efficacy perspective. European Journal of Training and Development, 37, 244-256. doi:10.1108/03090591311312723
33.
GardinerR. A. (2017). Authentic leadership through an ethical prism. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 19, 467-477. doi:10.1177/1523422317728941
34.
GibsonS. K. (2004). Social learning (cognitive) theory and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 193-210. doi:10.1177/1523422304263429
35.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structure. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
GordonS. (2012). An appreciative inquiry coaching approach to developing mental toughness. In DrakeD. B.BrennanD.GørtzK. (Eds.), The philosophy and practice of coaching: Insights and issues for a new era (pp. 111-135). West Sussex, UK: Jossey-Bass.
37.
HorwitzF. M. (1999). The emergence of strategic training and development: The current state of play. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23, 180-190. doi:10.1108/03090599910272068
38.
KorteR. (2012). Exploring the social foundations of human resource development: A theoretical framework for research and practice. Human Resource Development Review, 11, 6-30. doi:10.1177/1534484311430629
39.
KuchinkeK. P. (2013). Human agency and HRD: Returning meaning, spirituality, and purpose to HRD theory and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15, 370-381. doi:10.1177/1523422313498563
40.
LeavittH. J. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry. In MarchJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 1144-1170). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
41.
NadlerD. A.TushmanM. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 9, 35-51. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(80)90039-X
42.
NilesS. G.YoonH. J.BalinE.AmundsonN. (2010). Zor zamanlarda umut odaklı kariyer gelişimi modelinin kullanılması [Using a hope-centered model of career development in challenging times]. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 34, 101-109.
43.
ParsonsF. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
44.
PetersT. J.WatermanR. H.Jr. (1982). In search of excellence, lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
45.
RothwellW. J.SullivanR. L.KimT.ParkJ. G.DonahueW. E. (2015). Change process and models. In RothwellW. J.StavrosJ. M.SullivanR. L. (Eds.), Practicing organization development: Leading transformation and change (4th ed., pp. 42-59). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
46.
SavickasM. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In BrownS. D.LentR. W. (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42-70). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
47.
SchuttD. A. (2007). A strength-based approach to career development using appreciative inquiry. Broken Arrow, OK: National Career Development Association.
48.
SuperD. E. (1990). Career and life development. In BrownD.BrooksL. (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed., pp. 197-261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
49.
TorracoR. J. (2005). Work design theory: A review and critique with implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 85-109. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1125
50.
TotawarA. K.NambudiriR. (2014). Mood and self-efficacy: The moderation of hedonic and utilitarian motivation. Human Resource Development Review, 13, 314-335. doi:10.1177/1534484313492330
51.
VeliquetteA. J. (2012). Structuration theory’s relevance to HRD: A review and application. Human Resource Development Review, 12, 200-220. doi:10.1177/1534484312461636
52.
YoonH. J. (2011). The development and validation of the assessment of human agency employing Albert Bandura’s human agency theory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
53.
YoonH. J. (2017). Diagnostic models following open systems. In RothwellW. J.StopperL. M.MyersJ. L. (Eds.), Assessment and diagnosis for organization development: Powerful tools and perspectives for the OD practitioner (pp. 29-53). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
54.
YoonH. J.BaileyN.AmundsonN. E.NilesS. G. (2018). The effect of a career development programme based on the hope-action theory: Hope to work for refugees in British Columbia. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 47, 6-19. doi:10.1080/03069885.2018.1544827
