University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY 1

AN EXAMINATION USING THE GAP ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK OF EMPLOYEES’
PERCEPTIONS OF PROMISING PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A
FEDERAL AGENCY

by

Kristin R. Muramoto

________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation 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 2016

Copyright 2016 Kristin R. Muramoto

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Melora Sundt. I appreciate the
numerous hours that you spent reading my drafts and providing feedback. In addition, I am
grateful to my committee members, Dr. Kenneth Yates and Dr. Kathy Hanson, for providing
guidance and a memorable experience during this process.
To my dissertation group and cohort, mahalo nui loa for the support and encouragement!
Three years flew by. It was a time consuming, yet fulfilling experience that provided me with a
new outlook and perspective. The countless hours spent sitting at a computer and in class were
worth it.
Lastly, I sincerely thank my family and friends for supporting me throughout my Ed.D
journey. Thank you for your patience and understanding as I prioritized school. I am grateful for
all the help that I received especially from my family. Words cannot express the extent of my
gratitude. I could not have accomplished this feat without you!

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 7
Organizational Context and Mission 8
Organizational Performance Status 9
Importance of a Promising Practice Study 9
Stakeholder for Study 10
Purpose of the Project and Questions 10
Methodological Framework 11
Definitions 11
Organization of the Dissertation 12
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 13
Historical Overview of Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction 13
Factors Influencing Effective Teamwork 23
Influences on Teamwork from an Educational Psychology Perspective 27
Summary 31
Chapter 3: Methodology 35
Purpose of the Project and Questions 35
Methodological Framework 35
Figure. Gap analysis process: Promising practices 36
Assumed Performance Assets 37
Validation of the Performance Assets 43
Participating Stakeholders 56
Project Design 57
Data Collection 58
Trustworthiness of Data 61
Data Analysis 62
Chapter 4: Results and Findings 64
Knowledge Results 66
Motivation Results 73
Organizational Results 78
Synthesis of Findings 82
Summary 84

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

4
Chapter 5: Enhancements, Implementation and Evaluation 87
Recommendations for Practice 87
Implementation Plan 99
Evaluation Plan 105
Limitations and Delimitations 108
Recommendation for Further Inquiry 109
Conclusion 110
References 112
Appendices 122
Appendix A: Focus Group Worksheet 122
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 124
Appendix C: Observation Protocol 126
Appendix D: FDA-CDER Coding Scheme 129

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Factors Contributing to Employee Satisfaction 20
Table 2. Factors Impacting Effective Teamwork from the Business Literature 26
Table 3. Summary of Promising Teamwork Practices for Employees: A Knowledge, 33
Motivation, and Organizational Framework
Table 4. Summary of Assumed Assets for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational 41
Issues
Table 5. Summary of Assumed Knowledge Assets and Validation 45
Table 6. Summary of Assumed Motivation Assets and Validation 48
Table 7. Summary of Assumed Organizational/Culture/Context Assets and Validation 51
Table 8. Summary of Assets Validated and Methods Utilized 54
Table 9. Design of the Larger Project 58
Table 10. Validated Promising Teamwork Practices for Employees: A Knowledge, 85
Motivation and Organizational Framework
Table 11. Recommended Knowledge Solutions 94
Table 12. Recommended Motivation Solutions 96
Table 13. Recommended Organizational Culture Solutions 99
Table 14. Recommended Implementation Plan 101

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

6
ABSTRACT
This case study investigated employee satisfaction at the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER), a center within the Federal Drug Administration. The purpose was to
understand the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors of teamwork that influenced
employee satisfaction from the perspective of employees. Clark and Estes’ gap analysis model
guided this study, and was adapted to uncover promising practices of teamwork relative to
employee satisfaction. The sample consisted of employees from six offices at CDER. A review
of the literature and the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) results provided assumed
causes that were validated through the triangulation of qualitative data collected from
observations, interviews, and document analysis. Findings revealed the validation of ten
promising practices resulting from four knowledge elements, two motivation factors and three
organizational practices based on a continuum of evidence with team orientation, leadership and
autonomy boasting strongest validation. Recommendations of teamwork-related practices that
enhance employee satisfaction supported by the literature are provided. Recommended
teamwork enhancements range from informational job aids that detail roles and responsibilities
to simulations and systemizing organizational practices. Furthermore, a tailored implementation
and evaluation plan articulates CDER’s next steps to build on a culture that already demonstrates
high employee job satisfaction. Jobs satisfaction is important to organizational success because it
increases retention, motivation and performance. Further examination of the nuances of effective
teamwork, to better understand the influence of knowledge, motivation and organizational
dimensions on employee job satisfaction, is recommended.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

7
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Human capital is key to organizational success, yet retaining high-quality employees is
difficult. An estimated 30-40% of the employee market turns over annually (Holtom, Mitchell,
Lee, & Eberly, 2008). Turnover is costly and detrimental to an organization’s functioning and
performance (Holtom et al., 2008). Organizations annually expend an estimated 20% of a
worker’s salary to recruit, replace, and train a departed employee (Boushey & Glynn, 2012;
Merhar, 2013). Moreover, time and loss of productivity are unquantifiable expenses of attrition
(Bersin, 2013; Merhar, 2013). A key factor in preventing employee turnover is job satisfaction.
Employee satisfaction is a positive emotional response to one’s job (Locke, 1976). The benefits
of employee satisfaction are well-established. Job satisfaction impacts employee behavior in the
workplace and organizational culture (Jaksic & Jaksic, 2013). High job satisfaction improves
productivity, retention rates, and workers’ dispositions (Jaksic & Jaksic, 2013; Kasekende,
Byarugaba, & Nakate, 2013; Zahoor, Rafiq, Zia, & Rizwan, 2014). Moreover, employee
satisfaction is correlated with relationships between peers and superiors, and attitudes towards
the organization (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013). Employees who are happy with their work are
more likely to have increased “motivation, job involvement, organizational citizenship and job
performance” (Mafini & Pooe, 2013, p. 3).
As employees often work as teams in organizations, a key factor in job satisfaction is
teamwork. Research suggests that effective teamwork positively impacts employee satisfaction
(Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). Teamwork involves
interdependent group members working, with a shared onus, towards a common goal (Manzoor,
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

8
Ullah, Hussain, & Ahmad, 2011). Teams collectively or collaboratively accomplish tasks.
Because teamwork impacts job satisfaction, understanding promising practices of teamwork can
improve job satisfaction. Thus, this study focused on teamwork-based promising practices of a
discrete unit in the Federal Government that lead to increased job satisfaction.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is a federal center located in
Silver Spring, Maryland. CDER is under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a subset of
the Department of Health and Human Services. CDER works in conjunction with other federal
agencies and foreign regulatory authorities in an effort to regulate the biopharmaceutical industry
on behalf of patients and consumers (U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2013). Hence,
majority of the workforce in CDER has a background in science. According to CDER’s Strategic
Plan 2013-2017, three goals guide the organization’s mission:
• “Promote public health by helping to ensure the availability of safe and effective
drugs.
• Protect public health by promoting the safe use of marketed drugs.
• Protect public health by helping to ensure the quality and integrity of marketed drug
products” (FDA, 2013, p. 3).
CDER emerged as a result of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. Although not initially
called by its present name, the one-man operation evolved over the last 99 years into a prominent
public health organization (FDA, n.d.). Today, CDER provides oversight to the American drug
market. In particular, CDER supervises the development of new drugs and reviews the benefits
and risk of each drug before it goes on the market. CDER also continuously monitors each drug
for safety and appropriate promotion. Lastly, CDER regulates the manufacturing and quality of
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

9
each drug (FDA, 2013). Consequently, CDER is a federal organization that works to ensure the
safety and well-being of the public.
Organizational Performance Status
The Federal Government employs millions of people (Sa, Burns, & Sullivan, 2014). As
one of the nation’s largest employers, the Federal Government is deeply concerned with
employee satisfaction and human capital (Sa et al., 2014). Every year, the government
administers the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) to workers to gauge employee
satisfaction. The EVS examines four areas: (a) employee engagement; (b) global satisfaction; (c)
inclusion; and (d) human capital assessment and accountability (U.S. Office of Personal
Management [OPM], 2014). The compilation of EVS data reports overall job satisfaction levels
for federal agencies, sub-agencies, and offices.
As a federal center under the direction of the Department of Health and Human Services
and the FDA, CDER, a discrete unit within the FDA, participated in the 2014 EVS. Analysis of
CDER’s 2014 results revealed positive job satisfaction among workers, well above the federal
and FDA norm. In comparison to other federal units’ average ratings, CDER’s high performance
was a model from which to glean promising practices. CDER’s positive results suggested the
presence and influence of teamwork on job satisfaction. CDER’s leadership wanted to focus its
attention on the promising practices of the organization, including those related to teamwork, to
further enhance employee contentment and welfare.
Importance of a Promising Practice Study
Other federal agencies with the desire to learn, apply and promote employee, teamwork-
based promising practices that positively influence job satisfaction in their organization will have
the greatest interest in this study. Teamwork contributes to increased employee satisfaction
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

10
(Gallie, Zhou, Felstead, & Green, 2012). Content employees are more effective workers (Zahoor
et al., 2014). Hence, public service organizations will benefit from the identification of
knowledge, motivation and organizational practices that improve job satisfaction through the
implementation of employee teams.
Stakeholder for Study
Three formal leadership levels exist at CDER: (a) senior management; (b) supervisors;
and (c) employees. The varying levels of employees at the FDA contribute to the achievement of
the organization’s performance. Senior management is comprised of executive level
administrators at the FDA. Executives provide direction and ensure accountability for the
organization’s vision and mission. Supervisors are middle managers that oversee employees and
act as liaisons between senior management and the staff. Employees contribute to organizational
achievement as agents enacting the vision and mission directed by senior management under the
guidance of supervisors.
A research team composed of six University of Southern California doctoral students
examined the perspectives of supervisors and employees as part of the larger project design.
However, for the purpose of this study, employees were the stakeholder of focus. The vast
majority of workers at CDER are employees who fulfill a specific job and play a critical role in
daily operations. Employees, the largest stakeholder group in organizations, greatly impact an
organization’s performance. As a result the viewpoints of employees requires further evaluation
(Harter, Schmidt, Killham, & Asplund, 2012).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine CDER’s employees’ promising practices
around teamwork as organizational assets that contribute to the development of job satisfaction.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

11
Gallie et al. (2012) posit that teamwork positively affects employee satisfaction because
teamwork enables workers to exercise more control over their jobs, and develop greater
commitment to the organization.
The questions guiding this study were:
1. From the perspective of employees, what knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors influence teamwork and contribute to employee satisfaction in CDER?
2. What are the recommended promising practices that other offices within CDER or the
FDA could adopt to improve teamwork and employee satisfaction?
3. How could these recommendations be evaluated for effectiveness?
Methodological Framework
Six offices within CDER participated in an asset and gap analysis, which explored the
perspectives of supervisors and employees on job satisfaction. Gap analysis was the
methodological framework utilized to identify and validate assumed causes contributing to high
employee satisfaction and performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Data collection of collective
employee practices at CDER included observations of facilitated focus groups, follow-up
interviews with individuals, in addition to document analysis. A priori and open coding were two
qualitative inquiry methods used to interpret data. A priori categories of knowledge, motivation,
and organization factors provided pre-determined categories, which guided initial data analysis.
In addition, open coding revealed unexpected, emergent themes about human capital practices at
CDER (Merriam, 2009).
Definitions
CDER: The organization of study under the direction of the FDA.
FDA: An Operational Division under the Department of Health and Human Services.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

12
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS): A federal survey administered annually to
measure employee satisfaction.
Job Satisfaction: Attitude towards one’s job.
Teamwork: Two or more people working towards a common goal.
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters organize this dissertation. This chapter outlined key concepts and
terminology defining teamwork and employee satisfaction, in addition to including an
introduction of the organization’s mission, goals, stakeholder of focus, and the gap analysis
framework. Chapter 2 reviews the current literature around teamwork practices and their effect
on job satisfaction. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology employed to include the sampling, data
collection and analysis process. An assessment and analysis of data occurs in Chapter 4. Chapter
5 provides research-based recommendations for increasing job satisfaction through promising
practices of teamwork for employees, in addition to an accompanying implementation and
evaluation plan.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

13
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Chapter 2 outlines the progression of job satisfaction literature leading to the emergence
of teamwork as a contributing factor of employee satisfaction. The first section focuses on a
historical overview of factors influencing employee job satisfaction. The second segment
addresses the construct of teamwork relative to job satisfaction. The chapter ends with an
analysis of teamwork from the lens of educational psychology literature utilizing the gap analysis
dimensions of knowledge, motivation, and organization.
Historical Overview of Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction
Employee satisfaction has been studied extensively over the last 100 years resulting in
the emergence of various schools of thought. Each school successively expanded and developed
the research on job satisfaction resulting in five schools:
1. Classical/Physical-Economic
2. Social and Human Relations
3. Work Itself
4. Affective
5. Modern
The evolution of employee satisfaction literature revealed that multiple factors contribute to job
satisfaction, as discussed below.
Classical/Physical-Economic School
The Classical/Physical-Economic School focused on managers increasing worker
efficiency to improve productivity and profits (Gilbreth, 1912; Taylor, 1911). Therefore,
efficiency studies emerged in the workplace during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Social
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

14
scientists began to examine the science behind workflow efficiency. Two of these social
scientists, Taylor (1911) and Gilbreth (1912), commenced study of the workplace and
influencing factors on employees, coining terms such as “scientific management” and
“Taylorism.” As a result of their efforts, Taylor (1911) identified the importance of managers in
increasing maximum production. Taylor concluded that maximum efficiency requires managerial
action because the tendency of humans is to work slowly (Taylor, 1911). He determined that
employees necessitate task management. Furthermore, Taylor investigated the role of initiatives
and incentives, in addition to time and motion study. Taylor (1911) suggested that managers
must provide rewards, intrinsic and extrinsic, to encourage and motivate employees in their work.
Taylor’s work was built upon, and discussed at length in Gilbreth’s book, Primer of Scientific
Management (Gilbreth, 1912). Gilbreth (1912) emphasized the principles of application, effects
and transferability of scientific management to other sectors. A shift in the literature occurred
with the development of the School of Social and Human Relations, which shed light on the
viewpoints of the worker.
Social and Human Relations School
The “Social and Human Relations School” focused on employees and the factors
affecting their satisfaction. Moreover, the Social and Human Relations School can be argued as
the beginning of the employee satisfaction construct. Hoppock and Uhrbrock, two prominent
researchers of the School of Social and Human Relations, closely examined employees to
uncover elements contributing to satisfaction (Hoppock & National Occupational Conference,
1935; Uhrbrock, 1934). Later theorists referenced ideas suggested in Hoppock’s and Uhbrock’s
work. Hoppock asserted that:
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

15
A person may be satisfied with one aspect of his job and dissatisfied with another.
Satisfaction may vary from day to day. A person may never be wholly satisfied. And yet
there are persons in the world who are contented enough to remain in one job year after
year, making no particular effort to change; while others are so unhappy that they move
from job to job. (Hoppock & National Occupational Conference, 1935, p. 5)
Hoppock’s assertion hints at what the Gallup Foundation’s Q12 Meta-analysis report of 2012
(Harter et al., 2012) suggests that there is a tipping point in dissatisfaction that leads to employee
attrition. Moreover, the idea of satisfaction as an attitude began to take shape as a result of
Hoppock’s and Uhrbrock’s publications.
Hoppock (1935) and Uhrbrock (1934) purported that satisfaction is a disposition or
attitude towards one’s job. However, Hoppock deductively analyzed employee satisfaction by
examining the causes of dissatisfaction in a study on teachers (Hoppock & National
Occupational Conference, 1935). Factors affecting satisfaction include poor emotional
maladjustment to the job, a lack of positive relationships with superiors and associates, not
feeling successful or choosing teaching as a vocation as well as monotony and fatigue (Hoppock
& National Occupational Conference, 1935). Although current literature does not use the same
terminology as Hoppock to describe satisfaction factors, traces of concepts like trust, efficacy,
and the work itself resonate in Hoppock’s study. Furthermore, Uhrbrock (1934) hinted at
knowledge and organizational attributes contributing to worker dissatisfaction in his study of
4,430 employees, labeling his findings in terms of communication and role of management. The
Social and Human Relations School identified concepts that later became recognized as factors
of employee satisfaction in the “Work Itself School.”
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

16
Work Itself School
The study of attitudes continued into the 1950s. The study of “frame of reference”
evaluated positive and negative attitudes towards ones’ job which became known as the Work
Itself School (Clifton, Hollingsworth, & Hall, 1952). However, it was Herzberg, Mausner,
Peterson, and Capwell’s (1957) meta-analysis that identified ten major factors of job attitude.
Similar to Hoppock and Uhrbrock, Herzberg et al. examined job disposition from the perspective
of disatisfaction. Herzberg et al.’s (1957) ten contributing factors impacting employee
satisfaction included:
1. Supervision
2. Working conditions
3. Wages
4. Opportunity for advancement
5. Security
6. Company
7. Management
8. Social aspect of job
9. Communication
10. Benefits
These factors are consistent with recent literature on the topic of employee satisfaction (Blonski
& Jefmanski, 2013; Harter et al., 2012; Ting, 1997). The in-depth discussion on the social aspect
of the job in Herzberg et al.’s (1957) review introduced teamwork, group structures,
cohesiveness and the role of leadership. Teamwork became a revealing factor that contributed to
the satisfaction of workers. Moreover, the resulting effects of dissatisfaction such as turnover,
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

17
absenteeism, grievances and complaints remained immutable (Herzberg et al., 1957). The Work
Itself School revealed various factors of employee satisfaction, however the implications of
motivation and organization were not addressed until the “Affective School.”
Affective School
The Affective School is known for its research on workers’ emotional reactions and
thoughts towards their jobs. Locke, a social scientist whose work is often attached to job
satisfaction, emerged during the Affective School. Locke (1969) asserted that job satisfaction is
“complex emotional reactions to the job” (p. 314). Locke (1969) posited that perception,
implicit and explicit value standard, and the subsequent judging of the discrepancy between
perception and values leads to appraisal of satisfaction. Gallup (1976) also examined human
needs in relationship to satisfaction deeming that values and needs are dependent on economic
advantage, environment and affective concerns. The critique of values and needs in Locke’s
(1969) research begins to define the role that motivation plays in determining levels of
contentment, suggesting the importance of expectancy value theory and goals. Locke’s later
work considered the difference between satisfaction and morale, which are both positive
emotional states (Locke, 1976).
Locke’s (1976) definition of job satisfaction evolved to, “a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300). Job
dimension defined in two broad categories, events and agents, explored underlying motivational
and organizational factors. Events encompass work, rewards and context. Phrasing like mental
challenge, interest, choice, commitment, references of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, task-
related values, and clear roles echoed motivation and organization dimensions in Locke’s
descriptions about events and agents (Locke, 1976). Thus the greater the positive emotional
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

18
attitude resulting from events and agents, the more likely the person is to feel satisfied on the
job. The discussion of factors influencing employee satisfactions continued, however the impact
of factors became a new topic of recent research.
Modern Research: 1990s to Present
Job satisfaction continues to evolve. A shift in job satisfaction literature occurred in the
last thirty years. Researcher went from a singular focus on affective measures influencing
employees to theories utilizing cognition in conjunction with emotion, feelings and attitude to
explain job satisfaction (Zhu, 2013). Thus, over the years numerous factors have been found to
contribute to employee satisfaction. A review of studies reveal factors such as pay, clear policies
and procedures, skill utilization, the work itself, leadership, culture, clear understanding of task
contribution, working conditions, organizational commitment, and relationships contribute to
employee satisfaction (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Ting, 1997).
The Q12 Meta-analysis by the Gallup Foundation altered the job satisfaction
conversation from factors influencing job satisfaction to causes that lead to human capital losses.
Harter et al. (2012) of the Gallup Foundation’s Q12 Meta-Analysis proposed that not all job
satisfaction factors have equal impact. Harter et al. (2012) posited that a single contributing
factor causing employee discontent is unlikely to result in worker attrition. Hence, Harter et al.’s
argument aligns with Locke’s (1969) early work on job satisfaction asserting that
since a job is not perceived or experienced as such, it cannot initially be evaluated as a
single unit. In order of frequency, the following factors of job satisfaction ranked:
1. Organizational culture
2. Supervision
3. The work itself
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

19
4. Communication
5. Work environment
6. Economic benefit
7. Teamwork
8. Autonomy
9. Work relationships
10. Demographics
Overall job satisfaction is the sum of the evaluations of the discriminable elements of
which the job is composed. (p. 330)
Therefore, Table 1 provides a historical summary of the factors contributing to employee
satisfaction over time.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

20
Table 1
Factors Contributing to Employee Satisfaction
Factor Selected Citations
Organizational Culture
Stress/emotional exhaustion Blonski and Jefmanski (2013)
Development encouraged Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Harter et al. (2012)
Promotional Opportunity/
Opportunity for Advancement
Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Herzberg (1959),
Herzberg et al. (1957), Locke (1976)
Mission/Purpose makes my job
important
Harter et al. (2012), Mayo (1933), Uhrbrock (1934)
Opportunity to do my best daily Gilbreth (1912), Harter et al. (2012), Locke (1976)
Commitment Locke (1976), Ting (1997)
Values Locke (1969)
Family friendly policies Blonski and Jefmanski (2013)
Corporate Culture Blonski and Jefmanski (2013)
Organization as a whole Blonski and Jefmanski (2013)
Supervision
Supervision/Direct oversight of
employee’s work
Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Gilbreth (1912),
Herzberg (1959), Herzberg et al. (1957), Hoppock and
National Occupational Conference (1935), Locke
(1976)
Leadership/Management of
organization’s mission and goals
Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Mayo (1933)
Received Feedback/Progress
Report in last 6 mos.
Gilbreth (1912), Harter et al. (2012), Locke (1976)
Skill Identity Locke (1976)

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

21
Table 1, continued
Factor Selected Citations
Work Itself
Work itself Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Herzberg (1959),
Herzberg et al. (1957), Locke (1969)
Fatigue/Physicality of the work Gilbreth (1912), Hoppock and National Occupational
Conference (1935), 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 and National Occupational
Conference (1935), Locke (1976)
Communication
Communication Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Herzberg et al. (1957),
Locke (1969), Mayo (1933), Ting (1997)
Opinions count Harter et al. (2012)
Recognition/praise for my good
work
Harter et al. (2012), Hoppock and National
Occupational Conference (1935), Locke (1976)
Role conflict Locke (1976)
Expectations understood vs. Role
ambiguity
Gilbreth (1912), Harter et al. (2012), Locke (1969,
1976), Uhrbrock (1934), Ting (1997)
Work Environment
Working conditions Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Herzberg (1959),
Herzberg et al. (1957), Hoppock and National
Occupational Conference (1935), Locke (1969, 1976),
Taylor (1911), Uhrbrock (1934)
Possess Proper Materials &
Equipment
Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Gilbreth (1912), Harter
et al. (2012), Locke (1969, 1976)

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

22
Table 1, continued
Factor Selected Citations
Economic Benefits (Direct & Indirect)
Pay/wages/salary Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Gilbreth (1912),
Herzberg (1959), Herzberg et al. (1957), Locke
(1976), Taylor (1911), Uhrbrock (1934), Ting (1997)
Benefits (Vacation, Retirement,
medical, etc.)
Herzberg et al. (1957)
Job security Herzberg et al. (1957)
Teamwork
Teamwork/ cooperation Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Herzberg et al. (1957),
Mayo (1933)
Collaboration Blonski and Jefmanski (2013)
Associates committed to quality Gilbreth (1912), Harter et al. (2012), Herzberg et al.
(1957)
Co-worker relations Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Gilbreth (1912),
Herzberg et al. (1957), Locke (1969, 1976), Mayo
(1933), Uhrbrock (1934)
Autonomy
Autonomy/ Empowerment Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Locke (1976)
Creativity Locke (1976)
Opportunities at work to learn and
grow
Blonski and 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), Ting (1997)
I have a best friend at work Harter et al. (2012)
Cared about as a person by
supervisor/co-worker
Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Harter et al. (2012),
Herzberg et al. (1957)
Demographics/Age Blonski and Jefmanski (2013), Ting (1997)

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

23
Summary
Job satisfaction literature throughout the 20th century analyzed similar factors
purportedly connected to job satisfaction, however a shift occurred after the publication of the
Q12 Meta-Analysis. As a result, the job satisfaction discussion altered to what causes employees
to take action when dissatisfied at work. Teamwork surfaced as one of the components that
influences job satisfaction. Although the term “teamwork” does not appear frequently in research,
the behaviors and elements that comprise teamwork are evident.
Factors Influencing Effective Teamwork
Teamwork is a construct that includes a composition of factors that influence employee
satisfaction. Since employees are the majority stakeholders in organizations, it is important to
evaluate the factors influencing teamwork. Moreover, a recent movement in organizational
management is teamwork (Campion et al., 1993; Chang, Chiu, & Chen, 2010). Teams play an
intricate role in the efficiency and performance of organizations, in addition to contributing to
the satisfaction of workers in the workplace. Therefore, it is important to consider promising
practices that inform effective teamwork.
What is Teamwork?
Formation of teams. Teamwork is not possible without teams. A team consists of two or
more individuals working towards a common goal (Salas et al., 2005). Teams are sometimes
referred to as work groups (Campion et al., 1993; Herzberg et al., 1957; Locke, 1976). Teams
can be formally or informally structured groups (Herzberg et al., 1957; Manzoor et al., 2011).
Laboring together with others towards a collective goal is the defining measure of a team and
teamwork.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

24
Definition. In this study, teamwork is defined as an interdependent group of individuals
working to achieve collective outcomes, while sharing onus for the results (Griffin, Patterson, &
West, 2001; Manzoor et al., 2011). Teamwork results from a coordinated effort of team members.
Salas et al. (2005) assert that work groups necessitate interrelated actions, thoughts and feelings
to function effectively. Cohesiveness, or as Salas et al. (2005) suggest the interconnectedness of
group members, is the glue behind teamwork. Conversely, cohesiveness provides the feeling of
being a team (Herzberg et al., 1957; Filho, Tenenbaum, & Yang, 2015). Teamwork relies on the
interdependence of group members. Although teamwork may look different for each work group,
the term “collaboration” is used when describing the function of teamwork.
Collaboration as a function of teamwork. Collaboration is an encompassing term that
includes teamwork. Collaboration is a reciprocal process primarily involving communication and
the sharing of information in which individuals engage to accomplish a task (Bedwell et al.,
2012; Wilson, Salas, Priest, & Andrews, 2007). Hence, mutual engagement of involved parties
results in teamwork and collaboration. Teamwork does not require equal participation in working
towards a shared outcome across-levels within an organization, group, or a combination of
entities, instead it is the tension between giving and taking in joint activities that lead to group
work and collaboration (Bedwell et al., 2012). Cooperation and coordination are subsidiaries of
teamwork that require team members to focus on the collective goal rather than their own
personal gain which is sometimes referred to as group orientation (Bedwell et al., 2012; Filho et
al., 2015; Salas et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2007). Collaboration, cooperation, and coordination
are interdependent and functions of teamwork. However, collaboration, cooperation, and
coordination are not considered elements impacting group work, thus research began to assert
influential factors of effective teamwork.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

25
Influential Factors
Eleven factors that drive effective teamwork surfaced in the previously cited literature,
however some factors are more prevalent. Table 2 shows the factors according to frequency in
addition to providing select citations from the business literature. The eight factors appearing
most frequently are:
1. Team Orientation
2. Shared Mental Models
3. Mutual Trust
4. Mutual Performance Monitoring/ Accountability
5. Communication
6. Adaptability
7. Leadership
8. Efficacy
The teamwork literature points to the degree to which these eight factors affect teamwork and
subsequently employee satisfaction. Hence, the following sections will analyze teamwork
practices in conjunction with the educational psychology literature to provide a better
understanding of how knowledge, motivation, and organizational dimensions undergird
teamwork. The following factors positively impact teamwork for employees relative to job
contentment.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

26
Table 2
Factors Impacting Effective Teamwork from the Business Literature
Factor Selected Citations
Team members have a positive attitude
towards other team members and a
common goal (Team Orientation)
Campion et al. (1993), Durham, Knight, and Locke
(1997), Filho et al. (2015), Manzoor et al. (2011), Mason
and Griffin (2002), Niemelä and Kalliola (2007), Paris,
Salas, and Cannon-Bowers (2000), Salas et al. (2005),
Wilson et al. (2007)
Team members have a common
understanding with each other (Shared
Mental Models)
Campion et al. (1993), Durham et al. (1997), Filho et al.
(2015), Paris et al. (2000), Rabey (2003), Salas, Cooke,
and Rosen (2008), Salas et al. (2005), Wilson et al.
(2007)
Team members rely on each other (Mutual
Trust
Filho et al. (2015), Manzoor et al. (2011), Niemelä and
Kalliola (2007), Paris et al. (2000), Rabey (2003), Salas
et al. (2005), Wilson et al. (2007)
Team members have a system of
monitoring performance (Mutual
Performance Monitoring/Accountability)
Campion et al. (1993), Crowley, Payne, and Kennedy
(2014), Niemelä and Kalliola (2007), Paris et al. (2000),
Salas et al. (2005), Wilson et al. (2007)
Team members share information
(Communication)
Campion et al. (1993), DeAngelis, Penney, and Scully
(2014), Durham et al. (1997), Manzoor et al. (2011),
Paris et al. (2000), Salas et al. (2005), Wilson et al.
(2007)
Team members have direction, such as
goals and a mission provided by the
organization (Leadership)
Chang et al. (2010), Durham et al. (1997), Griffin et al.
(2001), Paris et al. (2000), Rabey (2003), Salas et al.
(2005)
Team members adjust to unexpected
situations (Adaptability/Flexibility)
Campion et al. (1993), Durham et al. (1997), Paris et al.
(2000), Rabey (2003), Salas et al. (2008), Salas et al.
(2005), Wilson et al. (2007)
Team members have confidence in their
and others abilities (Efficacy-Self and
Collective)
Durham et al. (1997), Filho et al. (2015), Gallie et al.
(2012), Mason and Griffin (2002), Wilson et al. (2007)
Team members take action to help out each
other (Back-up Behavior)
Paris et al. (2000), Salas et al. (2005), Wilson et al.
(2007)
Team members have a level of freedom and
independence to complete work
(Autonomy)
Campion et al. (1993), Gallie et al. (2012), Griffin et al.
(2001), Niemelä and Kalliola (2007)
Team members want to work as a group
(Team Cohesion)
Salas, Grossman, Hughes, and Coultas (2015), Wilson et
al. (2007)

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

27
Influences on Teamwork from an Educational Psychology Perspective
Teamwork is a construct that also can be understood through the gap analysis framework
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Educational psychology literature provides an additional frame of
reference that reframes our understanding of performance of teams in terms of knowledge,
motivation and organization influences of teamwork. Promising practices about teamwork
uncovered from the gap analysis process are useful for improving organizational performance
and effectiveness.
What is Gap Analysis?
Gap analysis is a systematic process of performance improvement utilizing knowledge,
motivation, and organizational dimensions as a basis for analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gap
analysis can be adapted for asset, innovation, and needs analysis. Moreover, gap analysis is
utilized as a framework and methodology. For the purpose of this study, gap analysis is used as a
lens that interconnects the business and educational psychology literature on teamwork relative
to job satisfaction.
The Three Dimensions of the Gap Analysis Framework
The gap analysis framework consists of three dimensions: (a) knowledge; (b) motivation
and; (c) organization that have been previously referred to in this study. The three dimensions
consist of subcategories, which deconstruct the concepts. Knowledge is broken down into four
types of knowledge stemming from Bloom’s revised taxonomy: (a) factual; (b) conceptual; (c)
procedural; and (d) metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). Reasons prompting motivation result from
active choice, mental effort, and persistence (Rueda, 2011). However, these three overarching
classifications were recently termed in more user-friendly language as investigating, sustaining,
and investing (Clark, Howard, & Early, 2006). The organizational element of the gap analysis is
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

28
grounded in organizational culture mechanisms such as policies, practices, procedures, and
resources (Schein, 1990).
Knowledge. The foundation of knowledge needed for effective teamwork can be better
understood when considering how communication, shared mental models, adaptability, mutual
performance monitoring and back-up behavior contribute to effective collaboration.
Communication is important especially in complex situations because communication distributes
necessary information to team members (Salas et al., 2005). Moreover, communication
establishes shared mental models. A shared mental model includes a common understanding and
actions of a team, such as agreement about the team’s goals, roles and coordination required to
achieve the team’s objective. Mental models can be team- or task-related (Salas et al., 2005;
Wilson et al., 2007). Thus, knowledge is required for team members to “get on the same page”
and become a cohesive unit.
Factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge are shared through various
forms of communication. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that knowledge can be shared in various
formats such as information sharing, job aids, trainings, and education. Strategies like closed-
loop communication, which entails the sender sending a message, the receiver interpreting and
acknowledging the message, and a follow-up by the sender, enhances the knowledge of teams
(Salas et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2007). Team members are more likely to adapt to situations if
they possess skill competency and information, which Rabey (2003) suggests as an important
part of teamwork and the functioning of organizations. Moreover, communication plays a role in
monitoring progress, which provides knowledge about the group’s ability to accomplish agreed
upon outcomes.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

29
Feedback is a method of mutual performance monitoring. Informing team members about
task progress provides knowledge about the likelihood of success. According to the expectancy
value motivation theory, Eccles (2009) posits that individuals ask themselves two questions
related to tasks:
1. Can I do the task?
2. Do I want to do the task? (Eccles, 2009)
Feedback from peers and supervisors provides information about past and present success, which
helps individuals to assess task expectancy at work. Moreover, Crowley et al. (2014) suggest that
peer monitoring leads to less conflict with management and greater satisfaction. In addition,
modeling mutual performance monitoring and back-up behaviors for new team member is one
method of providing the necessary knowledge of how to contribute in a team. Mutual
performance monitoring also influences back-up behavior, however the difference is that back-
up behavior is the practice of an employee stepping into action to aid other team members (Salas
et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2007).
Motivation. Motivation, demonstrated through active choice, mental effort and
persistence of individuals working in teams, influences satisfaction. Clark et al. (2006) posit the
influence of environmental and psychological factors on motivational behavior on the decision to
engage in a task, persist and exert cognitive effort. Moreover, the effects of value, confidence
and emotion further compound the concept of motivation. Working in groups is difficult because
it also requires a level of risk. Risk related to teamwork necessitates group members to rely on
each other without ill-intention and harmful action (Salas et al., 2005). Hence, trust, efficacy, and
team orientation play a critical role in effective teams. Teams necessitate group members to
engage with others. The belief that team members will contribute to the team’s performance and
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

30
protect the group’s best interest contributes to the functioning of teamwork (Salas et al., 2005).
Trust leads to information dissemination, sharing, participation and cooperation, which can
prompt increased effort and persistence (Salas et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2007).
Team members’ positive interpretation of behaviors lead to greater motivation (Bandura,
2001; Salas et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2007). Positive perceptions of self and group members’
abilities precipitates confidence referred to as efficacy. Efficacy is the measurement of
capabilities, skills, competencies and limitations of an individual (Bandura, 1989, 2001; Durham
et al., 1997; Taggar & Seijts, 2003). The term collective efficacy possesses similarities to self-
efficacy, however the difference is that individuals evaluate team members’ ability to perform
roles (Durham et al., 1997; Mason & Griffin, 2002; Taggar & Seijts, 2003; Wilson et al., 2007).
Thus, confidence in group members’ abilities is a motivating factor in effective teamwork.
Visualization of skillfully accomplishing tasks enhances a team’s future performance
(Bandura, 1989; Pajares, 2009). Expectancy value theory examines individual’s intention,
attitude, and importance placed on a task in determining success. Therefore, task complexity can
influence effort and persistence when a challenge incurs, yet success is envisioned (Clark et al.,
2006; Pintrich, 2003). Individuals evaluate whether they can complete the task, and want to do
the task (Eccles, 2009). The combination of expectancy and value placed on the job determines
active choice, mental effort and persistence of group members. Hence, motivation stems from
forethought, anticipating outcomes, goal setting, and action planning to achieve outcomes
(Bandura, 1989). Perceptions are also a strong predictor of performance. Nevertheless,
sometimes reasons for successful teams result from organizational factors beyond the
individual’s and group’s control.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

31
Organization/Culture/Resources. The organizational dimension influences most
teamwork factors. Leaders often set the tone for the organization through mission and goal
setting (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clear organizational goals increase employee motivation. As a
result, workplaces create their own unique mindset and philosophy for employees through a
shared mental schema known as a cultural model (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011).
Values and norms, and systems and procedures such as methods of communication and
accountability play a role in developing an organization’s cultural model.
An organization’s values and norms are often invisible to outsiders, however they play an
intricate role in the daily functions of the workplace (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein,
1990). Values and norms are established expectations of a specific community. The
organizational dimension is influenced by the social cognitive theory of modeling (Bandura,
2001). Values and norms are established through modeling which results from observations of
like peers to produce learned behaviors and expectations in individuals (Denler, Wolters, &
Benzon, 2006). Positive work environments develop over time through shared experience and
information sharing when connections are created between colleagues (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001; Schein, 1990). Therefore, the organization can facilitate knowledge and motivation growth
through the organization’s policies, practices, procedures, and resource availability. Policies
enforce systematization of procedures and practices in a workplace such as method of
information dissemination, professional guidelines, and methods for resource distribution.
Summary
In conclusion, examining the three dimensions of the gap analysis, knowledge,
motivation and organization, reveals promising practices of teamwork relative to jobs
satisfaction. Social science research helps explain and validate the business literature findings
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

32
about teamwork in the workplace. Table 3 summarizes promising practices of teamwork citing
business literature and social science equivalents to provide the theoretical foundation for this
study.
The literature on employee satisfaction and teamwork sets the foundation and context for
this study in addition to grounding the methodology section. The research revealed a lengthy list
of factors that could influence teamwork and therefore affect employee satisfaction. This study
explored which factors were identified by employees as contributing to the development of
teamwork, in conjunction with the surfaced factors of teamwork from the literature to suggest
assumed and validated promising practices of effective teamwork. Hence, Chapter 3 will refer
back to the research discussed in this chapter.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

33
Table 3
Summary of Promising Teamwork Practices for Employees: A Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Framework
Promising Practices of Teamwork Business Literature
Social Science
Equivalents
Knowledge
Team members know each other’s
role and capabilities; they know
how each other is performing
(Mutual Performance Monitoring/
Accountability)
Campion et al. (1993), Crowley
et al. (2014), Niemelä and
Kalliola (2007), Paris et al.
(2000), Salas et al. (2005),
Wilson et al. (2007)
Eccles (2009)
Team members take action to help
out each other (Back-up Behavior)
Paris et al. (2000), Salas et al.
(2005), Wilson et al. (2007)

Team members adjust to
unexpected situations
(Adaptability/Flexibility)
Campion et al. (1993), Durham
et al. (1997), Paris et al. (2000),
Rabey (2003), Salas et al.
(2008), Salas et al. (2005),
Wilson et al. (2007)
Denler et al.
(2006)
Team members have a common
understanding with each other
(Shared Mental Models)
Campion et al. (1993), Durham
et al. (1997), Filho et al. (2015),
Paris et al. (2000), Rabey (2003),
Salas et al. (2008), Salas et al.
(2005)
Gallimore and
Goldenberg
(2001)
Team members share information
(Communication)
Campion et al. (1993),
DeAngelis et al. (2014), Durham
et al. (1997), Manzoor et al.
(2011), Paris et al. (2000), Salas
et al. (2005), Wilson et al. (2007)
Kirschner,
Kirschner, and
Paas (2009),
Schraw and
McCrudden
(2013)

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

34
Table 3, continued
Promising Practices of Teamwork Business Literature
Social Science
Equivalents
Motivation
Team members have a positive
attitude towards other team
members and a common goal
(Team Orientation)
Campion et al. (1993), Durham
et al. (1997), Filho et al. (2015),
Manzoor et al. (2011), Mason
and Griffin (2002), Niemelä and
Kalliola (2007), Paris et al.
(2000), Salas et al. (2005),
Wilson et al. (2007)
Eccles (2009),
Denler et al.
(2006)
Team members rely on each other
(Mutual Trust)
Filho et al. (2015), Manzoor et
al. (2011), Niemelä and Kalliola
(2007), Paris et al. (2000), Rabey
(2003), Salas et al. (2005),
Wilson et al. (2007)
Bandura (1989),
Denler et al.
(2006)
Team members have confidence in
their and others abilities (Efficacy-
Self and Collective)
Durham et al. (1997), Filho et al.
(2015), Gallie et al. (2012),
Mason and Griffin (2002),
Wilson et al. (2007)
Bandura (1989),
Pintrich (2003)
Organizational Culture
Team members have direction, such
as goals and a mission provided by
the organization (Leadership)
Chang et al. (2010), Durham et
al. (1997), Griffin et al. (2001),
Paris et al. (2000), Rabey (2003),
Salas et al. (2005)
Locke and
Latham (1990)
Team members have a system of
monitoring performance (Mutual
Performance Monitoring/A
ccountability)
Campion et al. (1993), Crowley
et al. (2014), Niemelä and
Kalliola (2007), Paris et al.
(2000), Salas et al. (2005),
Wilson et al. (2007)
Eccles (2009)
Team members have a level of
freedom and independence to
complete work (Autonomy)
Campion et al. (1993), Gallie et
al. (2012), Griffin et al. (2001),
Niemelä and Kalliola (2007)

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

35
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate the promising practices of teamwork
associated with employee satisfaction at CDER. The stakeholder group of focus was employees.
Employees hold non-supervisory roles, and make up the majority of workers in the organization.
Assets discovered were analyzed based on the gap analysis framework focusing on the
contributing factors of knowledge, motivation, and organization.
The questions guiding this promising practice study were the following:
1. From the perspective of employees, what knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors influence teamwork and contribute to employee satisfaction in CDER?
2. What are the recommended promising practices that other offices within CDER or the
FDA could adopt to improve teamwork and employee satisfaction?
3. How could these recommendations be evaluated for effectiveness?
Methodological Framework
Gap analysis is a framework that systematically analyzes knowledge, motivation, and
organizational attributes of an organization’s current progress towards reaching its desired
outcome (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The process commences with the identification of a measurable goal. Next, hypothesized
causes relative to the performance goal are identified. The validation of assumed promising
practices contributing to performance results from data collection and analysis. A recommended
implementation plan proposes how one might apply the identified promising practices in similar
settings to assist organizations towards their desired outcome. The final step, drafting an
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

36
evaluation plan for the implemented recommendations, suggests strategies for assessing the
organization’s progress towards meeting its end goal and determined the organization’s next
steps. The gap analysis model collects multiple sources of data to ensure validity and reliability.
Thus, the qualitative data gathered and analyzed includes focus group observations, interviews,
and documents produced by participants like table notes.

Figure. Gap analysis process: Promising practices

The gap analysis model was adapted in this study to examine promising practices. Instead
of examining causes for deficiencies, data collection focused on factors influencing promising
practices. In this study, the preliminary data from CDER’s EVS assessment indicated high scores,
therefore justifying the promising practices approach. In a promising practices gap analysis,
contributing factors become assets that formulate recommendations for continuous improvement.
Goal
Assumed Factors Current
Achievement
Assets
Validated Causes
Recommendations Implement
Motivation
Evaluate
Knowledge Organization
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

37
Assumed Performance Assets
The gap analysis process provides a framework to align problems with matching
solutions. Clark and Estes (2008) observed that organizations’ management often see a problem
and jump to solutions before taking the time to diagnose the problem. When organizations jump
to solutions, they risk mismatching problems and solutions (Rueda, 2011). Misdiagnosing the
root of the problem leads to inappropriately applying quick fixes. Moreover, implementing a
solution does not necessarily resolve a problem unless the solution corresponds to the problem
(Rueda, 2011). The failed practice of remedying problems with unsubstantiated solutions
necessitates a systematic process for evaluating causes before implementing solutions (Rueda,
2011).
Clark and Estes (2008) indicate that unfounded solutions are more detrimental than
helpful to institutions. Three areas that prevent the success of performance solutions are
fragmentation, misalignment, and haphazardly assigning solutions as a fix (Rueda, 2011).
Fragmentation prevents individuals from considering the multidimensional aspect of problems
and approaches (Rueda, 2011). A tendency to misalign and mismatch problems with solution
occurs in organizations when assumed causes are not validated, therefore necessitating the gap
analysis process (Rueda, 2011). In order to prevent fragmentation, misalignment, and
haphazardly assigning solutions, this study utilized the EVS results as assumed causes and a
starting point for identifying potential teamwork promising practices.
The EVS
The overarching objective of gap analysis is to close gaps. The assumed goal of CDER is
to achieve a 100% job satisfaction rating from employees on the next EVS. CDER’s EVS data
indicates that 72% of employees are satisfied according to the 2014 EVS results. In comparison
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

38
to the Department of Health and Human Services and Federal Government respective results of
64% and 59%, CDER is adept at providing employee job satisfaction as suggested by CDER’s
current status and small gap. Therefore, this study examined the practices that contributed to
CDER’s small gap using the EVS as a point of departure.
What is the EVS? The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey is an annual survey
administered to all federal government employees. Data collection typically occurs in the late
spring and early summer for the various federal agencies. The survey design consists of 98
questions that measure employees’ perspectives on personal work experiences, work unit,
agency, supervisors, leadership, satisfaction, work life and demographics about their respective
organizations (OPM, 2014). A Likert scale is utilized to classify percent positive, neutral,
negative and no basis to judge responses (OPM, 2014).
Results of the EVS. This study superimposed the knowledge, motivation and
organization framework as an alternate lens to evaluate CDER. However, the EVS provides a
surface level analysis of the employee viewpoints at CDER. Although 98 questions exist, the
data collected from 71 questions resulted in four indices surfacing from the 2014 EVS: (a)
Employee Engagement; (b) Global Satisfaction; (c) the New IQ; and (d) Human Capital
Assessment and Accountability Framework (OPM, 2014). The data collected can be further
interpreted into knowledge, motivation, and organization categories. Three questions focused on
knowledge factors, nine items emphasized the influence of motivation, and 59 queries
highlighted the impact of organization elements. An initial analysis suggested that the
organization plays a critical role in employee perceptions about their work experience. The top
10 EVS items overall indicated that motivation and organization influence employees’
viewpoints. Moreover, the four identified EVS items, 20, 26, 28 and 29, related to the construct
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

39
of teamwork also implicated organizational factors. The identified teamwork EVS items will be
the focus of this section.
Knowledge and skills. The EVS did not specifically measure knowledge relative to
teamwork. Knowledge contributes to teamwork, however the instrument’s questions focused
more on motivation and organization factors. The knowledge designations in the summary of
assumed assets in Table 4 and 5 indicate that factual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge
may be an underlying factor despite the EVS item not directly evaluating knowledge. The high
positive responses on EVS knowledge items suggested that employees have the knowledge and
skills to effectively do their jobs. Nevertheless, one weakness of the data collection tool may be
the lack of question variety since only three items from the entire survey address knowledge.
Although the EVS did not target knowledge relative to teamwork, social science research points
to knowledge as a contributing factor. Therefore, the focus groups and interviews were utilized
to validate knowledge assets and its relationship to employee satisfaction.
Motivation. The EVS results signaled that CDER employees are motivated. Efficacy and
value appear to be significant contributing factors to employee satisfaction. CDER’s work units
appeared to be comprised of skilled workers based upon the limited information learned from
perusing CDER’s webpage. Perceived competency of colleagues and positive self-evaluation of
personal skills burgeons efficacy, which translates into increased motivation for employees.
Furthermore, a sense of trust seemed apparent among employees in addition to positive
collaboration experiences. CDER’s EVS results suggested a connection between motivation and
group work for employees as a result of teamwork. Table 4 provides a list of EVS items relative
to motivation and teamwork.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

40
Organization. Organization factors contributed to the teamwork assets. Employees often
interacted or worked alongside other personnel to accomplish tasks at CDER. Therefore, it was
important to evaluate the role that the organization plays in fostering teamwork to increase
employee satisfaction. Six items on the EVS (refer to Table 4) suggested that CDER utilizes
teams in various offices to achieve outcomes. Moreover, CDER’s EVS results postulated a
positive organizational culture that fosters teamwork, which more than likely stems from
leadership. Professional development, training and onboarding new employees seem to be
methods designed, scheduled and provided by the organization to supply necessary knowledge
and skills to the staff. Furthermore, an effective system to disseminate information between
workers was apparent according to the 81.8% positive response rate on EVS item 26.
Subsequently, it was assumed that CDER provided an organizational structure that was
supportive and fostered teams.
Summary of the Assumed Assets from the EVS, Business and Educational Psychology
Literature
Table 4 is a crosswalk of the business, educational psychology literature on teamwork
previously cited in Chapter 2, and the EVS questions. The table summarizes the assumed assets
utilizing the gap analysis categorization of knowledge, motivation and organization. Moreover,
an added designation was assigned to the EVS items related to knowledge and motivation to
provide connections to specific learning theory. Table 4 showcases the number of EVS questions
related to promising practices of teamwork according to the categories of knowledge, motivation
and organization. Thus, the number of items listed emphasizes the extent to, and what factors of
teamwork are measured by the EVS.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

41

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Assets for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Issues
Teamwork from the
employee perspective Business Literature
Educational
Psychology
Literature
EVS
Item #
Item %
positive
and
negative
Knowledge (K)
Team members have a
system of monitoring
performance (Mutual
Performance
Monitoring/
Accountability)
Crowley et al. (2014), Niemelä and Kalliola
(2007), Paris et al. (2000), Salas et al.
(2005), Wilson et al. (2007), Ross, Jones,
and Adams (2008).
Eccles (2009) 27 (KF) 61.9/9.8
28 (KC;
KM)
90.3/5.3
Team members take
action to help out each
other (Back-up
Behavior)
Paris et al. (2000), Salas et al. (2005),
Wilson et al. (2007)

Team members adjust
to unexpected
situations
(Adaptability/
Flexibility)
Campion et al. (1993), Durham et al. (1997),
Paris et al. (2000), Rabey (2003), Salas et al.
(2005), Salas et al. (2008), Wilson et al.
(2007)
Denler et al.
(2006)

Team members have a
common
understanding with
each other (Shared
Mental Models)
Campion et al. (1993), Durham et al. (1997),
Filho et al. (2015), Guzzo and Shea (1990),
Paris et al. (2000), Rabey (2003), Bedwell et
al. (2012), Salas et al. (2008), Salas et al.
(2005), Santos and Passos (2013).
Gallimore and
Goldenberg
(2001)
26 (KF) 81.8/6.7
Team members share
information
(Communication)
Campion et al. (1993), DeAngelis et al.
(2014), Durham et al. (1997), Manzoor et al.
(2011), Paris et al. (2000), Salas et al.
(2005), Wilson et al. (2007), Ross et al.
(2008)
Kirschner et
al. (2009),
Schraw and
McCrudden,
(2013)
26 (KM) 81.8/6.7
58 (KP) 66/13

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

42
Table 4, continued
Teamwork from the
employee
perspective Business Literature
Educational
Psychology
Literature
EVS Item
#
Item %
positive
and
negative
Motivation (M)
Team members
have a positive
attitude towards
other team members
and a common goal
(Team Orientation)
Campion et al. (1993), Durham et al. (1997),
Filho et al. (2015), Guzzo and Shea (1990),
Manzoor et al. (2011), Mason and Griffin
(2002), Niemelä and Kalliola (2007), Paris et
al. (2000), Salas et al. (2005), Wilson et al.
(2007), Ross et al. (2008), Bedwell et al.
(2012).
Eccles (2009),
Denler et al.
(2006)
26 (ME) 81.8/6.7
59 (MV) 73.7/8.8
20 (ME) 85.2/5.5
Team members rely
on each other
(Mutual Trust)
Filho et al. (2015), Guzzo and Shea (1990),
Manzoor et al. (2011), Niemelä and Kalliola
(2007), Paris et al. (2000), Rabey (2003),
Salas et al. (2005), Wilson et al. (2007),
Bedwell et al. (2012)
Bandura
(1989), Denler
et al. (2006)
21 (ME) 61.7/17.1
26 (ME) 81.8/6.7
20 (ME) 85.2/5.5
Team members
have confidence in
their and others
abilities (Efficacy-
Self and Collective)
Durham et al. (1997), Filho et al. (2015),
Gallie et al. (2012), Mason and Griffin (2002),
Wilson et al. (2007), Niemelä and Kalliola,
2007
Bandura
(1989),
Pintrich
(2003)
21 (MV) 61.7/17.1
24 (MV) 69/29.5
27 (ME) 61.9/9.8
28 (ME) 90.3/5.3
Organization (O)
Team members
have direction, such
as goals and a
mission provided by
the organization
(Leadership)
Chang et al. (2010), Durham et al. (1997),
Griffin et al. (2001), Guzzo and Shea (1990),
Paris et al. (2000), Salas et al. (2005), Rabey
(2003)
Locke and
Latham (1990)
22 50/25.2
24 69/29.5
25 49.1/23.9
47 76.6/9
58 66/13
59 73.7/8.8
Team members
have a level of
freedom and
independence to
complete work
(Autonomy)
Campion et al. (1993), Gallie et al. (2012),
Griffin et al. (2001), Niemelä and Kalliola,
2007

Factual (f), cognitive (c), persistence (p), metacognitive (m), interest (i), efficacy (e), attribution (a), utility (u), and
value (v).

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

43
Validation of the Performance Assets
The remaining sections of Chapter 3 describe how the assumed assets were validated to
determine which assets are promising practices. Each assumed asset necessitated validation
(Clark & Estes, 2008). A generated list of possible causes provided a starting point for
uncovering the root of performance. In order to prevent assuming assets, three methods were
utilized to validate assumed causes: (a) focus groups and interviews; (b) business literature and;
(c) educational psychology literature. It is important to note that the protocol was determined by
the agency, thus not all intended questions could be asked during the validation process.
Furthermore, the related literature from Chapter 2 was included in the subsequent tables in
Chapter 3 to illustrate the relationships between the literature, and the gap analysis framework.
Validation of Performance Assets: Knowledge
Knowledge is one of the three areas examined in the gap analysis process. Knowledge
consists of four dimensions: (a) factual; (b) conceptual; (c) procedural; and (d) metacognitive
knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Each dimension was examined for potential affects
when conducting a gap analysis. The comprehensive revision of Bloom’s taxonomy combines
cognitive process with the knowledge dimension (Krathwohl, 2002). This framework provided a
guide for analyzing the knowledge component in gap analysis. Every assumed cause of
knowledge required corresponding validation before implementing a solution.
Factual knowledge asset validation. The assumed factual knowledge of employees
working in teams was validated through observations and interviews. In order to assess factual
knowledge assets, employees were asked to elaborate on examples during focus group
observations, and interviews about communicating information in addition to group member
roles and responsibilities. Sample items include:
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

44
1. What kind of information is communicated to others?
2. What are the different roles and responsibilities of team members?
Recall is one of the lower levels of learning according to Bloom’s taxonomy (Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011). Moreover, a factual assessment provides formative information about the
stakeholder’s depth of knowledge about roles and responsibilities of members at the most basic
level of learning, remembering.
Conceptual knowledge asset validation. After initial examination of the EVS survey,
an assumption surfaced that employees were aware of behaviors that lead to meeting work
expectations. The validation of conceptual knowledge assessed employees’ abilities to explain
the principles behind outcome expectations (Krathwohl, 2002). A sample item assessing
conceptual knowledge probed employees in focus groups and interviews to elaborate on what
work expectations mean for your organization?
Procedural knowledge asset validation. After building a foundation of factual and
conceptual knowledge, assumed procedural knowledge assets were addressed. Procedural
knowledge is the ability to know how to methodically complete a task (Rueda, 2011). In order to
validate procedural knowledge assets, researchers probed staff during interviews to describe the
way that the offices and team members disseminated information. The interview questions about
communication methods used by employees in their offices examined procedural knowledge.
Metacognitive knowledge asset validation. An assumed asset for metacognitive
knowledge was that stakeholders are skilled at determining which information to communicate in
the appropriate context and strategies for monitoring performance. Metacognitive knowledge
requires subjects to think about their thinking. In other words, metacognition is exercising
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

45
awareness and control (Mayer, 2011). One method to test metacognitive knowledge was to ask
employees:
1. How do you communicate information?
2. How they evaluate and monitor performance?

Table 5
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Assets and Validation
Assumed Knowledge
Assets How Was It Validated?
Staff members
communicate information
to others (EVS 26, 58).
Staff members elaborated on:
• What kind of information is communicated to others? (F)
• How do employees communicate information in their
office? (P)
• How do employees determine what information to
communicate? (M)
Staff members are aware
of skills necessary to
fulfill job roles and
responsibilities (EVS 27).
Staff members explained:
• The different roles and responsibilities of team members
(F).
Staff members understand
work outcome
expectations (EVS 28).
Staff members described:
• Outcome expectations (C).
• How they evaluate and monitor performance (M).
*Indicated knowledge type for each assumed asset: (F)actual; (C)onceptual; (P)rocedural;
(M)etacognitive

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

46
Validation of Performance Assets: Motivation
Motivation is defined as a person’s investment to reach a desired outcome (Ambrose,
Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010). There are three facets of motivation that indicate a
motivation problem: (a) active choice; (b) persistence; and (c) mental effort (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011). Researchers agree that active choice is the determination to embark on a
given task, persistence is the commitment to finish the task, and mental effort is the cognitive
energy necessary for learning (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Mayer (2011) states that motivation is an internal state that moves a person based on
interest, beliefs, attributions, goals, and social partnership. It is important to note that cultural
context contributes to motivation (Rueda, 2011; Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivational variables
such as self-efficacy, value, attributions, interest, and goals are determining factors to the success
of teamwork performance and employee satisfaction (Denler et al., 2006; Mayer, 2011; Rueda,
2011).
The proposed assets necessitate validation. Therefore, three methods were utilized to
gauge motivational promising practices. Mayer (2011) suggests surveys and observations to
assess and measure motivational characteristics. Thus the EVS provided a starting point to
identify assumed assets, however focus group observations and interviews validated assets.
Efficacy validation. Two questions on the EVS survey, item numbers 27 and 21, provide
initial information about employees’ values. In order to validate the efficacy-based motivation
assets, workers were asked in focus groups and interviews to elaborate about perceptions of
confidence of self and others relative to job skills. In addition, document analysis examined
employee-provided examples of specific efficacious behaviors. Sample items include:
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

47
1. Examples of work ethic and skills of group members.
2. Examples of colleagues perceiving themselves and others to have the necessary
knowledge/skills for the job.
3. Phrases like “I trust my group to get the job done.”
4. Examples of group member relying or counting on each other to achieve an outcome.
Value validation. In order to validate value motivation assets, staff members were
observed in focus groups and self-select to participate in interviews. The survey items addressed
staff members’ motivation based on attributions regarding various issues within the organization.
Sample items include:
1. Examples of recognition by peers, managers or public (importance value).
2. Examples of recognition awards (attainment value).

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

48
Table 6
Summary of Assumed Motivation Assets and Validation
Motivational
Asset
Type of
Indicator
Possible
Underlying Factor How Was it Validated?
Staff members
have the
confidence in
their skills to get
the job done.
Active
Choice
Mental
Effort
Persistence
• Group
orientation (L)
• High self and
collective
efficacy (T)
Written Likert-scale survey items
• The skill level in my work unit
has improved in the past year
(27).
• My work unit is able to recruit
people with the right skills (21).
Focus Groups/Interviews
• Examples of colleagues
perceiving themselves and others
to have the necessary knowledge/
skills for the job
Document Analysis
• Examples of work ethic and skills
of group members.
Staff members
feel valued for
their work
contributions.
Active
Choice
Mental
Effort
Persistence
• Importance
value (T)
• Attainment
value (T)
Written Likert-scale survey items
• In my work unit, differences in
performance are recognized in a
meaningful way (FEVS 24).
• How would you rate the overall
quality of work done by your
work unit? (FEVS 28).
• Managers support collaboration
across work units to accomplish
work objectives (FEVS 59).
Focus Groups/Interviews
• Examples of recognition by
peers, managers or public.
Document Analysis
• Examples of recognition awards.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

49

Table 6, continued
Motivational
Asset
Type of
Indicator
Possible
Underlying Factor How Was it Validated?
Staff members
trust each other.
Active
Choice
• Company
culture (L)
• Open
communication
(T)
• Fair treatment/
accountability
(L)
Written Likert-scale survey items
• Employees in my work unit share
job knowledge with each other
(FEVS 26)
• The people I work with cooperate
to get the job done (FEVS 20)
Focus Groups/Interviews
• Phrases like “I trust my group to
get the job done”
Document Analysis
• Examples of group member
relying or counting on each other
to achieve an outcome.
Note: Indication of source: Related Literature (L) or Motivation Theories (T)

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

50
Validation of Performance Assets: Organization/Culture/Context
The assumed organizational assets of promising practices at CDER included engaged
leadership, professional development opportunities, evaluation, effective communication
methods, and a culture of collaboration. In order to validate these assets, employees participated
in focus group observations and self-selected phone interviews. In addition, the utilization of
document analysis helped to evaluate which organizational factors were promising practices.
Sample focus group and interview items include:
1. Methods to disseminate information.
2. Examples of high quality work that leadership/management recognized.
Sample of document analysis items include:
1. Examples recorded in focus group sessions about gaining knowledge and skills.
2. Example of awards (formal or informal) received.
Table 7 summarizes the assumed assets and methods of validation.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

51

Table 7
Summary of Assumed Organizational/Culture/Context Assets and Validation
Organizational Asset
Possible Organizational
Factors How Was it Validated?
The organization
develops employees.
• Engaged leadership/
management (T)
• Professional
development (E)
• Evaluative system to
assess skills/ potential
(E)
• Mentoring (L)
Likert scale survey questions
• Supervisors in my work unit
support employee development
(#47)
Focus Groups/Interviews
• Employees discussed:
o Examples of learning new
knowledge/skills
o Mentoring
Document Analysis
• Records of gaining knowledge and
skills from the focus group
sessions
The organization
effectively
communicates to
employees.
• Systems of
communication set up
(L/E)
• Leadership/management
transparency (T)
Likert scale survey questions
• Managers promote communication
among different work units (#58)
Focus Groups/Interviews
• Employees discussed:
o Methods to disseminate
information
Document Analysis
• Example from worksheet about
how info is communicated in
office

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

52
Table 7, continued
Organizational Asset
Possible Organizational
Factors How Was it Validated?
The organization
values collaboration.
• Engaged leadership/
management (T)
• Culture of
collaboration (E)
• System to set up
teams (L)
Likert scale survey questions
• Managers support collaboration across
work units to accomplish work
objectives (#59).
• Managers promote communication
among different work units (#58).
Focus Groups/Interviews
• Employees discussed:
o An instance of collaboration that
leadership noticed or participated in.
Document Analysis
• Example of collaboration set up by
management
The organization
values quality.
• Clear vision and
mission (L)
• Accountability/
evaluation system
(E)
• Engaged leadership/
management (T)
Likert scale survey questions
• Promotions in my work unit are based
on merit (#22).
• In my work unit, differences in
performance are recognized in a
meaningful way (#24)
• Awards in my work unit depend on how
well employees perform their jobs (#25).
Focus Groups/Interviews
• Employees discussed:
o Examples of high quality work that
leadership/management recognized.
Document Analysis
• Example of awards (formal or informal)
received.
Note: Identification of source: EVS (E) or Related Literature (L) or Theories related to
culture/context (T)

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

53
Summary of Assets to be Validated and Method
The assumed knowledge, motivation and organization factors required validation to
understand which factors were promising practices at CDER. The literature previously
mentioned in Chapter 2, in conjunction with the EVS items, surfaced assumed assets of
teamwork relative to employee job satisfaction. The validated promising practices are listed
according to the knowledge, motivation and organization dimensions:
1. Knowledge: Mutual performance monitoring/ accountability, back-up behavior,
adaptability/ flexibility, shared mental models and communication
2. Motivation: Team orientation, mutual trust, and efficacy- self and collective
3. Organizational Culture: Leadership, mutual performance monitoring/ accountability
and autonomy
Data analysis of the focus groups, interviews and documents validated the assumed assets using
qualitative data. Table 8 summarizes the assets validated and methods utilized which includes
literature sources, EVS item numbers as well as specific validating methods.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

54
Table 8
Summary of Assets Validated and Methods Utilized
Teamwork
Factor by Gap
Analysis Area
Assumed Causes and Assets Sources Validating Methods
Teamwork Business Sources
Gap
Analysis
Literature
Equivalents
EVS
Item #
Focus Groups &
Interviews
Document
Analysis
Knowledge
Mutual
Performance
Monitoring/
Accountability
Crowley et al. (2014), Niemelä and
Kalliola (2007), Paris et al. (2000),
Salas et al. (2005), Wilson et al.
(2007), Ross et al. (2008).
Eccles
(2009)
27
28
Examples of staff
members explaining
different roles and
responsibilities of
team
Examples of how
staff evaluates and
monitors
performance
Confirmation of
employees
knowing roles and
responsibilities of
group
Examples of group
accountability
processes
Back-up
Behavior
Paris et al. (2000), Salas et al.
(2005), Wilson et al. (2007)
Eccles
(2009)
Examples of
employees helping
out team members.
Examples of
employees helping
out team members.
Adaptability/
Flexibility
Campion et al. (1993), Durham et
al. (1997), Paris et al. (2000),
Rabey (2003), Salas et al. (2005),
Salas et al. (2008), Wilson et al.
(2007)
Denler et
al. (2006)
Examples of staff
members adjusting
to unexpected
situations.
Examples of staff
members adjusting
to unexpected
situations.
Shared Mental
Models
Campion et al. (1993), Durham et
al. (1997), Filho et al. (2015),
Guzzo and Shea (1990), Paris et al.
(2000), Rabey (2003), Bedwell et
al. (2012), Salas et al. (2008), Salas
et al. (2005), Santos & Passos
(2013).
Gallimore
and
Goldenberg
(2001)
26 Examples of team
members showing
or expressing
understanding
towards each other.
Examples of
empathy towards
team members.
Communication Campion et al. (1993), DeAngelis
et al. (2014), Durham et al. (1997),
Manzoor et al. (2011), Paris et al.
(2000), Salas et al. (2005), Wilson
et al. (2007), Ross et al. (2008)
Kirschner
et al.
(2009),
Schraw and
McCrudden
(2013)
26
58
Examples of the
communication
process and sharing
information.
Examples of the
communication
process and
sharing
information.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

55
Table 8, continued
Assumed Causes and Assets Sources Validating Methods
Teamwork
Factor by Gap
Analysis Area Teamwork Business Sources
Gap
Analysis
Literature
Equivalents
EVS
Item #
Focus Groups &
Interviews
Document
Analysis
Motivation
Team
Orientation
Campion et al. (1993), Durham et
al. (1997), Filho et al. (2015),
Guzzo and Shea (1990), Manzoor
et al. (2011), Mason and Griffin
(2002), Niemelä and Kalliola
(2007), Paris et al. (2000), Salas et
al. (2005), Wilson et al. (2007),
Ross et al. (2008), Bedwell et al.
(2012).
Eccles
(2009),
Denler et
al. (2006)
26
59
20
Examples of team
members having a
common goal and a
positive attitude
towards one
another.
Examples of
similar work goals
and a positive
attitude towards
one another.
Mutual Trust Filho et al. (2015), Guzzo and Shea
(1990), Manzoor et al. (2011),
Niemelä and Kalliola (2007), Paris
et al. (2000), Rabey (2003), Salas
et al. (2005), Wilson et al. (2007),
Bedwell et al. (2012)
Bandura,
(1989),
Denler et
al. (2006)
21
26
20
Examples of team
members relying on
each other.
Examples of team
members
depending on each
other
Efficacy- Self
and Collective
Durham et al. (1997), Filho et al.
(2015), Gallie et al. (2012), Mason
and Griffin (2002), Wilson et al.
(2007), Niemelä and Kalliola,
(2007)
Bandura,
(1989),
Pintrich,
(2003)
21
24
27
28
Examples of
employees
expressing
confidence in their
and peers’ abilities.
Examples of
confidence in team
members and one’
own capabilities.
Organization
Team
Leadership
Chang et al. (2010), Durham et al.
(1997), Griffin et al. (2001), Guzzo
and Shea (1990), Paris et al.
(2000), Salas et al. (2005), Rabey
(2003)
Locke and
Latham
(1990)
22
24
25
47
58
59
Examples of
workers referencing
goals and directives
from the
organization and
management.
Examples of
workers
referencing goals
and directives from
the organization
and management.
Mutual
Performance
Monitoring and
Accountability
Campion et al. (1993), Crowley et
al. (2014), Niemelä and Kalliola
(2007), Paris et al. (2000), Salas et
al. (2005), Wilson et al. (2007)
Eccles,
(2009)
Examples of an
organizational
system for
monitoring
performance.
Examples of an
organizational
system for
monitoring
performance.
Autonomy Campion et al. (1993), Gallie et al.
(2012), Griffin et al. (2001),
Niemelä and Kalliola, (2007)
Examples of system
that provide worker
freedom and
independence.
Examples of
employees
expressing the
freedom to work
without constant
supervision.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

56
Participating Stakeholders
The use of CDER as the study site evolved from the FDA reaching out to the University
of Southern California to create a partnership. Three types of stakeholder existed at CDER,
senior management, supervisors and employees. However, the employees and supervisors from
six offices created the sample for this project. The participation of the two stakeholders included
the EVS survey, focus group sessions, and involvement in self-selected interviews. Each office
had a similar percentage of participation of employees who took the 2014 EVS, and took part in
this study. According to the information cards collected at focus group sessions, the subjects’ job
descriptions ranged from office clerks to senior scientists. In addition, the number of years at the
organization on average, for employees who provided such data, was 7.2 years.
Participation in Focus Groups/Observations
Three types of stakeholders participated in this study, senior management, supervisors
and employees. Senior management played a minimal role in this study. Approximately 155 staff
members and 80 supervisors attended the focus group sessions at the FDA facilities.
1
In other
words, roughly 5% of CDER’s 4,000 person staff attended the focus groups. Each of the six
offices participating had varied involvement rates in the focus group sessions. The offices
represented in the focus groups provided an assortment of EVS scores with some offices
consistently representing higher positive results that assisted in capturing promising practices
while other offices provided a range of EVS scores.

1
Number of attendees from the first focus group was not recorded on demographic cards.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

57
Participation in Interviews
A voluntary call to all attendees for follow-up interviews resulted in eight employees and
three supervisors participating in interviews. It is important to note that two supervisors were
team leads. Team leads act as a liaison between the employees and upper management, however
they do not have authoritative power. Although team leads are technically considered staff
members, for the purpose of this study only the employee level viewpoints expressed in the
interviews were examined and analyzed. Hence, eight interviews were analyzed.
Project Design
This project was part of a larger collaborative study of employee and supervisor
perspectives about job satisfaction. The larger project collected data from six offices, (a) Office
of Management; (b) Office of Compliance; (c) Office of Communication; (d) Office of New
Drugs; (e) Office of Transitional Science and; (f) Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology,
within the Food & Drug Administration in an attempt to explore the perspectives of supervisors
and employees regarding job satisfaction utilizing the gap analysis framework. Gap analysis is a
methodological framework designed to identify and validate assumed causes contributing to
performance, in this case high and low employee satisfaction (Clark & Estes, 2008). Table 9
describes the six projects. Each researcher examined a specific stakeholder viewpoint
(supervisors or employees) from the perspective of either barriers or facilitators related to
supervision or teamwork.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

58
Table 9
Design of the Larger Project
Perspective Employees Supervisors
Teamwork Facilitators Kristin Muramoto Keala Losch
Barriers Kasey Wilson
Supervision Facilitators Christopher Obenchain Moani Crowell
Barriers Ku’ulei Nakahashi

Data Collection
Permission granted from the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB) ensured the safety and protection of participants in this study. Three lead
investigators and six co-investigators collected data over the course of multiple visits to CDER’s
facility in Maryland to validate knowledge, motivation and organizational assumed causes and
assets. Focus group observations, document analysis and interviews were conducted. Each visit
included a focus group session led by partner consultants Suntiva who are an auxiliary of the
Department of Learning and Organizational Development at CDER and act as adjunct staff.
Offices received invitations to notify participants about focus groups sessions.
Investigators had limited participation in the group sessions. The researchers observed
employees by listening to conversations and asking clarifying questions. Reflective notes based
on observations detailed the events and conversations that occurred during the focus groups,
since tape recorders were not permitted by the organization. Pertinent documents collected from
the focus group sessions were included in data analysis. Follow-up interviews on the phone with
volunteers from focus groups occurred after the sessions. Personal interviews permitted
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

59
employees to openly elaborate and further discuss their perspective regarding employee
satisfaction at CDER with a level of anonymity.
Instruments
The utilization of protocols for the focus groups, interviews and document analysis
ensured data collection consistency across the research team. The instruments were developed by
the research team. The following paragraphs describe the instruments in addition to referencing
examples attached in the appendices.
Utilizing a focus group protocol assisted the research team during the observations. The
focus group instrument recorded general demographic information, a room diagram section and
interior observations in addition to a section to record notes that categorized information
according to the knowledge, motivation and organization dimensions. The protocol located in
Appendix A also directed the researchers’ attention towards information related to gap analysis.
The tool provided a consistent format for collecting data.
An interview protocol was used for all interviews (refer to Appendix B). The interviews
were semi-structured and consisted of nine standard questions. The standardized questions
explored the influence of teamwork and supervision on employee satisfaction, in addition to
asking about the implications of knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. Probing
questions provided the interviewer the opportunity to further explore areas of interest, and to
understand the interviewee’s perspective. Interviewees were given the opportunity to further
express their viewpoints about job satisfaction relevant to teamwork.
Two table documents were provided to employees during the focus group sessions, which
transpired into primary source documents for analysis. The worksheets included two questions
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

60
that addressed either the top or bottom 10 results on the EVS for the respective offices (refer to
Appendix C):
1. What about these items are important, and why?
2. What do you think causes or contributes to these results?
The document analysis tool guided discussions for participants in addition to providing a place
for subject to record information.
Observations
Each visit included a focus group session conducted by auxiliary facilitators. The focus
groups afforded employees an opportunity to verbalize their viewpoints about the organization
with peers. Employees were divided by position ranks to avoid power and authority
discrepancies that might silence participants from voicing their opinions. Thus, the collection of
six data sets ensued. As previously described, an observation protocol guided data collection.
Examining the top and bottom ten EVS items for their office prompted discussion among staff
members.
Two lead investigators and multiple co-investigators consisting of USC doctoral
student(s), dissertation committee members, in addition to the CDER’s adjunct staff, Suntiva,
actively observed participants in addition to taking notes during the observations. Investigators
also asked questions to further understand participants’ points of view and sat in on small group
discussions. Observation and reflective notes recorded interactions, and employee exchanges
occurring at the focus groups.
Interviews
Personal interviews, occurring after the focus groups, were offered to provide anonymity
to employees so they could share more information related to employee satisfaction at CDER.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

61
The follow-ups also provided the opportunity to collect rich data filled with detail and
descriptions. Employees self-selected to participate in phone interviews after the focus group
session by filling out a contact information card. Although 23 participants volunteered for
interviews only 11 individuals interviewed. Eight of the interviews conducted were with
employees while three follow-ups occurred with supervisors after the focus group sessions. The
eight employee interviews provided data for analysis in this study.
Document Analysis
Various, pertinent documents collected during the focus group sessions were included in
data analysis. The focus group sessions provided opportunities for employees to reflect with
peers about the top and bottom ten EVS items for their office on a worksheet. In addition, group
share-out sessions were charted on large poster paper during the close out session. The
information recorded was also included in the document analysis.
Trustworthiness of Data
It is important to address the credibility and trustworthiness of this study in order to
ensure confidence in the findings. Triangulation and critical self-reflection by the researcher
strengthened findings. Triangulation is a method of substantiating the data collected (Merriam,
2009). The EVS was an anonymous survey based on an existing and reliable instrument utilized
by the Federal Government to measure employee viewpoints. Furthermore, observations and
interviews did not collect personal information about participants to help ensure candid
responses without the potential threat of consequences. Interviews were confidential and
conducted by phone. Lastly, research team members checked in regularly to ensure consistent
data collection methods.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

62
Data Analysis
The qualitative data collected underwent a process of analysis using coding. Coding is a
process of categorizing data for analysis (Merriam, 2009). The individual coding process may
vary and look different for each researcher to include a combination of deductive and inductive
collections of findings. The data analysis system utilized in this study was a cyclical process that
employed pre-determined categories categorized according to the knowledge, motivation and
organization dimensions in the first round of coding (refer to Appendix D). As data analysis
continued themes were grouped together in a practice called axial coding. In addition,
unexpected themes known as a priori and open coding were identified if they continued to
emerge from the data.
Analytic tools such as looking at language, thinking about the different meanings of
words, clustering, counting, and stepping back aided the coding process (Corbin & Strauss,
2008; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). Data analysis necessitated multiple readings of the
observation notes and interview transcripts to recognize reoccurrences in the data and to
formulate findings. All data source were read a minimum of three times when coding. The
strategy of color-coding data also helped to identify frequency, and prompted reflection on
emergent themes throughout the coding process. For example, yellow was utilized to identify
knowledge while blue and green represented motivational and organizational findings
respectively when coding interviews. Highlighting and the aforementioned pre-determined
coding scheme was used when analyzing observations.
Validation of findings was based on a continuum, which reflected the amount of evidence
present. The number of sources was used to determine strength of findings. Findings were given
labels such as validated with three sources, validated with two sources, and not validated due to
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

63
limited evidence. In other words, if evidence was found in three different data sources then it was
considered a robust finding. Where as evidence located in two different data point expressed
moderate strength. This continuum suggested that if evidence was found in more data sources
than validation is stronger. The findings are presented in Chapter 4.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

64
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The study’s purpose was to examine promising practices of employee teamwork that
influenced job satisfaction at CDER. CDER’s leadership decided to investigate the influence of
teamwork on employee satisfaction after the 2014 EVS results posted. Data were collected and
analyzed to explore the validation of surfacing teamwork practices relevant to employee
satisfaction. Thus, this chapter addresses the first guiding question of this study:
1. From the perspective of employees, what knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors influence teamwork and contribute to employee satisfaction in CDER?
Chapter 4 also presents the knowledge, motivation and organizational findings in descending
order of frequency, and interprets the results.
The EVS, business literature and social science research in Chapter 2 suggested 11
presumed promising practices with observable behaviors:
1. Knowledge of Mutual Performance Monitoring/ Accountability
2. Back-up Behavior
3. Adaptability/Flexibility
4. Shared Mental Models
5. Communication
6. Team Orientation
7. Mutual Trust
8. Efficacy — Self and Collective
9. Leadership
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

65
10. Mutual Performance Monitoring/ Accountability by the organization
11. Autonomy
The contributing employee satisfaction factors under review were categorized under the
dimensions of knowledge, motivation and organization. The data collected from six offices at
CDER attempted to validate the promising practices of employee satisfaction. The examination
of promising practices frequency resulted from the observations, interviews and document
analysis utilizing the recurrence of the knowledge, motivation and organizational factor sub-
groupings. Overall, ten promising practices were validated through data analysis using the
proposed continuum from Chapter 3. The validation continuum considered the strength of
evidence based on the occurrences in multiple data sources. For example, evidence located in
three different data points was regarded as robust, whereas evidence in two data sources was
deemed moderate in strength. Four knowledge factors were validated:
• Mutual performance monitoring/ accountability
• Back-up behavior
• Shared mental models
• Communication.
In addition, the three motivation elements of team orientation, mutual trust, and efficacy as well
as all three organizational factors, leadership, mutual performance monitoring/ accountability,
and autonomy were validated. Back-up behavior, team orientation, leadership and autonomy
provided the most robust evidence. These findings and their supporting evidence are reviewed
below.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

66
Knowledge Results
Four knowledge factors, mutual performance monitoring/ accountability, back-up
behavior, adaptability/ flexibility and communication, were validated after examining the data.
The aforementioned knowledge factors were substantiated with two sources with the exception
of back-up behavior, which was evident in all three data points. The four knowledge types,
posited by Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011), were utilized to categorize findings. The four
knowledge categories are factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). Qualitative data gathered from observations, interviews and document analysis
expressed the employee viewpoints at CDER. The knowledge classifications and promising
practices are discussed in relation to each other.
Focus Group/ Observation Results
Procedural knowledge. The observations revealed only examples of procedural
knowledge. However within procedural knowledge, participants suggested two teamwork-related
promising practices relative to employee satisfaction, back-up behavior and communication.
Procedural knowledge indicates comprehension of methods, skills and processes utilized.
Back-up behavior. In particular, one promising practice, back up behavior, was evident
in a number of employees’ examples when discussing interactions between coworkers. For
example, an employee described a back-up behavior example of how he and other coworkers
aided each other, “We’re great at working together, having each other’s back. [If] something
needs to be taken care of, [and] if someone is out of office [then we take care of it for them]. No
one is better [than another], [we all] have equal footing.” There were also two other examples
that supported back up behavior providing instances of team members taking action to assist
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

67
colleagues. In conclusion, staff members were able to articulate how they help each other on the
job.
Communication. Another reoccurring promising practice cited in the focus group
sessions was communication. Employees were able to state their approaches to communication.
Three instances showed employees listing the various methods of circulating information to
others, “We also have good communication – by communicating with [other colleagues], we are
on the same page. [The] kinds of communication [utilized are] emails, [an] open door policies,
informal conversations, [and] team meetings – we get to communicate a lot.” In other words,
employees knew multiple ways to disseminate information to colleagues. The examples of
procedural cognition revealed that some of CDER’s staff possess the skills and capacity to help
out others and communicate information on the job.
Factual, conceptual and metacognitive knowledge. Factual, conceptual and
metacognitive knowledge examples of promising practices of teamwork were not observable in
the employee focus groups. In particular, the sharing of information pertaining to specific
elements of work at CDER did not surface in the observations. Similar to factual knowledge, the
focus group sessions did not reveal evidence of conceptual knowledge, which, if present, would
indicate an understanding of principles and relationships. Likewise metacognition was not
apparent from the data gathered during focus group sessions. In conclusion, the observations
revealed examples only of procedural knowledge as previously described. However, the
interviews and document analysis did suggest the presence of factual, conceptual and
metacognitive knowledge, which will be discussed in a future section.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

68
Interview Results
A variety of knowledge types surfaced in the interviews. The interviews surfaced the
existence of three promising practices: shared mental models, mutual performance monitoring/
accountability and communication at CDER. The subsequent subsections present the viewpoints
verbalized by employees by descending frequency.
Metacognitive knowledge. Employees at CDER provided examples of self-awareness
and strategic thinking. The following subsections detail the metacognitive evidence. As a result,
the promising practices of shared mental models and back-up behavior were evident at CDER,
and validated as influencers of employee satisfaction relative to teamwork.
Shared mental models. Multiple employees expressed the ability to look at situations
from the perspective of teamwork. Understanding about shared mental models was expressed in
two examples by employees, which described the dynamics of working with team members. For
example, one employee stated,
In our bigger group a little bit, the people were equally helpful but our responsibilities are
different enough that you can’t really help each other because we’re not all doing the
same thing, but they’re all real nice and they’ll help you if they can. It’s just, we’re
different enough they can’t, if that makes any sense.
Another staff member stated that, “Everybody has more work than they have time to do and as
long as you aren’t trying to make them look like they aren’t doing their work or something,
they’re all pretty helpful.” Employees at CDER articulated a sense of understanding towards
each other. Furthermore, there was an instance in which an employee recognized the supervisor
as apart from the team by expressing understanding of the supervisor’s position and role. An
employee, “I think, if I had to put myself in the supervisor’s shoes, I don’t know what I would do,
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

69
because you have this work load, which is huge, and you only have so many people on your staff
that can do it.” This illustration further demonstrated awareness and embracement of empathy
towards colleagues regardless of position.
Back-up behavior. Employees also described intentional behaviors that reflected back-up
behavior. One employee overviewed the strategy used to aid coworkers or turn down tasks to
help team members:
I think if you’re in a down time, or like me, I’ve volunteered to help do some of the
review work, over the past couple of months, because we’ve been short review staff, and
that’s not what I typically do. It’s not my discipline, and it’s not what I like to do,
certainly, but I volunteered to help my team out. That’s because I had a lull in my
workload, but I know these other reviewers, they haven’t had any lulls, so it’s really
difficult. I know they’ve been asked to take on different projects, and some of them have
had to say, ‘I don’t want to have to say no, I don’t want to have to turn down an
assignment, but I have to.’
Staff members were able to express awareness of their limitations and capacity. Yet, employees
still consciously choose to take action and help each other out even if it meant extending
themselves beyond their comfort zone and expertise.
Conceptual knowledge. The interviews revealed conceptual knowledge as a strength. In
particular, the interviews showcased instance of mutual performance monitoring and
accountability.
Mutual performance monitoring/accountability. Employees at CDER are skilled, and
able to understand the roles and responsibilities of peers. Three specific accounts provided by
interviewees noted that staff members comprehended that their colleagues are highly skilled
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

70
workers. For example, one employee stated, “You see that they have the ability to do the work
and to do whatever it takes to get the job done, so that’s why people are hired.” Two other
employees reinforced the high ability and capacity of workers at CDER with statements like “on
the most part, employees have skills and knowledge” and “I always say that I think we have
incredibly, highly skilled, highly trained people.” Employees recognized their colleagues’ ability
to fulfill their job roles and responsibilities. Thus, evidence surfaced that showcased that staff
members understood their peers’ capabilities and performance.
Factual knowledge. Factual knowledge responses surfaced in the interviews. Factual
knowledge is the sharing of concrete details and specific elements. Statements expressed
examples of the promising practices of communication by employees.
Communication. Communicating pertinent information between parties was evident.
One staff member affirmed the sharing of task and job-related information:
I know that within my own team, communication is very good, limited only by the
amount of time we have on the things that we have on our plate. People reach out to each
other, to say, hey, I’ve got something I think you might have some input into, or you need
to know about. That happens a lot.
It was evident in the interviews that employees engaged in a mutual exchange of factual
information with colleagues.
Procedural knowledge.
Mutual performance monitoring/accountability. Employees at CDER followed up with
colleagues to ensure the completion and success of task. Of the eight employee interviews, one
example specific to procedural employee knowledge was provided. One worker stated, “even if
they drop the ball, at some point my area follows and asks, ‘what’s the status?’ Other than that,
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

71
usually groups reply to emails, or calls, or give us information needed for meetings and things.”
Holding team members accountable was not a common practice at CDER according to the
interview data.
Document Analysis Results
Documents provided another data point to reaffirm findings. The documents provided six
examples of conceptual and four of metacognitive knowledge. One instance of procedural
knowledge appeared. The subsequent sections outline the evidence according to the knowledge
dimensions and promising practices. As a result, document analysis supported the promising
practices of mutual performance monitoring and accountability, adaptability and shared mental
models.
Conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge emerged under mutual performance
monitoring/ accountability, and shared mental models.
Mutual performance monitoring/accountability. Employees were aware that peers
possessed the skills and knowledge to perform their jobs well showcasing mutual performance
monitoring. Two statements listed on the table notes expressed this feeling, “working with very
smart and professional people,” and “not a lot of turnover so you can really get to know people
and capabilities.” The documents revealed that employees knew each other’s strengths.
Furthermore, three reports of shared mental models were found.
Shared mental models. Examples of shared mental models were presented in the table
notes. Employees wrote phrases such as, “We work so well in our team, we don’t require
intervention or help from others,” and “things get done and people work together to get things
done” which suggested that employees understood each other. In addition, one table group listed
the words, “cooperate, reassuring, team.” There was multiple reoccurrences of employee
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

72
indicating mutual understanding of each other therefore providing evidence that shared mental
models exists among colleagues at CDER.
Another example found in the document analysis hinted at employee understanding of the
mission. The participants wrote the phrase, “Knowing and believing in the mission.” Although
the discussion about the importance of CDER’s mission surfaced in every focus group, the
limited information provided on the documents analyzed showcased only one staff member’s
belief that colleagues comprehend CDER’s mission. Hence, employees asserted evidence of
conceptual knowledge of mutual performance monitoring/ accountability, and shared mental
model in the document analysis.
Metacognitive knowledge.
Adaptability. Adaptability was a visible promising practice. Staff members at CDER
provided examples of self-awareness. Two table groups from different offices stated examples
that supported employees’ ability to adapt and be flexible in varying circumstances. Employees
were cognizant of when to adjust to situations, “people recognize the urgency-when properly
communicated,” and “because we are customer service driven, we work with people and are
more willing to be accommodating and must be held accountable for achieving results.”
Unpredictable situations did not prevent team members at CDER from performing or completing
tasks. Instead, employees demonstrated flexibility and adaptability.
Back-up behavior. Confirmation of back-up behavior also materialized. An instance of
metacognitive knowledge was noted about employees understanding when to “pitch in to
complete the work as necessary.” Employees expressed awareness of back-up behavior. Team
members did not need to request help since colleagues were able to observe when peers required
help, and assist without being asked.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

73
Shared mental models. In addition, there was evidence of shared mental models when
examining the documents. One table group expressed perception of group members’ dispositions
and temperaments stating, “personalities are matched well.” Team members understood each
other’s personalities. Subsequently, there was a sense of self-awareness of how each team
member worked together in the group. In conclusion, employees at CDER strategically made
decisions about their capacity to adapt, aid, and recognize dispositions as expressed through
metacognitive knowledge examples in document analysis.
Procedural and factual knowledge. Examples of procedural and factual knowledge
were not evident in the document analysis results.
Motivation Results
Motivation significantly impacts achievement (Clark et al., 2006). Motivation stems from
active choice, mental effort, and persistence (Rueda, 2011). Three elements of motivation were
utilized in the analysis to delineate more specificity: (a) value; (b) confidence and; (c) emotion.
The following findings suggested that value, placing importance on the mission and work, was a
common thread at CDER. Employees value their work. Moreover, team orientation, efficacy and
trust were validated with three and two sources respectively.
There was a clear connection between the work itself and CDER’s mission. Hence,
multiple examples of working towards a common goal surfaced in the data resulting in the
validation of team orientation. It is important to note that team members were not directly
referenced in examples of team orientation. Instead, the use of “we” was interpreted as referring
to colleagues and collectiveness.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

74
Focus Group/Observation Results
Team orientation. Team orientation was validated as a promising practice of teamwork
with three sources. Several employees reported multiple instances of team orientation. Team
orientation describes a positive disposition towards a common goal and other team members. All
10 examples cited the work, or the common goal of protecting and promoting public health, as a
motivating factor. Although working with team members was not specified in the examples, the
aforementioned use of the plural subject, “we,” represented a sense of collectiveness and
working together towards a shared objective. For example, one staff member’s statement
eloquently summed up the accounts of other participants by saying that people “constantly look
to improve. The people we work [with] — it’s important to work well with others to increase
efficiency, quality. Everyone fully understands, supports and contributes to the mission.”
Surprisingly only one illustration of trust emerged, “we look at everyone around us and believe
they are doing good work.” Moreover, after reviewing the employee focus group notes written
by the observers, subsequent data show that staff members expressed confidence in team
members’ abilities.
The focus group data revealed that CDER employees exhibit team orientation through the
expression of positive beliefs towards a common goal. The mission superseded teamwork. In
other words, the mission influences teamwork to the extent that individual employees’ beliefs in
CDER’s mission, and alignment to a common goal caused teamwork to occur. Analysis of the
team orientation examples showed that employees cooperate as a team with colleagues.
Participants expressed positive attitudes toward accomplishing the work that supports the
mission.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

75
Interview Results
Efficacy. The interviews revealed high employee efficacy in their self and team to
successfully complete their work. Employees often cited examples of confidence to express
efficacy in the interviews. Confidence was an indicator used to validate efficacy. The data
showed that staff members believed that they could make a difference. For example, in response
to the question what would you say are important factors influencing employee satisfaction, one
participant stated, “I definitely think feeling confident and believing in what, at least, I do. I
enjoy my job, because I feel it’s rewarding. It helps others, and I believe the mission.” Another
interviewee also offered an insight, “I guess my take away from [the focus group process] is that
I’m really optimistic that we will work towards making things better. We will work towards even
enhancing the good things and keeping them that way. That’s my take away.” CDER staff
members projected a general feeling of assurance in their abilities to make CDER a better
organization. Employees were confident that their contributions, jobs and work impacted the
organization in a positive way.
More specifically, self-efficacy appeared in the data. Two employees stated that they
would make the active choice to be a part of the solution or upcoming changes that would ensue
at CDER. One participant stated, “I really would like to be a part of a solution to the issues as
opposed to being all hammering on the problem, because there’s no sense in beating a dead horse
I’ve always been told.” Another staff member contributed the following, “I’d rather be a part of
the solution, than to be a part of the problem to, to continue to harp on the problem because it’s
not going to get us anywhere.” Employee believed that they possessed the ability to contribute to
the upcoming changes and make a difference in the organization.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

76
Collective efficacy also existed. Employees asserted a sense of confidence that team
members were able to contribute to job-related tasks, “Most employees come in very eager to
make their contributions, and of course, before people are hired, because you see the potential in
them.” Multiple examples affirmed the belief that employees see the potential to improve the
organization after taking part in the focus groups. For example, one employee recounted
collective efficacy:
I mean I believe everyone is sincere in wanting to definitely have better scores for us and
want to do the right thing going forward and coming to a median where we all can be
satisfied, but I don’t think everyone is willing or even understands the commitment it’s
going to take for us to do this.
Staff members expressed certainty that their peers were capable of doing their jobs therefore,
showcasing confidence in their teams. Thus, the interviews substantiated self and collective-
efficacy of employees in the observed office groups, in addition to indicating the existence of
high levels of motivation.
Team orientation. Team orientation appeared multiple times in the analysis of the
interview data. The data indicated that employees do not hesitate to exert extra effort in their
work. Staff members at CDER are persistent despite obstacles like unfamiliarity with topics or
looming deadlines because employees at CDER have a positive attitude towards the common
goal of protecting the public’s health. Thus, staff members have a strong work ethic and display
relentlessness when it comes to their jobs because they strongly believe in the mission:
What I’ve seen, as part of my team, because we have these deadlines, we do whatever it
takes. We don’t like to miss deadlines, so we will put in the extra effort, the extra hours,
whether it’s a weekend, or a weeknight, or whatever. Whatever it takes to get the
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

77
assignment complete. Because we have these deadlines, we do whatever it takes. We
don’t like to miss deadlines, so we will put in the extra effort, the extra hours, whether
it’s a weekend, or a weeknight, or whatever. Whatever it takes to get the assignment
complete.
Workers have a positive disposition towards their work. Therefore, employees are willing to
sacrifice their personal time for the common good of their team and assignments.
In other words, staff members are highly motivated. They exhibit high efficacy, value and
team orientation. It appears that efficacy and team orientation lend itself to getting along in work
groups in addition to efficiency and effectiveness which was affirmed by one employee who
stated that peers, “have a good rapport overall with employees working with each other.”
However, there was insufficient data to support that mutual trust is evident among team members.
Confidence in team members to mutually help or depend on one another to accomplish
tasks defines trust. For instance, one employee stated:
As a part of the team, I can’t be late with my deliverable, because it really puts my
reviewer in a bind, and if she’s late, then that puts our team leader in our division in a
bind, and so I don’t think anyone wants to be late with a review.
Team members believed that peers were dependable and trustworthy. Another example by an
employee described a constraint of trust, “I would say trust is only limited by the sense that
there’s occasionally a person that does not pull their weight.” The limited evidence suggested
that two team members believed, for the most part, that they could rely on their colleagues for
support and help.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

78
Document Analysis Results
Team orientation. Team orientation reappeared for the third time in document analysis
confirming the presence of the practice in three sources or triangulation. Examination of the table
groups’ notes resulted in a high frequency of team orientation. Team orientation can be observed
as positive attitudes toward other team members and a common goal. Fifteen examples surfaced
in the document analysis. For example, one table group stated, “contributing to the mission,
supporting the office function, personal satisfaction and accomplishments” motivate staff
members.
Value. Employees also felt that their work is important and makes an impact on society.
Value statements noted in this case supported the construct of team orientation, which differs
from the interview results.
Efficacy. Efficacy, self and collective, appeared six times in the table notes from the
focus group sessions. Employees were confident in their skills and abilities to perform their jobs.
Participants also expressed self-assurance. Workers at CDER believed that they were “doing
work that is important. We were hired for that reason.” In conclusion, the motivation results
corroborated the existence of team orientation, efficacy and value.
Organizational Results
All three organizational promising teamwork factors of leadership, mutual performance
monitoring/ accountability and autonomy were validated. Robust evidence surfaced for
leadership and autonomy with documentation in three sources, whereas mutual performance
monitoring/ accountability presented moderate strength with appearance in two data points.
Organizational factors provide the foundation for organizations. Resources, facilities, personnel
and time possess the ability to positively impact the effectiveness and efficiency of companies.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

79
The knowledge, motivation and organizational literature provided a lens to view the data. Hence,
the organizational data were analyzed according to the four sub categories of resources, culture,
policies, and processes to help uncover which infrastructure areas positively influence employee
job satisfaction relative to teamwork. The organizational results are further explained in relation
to the three promising practices of leadership, mutual performance monitoring/ accountability
and autonomy.
Focus Group/Observation Results
Repeatedly cited were examples of strong organizational process. The processes cited
provide support for mutual performance monitoring/ accountability, and autonomy.
Mutual performance monitoring/accountability. Six accounts of mutual performance
monitoring and accountability showed up in the observations revealing that feedback,
onboarding of new employees, and scheduled “get togethers” with colleagues occur. The
continuous monitoring of new employee’s transitions, information about work progress, and
scheduled gatherings was built into CDER’s organizational culture. It is important to note that an
overall system of mutual performance monitoring existed, yet each office adapted these
accountability measures to meet their offices’ needs. Two employees provided accounts of
regular feedback stating, “attitudes from senior management let us know how we are doing . . .
Constant feedback internal and external, public,” and “we get feedback regularly by our
supervisors . . . . It should be regular and it is.” CDER has accountability measures in place.
Autonomy. CDER’s infrastructure also allows for employee autonomy. Telework was
mentioned reflecting management’s flexibility to accommodate work life balance, and trust in
employees to get the work done without micro managing. One employee stated, “The ability to
telework is important — allows consistency and allows us to react, modify our schedules
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

80
according to needs that come up. Most jobs are rigid in other places, but [the] core hours
program allows flexibility.” Autonomy was important to employees.
Leadership. Three instances of leadership arose in the observations that showcased
leadership as a promising practice. Two examples stated the impact of office leaders when they
impose performance expectations on staff members, “How the supervisor sets up the office, sets
a tone.” Moreover, when “Management [expects] that things get done, and they do. The mission
motivates [us] to get things done.” Nevertheless, it was surprising that the organizational factor
of leadership was not more prevalent in the observations. It was clear that employees value the
mission and work, however it appeared to be more of a personal conviction than one
disseminated from leadership when evaluating the observation data.
Interview Results
Accountability, mutual performance monitoring/ accountability and leadership. The
interviews highlighted the attributes of the organization dimension. The interviews provided
detailed accounts of leadership, performance monitoring on the organizational level, and
autonomy. Eight accounts of autonomy occurred, and seven examples were mentioned for the
other two promising practice of accountability and leadership. Processes remained the most
frequently cited organizational dimension followed by culture. Employees consistently provided
examples of systems that were in place such as dissemination of work assignments, cross-office
communication, a handbook, and an open door policy. It is important to note that the
interviewees were from various offices so certain practices may be more established in some
offices than others.
Value. Employees attributed their success to a sense of being valued numerous times
throughout the interviews. Employees at CDER feel valued by the organization. Value in this
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

81
context reflects organizational culture and indicates the importance and worth of workers at
CDER. The interviews revealed the impact of the focus group sessions. The fact that their office
held a focus group emphasized the significance of employee viewpoints at CDER. Employees
felt appreciated and respected as a result of the organization providing the opportunity to be
heard. One worker, referencing the focus group sessions, said, “I feel very valued as an
employee, being given this opportunity to participate in a forum such as this.” Another example
provided greater detail about the focus group experience and aftermath:
Actually, and I’m saying me but I mean in general, as employees, for their comments,
their concerns, stuff like this, and informed such as this. I just feel very valued as an
employee. I will honestly tell you too that our director has actually had a couple of follow
up meetings that’s done with employees. We’ve had luncheon chats and stuff like that. It
just been really good that she actually did that.
Employees feel valued and appreciated at CDER. That feeling of value impacted the employees’
confidence in their organization.
Document Analysis Results
The promising practices of autonomy and leadership surfaced nine and eight times
respectively in the document analysis. Autonomy and leadership are factors controlled by the
organization yet impact teamwork. They respectively refer to a level of independence and
freedom for employees to complete work and the providing of direction to team members. The
organizational dimensions most cited were process and culture. Process evidence supported
autonomous practices at CDER whereas culture examples were listed for leadership. The
connection between process and autonomy and culture and leadership was logical.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

82
Autonomy. Autonomy allows employees to have the freedom and independence to
complete tasks without direct supervision. Autonomy is a practice built into CDER. Five
examples denote the flexibility of the management structure to allow for work life balance. One
group’s notes revealed that the importance of “maternity leave approval, work at home flexibility,
allowing you to take leave when needed — sick, family emergency. Very accommodating.”
CDER’s leadership created an infrastructure that allows independence through systems.
Leadership. Clear goals and a mission by the organization provide direction for
employees. According to Clark and Estes (2008), clear goals lead to effective organizational
performance. Employees provided eight examples of leadership providing targets for employees
and reinforcing the organization’s mission. Leadership behaviors such as clear goals direct
employee’s attention towards a common objective. Subsequently, goals necessitates that the
leader to “set the tone for a focus on results” (Lencioni, 2002, p. 219). As a result of effective
leadership, “The mission as a whole is known from the top (FDA) on down.” The reoccurrence
of leadership in the focus groups, interviews and document analysis confirmed that leadership is
a teamwork-based promising practice of job satisfaction for employees.
Synthesis of Findings
Qualitative data tell a story about a phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). Validation of data
from the focus group sessions, interviews, and data analysis led to the emergence of three major
themes: (a) strong organizational processes; (b) employees motivated by valuing the mission and
work; and (c) procedural knowledge. The literature on the knowledge, motivation and
organizational dimensions supported the promising practices of leadership and autonomy as
organizational assets contributing to employee satisfaction. CDER employees expressed team
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

83
orientation due to being highly motivated and strongly valuing the mission. Lastly, evidence
emerged showing employees at CDER are a highly skilled workforce.
Organizational factors were the primary mechanism influencing employee job
satisfaction relative to teamwork. The reoccurring organizational categories of policies and
procedures set the foundation for an effective work environment. Policies and processes
influenced the enactment of the goals and mission of CDER and the FDA. Leadership directed
the mission to be widely known and believed throughout the organization. In addition, systems
were set in place to ensure worker autonomy and accountability of workers, which Niemelä and
Kalliola (2007) assert contributes to improved performance.
The strong organizational foundation caused employees to be highly motivated.
Employee valued the work and organization’s mission, a direction set by leadership. Attachment
to an organization is fostered through “awareness of the mission, agreement with its principles,
and confidence in one’s ability to help carry it out” (Brown & Yoshioka, 2003, p. 8). As a result,
employees were will to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Subsequently, team orientation
resonated throughout the evidence. Staff members were zealous about their job and tasks due to
the common goal of ensuring the safety of public health. Despite multiple sources of team
orientation evidence, teamwork was not intentionally developed or nurtured. Team orientation
occurred because of employees’ positive outlooks towards the common goal of ensuring the
publics welfare, and referencing “we” as a form of collectiveness. Moreover, employees had
high self and collective efficacy. Workers were confident in their abilities.
Employees at CDER were also highly skilled and able to complete the work. The right
people were on the bus (Collins, 2001). Hence, it was understandable that conceptual and
procedural knowledge was evident among employees and translated into efficacy. Furthermore,
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

84
back-up behavior was a byproduct of CDER employees’ dedication to do whatever it takes to get
the job done which translated into taking action to help out team members. Employees
understood how to assist colleagues. The skills of workers in combination with high motivation
and a strong organizational foundation made teamwork possible, and resulting employee
satisfaction.
It would be difficult to postulate from these results that teamwork prompted employee
satisfaction. Instead data show that teamwork exists as a byproduct of employees sharing an
overarching objective of public health, feeling accountable to superiors and peers, being highly
motivated, believing that their work matters, and possessing the skills, capacity and confidence
to work and contribute to public health. The previously stated influencers align with multiple
factors mentioned in the literature review. Teamwork would not be evident at CDER without its
strong organizational foundation, which acted as a first order influence that consequently
triggered motivation and knowledge.
Summary
Table 10 provides an overview of the promising factors and the data utilized for
validation. Checkmarks represent the presence and validation of evidence in the designated data
source. As a result, ten promising practices were corroborated through data analysis. Five
practices were substantiated with two sources indicating moderate verification strength, while
four factors were affirmed with three data points demonstrating greater validation strength. It is
important to note that the results are not generalizable. Instead, the viewpoints captured in the
observations, interviews and data analysis provided information on the promising practices of
teamwork for employees relative to employee satisfaction at CDER.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

85
Table 10
Validated Promising Teamwork Practices for Employees: A Knowledge, Motivation and
Organizational Framework
Promising Practices of Teamwork Assessed by/ Measure Validated
Knowledge
Team members know each other’s role and
capabilities; they know how each other is
performing (Mutual Performance Monitoring/
Accountability)
Focus Group Observation Yes
Interviews √
Document Analysis √
Team members take action to help out each
other (Back-up Behavior)
Focus Group Observation √ Yes
Interviews
Document Analysis √
Team members adjust to unexpected situations
(Adaptability/Flexibility)
Focus Group Observation No
Interviews
Document Analysis √
Team members have a common understanding
with each other (Shared Mental Models)
Focus Group Observation Yes
Interviews √
Document Analysis √
Team members share information
(Communication)
Focus Group Observation √ Yes
Interviews √
Document Analysis

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

86
Table 10, continued
Promising Practices of Teamwork Assessed by/ Measure Validated
Motivation
Team members have a positive attitude
towards other team members and a common
goal (Team Orientation)
Focus Group Observation √ Yes
Interviews √
Document Analysis √
Team members rely on each other (Mutual
Trust)
Focus Group Observation √ Yes
Interviews √
Document Analysis
Team members have confidence in their and
others abilities (Efficacy-Self and Collective)
Focus Group Observation Yes
Interviews √
Document Analysis √
Organizational Culture
Team members have direction, such as goals
and a mission provided by the organization
(Leadership)
Focus Group Observation √ Yes
Interviews √
Document Analysis √
Team members have a system of monitoring
performance (Mutual Performance
Monitoring/Accountability)
Focus Group Observation √ No
Interviews √
Document Analysis
Team members have a level of freedom and
independence to complete work (Autonomy)
Focus Group Observation √ Yes
Interviews √
Document Analysis √
√ - Represents presence of evidence and validation in designated data source

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

87
CHAPTER 5
ENHANCEMENTS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The purpose of this study was to examine CDER’s employees’ promising practices
around teamwork that contribute to the development of job satisfaction. Six sections organize
this chapter. First recommendations for practice provide actionable suggestions for organizations
to implement. Information learned from Chapter 4’s analysis of observations, confidential
interviews and document analysis and supporting literature led to proposed enhancement
practices for other organization to implement when attempting to use teamwork as a method to
influence employee satisfaction. Next, the implementation plan delineates steps to employing
effective knowledge, motivation and organizational culture enhancements for an organization
desiring to implement promising practices of teamwork. Then, a method of evaluation is
provided to measure effectiveness and change. In addition, a brief discussion about the
limitations of this study as well as suggestions for future inquiry is supplied. Lastly, a conclusion
sums up this study by providing final statements in response to the three research questions.
Recommendations for Practice
The following recommendations are based on the ten elements that were validated and
other supported findings in Chapter 4. Knowledge, motivation and organization
recommendations were provided for all teamwork based promising practices relative to
employee job satisfaction as summarized in Table 11, 12 and 13. The degree of validation from
strongest to weakest organizes the proposed suggestions with the exception of the knowledge
recommendations, which are outlined according to types of knowledge. The generated
knowledge, motivation and organization enhancements link to the research literature and are
grounded in theoretical learning principles. Uncovering the “active ingredients” that influence
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

88
performance is essential to creating recommendations for practice (Clark & Estes, 2008). These
recommendations are intended to offer suggestions for augmenting employee teamwork practices
at CDER. However, it is important to note that the proposed enhancements are designed
specifically for CDER and are not directly transferable to other organizations and contexts.
Knowledge Enhancement
Knowledge enhancements assist employees who are unfamiliar with how to accomplish a
task, or provide a knowledge base for dealing with future challenges (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
four types of knowledge asserted by Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) necessitate different
solutions when examining the “active ingredients” of teamwork. Clark and Estes (2008) stress
the importance of applying skill enhancement strategies appropriate to the circumstances. The
knowledge recommendations are addressed in four sections below according to the level of
validation. Four of the five knowledge practices were validated by two sources therefore those
enhancements are addressed first followed by the recommendation for adaptability/ flexibility,
the practice which could not be validated according to the data analysis results. The
enhancements also reference the levels of knowledge: (a) factual; (b) conceptual; (c) procedural
and; (d) metacognitive. Each section provides literature supporting the recommended knowledge
enhancement.
Enhancement: provide job role and responsibility information to increase
awareness and accountability. Data analysis validated the knowledge dimension of mutual
performance monitoring/ accountability at CDER with two sources. Research suggests that
workers’ understanding of one another’s job roles is associated with effective teamwork
(Campion et al., 1993; Crowley et al., 2014; Niemelä & Kalliola, 2007; Paris et al., 2000; Salas
et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2007). Punia (2011) asserts a positive correlation between employee
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

89
role clarity and performance according to 79% of employee responses on a Likert scale survey
resulting in a 95% confidence interval. Moreover, Abjani and Deshpande (2013) suggest that
understanding job roles and responsibilities leads to employees working beyond their defined job
description, limits confusion between coworkers and increases cooperation as found in their
study which surveyed a 100 participants in an organized retail store in India. CDER employees
had some knowledge of performance monitoring and accountability as a teamwork-based
promising practice. Hence, the proposed factual knowledge solution of increasing workers’
understanding of job roles and responsibilities is based off the Information Processing Theory
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2013), and could result in even more effective teamwork.
A strategy to enhance mutual performance monitoring and accountability requires
employees to remember peers’ responsibilities, understand performance expectations, and
analyze the relationship between job roles and performance according to Bloom’s revised
taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002). Since mutual performance monitoring and accountability lacked
triangulation, providing a graphic organizer would delineate job roles and responsibilities in an
organized fashion. The Information Processing Theory asserts that the organization of
knowledge influences learning and application (Schraw & McCrudden, 2013). In other words,
receiving information that is organized makes new knowledge more accessible and easier to
utilize since graphic organizers are an instructional strategy used to highlight key information
and guide the cognitive process in order to increase retention for learners (Mayer, 2011).
Therefore, information will assist individuals in developing factual knowledge about team
members’ roles and how to assess performance. Information can be provided as a handout to
employees and reinforced verbally.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

90
Enhancement: provide job aids about closed-loop communication to improve
information sharing. Closed-loop communication is a procedure of providing
acknowledgement of information to the sender to demonstrate understanding and avoid
miscommunication, in addition to the sender following up with the receiver (Salas, Shuffler,
Thayer, Bedwell, & Lazzara, 2015; Salas et al., 2005). Tanco, Janca, Viles, Mateo, and Santos,
(2011) suggest in their interpretive qualitative study of literature revealed ten teamwork lessons,
which included an emphasis on communication tools like the aforementioned protocol. Closed-
communication may occur face-to-face or via e-mail. Communication was a promising practice
corroborated among CDER employees by two sources. Deliberately developing closed-loop
communication to exchange directions, tasks-related information and facts will aid teamwork at
CDER. Clark and Estes (2008) state that providing information is a method to teach individual
strategies and procedures to use in specific situations, therefore enhancing procedural knowledge.
Hence, the proposed solution is to provide a job aid in the form of a flowchart that showcases the
standard operating procedure of relaying information through various channels in CDER to
further bolster communication at CDER. A job aid affords employees a prescribed method for
accomplishing a task (Clark & Estes, 2008). In particular, the closed-loop process is
recommended to avoid miscommunication (Salas et al., 2005; Tanco et al., 2011). The
Information Processing Theory avers that organized information is more easily understood and
utilized (Schraw & McCrudden, 2013). A standard operating procedure flowchart outlining
communication channels and the close-loop communication process will summarize the
preferred approach for relaying information among workers at CDER.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

91
Enhancement: provide examples about how to aid colleagues thereby enhancing
back-up behavior. Example scenarios of back-up behavior would demonstrate to employees the
benefits of taking action to assist peers who may otherwise fail to complete a task necessary for
accomplishing the team’s objective. Back-up behavior was an evident and validated promising
practice at CDER as a result of the evidence discovered in multiple data points during data
analysis. Regardless of the validation strength, increasing awareness of when to employ back-up
behavior would be beneficial for CDER since teamwork occurs unintentionally. In other words,
examining back-up behavior scenarios will raise awareness in employees to think, plan and
determine their approach to aiding coworkers. Mayer (2011) cites two components of
metacognition, awareness and control. The ability to recognize when to utilize strategies, and
how to help oneself results from metacognition development. The Cognitive Learning and
Information Processing Theories foster metacognitive knowledge (Schraw & McCrudden, 2013;
Mayer, 2011). The proposed solution for metacognitive knowledge applies the aforementioned
learning theories by providing examples and non-examples of back-up behavior linked to
performance.
Enhancement: provide guided practice to improve mutual understanding using a
card sort and computer-based training. The practice of shared mental models at CDER was
validated in data analysis due to evidence reoccurring in two out of the three data points. Shared
mental models necessitates enhancement since a common understanding of colleagues is
occurring by chance not through development. The following enhancement strategy stems from
Smith-Jentsch, Campbell, Milanovich, and Reynolds (2001) study measured teamwork mental
models of 176 naval submarine males over the course of two days. Smith-Jentsch et al. (2001)
found that card sorting alone did not improve mental models, instead individualized feedback
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

92
and guided training assisted participants in developing schema similar to peer models. Hence, the
proposed recommendation for CDER is three pronged. First, a card sort conducted during a staff
meeting will allow employees to determine and discuss ineffective and effective teamwork
practices with colleagues. The preliminary exercise provides pre and post data about staff
members’ awareness of shared mental models.
Next, a shared mental model computer-based training will supply individual responsive
feedback. Smith-Jentsch et al.’s (2001) findings emphasized the importance of feedback in
conjunction with a card sort activity. Thus, the computer-based training permits employees to
practice identifying shared mental model behaviors in addition to receiving immediate
constructive criticism. The computer-based training would provide scenarios that afford CDER
employees to virtually take action to help out co-workers. Furthermore, the program would
provide feedback about why the chosen action would be beneficial or detrimental to teamwork
and others. According to Salas et al. (2008), technology-based programs are effective in trainings.
Lastly, workers will self-generate examples of shared mental models and back-up behavior to
illustrate competency. The metacognitive recommendations afford employees guided practice
through trainings, which helps staff members understand what, and how to enact behaviors that
support team members.
Enhancement: provide simulations and role-playing to increase on the job
adaptability. Adaptability/flexibility bolsters teamwork, as noted in Chapter 2. However this
promising practice surfaced in only one data point during data analysis, therefore suggesting
enhancement at CDER. The Information Processing Theory states that mastery is acquired
through a process of attaining foundational skills, practicing and applying new knowledge which
supports the proposed solutions influencing conceptual knowledge (Schraw & McCrudden,
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

93
2013). Instructing or teaching is a capacity building strategy that organizations often employ
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, education is appropriate when people need to learn novel
concepts and strategies (Clark & Estes, 2008). In particular, education helps employees create a
schema for tackling unanticipated problems.
Adaptability and flexibility are behaviors that can be learned or enhanced, thus the
recommendation is for CDER to conduct a training on problem solving strategies and provide the
opportunity for employees to try out strategies through role-playing simulations. According to
the data analysis, employees at CDER lack adaptability and flexibility. The proposed
enhancement is an educational session conducted by an in-house expert or contracted consultant
to review the research and strategies on adaptability and flexibility. The next enhancement is for
employees to apply the education learned in role-playing simulations. Salas et al. (2008) suggest
that simulations are a powerful training approach because it improves coordination through the
interactive practice of social, cognitive and behavior processes.
The health care field utilizes simulation-based trainings (SBT) to expand on education
received in the classroom. Rosen et al. (2008) conducted a study to examine how simulations
create work-like environments that allow for low stakes practice of teamwork utilizing job tasks
and the ability to tailor learning objective. Rosen et al. (2008) found that the strategy of using an
in-class education session and application is a method of adaptability and flexibility
enhancement and therefore applicable for CDER. Furthermore, observations checklists can be
utilized to assess application of knowledge through observable behaviors that exemplify a
defined set of teamwork competencies relative to the education provided (Rosen et al., 2008).

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

94
Table 11
Recommended Knowledge Solutions
Promising Practices of
Teamwork Enhancement Principle Enhancement
Team members know each
other’s role and capabilities;
they know how each other is
performing (Mutual
Performance Monitoring/
Accountability)
How learners organize
knowledge influences how
they learn and apply what
they know (Information
Processing Theory).
Information distributed about
job roles/responsibilities
Team members take action to
help out each other (Back-up
Behavior)
Learning is increased when
germane cognitive load
engages the learner in
meaningful learning and
schema construction
facilitating effective learning
(Cognitive Learning Theory).
Provide examples of back-up
behavior that team members
will link to increased or
decreased team performance
and efficiency.
Team members adjust to
unexpected situations
(Adaptability/Flexibility)
To develop mastery, students
must acquire component
skills, practice integrating
them, and know when to
apply what they have learned
(Information Processing
Theory).
Education provided on how to
handle novel and unexpected
situations on the job, as well
as role-playing/ simulations
of unexpected situations.
Team members have a
common understanding with
each other (Shared Mental
Models)
To develop mastery, students
must acquire component
skills, practice integrating
them, and know when to
apply what they have learned
(Information Processing
Theory).
Card sort of effective and
ineffective teamwork relative
to job (Pre and Post).
Computer based training on
how to identify shared mental
model behaviors.
Self-generate examples of
shared mental models.
Team members share
information (Communication)
How learners organize
knowledge influences how
they learn and apply what
they know. (Information
Processing Theory).
Provide a job aid that shows
various channels of
communication for different
types of information and
close loop communication
process.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

95
Motivation Enhancement
Enhancement: provide confidence building workshop to increase efficacy. Team
orientation was a promising practice of motivation that was validated by three sources.
Increasing team orientation at CDER would be beneficial to aid in building trust and efficacy,
which were not consistently evident in data analysis. The objective behind the motivation
solution is to build the confidence of employees around teamwork and team members. Eccles
(2009) suggests providing meaningful, challenging tasks within the zone of proximal
development helps to foster efficacy (Vygotsky, 2011). Therefore, it is important to carefully
design trainings. In order to increase motivation, a workshop focused on team orientation and
mutual trust will intentionally highlight team member interactions and their impact on
performance. The enhancements are structured to promote self and team efficacy.
A workshop focused on discourse and case studies will build individual and group
confidence at CDER. Data demonstrates the positive impact of team orientation reminds
employees of past success, furthermore discussion focused on positive perceptions towards team
members and common goals places emphasis on effort and new expectations for teamwork
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Lastly, the analysis of case studies will provide corrective feedback of
how to interact with team members. The suggested recommendations are constructed based on
the theoretical principles of goal orientation, attribution and self-efficacy, in addition to Clark
and Estes’ (2008) summation of effective strategies derived from the works of Locke, Latham,
and Bandura.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

96
Table 12
Recommended Motivation Solutions
Promising Practices of
Teamwork Enhancement Principle Enhancement
Team members have a
positive attitude towards
other team members and a
common goal (Team
Orientation)
Emphasizing mastery,
individual growth, and
progress encourages positive
motivation (Goal
Orientation)
Use real data to demonstrate
how team orientation impacts
teamwork.
Discourse focused on the
importance positive
perception of team members
and a common goal.
Team members rely on each
other (Mutual Trust)
Attribution retraining to
change team members’
perception of management
from ability to effort centered
(internal, unstable and
controllable). (Attribution
Theory).
Workshop that presents case
studies with different
examples of loci of control
(internal, external, unstable
and controllable) to showcase
the influence of attribution on
teamwork and mutual trust.
Team members have
confidence in their and others
abilities (Efficacy-Self and
Collective)
The belief in one’s ability to
succeed or fail (Self-Efficacy
Theory).
Design tasks that offer
opportunities for team
members to showcase their
capabilities.

Organization Enhancement
Leadership, mutual performance monitoring and accountability, and autonomy influence
teamwork in organizations. Data analysis indicated that organizational culture at CDER was
strong since two of the three organizational teamwork-based practices were validated, leadership
and autonomy. The interconnectedness of leadership, mutual performance monitoring and
autonomy work together to create effective organizational culture. Thus, it is important to
continue to strengthen the organizational dimension. Ambiguity, whether evaluative or goal
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

97
orientated, negatively effects job satisfaction (Jung, 2014). Hence, the organizational
recommendations focus on limiting goals and evaluative ambiguity within the organization,
which will improve all three aspects of organizational teamwork-based practices.
Enhancement: provide clear goals to direct productivity. CDER demonstrated
leadership and mutual performance monitoring. However, it was sometimes difficult to
differentiate whether leadership and mutual performance monitoring occurred because of
personal conviction and work ethics or as a result of deliberate organizational direction. Thus,
the mutual performance monitoring solution centers on the leadership principles of clear goals,
and subsequent actions that align to the organization’s objective (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Employees desire more direction and involvement from leadership according to data analysis.
Providing goals motivates and directs individuals’ behavior (Locke & Latham, 2002;
Pintrich, 2003). According to Brown and Yoshioka’s (2003) qualitative study of 991 surveyed
non-profit youth and recreation service employees in 16 geographic locations, satisfaction is
positively correlated to mission attachment and retention denoting a standard deviation of .56
and .86 respectively for full time employees. In other words, clear goals intentionally help
employees to understand expectations, monitor performance and increases commitment to the
organization. Another study supporting the correlation between goal ambiguity and employee
satisfaction is Jung’s (2014) study on analyzed federal employees’ responses from the 2005
Merit Principal Survey and Program Assessment Rating Tool. Jung (2014) found a, “negative
association between priority ambiguity and job satisfaction is also corroborated (γ = –0.026, p
< .01) by the odds reduction in job satisfaction by 2.5% for a standard deviation increase in the
number of goals” (p. 971). In addition to limiting the number of objectives, it is also important
that all priorities align with the organization’s overarching objective (Clark & Estes, 2008).
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

98
Enhancement: provide the 5Ws and H (who, what, when, where, what, and how)
about workplace routines to improve consistency and worker independence. Leadership and
autonomy were substantiated promising practices of CDER as a result of triangulation.
Continuous augmentation of these two practices, in addition to focusing on mutual performance
monitoring, will help to strengthen CDER’s organizational domain. Utilizing the 5Ws and H will
help to systemize feedback and monitoring, as well as directly communicate and reinforce the
organization’s mission in addition to impacting job satisfaction relative to employee satisfaction.
Organizational culture influences the level of worker autonomy. Rueda (2011) indicates that
cultural setting influences the “who, what, when, where, why and how of the routines which
constitute everyday life” therefore impacting organizational culture (p. 57). Thus, empowering
CDER’s employees through workplace autonomy necessitates models and enforcement of the
desired social context. The Finnish study conducted by Niemelä and Kalliola (2007) utilized data
from the Flexible Practice in Finnish Working Life project in 2004 to obtain first a random
sampling of 1,177 employee questionnaire comprised of primarily public sector employees.
Niemelä and Kalliola (2007) found that providing employees more discretion increase
effectiveness of teamwork. Continuing consistent leadership actions such as stating the objective,
consistently reinforcing a mastery orientation, and autonomous behaviors and rules are projected
to positively influence CDER’s organizational dimension.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

99
Table 13
Recommended Organizational Culture Solutions
Promising Practices of
Teamwork Enhancement Principle Enhancement
Team members have
direction, such as goals and a
mission provided by the
organization (Leadership).
Too many goals are
detrimental as well as not
having clear and specific goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Leadership will establish
clear goals.
Team members have a system
of monitoring performance
(Mutual Performance
Monitoring/Accountability).
The process of monitoring
performance will align with
organizational goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Leadership will systemize
monitoring and providing
feedback to reinforce
mastery as opposed to
performance orientation
through informal and formal
acknowledgement/rewards.
Team members have a level
of freedom and independence
to complete work
(Autonomy).
The normative understanding
of autonomous work
environments i.e. cultural
models and setting (Rueda,
2011).
Leadership will create
cultural practices such as
behaviors and rules that
promote employee
autonomy.

Implementation Plan
The implementation plan integrates the knowledge, motivation and organization solutions
to avoid fragmentation. The proposed solutions suggest that information, job aids, training,
education and systemizing leadership practices will foster promising practices of teamwork at
CDER. It is important to note that Clark, in a personal communication in 2015, recommended
implementing recommendations in the following order, motivation, organization then knowledge.
Since motivation is high at CDER, the implementation plan will start by focusing on
organizational influences at CDER. Referring to the findings in Chapter 4, organizational factors
were the primary mechanism influencing employee job satisfaction relative to teamwork. Change
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

100
starts at the organizational level, which then prompts motivation and knowledge modification.
The implementation sequence is delineated in Table 14 and the subsections below.
The implementation plan addresses two areas, new employee orientation and supervisors
reinforcing the value of teamwork. It is clear from data analysis that employees engage in
behaviors of teamwork due to the nature of the work and process structure, and not because of an
articulated value of teamwork. The implementation plan addresses the organization level because
employees are practicing teamwork to the best of their ability under the current conditions. Thus,
most of what is recommended in the implementation plan is to be initiated on behalf of the
employees.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

101
Table 14
Recommended Implementation Plan
Actionable
Suggested
Implementation
Time Frame Enhancement KMO
Posting goals to community board.

Immediately Organization
Systemizing
O
New employee orientation: Immediately after
hire date
O
Inform new employees of goals and objectives
of the organization.
Information K
Handout job aids-Job roles and responsibility
and closed loop communication flowchart.
Job aid K
Lecture on adaptability and flexibility, and role
playing and simulations.
Education K
Examples and non-examples of back up
behavior and card sort on shared mental
models.
Training K
Individual computer based training on shared
mental models.
Training K
Self generate examples of back-up behaviors,
shared mental models, team orientation, mutual
trust and efficacy.
Training K, M
Collaboration between supervisors and employees
to communicating the monitoring system via
email and a community board.
1-2 months Organization
Systemizing
O
Recognize productive autonomous behavior. On-going Organization
Systemizing
O

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

102
New Employee Orientation
New employee orientation is an opportunity to intentionally implement teamwork
practices. It is unlikely that highly trained veteran employees will have a tolerance for the
following recommendations with the exception of revisiting and resetting organizational goals.
Employee resistance to organizational change results from lack of trust, disregarded promises,
and poor communication, in addition to the motivation to engage in change due to value, choice
or obligation (Bateh, Castaneda, & Farah, 2013; Weiner, 2009). Considering employee
competency is important when implementing change, for example an activity like role-playing is
inappropriate for experienced employees (Bateh et al., 2013). Thus, organizational readiness
must be considered and addressed when implementing change with new and veteran employees.
As a result, the following actions are designed for new employees in an orientation setting.
Set goals and distribute information and job aids about job roles and
responsibilities and closed-loop communication. The literature would suggest that a first
priority for senior management is to revisit and reset organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011). Reviewing objectives with new staff and current stakeholders, in addition to
posting the goals on a community board will help to keep the “main thing, the main thing”
(Covey, 2004, p. 160). Moreover, there is a culture at CDER of assuming knowledge. For
example, employees know each other’s roles to an extent as evident in data analysis, however
roles and responsibilities are not explicitly stated. Therefore after determining organizational
goals, information and job aids can be distributed to employees during orientation.
The handouts will provide information about job roles and responsibilities and
communication procedures. Building background knowledge through the use of job aids will
assist employees in mutually monitoring performance, enforcing peer accountability, sharing of
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

103
information and decreasing confusion. Thus, job aids outlining roles and responsibilities in
addition to a flowchart laying out communication channels of the aforementioned knowledge
enhancement of closed-loop communication will be distributed.
Present adaptability strategies and provided guided role-playing practice at a staff
meeting. Education closes “conceptual, theoretical and strategic knowledge” gaps (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 59). In particular, education focuses on providing a basis of knowledge for
dealing with unfamiliar and unanticipated situations. After setting goals and distributing
information and job aids, the next block of orientation would be an outlet to provide education
about adaptability and flexibility to employees.
First, the learning objective must be determined and stated. Next, a speaker will present
strategies on how to deal with novel situations. Role-playing will be utilized to frontload
knowledge for employees that can later be applied on the job. Lastly, the sessions will transition
by stating observable teamwork competency expectations for adaptability and flexibility, which
should coincide with the diagnostic measurement tool used during role-playing and simulations.
A follow-up session at a future date affords employees the opportunity to apply learning
therefore playing off of the partnership of acquisition and transformation of knowledge (Lyons,
2008).
Employ a computer-based session and face-to-face training. Education and training
differ because trainings address individuals’ comprehension of how to do a task. According to
Clark and Estes (2008), training provides a combination of information and guided practice.
According to Baker, Day, and Salas (2006), effective training requires four components: (a)
based in learning theory; (b) provides prerequisite knowledge; (c) time to practices new learning
and skills; and (d) constructive feedback. Training can improve teamwork by altering an
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

104
assignment, progression and design of tasks (Baker et al., 2006). The first step to conducting
training is to incite the support of management before, during and after the trainings in order to
ensure transfer of learned knowledge to application (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2007).
A continuation of new employee orientation will train staff members on back-up
behaviors, shared mental models, team orientation, mutual trust and efficacy, which will bolster
knowledge and motivation of staff members. Employ face-to-face sessions followed by
computer-based training as soon as feasibly possible after education. The five listed promising
practices of teamwork can be integrated into two face-to-face sessions and one computer-based
session. The in-person session will consists of the card sorting activity. Next, employees will use
a computer-based training. Lastly, staff members will generate examples of back-up behavior,
shared mental models, team orientation, mutual trust and efficacy. At upcoming meetings revisit
skills learned by positively reinforcing and recognizing peer models, and conducting mini
exercises to provide additional guided practice of behaviors. The needs of the organization and
employees should dictate frequency and types of follow-up training provided for new hires
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2007).
Supervisors Reinforcing the Values of Teamwork
Employee team leads dissemination of performance monitoring information via
emails and a community board. Employees feel that an articulated and systemized
performance monitoring system needs to exist. The current system of performance monitoring
necessitates evaluation to consider the how the organization can reinforce teamwork through
comprehendible evaluations. An open call for employees interested in improving communication
of the performance monitoring system will encourage collaboration between supervisors and
staff members and act as a model for teamwork. The created team will be responsible for
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

105
disseminating information about performance monitoring. The team will work in collaboration
with the organization to draft emails and create informational community boards. Posting the
process via email and a community board will inform employees of expectations and provide
transparency from a collective supervisor and peer perspective.
On-going actions: Awards, praise and recognition. The reinforcement of productive
autonomous actions incites self-regulation behaviors such as setting goals, employ various
strategies, monitor performance, adapt to changes in environment, and showcase metacognitive
awareness (Dembo & Eaton, 2000). In addition, recognition of employees who exhibit cultural
practices that exemplify CDER’s philosophy is important. Positive reinforcement encourages
employees to continue specific behaviors, and acts as a reinforcing agent of teamwork. Awards,
praise and recognition can be used to buttress cultural autonomous practices, which will indicate
new expectations and acceptable behaviors to employees.
The enhancement and coinciding implementation plan could be effective in various
situations. However, it is important to stress that this integration plan is tailored to the specific
needs, context, and culture of CDER. However, change does not cease with implementation.
Rueda (2011) asserts that, “many times a problem is considered to be addressed once a solution
is in place-irrespective of how well it works” (p. 10). Thus, implementing and sustaining change
necessitates constant evaluation and adjustment to the needs of the organization.
Evaluation Plan
Evaluation is a critical step in the gap analysis framework. Clark and Estes (2008) assert
that, “evaluation is one of the most cost effective activities in performance improvement” (p.
125). The evaluation plan provides a system to evaluate impact of implementation. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) evaluation framework outlines four levels of assessment:
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

106
1. Reaction
2. Learning
3. Behavior
4. Results
Reaction refers to the feelings of members participating in the implementation
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Rueda (2011) connects level one to motivation. Level two,
learning and performance, assesses the change in outlook, ability and expertise that occurs in
stakeholders as a result of program attendance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Next, behavior
regards the transfer of new learning into action. Behavior modification results from a desire to
change, know what and how to accomplish the task, and providing a favorable work environment
and recognition for change, which aligns with Expectancy Value Motivational Theory (Eccles,
2009; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Lastly, level four examines the impact or measurable
results related to the goal that ensue after program implementation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2006; Rueda, 2011). The subsections below provide an evaluation plan to accompany the
implementation design provided.
Reactions
An electronic feedback form will be sent to staff members. Likert scale and open-ended
questions will be asked to assess employees’ reaction to the implementation of solutions. Sample
queries include rate your level of interest on a scale of one to five, “What did you like about the
training?” and “What did you dislike about the training?” Moreover, measuring reaction provides
feedback and suggestions to improve future implementation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006).
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

107
Learning
Direct assessments will measure learning and performance in addition to self-reporting.
In order to assess perception of personal growth, a pre and post questionnaire will be
administered posing questions like “what is your reaction to the enhancements?” In addition,
supervisor will evaluate change in attitudes and skills using the systemized performance
evaluation criteria.
Behaviors
The measurement of transfer requires examining how new knowledge, skills, and
education is utilized in practice. Although self-reporting is helpful, another data point is
necessary to objectively assess if employee behaviors changed (Rueda, 2011). Hence, new team
members will reflect on teamwork during training session. Then, three to six months later, team
members will reflect again to note changes in skills and strategies used when working
collaboratively. Supervisor will also examine increased effectiveness three to six months after
the last enhancement is employed to uncover whether team behaviors modified through
productivity time, quality, and collaborative input.
Results
The following year’s EVS results will indicate if employee perception changed after the
execution of the implementation plan. An increase in overall satisfaction will indicate that
solutions increased employee job satisfaction as a result of employing teamwork-related
enhancements. Moreover, the observational data of supervisors and senior management will
reveal the extent to which promising practices of teamwork are utilized. A method to record
observational data must be created in advance and used consistently with fidelity.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

108
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations exist in this study. Three sources of data collection
occurred: (a) observation; (b) interviews; and (c) document analysis. Nevertheless, the
dependability of data relied upon the openness and honesty of participants. Precautions were
observed throughout the study. Since the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection,
it is important to consider potential dilemmas (Merriam, 2009). The investigator implemented
rigorous inquiry within in the bounds of the natural observable setting to safeguard against
validity and credibility threats. In addition, precautionary steps were taken to prevent crossing
ethical boundaries in this study. The researchers complied with the IRB approved application and
standards.
Collaboration with CDER provided some limitation to the study since the agency
controlled the process. Godin and Gingras (2000) assert that intersectional collaborations
between universities and private and government organizations are increasing. Universities play
a key role in knowledge production. Achieving a workable study design and structure that
produces sound research can be difficult. CDER dictated the study’s design, which restricted
access to information and data. For example, time constraints and the depth of the study was
impacted due to limited data collection. The constraint of one focus group session per office and
voluntary interviews hampered the amount of data collected since multiple visits to the site were
not feasible. It is understandable that a federal entity would be concerned about providing too
much or potentially damaging information and access. The data used in this study revealed a
snapshot of CDER at a particular moment. Thus, the design of the study was a limitation.
Lastly, the purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis examining the influence of
teamwork on employee satisfaction. Although various stakeholders existed in CDER, this study
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

109
focused on one stakeholder group, employees, to provide an in-depth analysis of employees
working in a federal agency. The primary delimitation of this study is that future findings of
promising teamwork practices will be directly applicable to employees in offices within CDER.
Nevertheless, Merriam (2009) states that, “It is the reader, not the researcher, who determines
what can apply to his or her context” (p. 51). Therefore, other federal agencies and public
institutions may benefit from applying satisfaction enhancing teamwork strategies discovered in
this study of CDER.
Recommendation for Further Inquiry
Future researchers might consider the impact of job engagement. Job satisfaction focuses
on feelings and perceptions of employees, whereas job engagement emphasizes present
involvement (Lauring & Selmer, 2015; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010). Thus, job engagement
could be an additional construct to consider when examining levels of job satisfaction in an
organization. Rich et al. (2010) posit that job engagement is a more comprehensive approach
because it evaluates the behaviors of an individual’s simultaneous investment of cognitive,
physical and emotional energy. In other words, job engagement may be an alternate theoretical
framework to utilize as a basis for analysis since it encompasses variants such as job satisfaction.
CDER is a unique organization that has a highly educated workforce. Therefore, one area
that necessitated further examination was if satisfaction differed depending on level of
employment or education. Entry-level employees may have a different perspective and viewpoint
about the organization than their scientist counterparts. Clarifying employee positions when
analyzing EVS results would also help to better understand the viewpoints of the staff and
possibly reveal different findings. As a result, deeper probing and observing participants in their
natural setting would be beneficial for a study to examine satisfaction based on education or
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

110
levels of employment, daily interactions between employees, and see teamwork practices in
action.
Conclusion
CDER administers the EVS annually. CDER’s positive employee job satisfaction in 2014
prompted CDER leadership’s to learn more about the relationship between job satisfaction and
teamwork to further enhance employee contentment and well-being. Using the gap analysis
framework, influences of teamwork contributing to employee job satisfaction were identified and
validated. The finding of this case study provided an analysis of CDER utilizing multiple data
points, postulated recommended enhancements tailored to the organization, as well as an
implementation and evaluation plan grounded in literature.
In response to the purpose of this study which was to examine CDER’s employees’
promising practices around teamwork that contribute to the development of job satisfaction, the
following findings emerged. The organization is not purposefully developing teamwork.
Therefore teamwork is operating because of structure of work and not as a result of
organizational structure. More effective teamwork may ensue if teamwork becomes purposeful.
The best place for the organization to start is with new employees. It is unlikely that highly
skilled veteran employees would buy into the enhancements proposed in the implementation plan,
thus implementing new employee orientation is proposed. Furthermore, supervisors need to play
an active role in reinforcing teamwork by collaborating with employees and through praise and
awards, which are briefly touched upon. In addition how supervisors evaluate team leads
necessitates examination although that is the subject of another study.
The three research questions posed in Chapter 1 were addressed. Multiple sources
suggest a relationship between employee satisfaction and teamwork. Other organizations can
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

111
glean information from this study teamwork-related promising practice enhancements to utilize
in their specific context. In conclusion, it is possible for teamwork to occur without intentional
promotion and nurturing as evident in the findings at CDER. However, employing research-
based strategies that promote teamwork-based promising practices relative to employee job
satisfaction is more likely to produce results when used with intention. Do not let teamwork
occur haphazardly, instead deliberately develop it.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

112
REFERENCES
Ajbani, L. A., & Deshpande, M. S. (2013). Employees perception towards defined job roles and
responsibilities in organised retail stores in Nashik City, India. Indian Streams Research
Journal, 3(3), 1-6.
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.
Baker, D. P., Day, R., & Salas, E. (2006). Teamwork as an essential component of high-
reliability organizations. Health Services Research, 41, 1576-1598.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive process through perceived self-efficacy.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bateh, J., Castaneda, M. E., & Farah, J. E. (2013). Employee resistance to organizational change.
International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 17(2), 113-116.
Bedwell, W. L., Wildman, J. L., DiazGranados, D., Salazar, M., Kramer, W. S., & Salas, E.
(2012). Collaboration at work: An integrative multilevel conceptualization. Human
Resource Management Review, 22, 128-145.
Bersin, J. (2013, August 16). Employee retention no a big issue: Why the tide has turned.
Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130816200159-131079-Employee-
retention-now-a-big-issue-why-the-tide-has-turned
Blonski, K., & Jefmanski, B. (2013). Determination of satisfaction of the employees of local
government units. Economic & Sociology, 6, 158-172.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

113
Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. J. (2012, November 16). There are significant business costs to
replacing employees. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2012/11/16/44464/there-are-
significant-business-costs-to-replacing-employees/
Brown, W. A., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in
employee retention. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14, 5-18.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.
Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823-850.
Chang, C. C., Chiu, C. M., & Chen, C. A. (2010). The effect of TQM practices on employee
satisfaction and loyalty in government. Total Quality Management, 21, 1299-1314.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clark, R. E., Howard, K., & Early, S. (2006). Motivational challenges experienced in highly
complex learning environments. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in
learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 27-43). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
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:10.1037/h0055812
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

114
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York, NY: Free Press.
Crowley, M., Payne, J. C., & Kennedy, E. (2014). Working better together? Empowerment,
panopticon and conflict approaches to teamwork. Economic and Industrial Democracy,
35, 483-506.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 473-490.
DeAngelis, L., Penney, S., & Scully, M. (2014). Leadership lessons from teamwork. Leader to
Leader, 2014(73), 19-25.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education .com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty,
efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 72(2), 203-231. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2739
Eccles, J. (2009). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Filho, E., Tenenbaum, G., & Yang, Y. (2015). Cohesion, team mental models, and collective
efficacy: Towards an integrated framework of team dynamics in sport. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 33(6), 641-653. doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.957714
Gallie, D., Zhou, Y., Felstead, A., & Green, F. (2012). Teamwork, skill development, and
employee welfare. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 50, 23-46.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

115
Gallup, G. H. (1976). Human needs and satisfactions: A global survey. Public Opinion Quarterly,
40(4), 459-467.
Gilbreth, F. B. (1912). Primer of scientific management. New York, NY: D. Van Nostrand.
Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). The place of universities in the system of knowledge
production. Research Policy, 29, 273-278.
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
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1990). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations.
In M. A. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 260-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. W. (2012). Q12 meta-analysis.
Washington, D.C.: Gallup.
Herzberg, F. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job attitude: Review of
research and opinion. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh.
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.
Jaksic, M., & Jaksic, M. (2013). Performance management and employee satisfaction.
Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 9, 85-92.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

116
Jung, C. S. (2014). Organizational goal ambiguity and job satisfaction in the public sector.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(4), 955-981.
doi:10.1093/jopart/mut020
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.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2007). Implementing the four levels: A practical guide
for effective evaluation of training programs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2009). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. (2015). Job engagement and work outcomes in a cognitively demanding
context. Personnel Review, 44, 629-647.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
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 (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

117
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Lyons, P. (2008). Teamwork training for performance improvement. Training & Management
Development Methods, 22, 85-105.
Mafini, C., & Pooe, D. R. I. (2013). The relationship between employee satisfaction and
organisational performance: Evidence from a South African government department. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(1), 1-9.
Manzoor, S. R., Ullah, H. Hussain, M., & Ahmad, Z. M. (2011). Effect of teamwork on
employee performance. International Journal of Learning and Development, 1, 110-126.
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Group task satisfaction: Applying the construct of job
satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 33, 271-312.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York, NY: The
Macmillan Company.
Merhar, C. (2013, August 28). Employee retention: The real cost of losing an employee. Murray,
UT: ZaneBenefits. Retrieved from
http://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/bid/312123/Employee-Retention-The-Real-Cost-of-
Losing-an-Employee
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

118
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Niemelä, J., & Kalliola, S. (2007). Team membership and experiences of work in the Finnish
context. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 28(4), 552-588.
Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Paris, C. R., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork in multi-person systems: A
review and analysis. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1052-1075.
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.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Punia, P. (2011). Relationship between role clarity, job perception and performance of
employees in a scientific research organization. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 6(2),
307-314.
Rabey, G. (2003). The paradox of teamwork. Industrial and Commercial Training, 35, 158-162.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 617-635.
Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Wu, T. S., Silvestri, S., Lazzara, E. H., Lyons, R., . . . King, H. B.
(2008). Promoting teamwork: An event-based approach to simulation-based teamwork
training for emergency medicine residents. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15, 1190-
1198.
Ross, M. T., Jones, E. C., & Adams, S. G. (2008). Can team effectiveness be predicted? Team
Performance Management, 14, 248-268.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

119
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sa, Y., Burns, C., & Sullivan, C. (2014). An inquiry into the relationship between employee
development and organization satisfaction in the federal sector. Asian Social Science, 10,
119-129.
Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance:
Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50, 540-547.
Salas, E., Grossman, R., Hughes, A. M., & Coultas, C. W. (2015). Measuring team cohesion:
Observations from the science. Human Factors, 57(3), 365-374.
Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H. (2015).
Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical
guide. Human Resource Management, 54, 599-622.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group
Research, 36, 555-599.
Santos, C. M., & Passos, A. M. (2013). Team mental models, relationship conflict and
effectiveness over time. Team Performance Management, 19, 363-385.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2013). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Campbell, G. E., Milanovich, D. M., & Reynolds, A. M. (2001).
Measuring teamwork mental models to support training needs assessment, development,
and evaluation: Two empirical studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 179-194.
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

120
Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2003). Leader and staff role-efficacy as antecedents of collective-
efficacy and team performance. Human Performance, 16, 131-156.
Tanco, M., Janca, E., Viles, E., Mateo, R., & Santos, J. (2011). Healthcare practices: Lessons for
industry. The TQM Journal, 23, 598-610.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper &
Brothers.
Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees. Public
Personnel Management, 26(3), 313-334.
Uhrbrock, R. S. (1934). Attitudes of 4430 employees / Attitüden von 4430 angestellten. Journal
of Social Psychology, 5(3), 365-377.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2013). FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER): Strategic plan 2013-2017. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandT
obacco/CDER/UCM376545.pdf
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). The history of drug regulation in the United States.
Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ProductRegulation/Prom
otingSafeandEffectiveDrugsfor100Years/UCM114468.pdf
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2014). Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results:
Technical report. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2014FILES/2014_OPM_Tech_Report.pdf
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

121
Vygotsky, L. S. (2011). The dynamics of the schoolchild’s mental development in relation to
teaching and learning. (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Journal of Cognitive Education and
Psychology, 10(2), 198-211. (Original work published 1935)
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science,
4(67), n.p. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
Wilson, K. A., Salas, E., & Priest, H. A., & Andrews, D. (2007). Errors in the heat of battle:
Taking a closer look at shared cognition breakdowns through teamwork. Human Factors,
49, 1-14.
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.
Zhu, Y. (2013). A review of job satisfaction. Asian Social Science, 9, 293-298.

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

122
APPENDIX A
FOCUS GROUP WORKSHEET

Top 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
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

123

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
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

124
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 EVS 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 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 skip 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
Interview Questions
#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?
PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

125
#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?
#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?

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

126
APPENDIX C
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

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

127
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:

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

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

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

128
MOTIVATION:

ORGANIZATIONAL BARRIERS:

PRACTICES SUPPORTING TEAMWORK IN A FEDERAL AGENCY

129
APPENDIX D
FDA-CDER CODING SCHEME
Name Code Description
Knowledge
Factual K1 Terminology; specific details and elements
Conceptual K2 Classifications; principles; generalizations; relationships among
elements
Procedural K3 Skills; techniques; methods; when to use procedures
Metacognitive K4 Strategic; self-awareness of strategies; self-knowledge
Motivation
Active Choice M1 Not starting something new; intending but not acting
Mental Effort M2 Not working smart enough; using familiar strategies when new ideas
are required; not taking responsibility for lack of achievement
Persistence M3 Avoiding, arguing, doing something less important, waiting for
deadline
Value M4 Is it importance? (Avoids starting or persisting)
Confidence
-/+
M5 Can I do it? (Avoids persisting and/or working smart)
Emotion M6 Do I want to do it? (Avoids starting, persisting and working smart)
Organization
Resources O1 Financial; personnel; time
Culture O2 Conflicts among groups and individuals about knowledge (what
should be done); value (what is worth doing) procedures (how to do it)
rewards, priorities and beliefs
Policies O3 A course or principle of action set by others
Processes O4 Practices; systems; structures

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

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 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 Park Service: Kailuana National 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: Wailele

PDF

Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Financial stability and sustainability in online education: a study of promising practice

PDF

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

PDF

Promoting equity in discipline practices for Latino students: a gap analysis

PDF

Evaluating collective impact in a local government: A gap analysis

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Muramoto, Kristin R. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/06/2016

Defense Date 12/20/2015

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

Tag employee satisfaction,federal agency,gap analysis,job satisfaction,OAI-PMH Harvest,promising practices,teamwork

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email kmuramot@gmail.com,kmuramot@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-224885

Unique identifier UC11277046

Identifier etd-MuramotoKr-4229.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-224885 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MuramotoKr-4229.pdf

Dmrecord 224885

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Muramoto, Kristin R.

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