Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a more stressful and uncertain work environments, disrupting personal and organizational lives, and particularly the impact of this crises on health care professionals (i.e., doctors and nurses) is unprecedented. COVID-19 has increased the workload and job risks for frontline health care professionals, causing them significant emotional stress. In such testing times, individual’s personal effectiveness ensued by the utilization of one’s personal energy may be helpful in not only ensuring wellbeing but also providing other desired results, for example, enhanced performance. Based on this notion, we conducted a study (amidst the third wave in mid-2021) using a multi-wave design to investigate the role of professional self-efficacy of health care professionals in well-being and behavioral outcomes during crises of COVID-19. The hypothesized relationships were tested by collecting data from 361 frontline healthcare professionals dealing with COVID-19 patients in hospitals in Northern part of Pakistan. The study results verified our assumed relationships and revealed that health care workers’ professional self-efficacy was positively related to their well-being, in terms of workplace thriving, and it also showed positive association with work role performance. In addition, the results of the study also revealed that perceived strengths use mediated the relationship between professional self-efficacy and outcomes. This study discusses implications, limitations, and future directions in detail, including how the findings can be used to inform interventions and support healthcare professionals dealing with the emotional and professional stresses brought on by the pandemic.

Keywords

professional self-efficacy perceived strengths use work role performance workplace thriving COVID-19 crisis

Introduction

At times employees in organizations experience adverse situations that negatively influence their capacity to perform the assigned tasks (Hobfoll, 1989; McCarthy et al., 2016) and also have implications for their health-related issues (Ahmed & Sifat, 2021; Judge et al., 2007; Tang et al., 2001). Therefore, it is of paramount significance to identify personal factors and motivational mechanisms that may facilitate individuals in coping with such situations. Prior research mentions that employees’ personal resources might be instrumental in helping them counter hard conditions and perform well in the face of adversity (De Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, 2017). We argue that self-efficacy—an individual’s optimistic perception of one’s abilities to cope with challenging situations (Bandura, 1978), is a useful personal resource that might enable employees in encountering challenging situations (Parker, 1998).

Self-efficacy has reportedly been associated with multiple individual-level beneficial outcomes such as showing enhanced confidence, managing stress-related situations, and job engagement etc. (Albrecht & Marty, 2020; De Clercq et al., 2018). Self-efficacy can be instrumental in rescuing employees by working as a shield during difficult circumstances and channelizing individuals’ abilities to successfully execute tasks (De Clercq et al., 2018). The key role of self-efficacy in facilitating employees regardless of the circumstance may be explained by the perspective that employees’ personal resources can leverage to compensate for the resource-depleting effects offered by challenging situations (De Clercq et al., 2018). Furthermore, individuals with self-efficacy have positive cognitive processes which motivate them for setting higher goals and thus investing their physical, cognitive, and emotional resources into job roles (Zhu et al., 2019).

Self-efficacy reflects employees’ optimistic beliefs about their capacity to effectively perform the task (Bandura, 1997) and represents key motivational cognitions that may encourage employees to make full use of their strengths and contribute productively at the workplace and thrive (Zhu et al., 2019). Previous research supports the notion that self-efficacy affectively enhances employee performance (De Clercq et al., 2018; Judge et al., 2007), and induce employees thrive at work (Zhu et al., 2019) though little attention was paid to exploring the mechanisms underlining how self-efficacy may be instrumental in stimulating performance and ensuring thriving (De Clercq et al., 2018).

Conservation of Resource Theory

In our hypothesized study model, we argue that self-efficacy is positively associated with performance and a sense of thriving at work—vitality and learning (Porath et al., 2012), and we believe that this relationship is channelized through the mechanism of strength use. We use the conservation of resource theory to explain the relationship between self-efficacy and work-related outcomes, that is, performance and thriving, as well as the role of strength use in the process. The theory highlights the significant approach of “resource gain” (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), because its role in the use of abilities to perform tasks corresponds to meeting organizational expectations. In that, the gain of personal resources inherently establishes a motivating effect, which encourages individuals to enhance performance and obtain a sense of vitality and learning.

We further draw from the conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll, 1989), to argue that there is an understudied reason why self-efficacy may prompt strength use to subsequently enhance performance and significantly influence thriving at work. We opine that the resultant accelerated expectations about one’s abilities due to self-efficacy to be perfectly competent in performing the assigned task (Bandura, 1997), encourages one to take initiative and use strength with intent to avail the opportunity of gaining further resources. Strength use reflects the initiative that employees may take to use their strengths (van Woerkom, Mostert, et al., 2016) and achieve required job expectations. Previous research examined how self-efficacy may be affected by the display of strength use (Ding & Chu, 2020), leaving a research question to ponder and investigate whether reverse causation may be possible (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). Using the conservation of resource theory, we opine that self-efficacy encourages individuals to apply strength use in the quest of acquiring further resources thus contribute to performance and thriving (Hobfoll, 2001).

Context of the Study

Applied psychology has long been involved in investigating factors associated with individuals’ job performance and well-being in times of crisis (Hogan, 2020; Lindström & Giordano, 2016). The recent global pandemic COVID-19 provided a case study regarding the importance and relevance of this topic, particularly for healthcare professionals, that is, doctors and nurses (Yi-Feng Chen et al., 2021). Given the COVID-19 troubling situation, health professionals treating COVID-19 patients were prone to different hazards and thus required personal resources to gear up their performance and well-being. Answering recent calls for identifying the role of individual differences (Yi-Feng Chen et al., 2021), this study aims to explore how individuals’ professional self-efficacy enabled work role performance and well-being using healthcare professionals fighting the COVID-19 menace as a special context.

Notably, healthcare workers were not only courageously combating the pandemic (Misra, 2021) but also openly threatened with a messy environment and vague situations brought by this new crisis (Restubog et al., 2020). An increasing number of COVID-19 patients had increased the workload of healthcare professionals, and many had to perform additional tasks and responsibilities during the pandemic (Yi-Feng Chen et al., 2021). Because of inadequate expertise, many healthcare workers in fields other than respirational infections were instantly required to focus their emphasis on treating and handling COVID-19 infected patients, confronting a serious threat of infection and high uncertainty (Liu et al., 2020). Feat in the face of challenging and unclear situations demands more self-efficacious individuals who can perceive crises as challenges while maintaining adequate psychological well-being.

Accordingly, this study draws from the psychological theory of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) to examine how self-efficacious individuals help face such unprecedented situations. We then employed the conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018) to understand better how self-efficacious individuals contribute to work role performance and well-being in this context.

More specifically, resources are valued psychological, social or organizational features of any job or aspects of the individuals that can help the employees’ personal growth, ensure goal achievement, and improve their well-being. Conservation of resource theory is based on the view that individuals tend to guard their existing resources and acquire further resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018). It is likely that highly self-efficacious individuals will apply strength use to achieve favorable situations and end up getting positively influencing their well-being and work role performance outcomes.

Contributions

This research offers numerous essential contributions to the literature. First, this study theoretically hypothesizes and empirically tests a relationship between self-efficacy and strength use. Previous research has provided empirical evidence by demonstrating that strength use—as a personal resource—predicts self-efficacy (De Clercq et al., 2018), leaving question unanswered if a reverse causation between the duo is also possible. Thus, to address the urge of conducting field studies in an organizational context to provide casual explanation (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018) this study draws from conservation of resource theory and argue that self-efficacy belief motivates individuals to prepare for a tradeoff to gaining further resources which is executed in the shape of strength use.

Second, following the recent call for exploring further mediating mechanisms associated with self-efficacy (De Clercq et al., 2018), this study contributes to literature by investigating how self-efficacy leads to higher performance and enhance workplace thriving through strength use. In line with the conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll et al., 2018), we argue that individuals with self-efficacy utilize personal resource in the shape of strength use to preserve and gain resources, that is, expending resources in the quest of gaining more resources (Demerouti et al., 2004; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009) thus showing better performance and enhancing conditions for thriving.

Third, the next contribution is pertinent to the context in which this study was conducted. It is observed that the primary emphasis of previous studies conducted examining the association between self-efficacy and performance was on studying the phenomenon in non-pandemic situations or stable working environments. It is less known how individuals will react if they face challenging problems and find circumstances beyond their perceived capabilities (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). It was observed that the healthcare professionals treating COVID-19 patients remained more prone to receiving negative outcomes (Menon & Padhy, 2020) and transferred stress than their counterparts working in other sectors or industries (Menon & Padhy, 2020) due to the direct and frequent contact with the COVID-19 patients (Charoensukmongkol & Phungsoonthorn, 2020; Prime et al., 2020). Thus, it was significant to investigate self-efficacy’s (see Hou et al., 2020; Shoji et al., 2016) role in influencing healthcare workers’ performance during this crisis. Finally, this study extends research on strengths use and its relationship with self-efficacy, work role performance, and workplace thriving.

Theory and Hypotheses Development

Professional Self-Efficacy, Work, and Well-Being Outcomes

Self-efficacy has been defined as an individual’s belief in personal mastery, and perceived self-efficacy plays a key role in the self-regulation of motivation (Bandura, 2001). As self-efficacy explains how individuals perceive themselves as capable of overcoming the challenging situation, we are considering individual’s perception of self-efficacy at work, that is, professional self-efficacy (a specific kind of work-related self-efficacy), which refers to individuals’ confidence and belief to perform tasks, challenges, and stress related to his/her profession (Sun et al., 2020). Individuals with higher professional self-efficacy have higher motivation to face profession-related problems (Guo et al., 2017). With the COVID-19 crisis professional responsibilities are doubled, which resultantly increases stress and uncertainties (Charoensukmongkol & Phungsoonthorn, 2020). Since self-efficacy is presented in the literature as a protective factor which helps in coping with stressful situations (Kong et al., 2021), and there is a general belief that people with high self-efficacy can cope with stressors confidently (Bandura, 2001), we extend the view to argue that professional self-efficacy has enough potential as a predictor to facilitate individuals in positively influencing work-related outcomes.

In general, prior studies have revealed that self-efficacy induces a wide range of favorable outcomes, including performance (e.g., Judge et al., 2007; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). We relied on the conservation of resource theory to explain how self-efficacy may be positively associated with performance. As this theory explicate that individuals are always looking for preserving their resources and willing to do adjustments; in this case, employees who has belief of having sufficient ability to culminate the assigned task, hence, would invest their available resources in the hope of gaining more resources (Hobfoll et al., 2000). Thus, the belief of having control over their work and hope of getting desirable results to improve their current job situation would motivate employees to benefit from their self-efficacy and show enhancement at performance. The same relationship has been empirically tested by previous studies (see De Clercq et al., 2018; Judge et al., 2007; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998); hence we hypothesize as follow:

H1: Professional self-efficacy is positively related to employees’ work role performance.

Furthermore, it is widely believed that individuals high in self-efficacy are likely to provide better results with work-related outcomes because they are more confident about their capacities (Bernales-Turpo et al., 2022). This confidence is more likely to engender vitality – a feeling of energy that emanates from within one’s intentional actions (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and nurtures learning possibilities namely dimensions of workplace thriving (Walumbwa et al., 2018). In addition, a psychological resource (i.e., self-efficacy) can help stimulate job-related motivational processes such as workplace thriving (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Conversely, lacking resources can diminish the existing stock of resources as employees dwell on their deficiencies and failures (O’Leary & Ickovics, 1995). In this vein, prior studies (i.e., Demerouti et al., 2004; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009) also demonstrated that initial resource gains for individuals tend to lead to further resource gains and vice versa. These observations are also in parallel with the multilevel theory (Chen & Kanfer, 2006), which identifies individual-level factors (i.e., personality traits) as potential stimuli that arouse employees’ motivational processes (i.e., workplace thriving). Hence, we suggest a positive and significant relationship between employees’ self-efficacy and workplace thriving.

H2: Professional self-efficacy is positively linked to employees’ workplace thriving.

Strengths Use as a Mediator

Individual strengths refer to one’s capacities “for feeling, thinking, and behaving in a way that allows optimal functioning in the pursuit of valued outcomes” (Alex Linley et al., 2006, p. 88). Similarly, strengths are also defined as “characteristics of a person that allow them to perform well or at their personal best” (Wood et al., 2011, p. 15); and an individual’s potential to reach excellence (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011). When narrowed down an individual’s strengths definition in the work context, it is referred to as “the initiative that employees may take to use their strengths at work” (van Woerkom, Mostert, et al., 2016, p. 962).

We propose that strengths use could act as a key underlying process clarifying how self-efficacy individuals attain better performance and thriving, even in difficult situations (i.e., COVID-19 context). Notably, previously studies have demonstrated that strength use can successfully predict self-efficacy (see Ding & Chu, 2020), we hypothesize the reverse casual relationship to argue that individuals with beliefs of having optimistic opinion about their abilities may find it more stimulating to take initiative and apply their energy and strength. Taking insights from the conservation of resource theory, which states that individuals are always willing for a trade-off to preserve resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Individuals high on self-efficacy are expected to set high goals, likely to engage more in work and learning new things about their job (Ding & Chu, 2020), we argue that self-efficacious individuals would make extra efforts to perform well and obtain desirable results at the face of all odds by making use of their strength. Similarly, prior empirical evidence reveals that strengths use is linked to higher individual performance (Christian et al., 2011; van Woerkom, Mostert, et al., 2016), it is plausible that such individuals are more likely to achieve their work-related goals successfully (Moore et al., 2022; van Woerkom, Oerlemans, & Bakker, 2016). Based on the argumentation above, we, therefore, hypothesize the following:

H3: Professional self-efficacy is positively linked to employees’ work role performance through perceived strengths use.

Moreover, apart from stimulating performance, self-efficacy—as a dispositional resource—may help individuals in sustaining employees’ well-being in the presence of diverse conditions (De Clercq et al., 2018). In fact, uncertainties create unforeseen challenges for employees which effect their work as well as well-being (see Charoensukmongkol & Phungsoonthorn, 2020; Lee et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2020; Yi-Feng Chen et al., 2021). In this study, we hypothesize that self-efficacy may positively influence thriving at work through strength use. Previous research studies provide empirical evidence for the positive association between self-efficacy and thriving (Huang & Liu, 2022) by underlining that self-efficient individuals would set high goals thus it would require greater engagement in work and continuous efforts to learn new knowledge to attain these goals (Simbula et al., 2011).

The association between strength use and thriving can be explained by drawing from conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll et al., 2000). As explained by the theory, people are selective in the utilization of their resources which are deemed significant commodities and preserved at any cost. On the other hand, when people use their strength they develop feelings of having more energy available (Mahomed & Rothmann, 2020). Furthermore, strength use is intrinsically motivated therefore they use of strength serves basic psychological needs and often utilized for attaining personal goals, we believe strength use will eventually benefit employees in developing a sense of vitality and encourage in their pursuit of learning new knowledge and skills. Accordingly, the subsequent hypothesis is suggested (Figure 1):

H4: Professional self-efficacy is positively related to employees’ workplace thriving through perceived strengths use.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Methodology

Sample and Procedures

The data were collected through nonprobability convenience sampling approach from hospitals in the Northern part of Pakistan. For the current study, we used convenience sampling technique to collect data. This techniques was chosen because it saves cost, time, and easy to use and allows the respondents voluntary participation. The previous literature (e.g., Asim et al., 2022; Song et al., 2018) have also used this technique for data collection in the area of organizational behavior. The target sample consisted of frontline staff including doctors and nurses who are healthcare professionals and directly deal with patients with COVID-19 infection. The preset criterion for inclusion in the sample was full-time employment in a workplace environment at the time of the study. Individuals working from home were excluded from the study. The study participants were based in three prominent hospitals in the central city of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Worldwide, frontline health professionals have regarded the coronavirus crisis as an extraordinarily stressful event (Pearman et al., 2021), making them an appropriate sample to examine our hypothesized model. Therefore, we contacted hospital administrators to help us collect data by getting the respondents’ emails. The confidentiality and anonymity of the interviewees are guaranteed, and the identity of the interviewees is promised not to be disclosed to the hospital management. Furthermore, we shared a consent along with an online questionnaire link to all the participants, including instructions to participate voluntarily in the study and withdraw at any stage.

According to Podsakoff et al. (2003), one approach for reducing for common method biases issue is to gather data with a time lag between the measurement of the predictor (i.e., independent) and outcome (i.e., dependent) variable. “An incorporate (i.e., more than two) waves of data with fairly short time lags” (Frone et al., 1997, p. 330) can explore the causal influence of one variable on another (Frone et al., 1997; Gollob & Reichardt, 1987). Therefore, this study conducted three waves of data collection to explore the causal impact (Bolino et al., 2015). Data collection took place from early November to late December 2020, a time at which Pakistan was experiencing the second wave of COVID-19. In the first phase, the participants provided information about their demographics and ranked the items of the independent variable. In the second phase, after 4 weeks, the respondents completed the responses to mediating variable, and finally, after 4 weeks in the third phase, the respondents responded about dependent variables.

We approached 671 employees namely health care workers working in the hospitals. Of these, 465(69.29% of the total) agreed to participate and answered the first phase of an online survey. Among those, 411 (61.25% of the total) participants responded in the second phase and 361 (53.80% of the total) in the final stage. The data were checked for missing values, and all the questionnaires were properly filled. Therefore, the data analysis was carried out on 361 samples. Among the 361 respondents, 40.8% were doctors, 59.2% were nurses, 42.5% were male, 48.8% were between 31 and 40 years old, 24.9% had a Master’s degree, and 36.1% had more than 5 years of work experience.

Measures

We used 7-point Likert Scale to assess professional self-efficacy, perceived strengths use, workplace thriving, and work role performance items from “strongly agree (7)” to “strongly disagree (1)”.

Professional Self-Efficacy

The professional self-efficacy scale was adapted from the study of Schwarzer (1999), including ten items. Two items are “During work, I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough” and “During work, it is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals”.

Perceived Strengths Use

Perceived strengths use was adapted from Keenan and Mostert (2013), including eight items. Sample items are “I use my strengths” and “I focus on what I am good at.”

Workplace Thriving

We appraised workplace thriving with a 10-item scale adapted from the study of Porath et al. (2012). Two items are “I find myself learning often” and “I feel alive and vital.”

Work Role Performance

The work role performance scale was adapted from Griffin et al. (2007), measured with nine items. The sample items included the sub-dimensions of proficiency “Carried out the core parts of my job well, “additivity” coped with changes to the way I have to do my core tasks, and “proactivity” come up with ideas to improve the way in which my core tasks are done.”

Control Variables

Previous studies have shown some influence of age, gender, education, and experience on study variables (Yi-Feng Chen et al., 2021). Therefore, we also controlled these variables in the present study to observe the actual effect of proposed predictors on outcome variables.

Data Analysis

Structural Equation Modeling was used to check the study’s direct and indirect relationships (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Previous studies (e.g., Schumacker & Lomax, 2004) suggested that SEM is a more acceptable and precise test than using simple sum scores since it corrects the measurements’ unreliability. Concerning absolute model fit, we followed the suggestions of Schumacker and Lomax (2004) and utilized four statistical indices: The χ²/df, CFI, the SRMR, and the RMSEA. SPSS V.22.0 and AMOS V.22.0 were used for data analysis. Moreover, the reliability and validity of the constructs have also been examined.

Results

Measurement Tests

Statistical remedies for CMB were used as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2012). Firstly, we run the Harman (1976) single factor technique. The results exhibit that the first factor variance is 36.45% which is under 50%, and showing CMB is controlled. Second, none of the correlation coefficient is higher than of .90 which also less concern of CMB.

Further, the reliabilities and validities of the instruments suggested by Hair et al. (2010) and Fornell and Larcker (1981), were also assessed. The values of Cronbach’s alpha (.925 to .952), composite reliability (.927 to .952), average variance extracted (.572 to .691), and the factor loadings (.641 to .910) were satisfactory (see Table 1). Similarly, the values of factor loadings are above .70 and attained the threshold criteria of .60 for sufficient convergent validity of scales, as suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999). Finally, inter-correlations values were less than the AVE square root values, confirmed that the constructs are discriminately valid (see Table 2) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Table 1.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Variables	Items	Factor loadings	CA	CR	AVE
Professional self-efficacy	PSE1	.735	0.949	0.941	0.618
	PSE2	.674
	PSE3	.770
	PSE4	.747
	PSE5	.738
	PSE6	.741
	PSE7	.899
	PSE8	.742
	PSE9	.870
	PSE10	.910
Perceived strengths use	PSU1	.701	0.952	0.952	0.691
	PSU2	.756
	PSU3	.871
	PSU4	.846
	PSU5	.813
	PSU6	.899
	PSU7	.864
	PSU8	.853
	PSU9	.858
Workplace thriving	WPT1	.641	0.931	0.930	0.572
	WPT2	.762
	WPT3	.740
	WPT4	.727
	WPT5	.754
	WPT6	.755
	WPT7	.814
	WPT8	.815
	WPT9	.765
	WPT10	.773
Work role performance	WRP1	.720	0.925	0.927	0.587
	WRP2	.702
	WRP3	.674
	WRP4	.712
	WRP5	.803
	WRP6	.813
	WRP7	.868
	WRP8	.811
	WRP9	.772

Note. CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations Results.

	Means	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Gender	1.57	0.49	1
Age	1.97	0.77	−.114*	1
Education	1.56	0.66	−.040	.083	1
Experience	2.71	1.22	.038	.035	.020	1
PSE	4.82	1.39	−.063	−.094	−.030	−.034	.786
PSU	4.96	1.54	−.038	.012	.038	−.018	.331**	.831
WPT	4.92	1.32	−.014	−.030	.013	.044	.439**	.535**	.756
WRP	4.55	1.34	.020	.064	−.033	.084	.368**	.387**	.454**	.753

Note. N = 361. The bold values are the square root of AVE. PSE = professional self-efficacy; PSU = perceived strengths use; WPT = workplace thriving; WRP = work role performance.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2 depicts the results of the correlations among the study variables and with respondent demographics. The findings revealed that all the association are in the expected directions. Table 2 also shows the association between respondents’ demographics and the study variables. The results show that none of the respondents’ demographic variable has significant relationship with the study variables. As of no meaningful relationship of the study demographics, therefore, demographics variables did not consider for further analysis. Also, we ran ANOVA (analysis of variance) to check the differences in the study variables regarding respondents’ demographics, and the result show non-significant difference in the study variables regarding demographics of the respondents. Moreover, the study of Becker (2005) and Usman et al. (2021) reported that in this situation the results are essentially equivalent with or without control variables. Therefore, we did not control respondents’ demographics in further analysis.

We have checked for the multicollinearity because of high correlation values among the study variables. To check the issue of multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor (VIF) test was used. The values of VIF for PSE, PSU, and WPT with WRB are 1.259, 1.425, and 1.560 respectively, which are less than 10, endorsing that multicollinearity is not an issue in the current study (Mason & Perreault, 1991).

Structural Equation Modelling and Hypotheses Testing

To run the hypothesized model, first measurement model was evaluated which has good fit as (χ²/df = 1,593.015/655 = 2.432, CFI = 0.920, SRMR = 0.051, and RMSEA = 0.063) suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Hair et al. (2010).

Next, path model was analyzed and the model fitness indices were satisfactory as (χ²/df = 1,613.399/656 = 2.459, CFI = 0.919, SRMR = 0.062, and RMSEA = 0.064). After that the path model was evaluated (see Figure 2). The findings confirm the positive effect of professional self-efficacy on workplace thriving (β = .300, p < .01) and work role performance (β = .276, p < .01, hence H1 and H2 confirmed. To check the mediation’s effects (see Table 3), we calculated the bootstrap interval of the indirect effect of professional self-efficacy on workplace thriving and work role performance through perceived strengths use (β = .095, 95% Bootstrap Confidence Interval [0.052, 0.154], and (β = .114, 95% Bootstrap Confidence Interval [0.064, 0.190])). These intervals did not include 0, showing both the mediation effects are significant, thus, H3 and H4 were also confirmed.

Figure 2.

Path model results.

Table 3.

Indirect Effects.

Path	Indirect effect	SE	Lowe-bond confidence interval 95%	Upper-bond confidence interval 95%	p-Value	Decision
PSE PSU WPT	0.095	0.027	0.052	0.154	.001	Supported
PSE PSU WRP	0.114	0.031	0.064	0.190	.001	Supported

Note. PSE = professional self-efficacy; PSU = perceived strengths use; WPT = workplace thriving; WRP = work role performance.

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a source of immense stress and uncertainty for healthcare workers worldwide. As frontline workers deal with extreme pressure, it takes a toll on their physical and mental health. This raises concerns about the well-being of healthcare professionals in times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent studies have explored professional self-efficacy as a factor that can mitigate this negative impact and results in numerous work outcomes (Chan et al., 2017; Judge et al., 2007).

The current study adds to the rising body of research by investigating the role of professional self-efficacy in affecting healthcare workers’ outcomes, considering the self-efficacy theory and the conservation of resources theory. The research found that greater levels of professional self-efficacy correlated with higher perceived strengths use. This effect served as an underlying mechanism between self-efficacy and employee outcomes, including workplace thriving and work-role performance. While previous studies have demonstrated a link between self-efficacy and favorable workplace outcomes, this research provided unique insights by considering perceived strengths use as key mediator in this relationship during times of crisis. These findings hold important implications for healthcare professionals, managers, and policymakers in mitigating COVID-19 pandemic-related stress and preventing adverse outcomes. The study suggests that healthcare organizations should prioritize the development of healthcare professionals’ self-efficacy with training programs that increase their sense of competence and confidence. Additionally, interventions that promote perceived strengths use are recommended, especially during crises, to support professionals’ well-being and performance. Ultimately, this can help improve the quality of care provided to patients.

Implications for Theory

First, the current study offers a more robust understanding of employees’ professional self-efficacy by investigating its critical role in dealing with crisis, uncertainties, and the mechanism involved. Scholars previously revealed self-efficacy as a protective factor while confronting stress in occupational contexts (Kong et al., 2021; Ventura et al., 2015). Also, Bandura (1997) noted that the primary application of self-efficacy theory has been in the work domain. However, little is known about applying professional self-efficacy in times of crisis, especially in the COVID-19 menace. Inconsistent with prior studies (e.g., Bargsted et al., 2019; Ventura et al., 2015), our findings show that professional self-efficacy is positively associated with employees’ work role performance and workplace thriving during the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher self-efficacy individuals see tasks challenging during the chaos-accompanying crisis by working in more self-concordant ways. The higher power of self-belief that “you can do it” helps self-efficacious individuals utilize their strengths and may provide a fundamental explanation for how self-efficacious employees distinguish themselves from others during challenging times.

Previously, scholars have underscored the negative implications for stressful life events such as the COVID-19 crisis on employee wellbeing (Charoensukmongkol & Phungsoonthorn, 2020; Prime et al., 2020) and observed interesting findings that self-efficacy mitigates the outcomes inflicted by the challenging work environment such as burn out and exhaustion etc. (see Shoji et al., 2016). Furthering our understanding of the recent findings that self-efficacy may be helpful in coping with the negative outcomes, that is, fatigue and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms that healthcare professionals faced due to COVID-19 (Hou et al., 2020) psychological adjustment and sleep quality during pandemic (see Sun et al., 2021), there is a need to further investigates how self-efficacy may help with workplace thriving – a sense of vitality and learning (Spreitzer et al., 2012) and work-role performance at the face of challenging situations.

Further, this study also contributes to the conservation of resources theory. Our research theorizes self-efficacy as a personal psychological resource that adds to significant personal and professional goals in the perspective of healthcare workers combating COVID-19; and explicates how more of such unique resource (i.e., higher self-efficacy) enables more other resources such as perceived strengths use-a kind of job-related motivational resource (Yi-Feng Chen et al., 2021). This provides supportive confirmation for the aftermath of the conservation of resources view that resources can assist acquire and conserving other resources (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018). In addition, this study offers novel insights into how the linkage between an individual’s professional self-efficacy and work-related outcomes is established through strengths use; thus, an individual’s personal resource needs extra motivational activation, that is, strengths use, to influence outcomes.

Implications for Healthcare Practitioners

COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the significance and relevance of sound leadership approaches in times of crises (Sergent & Stajkovic, 2020; Usman et al., 2021). Also, empirical studies on self-efficacy in an occupational domain have revealed that self-efficacy is relevant to job stress (Ventura et al., 2015). Accordingly, this study has several notable implications for practicing health managers. The managers should nurture healthcare workers’ self-belief while combating challenging situations, knowing that professional self-efficacy is highly significant in predicting positive work and well-being outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic context. Following Ouweneel et al. (2013) guidelines, managers could regularly implement positive psychology interventions that help foster healthcare workers’ self-efficacy. The role of professional self-efficacy as a critical predictor of work and well-being outcomes advocates the development of training programs to nurture self-efficacy beliefs at work. Well-established approaches exist to stimulate self-efficacy beliefs via its main sources (Bandura, 1972), for example, vicarious and mastery experience, and social persuasion, all of which have frequently revealed their effectiveness in work contexts (Bresó et al., 2011; Ouweneel et al., 2013). Moreover, it would also be helpful to enhance healthcare workers’ understanding and use of their strengths. In this regard, organizations can initiate leadership training programs to enable their leaders to recognize, develop, and leverage employee strengths effectively.

Limitations and Future Guidelines

This study has several limitations that demonstrate essential implications for further studies. Studying frontline healthcare workers (nurses & doctors) in the current pandemic is a strength of our study design. However, it equally limits the generalizability of the study findings. Hence, further studies may extend our results by considering other healthcare workers (i.e., paramedics & administrative staff who are equally exposed to the situation) and other organizational members. Furthermore, during the pandemic, healthcare professionals remain exposed to high-level demands and work-related stressors such as workload and job intensification. It would be useful to explore how self-efficacy helps these professionals cope with such conditions, given that individuals high in self-efficacy perceive demands as challenges.

In addition, our study only sought to examine the professional role of self-efficacy in predicting work and well-being outcomes during the pandemic. It would be interesting to investigate the role of some other important personnel dispositions while dealing with crises, for instance, Big-Five personality traits. Further, it is important to note that the findings of this study may have implications for other countries as well. However, it may be necessary to re-test the model in those countries, taking into account any cultural differences that may exist.

Another limitation of the study is the investigation of causal relationships through the survey method. This means that the relationship established between professional self-efficacy, perceived strengths of use, and outcome variables (work role performance and workplace thriving) needs to be carefully interpreted. Future research could consider and test the model through experimental research design to better understand the predictor influence on outcome variables and offer further confidence in our understanding to make causal inferences.

Conclusion

In light of the above-discussed findings, it can be concluded that professional self-efficacy plays a vital role in facilitating positive individual outcomes, especially during times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. This study provides new insights into the critical relationship between professional self-efficacy, perceived strengths use, and employee outcomes, such as workplace thriving and work-role performance, through self-efficacy theory and conservation of resources theory. Based on the study’s results, it is recommended that healthcare organizations should prioritize the development of healthcare professionals’ self-efficacy by offering training programs that increase their confidence and competence. Moreover, interventions that promote perceived strengths use need to be implemented, specifically during crises, to support professionals’ well-being and performance, which ultimately results in improved quality of patient care. In summary, the present study extends prior research on how professional self-efficacy can affect individual outcomes during critical times. These findings have significant implications for health managers and policymakers, as they can use this research to support healthcare professionals effectively during times of crisis.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: National Social Science Fund, Research on the Roles and Empowerment of Middle and Senior Executives in Corporate Digitalization from the Perspective of Chief Information Officers (Project number: 22FGLB086). Fujian Social Science Fund, Research on the Impact of Enterprise Digital Human Resource Management System on Employee Behavior and Performance from the Perspective of Structured Theory (Project number: FJ2022B054).

Ethical Approval

This study has been approved by the Ethical Committee of Iqra University, Karachi, Pakistan.

ORCID iD

Xingjiang Shao

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to measures to protect participant confidentiality.

References

Albrecht

S. L.

Marty

(2020). Personality, self-efficacy and job resources and their associations with employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(5), 657–681.

Ahmed

Sifat

R. I.

(2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of the rickshaw-puller in Bangladesh. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 26(8), 782–789.

Alex Linley

Joseph

Harrington

Wood

A. M.

(2006). Positive psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(1), 3–16.

Asim

Liu

Ghani

Nadeem

M. A.

Hashmi

U. F.

(2022). How appreciative leadership affects employees’ helping behaviors? The mediating role of emotions and the moderating role of organizational trust. International Journal of Emerging Markets. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-04-2021-0487

Bakker

A. B.

van Woerkom

(2018). Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupational health. Psychologie Canadienne [Canadian Psychology], 59(1), 38.

Bandura

(1972). Modeling theory: Some traditions, trends, and disputes. In Parke

R. D.

(Ed.), Recent trends in social learning theory (pp. 35–61). Elsevier.

Bandura

(1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 139–161.

Bandura

(1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.

Bandura

(1997). The anatomy of stages of change. American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP, 12(1), 8–10.

10.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.

11.

Bargsted

Ramírez-Vielma

Yeves

(2019). Professional self-efficacy and job satisfaction: The mediator role of work design. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 35(3), 157–163.

12.

Becker

T. E.

(2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational research methods, 8(3), 274–289.

13.

Bernales-Turpo

Quispe-Velasquez

Flores-Ticona

Saintila

Ruiz Mamani

P. G.

Huancahuire-Vega

Morales-García

W. C.

(2022). Burnout, professional self-efficacy, and life satisfaction as predictors of job performance in health care workers: The mediating role of work engagement. Journal of primary care & community health, 13, 21501319221101845.

14.

Biswas-Diener

Kashdan

T. B.

Minhas

(2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), 106–118.

15.

Bolino

M. C.

Hsiung

H.-H.

Harvey

LePine

J. A.

(2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!” Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 56.

16.

Bresó

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

(2011). Can a self-efficacy-based intervention decrease burnout, increase engagement, and enhance performance? A quasi-experimental study. Higher Education, 61(4), 339–355.

17.

Chan

X. W.

Kalliath

Brough

O’Driscoll

Siu

O.-L.

Timms

(2017). Self-efficacy and work engagement: Test of a chain model. International Journal of Manpower, 38(6), 819–834.

18.

Charoensukmongkol

Phungsoonthorn

(2020). The effectiveness of supervisor support in lessening perceived uncertainties and emotional exhaustion of university employees during the COVID-19 crisis: The constraining role of organizational intransigence. The Journal of General Psychology, 148(4), 431–450.

19.

Chen

Kanfer

(2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267.

20.

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.

21.

De Clercq

Belausteguigoitia

. (2017). Mitigating the negative effect of perceived organizational politics on organizational citizenship behavior: Moderating roles of contextual and personal resources. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(5), 689–708.

22.

De Clercq

Haq

I. U.

Azeem

M. U.

(2018). Self-efficacy to spur job performance: Roles of job-related anxiety and perceived workplace incivility. Management Decision, 56(4), 891–907.

23.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Bulters

A. J.

(2004). The loss spiral of work pressure, work–home interference and exhaustion: Reciprocal relations in a three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 131–149.

24.

Ding

Chu

(2020). Employee strengths use and thriving at work. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 19(4), 197–205.

25.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

26.

Frone

M. R.

Russell

Cooper

M. L.

(1997). Relation of work–family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(4), 325–335.

27.

Gollob

H. F.

Reichardt

C. S.

(1987). Taking account of time lags in causal models. Child Development, 58(1), 80–92.

28.

Griffin

M. A.

Neal

Parker

S. K.

(2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347.

29.

Guo

Zhao

Gao

Peng

Zhu

(2017). The status of professional identity and professional self-efficacy of nursing students in China and how the medical documentaries affect them: A quasi-randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 4(2), 152–157.

30.

Hair

J. F.

Celsi

Ortinau

D. J.

Bush

R. P.

(2010). Essentials of marketing research (Vol. 2). McGraw-Hill.

31.

Harman

H. H.

(1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.

32.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513.

33.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied psychology, 50(3), 337–421.

34.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J.-P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128.

35.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Shirom

Golembiewski

(2000). Conservation of resources theory. In Golembiewski

R. T.

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 57–80). Marcel Dekker.

36.

Hogan

M. J.

(2020). Collaborative positive psychology: Solidarity, meaning, resilience, wellbeing, and virtue in a time of crisis. International Review of Psychiatry, 32(7–8), 698–712.

37.

Hou

Zhang

Song

Zhang

Cai

Liu

Dong

Deng

(2020). Self-efficacy and fatigue among non-frontline health care workers during COVID-19 outbreak: A moderated mediation model of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and negative coping. PLoS One, 15(12), e0243884.

38.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

39.

Huang

C.-Y.

Liu

Y.-C.

(2022). Influence of need for cognition and psychological safety climate on information elaboration and team creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(1), 102–116.

40.

Judge

T. A.

Jackson

C. L.

Shaw

J. C.

Scott

B. A.

Rich

B. L.

(2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 107.

41.

Keenan

E. M.

Mostert

(2013). Perceived organisational support for strengths use: The factorial validity and reliability of a new scale in the banking industry. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(1), 1–12.

42.

Kong

L.-N.

Yang

Pan

Y.-N.

Chen

S.-Z.

(2021). Proactive personality, professional self-efficacy and academic burnout in undergraduate nursing students in China. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(4), 690–695.

43.

Lee

K. J.

Casper

Powell

Floyd

M. F.

(2023). African Americans outdoor recreation involvement, leisure satisfaction, and subjective well-being. Current Psychology, 42(31), 27840–27850.

44.

Lindström

Giordano

G. N.

(2016). The 2008 financial crisis: Changes in social capital and its association with psychological wellbeing in the United Kingdom—A panel study. Social Science & Medicine, 153, 71–80.

45.

Liu

Luo

Haase

J. E.

Guo

Wang

X. Q.

Liu

Xia

Liu

Yang

B. X.

(2020). The experiences of health-care providers during the COVID-19 crisis in China: A qualitative study. The Lancet Global Health, 8(6), e790–e798.

46.

Mahomed

F. E.

Rothmann

(2020). Strength use, training and development, thriving, and intention to leave: The mediating effects of psychological need satisfaction. South African Journal of Psychology, 50(1), 24–38.

47.

Mason

C. H.

Perreault

W. D.

Jr. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 268–280.

48.

McCarthy

C. J.

Lambert

R. G.

Lineback

Fitchett

Baddouh

P. G.

(2016). Assessing teacher appraisals and stress in the classroom: Review of the classroom appraisal of resources and demands. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 577–603.

49.

Menon

Padhy

S. K.

(2020). Ethical dilemmas faced by health care workers during COVID-19 pandemic: Issues, implications and suggestions. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 102116.

50.

Misra

(2021). Doctors and healthcare workers at frontline of COVID 19 epidemic: Admiration, a pat on the back, and need for extreme caution (Vol. 14, p. 255, 2020). Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome-Clinical Research & Reviews, 467.

51.

Moore

H. L.

Bakker

A. B.

van Mierlo

(2022). Using strengths and thriving at work: The role of colleague strengths recognition and organizational context. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(2), 260–272.

52.

O’Leary

V. E.

Ickovics

J. R.

(1995). Resilience and thriving in response to challenge: An opportunity for a paradigm shift in women’s health. Women’s Health (Hillsdale, NJ), 1(2), 121–142.

53.

Ouweneel

Le Blanc

P. M.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2013). Do-it-yourself: An online positive psychology intervention to promote positive emotions, self-efficacy, and engagement at work. Career Development International, 18(2), 173–195.

54.

Parker

S. K.

(1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of applied psychology, 83(6), 835–852.

55.

Pearman

Hughes

M. L.

Smith

E. L.

Neupert

S. D.

(2021). Age differences in risk and resilience factors in COVID-19-related stress. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 76(2), e38–e44.

56.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.

57.

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.

58.

Porath

Spreitzer

Gibson

Garnett

F. G.

(2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250–275.

59.

Prime

Wade

Browne

D. T.

(2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 75(5), 631.

60.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Ocampo

A. C. G.

Wang

(2020). Taking control amidst the chaos: Emotion regulation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Elsevier.

61.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.

62.

Schumacker

R. E.

Lomax

R. G.

(2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press.

63.

Schwarzer

(1999). General perceived self-efficacy in 14 cultures. Self-Self-Efficacy Assessment. http://www.yorku.ca/faculty/academic/schwarz.e/worldl4.htm

64.

Sergent

Stajkovic

A. D.

(2020). Women’s leadership is associated with fewer deaths during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of United States governors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 771.

65.

Shoji

Cieslak

Smoktunowicz

Rogala

Benight

C. C.

Luszczynska

(2016). Associations between job burnout and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 29(4), 367–386.

66.

Simbula

Guglielmi

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2011). A three-wave study of job resources, self-efficacy, and work engagement among Italian schoolteachers. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 20(3), 285–304.

67.

Song

Liu

(2018). Collectivism and employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of team identification and the moderating role of leader-member exchange. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(2), 221–231.

68.

Spreitzer

Porath

C. L.

Gibson

C. B.

(2012). Toward human sustainability: How to enable more thriving at work. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 155–162.

69.

Stajkovic

A. D.

Luthans

(1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240.

70.

Sun

Zhu

Zhang

Shang

Jia

Zhou

Wang

Liu

Wang

(2021). Prevalence and risk factors for acute posttraumatic stress disorder during the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Affective Disorders, 283, 123–129.

71.

Sun

Song

Liu

Mao

Sun

Cao

(2020). Occupational stress, mental health, and self-efficacy among community mental health workers: A cross-sectional study during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 67(6), 737–746.

72.

Tang

C. S. K.

W. T.

Schwarzer

Schmitz

(2001). Mental health outcomes of job stress among Chinese teachers: Role of stress resource factors and burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(8), 887–901.

73.

Usman

Ghani

Cheng

Farid

Iqbal

(2021). Does participative leadership matters in employees’ outcomes during COVID-19? Role of leader behavioral integrity. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1585.

74.

Usman

Liu

Zhang

Ghani

Gul

(2021). Enabling the engine of workplace thriving through servant leadership: The moderating role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(3), 582–600.

75.

van Woerkom

Mostert

Els

Bakker

A. B.

de Beer

Rothmann

S., Jr

(2016). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 960–975.

76.

van Woerkom

Oerlemans

Bakker

A. B.

(2016). Strengths use and work engagement: A weekly diary study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(3), 384–397.

77.

Ventura

Salanova

Llorens

(2015). Professional self-efficacy as a predictor of burnout and engagement: The role of challenge and hindrance demands. The Journal of Psychology, 149(3), 277–302.

78.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Muchiri

M. K.

Misati

Meiliani

(2018). Inspired to perform: A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 249–261.

79.

Wood

A. M.

Linley

P. A.

Maltby

Kashdan

T. B.

Hurling

(2011). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 15–19.

80.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235–244.

81.

Yi-Feng Chen

Crant

J. M.

Wang

Kou

Qin

Sun

(2021). When there is a will there is a way: The role of proactive personality in combating COVID-19. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 199.

82.

Zhu

Law

K. S.

Sun

Yang

(2019). Thriving of employees with disabilities: The roles of job self-efficacy, inclusion, and team-learning climate. Human Resource Management, 58(1), 21–34.

Does Professional Self-Efficacy Provide a Shield in Troubling Situations? Evidence of Performance and Thriving Through Perceived Strength Use

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Conservation of Resource Theory

Context of the Study

Contributions

Theory and Hypotheses Development

Professional Self-Efficacy, Work, and Well-Being Outcomes

Strengths Use as a Mediator

Methodology

Sample and Procedures

Measures

Professional Self-Efficacy

Perceived Strengths Use

Workplace Thriving

Work Role Performance

Control Variables

Data Analysis

Results

Measurement Tests

Structural Equation Modelling and Hypotheses Testing

Discussion

Implications for Theory

Implications for Healthcare Practitioners

Limitations and Future Guidelines

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References