The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Impact of Self-Efficacy on Training, Leadership Attitudes, and Entrepreneurial Performance: An Empirical Study in Indonesia

  • SETIAWAN, Iyan (Economic Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Kuningan) ;
  • DISMAN, Disman (Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia) ;
  • SAPRIYA, Sapriya (Faculty of Social Science Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia) ;
  • MALIHAH, Elly (Faculty of Social Science Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia)
  • Received : 2021.06.15
  • Accepted : 2021.09.06
  • Published : 2021.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore and investigate: the direct impact of training on entrepreneurial performance and self-efficacy, the direct impact of leadership attitudes on entrepreneurial performance, and self-efficacy, the direct impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial performance, self-efficacy as a mediator of the effect of training on entrepreneurial performance, and self-efficacy as a mediator of the effect of leadership attitudes on entrepreneurial performance. This study purposively involved 131 entrepreneurs in Village-Owned Enterprises, Kuningan, Indonesia. The data was collected using a questionnaire. The data obtained was analyzed using Path Analysis with SPSS statistical software. This study has several findings. First, training has a significant effect on entrepreneurial performance and self-efficacy. Second, leadership attitudes have a significant effect on entrepreneurial performance and self-efficacy. Third, self-efficacy has a significant effect on entrepreneurial performance. Fourth, self-efficacy mediates the effect of training on entrepreneurial performance. Fifth, self-efficacy mediates the effect of leadership attitudes on entrepreneurial performance. The findings demonstrated that using self-efficacy-based training and leadership attitudes can enhance entrepreneurial self-confidence and assist them to improve their performance.

Keywords

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship is urgently needed in developing countries to overcome social problems to increase employment and reduce unemployment (Kayode et al., 2016). In addition, several important aspects of entrepreneurship contribute to economic development, providing the social change in generating innovation (Alvord et al., 2004; Coulibaly 2017), creating social transformation of society (Mair & Martı, 2006), strengthening social values, (Tan & Williams, 2005), and increasing community welfare (Ansari et al., 2013). The development of social enterprises in rural areas is required to improve the community’s prosperity. Various ways of analyzing economic performance have been used in previous entrepreneurial research (Audretsch & Keilbach, 2004). According to Cardon et al. (2012), most current social entrepreneurship research focuses on conceptual studies and revolves around discovering new theoretical models.

Human resources are crucial in developing competency and should not be overlooked. Human resources must have the competence to create a strategic entrepreneurial atmosphere (Hitt, 2001; Ireland & Webb, 2007). The results of previous studies in human resource management show that human resources positively and significantly affect economic productivity (Sara et al., 2021). The problems of rural entrepreneurship that we often hear are related to the low quality of human resources. For this reason, an entrepreneurial strategy is needed as a driver of the rural economy. The purpose of establishing a social enterprise such as a Village Owned Enterprise (BUMDes) is to build village economic independence. Community entrepreneurship development has clear social objectives that will have an impact on society (Wakkee et al., 2018). This finding is consistent with the findings of Ney et al. (2014), who claimed that social change entrepreneurship can be accomplished through the community.

One of the most fundamental parts of forming a community is change. Learning can be a catalyst for change in entrepreneurial activity (Katz & Stupel, 2015). Changes in learning through training aim to bring theoretical knowledge together with reality in the business world (practical) to foster entrepreneurial mindsets and actions. Several studies have found that vocational training has an indirect effect on operating performance through its effect on organizational commitment. Research conducted by Gelade and Ivery (2003) provided evidence that work climate mediates the relationship between training and unit performance. Furthermore, Faems et al. (2005) found that the relationship between training and performance was mediated by productivity. These research differences provide further opportunities to fill the gap through self-efficacy effects. Social enterprises should emphasize empowerment by utilizing educational programs aimed at developing entrepreneurial skills. In achieving goals that are closely related to self-efficacy, a high level of self-efficacy will result in better performance (Appelbaum & Hare, 1996).

Leadership attitude will foster enthusiasm and work commitment, which impacts organizational performance. This study is in accordance with the previous research that mediation positively affects self-efficacy. The results of this study are different from the research conducted by Kayode et al. (2016), that self-efficacy does not mediate the effect of visionary and charismatic leader behavior on performance. Research related to leadership attitudes has not been uniquely researched in the study of social entrepreneurship (Wardana et al., 2020). Therefore, this study aimed to examine the role of self-efficacy in mediating the relationship between training and leadership attitudes with entrepreneurial performance.

2. Literature Review

Sahinidis and Bouris (2008) defined training as a planned activity and planned human resource management practice, impacting employee performance. Building human resources can be done by making changes obtained from learning outcomes (Katz & Stupel, 2015). Adaptability is a skill that can help individuals and organizations adapt to change. It can be learned through training. Ghebregiorgis and Karsten (2007) argued that training provides a practical approach to skills development. Special expertise can be proven from managerial skills (Ahmad & Ahmad, 2021). To improve their business continuity, an entrepreneur might use any specialized training that increases human resource competencies (Cauchie & Ge´rard, 2016). Entrepreneurship training is a form of implementation to get instrument support from the government (Bikse et al., 2015).

There are other factors that are as important in improving entrepreneurial attitudes. Entrepreneurial attitude means a person’s degree of acceptance of entrepreneurship. This attitude can come from a rational mindset that considers the advantages and disadvantages of being an entrepreneur, both from the economic, personal, and social, employment aspects, and so on. The attitude indicators that an entrepreneur must own are initiative, achievement motive, and the courage to take risks. Leaders generate ideas and motivate people (Rüth & Netzer, 2019). Previous empirical research has examined the relationship between specific self-leadership behaviors and performance (Bandura & Shunk 1981). Mishra and Misra (2017) showed how entrepreneurship is linked to leadership, allowing people to be more creative, imaginative, and organized. A leader must have the ability to manage and grow social enterprises. He must also be creative, innovative, foresightful, and confident in his ability to seize opportunities. The basic study of self-efficacy theory is set in the context of Rotter’s locus of control theory (Rotter, 1954) and Heider’s attribution theory (Heider, 1944). Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in his ability to perform a task or action (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). Self-efficacy is the level of ability and belief in a person that can influence individuals to achieve a goal. He will gain strength and confidence as a result of this psychological aspect. Prussia et al. (1998) found that self-leadership strategy significantly impacts self-efficacy and that self-efficacy perception influences performance. Entrepreneurial practice will benefit significantly from psychological capital (Yousaf et, 2015).

Performance is defined as the ability to meet set entrepreneurial goals. One of the aspects of organizational performance is the “learning and growing” perspective (Looy & Shafagatova, 2016). This performance is closely related to the target of developing social enterprises to grow and take advantage of opportunities in good conditions. A person’s performance is their outcome or level of success. Task performance, contextual perfor- mance, adaptive performance, and counterproductive work behavior are all performance indicators. These four forms of behavior can be used to describe the numerous behaviors that go into a person’s overall performance (Koopmans et al., 2013).

3. Research Hypotheses

3.1. Training, Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Performance

Training will improve one’s understanding, talents, and ability to generate high-quality work. The more knowledge entrepreneurs have, the more entrepreneurial skills they will have (Sariwulan et al., 2020). Employee performance is improved by extensive knowledge and skills acquired through training and development. Self efficacy is an individual’s belief related to training (Yi & Davis, 2003). Furthermore, training can increase a person’s self-efficacy, impacting his work results (Martocchio & Hertenstein, 2003). Previous research has shown that people with high self-efficacy will combine cognition and action to achieve their goals. A high-efficacy entrepreneur will endeavor to solve problems and propose solutions to boost his confidence in his knowledge abilities. Based on the empirical and theoretical studies that have been put forward, the hypotheses in this study are as follows:

H1: There is a significant effect between training and entrepreneurial performance.

H2: There is a significant effect between training and self-efficacy.

H3: There is a significant effect between training and entrepreneurial performance through self-efficacy.

3.2. Leadership Attitude, Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Performance

The individual’s perception of personal desire while undertaking entrepreneurial activities is referred to as personal attitude. According to Nicolaides (2011), attitude towards behavior is the extent to which a person evaluates the behavior. Attitudes can be shown in the spirit of leadership, responsibility, and a desire to face risks and challenges, all of which influence the cognitive aspects of social entrepreneurship. This finding is in line with the research conducted by Miller et al. (2012), who claimed that one’s leadership attitude will stimulate human behavior, which is the driving force behind social entrepreneurship. According to Diana et al. (2021), leadership has a substantial impact on a person’s ability to carry out their duties and responsibilities. Furthermore, the psychological side of entrepreneurs will help them develop a strong sense of self-belief. Prussia et al. (1998) found that the self-leadership approach significantly impacts self-efficacy and that self-efficacy perception influences performance. Based on the empirical and theoretical studies that have been put forward, the research hypotheses are as follows:

H4: There is a significant influence between leadership attitudes and entrepreneurial performance.

H5: There is a significant influence between leadership attitudes and self-efficacy.

H6: There is a significant influence between leadership attitudes and entrepreneurial performance through self- efficacy.

3.3. Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Performance

The entrepreneur’s psychological capital will grow because of his increased belief in himself and confidence in what he is doing. He will be able to overcome the challenges that come in his way of achieving the desired behavior. When someone achieves success, their mood improves, and this scenario will almost likely lead to high self- efficacy, whereas when they fail, their mood deteriorates. This situation will almost certainly lead to low self-efficacy (Rustika, 2012). Appelbaum and Hare (1996) suggested that goal-setting theory is linked to self-efficacy because challenging goals encourage high levels of self-efficacy and, as a result, higher performance expectations. Feltz (1982) stated that self-efficacy influences performance. Increased psychological capital such as self-efficacy will directly affect performance. Based on the empirical and theoretical studies that have been put forward, the research hypothesis is as follows:

H7: There is a significant effect between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial performance.

3.4. The Conceptual Model

The hypotheses model explains the relationship between the variables investigated in this research. The arrow lines depict the link between variables, indicating two types of influences, direct and indirect. The following is a representation of the relationship in the research hypotheses model (Figure 1).

OTGHEU_2021_v8n10_37_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1: Hypothesis Model

4. Research Methods

This study employed a quantitative design to determine the impact of self-efficacy as a mediating factor in the relationship between training, leadership attitudes, and entrepreneurial performance. A survey method was used to perform this study. The questionnaire was based on the findings of the literature review. The scale employed in this study is a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘1’ (strongly disagree) to ‘5’ (strongly agree) (strongly agree). This study focused on rural social enterprises in Indonesia’s Kuningan region. A purposive sample of 131 participants participated in the study, primarily entrepreneurs who had undergone training.

Data analysis was done by employing SPSS statistical software. Based on the table of the critical value of the validity test, each test item is considered valid if the significance level reaches 0.05, and the reliability test is said to be reliable if it is above 0.7. Furthermore, for testing the relationship between variables, path analysis was employed. Meanwhile, for testing the mediation hypothesis the Sobel test was used. The Sobel test determines which intervention variables influence the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. There is a mediating impact if the t-value is greater than the t-table (>1.96) (Ghozali, 2013).

5. Results

Validity testing correlates the score of the statement items with the total score. The validity test is declared valid if the coefficient exceeds 0.3 (Siregar, 2011). Therefore, the validity test results show that the variables training, leadership attitude, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial performance have a validity value according to Pearson’s product-moment, which reaches a score above 0.3. Furthermore, Table 1 below shows the reliable Cronbach Alpha values are above 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978).

Table 1: Result of the Reliability

OTGHEU_2021_v8n10_37_t0001.png 이미지

A reliable Cronbach Alpha value is above 0.7.

A linearity test was employed to determine whether the model utilized in this study was linear or not. The model is said to be linear when the significant value of deviation from linearity is above 0.05. The results of the linearity test are shown in Table 2. Table 2 shows the significant deviation values from the linearity of the variables X1 to Y, X1 to Z, X2 to Y, X2 to Z, and Z to Y are 0.091, 0.158, 0.144, 0.205, and 0.465, respectively. The significant values of all deviations are greater than 0.05 indicating that all variables have a linear relationship.

Table 2: The Results of the Linearity Test

OTGHEU_2021_v8n10_37_t0002.png 이미지

The linearity significance value is above 0.05 (P value < 0.05).

Table 3 shows the effect of training on entrepreneur performance, with a beta coefficient of 0.380 and a significance level of t = 0.002 < 0.05, indicating that H1 is accepted. H2 is accepted because the beta coefficient of the impact of training on entrepreneurial self-efficacy is 0.679 and the significance level of t = 0.000 < 0.05. Furthermore, H3 is also accepted because the beta coefficient of the impact of leadership attitudes on entrepreneurial performance is 0.206, with a significance level of t = 0.024 < 0.05. Leadership attitude is positively related to entrepreneurial self-efficacy. It is known that the standard coefficient beta value is 0.194 with a significance level of t = 0.002 < 0.05, hence H4 is accepted. Similarly, the impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial performance shows that the two variables are positively and significantly related. The coefficient value is 0.569 with a significance level of t = 0.000 < 0.05; hence H5 is accepted.

Table 3: Hypothesis Testing Results for Direct Effect

OTGHEU_2021_v8n10_37_t0003.png 이미지

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

The Sobel test (https://www.danielsoper.com) reveals a link between training and entrepreneurial performance mediated by self-efficacy. The statistical value of the Sobel test is 4.421 > 1.96, with a significance of 0.000 < 0.05, indicating that H6 is accepted. The indirect effect has a value of 0.386 as well. Meanwhile, the relationship between leadership attitudes and entrepreneurial performance mediated by self-efficacy was shown through the Sobel test. The statistical result of the Sobel test is 2.644 > 1.96 with a significance level of 5% and a significance level of 0.008 < 0.05, indicating that H7 is accepted (Table 4). The indirect effect has a value of 0.110.

Table 4: Sobel Test Results

OTGHEU_2021_v8n10_37_t0004.png 이미지

X1 = Training; X2 = Leadership Attitude; Z = Self-Efficacy; Y = Enterpreneurial Performance; Sea = Standard Error a; Seb = Standard Error b.

The empirical causal relationship diagram from the complete test results can be described as follows (Figure 2).

OTGHEU_2021_v8n10_37_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2: Path Diagram of the Structural Model in Path Analysis

6. Discussion

6.1. Training, Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Performance

As demonstrated by the path analysis test findings in Figure 2 and Table 3, the standard beta coefficient value indicates the impact of training on entrepreneurial performance; thus, hypothesis 1 is accepted. This result indicates that training has a significant impact on entrepreneurial performance. This outcome is consistent with previous research that shows that training improves organizational performance by fostering broad knowledge and skills (Ballesteros-Rodríguez et al., 2012). Training, according to Katz and Stupel (2015), will improve the quality of human resources by transforming behavior through learning resources. In other words, job training will help organizations to cope with change. The development of entrepreneurial behavior in the community can be done through training. The more frequently entrepreneurs attend training, the higher their performance will be.

The standard beta coefficient value indicates the impact of training on entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy; hence, hypothesis 2 is accepted. This result indicates that training has a considerable impact on entrepreneur self-efficacy. This situation is consistent with prior research findings. Snyder and Peterson (2000) stated that people with high self-efficacy will combine cognition and action to achieve their goals. Increased psychological capital will have a direct impact on improved performance. Thus, training plays a crucial role in shaping entrepreneurial behavior, beginning with the way people think and progressing through knowledge and understanding.

The results of the calculation of the Sobel test prove that the self-efficacy of entrepreneurs can mediate the effect of training on performance with a more significant effect than the direct effect of training on performance; hence H3 is accepted. The findings of this study support prior research by describing the significance of self-efficacy in performance enhancement through training and development (Zaki et al., 2019). Because training builds confidence in performing tasks and gives the ability to learn skills that drive performance, several indirect impacts of training have been documented to boost performance (Vlachos, 2015). Training improves the motivation to achieve goals (Griffeth, 2000). Mastery gained through prior entrepreneurial experience will undoubtedly promote confidence and self assurance to boost performance. According to Lee and Mendlinger (2011), perceived self-efficacy serves as an antecedent to online learning acceptance, and its degree of importance is partially a function of cultural background. As a result, an entrepreneur requires training to gain experience from his surroundings. A person’s confidence in his abilities will definitely be strengthened by adequate entrepreneurial knowledge in theory and practice, which will have an impact on the expected quality standards of work.

6.2. Leadership Attitude, Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Performance

According to the findings of the path analysis test in Figure 2 and Table 3, the standard beta coefficient value demonstrates the impact of leadership attitudes on entrepreneurial performance; thus, hypothesis 1 is accepted. As a result, the independent variable has a significant impact on the dependent variable. Hence, H4 is accepted. Miller et al. (2012) supported the findings of this study, stating that one’s leadership attitude will encourage the behavior that will become the driving force of entrepreneurship. Furthermore, leadership attitudes are positively related to entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This condition indicates that the independent variable has a significant impact on the dependent variable. Prussia et al. (1998) found that self-leadership tactics have a considerable impact on self-efficacy, which supports the findings of this study. Leaders with high self-efficacy are optimistic about attaining goals and can optimize their capacity to meet organizational objectives. It is no surprise that organizations become more effective and productive when this happens.

The Sobel test proved that self-efficacy could significantly mediate the relationship between leadership attitudes and entrepreneurial performance. This condition proves that self-efficacy can mediate the impact of training on entrepreneurial performance. Therefore, hypothesis 6 is accepted. This finding is in line with the previous research conducted by Rasyid and Bangun (2015), that individual attitudes are positively associated with positive psychological capital. Psychological capital will have a big impact on entrepreneurial practice (Yousaf et al., 2015). According to Appelbaum and Hare (1996), the goal-setting theory is also linked to self-efficacy because challenging goals inspire people to improve their self-efficacy and raise their performance expectations. This condition is consistent with the findings of Feltz (1982), who showed that self-efficacy influences performance. Despite the limited influence of the mediating effect of self-efficacy, strong leadership attitudes can enhance workplace success. It is in line with previous research by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) that self-efficacy and self-leadership have a low correlation. According to the findings of this study, when it comes to making risky decisions, leadership attitudes are less daring. This situation demonstrates how to strengthen leadership traits such as the courage to make difficult decisions and moves. This kind of action enables a business owner to experiment with fresh ideas and open new business opportunities.

6.3. Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Performance

The effect of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial performance, as shown in Figure 2 and Table 3, reveals a positive and significant relationship between the two variables. Entrepreneurs’ perceptions of their own self efficacy will increase entrepreneurial performance in social enterprises. As a result, hypothesis 7 is accepted in this study. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments. A previous study had found that psychological capital is an essential factor in entrepreneurial activity (Yousaf et al., 2015). Someone who achieves success in a suitable environment will almost probably have a high level of self-efficacy. Meanwhile, failing when one is in a bad mood can lower his self-efficacy (Rustika, 2012). Entrepreneurially self-efficacious founders/managers may help improve the performance of very young firms (McGee & Peterson, 2019). Thus, self-efficacy is associated with a sense of leadership and responsibility and a desire to confront risks and challenges that affect motivation and cognition. Entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy is their ability and belief in their ability to influence people’s ideas and actions to carry out their responsibilities. Someone with a high level of self-efficacy also has a high level of confidence in their ability to carry out an entrepreneurial action.

7. Conclusion

This study focused on the mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between training and leadership attitudes with entrepreneurial performance. It was found that the concept of gaining entrepreneurial experience through training instilled high levels of confidence in one’s ability to increase performance. The findings of this study also prove that self-efficacy can mediate the relationship between training and performance with a greater level of influence when compared to the direct effect between training and entrepreneurial performance. This study showed that the influence is limited and that people are less willing to take business risks. They still think that by working together, they can overcome the fear of taking business risks.

High performance is critical for entrepreneurs in assisting social business groups in achieving their objectives. As a result, knowledge gained through training is required. Furthermore, the leader’s attitude must encourage optimism in the social enterprise’s pursuit of its goals. Self-efficacy is also one of the most important mediating factors in predicting entrepreneurial performance. Since this study has limitations, future researchers are expected to perform qualitative research to acquire a more in-depth understanding of the concepts. This study was designed to offer recommendations for social enterprises, particularly in Indonesia. Similar studies might be undertaken in other regions or countries to determine the impact of cultural variations. The results of this study could be used to develop standards for social enterprises, particularly in Indonesia. Similar research can also be conducted in other regions or countries to determine the effect of cultural differences.

References

  1. Ahmad, I., & Ahmad, S. (2021). Effect of managerial skills on the performance of small and medium-sized enterprises: A case study in Pakistan. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(4), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no4.0161
  2. Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 56-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886304266847
  3. Ansari, B., Mirdamadi, S. M., Zand, A., & Arfaee, M. (2013). Sustainable entrepreneurship in rural areas. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 5(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjees.5.5635
  4. Appelbaum, S. & Hare, A. (1996). Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and performance: Some human resource applications. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949610113584
  5. Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Does entrepreneurship capital matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(5), 419-430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00055.x
  6. Ballesteros-Rodriguez, J. L., Saa-perez, P. D., & Dominguez, F. C. (2012). The role of organizational culture and HRM on training success: Evidence from the Canarian restaurant industry. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(9), 3225-3242. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.637071
  7. Bandura, A., & Shunk. D.H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586
  8. Bikse, V., Rivza, B., & Riemere, I. (2015). The social entrepreneur is a promoter of social advancement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 185, 469-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.405
  9. Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879401800404
  10. Cardon, M. S., Der Foo, M., Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2012). Exploring the heart: Entrepreneurial emotion is a hot topic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00501.x
  11. Cauchie, G. C., & Ge'rard, V. N. (2016). New firm survival: Isolating the role of founders' human capital in accounting for firm longevity. Journal of Human Capital, 10(2), 186-211. https://doi.org/10.1086/686153
  12. Coulibaly, S. K., Erbao, C., & Mekongcho, T. M. (2017). Technological forecasting & social change economic globalization, entrepreneurship, and development. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, (November 2016), 0-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.028
  13. Diana, I. N., Supriyanto, A. S., Ekowati, V. M., & Ertanto, A. H. (2021). Factor influencing employee performance: The role of organizational culture. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(2), 545-553. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no2.0545
  14. Faems, D., Sels, L., Winne, S. D., Maes, J., Faems, D., Sels, L., & Maes, J. (2005). The effect of individual HR domains on financial performance: Evidence from Belgian small businesses. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 676-700. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500082790
  15. Feltz, D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 764-781. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.764
  16. Gelade, G. A., & Ivery, M. (2003). The impact of human resource management and work climate on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 56(383-404), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1.1.598.6383 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00141.x
  17. Ghebregiorgis, F., & Karsten, L. (2007). Human resource management and performance in a developing country: The case of Eritrea. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18 (2), 321-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190601102547
  18. Griffeth, R. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600305
  19. Ghozali, I. (2013). Multivariate analysis with IBM SPSS. Semarang, Indonesia: Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
  20. Hitt, M. A. (2020). Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 8, 2-44. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069334
  21. Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51(6), 358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055425
  22. Ireland, R., & Webb, J. (2007). A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research. Journal of Managemen, 33(6), 891-927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307307643
  23. Katz, S., & Stupel, M. (2015). Promoting creativity and selfefficacy of elementary students through a collaborative research task in mathematics: A case study. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 4(1), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v4n1p68
  24. Kayode, A., Arome, S., & Anyio, S. F. (2016). The rising rate of unemployment in Nigeria: The socio-economic and political implications. Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 3(1), 68-83.
  25. Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36-51. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.36
  26. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., Buuren, S. Van, B., Van Der, A. J., & Vet, H. C. (2013). Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(1), 6-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401311285273
  27. Lee, J. W., & Mendlinger, S. (2011). Perceived self-efficacy and its effect on online learning acceptance and student satisfaction. Journal of Service Science and Management, 4, 243-252. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2011.43029
  28. Looy, A. V., & Shafagatova, A. (2016). Business process performance measurement : a structured literature review of indicators, measures, and metrics. SpringerPlus, 5(1797), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3498-1
  29. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41, 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
  30. Martocchio, J. J., & Hertenstein, E. J. (2003). Learning orientation and goal orientation context: Relationships with cognitive and affective learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 413-433. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1077
  31. McGee, J. E., & Peterson, M. (2019). The long-term impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 720-737. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12324
  32. Miller, T. L., Mattew, G. G., Mcmullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. (2012). Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 616-640. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0456
  33. Mishra, P., & Misra, R. K. (2017). Entrepreneurial leadership and organizational effectiveness: A comparative study of executives and non-executives. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 71-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.343
  34. Ney, S., Beckmann, M., Graebnitz, D., & Mirkovic, R. (2014). Social entrepreneurs and social change: Tracing impacts of social entrepreneurship through ideas, structures and practices Markus Beckmann and Dorit Graebnitz Rastislava Mirkovic. International Journal Entrepreneurial Venturing, 6(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2014.059405
  35. Nicolaides, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship-the role of higher education in South Africa entrepreneurship- the role of higher education in South Africa. Educational Research, 2(4), 1043-1050. https://www.interesjournals.org/articles/entrepreneurship-therole-of-higher-education-in-southafrica.pdf
  36. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  37. Prussia, G., Anderson, J. O. E. S., & Manz, C. (1998). Selfleadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199809)19:5<523::AID-JOB860>3.0.CO;2-I
  38. Rasyid, A., & Bangun, Y. (2015). The relationship between psychological capital and entrepreneurial traits: A case study of MBA SBM ITB students in Bandung. Jurnal of Business and Management, 4(3), 297-316. https://journal.sbm.itb.ac.id/index.php/jbm/article/viewFile/1627/857
  39. Rustika, I. M. (2012). Self-efficacy: Albert Bandura's theory overview. Psychology Bulletin, 20(1-2), 18-25. https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/buletinpsikologi/article/view/11945/8799
  40. Ruth, R., & Netzer, T. (2019). The key elements of cultural intelligence as a driver for digital leadership success. Leadership, Education, Personality: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 54, 419-436. https://doi.org/10.1365/s42681-019-00005-x
  41. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation.
  42. Sahinidis, A., & Bouris, J. (2008). Employee perceived training effectiveness relationship to employee attitudes. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(1), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590810846575
  43. Sara, I., Adi, K., Saputra, K., Kartika, I., & Utama, J. (2021). The effects of strategic planning, human resource and asset management on economic productivity: A case study in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(4), 381-389. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no4.0381
  44. Sariwulan, T., Suparno, S., Disman, D., Ahman, E., & Suwatno, S. (2020). Entrepreneurial performance: The role of literacy and skills. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(11), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no11.269
  45. Siregar, S. (2011). Descriptive statistics for research: Equipped with manual calculations and SPSS application version 17. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.
  46. Snyder, C. R., & Peterson, C. (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measures & applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  47. Tan, W., & Williams, J. (2005). Defining the 'social' in 'social entrepreneurship: Altruism and entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 353-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-005-2600-x
  48. Vlachos, I. (2015). The effect of human resource practices on organizational performance: Evidence from Greece. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701763933
  49. Wakkee, I., Sijdeb, P., Christiaan, V., & Ghumanc, K.(2018). Technological forecasting & social change in the university's role in sustainable development: Activating entrepreneurial scholars as agents of change. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 40(1625), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.013
  50. Wardana, L., Handayati, P., Narmaditya, B., & Wibowo, A. (2020). Determinant factors of young people in preparing for entrepreneurship: Lesson from Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(8), 555-565. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.555
  51. Yi, M. Y., & Davis, F. D. (2003). Developing and validating an observational learning model of computer software training and skill acquisition. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 146-169. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.2.146.16016
  52. Yousaf, S. U., Hizam-Hanafiah, M., & Usman, B. (2015). Psychological capital: Key to entrepreneurial performance and growth intentions. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 4(9), 39-45. http://isca.me/IJSS/Archive/v4/i9/8.ISCA-IRJSS-2015-173.pdf
  53. Zaki, W., Ali, A., & Sarwar, B. (2019). Role of self-efficacy in the relationship of training and employee performance. Paradigms, 13(1), 67-74. https://doi.org/10.24312/1800077130111

Cited by

  1. Big Accounting Data and Sustainable Business Growth: Evidence from Listed Firms in Thailand vol.8, pp.12, 2021, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no12.0377
  2. The Effect of Entrepreneurial Orientation and Talent Management on Business Performance of the Creative Industries in Indonesia vol.9, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2022.vol9.no1.0105