University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of employees within a federal agency using the GAP analysis framework

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of employees within a federal agency using the GAP analysis framework

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 1

AN EXAMINATION OF BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN
A FEDERAL AGENCY
USING THE GAP ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

by

Christy Kuulei Nakahashi

A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2017

Copyright 2017 Christy Kuʻulei Nakahashi
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 2

[COPYRIGHT PAGE / BLANK]

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 3
DEDICATION

My heart, my love, Christopher “Ikaika,” you are truly my hero, and I dedicate
this dissertation to you. You are amazing and have been beyond patient despite the blood,
sweat, tears, and mood swings that come with the educational journey of a doctoral
program. Many times you have been Mommy and Daddy to our babies, and I can never
thank you enough for your dedication to our family. Mahalo nui for being my guiding
light and choosing to be my partner in this life. I love you.
‘A‘ali‘ikūmakani and Ka‘iwamaluhiaonālani, I dedicate this dissertation to you. I
would not have been able to complete this dissertation without the both of you. You give
me purpose and a reason to strive to do better and be a better person. I love the both of
you with my everything, and I am truly blessed because of you. Mahalo nui for choosing
me to be your Mommy!
My siblings. What can I say? We have been through so much in our life. Words
can’t express how grateful I am to be your sister. Please know that I am so blessed
because of you and I mahalo Ke Akua every day for guiding our way despite the darkness.
Mahalo nui for blessing me with your love, support, and amazing nieces and nephews.
Aunty Monica. You are a Saint! I love you and can’t thank you enough for
everything that you do. My family is blessed to have you in our life. Mahalo for being
our rock and the best Nana my kids could ask for! I’m 100% done!
Grandma Charlotte. Mahalo for doing the best that you could for all of us. You
were strict but you encouraged me to get educated to make a better life for myself.
Papa Bill. You were a wonderful man. I think about you and miss you every day.
I love you.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 4
Mom and Dad. I pray for you every day. Please know that I love you and I only
want the best for the both of you.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mahalo nui to my dissertation chair, Dr. Melora Sundt, and committee members,
Drs. Kenneth Yates and Kathy Hanson for supporting and guiding me through the
dissertation process. My heartfelt appreciation to Melora for your continued patience and
encouragement. Thank you for opening your home to us. The gentle nudges and kind
words, especially when all I wanted to do was throw in the towel, have kept me going.
I would also like to thank my dissertation group members. You are an amazing
group of people. At first, it was rough not having the 2011 cohort with me during the
dissertation process, but you’ve made me feel welcomed and supported from day one!
2011 USC Hawaii Cohort. Thank you so very much for the wonderful years
together. The years flew by, and I miss all of you. I finally did it!

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 6
Table of Contents
Dedication 3
Acknowledgments 5
List of Tables 9
List of Figures 11
Abbreviations 12
Abstract 13
Chapter One: Introduction 14
Project Overview 14
Statement of the Problem 16
Participating Stakeholders 16
Project Questions 17
Importance of the Project 17
Organization of the Study 18
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 20
Historical Overview of Employee Job Satisfaction 20
Classical School 21
Social and Human Relations School 21
Cognitive Growth School 22
Expectancy Theory 24
Goal Setting 24
Modern Research 25
Factors Influencing Supervision 27
What is Supervision? 28
Definition 28
Variables That Result in Weak Supervision in Business Literature 28
Influential Factors 28
Communication 29
Informational and Relational Dimension 30
Supervisory Feedback 31
Communicator Competence 32
Supervisor Receptivity 33
Temperament 33
Support 34
Relationship Conflict 35
Dissimilarity 37
Summary 38
Influences on Supervision From an Educational Psychology Perspective 39
What is a Gap Analysis? 39
The Three Dimensions of the Gap Analysis Framework 39
Knowledge 40
Motivation 42
Organization/Culture/Resources 44
Summary 46

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 7
Chapter Three: Methodology 53
Purpose of the Project and Questions 53
Methodological Framework 53
Assumed Performance Barriers 55
The EVS 55
What is the EVS? 55
Results of the EVS 56
Knowledge and Skills 57
Motivation 59
Organization 60
Validation of the Performance Issues 61
Validation of Performance Issues: Knowledge 61
Factual Knowledge Issues Validation 62
Conceptual Knowledge Issues Validation 62
Procedural Knowledge Issues Validation 63
Metacognitive Knowledge Issues Validation 63
Validation of Performance Issues: Motivation 64
Efficacy Validation 64
Value Validation 65
Validation of Performance Issues: Organization/Culture/Context 65
Summary of Issues to be Validated and Method 67
Project Design 67
Data Collection 68
Observations 69
Interviews 69
Document Analysis 70
Trustworthiness of Data 70
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 72
Validation of Assumed Causes 72
Knowledge Results 73
Factual Knowledge 73
Procedural Knowledge 77
Conceptual Knowledge 79
Metacognitive Knowledge 81
Motivation Results 83
Active Choice 84
Persistance 85
Mental Effort 86
Organizational Results 89
Synthesis of Findings 95
Summary 97
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementations, and Evaluations 99
Recommendations for Practice 99
Knowledge Enhancement 100
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 8
Enhancement: Provide Supervisors With Policies and Procedures Training and
Job Role and Responsibility Information to Increase Awareness and
Accountability 100
Enhancement: Increase Supervisor Accessibility and Visibility 101
Motivation Enhancement 101
Enhancement: Provide CDER Supervisors With Confidence Building Workshops
Focused on Increasing Efficacy 102
Organization Enhancement 102
Enhancement: Provide Clear Performance Goals to Increase Productivity 102
Enhancement: Mitigate the Lack of Accountability for Poor Performers 103
Enhancement: Re-evaluate Performance Assessment Tool, Process and
Procedures, and Provide CDER Supervisors and Employees with Promotion
Criteria to Increase Awareness 104
Implementation Plan 105
Set Goals and Objectivies and Distribute Information and Job Aids About Job Roles
and Responsibilities 108
Present Adaptability Strategies and Provided Guided Role-Playing Practice at
Designated CDER Meetings 109
Redesign CDER’s PMAP Process: Include an Objective and Subjective Component 110
Aligning CDER’s Organizational Culture With CDER’s Organizational Policies and
Procedures as Applicable to Poorly Performing Employees 111
On-Going Actions: Employee Awards, Praise, and Recognition 111
Evaluation Plan 112
Reactions and Motivation 113
Learning and Performance 113
Transfer of Behavior 114
Results and Impact 114
Limitations 115
Delimitations 116
Recommendations for Further Inquiry 117
Conclusion 118
References 120
Appendix A: Observation Protocol 132
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 134
Appendix C: Focus Group Worksheet 136

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Factors Contributing to Employee Satisfaction 25
Table 2: Factors Impacting Effective Supervisory Practices from the Business Literature 38
Table 3: Assumed Causes: Supervisor Behaviors Impacted by Knowledge 42
Table 4: Assumed Causes: Supervisor Behaviors Impacted by Motivation 44
Table 5: Assumed Causes: Supervisor Behaviors Impacting Organizational Culture 46
Table 6: Summary of Supervisor Behaviors Impacting Performance from a Knowledge,
Motivation, and Organizational Culture (KMO) Framework 46
Table 7: Summary of Assumed Causes for Supervisor Knowledge Behaviors and
Corresponding EVS Items by Sub-Areas 58
Table 8: Summary of Assumed Causes for Supervisor Motivation Behaviors and
Corresponding EVS Items by Sub-Areas 59
Table 9: Summary of Assumed Causes for Supervisor Behaviors Affecting
Organizational Culture and Corresponding EVS Items 60
Table 10: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Issues and Validation 63
Table 11: Summary of Assumed Motivation Issues and Validation 65
Table 12: Summary of Assumed Organizational/Culture/Context Issues and Validation 66
Table 13: Design of the Larger Project 67
Table 14: Summary of Validated Assumed Factual Knowledge Behavior 74
Table 15: Summary of Validated Assumed Procedureal Knowledge Behavior 77
Table 16: Summary of Validated Assumed Conceptual Knowledge Behavior 79
Table 17: Summary of Validated and Not Validated Assumed Knowledge Behaviors by
Knowledge Sub-Areas 82
Table 18: Summary of Validated Assumed Active Choice Motivation Behavior 84
Table 19: Summary of Validated Assumed Persistance Motivation Behavior 86
Table 20: Summary of Validated Assumed Mental Effort Motivation Behavior 87
Table 21: Summary of Validated and Not Validated Assumed Motivation Behavior by
Motivation Sub-Areas 88
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 10
Table 22: Summary of Validated Assumed Organizational Behavior 89
Table 23: Summary of Validated and Not Validated Assumed Organizational Behavior 94
Table 24: Recommended Implementation Plan 106

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Clark & Estes’ Gap Analysis Process 54

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 12
ABBREVIATIONS
CDER Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
DLOD Division of Learning and Organizational Development
EVS or FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
FDA Food and Drug Administration
GAP Gap Analysis Process
K, M, O Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational Factors
MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board
OEP Office of Executive Programs
OPM Office of Personnel Management
USC University of Southern California

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 13
ABSTRACT
This project utilized Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to investigate
barriers to effective supervision within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER), a department within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The primary
purpose of the study was to understand the assumed knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational barriers of supervisory practices that act as barriers to employee
satisfaction from the employee’s perspective. Data gathered from the 2014 Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey provided a quantitative perspective for the assumed causes
that were enhanced by educational psychology and business research literature. The
assumed barriers were then validated through the collection of qualitative data from
various focus groups, individual interviews, and document analysis. The results revealed
the validation of 14 supervisor behaviors with communication, performance assessments,
and evaluative feedback, addressing poor performers, employee recognition, and limited
resources (i.e. training and professional development) having the strongest validation.
Recommendations of employee enhancement practices supported by the literature are
provided to assist the federal agency with improving employee satisfaction.
Recommended enhancements include training to improve supervisor and employee
understanding of roles and responsibilities and increased supervisor accessibility and
visibility. The next steps to improve employee job satisfaction are articulated in the
implementation and evaluation plan. The results of this study have significant
implications for public organizations interested in improving employee satisfaction by
understanding the implications of supervisory knowledge, motivation, and organizational
practices.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 14
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Project Overview

With the goal of improving productivity, organizations invest a great deal of
resources toward human capital (Pozega & Crnkovic, 2008). Human capital, defined as
“…the knowledge, information, ideas, skills, and health of individuals” (Wright &
McMahan, 2011; as cited in Becker, 1964), influences an organization’s capacity for
economic growth and progress in a competitive global economy (Bukowitz, Williams, &
MacTas, 2004; Wright & McMahan, 2011). An investment in human capital is essential
to an organization’s ability to meet performance outcomes (Harter, Schmidt, Killham, &
Asplund, 2012). An investment in human capital increases the likelihood of an employee
becoming a future leader, creates opportunities for employees to work on high profile
jobs, and elevates the employees’ status and authority within the organization (Birasnav,
Rangnekar, & Dalpati, 2009).
Wan (2007) asserts that investment in human capital is more than investment in
professional development and training programs. Wan (2007) suggests that an investment
in human capital necessitates an investment in employee satisfaction. The most widely
accepted definition of employee satisfaction is that of Edwin A. Locke (1976), who
defines employee satisfaction as, “the perception that one’s job fulfills or allows the
fulfillment of one’s important job values, providing and to the degree that those values
are congruent with one’s needs” (p. 1307).
Employee satisfaction is a critical component of an organization’s capacity to
improve profitability and productivity (Wan, 2007). Often, when an employee is satisfied
with their work environment, the employee’s performance and retention improve,
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 15
customer satisfaction increases, and organizations experience a boost in performance and
profitability, lower turnover rate, and better safety records (Gregory, 2009; Wan, 2007).
On the other hand, the negative consequences associated with low employee satisfaction
include higher levels of stress, lack of communication between employees and
supervisors within the workplace, and lower self-efficacy for employees (Gregory, 2011).
How can an organization work towards improving employee satisfaction? The
literature on employee satisfaction suggests that organizations interested in improving
employee satisfaction should identify key workplace factors that influence an employee’s
values and needs (Gregory, 2011; Harter et al., 2002; Locke, 1976; Yuan, 1977). The
factors include, but are not limited to, organizational culture, autonomy, communication,
and supervision (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Gregory, 2011; Taggar & Seijts, 2003;
Griffin, Patterson, & West, 2001; Manz & Sims, 1987). Bernard and Goodyear (2004)
describe supervision as a shared professional relationship between a high and low ranked
individual within the same profession.
Scholars propose that effective supervision consists of supervisors relinquishing
some level of authority for the sake of serving and satisfying their employees (Ellinger,
Ellinger, & Keller, 2003). However, ineffective supervision consists of passive
leadership, obsession with power and, therefore, resorting to narcissism, egocentricity,
manipulation, coercion, and intimidation of others, and limited or no communication
(Toor & Ogunlana, 2009). Otherwise known as the “dark side of the charisma,” such
attributes of negative supervision are considered toxic, destructive, and an abuse of power
(Toor & Ogunlana, 2009, p. 256; as cited in Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990; Padilla,
Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007).
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 16
Statement of the Problem
This project examined employees’ perspectives of a key contributor to employee
satisfaction, the effectiveness of the supervision they receive within a federal agency. It
explored the perspectives of federal employees from an agency that tends to score higher
than most other federal agencies, generally, on measures of employee satisfaction.
Additionally, it delved into the barriers of effective supervision from the viewpoint of the
employee, by identifying several methods that hinder effective supervisory practices,
within the federal agency. Often, organizations conduct surveys to understand and
monitor the level of employee satisfaction within their organization (Rizwan & Mukhtar,
2014). The federal government is no exception. The Federal Government annually
distributes the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) to all employees to gauge
employee satisfaction (Office of Personnel Management [OPM], 2015). The federal
agency scores well above the median on the EVS when compared to other federal
agencies (OPM, 2015). The federal government is the largest public employer and
improving employee satisfaction is a top priority as evidenced by the use of the EVS
(Office of Personnel Management, 2015). Thus, the EVS was used in this project to help
determine if and where employee perceptions of performance gaps related to supervision
exist within certain units of the federal agency. Identifying performance gaps will provide
the federal agency with the opportunity to examine factors that may hinder effective
supervisory practices and thus employee satisfaction.
Participating Stakeholders
The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) was used as the study site
for this project as a result of the FDA connecting with the University of Southern
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 17
California to develop a partnership. The project is comprised of three stakeholders at
CDER: Senior management, supervisors, and employees. However, the sample for this
project consisted of employees and supervisors from six units. Volunteers from six units
were asked to participate in this project based on the high and low EVS scores produced
by the unit. The stakeholders participated in the EVS survey, focus group sessions, and
voluntary follow-up interviews. The information cards collected at the focus group
sessions noted the participants’ job descriptions ranged from office clerks and
administrative assistants to scientists.
Project Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine employee perspectives of supervisory
practices that inhibit the achievement of employee satisfaction within a federal agency.
By pinpointing barriers to effective supervisory practices and understanding how
supervisory practices influence employee satisfaction, this study will provide other
agencies with the insight to make informed decisions to address the gap in employee
satisfaction within their units. The questions guiding this study are:
1. From the perspective of employees, what knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors inhibit supervisory practices?
2. What are the recommended solutions that the federal agency could implement
to improve supervisory practices and employee satisfaction?
3. How might these recommendations be evaluated for effectiveness?
Importance of the Project
The study is important because supervisory practices contribute to the conditions
that produce a satisfied worker. Employees who have high job satisfaction are happier,
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 18
more productive, and retained longer than employees who are discontented in the
workplace (Holtom, Mitchell, Lee & Eberly, 2008). The literature demonstrates that
when employees are satisfied with their job, the organization saves money, productivity,
and effectiveness improves, and organizational goals are more likely to be met (Shaw,
Gupta, & Delery, 2005; Hsieh, 2010; Jaksic & Jaksic, 2013; Kasekende, Byarugaba, &
Nakate, 2013; Zahoor, Rafiq, Zia, & Rizwan, 2014).
The data collection process provided employees with an opportunity to share their
perspectives on inhibiting supervisory practices without the threat of reprimand. The
implications for the federal agency are to gain insight into the barriers to effective
supervisory practices within the sampled offices. The wider domain and population who
may be interested in this study are other federal agencies and public organizations
wanting to learn and apply promising supervisory practices that positively influence
employee satisfaction in their organization.
Organization of the Study
This study consists of five chapters. This chapter identifies key concepts and
defines employee satisfaction and supervision. This chapter also includes an introduction
to the mission, goals, and stakeholders of focus within the organization. Chapter Two
examines the topic of supervision through the lens of both the business literature and the
social science equivalent, and the effect supervisory practices have on job satisfaction.
Chapter Three details the methodology framing this study. Chapter Three also discusses
the sampling, data collection, and analysis process utilized by the researcher. Chapter
Four reports the results and analysis of the collected data. Chapter Five provides
research-based recommendations for improving job satisfaction through promising
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 19
practices of supervision for employees by addressing the inhibiting factors of effective
supervisory practices. This chapter also includes an accompanying implementation and
evaluation plan.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The economic and political changes within the Federal Government have
contributed to a reduction in employee benefits, prolonged pay and hiring freezes, and the
lack of human capital (Lavigna, 2012). A demanding work environment has inspired
leadership in the organization of study to reassess its approach to maintaining operational
effectiveness by improving and maintaining employee satisfaction despite higher than
normal employee satisfaction levels. The purpose of the chapter is to identify the factors
that contribute to employee perceptions of weak supervision, and its relationship to
satisfaction. First, the research about employee satisfaction will be outlined from a
historical perspective. Next, the construct of supervision and its influence on employee
satisfaction will be further examined. The remainder of the chapter will identify factors
that impeded effective supervision from an educational psychology perspective using the
gap analysis model.
Historical Overview of Employee Job Satisfaction
Since the early 1900s, researchers have contributed a vast amount of information
to the literature on employee satisfaction (Gilbreth, 1912; Hackman & Porter, 1968;
Edwin A Locke, 1976; Mayo, 1933; Taylor, 1911). Six major schools of thought have
contributed to our understanding of employee satisfaction. The schools are:
1. Classical School
2. Social and Human Relations School
3. Cognitive Growth School
4. Expectancy Theory
5. Goal Setting
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 21
6. Modern Research
Classical School
Otherwise known as the Physical-Economic School (Locke, 1976), the Classical
School emphasized the importance of developing efficient use of human effort to
maximize prosperity for both the employee and employer (Gilbreth, 1912; Taylor, 1911).
According to Taylor (1911), the principle of “Scientific Management” suggests that the
prosperity and efficiency of an organization depend on addressing the employee’s need
for rest and fostering individual talent. Taylor (2011) states that it is “imperative that each
workman shall be left with the final responsibility for doing his job practically as he
thinks best, with comparatively little help and advice from the management” (p.12).
Gilbreth (1912) further proposed that the efficient use of one’s physical environment and
talent contribute to a reduction in fatigue and an increase in worker output thus improving
production and profitability. In a time with limited or no employee rights, these scholars
revolutionized how workers were viewed, utilized, and acknowledged in the workplace
by top administrators and organizations.
Social and Human Relations School
The Hawthorne studies (1924-1932) are considered the most famous and the most
criticized research in the management field. The Hawthorne studies are famous because it
set the foundation for the development of numerous studies geared toward improving
workplace conditions and the advancement of management theory (Mullins, 2005;
Buchanan & Huczynski, 2004; Pugh, 1997). The Hawthorne studies are criticized
because inconsistencies in the experiments are present (Carey, 1967). Additionally, the
Hawthorne studies contributed to the development of contemporary literature on
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 22
scientific management and socio-psychological facets of worker interaction within
organizations (Harter et al., 2012, Yuan, 1997). Contrary to the construct of scientific
management, the Hawthorne Studies sought to gather evidence that suggested that
employee satisfaction is most influenced by social/relational interactions and certain
environmental conditions (Mayo, 1930). Muldoon (2012) suggested that the Hawthorne
Studies were the first studies of their kind to endeavor to “quantify a worker’s frustration
level” (p.107). Mayo (1933) concentrated his efforts on studying how an employee’s
view of management influences employee satisfaction. The research concluded that
social/relational factors (i.e., group involvement, employee attitudes, and supervisory
practices) and financial gain (i.e., monetary incentives) were equally important to worker
satisfaction and improved work performance (Mayo, 1933). Unlike the Classical School,
the Social and Human Relations School stressed that social/relational factors strongly
influences employee satisfaction in the workplace.
Cognitive Growth School
While the Social and Human Relations School demonstrated the importance of
the work environment, the Cognitive Growth School explored how the work assigned to
an employee affects employee satisfaction (Clifton et al., 1952; Gallup & Hill, 1960;
Gallup International Research Institutes & Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 1977). The
Cognitive Growth School expanded on the idea, first introduced in the Classical School,
that the work environment is a vital component of employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction
in the workplace. Scholars sought to identify if the removal or introduction of factors
contributing to employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction would reduce employee turnover.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 23
First introduced by Maslow (1954), the human motivation theory explores
variables, beyond the physical environment, that contribute to employee satisfaction. The
human motivation theory derived from the belief that everyone seeks opportunities for
self-fulfillment to nurture personal growth. According to Maslow (1954), self-
actualization is the need of an individual to seek, recognize, and realize their optimal
potential. Maslow (1954) suggested that employees need to be given the opportunity to
showcase their talent and given a chance to develop their professional capacity.
Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell’s meta-analysis (1957) recognized ten
major factors as contributors to job attitude. These factors are:
 Supervision
 Working conditions
 Wages
 Opportunity for advancement
 Security
 Company
 Management
 Social aspect of job
 Communication
 Benefits
Similar to Maslow’s human motivation theory, Herberg’s research (1959)
demonstrated that individuals strive to better themselves by seeking higher levels of
achievement, responsibility, and the context of the work, itself. The two-factor model of
motivation developed by Herberg added a new dimension to Maslow’s theory of
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 24
motivation. According to Herberg (1959), employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction is
dependent on the ten major factors. Thus, one set of factors leads to employee satisfaction,
and another set of factors leads to employee dissatisfaction in the workplace, independent
from one another. Herberg (1959) suggested that effective supervisors acknowledge both
sets of characteristics as critical to the overall satisfaction of an employee.
Expectancy Theory
The conceptual framework of all expectancy theory models suggests that
individuals are motivated to engage in a certain behavior when they believe they will
experience a desirable outcome as a result of that engagement (Hackman & Porter, 1968;
Lawler Iii & Suttle, 1973; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). According to Vroom and Yetton
(1973), the models are comprised of three fundamental principles: (a) expectancy –
refers to believing that effort will produce specific performance; (b) instrumentality – is
a belief that performance will result in the desired outcome; and (c) valence – the value
(i.e., need, motivation, etc.) placed on a desired outcome.
Goal Setting
Scholars have acknowledged the importance of goal setting in relation to
employee satisfaction and organizational performance (Locke & Latham, 1976).
Contrary to preceding ideas that employees and the work environment influence job
satisfaction, Locke (1976) suggested that job satisfaction is dependent on an employee’s
understanding and assessment of their work. Within the last decade, Locke and Latham
(2006) proposed that “goals are related to affect in that goals set the primary standard for
self-satisfaction with performance. High, or hard, goals are motivating because they
require one to attain more to be satisfied than do low, or easy, goal” (p. 265).
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 25
Modern Research
Research on employee satisfaction in the workplace has evolved to include the
exploration of multiple factors that influence employee satisfaction. For example,
researchers such as George Gallup set out to understand human satisfaction in relations to
employment satisfaction by exploring factors found on multiple surveys (Harter, Schmidt,
Killham, & Asplund, 2012; Gallup & Hill, 1960; Gallup, 1976; Gallup International
Research Institutes & Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 1997). With access to different
surveys, the Gallup organization set out to analyze employee satisfaction surveys to
develop a 12 question model to measure factors that contribute to employee satisfaction
(Harter et al., 2012). Although the report does not identify a single factor that contributes
to employee turnover, supervisors or those in management positions will have the
opportunity to use the question to facilitate a plan of action to improve employee
satisfaction within the workforce. The following table showcases the history of multiple
factors that contribute to employee satisfaction in the workplace.
Table 1

Factors Contributing to Employee Satisfaction

Factor Selected Citations
Organizational Culture
Stress/emotional exhaustion (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)
Development encouraged (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Harter
et al., 2012)
Promotional Opportunity/Opportunity for
Advancement
(Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Herzberg, 1959; Herzberg et al.,
1957; Locke, 1976)
Mission/Purpose makes my job important (Harter et al., 2012; Mayo, 1933)
Opportunity to do my best daily (Gilbreth, 1912; Harter et al., 2012;
Locke, 1976)
Commitment (Locke, 1976)
Values (Locke, 1969)
Family friendly policies (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 26
Corporate Culture (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)
Organization as a whole (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)
Supervision
Supervision/Direct oversight of employee’s
work
(Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Gilbreth, 1912; Herzberg, 1959;
Herzberg et al., 1957; Locke, 1976)
Leadership/Management of organization’s
mission and goals
(Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Mayo,
1933)
Received Feedback/Progress Report in last six
months
(Gilbreth, 1912; Harter et al., 2012;
Locke, 1976)
Skill Identity (Locke, 1976)
Work Itself
Work itself (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Herzberg, 1959; Herzberg et al.,
1957; Locke, 1969)
Fatigue/Physicality of the work (Gilbreth, 1912; Locke, 1976;
Taylor, 1911)
Workload (Gilbreth, 1912; Locke, 1976)
Meaningful work (Herzberg, 1959; Locke, 1976)
Mental Challenge (Locke, 1976)
Skill Variety/Job enlargement (Gilbreth, 1912; Hoppock &
National Occupational Conference,
1935; Locke, 1976)
Communication
Communication (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Herzberg et al., 1957; Locke, 1969;
Mayo, 1933)
Opinions count (Harter et al., 2012)
Recognition/praise for my good work (Harter et al., 2012; Locke, 1976)
Role conflict (Locke, 1976)
Expectations understood vs. Role ambiguity (Gilbreth, 1912; Harter et al., 2012;
Locke, 1969, 1976)
Work Environment
Working conditions (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Herzberg, 1959; Herzberg et al.,
1957; Locke, 1969, 1976; Taylor,
1911)
Possess Proper Materials & Equipment (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Gilbreth, 1912; Harter et al., 2012;
Locke, 1969, 1976)
Economic Benefits (Direct & Indirect)
Pay/wages/salary (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Gilbreth, 1912; Herzberg, 1959;
Herzberg et al., 1957; Locke, 1976;
Taylor, 1911)
Benefits (Vacation, Retirement, medical, etc.) (Herzberg et al., 1957)
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 27
Job security (Herzberg et al., 1957)
Teamwork
Teamwork/cooperation (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Herzberg et al., 1957; Mayo, 1933)
Collaboration (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)
Associates committed to quality (Gilbreth, 1912; Harter et al., 2012;
Herzberg et al., 1957)
Co-worker relations (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Gilbreth, 1912; Herzberg et al.,
1957; Locke, 1969, 1976; Mayo,
1933)
Autonomy
Autonomy/Empowerment (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Locke, 1976)
Creativity (Locke, 1976)
Opportunities at work to learn and grow (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013;
Gilbreth, 1912; Harter et al., 2012;
Locke, 1976)
Self-esteem (Gilbreth, 1912; Locke, 1976)
Work Relationships
Social Relationships (Herzberg et al., 1957; Locke,
1976)
I have a best friend at work (Harter et al., 2012)
Cared about as a person by supervisor/co-
worker
(Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Harter
et al., 2012; Herzberg et al., 1957)
Demographics/Age (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)

Factors Influencing Supervision
The research on effective and ineffective supervisory practices incorporates
elements that affect employee satisfaction. Gilbreth (2012) notes that supervisors play a
critical role in creating an environment that fosters a healthy workplace and employee
well-being and satisfaction. The organizational performance and efficiency are contingent
on employee satisfaction (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Gregory, 2009), as such, the next
section will examine the supervisory practices that negatively impact employee
satisfaction in the workplace.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 28
What is Supervision?
Definition. For the purpose of this study, supervision is defined as the action or
practice of overseeing an individual or group of people, while monitoring progress and
quality of services and work provided to benefit the organization (Bernard & Goodyear,
2004).
Variables that Result in Weak Supervision in Business Literature
Historically, employees remained loyal and committed to a single organization
throughout their careers and worked hard to ensure organizational goals were being met
(Feldman, 2000). Employees are now more pessimistic in regards to how they view
supervisors and bureaucratic organizations (Feldman, 2000). A recent report published by
the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015), found that the
average person, from age 18 to age 48, held 11.7 jobs in a lifetime.
Influential Factors
Although a surplus of characteristics of weak supervision exists in the literature,
the five factors appearing most frequently in the research literature are:
1. Communication
a. Informational and Relational Dimension
b. Supervisory Feedback
c. Communicator Competence
d. Supervisor Receptivity
2. Temperament
3. Support
4. Relationship Conflict
5. Dissimilarity

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 29
Communication. According to Richmond, McCroskey, and Davis (1982),
communication is defined as, “a vehicle for dissemination of information, instruction, and
affect” (p. 173). Jablin (1979) further defined communication as, “the process used to
transfer information and influence from one entity to another” (as cited in Johlke &
Duhan, 2000, p.155). Scholars emphasize that communication variables include listening,
understanding, and quality of communication are important characteristics of effective
supervisory practices (Wheeless, Wheeles, & Horton, 1984).
A substantial body of research is generated on communication about employee
satisfaction. Scholars proclaim that dysfunctional communication is one of the most
critical supervisory practices concerning low employee satisfaction (Pettit, Goris, &
Vaught, 1997; Andrews & Kacmar, 2001). Dysfunctional communication contributes to
an ineffective work environment, physical and psychological health-related issues, and
job burn-out, which is considered an occupational hazard for public service organizations
(Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013). Wheeles et al., (1984) assert that the following factors
contribute to flawed communication practices: a) the absence of open communication; b)
intolerance for disagreement; and, c) management communication style. For example, for
communication between an employee and supervisor to be effective, communication
goals need to be clearly formulated and articulated by both parties (Spitzberg & Cupach,
1981). Rajesh and Suganthi (2013) assert that supervisor communication promotes
transparent discussion, role expectation, and clarity, improves self-esteem, and fosters
personal control and autonomy leading to improved job satisfaction.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 30
This section of the literature review will examine communication practices
including informational and relational dimensions, supervisory feedback, communicator
competence, and supervisor receptivity in relation to employee satisfaction.
Informational and Relational Dimension. Pincus (2006) describes
communication in two dimensions: informational dimension and relational dimension.
The information dimension gives emphasis to the content and how the content is
distributed within an organization. Organizational effectiveness and employee
satisfaction are in jeopardy when communication strategies, such as performance
feedback and clearly articulated concepts, are minimal or non-existent within an
organization. Scholars argue that effective communication and distribution of information
between employees and supervisors are fundamental to high organization performance
(Johlke & Duhan, 2000). The ability to clearly articulate the mission, values, and goals of
an organization is essential and influences how an employee will assess leadership
(Spitzberg, 1983). One example of effective communication behaviors includes
encouraging employees to participate actively in the development and implementation of
organizational goals by soliciting and listening to feedback (Johlke & Duhan, 2000; Kim,
2002; Mardanov, Sterrett, & Baker, 2007).
The informational dimension stresses the importance of attachment, commitment, and
values. Often, when employees are not active participants in the development and
implementation of the organization’s mission, values, and goals, the attachment, and
commitment to the organization diminishes (Brown & Yoshioka, 2003). According to
Pincus (2006), the culture of communication within an organization will impact how an
employee identifies with the organization.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 31
The relational dimension of communication focuses on employee satisfaction
with communication relationships (Pincus, 2006). Scholars also suggest that the quality
of the relationship between an employee and supervisor influences communication
practices (Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003). According to Kacmar et al., (2003)
the frequency of communication and the quality and level of the relationship between an
employee and supervisor influences job satisfaction. Often, an employee will exhibit high
levels of job satisfaction if they trust that their insights are valued, and their supervisor
makes an effort to openly and frequently communication with employees (Pincus, 2006).
Supervisory Feedback. The frequency with which a supervisor communicates
with employees is positively associated with job satisfaction (Johlke & Duhan, 2000).
Additionally, supervisory feedback is instrumental for evaluating performance (Jaworski
& Kohli, 1991). According to Jaworski and Kohli (1991), supervisory feedback is
described in two major dimensions: the locus of feedback (output vs. behavior) and the
valence of feedback (positive vs. negative). The locus of feedback dimension is focused
on whether or not feedback pertains to an employee’s output (i.e. sales, calls, and
contracts) or behavior (i.e. employee conduct and customer interactions). The valence of
feedback refers to the type of supervisory feedback, positive or negative; an employee
receives. Jaworski and Kohli (1991) contend that four types of supervisory feedback
emerge when the two dimensions intersect. The four types include 1) positive output
feedback (i.e. “your sales were very good”), 2) negative output feedback (i.e. “your sales
were very poor”), 3) positive behavioral feedback (i.e. “you were very kind to the
customer”), and 4) negative behavioral feedback (i.e. “you were very rude to the
customer”). The effects of supervisory feedback on employee performance and
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 32
satisfaction are significant. Jaworski and Kohli (1991) found that positive supervisory
feedback “appears to have both an informational and a motivational function” whereas
negative supervisory feedback “primarily seems to serve an informational role” (p. 197).
The researchers posit that employees who receive performance feedback, whether it be
positive or negative, have better role clarity and understanding of the goals and objectives
that need to be met. The study found that positive output feedback (i.e., “your sales were
very good”) influences an employee’s satisfaction with supervisors. Negative output (i.e.
“your sales were very poor”) and negative behavior feedback (i.e. “you were very rude to
the customer”) are not directly related to performance but positively influences role
clarity, which in turn, influences performance. Negative feedback does not have an
adverse effect on satisfaction. Negative feedback provides employees with an opportunity
for growth when delivered effectively by supervisors.
Communicator Competence. Another important contributor to employee
satisfaction is communicator competence. Communication competence includes elements
of knowledge, motivation, skill, and behavior (Spitzberg, 1983). For example, a
supervisor can influence employee performance and job satisfaction by knowing when,
how, and with whom to communicate (Goris, 2007). Most often, a supervisor is
considered competent by employees when communication is strategic (Goris, 2007), the
right information is shared throughout the organization in a timely and efficient manner,
and supervisors actively listen and consider the input of employees before making an
informed decision (Shaw et al., 2009). Communication competence requires proficiency
in listening and deliberation (Cushman & Craig, 1976).
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 33
Supervisor Receptivity. The ability of a supervisor to be open to an employee is
critical to an organization’s performance outcomes and employee job satisfaction
(Wheeless, Wheeless, & Howard, 1984). Wheeless et al., (1984) suggest that “supervisor
receptivity involves flexibility and tolerance in listening to feedback, as well as openness
to input of ideas, opinions, suggestions, and innovations offered by employees” (p. 223).
Employees tend to prefer supervisors that are open to others’ opinions and suggestions
(Higgins, 1999). A supervisor who is more receptive to suggestions, opinions, personal
goals, and needs creates “an emphatic sense of caring and concern, important factors in
the human relations approach to understanding job satisfaction” (Wheeless et al., 1984, p.
223).
Temperament. The recent literature examines the effect temperament has on
employee satisfaction and organizational performance (Porter, Wrench, & Hoskinson,
2007). Alhassan, Ghazil, and Isha (2014) defined temperament as, “the combination of
traits we inherit from birth; our temperament decides whether we are outgoing (extrovert)
or withdrawn (introvert)” (p. 267). Eysenck developed a temperamental model of “super
traits” to describe individual temperament and how those traits shape human behavior
(Porter et al., 2007). The super traits are a) extraversion; b) neuroticism; and c)
psychoticism.
The first super trait, extraversion, explains how an individual’s persona shifts
between extrovert and introvert. Neuroticism, the second supertrait, happens when an
individual exhibits “mania (being really happy) and depression (being really sad)” (Porter
et al., p. 131; as cited in Beatty et al., 2001). The third super trait, psychoticism occurs
when an individual presumes that the rules and roles that dictate society do or do not
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 34
apply in his or her life (Porter et al., 2007). Unfortunately, a limited amount of literature
exists examining the impact of how supervisor temperament affects employees. However,
the literature available suggest the following: a) supervisors who exhibit high levels of
cordiality, emotional stability, and extraversion are associated with high levels of
employee satisfaction; and b) supervisors perceived as emotionless, controlling, and anti-
social contribute to low employee satisfaction (Porter et al., 2007).
Support. Research suggests that job satisfaction and commitment, organizational
behavior and effectiveness, and personal well-being are influenced by supervisory
support in the workplace (Yoon & Thye, 2000). Paterson, Luthans, and Jeung (2014) put
emphasis on the idea that employee satisfaction is dependent on the supervisor fostering a
supportive and safe climate that enables an employee to thrive at work. Gillet, Gagne,
Sauvagere, and Fouquereau (2013), examined the role of supervisor autonomy support in
predicting work motivation and employee satisfaction by using the self-determination
theory (SDT) as the framework to guide their study. Kuvaas (2008) suggest that “the
social environment influences intrinsic motivation through its impact on need satisfaction
or perception of competence, autonomy, and relatedness” (as cited in Grouzet, Vallerand,
Thill, & Provencher, 2004).
Gillet et al., (2013) determined that a limited amount of studies exist that look at
how determinants (i.e. organizational support and supervisor autonomy support) and
consequences (i.e. satisfaction and turnover intention influence) contributed to work
motivation and job satisfaction. As a result, Gillet et al., (2013) aimed to examine a
model that explores organizational support and supervisor autonomy support, motivation,
turnover intentions, and work satisfaction from the employees’ perspective.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 35
Gillet et al., (2013) determined that the effects of an autonomy-supportive
managerial style are associated with positive outcomes including work motivation, job
satisfaction, affective and normative commitment, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Therefore, supervisors that support the construction and facilitation of
independent work and autonomy-supportive environment that allows employees to be
autonomously motivated leads to an increase in work motivation, thus enabling the
development and promotion of employee satisfaction and reduced employee turnover
(Gillet et al., 2013).
Relationship Conflict. The topic of employee-supervisor relational conflict has
attracted attention within the last decade. In particular, researchers aim to get a better
understanding of the predictors of such conflicts within the workplace. Rahim (2001)
define conflict as, “interactive processes manifested by incompatibilities, disagreements,
or dissonance in or between social entities” (as cited in Landry & Vandenberghe, 2009, p.
6). Landry and Vandenberghe (2009), distinguished two types of conflict, a) relationship
conflict (i.e., negative emotional state); and b) substantive conflicts (i.e., performance or
tasks related). The literature suggests that poorly managed interpersonal conflicts, mainly
relationship conflicts, may impede satisfaction and performance (Landry &
Vandenberghe, 2009).
Landry and Vandenberghe (2009) further explored employee-supervisor
relationship conflict by analyzing the effect of a) commitment, b) leader-member
exchange (LMX), and c) supervisor based self-evaluation (SBSE) on such dyadic
exchanges. First, commitment is defined as, “a global psychological state that
characterizes the relationship between employees and organizations” (Meyer & Allen,
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 36
1991; as cited in Landry & Vandenberghe, 2009, p. 7). A three-component model of
commitment was developed as follows: 1) Affective commitment (AC) - described as an
employee’s emotional attachment to the organization; 2) normative commitment –
employee loyalty; and, 3) continuance commitment (CC) – recognition of cost of leaving
and lack of employment alternatives associated with leaving. Continuance commitment
incorporates two sub-dimensions: 3a) perceived high sacrifice (HiSac) – personal
sacrifice of leaving the organization, and 3b) lack of alternatives (LoAlt) – lack of
employment opportunities.
The second component, LMX, is described as “the direct, local, and interpersonal
exchange between a supervisor (the leader) and his or her subordinate (the member)”
(Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; as cited in Landry & Vandenberghe, 2009, p. 9).
Previous studies revealed that a high-quality LMX between supervisors and employees
leads to fewer conflicts and dyadic problems, improved satisfaction, performance ratings,
organizational commitment, sense of empowerment, and a decrease in turnover rates
(Landry & Vandenberghe, 2009).
The third construct, SBSE, is defined as, “a self-evaluation of one’s worthiness
resulting from the relationship with one’s supervisor” (Landry & Vandenberghe, 2009, p.
11). Most often, supervisors are privy to status and power within an organization, and the
way supervisors interact, communicate, and unconsciously communicate effective
messages can profoundly impact the employee’s self-concept/self-esteem. In the end,
Landry and Vandenberghe (2009) found that affective commitment, leader-member
exchange, and supervisor-based self-evaluation are positively associated with lower
relationship conflicts thus leading to higher levels of employee satisfaction.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 37
Dissimilarity. Within the United States, an increase in workforce dissimilarity
requires a better understanding of individual differences and how such differences
influence the functionality of work groups (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). Dissimilarity
in the workplace also affects the behaviors and attitude a supervisor has towards an
employee (Ullah, Usman, Niazi, Farooq, Afzal, & Khan, 2012). Jackson, Stone, and
Alvarez (1992) define dissimilarity as, “the degree to which two individuals share
common attributes or the degree to which an individual’s attributes are shared by other
team members” (as cited in Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2003, p. 302). Harrison et al.
(1998) recognize two types of dissimilarities that impact social integration, a) surface-
level dissimilarity (i.e., demographic – race/ethnicity, sex, and age) and b) deep-level
dissimilarity (i.e., attitudinal, beliefs, and values). Only deep-level dissimilarity
contributes to employee job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Harrison et al.,
(1998) conclude that employees with deep-level dissimilarities find it harder and less
pleasant to work together. Additionally, Harrison et al., (1998) found that supervisors will
superficially categorize employees based on observable surface-level dissimilarities as
“in or out-group members” and as time progresses, stereotypical categorizations are
replaced when deep-level information is obtained.
Ullah et al., (2012), found that a better understanding of how dissimilarities
impact job satisfaction is critical to organizational progress and success. Ullah et al.,
(2012) studied the impact of religious and gender dissimilarity on job satisfaction. Ullah
et al., (2012) introduced a framework that demonstrated that religious and gender
similarity affect value dissimilarity and value dissimilarity is found to negatively
influence job satisfaction. Ullah et al., (2012) concluded that the degree to which one’s
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 38
value dissimilarity impacts an employee’s satisfaction is dependent on the individual’s
personal religious identity. The study established the following conclusions: a) religious
personal identity is negatively related to religious dissimilarity; b) gender dissimilarity
positively influences value dissimilarity; c) religious personal identity impacts the
association between religious and gender dissimilarity and value dissimilarity; and d)
perceived value dissimilarity negatively influences job satisfaction (Ullah et al., 2012).
Summary
The following table summarizes the supervisory practices found in the research
literature that negatively impacts employee satisfaction in the workplace.
Table 2

Factors Impacting Effective Supervisory Practices from the Business Literature

Identified Barriers to
Effective Supervision
Selected Citations
Communication
 Informational and
Relational Dimension
 Supervisory Feedback
 Communicator
Competence
 Supervisor Receptivity

(Cushman & Craig, 1976; Jablin, 1979; Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1981; Richmond et al., 1982; Spitzberg, 1983;
Wheeles et al., 1984; Jaworski & Kohli, 1991; Pettit et al.,
1997; Higgins, 1999; Johlke & Duhan, 2000; Andrews &
Kacmar, 2001; Clark & Estes, 2001; Kim, 2002; Brown &
Yoshioka, 2003; Kacmar et al., 2003; Pincus, 2006; Goris,
2007; Mardanov et al., 2007; Shaw et al., 2009; Rajesh &
Suganthi, 2013)

Temperament

Support

Relationship Conflict
(Porter et al., 2007; Alhassan et al., 2014)

(Yoon & Thye, 2000; Grouzet et al., 2004; Kuvaas, 2008;
Gillet et al., 2013; Paterson et al., 2014)

(Dansereau et al., 1975; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Rahim,
2001; Landry & Vanderberghe, 2009)

Dissimilarity (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Jackson et al., 1992;
Hobman et al., 2003; Ullah et al., 2012)

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 39
Influences on Supervision from an Educational Psychology Perspective
The conceptual framework introduced in Clark’s and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
model was used to identify assumed causes of low employee satisfaction within the
federal agency. The gap analysis model encourages organizations to review current levels
of performance (i.e., employee satisfaction) in conjunction with future performance goals
or objectives. Clark and Estes (2008) encourage organizations to identify knowledge,
motivation, and organizational performance gaps to develop and achieve performance
improvement goals. More specifically, the Clark and Estes’s (2008) model was used to
focus on the possible causes of the gap in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
culture, related to supervisory practices that inhibit employee satisfaction.
What is Gap Analysis?
The gap analysis is a problem-solving model used in organizations to measure and
evaluate actual and desired performance outcomes utilizing knowledge, motivation, and
organizational dimensions as the foundation of the study (Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap
analysis framework can be used to identify critical factors that contribute to
organizational barriers and assets and to identify appropriate solutions. The gap analysis,
for the purpose of this study, was used to bridge the business and educational psychology
literature on supervision relative to job satisfaction.
The Three Dimensions of the Gap Analysis Framework
According to Clark & Estes (2008), the causes of performance gaps can be
categorized into any of three factors: a) knowledge and skill – “necessary to determine
whether people know how (and when, what, why, where, and who) to achieve their
performance goals” (p. 44); b) motivation to achieve performance goals; and c)
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 40
organizational barriers (i.e., lack of resources). Within the motivation cause, researchers
have identified three types of motivational processes that impact the work environment:
a) active choice; b) persistence; and c) mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Organizational causes include policies, procedures, and resources not being aligned with
the organization’s performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark & Estes (2008)
suggest that organizational principles “inevitably filter and affect all attempts to improve
performance, and successful performance improvement will depend on taking specific
organizational culture into account” (p. 103).
Knowledge. The first of the three potential causes of performance gaps is
knowledge. Knowledge and skill are required to perform effectively and complete an
assigned task. Often, individuals are oblivious to their lack of knowledge and skill or
hesitant to reveal their faults (Clark & Estes, 2008). Founded on Bloom’s revised
taxonomy, Krathwohl (2002) recognized four types of knowledge. Factual knowledge
consists of “the basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or
solve problems in it” (p. 46). Factual knowledge assists individuals with answering the
who, what, when, and where questions (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001).
Conceptual knowledge consists of more complex and organized knowledge types
including knowledge of classification, categories, principles, generalizations, theories,
models, and structures (Anderson et al., 2001). Procedural knowledge consists of
information about “how to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills,
algorithms, techniques, and methods” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 46). Metacognition
knowledge refers to an individual’s ability to recognize and reflect upon his or her
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 41
cognitive knowledge. Anderson et al., (2001) further suggest that metacognition
“included knowledge of strategy, task, and person variables” (p. 56).
Factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge are shared through
a range of communication types. Employee behaviors can be better understood when
considering how various forms of communication and supervisor support can influence
effective supervisory practices. As noted below in Table 6, it is evident that
communication plays a critical role in understanding the complex situation employees
encounter in the workplace. Communication is the vehicle used to distribute and transfer
the necessary information to employees (Richmond et al., 1982; Johlke & Duhan, 2000).
Communication is comprised of important characteristics of effective supervisory
practices including supervisory feedback, communicator competence, and supervisor
receptivity (Cushman & Craig, 1976; Spitzberg, 1983; Wheeles et al., 1984; Jaworski &
Kohli, 1991; Johlke & Duhan, 2000; Goris, 2007; Shaw et al., 2009). The type of
supervisory feedback an employee receives may contribute to the effectiveness of one’s
job performance and satisfaction (Jaworski & Kohli, 1991). An employee will consider a
supervisor competent when information and feedback are provided and distributed in a
frequent and strategic manner (Goris, 2007). A supervisor that fosters a supportive work
environment may encourage more open and frequent communication with employees
(Paterson et al., 2014). Table 3 identifies a list of supervisors’ practices that should be
avoided.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 42
Table 3

Assumed Causes: Supervisor Behaviors Impacted by Knowledge

Knowledge
Sub-Areas
Supervisor Knowledge
Factual
 Supervisors do not communicate the goal/mission/vision of the
organization
 Supervisors do not communicate appropriate policy and procedure
information to employees to help them meet performance goals
 Supervisors do not communicate role expectations
 Supervisors do not communicate to employees how well they are
performing against supervisor’s expectations

Procedural
 Supervisors do not explain to employees how to contribute feedback to
inform supervisor’s decision
 Supervisors do not communicate how to apply the goal/mission/vision
of the organization
 Supervisors do not communicate how to apply the organization’s
policies and procedures to complete performance goals
 Supervisors do not explain to employees how to work autonomously to
complete task

Conceptual
 Supervisors do not facilitate opportunities for employees to provide
insight (i.e. feedback and suggestions) and contribute to decision
making opportunities for goal-setting
 Supervisors do not communicate to employees the purpose of their job

Metacognition
 Supervisors do not communicate to employees the expectations for
self-evaluation or self-reflection

Motivation. The second of the three potential causes of performance gaps is
motivation. Knowledge is needed to provide an individual with the tools necessary to
complete a task. However, motivation is what drives an individual to work towards
completing a task. Researchers posit that highly educated individuals who lack
motivation “lack direction, persistence, and energy to accomplish much at work” (Clark
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 43
& Estes, 2008, p. 80). As previously mentioned, motivation consists of three facets that
exist in the workplace. The first element, active choice, occurs when a choice is made to
start (or not to start) a task at hand. For example, an individual who makes an active
choice will evaluate whether they begin and want to do a project; the individual is not
procrastinating or avoiding the work (Eccles, 2006). The second element, persistence,
refers to an individual’s ability to avoid distraction and work towards completing a goal
so as to allocate their time and energy to the most important task at hand (Clark et al.,
2008; Pintrich, 2003) The third element, mental effort, describes the behavior of an
individual who continues working despite encountering obstacles, by working smarter,
identifying key work goals and solutions. The three elements combined result in goal
achievement and improved organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011).
Recently, some researchers are classifying the three elements as instigating,
sustaining, and investing (Clark, Howard, & Early, 2006). Clark et al. (2006) note the
extent to which motivational behavior is influenced by environmental and psychological
factors plays a critical role in whether or not an employee will pursue a task (instigating),
persist (sustain) despite distractions, and employ the cognitive effort (investing) needed
to follow through and complete the task.
Supervisory practices can influence an employee’s motivational behavior.
Supervisors that exhibit dysfunctional communication styles, discourages open
communication, feedback or suggestions, and an intolerance for disagreement foster a
physical and psychologically damaging and unsupportive work environment for the
employee (Wheeles et al., 1984; Pettit et al., 1997; Yoon & Thye, 2000; Andrews &
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 44
Kacmar, 2001; Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013). Supportive supervisory practices are
associated with positive work motivation and job satisfaction (Gillet et al., 2013). Hence,
supervisory practices can cause an employee to determine and evaluate whether a task is
worth completing (Eccles, 2009). The expectancy and value placed on a task will
influence the employee’s motivation demonstrated through active choice, mental effort,
and persistence. Therefore, motivation derives from foresight, outcome anticipation, goal
setting, and the implementation of a plan of action to achieve goals and performance
outcomes (Bandura, 1989).
Table 4 is comprised of a list of behaviors impacted by supervisors’ motivation.
Table 4

Assumed Causes: Supervisor Behaviors Impacted by Motivation
Motivation
Sub-Areas
Supervisor Behaviors
Active
Choice

 Supervisors do not set goals that are realistic and achievable

Persistence
 Supervisors do not have confidence in the skills of employees to
complete goals

 Supervisors do not value and support policies and practices that
support a work/life balance for employees
 Supervisors do not believe in the team’s collective efficacy (i.e. trust
and confidence to get the job done)
Mental
Effort

 Supervisors do not encourage and support employees to put in extra
effort to solve more difficult problems at work
 Supervisors do not encourage employees’ attempts to identify
strategies to problem-solve and find solutions

Organization/Culture/Resources. In the end, organizations that have the most
knowledgeable, skilled, and motivated workforce will not achieve organizational
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 45
performance goals if efficient resources and work processes are nonexistent (Clark &
Estes, 2008). An organization’s work process, values, philosophy, and mindset determine
how people and resources interact to produce desired outcomes (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Positive work environments and the sharing of information contribute to the
development of relationships and connection with others (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001; Schien, 1990) In addition, organizations looking to improve their performance
outcome require the identification and resolution of process barriers. Likewise, material
resources are required for the organization to achieve performance goals and to assist
employees as they perform various essential duties (Clark & Estes (2008). The
aforementioned organizational barriers may be quick fixes, whereas, the organizational
culture is developed over a period. Clark and Estes (2008) define organizational culture
as “a way to describe the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes learned as
people develop over time in our family and our work environment (p. 108). Interestingly,
Clark and Estes (2008) proclaim that when cultural patterns are modified the organization
will experience a change in performance. The organization can promote and foster
knowledge and motivation growth through the development of policies and procedures,
practices, and equal access to and the availability of resources. In addition, leaders
characterize and set the tone for the mission, vision, and goals setting practices of the
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Supervisors that are cordial and emotionally stable, recognize and appreciate
diversity, provide feedback informally and formally through an active system of
monitoring performance, positively and proactively manages interpersonal conflict,
encourages autonomy and equally distribute resources throughout the organization can
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 46
have a direct influence on employee behaviors and subsequently affect job satisfaction
(Johlke & Duhan, 2000; Porter et al., 2007; Landry & Vandenberghe, 2009; Gillet et al.,
2013; Alhassan et al., 2014). Table 5 lists supervisor behaviors that diminish
organizational culture.
Table 5

Assumed Causes: Supervisor Behaviors Impacting Organizational Culture

Supervisor Behaviors

Summary
Table 6, below, is a compilation of all the aforementioned assumed causes relative
to supervision. These are the assumed causes that were the subject of the validation
process. Chapter Three describes the validation process; Chapter Four provides the
findings from that process, and Chapter Five presents the recommended solutions, an
integrated implementation plan, and evaluation plan.
Table 6
Summary of Supervisor Behaviors Impacting Performance from a Knowledge, Motivation,
and Organizational Culture (KMO) Framework

KMO by
Sum-Areas
Supervisor Behaviors Selected Citations
Knowledge
Factual
 Supervisors tolerate or exhibit a lack of professional behavior and attitude
toward others
 Diversity is neither recognized nor valued in the workplace
 Supervisor temperament is unpredictable; they may or may not be receptive to
ideas or feedback
 The values of the supervisor do not align with those of the employees
 System of monitoring performance is limited or non-existent (i.e. rewards,
recognition, and addressing poor performance)
 Limited resources to meet performance expectations and goals (i.e. staffing and
budget limitations, professional development opportunities, and hiring process)
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 47
Supervisors do not
communicate the
goal/mission/vision of the
organization
(Communication)
(Cushman & Craig, 1976;
Jablin, 1979; Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1981; Richmond et
al., 1982; Spitzberg, 1983;
Wheeles et al., 1984;
Jaworski & Kohli, 1991;
Pettit et al., 1997; Higgins,
1999; Johlke & Duhan,
2000; Andrews & Kacmar,
2001; Clark & Estes, 2001;
Kim, 2002; Brown &
Yoshioka, 2003; Kacmar et
al., 2003; Pincus, 2006;
Goris, 2007; Mardanov et al.,
2007; Shaw et al., 2009;
Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013)

Supervisors do not
communicate the
appropriate policy and
procedure information to
employees in order to
complete performance
goals (Communication)

Supervisors do not
communicate role
expectations
(Communication)

Supervisors do not
communicate to employees
how well they are
performing against
supervisor’s expectations
(Communication –
Supervisor Feedback)

Procedural
Supervisors do not explain to
employees how to
contribute feedback to
inform supervisor’s
decision (Communication)

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 48
Supervisors do not
communicate how to apply
the goal/mission/vision of
the organization
(Communication)

Supervisors do not
communicate how to apply
the organization’s policies
and procedures to complete
performance goals
(Communication)

Supervisors do not explain to
employees how to work
autonomously to complete
task (Support)
(Yoon & Thye, 2000;
Grouzet et al., 2004; Kuvaas,
2008; Gillet et al., 2013;
Paterson et al., 2014)

Conceptual
Supervisors do not facilitate
opportunities for
employees to provide
insight (i.e. feedback and
suggestions) and contribute
to decision making
opportunities for goal-
setting (Communication -
Relational dimension)

(Cushman & Craig, 1976;
Jablin, 1979; Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1981; Richmond et
al., 1982; Spitzberg, 1983;
Wheeles et al., 1984;
Jaworski & Kohli, 1991;
Pettit et al., 1997; Higgins,
1999; Johlke & Duhan,
2000; Andrews & Kacmar,
2001; Clark & Estes, 2001;
Kim, 2002; Brown &
Yoshioka, 2003; Kacmar et
al., 2003; Pincus, 2006;
Goris, 2007; Mardanov et al.,
2007; Shaw et al., 2009;
Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013)

Supervisors do not
communicate to employees
the purpose of their job
(Communication)

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 49

Metacognition
Supervisors do not
communicate to employees
the expectations for self-
evaluation or self-reflection
(Communication &
Support)

(Cushman & Craig, 1976;
Jablin, 1979; Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1981; Richmond et
al., 1982; Spitzberg, 1983;
Wheeles et al., 1984;
Jaworski & Kohli, 1991;
Pettit et al., 1997; Higgins,
1999; Johlke & Duhan,
2000; Yoon & Thye, 2000;
Andrews & Kacmar, 2001;
Clark & Estes, 2001; Kim,
2002; Brown & Yoshioka,
2003; Kacmar et al., 2003;
Grouzet et al., 2004; Pincus,
2006; Goris, 2007;
Mardanov et al., 2007;
Kuvaas, 2008; Shaw et al.,
2009; Gillet et al., 2013;
Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013;
Paterson et al., 2014)
Motivation
Active Choice
Supervisors do not set goals
that are realistic and
achievable
(Communication &
Support)

(Cushman & Craig, 1976;
Jablin, 1979; Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1981; Richmond et
al., 1982; Spitzberg, 1983;
Wheeles et al., 1984;
Jaworski & Kohli, 1991;
Pettit et al., 1997; Higgins,
1999; Johlke & Duhan,
2000; Yoon & Thye, 2000;
Andrews & Kacmar, 2001;
Clark & Estes, 2001; Kim,
2002; Brown & Yoshioka,
2003; Kacmar et al., 2003;
Grouzet et al., 2004; Pincus,
2006; Goris, 2007;
Mardanov et al., 2007;
Kuvaas, 2008; Shaw et al.,
2009; Gillet et al., 2013;
Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013;
Paterson et al., 2014)

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 50
Persistence
Supervisors do not have
confidence in the skills of
employees to complete
goals (Communication &
Support)

Supervisors do not put
policies and practices in
place that support a
work/life balance for
employees
(Communication &
Support)

Supervisors do not believe in
the team’s collective
efficacy (i.e. trust and
confidence to get the job
done) (Communication &
Support)

Mental Effort
Supervisors do not encourage
and support employees to
put in extra effort to solve
more difficult problems at
work (Communication –
Supervisor Receptivity &
Support)

(Cushman & Craig, 1976;
Jablin, 1979; Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1981; Richmond et
al., 1982; Spitzberg, 1983;
Wheeles et al., 1984;
Jaworski & Kohli, 1991;
Pettit et al., 1997; Higgins,
1999; Johlke & Duhan,
2000; Yoon & Thye, 2000;
Andrews & Kacmar, 2001;
Clark & Estes, 2001; Kim,
2002; Brown & Yoshioka,
2003; Kacmar et al., 2003;
Grouzet et al., 2004; Pincus,
2006; Goris, 2007;
Mardanov et al., 2007;
Kuvaas, 2008; Shaw et al.,
2009; Gillet et al., 2013;
Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013;
Paterson et al., 2014)

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 51

Supervisors do not encourage
employees’ attempts to
identify strategies to
problem-solve and find
solutions (Communication -
Supervisor Receptivity)

(Cushman & Craig, 1976;
Jablin, 1979; Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1981; Richmond et
al., 1982; Spitzberg, 1983;
Wheeles et al., 1984;
Jaworski & Kohli, 1991;
Pettit et al., 1997; Higgins,
1999; Johlke & Duhan,
2000; Andrews & Kacmar,
2001; Clark & Estes, 2001;
Kim, 2002; Brown &
Yoshioka, 2003; Kacmar et
al., 2003; Pincus, 2006;
Goris, 2007; Mardanov et al.,
2007; Shaw et al., 2009;
Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013)
Organizational Factors
Supervisors tolerate or
exhibit a lack of
professional behavior and
attitude towards others
(Temperament &
Relationship Conflict)

(Dansereau et al., 1975;
Meyer & Allen, 1991;
Rahim, 2001; Porter et al.,
2007; Landry &
Vanderberghe, 2009;
Alhassan et al., 2014)

Diversity is neither
recognized nor valued in
the workplace
(Dissimilarity)

(Harrison, Price, & Bell,
1998; Jackson et al., 1992;
Hobman et al., 2003; Ullah
et al., 2012)
Supervisor temperament is
unpredictable; they may or
may not be receptive to
ideas or feedback
(Temperament)

(Porter et al., 2007; Alhassan
et al., 2014)

The values of the supervisor
do not align with those of
the employee
(Dissimilarity)

(Harrison, Price, & Bell,
1998; Jackson et al., 1992;
Hobman et al., 2003; Ullah
et al., 2012)
System of monitoring
performance is limited or
non-existent (i.e. rewards,
recognition, and addressing
poor performance)
(Communication &
(Cushman & Craig, 1976;
Jablin, 1979; Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1981; Richmond et
al., 1982; Spitzberg, 1983;
Wheeles et al., 1984;
Jaworski & Kohli, 1991;
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 52
Support)

Pettit et al., 1997; Higgins,
1999; Johlke & Duhan,
2000; Yoon & Thye, 2000;
Andrews & Kacmar, 2001;
Clark & Estes, 2001; Kim,
2002; Brown & Yoshioka,
2003; Kacmar et al., 2003;
Grouzet et al., 2004; Pincus,
2006; Goris, 2007;
Mardanov et al., 2007;
Kuvaas, 2008; Shaw et al.,
2009; Gillet et al., 2013;
Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013;
Paterson et al., 2014)

Limited resources to meet
performance expectations
and goals (i.e. staffing and
budget limitations,
professional development
opportunities, and hiring
process) (Communication
& Support)

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 53
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore employee perceptions of supervisory
practices that act as barriers to employee satisfaction within the federal agency. This
study exclusively focuses on the data collected from the stakeholder perspective of the
employee. The analysis of this project focuses on the performance gaps in the areas of
knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational issues that influence the assumed
barriers of supervision that contribute to employee satisfaction. The following questions
guided this project:
1. From the perspective of employees, what knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors inhibit supervisory practices?
2. What are the recommended solutions that the federal agency could adopt to
improve supervision and employee satisfaction?
3. How could these recommendations be evaluated for effectiveness?
Methodological Framework
The gap analysis framework can be used to critically analyze the knowledge,
motivation, and organization barriers that inhibit an organization from achieving the
desired performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap analysis framework contains
seven steps: 1) identify key organizational goals; 2) analyze current performance status;
3) identify gap between current performance status and desired performance goals; 4)
examine performance gaps to determine assumed barriers; 5) validate knowledge/skill,
motivation, and organizational assumed causes; 6) identify appropriate solutions; and 7)
evaluate results. Initiating the process begins with identifying clear and measurable goals.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 54
Then, the assumed barriers are analyzed and identified, and potential solutions are
subsequently addressed.
Meanwhile, the identification of solutions can be used to assist a similar
organization in the quest to close the gap between desired and actual performance. Lastly,
the initiation of an action plan provides the organization with a way to implement
recommendations, foster a culture of continued assessment of measurable goals, and
encourage the organization to be proactive in identifying the next move by clearly
articulating future performance goals.
Figure 1
Clark & Estes’ Gap Analysis Process

The methodology described earlier was used to gather information to determine
the assumed causes of performance gaps relative to employee satisfaction. The assumed
causes were assembled using multiple sources including (a) the EVS results, (b) learning,
motivation, and organization theory, and (c) a thorough review of the literature on
Goal
Assumed
Factors
Current
Achievement

Assets
Validated
Causes
Recommendations
Implement
Motivation
Evaluate
Gap Analysis Process
Knowledge Organization
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 55
supervision and employee satisfaction, established in Chapter Two. These causes will be
validated according to the methods described in this chapter.
Assumed Performance Barriers
The gap analysis framework provides organizations with the necessary tools and
guidance to collect and strategically analyze data to identify problems and relative
solutions. Often, organizations attempt to seek viable solutions to address gaps in
performance without first identifying and addressing the root cause of the performance
gap (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). In the quest for a solution, individuals and
organizations rush to institutionalize tools in an attempt to address the assumed cause of a
performance gap. The institutionalization of invalidated tools leads to consequences that
can further debilitate an organization’s progress towards meeting performance outcomes
(Rueda, 2011). Thus, this study examined and utilized the EVS results as indicators of
potential performance gaps and identifying potential barriers to effective supervision to
avert the implementation of arbitrary organizational solutions. Table 6, in Chapter Two,
provided the full list of assumed performance barriers that are the subject of this
validation process.
The EVS
What is the EVS? In 1998, the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) was
established through the combined effort of Vice President Al Gore, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the National
Partnership for Reinventing Government, and the Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB) (Kamensky, 1998a). The purpose of the survey is to: (a) develop a measurement
baseline for the reinvention of selected initiatives; (b) to assess and benchmark selected
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 56
items for organizational reform; (c) enhance OPM’s existing database; and (d) to support
the collection of reasonable measures for different federal agencies (Kamensky, 1998a).
The 33-item survey distributed to a random selection of 34,401 employees in 48
different agencies (Kamensky, 1998b). Currently, the EVS is overseen, administered, and
supported by the OPM and used to provide different federal agencies with data on “areas
which drive employee satisfaction, commitment, engagement, and ultimately retention in
the workforce” (United States Office of Personnel Management Planning and Policy
Analysis, 2014, p. 1). A total of 82 agencies consisting of 37 large agencies and 45
independent agencies participated in the 2014 EVS. Distributed across all federal
agencies, a collection of 392,752 federal employees completed the EVS. The 2014 EVS
consisted of 98 items focused on eight topic areas, (a) personal work experiences, (b)
work unit, (c) agency, (d) supervisor, (e) leadership, (f) satisfaction, (g) work/life, and (h)
demographics. The items are further categorized into the following indices: (a) employee
engagement index, (b) global satisfaction index, (c) the new IQ Index, and (e) human
capital assessment and accountability framework. The EVS results are used to identify
consistencies amongst respective agencies, build upon the successes of the previous year,
and address areas in need of improvement (United States Office of Personnel
Management Planning and Policy Analysis, 2014).
Results of the EVS. The EVS questions provide a surface level assessment of
employee satisfaction. Although the EVS consist of 98 items, data were gathered from 71
items grouped into one of three areas, (a) knowledge/skills, (b) motivation, or (c)
organizational factors affecting the federal agency. Of the items 71 items mentioned
above, three relate to knowledge, nine to motivation, and the remaining fifty-nine to
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 57
organizational elements. The ten items with the highest positive scores (“top ten”) for the
federal agency clustered in the motivation and organizational areas. Immediate analyses
of the 71 EVS items through the lens of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
framework indicated that an organization plays a critical role in an employee’s
perceptions about work experience.
The mean score, across the items, for CDER, was 70% (in agreement) with a
median score of 72.9%. The ten items with the highest positive scores (“top ten”) fell into
the motivation and organizational areas. The ten items with the highest negative scores
(“bottom ten”) were categorized as organizational issues. The ten lowest scoring items
focused on pay, performance accountability, and promotion and recognition.
Knowledge and skills. Although knowledge contributes to an employee’s
perspective of supervisory practices, the bottom ten EVS items did not include
knowledge relative to supervision. However, the EVS items shown in Table 7, addressed
the issue of supervision in relation to the knowledge factor under the KMO rubric. The
EVS items in Table 7 did not rank in the bottom 10, however, the items bring forth issues
including a supervisor’s aptitude to provide feedback to employees, the procedures and
format used to conduct employee performance evaluations, and communication practices.
Whether or not a performance gap exists in the knowledge level needs to be further
investigated.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 58
Table 7

Summary of Assumed Causes for Supervisor Knowledge Behaviors and Corresponding
EVS Items by Sub-areas

Supervisor Behaviors in Knowledge Sub-Areas from
Research Literature

Corresponding EVS Item
Item # Rank
Factual
 Supervisors do not communicate the
goal/mission/vision of the organization

56

32nd
 Supervisors do not communicate appropriate policy
and procedure information to employees in order to
complete performance goals
56 32nd
 Supervisors do not communicate role expectations 6

15th

 Supervisors do not communicate to employees how
well they are performing against supervisor’s
expectations
6
19
15th
40th
Procedural
 Supervisors do not explain to employees how to
contribute feedback to inform supervisor’s decision
30
48
56th
13th

 Supervisors do not communicate how to apply the
goal/mission/vision of the organization
56 32nd

 Supervisors do not communicate how to apply the
organization’s policies and procedures to complete
performance goals
 Supervisors do not explain to employees how to work
autonomously to complete task
56

16
30
32nd

6th
56th
Conceptual
 Supervisors do not facilitate opportunities for
employees to provide insight (i.e. feedback and
suggestions) and contribute to decision making
opportunities for goal-setting
30
48
56th
13th

 Supervisors do not communicate to employees the
purpose of their job
6
19
15th
40th
Metacognitive
 Supervisors do not communicate to employees the
expectations for self-evaluation or self-reflection
6
16
15th
6th

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 59
Motivation. At first glance, the EVS results appear to support the assumption that
CDER is a motivated federal agency. Further examination of the EVS question items as
they relate to motivation and supervision are justified. Table 8 provides a list of EVS
items in relation to supervisor motivation behaviors and supervision.
Table 8

Summary of Assumed Causes for Supervisor Motivation Behaviors and Corresponding
EVS Items by Sub-areas

Supervisor Behaviors in Motivation Sub-Areas
EVS Item
Item # Rank
Active Choice
 Supervisors do not set goals that are realistic or
achievable

2
30
42

18th
56th
8th
Persistence
 Supervisors do not have confidence in the skills of
employees to complete goals
30 56th

 Supervisors do not put policies and practices in place
that support a work/life balance for employees
42 8th

 Supervisors do not believe in the team’s collective
efficacy (i.e. trust and confidence to get the job done)
52

21st

Mental Effort
 Supervisors do not encourage and support employees
to put in extra effort to solve more difficult problems at
work
30
48
55

56th
13th
25th
 Supervisors do not encourage employees’ attempts to
identify strategies to problem-solve and find solutions
30
48
55
56th
13th
25th

EVS question items 2, 30, 42, 48, 52, and 55 address the topic of motivation and
supervision. EVS question items 42 is ranked in the top ten question items of the entire
71 question items on the EVS, ranking 8th. Conversely, EVS question item 30,
“Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes,”
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 60
was ranked 56

out of the 71 total question items. Therefore, question item 30 assumes a
potential performance gap in the area of supervision relative to motivation within CDER.
Organization. The EVS question items listed in Table 9 directly address the issue
of supervision in relation to organizational factors. Further examination of the role
organizational culture plays in hindering effective supervisory practices are warranted.
There was a total of 34 EVS question items applicable to organizational cultural and
supervision.
Initial analyses of the 2014 EVS results suggest that CDER’s organizational
culture supports and sustains the federal agency’s vision, mission, and goals. However,
further examination of the data noted the potential existence of performance gaps
including limited or no resources to get the job done, attitude and behavior toward
employees, not addressing poor performers, and lack of meaningful recognition by
supervisors. These potential performance gaps identified from the EVS question items are
all categorized under organizational culture behaviors. Table 9 provides a list of the EVS
question items relative to organizational culture and supervision.
Table 9

Summary of Assumed Causes for Supervisor Behaviors Affecting Organizational Culture
and Corresponding EVS Items

Supervisor Behaviors in Organizational Culture

EVS Item
Items # Rank
 Supervisors tolerate or exhibit a lack of professional
behavior and attitude toward others

48
49

13th
10th

 Diversity is neither recognized nor valued in the
workplace

45
55
28th
25th
 Supervisor temperament is unpredictable; they may or
may not be receptive to ideas or feedback
48
49
13th
10th
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 61

 The values of the supervisor do not align with those of
the employee
No EVS Correlate
 System of monitoring performance is limited or non-
existent (i.e. rewards, recognition, and addressing poor
performance)

15
16
19
23
24
25
50
65
37th
6th
40th
70th
69th
67th
11th
61st

 Limited resources to meet performance expectations
and goals (i.e. staffing and budget limitations,
professional development opportunities, and hiring
process)
2
47
52

18th
22nd
21st

Validation of the Performance Issues
The subsequent parts of Chapter Three will outline how the assumed barriers were
validated to determine which barriers may require effective solutions. Clark and Estes
(2008) mention that each assumed cause requires validation (p. 54). Clark and Estes
(2008) recommend that all assumed barriers should be validated. The following methods
were used to validate assumed barriers: (a) focus groups, interviews, and document
analysis; (b) business literature and; (c) educational psychology literature. The protocol
for the methods mentioned was determined by CDER. During the validation process, not
all questions could be asked.
Validation of Performance Issues: Knowledge
Knowledge is one of the three potential causes of performance gaps described in
the gap analysis process. Knowledge contains four dimensions: a) factual; b) conceptual;
c) procedural; and d) metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Anderson et al., 2001;
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 62
Rueda, 2011). The cognitive process is combined with the knowledge dimension in
Anderson et al.’s (2001) revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. This structure was utilized to
examine the knowledge component of the gap analysis. In addition, before
recommending and implementing a solution, the validation of every presumed cause of
knowledge is an important component of the gap analysis process.
Factual knowledge issues validation. The validation of factual knowledge of
supervision issues was accomplished through observations and interviews. So as to assess
factual knowledge barriers, the researchers listened for examples about what, when, who,
and how information is communicated between employees and supervisors and the roles
and responsibilities of employees and supervisors during focus group observations and
follow up interviews. When examples were provided, researchers asked employees to
elaborate.
Sample items include:
1. What kind of information is communicated to employees by supervisors?
2. What are the different roles and responsibilities of supervisors?
Gathering data in this manner allowed the researchers to assess and provide
constructive information about the employee’s depth of knowledge in relation to duties
and responsibilities of themselves and other stakeholders (i.e., supervisors).
Conceptual knowledge issues validation. Employees are cognizant of the
actions that contribute to meeting performance expectations, as revealed through an early
analysis of the EVS survey. The validation of conceptual knowledge of supervision
issues examines an employees’ ability to explain generalizations and principles derived
from preconceived expectations (Krathwohl, 2002; Anderson et al., 2001). As part of the
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 63
focus group discussion and follow up interview, employees were asked to reflect upon
expectations of supervision and what those expectations mean for the organization.
Procedural knowledge issues validation. The assumed issues of procedural
knowledge of supervision are addressed once the conceptual and procedural knowledge
groundwork is established. Procedural knowledge is knowing when and how to perform
certain task. So as to validate procedural knowledge, researchers asked employees during
the follow up interviews to describe the way information is distributed to employees.
Metacognitive knowledge issues validation. Anderson et al., (2001) presumes
that metacognition is the ability of an individual to recognize and reflect upon his or her
cognitive knowledge. A barrier of metacognitive knowledge occurs when individuals
struggle with determining what information to distribute and when to distribute that
information.
Table 10
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Issues and Validation

Assumed Knowledge Issues How Will It Be Validated?
Supervisors do not communicate
information to others (EVS 6, 12, and
19).

Supervisors do not know how to
articulate role expectation (EVS 6).

Employees elaborated on:
 What kind of information is
communicated to others? (F)
 How do supervisors distribute
information in the office? (P)
 How do supervisors determine
the type of information that is
communicated to others? (M)

Employees explained:
 The different roles and
responsibilities (F).
 Performance expectations and
purpose of their job (C).
 How they self-evaluate and self-
monitor performance? (M)
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 64
*Indicated knowledge type for each assumed asset: (F)actual; (C)onceptual; (P)rocedural;
(M)etacognitive

Validation of Performance Issues: Motivation
Motivation determines how much effort is necessary to complete a task or to
achieve the desired goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, and
Norman (2010), define motivation as an individual’s investment to reach a desired goal.
Clark and Estes (2008) note that motivation is influenced by cultural and personal
differences. Motivation issues are determined by three motivational factors: a) active
choice; b) persistence; and c) mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Research state that
active choice occurs when intention turns into action, persistence is the determination to
move forward with a task despite challenges and mental effort allows people to work
smarter to develop solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Efficacy validation. Validation of the efficacy-based motivation issues will
consist of employees being asked to elaborate on the confidence workers have in a
supervisor ability to perform the job. Document analysis was utilized to examine the
examples of ineffective supervisory behaviors provided by employees. Sample items
include:
1. Examples of supervisor skills and work standards.
2. Examples of employees perceiving their supervisors as not having the necessary
knowledge/skills for the job.
3. Phrases like “supervisors don’t have the time or energy to do what they want to
do and what needs to be done.”
4. Examples of employees not being able to count on their supervisors to get the job
done.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 65
Value validation. The process to validate value motivation issues consisted of
observation of employees during focus group sessions and follow-up interviews.
Supervisor motivation was addressed using the EVS survey items and based on several
prominent concerns within the organization. Sample items include:
1. Examples of recognition by supervisors (importance value).
2. Examples of rewards and recognition (attainment value).
Table 11

Summary of Assumed Motivation Issues and Validation

Motivational Issue
Type of
Indicator
Possible Underlying
Cause
How Will It Be Validated?
Supervisors do not
communicate or
set realistic and
clear expectations
Active Choice Supervisors do not
communicate
expectations and follow
through with task
completion.
Observations: Discussions
surrounding supervisor lack of
communication and follow
through.
Interviews Protocol Questions
3-6.

Attempts to
identify strategies
to problem-solve
Mental Effort

Supervisors do not
appreciate the value of
or recognize employee
contributions to
complete a job.
Observations: Discussions
addressing the employee
recognition.
Interviews: Protocol Questions
3-6.

Validation of Performance Issues: Organization/Culture/Context
The most prevalent organizational barriers within the federal agency based on the
EVS scores include: a) reward and recognition of performance, b) inconsistently applied
and regulated performance assessment and accountability procedures and c) lack of
opportunities for professional growth. To validate these barriers and the assumed causes
of performance gaps, employees participated in focus groups sessions and follow up
interviews.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 66
Sample focus group session and follow up interview items include:
1. Methods to reward and recognize employee performance.
2. Methods to address poor performers.
Sample of document analysis items include:
3. Types of rewards (informal or formal) received by supervisors.

Table 12

Summary of Assumed Organizational/Culture/Context Issues and Validation

Organizational
Issues
Possible Organizational
Cause(s)

How Will it be Validated?

Rewards and
recognition
(informal or
informal) and
evaluative
feedback on
performance.
Disconnected leadership/
management (L)
Procedures not in place to
effectively and consistently
assess employee
skills/potential (E)
Types and level of rewards
are different across units
(E)
Lack of transparency from
administration (T)
Observations/Interviews
Employees discuss…
Examples of the type of
work that supervisors
reward and recognize.
Examples of the
frequency that
supervisor reward and
recognize employees.
Document Analysis
Examples of the type and
frequency of rewards and
recognition given by
supervisors across units.
Limited or no
punitive or
corrective action
for poor
performance.

Systems of communication
set up (L)
Accountability/evaluation
system (E)
Lack of policies or
procedures in place to deal
with poor performers (E)
Deep-level dissimilarity
exists (L)
Focus Groups/Interviews
Employees discuss…
Methods utilized by
supervisors to address
poor performers

Document Analysis
Example from worksheet
about how poor
performers are managed.
* EVS (E) or Related Literature (L) or Theories related to culture/context (T)

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 67
Summary of Issues to be Validated and Method
Focus group observations, interviews, and document analysis data were used to
validate performance issues shown in each of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational tables, above. The validation process was used to identify which factors,
resulting from the data, are barriers within the federal agency.
Project Design
This project is part of a collaborative study by six education doctoral students
from the University of Southern California. The six education doctoral students were
tasked with collecting data from six units within the Food & Drug Administration. The
participants of the study are employees (non-leadership positions) and supervisors from
the six offices of the unit within the federal agency. Developed by Clark and Estes (2008),
the gap analysis framework is used to identify and validate assumed causes of
performance gaps before addressing and recommending solutions. This study utilized the
gap analysis methodology to identify and validate the assumed barriers of employment
satisfaction within the six units. Table 13 describes the six studies, with each project
consisting of a specific stakeholder perspective (supervisor or employees), regarding
barriers or facilitators or both, and focusing on practices related to supervision or
teamwork.
Table 13

Design of the Larger Project

Perspective Teamwork Supervision
Facilitators Barriers Facilitator Barriers
Supervisor Study 4 Study 2
Employee Study 1 Study 5 Study 6 Study 3

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 68
This project described Study 3, with a specific focus on the employees as a
stakeholder group and their experiences and perspective on supervision and the
supervisory practices of their superiors. The validity of the study was enhanced by
collecting triangulated data (Creswell, 2008). The qualitative data collected to answer the
aforementioned research questions include research team developed observations, data
from follow-up interviews with individuals, and the results of document analysis
conducted by the researchers. The focus groups consisted of employees from the six
offices within the unit. The focus group participants were prompt to provide additional
information related to their office’s low scoring items on the EVS. In addition, the focus
group participants were solicited to volunteer for a follow-up interview.
Documents related to the focus group meetings, one on one interviews, and EVS
data were analyzed using priori categories of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors that influence supervision. Data were organized through coding of collected data,
categorizing ideas, and summarizing themes – being cognizant of other themes that may
emerge.
Data Collection
Permission to proceed with this project was obtained from the University of
Southern California’s (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB). The primary function of
the IRB is to ensure the safety and confidentiality of participants in this study. Data
collected across the six offices was a collaborative effort made by three lead investigators
and six co-investigators. The investigators conducted multiple visits to the CDER facility
in White Oak, Maryland to validate assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational
barriers of supervisory practices relative to employee satisfaction. The focus group
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 69
observations were conducted at CDER’s facility. The focus group sessions were led by
partner consultants Suntiva (an auxiliary of the Division of Learning and Organizational
Development at CDER) in collaboration with CDER staff. The various units within
CDER received an invitation to participate in a focus group session. The follow-up
interviews were conducted by phone when the six co-investigators returned home.
Observations
Data were collected from a series of workshops with six different unit offices,
resulting in the development of six data sets. Focus group sessions were facilitated by
outside subcontractors, partner consultants Suntiva. The investigators were neutral
observers and did not lead the focus group session. The workshops served as an
opportunity to discuss the top ten (most positive) results and the bottom ten (least
positive) results of the EVS. All workshops were facilitated in Silver Spring, Maryland at
the FDA’s White Oak Campus. Approximately, 245 FDA staff members attended the
focus group observation sessions. The lead investigators, six co-investigators involving
USC doctoral student(s), USC dissertation committee members, CDER staff, and
CDER’s subcontracted consultants took notes during the focus group observations. A
focus group observation protocol guided data collection.
Interviews
At the conclusion of each focus group session, participants were informed about
the opportunity to volunteer for a follow-up interview with a USC doctoral student(s).
After the focus group session, volunteers were provided with contact information cards.
Demographic information including name, phone number, and email was obtained from
the participants that volunteered for the follow-up interview. The identifying information
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 70
was not shared with the lead investigators or CDER staff. Potential interview participants
were informed that upon completion of the interview, identifying information would be
destroyed. Participants were contacted and interviewed within two weeks after the focus
group session.
Document Analysis
The focus group sessions provided an opportunity to collect relevant information
and documentation to be included in data analysis. The worksheet distributed during the
focus group sessions included two questions:
1. What about these items are important, and why?
2. What do you think causes or contributes to these results?
The questions encouraged employees to work with their colleagues to reflect upon the top
and bottom ten EVS items within their unit. In addition, a larger group discussion
allowed employees to share and clarify certain points with employees from other units
and focus group facilitators. The information gathered from the larger group discussion
was documented on large chart paper.
Trustworthiness of Data
Establishing trustworthiness of data is important and multiple methods will be
used to ensure confidence, candor, and data credibility in the potential findings. The
researchers used triangulation to assist in strengthening probable findings. Merriam
(2009) states that triangulation is a method used to authenticate collected data. The EVS
is an anonymous survey tool repeatedly utilized by the federal government to gather
employee viewpoints. Furthermore, personal information was not gathered from focus
group observations and follow-up interviews to ensure candor without consequence.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 71
Follow-up interviews were conducted by phone. Lastly, the co-investigators regularly
cross checked data collected from the EVS, focus group observations and interviews to
reaffirm consistency of data collection.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 72
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine the barriers of supervision from the
perspective of CDER employees using the gap analysis framework. This project
identified the assumed knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes of
performance gaps relating to the impact of supervision on employee satisfaction. This
study addressed the following questions:
1. From the perspective of employees, what knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors inhibit supervisory practices?
2. What are the recommended solutions that the federal agency could implement
to improve supervisory practices and employee satisfaction?
3. How might these recommendations be evaluated for effectiveness?
This chapter will address the first question, “From the perspective of employees,
what knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors inhibit supervisory practices and
diminish employee satisfaction within the federal agency?” by presenting the findings
from the data collected. The two remaining questions of this study are addressed in
Chapter Five. The employee behaviors identified below are classified under KMO sub-
categories and are symptomatic of the barriers of supervisory practices within the federal
agency.
Validation of assumed causes
The employee satisfaction factors were categorized under the dimensions of
knowledge, motivation and organization. Data were collected from six offices at CDER
via observations, interviews, and document analysis, described in Chapter Three. An
assumed cause was considered “validated” when it appeared in more than one data
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 73
collection category. Three types of data were collected in this study, (a) focus group
observations, (b) interviews, and (c) document analysis. A behavior was considered
validated if there were two or more specific sources of evidence across two data sets or
one specific source of evidence across three data sets. At least two interview subjects or
focus groups needed to mention the behavior to indicate that the evidence from the data
type was not an outlier or single occurrence. Evidence in one data set or evidence
occurring once in two sets were not considered validated. In cases where a behavior was
not addressed in any data type or source, the assumed issues were not considered
validated.
Knowledge Results
The four knowledge types introduced by Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011)
were used to categorize the findings of this study. The four knowledge types are (1)
factual, (2) conceptual, (3) procedural, and (4) metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011). The validated themes from the data and the knowledge types are identified and
discussed below.
Factual Knowledge
Factual knowledge, according to Rueda (2011), refers to uncomplicated concepts
comprising of “specific disciplines, contexts, or domains. It includes things like
terminology, details or elements that one must know or be familiar with in order to
understand and function effectively or solve a problem in a given area” (p. 28). A
summary of the validated assumed factual knowledge barriers is presented in Table 14.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 74
Table 14
Summary of Validated Assumed Factual Knowledge Behavior

Supervisor Behaviors Source(s) of Evidence Validated
Supervisors do not
communicate appropriate
policy and procedure
information to employees in
order to complete
performance goals
Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated

Supervisors do not
communicate role
expectations

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis

Validated

Supervisors do not
communicate to employees
how well they are
performing against
supervisor’s expectations

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis

Validated

The findings across three data types suggest that communication is problematic.
One employee stated that “communication goes into a black hole.” Examples of factual
knowledge discussions centered on the importance of supervisors having the knowledge
to clearly and concisely communicate appeared in the interview data. The skill set needed
to effectively and efficiently communicate can assist employees with accurately and
effectively completing assignments. One employee noted:
They may not always have the understanding or the experience in that new
element to really be fully successful, because they’re the ones trying to lead the
charge, and they don’t know what the dance is, if you know what I mean. You
don’t always get, maybe, the communication with them, because they’re probably
sitting in their office trying to figure out what’s next.
Another employee within the same unit stated:
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 75
I’ve been in the situation more than once where my supervisor has talked to other
people that we work with in another office of the center, made statements,
apparently they think that the supervisor made a decision, and didn’t tell us. Not
only does the communication down not happen effectively or frequently enough,
but there’s no effective way to communicate up.
During the focus group discussions, some employees stressed the importance of
being better prepared to perform certain tasks safely. Other employees expressed
frustration at the complexity of navigating current processes because of limited, if any,
levels of communication. One employee simply stated, “Perhaps managers don’t know
what to do.” An employee elaborated further during an interview:
There are no standards or designed procedures in place, so when you do come on
board as a new employee, it’s hard to get them or for them to feel confident about
what they’re doing because there’s not a lot of direction right there
That said, some employees were aware of the fact that supervisors, “don’t have
time to think about management of the office” to appropriately assess the level of
employee understanding and interpretation of the various policies and procedures within
CDER. During a focus group session, some employees suggested that supervisors should
develop and implement policies and procedures. However, some employees shared the
sentiment that some supervisors do not have the level of experience to know and assess
how certain task should be accomplished. As such, employees have been left to develop
policies and procedures to complete task and to perform their evaluation of performance.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 76
During an interview, an employee stated, “Issues arose out of a misunderstanding
of roles and time sensitivities and clarification of time frames. It’s a 24/7 job. Some don’t
understand that or aren’t readily available.”
Another employee stated the following during an interview:
There's a lack of respect. There's a lot of movement at the management level.
People are being promoted too fast without any demonstration of skill. It's all
about the supervisor and their own promotion. It's not about the organization.
Staff is about the organization and getting the job done and protecting patient
health and safety. Supervisors seem to be totally focused on moving up the chain,
so we're going in two different directions and it's heartbreaking and demoralizing
to see people being promoted when they don't know what's going on. The staff are
doing great work on their own, and it's supervisors who get the rewards, not the
staff.
The validation of factual knowledge barriers also emerged during the document
analysis process. Most employees felt “left behind” during the re-organization process.
Some employees suggested that limited resources are available that outline role
expectations and poor communication from supervisors contribute to a lack of clear and
concise information about their job function, task, and role within the new organizational
structure.
Employees are confused about their role expectations. Some employees note that
supervisors do not help, roles and expectations are unclear or undefined, and
communication about role expectations is minimal or nonexistent. Employees feel that
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 77
they are “left on their own to figure out training” and the type of training needed to
accomplish certain task is unavailable or undefined.
Employees suggest that “last-minute decision making,” unorganized, vague, and
brief communication at various stages and leadership levels of the re-organization
process led to miscommunication and uncertainty. There was a perception amongst
employees that certain supervisors do not possess the knowledge, capability or judgment
to oversee employees to effectively and efficiently lead employees and to complete task.
Procedural Knowledge
According to Anderson et al. (2001), procedural knowledge consists of
information about “how to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills,
algorithms, techniques, and methods” (p. 46). Procedural knowledge is established
through the understanding of the skills, processes, and the methods employed to
accomplish a task. A summary of the validated assumed procedural knowledge barriers is
presented in Table 15.
Table 15

Summary of Validated Assumed Procedural Knowledge Behavior

Supervisor Behaviors Source(s) of Evidence Validated
Supervisors do not explain to
employees how to contribute
feedback to inform
supervisor’s decision

Supervisors do not
communicate how to apply
the organization’s policies
and procedures to complete
performance goals

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis

Validated

Validated

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 78
Supervisors do not explain to
employees how to work
autonomously to complete
task
Focus Group Observation
Interviews
Document Analysis
Validated

Employees were adamant in their belief that procedures are not in place and when
procedures are developed, supervisors are unsupportive. One employee noted, “When I
came into the position there was no guidance. I developed procedures for myself.” In
addition, employees recognized that they are not getting all the information needed to be
clear about various processes including performance awards, raises, promotion, and task
expectation.
Supervisors do not explain to employees how to work autonomously to complete task.
Having a supervisor that facilitates an environment supportive of job autonomy is an
essential component of employee satisfaction. Employees talked about how some
supervisors do not encourage and support job autonomy. Autonomy, a procedural
knowledge type, is evident in work and skill flexibility when employees take
responsibility for a project and work variety.
One employee explained: “There’s more of a micromanaging type of feel to it as
far as they know the work is being done. They know the work is taking place, but, for
whatever reason, there’s still that micromanaging aspect of it.”
During a focus group session, some employees were exasperated about being,
“treated like children” and “lacked true autonomy to get the work done.” Employees are
reliant on their supervisor’s knowledge of CDER’s policies and procedures to develop
opportunities for job autonomy. Ineffective supervisors disregard and do not educate their
employees on the policies and procedures to get the job done. The document analysis
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 79
suggests that most employees feel that micromanagement is a problem and there is a lack
of empowerment. Employees voiced their willingness to take on additional and more
complex duties and responsibilities during a focus group session.
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual knowledge is knowledge of “categories, classifications, principles,
generalizations, theories, models, or structures pertaining to a particular area” (Rueda,
2011, p. 28). When scrutinizing the data collected focusing on conceptual knowledge, it
became clear that employees understand the purpose of their job. However, some
employees were not confident in their supervisor’s ability to understand the purpose of
their employee’s job. In addition, most employees do not trust their supervisors to
participate in and contribute to decision making. A summary of the validated assumed
conceptual knowledge barriers is presented in Table 16.
Table 16
Summary of Validated Assumed Conceptual Knowledge Behavior

Supervisor Behaviors Source(s) of Evidence Validated
Supervisors do not facilitate
opportunities for employees
to provide insight (i.e.
feedback and suggestions)
and contribute to decision
making opportunities for
goal-setting

Supervisors do not
communicate to employees
the purpose of their job
Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated

Validated

Supervisors not facilitating decision making opportunities for goal setting
purposes was frequently discussed and noted in the interviews and document analysis.
One employee noted:
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 80
There is a serious distrust of management. I think that unless staff can give real
feedback as in say a 360 review where the supervisor has no options as to who
can participate and where the results become part of the supervisor’s PMAP, there
might be, but as long as we have supervisors asking staff, well, what do you think,
which I have a one-on-one coming out for that. Who do you think, where do we
need to improve, or, what are we doing well, frankly, I have nothing to say
because there’s no reason for me to think that it will be useful because I don’t
trust my supervisor.
As noted in the following interview, some employees believe that supervisors do
not value employee insight or feedback.
It’s not even about being innovative, because you can be innovative but if you
question a procedure that has been done for years or process and you say, “Well
how about we do this this way,” as with any change that someone’s trying to
bring about there’s going to be difficulties. It’s resistance to the point where it
makes you feel like you don’t want to bring it up at all.
A closer examination of the documents analyzed demonstrated a high level of
frustration by CDER employees surrounding a supervisor’s unwillingness to accept
employee insight, feedback, and suggestions. Employees would like more opportunities
to share without getting “shot down,” or being “embarrassed we don’t know something,”
or “afraid of looking stupid.”
The data suggest that employees know the purpose of their job and were aware of
how their job connects to the goal, mission, and vision of the organization. However,
some employees noted that during the reorganization phase the “connection to the work”
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 81
was lost. Employees suggested that they were “given material to read but not necessarily
a connection to the work.” During the focus group observation employees expressed their
frustration with being “left behind” during the reorganization process. Employees
suggested that the reorganization process hindered communication in regards to
employee job function, purpose, task, and role in the new organizational structure. The
document analysis found that employees were not provided with the reasons certain
decisions were made throughout the reorganization.
Metacognitive knowledge

The fourth knowledge type under the KMO rubric is metacognitive knowledge
(Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Krathwohl (2002), is “knowledge about cognition in
general as well as awareness of and knowledge about one’s own cognition” (p. 214).
Increasing awareness and understanding of one’s cognitive processes to improve one’s
knowledge base aids development regardless of the theoretical perspective (Pintrich,
2002). Pintrich (2002) describes metacognitive knowledge as an awareness of one’s own
thinking and cognition. Metacognitive knowledge assumed cause shown in Table 17 was
not validated.
Across three data set, employees voiced their commitment and dedication to the
CDER’s goal, mission, and vision. As noted by one individual, employees believe in the
mission. The employee stated:
I enjoy my job because I feel it's rewarding. It helps others, and I believe the
mission. I definitely think it's important to reiterate and share the mission. Also,
how well we're doing at achieving our mission. It's good to get updates say, "Hey.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 82
We are making a difference. This is what our mission is, and our goals for the
year. This is how close, or this how far away we from achieving our goals."
Not only are employees driven and set on fulfilling the mission of CDER,
employees are committed to keeping up to date and goal driven within the department.
A summary of the all of the validated and not validated assumed knowledge
barriers by knowledge sub-area is presented in Table 17.
Table 17
Summary of Validated and Not Validated Assumed Knowledge Behavior by Knowledge
Sub-areas

Supervisor Behaviors Source(s) of Evidence
Validated or
Not Validated
Factual
Supervisors do not
communicate the
goal/mission/vision of the
organization

Not validated
Supervisors do not
communicate appropriate
policy and procedure
information to employees in
order to complete
performance goals

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated
Supervisors do not
communicate role
expectations
Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated

Supervisors do not
communicate to employees
how well they are
performing against
supervisor’s expectations

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis

Validated
Procedural
Supervisors do not explain to
employees how to contribute
feedback to inform
supervisor’s decision
Focus Group
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 83
Supervisors do not
communicate how to apply
the goal/mission/vision of
the organization

Supervisors do not
communicate how to apply
the organization’s policies
and procedures to complete
performance goals

Focus Group
Interview
Document Analysis
Not validated

Validated
Supervisors do not explain to
employees how to work
autonomously to complete
task
Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated
Conceptual
Supervisors do not facilitate
opportunities for employees
to provide insight (i.e.
feedback and suggestions)
and contribute to decision
making opportunities for
goal-setting

Supervisors do not
communicate to employees
the purpose of their job
Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated

Validated
Metacognitive
Supervisors do not
communicate to employees
the expectations for self-
evaluate or self-reflect
Not validated

Motivation Results
The three motivational types identified by Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda
(2011) were utilized in the categorization of the findings in this study. The three types of
motivational processes that impact the work environment are a) active choice; b)
persistence; and c) mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The validated
themes from the data and the motivational types are identified and discussed below.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 84
Active Choice
According to Clark and Estes (2008), active choice is the first type of
motivational process that influences the work environment and encompasses “when
people choose (or fail to choose) to actively pursue a work goal” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p.
80). A summary of the validated, assumed, active choice motivational barriers is
presented in Table 18.
Table 18
Summary of Validated Assumed Active Choice Motivation Behavior

Supervisor Behaviors Source(s) of Evidence Validated
Active Choice
Supervisors do not set goals
that are realistic and
achievable
Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated

The interview process allowed employees to describe their experience with setting
unrealistic goals. The data suggest that some employees do not set realistic goals because
supervisors do not clearly articulate expectations. In addition, some employees believe
they were assigned an unreasonable workload at CDER.
I think some people, you know, they burn out after a while. I mean, it is tough, it’s
hard to go at 110% all the time. They need the lulls, and when they don’t have the
lulls… I’m not a reviewer, per se, like everyone else is, but I know when they
have multiple applications that overlap. It’s really, incredibly stressful, and it
affects the work-life balance a lot. I know a couple of people that’s happened to,
and they’re more critical of accepting assignments now, that might overlap,
because of that, because they have been burned, in the past. Not that they’re not
motivated to do their job, but they would like to do their job very well, and it’s
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 85
hard when you have too much to do, and it’s literally too much to complete, in a
40 hour work week.
Some employees are overwhelmed by the amount of work supervisors take on.
During a focus group session, some employees stated that supervisors take on activities
that seem like a good idea with no regard to the impact on work capacity. Some
employees noted that supervisors set unreasonable time expectations especially when
“urgent” task are assigned at the last minute. Another employee in a different CDER unit
stressed:
The workload is more than I could do in a lifetime. The responsibility weighs
heavily on me, as I can’t predict the consequences of letting something slip.
An analysis of the documents gathered as a result of this study discovered a
consensus among CDER employees that motivation to do the work is not a barrier.
However, employees are adamant that supervisors do not provide clear direction and
explanation of expectations. Some employees feel that supervisors need to provide “more
structure and timelines,” training, feedback, and “real priorities” should not be derailed
for “administrative priorities.”
Persistence
The second element of the three motivational indexes under the KMO rubric,
persistence, refers to an individual’s ability to work towards completing a goal, even
when unable to avoid distraction, so as to allocate their time and energy to the most
important task at hand (Clark & Estes, 2008). A summary of the validated assumed
persistence motivational barriers is presented in Table 19.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 86
Table 19

Summary of Validated Assumed Persistence Motivation Behavior

Supervisors Behaviors Source(s) of Evidence Validated
Persistence
Supervisors do not put
policies and practices in
place that support a
work/life balance for
employees
Focus Group
Interview
Document Analysis

Validated

Supervisors play a critical role in fostering motivation in their employees through
guidance, training, and supportive behaviors. Supervisor behaviors that encourage a
work/life balance may contribute to improved employee satisfaction. However, many
CDER employees expressed their frustration with being overloaded with work and not
having “enough people to do the work.” The document analysis revealed that some
employees were disappointed with the current policies and practices in place to support a
work/life balance. For example, one employee posits that supervisors “need to know that
workload affects quality of life. We regularly work at night. It’s non-stop, 24/7.” Another
employee expressed a similar sentiment during the focus group observation: “Everyone
thinks their workload is over the top; it affects the quality of their work as well as the
quality of their life.” During the follow up interview, an employee noted, “There is work-
life balance opportunity, but sometimes it’s not available. Access. It does not seem to be
even across the board.”
Mental Effort
The third type of motivational process that comes into play in a work environment
is mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) note,
“choosing and persisting must be accompanied by adequate mental effort invested in key
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 87
work goals…Mental effort is determined, in large measure, by our confidence” (p. 81). A
summary of the validated assumed mental effort motivational barriers is presented in
Table 20.
Table 20
Summary of Validated Assumed Mental Effort Motivation Behavior

Supervisor Behaviors Source(s) of Evidence Validated
Mental Effort
Supervisors do not
encourage employees’
attempts to identify
strategies to problem-solve
and find solutions
Focus Group
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated

Employees are candid discussing the topic of problem-solving and personal
growth. The document analysis revealed that CDER supervisors do not stimulate and
acknowledge problem-solving attempts made by employees trying to find solutions to
various problems. Some employees noted that attempts to identify strategies to problem
solve are “ignored” and “shot down” during meetings. Employees are “afraid” or
“reluctant” to offer suggestions or bring up ideas during meetings. During an interview an
employee explained:
Here, it’s more of one where people are a little… they don’t like to necessarily
speak up to say things. People say it’s either going to go unheard or it’s going to
be spoken on deaf ears, or for fear of reprisal or fear of just being shunned by
other people…I've got a sense that if you don't necessarily just go with the flow or
if you tend to question things. It's not even about being innovative, because you
can be innovative but if you question a procedure that has been done for years or
process and you say, "Well how about we do this this way" as with any change
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 88
that someone's trying to bring about there's going to be difficulties. It's resistance
to the point where it makes you feel like you don't want to bring it up at all.
A summary of the validated and not validated assumed motivation barriers by
motivation sub-area is presented in Table 21.
Table 21
Summary of Validated and Not Validated Assumed Motivation Behavior by Motivation
Sub-areas

Supervisor Behaviors Source(s) of Evidence
Validated
Not Validated
Active Choice
Supervisors do not set goals
that are realistic and
achievable

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated
Persistence
Supervisors do not have the
confidence in the skills of
employees to complete
goals

Not validated
Supervisors do not put
policies and practices in
place that support a
work/life balance for
employees

Supervisors do not believe
in the team’s collective
efficacy (i.e. trust and
confidence to get the job
done)
Focus Group
Interview
Document Analysis

Validated

Not validated
Mental Effort
Supervisors do not
encourage and support
employees to put in extra
effort to solve more difficult
problems at work

Supervisors do not
encourage employees’

Focus Group
Interview
Not validated

Validated
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 89
attempts to identify
strategies to problem-solve
and find solutions
Document Analysis

Organizational Results
According to Clark & Estes (2008), organizational principles will “inevitably
filter and affect all attempts to improve performance, and successful performance
improvement will depend on taking specific organizational culture into account” (p. 103).
When policies, procedures, and resources are not aligned with the organization’s
performance goals, organizational barriers develop (Clark & Estes, 2008). A summary of
the validated assumed organizational barriers is presented in Table 22.
Table 22
Summary of Validated Assumed Organizational Behavior

Supervisor Behaviors Source(s) of Evidence Validated
Supervisor temperament is
unpredictable; they may or
may not be receptive to
ideas or feedback

System of monitoring
performance is limited or
non-existent (i.e. rewards,
recognition, and addressing
poor performance)

Interview
Document Analysis

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated

Validated
Limited resources to meet
performance expectations
and goals (i.e. staffing and
budget limitations,
professional development
opportunities, and hiring
process)
Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 90
Employees shared feelings of discontent and frustration because of the
supervisory methods employed to deal with poor performers. During an interview, one
employee noted:
I think if there are poor employees not being dealt with, it's because the supervisor,
one, doesn't know how to, because they haven't had enough supervisor training.
Two, to take action requires support of subsequent levels of management, and
that's not always there.
In another interview session, another employee stated:
Managers don't have the training; they don't have the proper training for dealing
with these type of employees, they really don't. You can also have a manager who
is very, very good with the technical aspects. Has the knowledge, has the
background, very good at making supervisory decisions and in meetings and
doing what they need to do, and directing the group, but does not have the ability
to ... is not very good with personnel issues.
The focus group sessions and document analysis data support the belief held by
employees that poor performers are not “dealt with” and high performers are not
“recognized.” One employee stated, “Supervisors mishandle poor performance because
they confuse performance process with the discipline process.” Employees are
discouraged by the process and procedures utilized to handle poor performers and feel
that poor performers get “moved up or around.” The following points were noted in the
document analysis: 1) poor performers are promoted; 2) poor performers continue to be
poor performers because supervisors will not “confront” and “deal with” them; 3)
inconsistencies exist in the monitoring of performance; 4) no one emphasizes the
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 91
importance of addressing poor performance as part of the job; 5) awards are subjective;
and, 6) there’s a lack of incentives and rewards to recognize good performance.
Dissatisfaction exists in reference to supervisor temperament, as well as negative
feelings about the annual performance evaluations at CDER. The result of the interviews
conducted revealed that certain units have high turnover rates because of aggressive and
threatening behaviors exhibited by supervisors. One employee stated, “I think the
breakdown does occur because it becomes an us against them type of feeling amongst the
employee and the supervisors or managers. It becomes us against them when we all
should be working towards the same thing because we are all working for the government.
None of us are really working for a manager.”
Employees feel that some managers do not possess the “people skills” or
“sensitivity skills” to supervise. The same employee further elaborated, “They don’t have
the managerial skills it takes to really manage people and you have to be a people person
when you’re in that position. You can’t be a manager and you’re not a people person.”
The focus groups and observations conducted revealed another theme, CDER
employees are confused and frustrated with the employee performance assessment
(commonly referred to as the PMAP) process and outcomes. There is a perception that a
quota --set number of high scores —can be given during the PMAP process. As noted by
an employee, “Only a few can get a 5.” Employees described the PMAP process as
inconsistent with little or no applicability of performance indicators to individual job
duties. Some employees were given the opportunity to further elaborate during the
interview. One employee stated:
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 92
The PMAP process is very frustrating because it's what the supervisor decides to
make it. If there's a supervisor who just wants to blow it off, they can, and
everybody suffers for it. If they really want to make it work and they can find the
time resources to do it, it can be very valuable and useful.
The document analysis data suggests that the PMAP should be more detailed, and
that “simply checking a box every year” does not provide employees with the
information they need to seek clarification or to improve performance. A summary of the
validated and not validated assumed organizational barriers is presented in Table 23.
Across the three data types, employees stressed the importance of supervisors
communicating with employees. The method utilized to effectively communicate
between supervisors and employees, from the employee’s perspective, are flawed. During
a focus group session, employees discussed the inconsistency of one-on-one meetings,
especially during the evaluative PMAP process, minimal opportunity to communicate
with supervisors, and policies and procedures changes not being communicated to
employees promptly result in editing and project delays.
When interviewed, an employee elaborated on the frequency of communication
by stating, “Employees have no direct contact with performance evaluators. I haven’t
spoken to my supervisor in 3-4 weeks. Hasn’t spoken to me about my work. No 1-1
contact.”
The document analysis revealed that employees are frustrated with CDER
supervisors because they (employees) are not getting the information needed to
accurately perform their jobs in a timely manner. A set of table notes from employees
mentioned that supervisors do not “check in” with employees.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 93
The research suggests that employee who receive appropriate performance
feedback, whether positive or negative, have better role clarity and understanding of the
goals and objectives that need to be met. All three data sets suggest that employees are
moving toward completing tasks despite not receiving appropriate and timely
performance feedback. One employee noted during an interview:
I don’t know if there’s a quota, there might not be a quota now, or maybe there
was in the past, I’m not sure. I’ve actually been told before, ‘You did great work,
but I can’t give everyone excellents,’ or, ‘I have to give you this.’ It’s like, ‘Okay,
I understand,’ but don’t tell me you can’t give everyone excellents, you should be
able to give everyone excellents, if they’re doing excellent work. If they’re not,
then you say, ‘Well, I’d like to, but, you really need to work on this a little bit
more,’ or, ‘I thought you need to do this too…’ It was never, in the past, it was
never, ‘If you just improved this area right here, you’ll really be on target,’ it was
never like that. It was just like, ‘Everything’s great, I’m really happy, Can’t give
you an excellent.’
During the focus group session with a different unit of CDER, some employee
noted that one-on-one meetings are inconsistent and limited. The document analysis
confirmed that employees are not receiving feedback in a timely and effective manner.
As stated by one employee, “We are always being reactive to the information (this is all
the way up the ladder).” In addition, employees believe that they are not getting all the
information needed including set criteria and processes for performance awards, raises,
and promotions.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 94
Lastly, employee expressed the importance of supervisors providing reward and
recognition to employees who go above and beyond the call of duty. Some employees
noted that limited resources exist leading to supervisors being tasked with finding
creative incentives and solutions to reward employees. However, employees noted that
the process of selecting employees to receive rewards and recognition was subjective and
biased. Some employee even noted that rewards and recognition were based on
“favoritism” and personal relationships. Employees discussed alternative strategies,
including individual recognition versus group recognition and the development of
policies and procedures to assist supervisors with the recognition and reward process.
The limited or lack of recognition and reward for employees appeared in multiple data
types, as such, employee recognition has been identified and addressed as a performance
gap.
Table 23
Summary of Validated and Not Validated Assumed Organizational Behavior

Supervisor Behaviors Source(s) of Evidence
Validated
Not Validated
Supervisors tolerate or
exhibit a lack of
professional behavior and
attitude towards others

Diversity is neither
recognized nor valued in the
workplace

Supervisor temperament is
unpredictable; they may or
may not be receptive to
ideas or feedback

The values of the supervisor
do not align with those of

Interview
Document Analysis

Not validated

Not validated

Validated

Not validated

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 95
the employee

System of monitoring
performance is limited or
non-existent (i.e. rewards,
recognition, and addressing
poor performance)

Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis

Validated
Limited resources to meet
performance expectations
and goals (i.e. staffing and
budget limitations,
professional development
opportunities, and hiring
process)
Focus Group Observation
Interview
Document Analysis
Validated

Synthesis of Findings
According to Merriam (2009), qualitative data tell a story about a phenomenon.
Data validation from the focus group sessions, interviews, and data analysis led to the
development of four major themes: (a) limited or dysfunctional communication practices
between employees and supervisors; (b) dissatisfaction with the performance assessment
and supervisor feedback process; (c) failure to address poor performers; and (d) limited,
non-existent, or inconsistent employee recognition. The literature on the knowledge,
motivation and organizational dimensions reinforced the importance of supervisory
practices and employee behaviors that contribute to and influence employee satisfaction.
On the one hand, evidence emerged showing employees at CDER are highly motivated,
value the mission of the organization, are a highly skilled workforce, go above and
beyond the call of duty to get the job done, are enthusiastic about their job, and fervent
about ensuring the safety of public health. On the other hand, the data revealed that
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 96
CDER employees are frustrated and disappointed by the thematic barriers previously
mentioned.
Organizational factors were the primary mechanism influencing employee job
satisfaction relative to supervision. The reoccurring organizational categories of
performance assessment and feedback, poor performers, and employee recognition set the
foundation for an unfavorable work environment. As previously mentioned, employees at
CDER were highly skilled and able to complete the work. However, some employees
were not getting the supervisory feedback or recognition vital to improving job
performance and employee satisfaction (Jaworski & Kohli, 1991). Employees were
discouraged by the PMAP evaluative and employee recognition process. Employees
referenced the need for more open, detailed, frequent, informal, and consistent feedback
and recognition by supervisors.
The next reoccurring organizational issue of supervisors failing to address poor
performers is a clear performance gap within the organization. Employees are
disheartened at the lack of policies and procedures and the inaction of supervisors to
address poor performers within CDER. Policies and procedures set the foundation for an
effective or ineffective work environment. Additionally, policies and procedures are
critical to the actualization of CDER’s goals and mission. Niemela and Kalliola (2007)
note that accountability of workers contributes to improved performance. However, some
CDER supervisors do not take corrective action and can’t “get rid” of poor performers.
The previously stated barriers align with multiple factors mentioned in the literature
review. The data show that supervision influences employee satisfaction in the workplace
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 97
and demonstrate that employees are weary of and disappointment with some of the
supervisory practices occurring at CDER.
It is important to note that the non-validation of certain behavior items may be a
result of the following: 1) the data collected were an accurate portrayal of the KMO
behaviors present or not present at CDER; or, 2) the existence of false negatives – we
may not have had the means to accurately capture data that could have validated these
items. Future studies could further assist with reviewing the non-validated items.
Summary
The results of this study shed light as to what knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors influence supervision from the perspective of employees within
CDER. The data acknowledged four performance gaps. The four performance gaps
identified were (1) supervisor communication, a knowledge and organizational factor, is
an important component of job satisfaction. Employees are cognizant of the fact that key
information is not be distributed within the organization in a timely and efficient manner
to efficiently and effectively get the job done, (2) performance assessments and
evaluative feedback, a knowledge, motivation, and organizational factor, need to be
reevaluated. Employees are aware of the inconsistencies across performance assessment
(informal or formal) implementation models. Employees recognize the inequality of
supervisor duties across the organization and feedback is dependent on the supervisor’s
time and workload. However, supervisor feedback is an essential component for an
employee who is actively seeking to improve work performance and to improve the
effectiveness of the organization, (3) failing to address poor performers, an organizational
factor, is an immense concern to employees. Employees are aware of the fact that poor
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 98
performance is not immediately addressed in a positive manner that is beneficial to
employees and the organization, and (4) proper employee recognition, an organizational
factor, similar to the other organizational factors, is dependent on the supervisor. Some
employees feel that recognition is inconsistent and biased throughout the department.
The subsequent chapter includes recommendations and an evaluation plan based
on this study’s findings.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 99
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS, AND EVALUATIONS
The purpose of this study was to examine the barriers to effective supervision
from the perspective of employees in a federal agency. This study was guided by the
following research questions:
1. From the perspective of employees, what knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors inhibit supervisory practices?
2. What are the recommended solutions that the federal agency could implement
to improve supervisory practices and employee satisfaction?
3. How might these recommendations be evaluated for effectiveness?
The results presented in Chapter Four focused on question one to explore the
assumed causes of performance gaps, the barriers to effective supervision, in the areas of
knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational culture in relation to effective
supervision. The second and third research questions were addressed in this chapter
through recommendations for practice, an implementation plan for the recommendations
presented, and a plan to evaluate the implemented recommendations. The chapter closes
with an assessment of the study’s limitations, delimitations, as well as, the prospective
areas for further inquiry into the issue of effective supervision.
Recommendations for Practice
The recommendations presented in Chapter Five focus on the behaviors validated
as issues. Strategies to address and solve the performance issues identified in Chapter
Four are subsequently presented using the related theories of learning from social science
literature and professional literature. The research literature and learning theories guide
the proposed knowledge, motivation, and organizational enhancements. The
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 100
recommendations below address the validated behavior issues from the perspective of
CDER employees.
Knowledge Enhancement
Enhancement: provide supervisors with policies and procedures training and
job role and responsibility information to increase awareness and accountability. As
noted in Chapter Two, clearly defined policies and procedures, roles, and expectations
are critical to employee satisfaction. The data gathered in this study support the
conclusion that “employees’ perceptions of organizational communication are directly
related to both their job satisfaction and job performance” (Pincus, 1986, p. 412). It is
recommended that new CDER supervisors be provided with on-site training to review
and clarify the organization’s policies and procedures recommended by CDER’s human
resources division.
It is recommended that the department conducts further research to determine if
and why supervisors are not providing pertinent job information. If further research
determines that supervisors are not providing information due to a potential knowledge
gap, on-site training should be scheduled and conducted for CDER supervisors which in
turn can assist both supervisors and employees with being kept up to date on new, revised,
or current policies and procedures at CDER. If a knowledge gap is not the issue and other
work is taking priority, CDER, as a department, should reassess what is important and
take the necessary steps to incentivize supervisors’ prioritizing providing this information
to employees. Likewise, the data analysis validated the issue that role expectations are
not clearly articulated to employees. As such, it is recommended that CDER supervisors
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 101
review their own job role and responsibility expectations. Training should be offered at
various points in supervisor’s career as duties, roles, and responsibilities adapt over time.
Enhancement: increase supervisor accessibility and visibility. The data
analysis validated and supports the importance of effective supervisor communication.
The data revealed that CDER employees would like formal and informal opportunities to
provide feedback, suggestions, and insight. It is recommended that CDER supervisors
allocate more time outside of the office embedded with their work team. Supervisors that
leave their office become more accessible and visible to the employees in the unit. The
increase in accessibility and visibility will assist the supervisor with becoming more
approachable and provide employees with multiple occasions for informal discussions.
The data addressing supervisory communication at CDER demonstrates the need
for open and frequent communication with CDER employees. Wheeless et al., (1984)
state, “supervisor receptivity involves flexibility and tolerance in listening to feedback, as
well as openness to input of ideas, opinions, suggestions, and innovations offered by
employees” (p. 223). In addition, a supervisor who is receptive to employee suggestions,
opinions, personal goals, and needs builds trust and creates “an emphatic sense of caring
and concern, important factors in the human-relations approach to understanding job
satisfaction” (Wheeless et al., 1984, p. 223).
Motivation Enhancement
Motivation is driven by the belief that everyone seeks out opportunities for
personal growth. Maslow (1954) believes that employees should be given the chance to
showcase their talent and to develop their professional capacity. Locke and Latham
(2004) support the notion that motivation is derived and influenced by internal factors
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 102
that “impel action and to external factors that can act as inducements to action.” Social
cognitive theory provides the best explanation of motivational behaviors (Bandura, 1961;
Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1986; Bandura, 1997; Bandura, 2001; Bandura & Locke, 2003).
The social cognitive theory is based upon the concept that individuals are resolute and
self-regulative of their motivation and actions.
Enhancement: provide CDER supervisors with confidence building
workshops focused on increasing efficacy. The results across all three data types
revealed that employees feel supervisors are overwhelmed by the amount of assignments
allocated to them. The data collected also determined that employees were aware of the
limited resources available to supervisors to decrease workload. However, employees
believe that despite the overwhelming amount of work, CDER supervisors should support
employees and facilitate a smooth process for assignment completion. Jaworski and
Kohli (1991) note that positive supervisory feedback “appears to have both an
informational and a motivational function.” Although positive supervisory feedback has a
motivational function, negative feedback, when delivered constructively and effectively
by a supervisor provides employees with an opportunity for growth. Task-specific
confidence is a key component of workplace motivation (Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes,
2008). As such, it is recommended that CDER supervisors be provided with timely,
appropriate, and clear positive and negative performance feedback to improve their
confidence, self-efficacy, and an increased commitment to performance goals.
Organization Enhancement
Enhancement: provide clear performance goals to increase productivity.
Locke and Latham (2006) suggest, “Goals are related to affect in that goals set the
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 103
primary standard for self-satisfaction with performance. High, or hard, goals are
motivating because they require one to attain more in order to be satisfied than do low,
or easy, goal” (p. 265). However, Locke (1976) notes that an employee’s interpretation
and assessment of their performance directly influences job satisfaction and goal
completion. Porter, Franklin, Swider, and Chien-Feng Yu (2015) suggest that goals
focused on improving learning and team performance prove most adaptive in work
settings. As such, CDER supervisors should be encouraged to set goals that increase
learning and team performance.
Enhancement: mitigate the lack of accountability for poor performers.
Given the profound gap revealed in the data, the poor performer is a serious
organizational problem for CDER. The poor performer is less productive, difficult to
manage, and sets a bad example for other employees (Daley, 2008). The data also
revealed that employees believe poor performers are promoted or transferred out instead
of being “dealt with” by CDER supervisors. Promoting or transferring a poor performer
may not be the best solution. CDER supervisors need to proactively work toward taking
steps to distinguish between employees with no skill and no motivation, employees with
no skill and high motivation, and employees with high skill and low motivation to
appropriately address the issue. Employees with no skill and no motivation should be
relieved of their duties and responsibilities. Highly motivated employees with limited or
no skills to complete the job should be rehabilitated by conducting training sessions to
address the lack of specific knowledge and skill sets. The development of working group
relationships for employees with high skill and no motivation may provide
accountability and have the potential to address reduced productivity. Daley (2008)
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 104
notes that management practices focused on building work group relationships include
self-management, team management, task forces, and participation management
establish the importance of adequately performing in the workplace. Bandura (1986)
notes that the pressure to follow through on a project is influenced by the commitment
one has to others.
Enhancement: re-evaluate performance assessment tool, process and procedures,
and provide CDER supervisors and employees with promotion criteria to increase
awareness.
It is recommended that CDER supervisors be given the opportunity to partner
with CDER’s human resources division. Employees acknowledge that supervisors are
hindered by the federal human resources policies and procedures. However, the data
revealed that supervisors are inconsistently and subjectively implementing the federal
human resources policies and procedures. It is recommended that CDER’s human
resources division conduct regular on-site training sessions to encourage supervisors, and
interested employees, to access current information. Supervisors should be held
accountable by CDER’s human resources division for following or not following federal
human resources policies and procedures.
There was a consensus among CDER employees that the annual performance
appraisals lacked transparency and were inconsistent, ineffective, unclear, and subjective.
The data also determined that employees desire more guidance from leadership. The
establishment of accountability measures to address the lack of follow through,
consistency, and transparency associated with the performance assessment tool
(otherwise known as the PMAP) should be assessed to implement the PMAP as intended
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 105
within CDER. In addition, it is recommended that CDER re-evaluate the process utilized
to assess employees. Methods employed by supervisors to assess employee performance
should be consistent, structured, open, and clearly defined. In addition, all CDER
employees (CDER supervisors included) should be well informed in regards to the
promotion criteria. It is recommended that CDER standardized the promotion process and
criteria to encourage transparency. CDER could develop and distribute signage across the
Silver Springs campus to inform all CDER employees, supervisors and senior
management included, about the promotion criteria and process.
Implementation Plan
The implementation plan integrates knowledge, motivation, and organization
solutions to prevent fragmentation. The proposed implementation plan is dependent on
CDER’s organizational structure and processes aligning with CDER’s organizational
goals. Additionally, the continual involvement of employees in the organization’s
improvement process is critical. As noted by Clark and Estes (2008), “Clear and candid
communication engenders trust and helps people adjust their performance to
accommodate unexpected events. Trust increases the spread of commitment to change
goals on all levels” (p. 118).
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006, p. 3) provide a practical template for an
implementation plan in ten specific steps. They are (1) Determining Needs, (2) Setting
Objectives, (3) Determining Subject Content, (4) Selecting Participants, (5) Determining
the Best Schedule, (6) Selecting the Appropriate Facilities, (7) Selecting Appropriate
Instructors, (8) Selecting and Preparing Audio-Visual Aids, (9) Coordinating the
Program, and (10) Evaluating the Program. The details of steps five through nine will be
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 106
determined by The Division of Learning and Organizational Development (DLOD)
within CDER’s Office of Executive Programs (OEP). Table 24, below, provides CDER
with a list of actionable items that may be used to enhance the organization's goal of
improving employee satisfaction. In addition, the recommended implementation plan
identifies whether or not an actionable item is a responsibility shared by supervisors and
employees.
Table 24

Recommended Implementation Plan

Actionable Suggested
Implementation
Time Frame
Enhancement KMO Shared
Responsibility
Collaboratively
review, redefine,
if necessary, and
set goals and
objectives.
Immediately Organization
Systemizing
O Yes

Posting goals to
the community
board, website,
social media, etc.
Immediately after
objectives are
identified
Organization
Systemizing
O No

Inform employees
of goals and
objectives of the
organization
Immediately and
1-2 months after
hire date for new
supervisors
Information O No

Develop and
distribute job
aids: Clearly
define job roles
and
responsibilities
and closed loop
communication
flowchart.
Immediately and
2-3 months after
hire date for new
supervisors
Job Aid K No

Demonstration - Immediately and Education K No
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 107
Role play and
simulations to
improve
adaptability and
flexibility.
after hire date for
new supervisors

Review, re-
evaluate, and, if
necessary, re-
conceptualize the
PMAP process.
1-3 months Organization
Systemizing
O Yes

Inform all
employees of
PMAP process.
Immediately after
PMAP process
redesign
Information O No

Provide training
to understand the
PMAP process to
assist in
improving the
effectiveness and
efficiency of the
implementation
of the PMAP
process.
Immediately and
after hire date for
new employees
and supervisors;
On-going training
to keep up to date
Education K Yes

Collaboration
between
supervisors and
employees to
communicating
the monitoring
system via email
and a community
board.
1-2 months Organization
Systemizing
O Yes

Provide training
to assist
supervisors with
appropriately
addressing
productive and
unproductive
behavior.
1-2 months; On-
going
Training K No

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 108
Build
transparency and
open dialogue:
Create an
anonymous
online forum for
employees to ask
any questions of
leadership
Immediately Organization
Systemizing
O Yes

Recognize
productive
autonomous
behavior
On-going Organization
Systemizing
O No

Identify and
appropriately
address (i.e.
individual
development
plan, training,
dismiss, etc.)
unproductive
behavior.

On-going Organization
Systemizing
O No
Accountability -
Leadership to
evaluate
supervisors to
determine if
actionable items
are being
implemented.
6-12 months; On-
going
Organization
Systemizing
O No

Set Goals and Objectives and Distribute Information and Job Aids About Job Roles
and Responsibilities.
Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011), recommend that management,
particularly senior leadership, prioritized reviewing and resetting organizational goals.
Employees should be encouraged to participate in the reviewing and resetting of CDER’s
organizational goals. Senior leadership should make establishing clear organizational
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 109
goals and objectives a priority. Reviewing goals and objectives with new and veteran
staff members, as well as, posting the goals on a community board in common areas
throughout CDER’s campus and the webpage will enable the information to be widely
distributed among CDER’s workforce. The data analysis suggests that there is a culture
of presumed knowing at CDER. For example, some supervisors assume that employees
are clear about their roles and responsibilities. However, the data suggest employee roles
and responsibilities are not clearly specified and articulated. Clark and Estes (2008),
recognize the importance of establishing “the connection between a compelling vision, a
sound business process to reach that goal, clear work goals accompanied by effective
work procedures, motivational support for everyone, and assessment of the results” as an
essential component of successful organizational change and meeting the goals of the
organization.
The development of organizational goals provides the baseline for satisfaction,
and greater satisfaction and efficacy are derived from the successful attainment of set
goals (Bandura, 2001; Locke & Latham, 2004).
Present Adaptability Strategies and Provide Guided Role-Playing Practice at
Designated CDER Meetings
Clark and Estes (2008) note that education is a critical component of closing the
“conceptual, theoretical and strategic knowledge” gaps (p. 59). The data determined that
employees are frustrated with the inability of supervisors to appropriately address poor
performers. For example, one employee stated, “I think if there are poor employees not
being dealt with, it’s because the supervisor, one, doesn’t know how to, because they
haven’t had enough supervisor training. Two, to take action requires the support of
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 110
subsequent levels of management, and that’s not always there.” Employees shared
examples of how supervisors inconsistently recognize high performers and struggle with
holding poor performers accountable. The inclination of a supervisor to hold an employee
accountable for poor performance is attributed to the culture of the organization.
Similarly, the organizational culture dictates whether a supervisor takes the necessary
steps to recognize and reward employees who excel on the job. CDER supervisors would
benefit from the development of adaptability strategies and guided role-playing
opportunities to address the identified performance gaps.
Redesign CDER’s PMAP Process: Include an Objective and Subjective Component
The success or failure of the assessment process is dependent on the role of the
supervisor (Pooyan & Eberhardt, 1989). The evaluation process relies on two factors: (1)
the technical component of the appraisal system and (2) the broader organizational and
managerial context. Ultimately, providing supervisors with training workshops will assist
with the aforementioned, as well as, contribute to minimizing rating errors and improving
objectivity (Latham, Wexley, & Pursell, 1975).
The PMAP was regularly mentioned as a barrier to effective supervision.
Employees were discontent with the PMAP process and frequently associated the PMAP
with supervisor subjectivity. The data analysis suggests that the most disgruntling
component of the PMAP process was supervisory feedback. Employees, across three data
types, mentioned that the PMAP did not provide appropriate and constructive feedback,
clear goals, and summarize employee role expectations. A structured training geared
towards reducing rating errors and minimizing negative and unproductive feedback is
recommended, and all supervisors should be encouraged to attend (Latham et al., 1975).
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 111
Aligning CDER’s Organizational Culture with CDER’s Organizational Policies and
Procedures as Applicable to Poorly Performing Employees
The data analysis validated that CDER employees are disappointment with the lack of
support and training of direct supervisors by CDER’s senior leadership and upper-level
management and the in-action of CDER’s supervisors in addressing poorly performing
employees. The data analysis also revealed that employees were aware of the fact that
CDER supervisors are hesitant and uncertain on how to appropriately address the issue
surrounding poor performers. In-action and lack of communication by supervisors leave
room for uncertainty and distrust of policies and procedures and create doubt about the
organization’s expectations and goals.
Ultimately, employee job satisfaction improves if they trust that their insights are
valued, and supervisor communication is frequent and transparent (Pincus, 2006). As
such, it is recommended that a system that supports two-way communication, without
fear of reprimand, be developed to boost consistent and continual communication
between employees and supervisors. It is also recommended that CDER’s senior
leadership and upper management create a method of communication that facilitates the
transfer of timely, consistent, and appropriate information that encourages employee,
across CDER units, to provide suggestions and feedback.
On-Going Actions: Employee Awards, Praise, and Recognition
Recognition and praise reinforce and encourage positive behaviors including
autonomy, goal setting, and self-regulation in the workplace. It is important for CDER
employees to be acknowledged by supervisors for demonstrating work ethic conducive to
CDER’s organizational values, philosophies, and goals. Bandura (2001) aptly notes that
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 112
positive emotions, such as satisfaction and a high sense of efficacy, support and expands
an employee’s drive, cooperativeness, commitment to work, and a vested interested in the
organization. Fostering a positive environment for employees will greatly benefit CDER
because happy employees are more likely to improve performance, organizational
outcomes, and increase work commitment.
Evaluation Plan
Clark and Estes (2008) assert that the evaluation process is the initial step in
determining the current state of the organization, the progress of efforts made to change,
and the bottom line impact of change on organizational goals. Clark and Estes (2008)
assert that the evaluative process is cost effective and “[i]s an absolutely necessary
component of all successful improvement efforts” (p. 139). For this study, the
performance evaluation framework developed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) is
utilized. The evaluation model has four stages of assessment:
1. Reaction
2. Learning
3. Behavior
4. Results
The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) four-level framework is recommended by
Clark and Estes (2008) as it supports the evaluation of all performance systems. In fact,
the Kirkpatrick basic four-level model is almost universally used when evaluating
organizational performance settings and solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes
(2008) and Rueda (2011) offer a minor variation to the four-level model utilized by
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) to support the evaluation of performance systems.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 113
Reactions and Motivation
The first stage of the four-level framework examines whether or not participants
are motivated by the program (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Simply stated, are the
implementations developed valued by participants? The distribution of an electronic
feedback form will allow DLOD to gauge and assess employee reaction to the changes
being implemented. The feedback form should include Likert scale and open-ended
questions that measure employee reaction to the implementation of the solution. The
feedback form will be an opportunity for CDER’s senior leadership, upper-level
management, and supervisors to encourage employee feedback and suggestions to create
and improve future implementation plans.
It is recommended that focus group sessions be created as another mechanism
DLOD can use to assess employee reaction and motivation. It is important to note that a
positive reaction does not determine if a participant has gain meaningful information. In
addition, the information gathered from participant reaction does not discern whether or
not an effective program will maintain the goals of the organization. Clark and Estes
(2008) and Rueda (2011) assert that the motivational impact on the participant,
throughout this level of the evaluation process, is the most valuable information.
Learning and Performance
The effect of all programs utilized during implementation is addressed during the
second stage of the evaluation framework. Case in point, “[i]f a knowledge gap is being
closed with a training program, this level examines the learning that takes place during
the training course” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 131). The second stage of the evaluation
process serves as an early alert system and will determine if performance improvement
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 114
programs focused on fostering motivation and organization change need rectifications or
redirection.
Transfer of Behavior
Keeping tabs on the impact of change programs during and after implementation
is important. The third stage of the evaluation model checks if supervisors still utilize and
apply change programs. Clark and Estes (2008) note, “[l]evel 3 evaluation checks to see
whether gains made during a program persisted after the program’s completion” (p. 135).
In addition, evaluating the impact of change programs after the implementation phase is
critical because the long term effect of organizational programs is often destructive.
To objectively assess behavioral changes, multiple sources of data are needed
(Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) emphatically state that all training programs are
susceptible to failure from the lack of transfer as of result of participants being
discouraged from using the newly acquired knowledge and skill. As such, DLOD would
benefit from conducting follow-up interviews at various points of the training programs
to determine the transfer of training programs. Participants should be asked to provide
job-related examples of how the knowledge and skill acquired in training are being
implemented to work towards completed an assignment or accomplishing a work task.
Results and Impact
The fourth stage of the evaluation model measures “the bottom line” and the
impact of changes on realizing organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 137). In
essence, the “[b]ottom line evaluation answers the question of whether the program made
any different to the business or other organizational goal achievement” (Clark & Estes,
2008, p. 137). The 2016 EVS results will determine if employee perception altered after
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 115
carrying out the implementation plan. Exploring employee turnover would provide
another data point for analysis to determine if employee satisfaction improved or
decreased within CDER. Lastly, a follow-up focus group should center on gathering
additional data on evaluation and change programs from the perspective of CDER
employees.
Limitations
This project was constrained by several limitations in relation to the EVS as the
primary tool for the project. The reliability of data collected during focus group
observations, follow-up interviews, and document analysis was dependent on the
willingness of participants to be candor and open. According to Merriam (2009), the
consideration of probable quandaries is important when the main tool of data collection is
the researcher. As a precaution against validity and credibility threats, investigators were
systematic and exhaustive in their inquiry within the focus group sessions. Additional
precautionary measures were implemented to maintain ethical boundaries in this project.
The approved IRB application and standards were followed by the researchers.
In addition, issues stemming from the sampling process and sample size were not
developed or constructed by the researchers. The EVS was not developed to evaluate the
impact of effective supervision on employment satisfaction, the crucial point of this
project. Moreover, the wording of certain survey items was ambiguous when coding for
knowledge, motivation, or organization. In addition, the lack of question variety limited
the strength of the instrument as a data collection tool. For example, only three of the
survey item questions addressed issues of knowledge and skill.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 116
Additional limitations to this study included potential issues arising from the
researcher being the main instrument used for the collection of data (Merriam, 2009).
However, precautionary measures were witnessed during the course of the project. The
researcher primary goal was to maintain the validity and credibility of the study by
utilizing and implementing stringent analysis within the confines of the observable
setting. The researcher act in accordance with the IRB approved application and
standards. Lastly, the purpose of this project was to examine the effect of supervision on
employee satisfaction. While multiple stakeholders exist within CDER, the primary
stakeholder group consists of employees. This study provided a comprehensive analysis
of employees of a federal agency.
Delimitations
The generalizability of the project was a constraint because several delimitations
exist. First, employee education at CDER was relatively high in relation to most
government units due to the level of scientific and medical expertise required to perform
the duties and responsibilities of various jobs within the organization. Employee
education level, as a data skew, was not investigated to determine if the results and
recommendations of this study were transferable to other federal government agencies.
It is important to note that although multiple government agencies are
participating in the EVS, this study and the larger project was conducted on and
constraint by a limited amount of offices within a single sub-level of a federal agency.
Finally, three data sources were utilized in this study: (a) observation; (b)
interviews, and (c) document analysis. The dependability of the data relied upon the
candidness and honesty of the participants and their willingness to answer the
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 117
researcher’s questions. The foremost delimitation of this study is that other employees
within CDER, other federal agencies, and public organizations may benefit from
potential findings of barriers to supervisory practices in relation to employee satisfaction.
Furthermore, other federal agencies and public institutions may further benefit from
identifying barriers to supervisory practices revealed in this study of CDER. Merriam
(2009) asserts that, “It is the reader, not the researcher, who determines what can apply to
his or her context” (p. 51).
Recommendations for Further Inquiry
The employee education level within CDER is relatively high when compared to
other agency within the federal government. CDER employees at various levels of
education may have a different insight, perspective, feedback, and viewpoint about the
organization. Therefore, future studies examining job satisfaction at other agency within
the federal government with limited or no exposure to post-secondary education is
recommended. In addition, research investigating the relationship between employee
educational attainment and job satisfaction would add to the expanding literature
exploring the relationship between job satisfaction and employee educational attainment.
Additionally, research examining supervision is strengthened when regarded from
an interdisciplinary lens. The pedagogy used to guide and facilitate training programs
across professional disciplines is unique. Supervision and preparing employees to be
professionals across disciplines is fundamental to most occupations, including education,
law, medicine, and science. There, expanding the body of research in relation to
supervision and organizational management is significant to the overall well-being of
employee across professions.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 118
Further inquiry into the impact of job engagement is recommended. Job
engagement focuses on present involvement, whereas job satisfaction emphasizes
feelings and employee perception (Lauring & Selmer, 2015; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford,
2013). According to Rich et al. (2013), job engagement is an alternative theoretical
framework that sets the foundation for examining an individual’s reaction to the
simultaneous utilization of cognitive, emotional, and physical energy.
Finally, both the state and federal laws constrict the many supervisory practices,
qualifications, and conditions under which supervision emerges. Professionals and
organizations across disciplines, including science, education, medicine, and law, are
regulated by accrediting, licensing, regulatory boards, and credentialing groups. Thus,
further research investigating the connection between law and the practice of supervision
would serve as a valuable resource and provide insight to various professionals and the
organizations and communities they are committed to serving.
Conclusion
This study examined the barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of
CDER employees. This study utilized the EVS to investigate CDER, a unit within a
federal agency, which has a higher than average employee satisfaction score when
compared to other agencies within the Federal Government. Clark and Estes’ (2008)
analyzes performance issues through the domain of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational culture using the gap analysis framework. The gap analysis framework
was utilized to validate supervisory behaviors previously identified in social science
professional literature.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 119
Data collection and the gathering of evidence were conducted through focus
group observations, confidential follow-up interviews with individual employees, and
document analysis. The data were examined in an attempt to identify supervisor
behaviors, from the employee’s perspective, using the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational culture rubric. A total of 23 supervisor behaviors were identified, with 14
employee behaviors validated and nine behaviors were not validated.
The most profound finding of this study revealed a shared belief among
employees that supervisors do not appropriately address poor performers. In addition,
employees were not satisfied with the performance appraisal utilized in this federal
agency and attributed the PMAP as a barrier to effective supervision. Employees also
identified organizational weaknesses in the areas of employee recognition and feedback.
Recommendations were presented to address the largest validated performance gaps
revealed in this study. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level evaluation model
was used in this study as a suggested mechanism to assess the effectiveness of the
recommendations presented. All public service organizations eager to learn about the
implications of knowledge, motivation, and organizational practices can apply the
findings generated from this study to significantly improve job satisfaction through the
implementation and facilitation of effective and efficient supervisory practices.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 120
REFERENCES
Alhassan, M., Ghazali, Z., & Isha, A. (2014). Role of organizational culture,
organizational communication and temperament in the choice of conflict
management styles among plant turnaround maintenance employees in
PETRONAS petro-chemical companies in Malaysia: A conceptual framework.
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 6(4), 262-
270.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010).
How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E.,
Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for
learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational
objectives. New York, NY: Pearson.
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. (2001). Confirmation and extension of the sources of
feedback scale in service-based organizations. Journal of Business
Communication, 38(2), 206-226.
Bandura, A., & Huston, A. C. (1961). Identification as a process of incidental
learning. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 311-318.
doi:10.1037/h0040351
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 121
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive process through perceived self-efficacy.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (3
rd
ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Birasnav, M., Rangnekar, S., & Dalpati, A. (2009). Transformational leadership and
human capital benefits: the role of knowledge management. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 32(2), 106-126.
Blonski, K., & Jefmanski, B. (2013). Determination of satisfaction of the employees of
local government units. Economic & Sociology, 6, 158-172.
Brown, W., & Yoshioka, C. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in
employee retention. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(1), 5-18.
Buchanan, D., & Huczynski, A. (2004). Organizational Behavior: An Introductory Text.
5
th
Edition. Essex. Pearson Education Limited.
Bukowitz, W. R., Williams, R. L., & MacTas, E. S. (2004). Human capital measurement.
Research-Technology Management, 47(3), 43-49.
Carey, A. (1967). The Hawthorne studies: A radical criticism. American Sociological
Review, 32(3), 403-416.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 122
Clark, R. E., Howard, K., & Early, S. (2006). Motivational challenges experienced in
highly complex learning environments. In Elen, J. and Clark, R. E. (Eds.).
Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and Theory. Oxford, G.
B.: Elsevier Science Ltd, 27-43.
Clifton, D. O., Hollingsworth, F. L., & Hall, W. E. (1952). A projective technique for
measuring positive and negative attitudes towards people in a real-life situation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 43(5), 273-283. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0055812
Cushman, D. P., & Craig, R. T. (1976). Communication systems: Interpersonal
implications. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Exploration in interpersonal communication
(pp. 37-58). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Daley, D. (2008). The burden of dealing with poor performers: Wear and tear on
supervisory organizational engagement. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 28(1), 44-59.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Ellinger, A., Ellinger, A., & Keller, S. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior, employee
satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the
distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435-458.
FDA (2013). FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER): Strategic plan
2013-2017. Retrieved from
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProdu
ctsandTobacco/CDER/UCM376545.pdf
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 123
Feldman, D. (2000). The Dilbert syndrome: How employee cynicism about ineffective
management is changing the nature of careers in organizations. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 44(8), 1286 – 1300.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36 (1), 45-56.
Gallup, G. H., & Hill, E. (1960). The secrets of long life. Geis Associates.
Gallup, G. H. (1976). Human needs and satisfactions a global survey. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 40(4), 459-467.
Gallup International Research Institutes, & Charles F. Kettering Foundation. (1977).

Human needs and satisfactions: a global survey: summary volume.

Gilbreth, F. B. (1912). Primer of scientific management. New York, NY: D. Van
Nostrand Company.
Gillet, N., Gagne, M., Sauvagere, S., & Fouquereau, E. (2013). The role of supervisor
autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled
motivation in predicting employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(4), 450-460.
Goris, J. R. (2007). Effects of satisfaction with communication on the relationship
between individual-job congruence and job performance/satisfaction. Journal of
Management Development, 25(8), 737-752.
Gregory, K. (2009). The importance of employee satisfaction. The Journal of the
Division of Business & Information. Retrieved March 5, 2014
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 124
Griffin, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West, M. A. (2001). Job Satisfaction and Teamwork:
The Role of Supervisor Support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 537-
550. doi: 10.1002/job.101
Hackman, J. R., & Porter, L. W. (1968). Expectancy theory predictions of work
effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3(4), 417-426.
doi:10.1016/0030-5073(68)90018-4
Harrison, D., Price, K., & Bell, M. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the
effects of surface and deep level diversity on work group cohesion. The Academy
of Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. w. (2012). Q12 Meta-analysis.
Washington, D.C.: Gallup, Inc.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job attitude:
Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh
Hobman, E., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2003). Consequences of feeling dissimilar from
others in a work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3), 301-325.
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and
retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a
venture into the future. The Academy of Management Annuals, 2, 231-274.
Hoppock, R., & National Occupational Conference (U.S.). (1935). Job
satisfaction. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Hsieh, T. (2010). Delivering happiness: A path to profits, passion, and purpose. Business
Plus.
Jaksic, M., & Jaksic, M. (2013). Performance management and employee satisfaction.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 125
Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 9, 85-92.
Jaworski, B., & Kohli, A. (1991). Supervisory feedback: Alterative types and their impact
on salespeople’s performance and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 28,
190-201.
Johlke, M., & Duhan, D. (2000). Supervisor communication practices and service
employee job outcome. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 154-165.
Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003). The interactive effect of
leader member exchange and communication frequency on performance
ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 764-772. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.4.764
Kamensky, J. (1998a). Federal employees speak out: Employee survey results (full
report). Washington, D.C.: National Partnership for Reinventing Government.
Retrieved July 11, 2015, from
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/misc/survey-full.html
Kasekende, F., Byarugaba, K. J., & Nakate, M. (2013). Employee satisfaction: Mediator
of organizational service orientation and employee retention. Journal of Business
and Management, 19, 41-61.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231-241.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2007). Implementing the four levels: A practical
guide for effective evaluation of training programs. San Francisco, CA: Berrrett-
Koehler Publishers.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 126
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kuvaas, B. (2008). A test of hypotheses derived from self-determination theory among
public sector employees. Employee Relations, 31(1), 39-56.
Landry, G., & Vandenberghe, C. (2009). Role of commitment to the supervisor, leader-
member exchange, and supervisor-based self-esteem in employee-supervisor
conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(1), 5-27.
Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N., & Pursell, E. D. (1975). Training managers to minimize
rating errors in the observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5),
550.
Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. (2015). Job engagement and work outcomes in a cognitively
demanding context. Personnel Review, 44, 629-647.
Lavigna, B. (2012). Commentary on pulling the levers: Transformational leadership,
public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review,
72(2), 216-217.
Lawler III, E. E., & Suttle, J. L. (1973). Expectancy theory and job behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9(3), 482-503.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4(4), 309-336. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature of causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally,
1297-1349.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 127
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current
directions in psychological science, 15, 265-268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2006.00449.x
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external
leadership of self- managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1),
106-129. doi:10.2307/2392745
Mardanoz, I., Sterrett, J., & Baker, J. (2007). Satisfaction with supervision and member
job satisfaction in leader-member exchange: An empirical study in restaurant
industry. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 12(3).
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality (1st ed.). New York: Harper.
Mayo, E. (1930). The Hawthorne Experiment. The Human Factor.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: The
Macmillan Company.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Muldoon, J. (2012). The Hawthorne legacy: A reassessment of the impact of the
Hawthorne studies on management scholarship, 1930-1958. Journal of
Management History, 18, 105-119. doi:10.1108/17511341211188682
Mullins, L. (2005). Management and Organizational Behaviour. 7
th
Edition. Essex.
Pearson Education Limited.
Office of Personnel Management. (2015). 2014 Federal employee viewpoint survey:
Employees influencing change. Retrieved from
http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2014/Reports/
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 128
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders,
susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18,
176-194.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 667-686.
Paterson, T., Luthans, F., & Jeung, W. (2014). Thriving at work: Impact of psychological
capital and supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 434-446.
Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R., & Vaught, B. C. (1997). An examination of organizational
communication as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and
job satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 81-98.
Pooyan, A., & Eberhardt, B. J. (1989). Correlates of performance appraisal satisfaction
among supervisory and nonsupervisory employees. Journal of Business
Research, 19, 215 226. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(89)90020-9.
Porter, H., Wrench, J., & Hoskinson, C. (2007). The influence of supervisor temperament
on subordinate job satisfaction and perceptions of supervisor sociocommunicative
orientation and approachability. Communication Quarterly, 55(1), 129-153.
Požega, Ž., & Crnković, B. (2008). Impact of human capital on GNP level. South East

European Journal of Economics and Business, 3(1), 15-21. doi:10.2478/v10033-

008-0002-z

Pugh, D. (1997). Organization Theory. 4
th
Edition. London. Penguin Books Limited.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 129
Rahim, M.A. (2001). Managing Organizational Conflict. Challenges for Organization
Development and Change. In R.T. Golembiewski (ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Behavior (2nd rev. ed., pp. 365-387). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Rajesh, J., & Suganthi, L. (2013). The satisfaction of teachers with their supervisors’
interpersonal communication skills in relation to job burn-out and growth
satisfaction in southern India. Management in Education, 27(4), 128-137.
Rizwan, M., & Mukhtar, A. (2014). Preceding to employee satisfaction and turnover
intention. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 4(3), 1-13.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Schien, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualizations of the
relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. The
Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 50-68.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and
impression. Communication Education, 32, 323-329.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1981). Self-monitoring and relational competence.
Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Anaheim,
CA.

Taggar, S. & Seijts, G. H. (2003). Leader and staff role-efficacy as antecedents of
collective-efficacy and team performance. Human Performance, 16, 131-156.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 130
and Brothers Publishers.
Toor, S., & Ogunlana, S. (2009). “Ineffective leadership:” Investigating the negative
attributes of leaders and organizational neutralizers. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 16(3), 254-272.
Ullah, I., Usman, M., Niazi, A., Farooq, M., Afzal, W., & Khan, M. (2012). Being
dissimilar: Religious dissimilarity, gender dissimilarity, value dissimilarity and
job satisfaction. Information Management and Business Review, 4(2), 56-63.
United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Number of jobs
held, labor market activity, and earnings growth among the youngest baby
boomers: Results from a longitudinal survey [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf
United States Office of Personnel Management Planning and Policy Analysis. (2014).
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results: Technical Report. Washington,
D.C.: United States Office of Personnel Management Retrieved from
http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2014FILES/2014_OPM_Tech_Report.pdf.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh:

University of Pittsburgh Press.

Wan, H. (2007). Human capital development policies: enhancing employees’ satisfaction.

Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(4), 297-322.

Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., & Howard, R. D. (1984). The relationships of
communication with supervisor and decision participation to employee job
satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 32(3), 222-232.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 131
Wright, P., & McMahan, G. (2011). Exploring human capital: putting human back into
strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Journal,
21(2), 93-104.
Yoon, J., & Thye, S. (2000). Supervisor support in the work place: Legitimacy and
positive affectivity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 295-316.
Yuan, T. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees.
Public Personnel Management, 26(3), 313-334.
Zahoor, S., Rafiq, S., Zia, A., & Rizwan, M. (2014). Decoding the DNA of employee job
satisfaction. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 4, 122-146.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 132
Appendix A

Observation Protocol

EVS Employee Workshop—Employee Satisfaction
Date:__________________
Location:______________________________
Time start: _____________
Time end:______________
Researcher:_____________
Male/female Years at
FDA/CDER
Unit Employee/supervisor
or senior mgr

General Information
Number of total participants:______________
Number invited:________________________
Number of no-shows:____________________
Number of senior leaders:_________________
Number of supervisors/ middle managers:____
Number of employees (non-supervisor):_______________
Diagram of room:
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 133

Interior observations:
Room conditions:_______________________
Lighting:______________________________
Temperature:___________________________
Food/ drink:____________________________
Notes:_________________________________

Comments about assumed causes: (EXPAND AS NEEDED)
KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS:

MOTIVATION:

ORGANIZATIONAL BARRIERS:
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 134
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Data Collection Method: Interview Protocol and Questions

Introduction
 Thank you for meeting with me. I’m a doctoral student at USC and I’m here
to help CDER understand more about its FEVS findings. I’m interested in
different stakeholder perspectives (such as employees or supervisors) about
how the quality of supervision and teamwork experienced influence people’s
satisfaction with their jobs.
 I’m interested from your experience in your office, and I hope to be able to
use what I learn from you today to help CDER refine its action plan around
employee satisfaction.
 Anything you tell me will remain anonymous. I will not attribute anything
you say to you either by name or job category.
 You may chose to skill any question and you may end this interview at any
time.
 The total time should take no longer than 30 minutes.
 What questions do you have for me before we begin?

Do you mind if I record our interview? I will destroy the recording once I’ve finished my
report.
NO, DO NOT RECORD YES, OK TO RECORD

NOTE WHICH STAKEHOLDER GROUP THIS PERSON REPRESENTS:
SENIOR MGMT SUPERVISOR EMPLOYEE

#1 It looks like the group from today came up some possible causes or issues related to
supervision that are contributing to employee satisfaction (LIST THEM) either
positively or negatively. How confident are you that the group has surfaced all the right
causes? Anything you would add or take off?
#2 IF NOT ALL THE RESEARCH-BASED CAUSES HAVE SURFACED, ASK THIS:
Some research suggests that an additional reason, related to supervision and job
satisfaction, could be (INSERT HERE). How does that apply if at all to your
experience here?
#3 Your group came up with some possible causes related to teamwork that might be
contributing to employee satisfaction (LIST THEM) either positively or negatively.
How confident are you that the group has surfaced all the right causes? Anything you
would add or take off?
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 135
#4 IF NOT ALL THE RESEARCH-BASED CAUSES HAVE SURFACED, ASK THIS:
Some research suggests that an additional reason, related to teamwork and job
satisfaction, could be (INSERT HERE). How does that apply if at all to your
experience here?
#5 Your group also came up with some action items in response to the scores. How
confident are you that if you completed these plans, employee satisfaction would
improve? How confident are you that the group will successfully complete the plans?
#6 Thinking about these action plans, some common reasons why groups don’t follow
through are related to motivation – meaning they don’t think it’s important. To what
extent is this a concern, in your opinion?
#7 Sometimes groups don’t follow through because of skill – they don’t know what to do.
To what extent is this a concern, in your opinion?
#8 Sometimes groups don’t follow through because organizational barriers get in the way
– red tape. To what extent is this a concern, in your opinion?
#9 Generally, what would you say are the most important factors influencing employee
satisfaction, either positively or negatively, at CDER?

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 136
Appendix C
Focus Group Worksheet

Bottom 10 OND Results for 2014

What about these items are most important, and why?
Select 2-3 items to outline below.

What do you think causes or contributes to these results?
Expand on the 2-3 items selected above.

2014 EVS Staff Forum
June 3, 2015
Office of New Drugs
Data source: Staff Team Leads Supervisors

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination using the gap analysis framework of employees’ perceptions of promising practices supporting teamwork in a federal agency

PDF

An examination of the facilitators of and barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of supervisors in a federal agency using the gap analysis framework

PDF

An examination of supervisors’ perspectives of teamwork in a federal agency: promising practices and challenges using a gap analysis framework

PDF

A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Kailuana National Park

PDF

A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Wailele

PDF

Gap analysis of employee satisfaction at a national park: Round Hill Park

PDF

A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Casa Linda National Park

PDF

A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Picturesque Park

PDF

A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Camp Moxie site

PDF

An examination of employee perceptions regarding teamwork in the workplace within a division of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using the gap analysis approach

PDF

A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the national parks: Anuenue National Park

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis

PDF

A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study

PDF

Examining the adoption of electronic health records system in patient care and students’ education using the GAP analysis approach

PDF

Developing the next generation of organization leaders: a gap analysis

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework

PDF

Increasing engagement and avoiding burnout of counselors of at-promise youth: a gap analysis approach for supervisors

PDF

Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model

Asset Metadata

Creator Nakahashi, Christy Kuulei (author)

Core Title An examination of barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of employees within a federal agency using the GAP analysis framework

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/08/2017

Defense Date 12/23/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag employee satisfaction,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,Supervision

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora (committee chair), Hanson, Katherine (committee member), Yates, Kenneth (committee member)

Creator Email cknakahashi@gmail.com,lessary@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-347220

Unique identifier UC11257916

Identifier etd-NakahashiC-5129.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-347220 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NakahashiC-5129.pdf

Dmrecord 347220

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Nakahashi, Christy Kuulei

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA