Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Wailele
(USC Thesis Other)
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Wailele
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 1 1
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION FOR THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: WAILELE
by
Michael S. Meli
______________________________________________________________________
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 2015 Michael S. Meli
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is difficult to compile a list of individuals for whom I am eternally grateful for their
contribution in this journey. Although I cannot list every single person, there are some for whom
I would like to identify as being critical to my completion of this dissertation.
First and foremost, to my Heavenly Father for blessing my life with family, friends, and
colleagues who have cheered me on along the way, as well as helped to lift some painful burdens
from off my shoulders when they saw I was struggling to continue forward.
Thank you to my late father, Siosaia Tava Meli, for instilling in me the value of hard
work, and the importance of balancing that work with time with the family.
Thank you to my wonderful mother, Luseane Meli, for instilling in me the love of
learning, the value of education, and the need for perseverance and determination in the face of
challenges.
Thank you to my super hero dissertation committee, Dr. Kenneth Yates, and Dr.
Katherine Hansen. I learned more than research when I was in your presence; I learned to always
put the “why” before everything I did. You helped me in more ways than education.
An incredibly special thank you to my committee chair, Dr. Melora Sundt. Very few
people in this world have the ability to bring reason, coupled with compassion, to the table the
way you do. You taught me the toughest lesson about continuing forward when everything
around me said it was okay to stop. You taught me the powerful message of identifying the
alternative to quitting, and then in your Wonder Woman way, stood beside me every step along
the way as I continued onward. There are no words adequate for me to share the gratitude I have
for you; however, know that you will always have a special place in my family’s heart.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 3
Thank you to my Rangers who never let me rest until everything was complete. You are
family to me, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Thank you to my USC cohort, Class of 2014. Your support, friendship, and aloha were
the shoulders on which I leaned during the most trying times of the journey. Thank you for
always caring and encouraging me to continue.
Thank you to all of my professors in the program who shared so selflessly their time,
knowledge, and wisdom.
To my five siblings, thank you for your support and love throughout my life. There has
never been a more grateful brother than me for the five sisters who have raised me and loved me
despite the challenges I put you through. Then again, I believe that is what brothers are supposed
to do!
To my beautiful children, Sisilia, Amelia, Siosaia, and Pono: you are my motivation to do
well. You are my reason for continuing the journey. You are the reason for my reaching for the
stars. You bring a joy to my life that can never be matched. Thank you for your patience, your
understanding when I had to miss your activities, your support throughout the entire journey. I
love you.
To my son, Michael, who crossed over to the other side of the veil just one year after I
began the journey. There has not been a day when I do not think of you and your contagious
smile. You were the biggest USC fan, and I hope I made you proud. You will always be a beacon
of light for me.
Finally, to the love of my life, my Valerie, who shared the journey with me from the
beginning: You were the reason I started this program. There is no one who could ever have had
the patience and determination that you possessed when taking on the role of both father and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 4
mother to our children during this process. When we lost our Michael after the first year of the
program, it was you who said to keep taking steps forward, albeit small ones, until the work was
done. You lived with your head up when there were so many reasons for you to give up. Thank
you for your example. You lived long enough to see me walk across the stage at commencement
in 2014; however, the Lord saw fit to call you back just two short months afterward. You left a
void that will never be replaced; however, you left me with the most precious memories of our
lives together for the past four decades of our friendship and nearly twenty years of our marriage.
I love you, Val. Thank you for teaching me the real meaning of “Fight On!”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Chapter 1 Introduction 10
Employee Satisfaction 10
Background of the Problem 12
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions and Hypothesis 17
Importance of the Study 17
Organization of the Dissertation 18
Definition of terms in alphabetical order 19
Chapter 2 Literature Review 21
Variables of Employee Satisfaction 21
Assumed Causes of Performance Gaps According to Clark and Estes 33
Summary 35
Chapter 3: Methodology 37
Research Questions 37
Site Selection 38
Description of Framework: Gap Analysis 39
Participants 43
Instrumentation 44
Data Collection 46
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 6
Data Analysis 50
Chapter 4: Findings and Results 52
Participating Stakeholders 52
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 53
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 61
Results and Findings for Organization Causes 68
Summary 77
Chapter 5: Solutions 81
Validated Causes Prioritization and Rationale 81
Solutions for Knowledge Causes 84
Solutions for Motivation Causes 88
Solutions for Organization Causes 93
Implementation Plan 95
Limitations and Delimitations 101
Summary 102
Chapter 6: Evaluation 104
Level 1: Reactions 105
Level 2: Learning 106
Level 3: Transfer 107
Level 4: Bottom Line Results 108
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 109
Limitations 110
Future Research 113
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 7
Conclusion and Implication 113
References 116
Appendices 130
Appendix A: Summary of EVS Results for Wailele 130
Appendix B: 2012 EVS Scores for Wailele And NPS 145
Appendix C: Summary of Literature Organized into Four Elements Affecting 151
Employee Satisfaction
Appendix D: Observation Protocol 164
Appendix E: Employee Action Plan Notes 166
Appendix F: Data Collection Method: Interview Protocol and Questions 168
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Impacted Components of KMO Barriers 34
Table 2. Wailele National Park EVS Results for Best Places to Work and Leadership
Indices
42
Table 3. Validated causes of low employee satisfaction at Wailele Park 77
Table 4. Validated causes of low employee satisfaction at Wailele Park 80
Table 5. Summary of Knowledge Causes, Solutions to the Causes, Implementation of
the Solutions
94
Table 6. Summary of Motivation Causes, Solutions to the Causes, Implementation of the
Solutions
96
Table 7. Summary of Organization Causes, Solutions to the Causes, Implementation of
the Solutions
97
Table 8. Summary of Organization’s Main, Short-term, Cascading, and Performance
Goals
98
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Positive Response % for EVS Knowledge Items 53
Figure 2: Positive response % for EVS Motivational Items 61
Figure 3: Positive response ≥ 60% 68
Figure 4: Positive response 41% - 58%. Ratings below 60% acceptable, but still
considered areas of concern.
69
Figure 5: Positive response ≤ 40%. Ratings of 30% - 40% considered low 70
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 10
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
American author, Ralph Waldo Emerson, once wrote, “The acres of a thousand forests
lay in one acorn” (as quoted in Cook, 1984). Among the various interpretations that can be
derived from Emerson’s quote is one principle that will be discussed in this study: potential.
There is potential in one acorn to grow from a seed to a strong tree to a thriving forest.
Metaphorically, there is potential for an employer to foster and develop the organization’s
employees to be productive, contributing members of the workforce, as well as create a work
environment that will allow the employees to find satisfaction in their work. In the National
Park Service, employees are given a charge to preserve and protect some of nature’s most
treasured landscapes and wildlife, yet recent data have determined that not all employees are
finding satisfaction in their work areas.
The impact that employee satisfaction in the workplace has on the organization has been
studied for over twenty-five years (Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2010). Employee
satisfaction impacts everything from customer service to professional relationships between
employer/employee, as well as employee/employee, and recent research has indicated that the
higher the employee satisfaction, the higher the quality of employee production (Edgar & Geare,
2005; Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).
Employee Satisfaction
A variety of scholars have attempted to define employee satisfaction; however, the
definitions that will be used for this study are taken from Durst and DeSantis (1997), who argue
that employee satisfaction is “the extent to which employees are satisfied or dissatisfied with
their jobs” (pg. 16). This definition adds to Locke’s (1976) study about employee satisfaction, in
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 11
which he defines employee satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive state resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (as cited in Rehman & Waheed, 2011, pg. 169)
The purpose of this study is to analyze the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
(KMO) barriers related to employee satisfaction in one public organization, the National Park
Service (NPS), an organization that has consistently scored in the bottom quartile of all federal
work groups on an annual measure of employee satisfaction. Wailele Park (WP, a fictitious
name that represents a real national park but used in an effort to protect the location’s identity)
was selected for this study due to the low rating from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
(EVS). In addition, this study discusses and analyzes what specific areas of an organization
employee satisfaction impacts.
Among the reasons employee satisfaction is a significant area to study is its impact on
customer satisfaction, as well as the ability to meet organizational goals. Buckingham and
Coffman (1999) found that the most productive organizations have common threads woven in
their workplace culture, to include collaborative leadership and a strong valuing of their
employees. In fact, Pfeffer (1998), in an earlier study, found that high-performing workplaces
are less likely to treat their employees as dispensable than their lower-performing organizational
counterparts. Fernandez (2008) argues that there is a cause and effect relationship between an
employer’s behavior in the workplace and employee satisfaction. Both an employer’s behavior
and employee satisfaction can affect whether or not the organization reaches its mission and
goals, and this cause and effect analysis includes private and public industries. Darvish and
Rezaei (2011) found that employee satisfaction led to a stronger performance, which in turn
resulted in organizational goals being met more consistently. Other research found that even the
organizational leader’s mood can transfer to the organization’s employees, and, depending on the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 12
mood, will have either a positive or negative impact on achieving organizational goals and
mission (Sy, Coyote, & Saavedra, 2005).
The NPS spans an area that reaches across the continental U.S. to Hawaii, overseeing the
maintenance and preservation of over 84,000,000 acres of land, including over 4.5 million acres
of water mass (NPS, n.d.). Organized in 1916, the NPS became a bureau within the Department
of Interior, and was given a mission to protect, preserve, and conserve all natural and cultural
resources designated as national treasures. The NPS was organized, therefore, to be stewards of
the nation’s most valuable natural resources and lands. The failure of this organization to
accomplish its mission to preserve, conserve, and maintain some of our nation’s most valuable
resources could have a detrimental effect on both the environment and potential future
employment and service prospects, which Ansson (1998) poses is one of the fastest growing
industries in the U.S. In fact, the Department of Labor estimates that jobs related to outdoor
services is growing at a 9-15% faster rate than any other job in the U.S. (Humbolt State
University, 2013).
Background of the Problem
In order to determine and analyze organizational needs and strengths of its agencies, the
Federal Government administered the Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) to all federal
employees beginning in 2002. The results of the most recent EVS in 2012 showed the NPS
ranking at 166
th
out of 292. This was three points lower than their 2011 ranking of 163
rd
, and
even lower than their 2010 ranking of 139
th
(U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2012). As
the name of the survey suggests, the questions were intended to draw out what the employees felt
were strengths and weaknesses of the organization. The EVS used a Likert scale, ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree, to measure categories that are found in high-performing
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 13
organizations (HPO)—leadership, supervision, training, benefits, and commitment to
organizational mission. Because the survey is administered to all federal agencies, not just the
NPS, the survey consists of 84 items that are used to measure employee viewpoints of their work
environments.
Since 2002, NPS has been tracking the EVS results in order to more accurately identify
the organization’s strengths and weaknesses (Appendix A). The 2012 EVS results showed that
NPS employees rated the organization’s mission and the actual work that is done on a daily basis
high, while rating their satisfaction with leaders and supervisors very low (U.S. Personnel
Management, 2012). Unfortunately, however, 2010 EVS results showed the NPS ranking a bit
higher (139
th
) than 2012 (166
th
), and this decline caused concern throughout the organization.
Because of these low ratings, the NPS has used the EVS results to begin analyzing ways to
improve employee satisfaction and engagement.
One of the areas within the survey that warranted attention was leadership and leadership
development. Among the suggestions to accomplish this leadership development is to apply
professional development trainings for new leaders and supervisors, while at the same time
strengthening their current leaders to improve current management practices. Priya (2011)
argues that among the most valuable assets an organization has, the greatest is human capital.
Benz (2005) adds to the argument that public and non-profit organizations have one great
advantage over for-profit organizations: “Both men and women enjoy higher utility from work in
non-profit firms than their counterparts in for-profit firms.” This finding aligns with the high
ratings found in the EVS regarding employees looking forward to going to work. The employees
already want to be at their jobs, where, in many cases—both private and public—employers
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 14
struggle with high truancy and absenteeism. This study analyzes possible causes for low
satisfaction, and makes recommendations on how to improve employee satisfaction.
The fact that the NPS wants to improve employee satisfaction in all areas of the EVS is a
step towards what other organizations are realizing: employee satisfaction cannot be
underestimated. As the previous discussion demonstrated, Oshangbemi (2003) found that one of
the most vital elements to having a well-functioning, successful organization is employee
satisfaction.
Pink (2010) found that although extrinsic variables may contribute to employee
satisfaction, the most effective variables are more intrinsic—autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Pink argues that when employees are given the freedom to be creative, and are given a sense of
purpose for fulfilling a job on a higher level, they are more satisfied and content with their
assignments. Buckingham and Coffman (1999) add that in order to achieve high performance
and satisfaction in any organization, the following questions must be asked, then answered: 1)
What do I get? 2) What do I give? 3) Do I belong? and, 4) How do I grow? These questions
encapsulate both the extrinsic and intrinsic motivators that would help determine if an employee
is highly satisfied in his/her job.
Statement of the Problem
The results from the 2012 EVS saw the NPS dropping in its ranking of 139
th
in 2010 to
166
th
just two years later. Rein’s (2012) article in The Washington Post points out that nearly
40% of employees amongst the 12 largest federal agencies were dissatisfied with their jobs.
Among those agencies mentioned is the NPS. The leadership of the NPS wants to know how to
address the low ratings employees gave in the EVS in order to improve employee satisfaction;
moreover, the leadership is concerned that more than 75% of the current NPS workforce are
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 15
approaching retirement within the next five years, which would result in a significant drop in the
workforce. The urgency to address employee satisfaction now becomes paramount, because
despite the NPS’ goal of becoming among the top ten best federal agencies to work for by 2016,
the results are declining in the opposite direction. As noted earlier, a decline in employee
satisfaction has the potential to negatively affect customer satisfaction, employee absenteeism,
and employee turnover (Buckingham and Coffman, 1999). The information that is available for
this study thus far is quantitative data—the What?—such as the EVS results from the past two
cycles the survey was administered; however, what is not known is Why?, which this study aims
to determine. This will be accomplished through qualitative research in the form of observations
and interviews of employees at WP. Interviews and observations allow for more of the human
element that is missing in quantitative data, for example body language, tone, and as Patton
(1990) shares, finding out what is “in and on someone else’s mind” (as quoted in Merriam,
2009).
Purpose of the Study
This study will analyze possible causes for low levels of employee satisfaction at one
particular NPS site, Wailele Park. The primary analysis was conducted using Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis, as well as employee interviews. Applying the gap analysis framework, this
study explored and validated assumed causes of low employee satisfaction, as well as determined
possible solutions to close the performance gap of employee satisfaction. In order to close the
performance gap between actual and desired goals, Clark and Estes (2008) instruct the researcher
to look specifically at three possible barriers that contribute to the gap: knowledge/skills,
motivational, and organizational (K-M-O). Once the barrier has been identified, the researcher
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 16
can then determine more accurately the possible types of performance solutions to implement.
These solutions and their impact on closing the performance gaps can then be analyzed.
The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a process that analyzes the gap between an
organization’s desired goal and the actual performance level. Clark and Estes (2008) argue that
when there is a performance gap, the possible cause(s) derive from a lack of knowledge, skills,
or motivation, three elements the authors argue are “keys to success in the new world of
economy” (pg. 2). They argue further that among the areas that need to be improved in order to
increase the possibility of having a successful organization include “recruitment, management,
development, motivation, support,” (Clark and Estes, 2008). Interestingly, management and
support were two critical areas that received low ratings in the EVS. NPS leadership, in their
analysis of the EVS results, determined that the low ratings stem from a leadership problem;
therefore, this study employed Clark and Estes’ model to analyze whether or not the assumed
causes identified by the selected stakeholder – the employees – are related to knowledge,
motivational, and organizational barriers the employees perceive as being created by leadership
that are causing the performance gaps.
Applying the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model allows the NPS to focus
primarily on the three dimensions of the gap, and once the causes are validated, direct the needed
resources into the dimension that shows the greatest need. But first, an analysis into and an
understanding of the three dimensions of knowledge, motivation, and organization is required.
One working definition for the knowledge dimension is answered by asking the question,
“What does one need to know in order to achieve his or her goals?” (Rueda, 2011). Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001) break this dimension down further by dividing knowledge into four
different parts: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and Metacognitive knowledge. Factual
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 17
knowledge refers to “knowledge that is basic to specific disciplines, context, or domains. It
includes things like terminology, details or elements that one must know or be familiar with in
order to understand and function effectively or solve a problem in a given area” (Rueda, 2011).
Conceptual knowledge refers to “knowledge of categories, classifications, principles,
generalizations, theories, models, or structures pertinent to a particular area” (Rueda, 2011).
Procedural knowledge looks at knowing how to do things, and Metacognitive knowledge deals
with an individual’s “awareness of their (sic) own cognition and particular cognitive processes”
(Rueda, 2011).
Research Questions and Hypothesis
Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process, knowledge, motivation and
organizational barriers were evaluated as possible causes of low employee satisfaction. The
following research question guided this study to help determine possible causes of performance
gaps in Wailele Park:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization causes that prevent 100%
employee satisfaction in WP?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these recommended solutions for WP be evaluated for effectiveness?
Importance of the Study
Applying Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework, and using research
from Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) learning taxonomy allowed this study to identify
possible causes of low employee satisfaction, and allowed the study to design, recommend, and
implement possible solutions that will close the performance gap. By identifying the causes,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 18
then providing possible solutions, this study may be able to assist NPS, and specifically, WP, in
reaching their goal of becoming one of the top ten places to work in all federal agencies.
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 introduced the problem and provided an
overview and background of the problem. As the EVS showed that there is very low employee
satisfaction among NPS employees, the main focus was to identify what some of the perceived
causes are, and provide an analysis of these possible causes by relying on theoretical research
that had been conducted previously.
Chapter 2 focuses on the possible causes of the perceived problems, and provides a
literature review regarding those variables that contribute to employee satisfaction. An analysis
of leadership roles appears in this chapter, and how leadership roles affect employee satisfaction,
which is connected to accomplishing the mission of the organization. Additional analysis is
discussed in this chapter regarding what constitutes high employee satisfaction. The conceptual
frameworks used are Buckingham and Coffman’s (1999), Kirkpatrick’s (2001), and Clark and
Estes’ (2008).
Chapter 3 shows the \methodology for this case study, and includes the sample size, the
procedures that determined which parks to sample, and the development and selection of the
instruments. Also, this Chapter describes the procedural steps that were taken to gather the data.
This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods to gather and analyze data. .
Chapter 4 presents the findings of the perceived causes of low employee satisfaction at
WP. Chapter 5 is a discussion of possible research-based solutions to the perceived causes, as
well as a proposed integrated implementation plan. To conclude the study, Chapter 6 presents
the proposed evaluation plan, a synthesis of the results, as well as a discussion of both the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 19
strengths and weaknesses of the applied approach. This final chapter also includes a discussion
of the limitations of the study, a proposal for future research, and implications and the overall
conclusions.
Definition of terms in alphabetical order
Conceptual Knowledge. Interrelations among basic elements within a larger structure
enabling them to function together (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Culture/Organizational Barriers. Organizational processes and procedures, inadequate
equipment, or materials that prevent organizations from achieving overall goals.
Employee Satisfaction. Extent to which employees are satisfied or dissatisfied with their
job (Durst & DeSantis, 1997)
EVS. Employee Viewpoint Survey. Federally administered survey given to employees
holding a federal job. The survey has 84 items with 11 demographic questions. The EVS is
administered to all federal employees on years ending in even numbers; during years ending in
odd numbers, the EVS is administered to a random selection.
Factual Knowledge. Basic knowledge and skills individuals must know to solve
problems (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Leadership. Selecting, equipping, training, and influencing one or more follower(s) who
have diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and focuses the follower(s) to the organization’s mission
and objectives causing the follower(s) to willingly and enthusiastically expend spiritual,
emotional, and physical energy in a concerted coordinated effort to achieve the organizational
mission and objectives (Winston & Patterson, 2006)
Meta-Cognitive Knowledge. Awareness and knowledge of one’s own strengths and
weaknesses (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 20
Motivation. The process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained
(Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2009, p. 4)
NPS. National Park Service. The NPS is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior
and is led by a Director nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Charged
with preserving and protecting our national parks.
Procedural Knowledge. How to do something; criteria for using skills, techniques, and
methods; and inquiry methods (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
WP. Wailele Park. Fictitious name for park whose employees will receive Organization
Development services due to low ratings amongst NPS parks/units.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 21
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This study focused on low employee satisfaction in the NPS, specifically at Wailele Park
(WP). Studies mentioned in Chapter 1 revealed that low employee satisfaction impacts various
areas in an organization—quality service, customer service and satisfaction, employee
productivity, and employee absenteeism and turnover. Rather than analyzing what employee
satisfaction impacts, Chapter 2 focuses specifically on the variables that impact employee
satisfaction: communication, efficacy, leadership, and accountability. Each of these elements
impacts the areas of knowledge, motivation and organizational barriers of the gap analysis.
Within each section below are specific actions that can improve or deteriorate employee
satisfaction. Each section will also discuss the relation between research literature and the
current study.
First, a review of the literature will address four of the major variables that have been
found to contribute to employee satisfaction—efficacy, communication, leadership, and
accountability. The literature review of these four variables will be combined with the Clark and
Estes’ (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework. Finally, a synthesis of the literature about
possible causes that may affect low employee satisfaction at the NPS and WP will be discussed.
Variables of Employee Satisfaction
One reason employee satisfaction is important enough to study lies in the research that
found employee satisfaction is directly linked to predicting job performance (Saari & Judge,
2004). Employee satisfaction is far from being a cut and dried concept; it is a construct that is
complex enough to be the subject of continuous research, and has yet to be fully understood
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 22
(Hain, 1981). There is one element of employee satisfaction that is known: satisfaction is
directly connected to an employee’s experience in the workforce. This experience leads the
individual to undergo an emotional state resulting from experiences with four significant
variables: Efficacy, Communication, Leadership, and Accountability (Pincus, 2006). The
following section will focus on the impact of these four variables, and their potential to affect
both positively and negatively employee satisfaction.
Accountability.
Breux, Perrewe, Hall, Frink, and Hochwarter (2008) define accountability as “employees’
perceived answerability for behaviors and decisions at work, with the assumption that reactions
to external pressure for justification will affect reward allocation and discipline” (pg. 111).
Accountability seems to be the most recent buzzword, spanning organizations from government
agencies to private industries. Frink and Klimoski (1998) Consumers are demanding greater,
more efficient products and services; employers are demanding more productivity from their
employees; employees expect their employers to provide a work environment that is conducive
to meeting organization goals. Frink and Klimoski (1998) argue further that accountability is
“the most fundamental factor in organizing and organizations” (as cited in Thoms, Dose, and
Scott, 2002).
Goldberg and Morrison (2004) describe different types of accountability; however, for
the purpose of this study, the focus will be on three in particular: bureaucratic, professional, and
reciprocal. Goldberg and Morrison (2004) describe bureaucratic accountability as a construct
where those involved in large organizations “revere compliance and defines success by the
degree to which the system functions smoothly and efficiently” (pg. 64). Success at this level
would be measured by the outcomes. Professional accountability is defined as the “body of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 23
professional knowledge, and a set of rules regarding how professionals treat each other and their
clients” (pg. 66). Stecher and Kirby (2004) add that professional accountability assumes that
leaders “possess sufficient expertise” to help meet the needs of their employees, arguing further
that “professional competence and standards for professional practice become important” (pg.
6).
Reciprocal accountability
Reciprocal accountability is best defined by Elmore (2002), who describes reciprocal
accountability as a two-way process where if the employer demands positive results from their
employees, the employer must “provide…the capacity to meet that expectation. Likewise for
every investment you make in my skill and knowledge, I have a reciprocal responsibility to
demonstrate some new increment in performance,” (pg. 5).
In addition to analyzing the impact that accountability has on employee satisfaction, this
study will briefly discuss one intervening variable between accountability and employee
satisfaction: leadership style, specifically facilitative leadership. Simply put, facilitative
leadership theorizes that when leaders empower their subordinates to participate in decision
making, and as Moore and Hutchison (2007) argue, “by involving people in decisions affecting
their daily work experience, facilitative leaders gain people’s commitment to achieving
organizational goals” (pg. 565).
Bureaucratic accountability.
In reviewing the results of the EVS, NPS leadership was employing what Dowd (2005)
refers to as “diagnostic benchmarking,” a process whereby organizations check to see first what
needs improvement within the organization (pg. 7). In order for an organization to get an
accurate reading of either customer or employee satisfaction, Dowd (2005) suggests conducting
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 24
a national survey; in this case, the EVS meets the criteria. With the EVS results in hand, the
NPS leaders now turn to finding ways to increase employee satisfaction. Through bureaucratic
accountability, however, there is little room for collaboration among the employees and their
supervisors and leaders. Bolton (2003) argues that a “collaborative process is essential so that
the resulting measures are ‘owned’ by those subjected to them” (pg. 24).
In bureaucratic accountability, one limitation is this lack of collaboration, as well as lack
of communication and feedback, which, as Bolton (2003) outlines, if given regularly and
appropriately, “the measurement process is much more likely to be constructive—seen as
performance enhancing rather than as a compliance and punishment regime” (pg. 24). On the
other hand, Fandt (1991) found that “individuals who were held accountable to their supervisors
for their performance were more likely to be high performers, develop greater accuracy, and be
more attentive to the needs of others than individuals who were not held accountable (as cited in
Thoms et al., 2002). One way that bureaucratic accountability may be effective is if the
relationship between employer/employee followed more of a coaching/mentoring style (Giotta,
2011). Unfortunately, most business models, Giotta (2011) found “operate by means of
intimidation rather than motivation” (pg. 31). Unlike bureaucratic accountability, professional
accountability is more conducive for collaboration.
Professional accountability.
One advantage of professional accountability that is at times lacking in bureaucratic
accountability is the amount of time focusing on collaboration. With regards to identifying the
antecedents of job satisfaction, Thoms et al. (2002) found that “an accountability requirement or
an employee’s relationship with an accountability agent can affect the employee’s satisfaction
with his or her job,” then identifying “agent” as “one’s coworkers or supervisor” (pg. 309).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 25
Zeglinski (2011) adds to the argument that one vital element in ensuring the most “bang for the
buck,” is that the employee needs to be more committed to both his/her personal goals and the
organization’s mission. Commitment, Zeglinski (2011) argues, is one of the greatest challenges
to an organization not meeting its goals.
Zeglinski’s suggestions include changing the entire culture of the organization, and
moving it from what he refers to as a Casual Culture to a Committed Culture. Along the path to
attaining a committed culture, are Compliant Culture and Chaotic Culture. In order to achieve a
committed culture, Zeglinski argues that collaboration through “regular progress reviews can
ensure employees are meeting their goals,” adding further that “when people are fully engaged
and clear about goals, they’ll be loyal to the core” (pg. 3).
Self-Efficacy.
Another variable that has the potential of affecting employee satisfaction is employee
self-efficacy, their “judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute the course of action
required to attain designated levels of performances” (Bandura, 1986, as quoted in Rueda, 2011).
Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, and Steca (2003) studied the relationship of teachers’ self-
efficacy on performing their job and the impact that self-efficacy had on job satisfaction.
Although this case study is not about teachers, it is about another branch of public service. One
of the findings revealed that more than skill or knowledge, self-efficacy had a greater impact on
whether or not the teachers were satisfied with their work. Teachers who had more confidence
in their abilities to perform their jobs found ways to complete their duties more efficiently than
those whose self-efficacy was low. Three years later, in another study, Caprara, Barbaranelli,
Steca, and Malone (2006) discovered that teachers’ levels of self-efficacy contributed
significantly to their students’ academic achievement. In the same study, Caprara et al. (2006)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 26
found that teachers who had high self-efficacy were more likely to create a classroom setting that
allowed for more successful student engagement and student learning.
During this study, sequestration took effect across the federal government, and the NPS
was greatly affected by the budget cuts and restraints. With sequestration, the NPS, as well as
other federal agencies was forced to do more with fewer resources than previously budgeted.
This reduction in resources could have had an impact on the self-efficacy of the employees,
because with such a low turnover rate in the NPS, many employees who have many years of
service were more than likely tasked with greater responsibilities to make up for the lost
difference. Klassen and Chiu (2010) found that years of experience impacts self-efficacy among
public school teachers. Years of experience coupled with job-related stress, moreover, greatly
impacts self-efficacy, which in turn is directly connected to employee satisfaction. Rueda (2011)
adds that among the factors that contribute to an individual’s self-efficacy, the amount of prior
knowledge that an individual brings to the table will determine how motivated the individual is
in completing the assigned task. With sequestration, newer employees possibly faced a daunting
task to complete their assignments, and with less experience to draw from, self-efficacy levels
might have decreased.
Another factor that contributes to self-efficacy is an individual’s cultural background. In
Korea, for example, there is a greater sense of collective beliefs that contribute to higher self-
efficacy among teachers (Klassen, Usher, and Bong, 2010). In the same study, job stress was not
considered a significant factor in employee satisfaction.
Leadership.
Unlike self-efficacy, which looks at an individual’s personal belief in one’s capability to
perform assigned tasks, one external variable that impacts an individual’s job satisfaction is the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 27
leadership at the helm. In a Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, leadership fits under the
category of organizational barriers that prevent an organization’s goals from being met.
Although there are other organizational barriers that contribute to low employee satisfaction, this
section will look specifically at the types of leadership that have the greatest impact on employee
satisfaction.
Fernandez (2008) conducted a study that looked at leadership from a different perspective
than previous studies had completed—leadership behavior. Three leadership categories were
identified as having the greatest impact on employee satisfaction, and possibly serve as the basis
for the assumed leadership deficit: Consideration, Initiating structure, and Development-Oriented
Leadership Behavior.
Consideration structure.
In consideration structure, the organizational leader is focused on interpersonal relations
between the employer and the employee, as well as the relation among the members within the
employee group. This type of structure, Fernandez (2008) argues, fosters an environment that is
more of a model of council, rather than leader/subordinate. In this type of model, the leader
encourages equality by soliciting suggestions that would make the workplace better and more
effective. This model focuses on the importance and value of each employee, by taking their
suggestions, and applying them to the assigned tasks.
Initiating structure.
Initiating structure focuses most of the attention on accomplishing the goals of the
organization, rather than on the human element of the employees. This model focuses on setting
goals and standard, as well as meeting specific deadlines in order to achieve the bigger
organizational goals. Another focus of initiating structure is creating clearly defined roles for
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 28
supervisor and subordinate, then finding ways to enable the subordinates to accomplish their
given tasks. The primary focus of initiating structure is on the organization’s goals, rather than
employee satisfaction, although employee satisfaction remains a goal, nonetheless. Many recent
studies have determined that the most effective leaders are those who employ both consideration
and initiating structure in their leadership style.
Communication.
Communication in the workplace is a multi-dimensional construct, and researchers have
found there are positive correlations between effective communication and employee satisfaction
(Pincus, 2006). Favorable communication with employees increases job satisfaction and
employee performance (Ainspan & Dell, 2000). According to Pincus, (2006) communication
can be categorized into three dimensions: informational, informational/relational and relational.
While all three dimensions have positive correlations to job satisfaction, relational and
informational/relational dimensions have a stronger positive correlation with job satisfaction
while the informational dimension has a weaker, but still positive, correlation with employee
satisfaction (Pincus, 2006).
Informational dimension.
What information is disseminated and how it is provided to employees can have an
impact on employee satisfaction. The informational dimension is focused on the level of
satisfaction of the content and flow of information in the organization overall and is
characterized by media quality, organizational integration, and organizational perspective
(Pincus, 2006).
Media quality encompasses communication to subordinates using outlets such as
newsletters (Pincus, 2006). Organizational perspective describes the information that is pertinent
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 29
organization-wide, and can include corporate policies (Pincus, 2006). Organizational integration
is defined as information that is job-related, for example: job requirements (Pincus, 2006).
Johlke and Dunhan (2000), discovered two-way discussions between subordinates and superiors
leads to a clear understanding of job duties. Thomas, Zolin and Harman (2009), adds the quality
of information shared with subordinates is more salient than the amount or adequacy of
information.
Informational/relational dimension.
Communication is not strictly just providing information; rather a communication also
encompasses a relational component that is a factor in employee satisfaction. Weak alignment
between employee and organizational values can lead to lower satisfaction and commitment
(Brown & Yoshioka, 2003). Employee attachment to an organizational mission occurs when
employees are clear with an organization’s mission, are in agreement with the fundamental
principles, and have the self-efficacy to carry out the mission (Brown & Yoshioka, 2003).
Organizational commitment is related to the organization’s mission because it describes the
extent an employee wishes to remain in an organization (Falkenburg & Schyns, 2007). Pincus,
(2006) adds that communication climate encompasses the extent to which the employee
identifies with the organization and informational components, such as the timeframe
information is received.
Feedback from supervisor to employee can also affect job satisfaction. Personal
feedback is described as the employee being provided with information about how performance
will be judged and if efforts are recognized (Pincus, 2006). Andrews and Kacmar, (2001)
studied the effects of receiving large amounts of in highly useful, very consistent feedback.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 30
Results included: employees reported more job involvement, less stress, less uncertainty and
overall higher job satisfaction(Andrews & Kacmar, 2001).
Supervisor communication had the strongest link to job satisfaction (Pincus, 2006).
Supervisor communication is characterized by how supervisors respond to subordinates’
concerns through guidance and problem-solving job related issues (Pincus, 2006). Miles, Patrick
and King (1996), also found that communication from superiors correlates with subordinate job
satisfaction. Effective supervisor communication is built upon trust, physical presence, and
frequency. Jo and Shim (1995), discovered that employees perceived a trusting relationship
when interpersonal communication was experienced from superiors in the form of use instruction
or helpful advice. Jo and Shim (2005); Hargie (2002), agree, emphasizing the importance of
face-to-face communication between superior and subordinate. Jo and Shim (2005) state useful
information is more likely to be communicated to employees straight from supervisors, over
methods such as publications, newsletters or video messages. Hargie, (2002), states employees’
preferred source of information is face-to-face communication with direct supervisors. Johlke
and Duhan, (2000) add that frequency of supervisor- employee communication was positively
associated with job satisfaction.
Relational dimension.
Building relationships is key to increasing communication that, in turn, links to job
satisfaction. The relational dimension focuses on communication satisfaction with other
members of the organization (Pincus, 2006).
Communication between supervisors and employees is extremely important when it
comes to job satisfaction. Subordinate communication describes communication from
subordinates to supervisors (Pincus, 2006). Madlock, (2008) found supervisor communicator
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 31
competence was a strong predictor of employee communication and job satisfaction. Jo and
Shim (2005), found a strong positive relationship between trusting relationships and relational
communication.
Communication in the workplace is not only limited to communication between
employees and supervisors. Rather, communication among employees is important as well.
Horizontal communication describes a more casual communication with peers and can include
information heard through the grapevine (Pincus, 2006). Additionally, horizontal
communication ensures the information gets disseminated to all parties, as well as allows the
information to flow more laterally (peer-to-peer, versus top down communication from superior
to subordinate) through the organization. Thomas, Zolin & Harman, (2009) states that
organizational openness, which is the willingness of employees to exchange ideas, is positively
associated with trust and involvement between peers, supervisors and top management.
Top management communication was significantly linked to job satisfaction (Pincus,
2006). Top management communication refers to the two-way communication between top
executives and the rest of the members of the organization (Pincus, 2006). Kim, (2002) states
satisfaction is linked to employees perceiving they have input into strategic planning of the
organization. Perceptions of top management communication can also influence job satisfaction
(Pincus, 2006).
Jo and Shim (2005) studied the effects of management communication on building
trusting relationships with employees and found similar results to the relational dimension that
Pincus (2006) discovered. Jo and Shim (2005) found managers who use interpersonal
communication with employees tend to have more trusting relationships. Facilitating dialogue
allowed relationships between employees and superiors to be built (Jo & Shim, 2005). However,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 32
unlike Pincus (2006), Jo and Shim (2005) found employees preferred face-to-face interactions
with their employers, rather than media communications such as emails, memos, as these were
less personal for the employees. Jo & Shim (2005) found that these more personal modes of
communication were linked to more useful information shared with employees. When superiors
engage in interpersonal communication regarding the organization (for example: useful advice,
helpful information and when organizational news is shared) employees perceive a trusting
relationship (Jo & Shim, 2005). When management makes an effort to enhance interpersonal
relationships by communicating, positive outcomes regarding trust occur (Jo & Shim, 2005).
Overall, a strong positive relationship was found between relational communication and trusting
relationships (Jo & Shim, 2005).
Without the knowledge and ability to communicate properly, superiors will not be able to
create trusting and interpersonal relationships that Jo and Shim, (2005) described. Madlock
(2008) found a strong relationship between supervisor communicator competence and employee
communication satisfaction. Communicator competence includes: knowledge, motivation, skill,
behavior and effectiveness (Spitzberg, 1983). Interactions require a specific finesse of
communicating goals while maintaining interpersonal and conversational norms (Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1981). Cushman and Craig (1976) adds communication involves competencies in
listening and negotiating. Salacuse (2007) agreed by saying today’s workforce employs more
educated employees with higher intelligences, requiring superiors to lead by negotiation.
Additionally, in order to convince employees to follow the leader’s vision, effective
communication is important. Stohl (1984) described language, gestures and voice to be part of
communicator competency. Shaw (2005) adds for employee’s to perceive supervisors as
competent communicators, information must be shared and responded to in a timely manner,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 33
supervisors must demonstrate active listening to other points of view, communicate clearly and
concisely with all levels in the organization and make use of various communication channels.
Wheeless and Howard (1984) also agree with the importance of supervisors’
communication skills and place a special significance on the ability to be receptive to employees.
Receptivity involves being flexible and tolerant while listening to feedback and also being open
to input from employees that include: ideas, opinions, suggestions and innovations (Wheeless &
Howard, 1984). When supervisors exhibit receptivity, a sense of empathy, consideration, care
and concern emerge that are salient parts of building relationships with employees that lead to
job satisfaction. Based on results from studying the relationship of communication and decision
participation in relation to employee satisfaction, Wheeless and Howard (1984) recommended
supervisors should be trained to be perceptive and acquire conversational skills.
Assumed Causes of Performance Gaps According to Clark and Estes
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework shows that the most likely
factors that impact a performance gap can be narrowed down to three components: Knowledge/
skills (K); Motivation (M); and/or Organizational factors (O), as discussed in Chapter 1.
Communication can impact all three factors, knowledge, motivation and organizational
barriers, of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model. Communication is defined as, “a
vehicle for dissemination of information, instruction, and affect” (Richmond, McCroskey, &
Davis, 1982, p. 173). In a workplace, communication is multi-dimensional and good
communication amongst employees increases job satisfaction and employee performance
(Ainspan & Dell, 2000), while a lack of communication is a major contributor to dissatisfaction
in the workplace (Gregory, 2009).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 34
Efficacy impacts the motivation factor in Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, by
contributing to the belief about oneself, coworkers and the prospect of being effective (p. 82).
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation can influence choosing to work towards a goal,
enduring until it is met and ensuring that tasks get done. More specifically, motivational
concepts such as feelings toward colleagues, perceptions of support from colleagues and leaders,
and perceived competency in dealing with workplace demands, affect job satisfaction (Canrinus,
Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, & Hofman, 2011).
Leadership also impacts the motivation factor in Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
model. While motivation at work may be viewed as internal within an individual, it is actually
influenced externally by people and their work environments. Managers or leaders mistakenly
assume that there is not much to be done to transform motivation, and that assumption is one of
the main barriers to improving work motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Accountability impacts the motivation and organizational barrier factors in Clark and
Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model. Accountability seems to be a recent buzzword, spanning
organizations from government agencies to private industries. So important is accountability
that Frink and Klimoski (1998) argue that accountability is “the most fundamental factor in
organizing and organizations” (as cited by Thoms et al., 2002). Breaux, Munyon, Hochwarter,
and Ferris (2008) define accountability as “employees’ perceived answerability for behaviors
and decisions at work, with the assumption that reactions to external pressure for justification
will affect reward allocation and discipline” (p. 111). There is a significant relationship between
aspects of accountability and job satisfaction (Thoms et al., 2002).Having access to job-related
information, resources, equipment and training opportunities has a significant positive effect on
employee satisfaction and performance (Ellickson, 2002; Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2010).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 35
Having a work environment that fosters trustworthy relationships amongst employees and
supervisors can lead to good relationships and significantly effect overall job satisfaction
(Ellickson, 2002). Along those lines, performance feedback that is timely and accurate can
impact employee satisfaction (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2010; McKnight, Ahmad, &
Schroeder, 2001). The closeness of a relationship between leaders and employees also has a
strong positive relation to employee morale (McKnight et al., 2001). Thoms et al. (2002) note
that accountability is the trust and awareness, whether perceived or actual, which impacts
Summary
This chapter focused on the assumed causes for employee satisfaction, using Clark and
Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model as the conceptual framework by which these causes are
measured and analyzed. The NPS has a goal of being in the top ten federal agencies for which to
work by the year 2016; currently they rank 166 of 292 agencies.
Employing the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis allows the researcher to look
specifically at the organization’s goal, and in this case, the performance goal set by the NPS to
move up 156 rankings in the next four years. Clark and Estes (2008) outline three variables, or
barriers, that are at the heart of performance gaps knowledge, motivation, and organizational
barriers. Each of the barriers was defined and discussed in order for this study to more
accurately pinpoint the likely causes of employee satisfaction.
In addition to the three barriers in the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, four variables
were determined through research to have the greatest impact on employee satisfaction—
accountability, efficacy, leadership, and communication. The literature discussed in this chapter
revealed that high employee satisfaction is found in workplaces where communication is open,
consistent, and frequent; where employees see value in their jobs, leading to greater motivation;
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 36
where the leadership at the helm empowers the employee, and encourages collaboration; and
finally in workplaces where accountability is fair, where goals are clear, and expectations are
both known and understood by all employees. In the next chapter, the methodology used for
validating the causes presented here from the literature will be described.
An overview of the literature review (Appendix C) has been organized into separate
tables, first by the four elements of communication, efficacy, leadership and accountability.
Then each table has a column identifying the factors of knowledge, motivation and
organizational barriers of the gap analysis framework.
Table 1 displays the impacted components from the literature review in this chapter,
cross-referenced against the categories of assumed causes described by Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis framework.
Table 1
Impacted Components of KMO Barriers
Knowledge Motivation Organizational
Communication X X X
Efficacy X
Leadership X
Accountability X X X
While the EVS results can provide quantitative data to tell us “what” the perceived causes
for low employee satisfaction are, Chapter 3 will propose a qualitative analysis to help examine
the “why” of the perceived causes of low employee satisfaction at WP. Chapter 3 will also detail
the sample and population, methodology, and data analysis of this study.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 37
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study aimed to analyze the assumed causes for the low employee satisfaction results
found in the EVS, particularly for one park within the National Park Service (NPS), Wailele Park
(WP, a pseudonym). The results of the EVS were provided, and the park that was analyzed
scored among the bottom quartile of all NPS parks. This chapter describes how the data were
collected, and includes a brief review of the purpose of the study, as well as discusses the sample
selection, the instruments that were used, and the analysis of the collected data.
For WP, the 2012 EVS indicated low employee satisfaction ratings (U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, 2012). The NPS leadership, out of concern for what the survey revealed
and the possible impact the results may have on the successes of the organization as a whole,
developed a process for WP employees that includes customized assessments specifically
developed to address effective communication, leadership, and career development
(Understanding the EVS, 2012).
Research Questions
This study aimed both to identify and validate the assumed causes that contribute to low
employee satisfaction by applying Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework as well as
Creswell’s framework for data analysis. Analysis of the EVS results and much of the data
collection for this study were gathered using a mixed-methods research design that encompassed
both qualitative and quantitative methods. One reason for using a mixed-methods approach is
that using either qualitative or quantitative methods alone would not fully reveal the underlying
causes of the low scores. Additionally, quantitative data had already been made available to this
study in the form of the EVS scores. These scores allowed the research to identify the what,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 38
which is low employee satisfaction; however, what the quantitative data did not reveal is the
why, which can be found using a qualitative approach. Although there have been studies on
employee satisfaction in the past for NPS (National Park Service, 2008), this current study used
more qualitative data than NPS has employed in the past.
The purpose of the current study was to assist leadership at WP by studying WP
employees' perceived causes of the gap between the current level of employee satisfaction and
the desired level and by exploring plausible solutions to those perceived causes. Using the
conceptual framework of Clark and Estes' (2008) gap analysis and Anderson and Krathwohl's
(2001) taxonomy for learning, the following questions were studied:
1. What are the perceived knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of the gap
between the current level of employee satisfaction at WP and the National park Service
desired level or what are the perceived causes that prevent 100% employee satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these recommended solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Site Selection
Being that federal employees have been taking the EVS annually since 2002, and that the
NPS’s employee satisfaction ratings have been declining despite the organizational goal of
becoming one of the top federal agencies to work for by 2016, the NPS decided to initiate its
own EVS pilot project with 24 NPS sites to begin addressing this concern in collaboration with
the NPS’s Workplace Enrichment and Learning and Development divisions. Part of this EVS
project involves providing personalized assistance to these 24 sites, which includes facilitating
workshops, looking at respective park data in voluntary focus groups, determining the top
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 39
priorities to address, developing an action plan to improve employee satisfaction, and providing
follow-up.
Among these 24 sites mentioned above, one park performing in the bottom EVS quartile
from each of the NPS’s seven regions was assigned to each of the seven USC doctoral
candidates. These seven researchers had access to aggregate EVS responses of their assigned
parks. Each of the studies was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EVS project in terms
of any short-, mid-, or long-range impacts that any resulting interventions might have on overall
employee satisfaction. Further, the researchers explored other indicators of the possible negative
impact of low employee satisfaction within the organization, such as employee turnover,
absenteeism, complaints, and grievance rates, to name a few. Parks will not be identified by
name, only by their pseudonym.
Description of Framework: Gap Analysis
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis provides a framework in which performance goals
are measured against an organization’s actual performance. The gap between the actual
performance and the organization’s goals are studied in order to find possible causes for the gap.
In addition, once the possible causes have been identified, the next step would be to develop
goals at three different levels: Global/Organizational goals, Intermediate goals, and Performance
goals. Next, a process of measuring the performance gaps would take place, followed by an
analysis of those gaps based on three variables that Clark and Estes (2008) argue are at the heart
of gap analysis human performance gaps: knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organizational
barriers (O). Lastly, possible solutions to the causes are discussed and designed in order to test
whether or not the performance goals have been met.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 40
NPS leaders have identified a performance goal of being one of the Top 10 best places to
work by the year 2016. With their current ranking of 166 out of 292 agencies, the performance
gap is 156 places. In order to accomplish this performance goal, the NPS would have to move
up nearly forty ranking levels each year between 2012 and 2016. In order to assist the NPS in
moving towards this goal, and identifying the possible solutions of the performance gaps, it is
pertinent to carefully identify and analyze the possible causes, and to determine whether the gap
is K, M, O, or a combination of some or all three variables.
Knowledge Gap
Clark and Estes (2008) argue that a knowledge gap occurs when individuals either do not
know how to accomplish an organization’s goals or the employee is simply not aware that there
are goals to be met. Clark and Estes (2008) argue further that this sense of unawareness is
caused by a deficit in either knowledge or skills. Possible solutions to address the knowledge
gap include providing training for employees in the form of education and job aids that will
assist the employee in both awareness of the organization’s goals and the employee’s role in
helping the organization achieve those goals.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) point out that knowledge can be divided into four
categories: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. These categories were introduced
in Chapter 2. Clark and Estes (2008) argue further that the process of mastering knowledge is
broken into six categories: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and
creating. In order to achieve mastery of knowledge, one critical element in these six categories is
moving new knowledge from an individual’s short-term memory into their working memory,
where practice is key.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 41
Regarding the different types of knowledge in order to determine whether or not the
performance gap stems from knowledge:
1. Factual Knowledge: Do the leaders know and understand the expectations to
facilitate high employee satisfaction? If so, the problem may be that there is a lack
in knowledge due to unclear goals or goals that are not clearly understood.
2. Conceptual Knowledge: Have leaders received the training, and do they
understand the principles and theories behind how their behavior affects employee
satisfaction? Leaders may not know be aware of or have knowledge of leadership
theories that reveal research that was conducted to determine what impacts
employee satisfaction. Employees, on the other hand, may not have the
knowledge to work through the challenges that are impacting their own employee
satisfaction.
3. Procedural Knowledge: Do leaders know what constitutes employee satisfaction,
and what they need to ensure that goal is met? Leaders may not know the steps to
take to achieve high employee satisfaction. By the same token, employees may
not know the proper procedures to help problem-solve or to work towards
achieving organizational goals.
4. Metacognitive Knowledge: Do leaders have the self-efficacy to lead from the
front, and are they aware of adult learning theories, models, and guiding
principles that will allow them to be more effective in working with employees?
5. Motivation: Leaders neither see the value of high employee satisfaction nor do
they see the benefit in investing resources to ensure high employee satisfaction.
Employees may feel that expressing their concerns about workplace issues will
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 42
not make a difference in how business is conducted. In addition, employees may
feel that their work condition may get worse if they bring up these issues.
6. Work Culture: Leaders may have limited or inadequate resources to address valid
concerns of employees. These resources may include equipment and materials,
but may also include company procedures and policies. By the same token,
employees may be limited in their efforts to move their concerns up the
organizational ladder due to company policies and procedures.
Motivation Gap
Motivation (M) is the driving force behind how much time and effort an employee is
willing to exhibit in order to get the job done (Clark and Estes, 2008). Pintrich (2003) adds that
what lies at the heart of motivation is a “central question of what do individuals want and
whether there are basic needs that define what people want” (pg. 3). Motivation, Clark and
Estes (2008) argue, can be divided into three levels: active choice, persistence, and mental effort.
Each level addresses a particular behavior the individual will exhibit under the umbrella of
motivation. When an individual actively chooses to pursue a goal s/he deems worthy of their
time and effort, the individual is exhibiting active choice. When the individual perseveres
towards a goal, despite challenges that may lie in the way, the individual is exhibiting
persistence, which occurs after the individual has decided that the goal to which s/he is working
is a significant priority. Confidence level and mental energy contribute to the third level of
motivation, wherein the individual employs both her/his confidence and mental energy, as well
as their knowledge and physical efforts toward solving a new problem, then work towards and
ultimately achieve his/her goal, a process Clark and Estes (2008) refer to as mental effort.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 43
Organization Gap
The third variable that contributes to performance gaps in Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap
analysis is organizational gap. Unlike an employee’s knowledge gap, organizational gaps are
sometimes beyond the bounds of individual employee’s influence. This gap occurs when the
organization fails to provide effective resources and/or effective work procedures and processes
in order for the employee to efficiently and successfully works towards organizational goals.
Faulty policies, unclear goals, and outdated procedures are just some of the ways that
organizational gaps are exposed. Other ways that organizational gaps are revealed are evidenced
in work culture and work norms that are unfair or unjust to some employees (Clark and Estes,
2008).
Participants
The participants of this study included WP employees, and the sample were those
employees who volunteered for the follow-up interviews, as well as those who participated in the
facilitated group sessions. As a summary, the NPS is the largest bureau within the Department
of the Interior, and employs nearly 26,000 people including approximately 17,000 permanent,
full-time and 9,000 temporary employees (National Park Service, 2012). The NPS is divided
into seven regions (Alaska, Intermountain, Midwest, National Capital, Northeast, Pacific West,
and Southeast) and manages nearly 400 parks; 49 national heritage areas; 84 million acres of
land; over 4.5 million acres of oceans, lakes, and reservoirs; 85,049 miles of perennial rivers and
streams; 68, 561 archeological sites; 43,162 miles of shoreline, 27,000 national historic
landmarks; 582 national natural landmarks; 400 endangered species; 400 endangered species;
over 121.6 million objects in museum collections; and nearly 44 million acres of wilderness
(National Park Service, 2012).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 44
Wailele Park
The individual park for this study, Wailele Park (WP, a pseudonym) was selected as
meeting the guidelines described above, the current study will focus solely on this site. WP is a
922,651acre park that protects the world’s largest unmanaged herd of elk, as well as many
species of endangered wildlife. Although visitation fluctuates each month, the park sees the
most visitor traffic during the summer months of July and August, and its lowest visitation rate
in January and February. WP’s visitation report shows a decrease in visitors from 2,966,502 in
2011 to 2,824,908 in 2012, yet the park still managed to be ranked in the top 30 most visited
parks in the NPS system (SSRS Reports, 2013). WP includes nine districts, of which five are
considered non-recreational districts.
Table 2
Wailele National Park EVS Results for Best Places to Work and Leadership Indices
Index WP%
WP N=40
NPS% NPS
N=13,000
Best Places to Work Index 53% 63%
Effective Leadership – Leader Index 33% 46%
Effective Leadership – Supervisor Index 55% 63%
Effective Leadership – Empowerment Index 36% 46%
Effective Leadership – Fairness Index 43% 53%
Instrumentation
This study collected data to explore possible causes and solutions for the low employee
satisfaction gap at WP using a triangulation data collection process that included collecting data
via observation, interviews, and document analysis. This data collection process is preferable
when conducting qualitative research because using multiple sources of data collection will
reduce the chance of jumping to incorrect conclusions during data analysis.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 45
At the beginning of the workshops, the facilitators introduced the researcher, and shared
with the employees that if any individuals were willing to share their contact information, the
researcher would be reaching out to them via email or phone call to ask some clarifying
questions regarding what was discussed during the breakout sessions. The researcher had note
cards to pass out to volunteer participants, who listed their name, job title, email and phone
numbers. The researcher then began the process of compiling the names, and within one week of
the facilitated workshop, employees were contacted. A total of thirty-six employees volunteered
for the follow-up interviews, of which eighteen were successfully contacted within a total of
sixty days from the facilitated work sessions. Interviews ranged in times from twenty minutes to
forty-five minutes. Those participating in the interviews represented maintenance, fire, road
crew, and visitor center staff. Once called, each participant was asked to respond to seven open-
ended interview questions (see Appendix F).
A focused semi-structured interview was the mode of data collection. This format was
selected because it allowed for the collection of targeted information that was directly related to
the topic. Each interview was conducted individually. Interview questions (Appendix F) were
based on Anderson and Krathwohl's (2001) taxonomy for learning. Specifically, the questions
probed the interviewee's thoughts about possible knowledge, motivation, and organizational
barriers to achieving 100% employee satisfaction at WP. Observations focused on Anderson and
Krathwohl's (2001) taxonomy for learning, but also included a focus on Buckingham and
Coffman's (1999) 12 core elements that attract, focus, and retain talented employees. Ultimately,
focusing the data collection on possible knowledge, motivation, and organization barriers, as
well as on elements related to attracting and retaining talented employees, resulted in the ability
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 46
to determine causes and solutions to decrease the gap between current and desired satisfaction
levels at WP.
The interviews were conducted in 30-45 minute sessions. The interviews were an
ongoing process that involved reflection, asking analytical questions, and writing notes
throughout the study as Creswell (2002) suggests. The participants’ narratives were examined to
identify emergent themes regarding employee satisfaction.
In accordance with the University of Southern California's research policies, this research
project was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval/disapproval. Once it
was approved, the information collected during this study was used solely to help assist the
National Park Service improve employee satisfaction at WP. All names of people and parks
remained anonymous and any transcribed or recorded data was destroyed upon completion of
analysis. Since this was a qualitative study using a sample of convenience, the results will not be
generalized to other populations outside the current study.
Data Collection
There are three methods in particular that were used for data collection: 1) EVS
secondary analysis; 2) Observation; and 3) Interviews. As discussed in Chapter 2, most
employee satisfaction studies pertaining to public employees have been mostly been quantitative.
Understandably, most researchers choose this method because data collection is less time
consuming, because results are generalizable (if random samples are used), and because large
numbers of people can be included in a sample. However, there are some research questions
(why or how questions) that simply cannot be answered using only quantitative methods. For
these reasons, this study was designed using a mix methods approach.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 47
McEwan and McEwan (2003) describe qualitative research methods as having the
following three principal characteristics: 1) naturalistic, 2) descriptive, and 3) focused on
meaning. McEwan et al. (2003), describe naturalistic as researchers needing to be present where
the research will be taking place in order to talk, to meet, to observe, and to track down all the
possible sources that help to answer the research question. Descriptive data collection is defined
as “qualitative researchers [writing] rich and multifaceted descriptions” based on the researcher’s
collection of “as much detail and information as possible, recording the most insignificant and
seemingly unimportant tidbits,” since “Words are the coinage of the qualitative researcher”
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003). The authors describe the third quality of qualitative research, that
of being focused on meaning, by contrasting it with qualitative research’s cousin, quantitative
research, where quantitative research focuses on asking one “big” question, then testing it.
Qualitative researchers, on the other hand, ask “multiple and ongoing questions about how and
why things work the way they do in particular settings…[and] are constantly considering a
variety of possible interpretations and explanations about what they have observed” (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). Patton (2002) argues that qualitative methods “tell the program’s story by
capturing and communicating the participants’ stories” (p. 10). Although the study has access to
the EVS results, taking the qualitative approach of interviews allows for a more accurate picture
of what the possible causes for employee satisfaction are. Both the observation at the facilitated
work sessions and the follow-up personal interviews will add the qualitative component of the
study to validate the assumed causes of low employee satisfaction.
EVS Evaluation
This study used the results of the literature review and the aggregate responses of
employees to the 2012 EVS specific to WP (Appendix A) as well as broader NPS results to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 48
identify the assumed causes of the low employee satisfaction. This was the quantitative element
of the research. Quantitative research in a nutshell is “collecting numbers” (Greene et al., 1989).
Quantitative research, moreover, enables the testing of cause-and-effect relationships, allowing
researchers to employ the scientific method to test and verify their findings (Creswell, 2009).
Taking this type of approach requires researchers to isolate and test the variables in order to find
causality. In addition, this approach seeks to generalize and replicate the findings once the
results are tested for reliability and validity.
The EVS results were analyzed using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis to determine
the performance gaps, as well as identify the variables that participating employees indicated as
having the greatest impact on employee satisfaction. Other data included absentee rates,
transfers, retirements, disciplinary actions, turnover rates, and performance rating distributions
from each park.
Observation
During the two-day facilitated work sessions, the leaders and participants discussed the
EVS results to understand what they meant, and the reasoning behind the meaning. Meanwhile,
observers kept track of what patterns surfaced. Particular note was made of which specific
behaviors associated with the four main variables (communication, efficacy, leadership, and
accountability) contributed to the low levels of employee satisfaction at WP, using Appendix B
that was introduced in Chapter 2. The participants were divided into smaller groups, and asked
to create an action plan that focused around what the group felt was the most pressing need that
needed to be addressed at the park. A total of five work groups were created at the first session; a
total of four work groups were created during the second day’s session. Each group was a
mixture of participants from various departments.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 49
According to Merriam (2009), observer as participant occurs when the researcher’s
observation activities are known to the group and participation in the group is definitely
secondary to the role of information gatherer. The researcher may have access to many people
and a wide arrange of information using this method, but the level of the information revealed is
controlled by the group members being investigated (Merriam, 2009).
Action planning document analysis
Additionally document analysis of action planning was incorporated. Document
collection was a chosen data collection method because these documents yielded information
that might be difficult or impossible to obtain another way (Merriam, 2009). WP employees
were divided into groups and were asked to create an action plan. Each plan needed to focus on
an area, purpose or objective of the plan, possible action steps for implementation and
anticipated results of the action plan. Later, teams shared their action plans with larger group.
Interviews of employees
To obtain a ground-level perspective of the employee satisfaction problem at WP, the
study planned to gather volunteers from the two-day sessions. The intent was for employees to
share viewpoints they may have been reluctant to share during earlier group discussions. A
convenience sample was used which included all WP employees, working at various levels of
responsibility, who were willing to be interviewed regarding their opinions on the employee
satisfaction levels at their park. The criteria used for selection was that potential interviewees
had to be a WP employee, a participant in the two-day session, and a volunteer to be interviewed
at the end of the two-day course. The NPS facilitators' process of selection included ensuring at
least one employee from each level of responsibility was included in the sample. It should be
noted that since the sample was one of convenience and participants were not randomly
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 50
assigned, generalization of the results of the study is not practical. The interview protocol can be
found in Appendix F.
According to Patton (2002), “Using an interview guide helps make interviewing a
number of different people more systematic and comprehensive by delimiting in advance the
issues to be explored” (p. 343). The purpose of these interviews was to triangulate the causes
and solutions for low employee satisfaction that emerged from the EVS results and from the
workshop.
The researcher used an interview protocol tool that included the questions encompassing
the three elements of the Gap analysis: (a) Knowledge; (b) Motivation and (c) Organizational
Barriers (see Appendix B). Within these elements, a series of open-ended sub-questions were
included at the time of the interview (see Appendix C). Interview responses were then used to
validate the perceived causes of low employee satisfaction.
Data Analysis
Analyzing qualitative data can be challenging. First, researchers are at risk of distorting
the quality and accuracy of the data through misinterpreting or misunderstanding observations or
interview responses because of their own personal biases, anxieties, political persuasions, or
preconceived notions. As a result, researchers should reveal any biases or preconceived notions
they have about the study in question and insist that their data be analyzed by more than one
researcher to avoid distortion and uncover the truth. Second, subjects being observed or
interviewed may act differently during the research study than they would under normal
circumstances, making it difficult to ensure the accuracy of observations or interview responses.
Data collected from observations and interviews were analyzed using Clark and Estes'
(2008) gap analysis. The gap analysis includes establishing clear organizational, intermediate,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 51
and performance-level goals and quantifying the gaps between the current goals and desired
future performance levels. Results of observation and interviews were analyzed to look for the a
priori categories of knowledge, motivational, or organizational causes, as well as unexpected
themes or concerns that surfaced for WP's gap in employee satisfaction levels (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001).
The WP sessions helped researchers triangulate the data from the EVS results, the
observations, and personal interviews that are most likely causing low employee satisfaction
levels (Clark and Estes, 2008). The measure that was used to determine achievement of both the
National Park Service and WP goals was the number of employees that indicate they are 100%
satisfied on the 2016 EVS.
In Chapter Four, the findings of the research from the facilitated work sessions, as well as
the results from the interviews will be discussed.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 52
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS AND RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to identify the assumed knowledge, motivational, and
organizational (KMO) causes of low employee satisfaction at Wailele Park (WP, a pseudonym),
a park that has scored in the bottom quartile of all parks in the NPS. In identifying the causes for
the low employee satisfaction, this study aimed to provide possible solutions to increase
employee satisfaction in order for WP to achieve their mission of preserving a treasured section
of America’s landscape.
The questions that provided guidance for this study were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization causes that prevent 100%
employee satisfaction in WP?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these recommended solutions for WP be evaluated for effectiveness?
To validate the assumed causes of WP employees’ low satisfaction ratings, data were
collected using the EVS (quantitative), the observations from the facilitated workshop sessions
and group activity (qualitative), and the follow-up phone interviews with employees who
participated in the discussion sessions (qualitative).
Participating Stakeholders
All full-time employees of WP were invited to participate in the EVS; however, when
asked how many remember taking the EVS, there were a few nods in the first employee session;
fewer in the second. Facilitators shared that with a total of 51 employees participating during
both sessions, these employees represented roughly 30% of WP’s entire staff who are “now
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 53
involved in the conversation.” This percentage includes full-time and seasonal employees, as
well as supervisors.
Each employee session included park employees who represented the following
divisions: maintenance, fire, interpreters (education), law enforcement, and administration. Each
session lasted roughly three hours, and consisted of a whole group meeting, smaller breakout
sessions, and a . final share-out session. Employee session one included employees who have
been working from less than one year to nearly 40 years. Session two included a range of
employees who had just started less than one month prior to the meeting, to employees who had
been working for the NPS for over 30 years. Session one was held near the main headquarters of
WP, and employees from divisions that covered the eastern half of the park were invited to
attend that session. Session two was held nearly 60 miles away, and employees who covered the
western half of the park were invited to attend that session. The significance of the locale for the
sessions will be discussed later in the chapter, as employees who attended session two discussed
concerns they felt were significant due to the proximity of their work area and headquarters.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
This section analyzes both the quantitative data from the EVS and the qualitative data
from the observation and personal interviews in order to answer the following research question:
What are the assumed causes of the gap between WP’s current level of employee satisfaction and
the desired NPS level. In other words what are the assumed causes preventing WP from
reaching 100% employee satisfaction? Results from triangulating the collected data were used
both to identify the assumed causes and validate those perceived KMO barriers. Both graphs and
tables were used to illustrate and present the data.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 54
Assumed Causes from EVS Survey Results
WP employees scored an average of 49.8% positive on the entire EVS. When
disaggregated to categorize to KMO, however, the Knowledge survey questions averaged 55%
positive, which was second to Motivational (57%) and higher than Organizational (46%) survey
questions. Notable high percentages in Knowledge survey questions (Table 1) included 70%
positive for question #12 (employees know how their work relates to organizational goals and
priorities) and 73% for question #6 (employees know what’s expected of them on the job).
Among the questions that were rated as areas of concern include question #68 (employees are
not satisfied with the training they are receiving for their present job), which scored 33%, and
question #64 (employees are not satisfied with information they receive from management on
what’s going on in their organization), which scored 36%. Other Knowledge questions scored
above the NPS median—question #2 scored 58% (employees have enough information to do
their job well), while question #19 scored 61% (in employees’ most recent performance
appraisal, employees understood what they had to do to be rated at different performance levels).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 55
Figure 1. Positive Response % for EVS Knowledge Items.
Findings from Observations
As stated earlier, due to the total number of employees, coupled with the size of the park,
administrators felt it necessary to hold two sessions in order to meet with as many employee
volunteers as possible. “Group A” and “Group B” will be used as monikers for the two
employee groups.
Facilitators began each of the employee group sessions with introductions, and
transitioned directly to explanations of why the session was being held. After hearing from the
facilitators about why the sessions were being held, employees expressed concerns expressed
almost immediately that, “It doesn’t matter why you are here, because when you leave,
everything will go back to status quo.” It was at this point that the facilitator asked the employees
the following question, “How many of you feel confident that changes will be made following
these sessions?” to which a combined total of seven hands were raised in both sessions. When
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 56
pressed further by the facilitator to be as open as possible about the reasons employees feel there
would be little to no change after the sessions, employees began sharing answers from, “Unless
we have the training and know-how to do our jobs well, you can’t expect us to be happy with
what we’re doing,” to “As long as we have the same leaders in the same positions, nothing will
improve our score.” To address these two concerns, as well as others that surfaced during the
whole group session, the facilitators asked the employees to work in smaller breakout sessions to
focus on specific areas that, if were changed, would impact the overall employee satisfaction for
the better. The Knowledge causes that emerged from these discussions were:
Employees want more information to do their jobs well.
Issues of Factual Knowledge arose in both employee sessions, as seasonal employees
expressed they lacked the knowledge to do their respective jobs well. One seasonal employee
expressed in the breakout session that they go from one day to another not knowing what to do in
their respective work areas, because their duties change often. Although it was not the case for
the majority of the employees in this smaller group, each of the employees agreed that they had
similar experiences when they were seasonal employees. Other employees in separate breakout
sessions expressed that their roles and responsibilities seemed to change from week to week, and
they didn’t know the reason. “Due to the updated roles and responsibilities, we were given each
week, we would have to find out what our new responsibilities entailed, because sometimes it
was something other than clearing paths, which I know how to do well,” was a response given by
one employee during the first facilitated session. Another example of gaps in Factual
Knowledge came by way of a discussion shared in the whole group session, following the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 57
smaller breakout sessions, when employees shared they did not understand why management felt
there was an area that needed to be cleared from overgrown vegetation. The employee in this
situation shared that it took no longer than “a couple hours to cut that down,” which the
employee wanted to do in order to assist another area that was being overgrown more severely,
but was prevented from doing so, because “management said it was not the priority right now.”
Employees shared that one of the “unfortunate things from not knowing which of our
responsibilities is the most pressing, is the fact that we’ve worked an entire week, sometimes
more, on something we thought was both important and a higher priority, and we neglected
something that was staring at us in the face.”
Employees in both sessions asserted that a consequence of not knowing the priorities of
the organization led to a disconnect vertically between administration and the divisions, as well
as laterally between divisions; lack of Conceptual Knowledge. Employees in one breakout
session expressed that the “disconnect among divisions is so great, that there’s no respect for
other divisions.” Discussions of the ratio of workload to manpower controlled much of the
breakout sessions with one group, as some employees expressed their concern that the manpower
in their division dropped from thirty to ten, “of which five were volunteers.” The objective of
sharing this concern was employees did not know how to do more with less, or as one employee
stated, “If we continue to do less with less, what’s going to happen to our park?”
Employees saw what they perceived as issues that affect the well-being of the park, but
many expressed that “at the end of the day, I’m not too worried about my satisfaction, because
I’m more worried about what happens to the park if I don’t do something about what I see as
problems, and if management wants to know how to make me happy, they should let us do what
we know are problems, instead of what they (management) think is the problem” (italics added to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 58
emphasize employee’s intonation). Another example of gaps in Conceptual Knowledge was
shared by employees during the breakout session when they shared they felt “discouraged from
doing the practical, which leads to them avoiding customer satisfaction, and if we do that, we
impact customer satisfaction. We just need to know what the real priorities are from
management, train us on how to do those priorities, and let us loose to do it. We can do it, We
just need to know how.”
Findings from Document Analysis
Employees in the facilitated sessions were asked to divide into groups in order to work
more closely with their colleagues to discuss what they felt were some of the most pressing
needs in the park. Each group was asked to come up with two-three action items the group felt
would help to bring about positive changes, if implemented. The action plans (Appendix E)
created by the smaller work groups captured what one group member called “our wish list” of
things to “magically transform our park.”
During the first day’s work session, a total of four groups were created, and in each of the
action plans, employees targeted communication as a high priority needs area to address.
Employees wanted to have (a) clearer communication from their leaders about what needs to get
done; (b) they want to know more about how the financial decisions seem to take more priority
over the work the employees feel need to get done; (c) they want to be informed of the yearly
goals set forth by the park in order for the employees to have a better sense of direction; and (d)
they wanted more training opportunities across the park so they know what the other departments
are doing in order to improve overall “camaraderie and unity” among colleagues.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 59
Findings from Interviews
Interviews were conducted with employees from both groups, and the researcher made
attempts to get samples from the various divisions that were represented. Through the
interviews, the researcher was able to collect more qualitative data to validate what was observed
at the employee sessions.
Beginning with Factual Knowledge, employees shared their concerns about not getting
support or answers for what they considered to be basic understanding and skills required to
complete an assigned task. Employees shared they understand that there is a lot of
“communication flowing up to the leadership, but we never hear the answers to our questions, so
we just have to do what work we know, which often is not the assignment we were given.” Other
employees shared that they just wanted to know what the priority tasks were so they could “pour
their energy in to that, rather than wasting it on something that isn’t going to help improve our
area.”
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual Knowledge, or lack thereof, factored into much of the conversation the
researcher had with the employees during the interviews. Seasonal employees shared that when
they arrive to the park at the beginning of their work period, they feel isolated from the rest of
the park, so there’s a “sense of loneliness both mentally and conceptually, because when you’re
in the middle of a million-acre park, and no one is around for miles, it doesn’t matter to me
whether or not I know what the other divisions are doing.” Other employees shared their concern
that while they know what their division’s mission is, it’s “hard to know and care about what
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 60
other divisions are doing, because at the end of the day, we are held accountable for what we do
in our area, not others.” Employees shared in their work groups that it is difficult to gauge what
to prioritize, because “we don’t even know if there’s an overall goal for the Park, so how do I
know if my personal work goals are aligned to the Park’s.”
Procedural Knowledge
Employees shared that when they know what the priority project is, they could get the job
done; however, when they have to follow “all these protocols just to get permission to do
something that can be completed within minutes, our hands are tied, and our areas suffer.” Lack
of Procedural Knowledge, especially for those employees who are farthest from the
administration office, “can’t wait for an ‘OK’ from someone who may not know what’s going on
out here. Sometimes if there’s a problem, I can’t fix it, even though I know I can. I have to wait
for an ‘OK’ before I can pick up a tool. How am supposed to do my job?” Other employees
shared that even if the protocol was clear, it still doesn’t address the need “we feel to be more
autonomous within our divisions. We’re all adults, and we have the know-how to get things
done, so why can’t we be allowed to do it? Is it because of cost?” Along the same line as
budgetary issues, one comment shared during the second-day session revealed there was a
concern among “most departments that there are budget cuts that prevent much of our work to
get done effectively, but then at the end of the year, we’re being told we need to spend all this
money. Where was that money this entire time?”
Metacognitive Knowledge
One employee expressed that although he never considered his own satisfaction when
“waking up each morning, I’m at the point in my career that I can leave at the end of summer,
and not return. Not because I’m not happy, but because I like to see my coworkers enjoying
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 61
their careers the same way I did when I first started, but they’re not happy, and I don’t know how
to help them. I love working here at the park, but I see a lot of depressed faces around here.”
During one interview, an employee shared that if she were a supervisor or administration, she
“didn’t know that part of her job was to be sure her staff was happy. I thought we all have our
set assignments, and we work to get those done, happy or not.”
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The two lowest ratings for WP were 36% (employees are not satisfied with the
information they receive from management) and 33% (employees are not satisfied with the
training they receive for their present job). Through both the observation of the whole group and
breakout sessions, as well as the interviews, the low ratings for these two areas were validated,
and reveal that the primary knowledge barriers in attaining 100% employee satisfaction are
found in the lack of both knowledge and training offered to the employees. Employees
expressed that they want to do their jobs well, because they love being out there surrounded by
“trees and foliage and wilderness that most people only see in movies or read about in nature
magazines,” but they need to know what needs to be done so they’re not spending so many of
their weeks “working on projects that we don’t know how to fix.”
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
EVS Survey Results
EVS ratings for questions that were categorized as motivational barriers for achieving
100% employee satisfaction averaged the highest of the KMOs for WP. The average positive
rating for these questions was 57%, which was below the 60% threshold that the NPS indicated
was acceptable; however, questions categorized as motivational scored the top three highest
ratings for WP (Table 2). Question #7 indicated 97% positive that employees are willing to put
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 62
in extra effort to get the job done. This was the highest positive percentage for WP, followed by
questions #8 (employees are constantly looking for ways to do their job better), which scored
92%. WP employees also rated question #13 highly positive with another 92% when it comes to
indicating that the work they do is important. Of the seventeen total questions categorized as
motivational, eight scored above the 60% threshold. Beside the three questions shared above,
other questions that scored higher than 60% included question #5 (employees like the kind of
work they do), which scored 87% positive; question #40 scored 67% positive (employees would
recommend their organization as a good place to work). EVS results indicated that employees
strongly feel the work they do gives them a feeling of personal accomplishment by rating
question #4 as 75% positive. Question #69 (considering everything, employees are satisfied with
their job) received 66% positive rating. Indicated also on the EVS was that employees feel the
overall quality of the work done by their unit is not poor, by rating question #28 with 81%
positive.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 63
Figure 2: Positive response % for EVS Motivational Items
Findings from Observations
Employees indicated during the breakout sessions that within their divisions are years of
experience and that experience could be an asset to the divisions if employees were allowed to
share their expertise with the new employees. Employees shared that if they were given more
autonomy by way of empowerment to make decisions about certain tasks, there would be
greater, more effective use of both time and energy. One employee shared, “I know how to do
my job well, because I’ve been doing it for years; however, when I’ve been given some
additional job, I already have it in my mind how I will get it done. The thing is, I’m told I have
to follow a certain way to get it done, and I’m thinking, ‘Why? Doing it my way is more cost
efficient, and I can get it done faster!’ So how am I supposed to feel pepped up to go and do my
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 64
new job?” Other employees echoed the sentiments by sharing examples of having to be told “you
don’t know much yet, because you’re a seasonal employee, so just do your best with what you
have, and don’t worry about changing the system.”
In addition to the lack of empowerment discussed during the breakout sessions,
employees shared their frustrations over hiring practices that opened the door to more external
applicants, while there were many qualified, skilled employees in-house to promote. For one of
the action plans presented in the smaller breakout sessions, one group shared their dismay with
learning that one of their colleague who had years of experience and was very well-respected by
employees and leadership was overlooked as a potential candidate to fill a leadership vacancy,
because he “didn’t have enough leadership background.” Employees in this particular group
added that the individual who was finally hired to take the job ended up having to consult with
the in-house employee on numerous occasions on area-specific tasks, and that it was difficult for
the other members of the work area to find any credibility in the new leader’s role as a leader.
Employees discussed a desire to be included more in the decision-making processes that impact
the park, because they felt they were “as much a stakeholder as our leaders, but sometimes the
leadership didn’t spend much time out here working the park the way we do, so it’s easy for
them to make decisions without really thinking it through.” Employees perceived that the lack of
involvement in the decision-making process leads to “poor decisions made on the part of our
current leaders,” some of whom, employees mentioned, “don’t know enough about their own job
to tell me how to do my job.”
Another finding from the observations was that employees had a perception that
leadership did not value what the employees were doing. Although digging deeper in the
conversation revealed that the underlying cause of this perception was a lack of knowledge on
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 65
the employees’ part, the discussion focused much more on the motivational impact of that lack of
knowledge, so for this case study, this discussion remains as a motivational gap. Employees
perceived that since leadership seldom recognizes or acknowledges the effort employees put
forth when getting the job done, leadership “just doesn’t care about anything but the bottom
line.” Employees shared it was important to be acknowledged, because there is a real sense of
isolation in the park, and when there is news that leadership will be visiting, employees looked
forward to showing what work had been accomplished, yet when leadership does arrive, there
“wasn’t even a ‘hello, how are you doing?’” and employees felt they wasted a lot of effort to do
well for their leaders.
Findings from Document Analysis
In the breakout groups, employees shared in their action plans that there were some key
factors in their overall positive motivation, namely they “love being at the park.” However, there
were some issues they felt were beyond their personal control that impacted the level of
motivation they were willing to employ in order to help the leaders. Of the issues that were
discussed, one was prevalent in both the two-day work sessions: a lack of opportunity for
frontline employees to be involved in decision-making policies at the park. Employees shared
they felt they had enough knowledge about the work to assist in the decisions made at
headquarters; however, their “expertise were never tapped for one reason or another. Eventually,
you just lose interest in making suggestions on how to make things more efficient, more
productive.”
Another item that was discussed in the breakout sessions was an issue of recognition.
One employee summed it up by sharing that “we don’t need a ribbon every time we do
something good, but it would be nice to get recognized in some way after spending days and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 66
weeks clearing out a bunch of invasive plants that made that section of the park hideous!”
Employees wanted to know that when they are isolated in the middle of the park, their hard work
and efforts in maintaining the beauty of the park did not go unrecognized. Employees shared that
they “do a lot of great work for the park, and it’s kind of frustrating and defeating when your
leader shows up every now and then, and rather than acknowledging the work we just did for the
past how many days, they just tell you to get this other project started. They don’t even value the
work I’ve done, and that’s just wrong!”
During the second facilitated work session, one group focused on the need to be given a
chance to be more creative; one employee sharing he wanted the opportunity to “take steps
outside the box to get things done. I know there are procedures to do certain things, but when I’m
alone, surrounded by acres of trees and plants, and I’m bound to do things a certain way, I lose
my desire to go the extra mile, and I don’t like that feeling.” This group captured their concern in
their action plan by emphasizing the need to get more frontline employees in leadership roles.
Since they felt there was no opportunity to get promoted, these employees felt there was no way
for them “to speak up for their colleagues who think the same way.”
Findings from Interviews
Employees lacked the motivation to perform their jobs as well as they had in years past,
and were open to sharing their thoughts of why the ratings for WP were low. A number of the
employees who volunteered for the interviews were seasonal employees, and many expressed
that if the EVS were administered at the time of the facilitated work sessions, “the scores would
definitely be lower, because there has been no change to the way leadership treats us.” When
pressed for specific examples, one employee shared an experience that, although it did not
directly affect their work assignment, the incident indirectly impacted morale. The employee
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 67
shared that their chief was openly targeted by another chief, and was demeaned and mistreated
regularly and often in front of other members of leadership, as well as other employees from
other divisions. These incidents caused employees from other divisions to stigmatize the chief
who was the recipient of the mistreatment, resulting in this chief’s credibility among other
divisions to diminish. Among this chief’s division, however there were many employees who
expressed among each other their disappointment in the park not “reprimanding the chief who
was responsible for mistreating” the other chief. Employees perceived that the inaction of the
park leadership demotivated any employees to want to “speak up” or “apply for any type of
promotion, because if my leader was being mistreated like that, I’d probably get worse.”
Employees shared candid thoughts about the hiring practices at the park prior to the
arrival of the current superintendent, whom the employees praised as beginning to bring about
much-needed change. From the interviews, there was a general consensus among employees
that administration needs to revisit the current hiring and promotion practices of the park.
Employees shared they understood there were some hiring policies over which the park had little
to no control, but that “the superintendent should have enough power to make
recommendations.” Employees shared that there were a number of veteran employees who have
applied for vacancies to leadership positions only to be turned away. There was a perception that
leadership hires “those who don’t ruffle feathers when times get tough, and usually those types
of employees are found outside the park, rather than inside.” One employee shared that “anyone
can be a ‘yes sir’ or ‘yes ma’am’ worker, but what we need in the park is someone who can say
‘no’ when leadership wants to add to our plates, and the only way you can get that type of
worker is to hire from inside the park, because we see and know what needs to get done and how
to get it done.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 68
The issue of promoting seasonal employees surfaced during the interviews, as many
interviewees expressed the need to offer more incentives to seasonal employees who carry a
“bulk load of the physical labor, yet they get no promotions.” Seasonal employees who were
interviewed agreed with much of the promotion discussion, but cautioned that they understood
“we’re here only a couple months out of the year, and it wouldn’t be very practical to promote
someone to leadership roles when they’re not there the entire year.” Another seasonal employee
shared that although “seasonals aren’t at the park year round, they should still be included in the
decision-making, because without any representation of seasonals, we’ll always get the short end
of the stick,” although employees did not disclose what exactly “short end” meant. Employees
shared that if leadership truly valued the workforce and the cumulative experience of that
workforce in the park, they would show it by promoting from within, rather than from without
the park, as offering this type of incentive would motivate the workforce to do their jobs well,
and find more enjoyment in showing up to work each day, “because at least I know my leader
would be someone I can trust to help me do the job.”
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
EVS items that showed low ratings in the motivation cause were validated through
triangulating data from the observations and phone interviews, along with the EVS ratings.
Findings were especially strengthened in the area of employees feeling a lack of empowerment,
because they perceived there is no opportunity to share ideas or give input to decisions that
impact their work. The finding was that employees perceived that all decisions are made from
the top down, rather than collaboratively among divisions and division workgroups. Another
finding for motivation barrier was that employees perception that their work and skills are not
valued by leadership, because colleagues they respect, who know much about the park, are not
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 69
promoted to positions of leadership; instead, the park hires from the outside, bringing in new
leaders who eventually have to be “trained by their employees, rather than the other way
around,” as shared by one vocal employee during the breakout sessions.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
EVS Survey Results
Of the three barriers—knowledge, motivational, organizational—Organizational scored
the lowest (46%). EVS ratings indicated that the six lowest positive ratings were questions
categorized as Organizational causes versus only one question of the highest five overall being
in the Organizational category. Of the forty-five questions categorized as Organizational,
twenty-one fell between 5% - 40% positive ratings (Figure 5), eleven rated from 41% - 58%
(Figure 4), and thirteen rated between 60% - 80% (Figure 3).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 70
Figure 3: Positive response ≥ 60%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 71
Figure 4: Positive response 41% - 58%. Ratings below 60% acceptable, but still
considered areas of concern.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 72
Figure 5: Positive response ≤ 40%. Ratings of 30% - 40% considered low
Findings from Observations
As in previous discussions of the findings during the facilitated workgroups and breakout
sessions, organization barriers that employees perceived as contributors to low employee
satisfaction were discussed. At one point during the breakout sessions, an employee shared
privately that s/he had to be really careful of what they could say, because the supervisor s/he
had in mind when the EVS was filled out, and who received a low rating, was in the room.
Although this was not the case in other breakout sessions, it was enough of a hindrance in this
one particular group that the discussion avoided leadership issues, consequently leaving
leadership changes out of the proposed action plans the group was tasked to create.
In other breakout sessions, however, the discussion about organization barriers, which for
most employees, meant leadership, was filled with comments such as “I don’t know how that
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 73
leader was promoted” to the opposite, yet equally negative, “That leader got promoted because
they’re good at never saying ‘No,’ but because of that, we can’t get anything done!” This
discussion led to an action plan that included lessening the workload of employees, or “at least
not adding to the current workload before we’ve finished the current projects.” Employees
perceived that there was a lack of knowledge on the part of the leadership in the area of assigning
tasks and projects. Yet other employees sided with a comment made by one individual during
the breakout session that “this is a friends and family business, unless you’re a friend of someone
in management, you won’t be seeing very much upward movement.” This sense of pointing
fingers at the leadership stemmed from a discussion found in the previous section about the
current hiring and promotion practices of the park in recruiting leaders from without, whom the
employees regarded as having little to no knowledge about the park.
Another discussion during the breakout sessions centered around the perception that park
leadership did not do enough in terms of accountability for employees and leadership members
who “have a reputation of slacking off, while the rest of us bust our butts to get the job done.”
Employees shared examples of incidents when colleagues seemed to “disappear” when we
needed to get work done, but then “reappear” when the work was nearly completed, yet there
were no consequences for that behavior. As part of this group’s action plan, there was discussion
about hiring better qualified applicants, and as part of the hiring process, a member of the work
group or division, other than the supervisor, would be allowed to sit in on an interview process in
order to gauge the prospective employee’s vision and thoughts of work ethics. Instead,
employees perceived that the way park leadership dealt with employees and leaders who were
not fulfilling their roles and tasks was to “simply reassign them to another division, and make it
someone else’s problem.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 74
Another discussion from the breakout sessions that indicated an organization barrier was
employees expressed they could not get much of their work completed effectively or on time due
to a lack of resources, both in terms of manpower and physical resources, i.e., funding,
equipment, supplies, training. One employee echoed the sentiment that was shared earlier during
the facilitated group discussion that “we’re being tasked to do more with less, and all that leads
to is us doing less with less. So how do we maintain the park?” Other employees shared that as
“well-meaning as it is to have this session, my mind is on the work I just left behind, and will be
waiting for me when I get back to my area. I’m thinking, I’m already working the area by
myself, couldn’t leadership send someone up to help me for a couple days?” Employees shared
also that on a number of occasions, they have requested supplies and placed orders for supplies
or equipment to finish a job only to find out later, sometimes days later, that the current project
was already cancelled due to another, “more important project to get done,” and one employee
added that “there’s nothing like being told way after the fact that what we’ve been sweating and
breaking our backs on no longer needs to get done, because of some decision from headquarters
about priority projects. We still don’t have the funding available to complete the new projects,
so why don’t they just let us finish off the ones we started so those who visit the park don’t think
we’re doing only half the job?” Aside from offering solutions to what they felt were the causes,
employees in the second employee workgroup breakout session shared that one of the challenges
for their area is that “they’re so far away from headquarters, that we’re referred to as the
forgotten stepchild, so we already feel like making requests for supplies or anything else is
fruitless, because we never get what we ask for, ever.” Facilitators during the whole group
session asked employees if they felt they would see any change as a result of the facilitated
sessions, to which many employees expressed they had very little confidence in seeing it happen.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 75
“Talking about it here is a good step,” offered one employee, but adding further, “I expect to see
you folks here again next year going through the same process, because there won’t be much
change.”
Another discussion point regarding what employees perceived were organization barriers
to higher employee satisfaction was employee perception that leadership did not work well with
a diverse group of workers, specifically workers who have varying skill sets and experiences.
Employees shared that there was a sense that among all divisions were very talented and creative
individuals, but those employees were never “tapped for their ideas to creatively complete a task
that we might be struggling with, and we’re left with figuring out what to do on our own. Why
doesn’t management talk to each other during their meetings to solicit help from other workers? I
mean, we all work for the same park.” This discussion led the group to talk about the possibility
of having cross-divisional groups to be part of the leadership cadre that was currently being put
in place by park management. Employees shared that when they learn of how other divisions are
working effectively, yet the chief does not share the processes being used in other divisions to
complete tasks, there is a feeling that “we’re being set up to fail, rather than to succeed. It’s like
you’re plopped in an area, and nobody expects to see you until after a couple months.”
Findings from Document Analysis
Employees in both facilitated work sessions shared they felt disconnected with their
leaders, and their action plans captured much of those sentiments. Although there may have not
been an action plan for Knowledge or Motivation issues written on the chart paper, there were a
number of Organization issues listed on each of the two-day facilitated work sessions. Among
the action plans, one common issue was to change the culture found at the leadership level. To
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 76
be more specific, employees felt their needs were not being addressed as efficiently as they
needed to be due to the “inaction we’ve seen when we bring it up.”
Employees wanted to have more opportunities for professional development in order to
stay competitive in the workforce, because many of these employees are seasonal, and they
wanted to be able to be rehired the following season; however, if they are not given opportunities
to develop their work and skills, these employees felt “they wouldn’t get a second chance to
show what they can do.”
Another issue that was shared in the action plans was the lack of promotion and
recruitment from within the park. Employees shared concerns that, even though they felt a
colleague was “the right person for the job, the park went ahead and brought in someone else
from another park, and that person knew nothing about our park!” Employees also discussed that
there was a sense of supervisors playing “favorites, because when two people do the same wrong
thing, one will get reprimanded, while the other one gets away.”
Findings from Interviews
In nearly all interviews, employees shared a sense that there was a lack of trust among
frontline employees that leadership has the capability to “change a culture they alone created,
from one of doing what it takes to get the job done to one of giving excuses of why the job isn’t
getting done,” as one employee stated. Another interviewee added that “management can’t keep
giving us excuses, because there’s no way we can give those same excuses to our park visitors.
If we are held accountable to our visitors, why isn’t management accountable to us when they
know we what we need to get the job done?” During another interview, one employee shared the
perception that other divisions were given the supplies and equipment they requested, because
someone at headquarters must’ve placed one order ahead of the others that were requested
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 77
weeks, and sometimes, months before.” Yet another employee conceded that park management
sometimes “have their hands tied as to what they can approve or not approve, because
sequestration and budgetary matters don’t allow very much flexibility. I mean, if there’s no
money, there’s no funding our projects. Regardless of the lack of funding, we just have a lot of
good employees who are getting burned out on what they have to do with so little.”
Another issue that was discussed during the interviews revolved around the lack of
training the park offers for employees to update their skills, especially when assigned new tasks
or projects to complete. A number of employee shared that there were many times they were
behind with the current project, and “all of a sudden, we find out we have to start a new project,
and we’re wondering how do we do that?” Another employee shared that “leadership needs to
get their act together, and just tell us from the start what their goal is, because if we knew that,
we could be more productive in getting things done in order to reach the goal. But
management’s goals seem so varied that we don’t know which one we’re supposed to focus on.”
Speaking to the issue of not having clear goals from management, one employee
wondered “Why is it that our leaders meet together if they have no unified goal to work towards?
How do they expect us to trust them to lead us if they don’t tell where they’re leading us?”
Seasonal employees who participated in the interviews shared that park management
could do a better job at creating opportunities for seasonal employees to learn more skills by
allowing them to learn various jobs, rather than the current system of being assigned one area,
and having them remain in that area for the duration of their stay. One seasonal employee shared
they flew in from the Midwest to add to the skills he acquired at other parks, yet he was only
allowed to work in cleaning the road, and when he inquired if there were a possibility in learning
how to work in another area, he was told, “just be happy to be working here.” The same
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 78
employee added there was a sense that seasonal employees are not treated equally by
management, but out of fear of not being rehired the following year, these seasonal employees
just do what they’re asked.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Findings from the observations and follow-up telephone interviews identified a number
of employee perceptions that were categorized as organization barriers to achieving higher
employee satisfaction ratings, including: the perception that park management lacked
accountability when handling issues of employee inequity when it comes to consequences for
negative behavior; the perception that leadership does not provide adequate resources—both
human and physical resources—to complete given tasks; the perception that park management
has hiring and promotion practices that are not based on merit, but rather a “family and friends”
type of system, where promotions are given to those employees whose “alliance” closely aligns
with the leadership, rather than with the frontline employees; and finally, the perception that
management does not allow for more diversity in the workforce—diversity in skillset and
experience, as well as diversity in cross-division communication.
Summary
Employees at Wailele Park find much satisfaction in the career choices they made to
work in the outdoor environment of the Park Service. They feel the overall mission and vision of
the Park Service is aligned with their vision that these parks need to be protected and preserved.
The misalignment comes by way of how to achieve the overall park goals. Employees indicated
in both the facilitated workgroups, the breakout sessions, and the follow-up interviews that at the
end of the day, they will do all that is necessary to ensure the preservation of WP, because not
doing the work is simply “not an option we’re willing to live with.” Employees want to do their
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 79
job better than well, they want to be sure “those who get hired after us know that they’re joining
a group of colleagues who are willing to bend over backwards for them, and that they can always
be counted on to come through in times of need.”
Through the EVS ratings, the observations, and the follow-up interviews, there were
more specific issues that rose to the surface and were common themes in all three data sources:
1) lack of knowledge of issues impacting the park due to a lack of communication flow from the
employee to the leadership, then back to the employee; 2) lack of empowerment due to the
perception that employees are not feeling valued, nor are they involved in the decision-making
process that impacts their work; and 3) the perception that there are a lack of resources to assist
the employees in getting their job done.
The following chapter will offer research-based solutions to those validated causes that
were discussed in Chapter 4, as well as offer an evaluation process that will help to determine
how the implementation plan of the solutions is working; in other words, how is the
implementation plan impacting progress toward the park’s goals.
Table 3. Validated causes of low employee satisfaction at Wailele Park
Measure Cause
Validated: Y/N Theory
Knowledge
EVS
Observation
(Facilitated /
Breakout
Sessions)
Interview
Lack of
information
regarding
decisions and
issues impacting
workplace
(Communication-
Knowledge)
Lack of
knowledge
regarding other
divisions’ goals
and objectives
Y
Information
Processing
Theory
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 80
toward overall
park goals
(Communication
– Knowledge)
Lack of
knowledge
regarding
collaboration
among divisions
(Communication
– Knowledge)
Motivation
EVS
Observation
(Facilitated /
Breakout
Sessions)
Interview
Lack of feeling
trusted and
empowered; no
autonomy
Lack of
empowerment in
decision-making
process; lack of a
voice
Y
Social Cognitive
Theory (SLT);
Cognitive Load
Theory (CLT)
Organization
EVS
Observation
(Facilitated /
Breakout
Sessions)
Interview
Lack of resources
to complete task
safely and
efficiently, i.e,
training, human
capital
Y
Sociocultural
Theory
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 81
CHAPTER 5
SOLUTIONS
The purpose for this study was to research the assumed causes that prevented WP from
attaining 100% employee satisfaction, as well as provide research-based solutions to those
perceived causes. As a review, data were compiled from both qualitative and quantitative
sources, including the EVS results for the park, facilitated discussion groups—both whole group
and smaller breakout sessions, and finally telephone interviews with employees who volunteered
to speak with the researcher following the facilitated discussion groups. The conceptual
framework used to research the data was Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis.
Using Clark and Estes; (2008) gap analysis framework, the research examined perceived
knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers that prevent the organizational goal of
increasing employee satisfaction. Once the perceived causes were identified and discussed in
Chapter 4, the next step was to share possible solutions that address the causes in order to narrow
the gap between the WP’s current employee satisfaction rating and the goal.
Validated Causes Prioritization and Rationale
As discussed in Chapter 4, of the perceived causes for low employee satisfaction, the
categories that were validated as having the greatest impact on low employee satisfaction were 1)
communication flow (employees knew that information was being communicated to the
leadership, but were unaware of information being looped back), 2) employee empowerment,
(the desire for employees to take a more active role in the decision-making process), and 3)
dissatisfaction with leadership (specifically, the lack of resources employees feel they need in
order to complete their assigned tasks) (Table X).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 82
Table 4.
Validated causes of low employee satisfaction at Wailele Park
Measure Cause
Validated: Y/N Theory
Knowledge
EVS
Observation
(Facilitated /
Breakout
Sessions)
Interview
Lack of
information
regarding
decisions and
issues impacting
workplace
(Communication-
Knowledge)
Lack of
knowledge
regarding other
divisions’ goals
and objectives
toward overall
park goals
(Communication
– Knowledge)
Lack of
knowledge
regarding
collaboration
among divisions
(Communication
– Knowledge)
Y Information
Processing
Theory
Motivation
EVS
Observation
(Facilitated /
Breakout
Sessions)
Interview
Lack of feeling
trusted and
empowered; no
autonomy
Lack of
empowerment in
decision-making
process; lack of a
voice
Y Social Cognitive
Theory (SLT);
Cognitive Load
Theory (CLT)
Organization
EVS
Lack of resources
to complete task
Y Sociocultural
Theory
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 83
Observation
(Facilitated /
Breakout
Sessions)
Interview
safely and
efficiently, i.e,
training, human
capital
Employees shared they lacked knowledge at the basic level to perform their tasks well.
They also discussed in their facilitated and breakout sessions that they want to be aware of how
all the divisions play a role in moving the park’s goals forward. By the same token, some
employees discussed their lack of knowledge of what those goals were. In addition to these
knowledge barriers, employees shared they lacked the autonomy to solve problems, which, as
one employee shared, “may not even come until after the problem’s been replaced with an even
bigger problem. Then the cycle repeats—request permission, wait, if it comes, it comes late.”
Employees also had a perception that they lacked the knowledge of decisions made at the park
that impacted the workforce. Employees attributed this lack of knowledge to what they
perceived was a lack of information from park leadership.
Lack of knowledge was not the only validated cause discovered in the research;
motivational gaps in the areas of communication, employee empowerment, accountability, and
acknowledgement rose to the top of the discussions both in the breakout sessions and the
interviews. As one employees shared, “Saying ‘hello’ doesn’t cost a dime.” Employees shared
that when their supervisors acknowledged the work the employee was doing in a positive way,
the sense of choosing the right career “seemed to lighten up, and I knew there was more of a
purpose to working here.” In this sense, the employee sought feedback, which is crucial for an
individual to know whether or not the work being performed is correct.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 84
Motivational barriers included a lack of a system that allowed for the front-line
employees to be part of the leadership cadre, where their “voices” could be heard by all
divisions. Employees voiced their desire to participate more in the decision-making practices of
the park. By being involved in the decision-making processes, there is a sense that employees
would feel more empowered to add their voice to decisions that impact the daily assignments, as
well as the assignments and goals that are more long-term.
Organizational causes that were validated during the research included a lack of
resources for divisions to complete their assigned tasks, resources such as hiring new employees,
promoting in-house employees, rather than hiring external applicants. Although employees
understood that sequestration was a reason for not being able to hire more staff, there was a sense
that maximizing the current human capital at the park would result in more efficiency and
completed tasks. For example, rather than going through the hiring process that looks at external
candidates, employees felt there was enough highly qualified, experienced workers in the park to
fill the vacancies in some of the most needed areas of the park.
Solutions for Knowledge Causes
The following section discusses the possible solutions that address the Knowledge causes
that are preventing 100% employee satisfaction. As discussed in previous chapters, the four
knowledge causes are referenced from Anderson’s & Krathwohl’s (2001) study, and using Clark
and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework, the next step to take in this study is to
discuss the possible solutions for each of the knowledge gaps.
Factual Knowledge
Employees want more information about expectations. As employees shared during the
facilitated and breakout sessions, as well as during the interviews, lack of knowledge for some of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 85
the basic functions that were expected of the workforce contributed to low employee satisfaction.
Employees expressed they just wanted to know what was expected of them, because it seemed
their jobs and projects changed so often. Haque (2012) argues that “communication and
coordination are…critical components of an organization,” adding further “These both are
considered the backbone of organizational success” (pg. 136). Since the factual knowledge gap
addressed above falls under the umbrella of lack of communication, a possible solution would be
to put a system in place where the communication flow is both timely and transparent. Haque
(2012) suggests that transparency brings the values of communication and coordination together
(pg. 137).
An environment wherein communication to subordinates is delivered in a manner that
allows employees to feel supported will help to change both the behavior and the attitudes of the
employee in their work (Dasgupta, 2013). Communication, being a broad term, alone is not
enough to raise employee satisfaction or solve all the challenges in a knowledge gap; however,
when that communication flow is both timely and focused on specific concerns the employees
may have, the likelihood of goal attainment is greater (Shaw, 2005). There are studies of the
value of communication, and its impact on employee satisfaction and employee performance,
and one common solution found in Shaw’s (2005) research is when an organization is
consistently communicating the most recent updates regarding job trainings and job tasks,
followed up by clear explanation of the updates and changes, employees will be less likely to
feel overburdened by the changes, in fact the employees will begin to “feel intrinsically satisfied,
realize self-worth, and feel an obligation to return this support through…behaviors that benefit
the organization” (Dasgupta, 2013). Earlier research indicated that when managers or leaders
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 86
“set organizational or program goals clearly and specifically, they can improve organizational
performance” (Jung, 2011).
There are challenges that prevent timely and regular communication to flow from
employee to leadership, and back to employee; however, what the research indicates is when
organizations make communication a priority, the impact that communication may have on the
employees will be more positive than negative. Clark and Estes (2008) present a variety of
strategies to ensure employees are getting the information needed to complete their assigned
tasks both efficiently and timely. These strategies include reminders to draw on past experience
when faced with a task that was completed (when faced with a prior similar situation, what did
the employee do to solve the problem?); allowing for job aids to be posted near the employees’
work area for quick reference of the basic, and sometimes, most vital information to complete
the task; and professional development in the form of trainings that will update the employees
and the workforce of the most current job-related tasks, as well as the information to complete
the new tasks. Guy’s (1992) earlier study found that the more frequent the communication
between two entities, the clearer the task becomes. Frequent communication could take place via
weekly briefings with the employees via face-to-face sessions or call-in via telephone
communication. A standing monthly meeting wherein employees are informed of the immediate
tasks at hand, as well as briefed on updated priorities. Training information can be disseminated
during quarterly professional development sessions, where employees are offered an opportunity
to be trained in the most current skillsets that are required for the assigned tasks. Of the forms of
communication available—emails, memos, radio, phone calls, face-to-face visits—employees at
WP valued the personal, face-to-face communication with their leaders the most; however, given
the magnitude and expansiveness of the park, face-to-face communication may not be too
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 87
practical. Effective use of technology that allows regular and more frequent communication to
the employees would be a more viable solution.
Conceptual Knowledge
Employees at WP expressed that when they are miles from other employees, and the
likelihood of any employee meeting with other employees from other divisions is minimal, there
is a “very real sense of isolation, and the term working in silos becomes very real.” One of the
conceptual knowledge barriers that surfaced in this research is the lack of both understanding and
knowledge of what all the divisions are doing, and how division goals contribute to the overall
mission of the park. Research has indicated that when employees work in isolation, without
regard to their relational role with other divisions and departments within an organization, there
is a greater chance that the organizational goals will not be met, and an even greater chance of
organizations being unbalanced in terms of successes and challenges (Radulesau, 2012; Jung,
2011).
WP employees shared that they were not aware of what the goals were for other
divisions, and because of that lack of knowledge, felt there was not a compelling need to have to
contribute to other divisions’ work assignments. By the same token, much of the conversation
during the breakout sessions centered around a share-out of what divisions were doing, and how
rules and protocols may have been implemented differently across the divisions. As a result,
employees discussed the ways there could be more uniformity in the implementation of the
protocols so that the process of accomplishing the work could be more consistent with the goals
of the park, even if divisions had their own goals. Employees conceded that they did not know
every goal for every division, but shared that if they were trained at how all the “pieces of the
puzzle fit together, they could offer support when available.” Tseng & McLean (2008) found in
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 88
their study of organizational relationships that “organizational learning provides an opportunity
to shape organizational mission and goals,” which when shared with all departments and
divisions in an organization allows for more forward and upward movement of the organization.
In addition, Tseng & McLean (2008) discussed the need for regular and frequent
“scanning” or updated needs assessment, as the more frequent the scanning, the more committed
an employee will be to their performance. Prior to quarterly professional development sessions,
employees might receive either an electronic or hard copy version of a needs assessment form
that would help identify what the current challenges and needs are that a particular employee
work group or work area are experiencing. With the needs assessment form in hand prior to the
quarterly meetings, the professional development topics could then be tailored around the most
pressing needs that were identified. Having a more focused and targeted professional
development session, based on the needs assessment filled out by the employees, allows for more
alignment of the training sessions to the overall mission and goals of the park. Employees would
then be able to feel the sense of having their needs addressed, of being heard, and a sense of
empowerment because the quarterly training sessions have been customized to the individual
divisions.
Solutions for Motivation Causes
Employees at WP have strong positive feelings about the work they do at the park, and
they value the work they have been commissioned to do. The motivational gaps that were
validated through the facilitated and breakout sessions and the interviews included dissatisfaction
with the recognition given to employees. For example, employees lacked the motivation to
perform more than what was expected of them, because there was a lack of knowledge as to
whether or not the leadership valued the employees. Employees stated that acknowledgement of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 89
work that had been completed was seldom or rarely given by leadership, even when a member of
leadership would visit the work area. Employees perceived that since there was no
acknowledgement, the work that was done was not that “big a deal.” Considering the possible
causes for this gap, the research reveals that employees’ values were not necessarily aligned with
the organizational values. Where employees valued regular acknowledgement that they were
doing a good job, their perception of leadership was that park administration valued only a
“bottom line,” rather than the human component it took to get to reach the bottom line. Clark
and Estes (2008) argue that motivation is both internal and external, either of which plays a
critical role in the amount of effort an individual is willing to contribute to a given task.
Subcategories of motivation include an individual’s goal orientation, self-efficacy, interest, and
values. Although these subcategories played a role in low employee satisfaction for motivational
gaps, there were external forces that played an even greater role in the low ratings: leadership
treatment of colleagues and subordinates.
Employees considered the treatment they saw of fellow employees to be a factor in how
much effort they were willing to contribute to their work. For example, employees expressed
there was an unequal “system” in place that rewarded some employees and not others, although
the work that was performed was similar. Employees also reported that there was a level of
distrust among the frontline workers due to their perception of mistreatment of some employees
by their supervisors in the form of reprimands and negative consequences when the employee
was not necessarily at fault. Equity in terms of the treatment of employees by their leaders
impacts the motivational behavior of the employees, and will reflect in not only the manner the
employees use to work on their assigned task, but also in the attitude the employee exhibits when
working with their leaders; the attitude generally will be one of distrust or fear. Sabetzadeh &
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 90
Tsui (2011) found that when organizations value knowledge sharing, benefits—both tangible and
intangible—begin to emerge as positive incentives in the workforce.
Another motivational gap that was validated from the research deals with the employees’
satisfaction with the amount of empowerment they felt was provided by leadership. That is,
employees feel they have much to contribute to the organization; however, their knowledge and
experience is contained solely to their areas, whereas the organization may benefit from creating
a system or a structure in which frontline employees might be part of the leadership cadre.
During the time of this research, WP administrative staff were in the process of creating a
leadership cadre made up of frontline employees who would serve as liaisons to the divisions.
This cadre would allow frontline employees to have a voice in the decision-making process, and
would allow for more diverse involvement among the divisions. Employees from across all
divisions would be able to participate and represent their work areas and work groups. Creating
this cadre enhances the current practices in a more collaborative, shared manner of responsibility
by allowing more ideas and creative decisions being offered to address challenges that have
remained unsolved. Studies have indicated that organizational goals of employee satisfaction are
more likely to be met when the voices of all stakeholders are considered and factored into the
decision-making process (Rappaport, 1984; Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995; Wallerstein, 1992). It
was shared at the facilitated group sessions that there was a combined 400 + years of service
among the two groups. During the breakout sessions, employees shared that with that many
years of experience, “wouldn’t it be nice if leadership listened to our voices?”
Another validated cause that emerged as a strong factor in motivational gaps was the
sense that there was inequity in the way consequences were being handled at various levels.
Employees felt a sense of being held accountable to perform their jobs well, and would feel the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 91
sting of reprimands when something was not done correctly. Employees shared that when
supervisors or leaders made the same or similar mistakes, “they didn’t even get a slap on the
wrist; it was more of a ‘look-the-other-way’ and pretend you didn’t see it mindset.” Employees
and leaders shared an example of a member of the leadership team having a reputation of being
cruel to both the employees and leadership-level colleagues, yet nothing was done to help change
the inappropriate behavior of this leader. Although the leader had already retired from the park,
the next leader who filled the vacancy was one who was personally mentored by the retired
leader, and employees felt there was little difference in the workplace in terms of how the new
leader interacted with the staff and leadership. The impact of this type of behavior on the part of
leadership is that when employees perceive negative behavior being rewarded, the level of trust
and commitment begin to decrease, thereby impacting their overall job performance and job
satisfaction (Kim, 2009). An environment free from inequity and favoritism allows for more
collegiality and collaboration among employees and among divisions, which if balanced
effectively, will bring about behavioral change in both the employees and their leaders.
Researchers of policymakers and policy-making decisions have argued that there is need
for sharing of experiences with regard to equity in the workplace. Organizational justice is one
construct that, when employed, impacts the perception employees have of the equal treatment or
lack thereof they receive from their leaders. Organizational justice can be categorized into three
groups: 1) distributive justice; 2) procedural justice; and 3) interactional justice, which is
separated into two subcategories: interpersonal and informational justice.
The underlying current of distributive justice lies in the premise that the more evident and
contingent the consequence, the higher the rating for employee satisfaction and trust in the
leadership. A number of employees shared, both during the breakout sessions and the follow-up
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 92
interviews, their experiences of being reprimanded for an incident, yet seeing either their
supervisor or coworker receiving no consequence when a similar incident occurred. Employees
discussed that when they see that type of treatment, their willingness to perform any duties
outside what they are normally tasked to do, begins to diminish. Social exchange theory argues
that within distributed justice, employees determine whether they have been treated fairly at
work by comparing their own payoff ratio of outcomes (pay or status), to inputs (effort or time),
and to the ratio of their co-workers (Adams, 1965). What social exchange theory addresses is the
amount of energy an individual exhumes toward a given task based on whether the individual
feels s/he is being treated as equal as their colleagues. Moreover, Adams (1965) asserts that
people are not necessarily concerned about the ratio of outcomes, but whether those outcomes
were fair. Folger and Konovsky (1989) concluded that distributive justice presents employees'
perceptions about the fairness of managerial decisions relative to the distribution of outcomes
such as pay and promotions. Bakhshi et al., (1990) found that distributive justice was positively
correlated with job satisfaction.
WP employees indicated on the EVS and during the facilitated group sessions that they
enjoy the work they are commissioned to do at the park. This sense of knowing they selected the
“right” career choice was validated in the interviews. They looked forward to showing up to
work each day when they first began their careers, and although leadership has changed over the
years ushering in new initiatives, employees want the park to be successful at achieving the
overall mission to preserve and protect a million acres of lush landscape that attract millions of
visitors annually. The organizational environment that allows for equity and employee
empowerment, without leadership resistance to loosen the control of the decision-making process
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 93
equates to an organization that has committed, motivated employees, who are focused on moving
the organization forward (Folger & Konovsky, 1989).
Solutions for closing this motivational gap include regularly scheduled and monitored
assessments of commitment to the park’s performance goals. For example, at the start of weekly
briefings, employees may be asked to share how their vision of their work aligns with the vision
of the park. Since employees have indicated they want the park to succeed, allowing them to
orally share their vision may serve as a reminder to them and their colleagues why it is they work
at the park.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that “people will more easily and quickly choose to do
what interests them the most,” meaning that individuals will perform a task if they place enough
value on the task. The idea here is to create an environment wherein the employee sees there is a
connection between their personal values and the commitment to complete an assigned task.
Another solution to address the motivational gap is to get feedback from the employees
regarding a particular policy currently in place that, if modified in any way, would increase
employee satisfaction and productivity. Responses to this question reveal where the employees’
values are, and whether or not it would be practical to modify the given policy.
Solutions for Organization Causes
Of the three barriers researched in the Gap analysis, Organizational barriers emerged as
the lowest-rated scores in the EVS, the facilitated workgroups, and the interviews. Clark and
Estes (2008) described the importance of focusing on an organization’s culture, operational
practices, and governing policies when evaluating causes of performance gaps. Specifically,
they discussed the importance of efficient and effective organizational processes and resources
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 94
that support the achievement of goals, the impact of organizational culture on work processes,
and the impact of popular organizational change processes.
Employees shared there was a lack of adequate resources to complete certain tasks, yet
the tasks still needed attention. One of the validated causes for organizational barriers was the
lack of resources—human and physical—to complete the job. Employees shared they had
requested numerous times that more staffing needed to be a higher priority; however, it seemed
as though priorities were being taken away from the frontline division needs and placed
elsewhere, “some place where all the federal money goes,” as one employee shared.
Issues such as funding may be beyond the scope of local administrative control, but there
is research that offers alternative ways to manage the need to get things done, on the one hand,
and keeping an organization’s staff committed to coming to work with positive attitudes on the
other hand. Although employee empowerment was shared as a validated cause in the motivation
section in this chapter, there is overlap with organizational barriers. Employees may feel
demotivated to do their jobs well when they do not feel empowered, not being able to participate
in the decision-making policies; however, an organizational cause may be that the organization
has a structure in place that does not allow for this type of change to occur. Clark and Estes
(2008) argue that a thorough and critical assessment of these types of organizational practices
and cultures are detrimental to the overall ability of the organization to attain its goals. Clark and
Estes (2008) argue further that “when people fail to get the necessary resources that were
promised for a high priority work goal…one of the possible causes is a conflict between some
aspect of organizational culture and …performance goals” (pg. 114). Having said this, solutions
to close the organizational gap include creating clear goals, then regularly referring to those
goals at weekly debriefs, quarterly professional development sessions, and memos—both
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 95
electronically and hard copy. Regularly discussing the goals serves as a reminder to all
stakeholders that they are working towards something very real. During the quarterly
professional development sessions, actual goals can be discussed against the backdrop of the
overall goal, then discussing what needs to be done to close the gap. Dixon (1994), in an earlier
study, found that clearly stated goals, in addition to regular and constant communication about
the organization’s progress toward the goal in order to assess whether or not the organization is
addressing the right causes.
Implementation Plan
Solution Integration
When looking at the validated causes found regarding Wailele Park’s low ratings, there
seemed to be interconnectedness amongst all three barriers—knowledge, motivational, and
organizational. Although closing the gap in one area will not necessarily translate to closing the
gap in another area, there is a likelihood of a domino effect occurring when implemented
solutions for one begins to produce positive results. However, the challenge in implementing the
solution may lay in the very real sense of learning how to balance the need to ensure employee
satisfaction with the need to ensure the mission and vision of the park is being accomplished.
Johnson (1991; 1998) introduces a framework for addressing two unsolvable challenges,
or as he refers to them as polarities. Rather than viewing challenges as problems to solve,
Johnson (1998) argues that the more effective way to approach challenges is by viewing it as
polarities to manage. At the heart of polarity management rests the notion that polarities have
two or more right answers. This is the case for WP and the proposed solutions. Each of the
“right” answers may find they are interdependent on other solutions. Just like breathing, Johnson
1998) if organizations focus solely on “inhaling” or “exhaling” alone, there is a very real
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 96
possibility of no forward movement. The idea is to decrease the tension between the two
polarities by capitalizing on the positive aspects of each polarity. For example, the current
tension in the organizational barrier is 1) employees need the resources to do their jobs well and
safely, and 2) park management needs to work within their given budget, capitalizing on the
upside of both the polarities, thereby decreasing the tension between the two include focusing on
the positives of providing resources on the one hand, while working more effectively within the
confines of budgetary restrictions. Once the discussion of the polarities is on the table, both
employee groups will be able to share collaboratively the ways to increase both the productivity
of all the divisions and the need to decrease the tension between the polarities.
The following tables lay out the summary of the knowledge, motivation, and organization
barriers (Table 5, 6, 7), while Table E displays the cascading and performance goals, with their
targeted timeline.
Table 5.
Summary of Knowledge Causes, Solutions to the Causes, Implementation of the Solutions
Knowledge Causes Solutions to the causes Implementation of the
solutions
Factual Knowledge:
Employees lack the
knowledge about issues
affecting their workplace
Regular and consistent
communication (Clark and
Estes, 2008)
Communication that is
accurate and transparent
prevents confusion (Hague,
2012)
Create leadership cadre
comprised of frontline
employees from across all
divisions to work on creating
trainings and weekly debriefs
for their team. This cadre will
help to facilitate and ensure
debriefs include updated tasks,
quarterly benchmarks, and
updated progress toward
goals.
Conceptual Knowledge:
Share the park’s goals clearly,
Leadership cadre organizes
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 97
Employees lack the
knowledge about how all the
divisions are interconnected,
and how each division’s goals
and mission align to overall
park mission and goals
and explain the
interconnectedness of all
divisions (Tseng & McLean,
2008)
Regular “scanning” to monitor
progress toward overall park
goals (Tseng & McLean,
2008)
and facilitates weekly debriefs
to discuss division progress
toward overall goals.
Leadership cadre organizes
and facilitates quarterly PD in
order to address needs
assessment of each division
and work group to ensure PD
is focused and targeted on
identified needs
Conceptual Knowledge:
Employees lack the
knowledge to address other
divisions or work groups
When employees do not work
in isolation, organization’s
challenges and successes are
more balanced, rather than
leaning more toward
challenges (Radulesau, 2012;
Jung, 2011)
Leadership cadre facilitates
through weekly debriefs
opportunities for share out of
ideas and expertise from
across the divisions to ensure
park employees are familiar
with division goals outside of
respective work area
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 98
Table 6
Summary of Motivation Causes, Solutions to the Causes, Implementation of the Solutions
Motivation Causes Solutions to the causes Implementation of the
solutions
Empowerment:
Employees
want
to
feel
valued
and
trusted
Employees’ perception that
they are empowered increases
employee satisfaction and
motivation (Yang &
Kassekert, 2010).
Leadership cadre will
implement a “Parking Lot”
discussion during weekly
debriefs of which needs are
being addressed, and which
are not. The discussion can
focus on the greatest need
topic, and solicit ideas from
each member of the cadre to
ensure all voices are being
heard.
Empowerment:
Employees
want
to
be
included
in
decision-‐making
process
Include employees from
across all divisions in the
decision-making process to
ensure greater participation in
the decisions that impact each
worker (Rappaport, 1984;
Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995;
Wallerstein, 1992)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 99
Table 7
Summary of Organization Causes, Solutions to the Causes, Implementation of the Solutions
Organization Causes Solutions to the causes Implementation of the
solutions
Lack of resources—human,
physical, equipment, funding,
and training—to ensure job is
carried out safely
Practice reciprocal
accountability-organizations
hold employees accountable
for job performance and itself
accountable for required
resources (Elmore, 2002).
Analyze current organizational
practices and culture that
prevent resources from being
funneled to the appropriate
needs areas (Clark and Estes,
2008)
Employees will inventory the
resources they have and the
resources they need and the
leadership cadre will advise
administration during the
weekly debriefs of any
equipment, funds, training, or
manpower needs identified.
This will allow leadership to
advocate for additional funds
or reallocate existing funds
from one division to another,
to ensure employees are able
to perform their jobs.
Also, leadership cadre will
solicit creative ideas from all
members of how to manage
the polarities, rather than
come up with a “correct”
solution
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 100
Table 8
Summary of Organization’s Main, Short-term, Cascading, and Performance Goals
Organizational goal:
Improve Wailele Park (WP) employees' positive ratings by 10% on the 2016 EVS. This
benchmark goal allows sufficient time to implement interventions to improve employee
satisfaction at WP. The measure used to determine the achievement goal was a 10% increase
of the percentage of positive ratings on the knowledge (55%), motivation (57%), and
organization (46%) items contained on the 2012 EVS.
Goal 1: Improve
Communication Loop
Goal 2: Add to the current
plan of creating a leadership
cadre to ensure diverse
employee workforce is
represented
Goal 3: Create an inventory
process to identify needs
areas in order to address
more efficiently the areas that
need the greatest resources
Cascading Goal 1:
Employees will work with
leadership cadre to ensure
communication loop is in
place
Cascading Goal 2:
Employees from across all
divisions will be more
involved in decision-making
process
Cascading Goal 3:
Organization will ensure all
available resources are used
to its maximum potential, as
well as inform leadership
cadre of any new resources
available
Performance Goal:
By May 01, 2014, WP’s
newly formed leadership
cadre (consisting of
employees representative of
all divisions and employee
levels) will request to attend
regular leadership staff
meetings and will schedule
and execute weekly debriefs
with administration to discuss
each division’s current
projects and employees’
issues and concerns.
Measure: Survey, online and
hard copy to be filled out
prior to meeting.
Performance Goal:
By May 01, 2014, the
leadership cadre will begin
working on processes that
need to be modified in order
to ensure all employees are
represented during the
weekly debriefs with
administration.
Measure: Needs Assessment
tool to be filled out online or
Performance Goal:
Beginning May 01, 2014,
employees will conduct
quarterly inventories of
resources they have and
resources they need and
communicate the results of
the inventories to the
leadership cadre, who will
discuss with administration
during their weekly debriefs.
Measure: Needs Assessment
tool to be filled out prior to
meeting
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 101
hard copy prior to meeting
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations to performing this research, namely: 1) Voluntary participation (in
order for the research to be more reliable and valid, it is suggested to have random selection); 2)
varying interpretations of the interview questions (constructs such as “leader” need to be
clarified for participants, as there may be various interpretations of what constitutes “leader,” i.e.,
immediate supervisor, superintendent, leaders in D.C., etc.); and 3) fear of retribution on the part
of employees (individuals may fear reprisals if they answer a question that does not make
“leaders” happy).
First, participants of this study were asked to volunteer to meet for the interview portion
of the study. These volunteers were not randomly selected. One of the challenges in conducting
interviews is the possibility of individuals who willingly volunteered in order to “vent” about
their employer. If this volunteer is a disgruntled employee, for example, there may be a
tendency to exaggerate their negative response in order to get back at his/her employer.
Next, the interview questions may have been interpreted differently from employee to
employee. Since everyone brings in prior knowledge and experiences, these elements may have
resulted in answers that had no relevance to the question.
Third, there was a possibility that misinterpretation of the questions may have lead to
misunderstanding what the question was addressing. For example, a question may be asked
about the employee, but the employee answered as though the question were asked about the
leadership. In order to prevent misinterpretation, it was crucial that the purpose of the study, as
well as all interview questions, be clear, free from any misinterpretation.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 102
Last, there was a possibility that the participants were not as truthful as the study would
like out of fear of retribution. In a small park, for example, there could have been fear that word
of the participant’s answers would spread quickly. Retribution, employees fear, may come by
way of losing employment, being reassigned to a less enjoyable station, or getting a heavier
workload added to their current responsibilities.
To reduce the likelihood of the limitations above occurring, the following procedures
were followed. First, the interviewer and the focus group leaders (described in Chapter 3) used
the same explanation regarding the purpose of the study and repeated it several times to groups
and in the interviews. They also repeated the caveat that all information and responses were
completely confidential, and would be shared without the use of identifiers if the identifiers
made it possible to recognize the speaker. Implementing these recommendations helped to
ensure a higher response rate and more accurate employee responses, both of which lead to
pinpointing the likely reasons for the low employee satisfaction. With this information, NPS
leadership, specifically at WP, will be able to address the low ratings, and work to improve the
workplace for all employees.
Summary
Chapter 5 examined the validated causes that were triangulated through the three data
sources for this research: EVS, observation of the facilitated group and breakout sessions, and
the personal, individual interviews. The causes were then prioritized to separate the data that
were not validated. Once the causes were identified, research-based solutions were discussed as
a means to address the causes; the ultimate goal being to narrow the performance gap in the
knowledge, motivation, and organization barriers. Next, an implementation plan was shared in
order for the park to gain a better understanding, visually, of the targeted goals and dates.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 103
In the following chapter, the final step of the Gap analysis framework will be discussed in
detail: Evaluation. Chapter 6 will also address the limitations of the framework, the strengths
and weaknesses of the framework, and will address suggestions for future research on the topic
of employee satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 104
CHAPTER 6
EVALUATION
The purpose of this study was to research the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational causes that prevented Wailele Park from achieving 100% employee satisfaction.
While the previous chapter offered detailed research-based solutions for the assumed causes,
Chapter 6 lends all discussion toward evaluating the impact those solutions have on the desired
outcomes. Through the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, assumed causes were
identified and validated through triangulating both qualitative and quantitative data. The final
step in the gap analysis is the evaluation portion, which Clark and Estes (2008) argue is “an
absolutely essential ingredient when…attempting to close performance gaps or improve
performance,” adding further that “if applied correctly, [evaluation] can ensure success” (pg.
125).
This chapter will lean on an earlier study by Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (1998; 2006) who
offered a model for evaluation that includes the following four levels:
1. Level 1: Reaction—What are the individuals’ initial thoughts and feelings about the
solution?
2. Level 2: Learning—Did the individuals learn what they needed, or did they just enjoy
themselves? Based on the pre-post evaluation, was there a knowledge gain?
3. Level 3: Transfer—After the solution was introduced, was there continued, ongoing
implementation of the solution?
4. Level 4: Bottom Line Results—Did the solution ultimately contribute to the overall
narrowing of the performance gap?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 105
Following a discussion of Kirkpatrick’s (1998) Four Levels of Evaluation model as it
pertains to WP, this chapter will offer an evaluation of both the strengths and weaknesses of
using the Gap analysis framework. The discussion in this chapter will then offer
recommendations for any future research on the topic of employee satisfaction, which will be
followed by the conclusion for this study.
Level 1: Reactions
There is an inherent challenge in this first evaluation level, because at this level, what is
being measured is the individual’s motivation (Rueda, 2011). The effectiveness of closing a
performance gap at this level is low; however, there are ways that the organization can gauge the
initial reaction of the employees to assess the degree to which the proposed solution helped the
employees maintain enthusiasm if this was their initial reaction. Oftentimes, assessments at this
level are conducted via questionnaires, feedback forms, or surveys; however, these assessments
do not always have to be formal, i.e, informal observations and casual face-to-face conversations
work just as well (Rueda, 2011).
For this level, WP employees will be asked to take an electronic survey, administered via
Survey Monkey. The survey results will be shared with WP employees, although the
participants will remain completely anonymous. The survey will consist of both multiple-choice
answers and open-ended questions that target the individual’s perceived value of the program, as
well as their opinions about the proposed solution. Multiple-choice answers will be offered in
the form of a Likert scale, from minimal enthusiasm to greatly impact employee’s perception. In
terms of the frequency of administering the survey, the survey will be administered three times:
once at the beginning of the implementation; once during the implementation of the program;
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 106
once at the end of the program in order to gauge whether or not opinions have shifted upward or
down.
The expectation at this level of evaluation is that employee’s levels of enthusiasm for the
program will increase, and after implementation, those levels of enthusiasm will translate to a
greater level of employee satisfaction for WP employees.
Level 2: Learning
At this level of evaluation, what is being measured is the impact the solution has on the
program during the implementation phase. Ultimately, this level of evaluation measures the
learning, motivational, or organizational changes that are taking place. One of the benefits for
organizations when evaluating at this level is the discovery of early warnings. Identifying early
warnings allows the organization to make quick corrections in order to avoid greater negative
impacts later. Assessing the knowledge gap can take the form of a pre- and post-assessment,
which measures what the individual knew before the implementation, and what the results are of
the same assessment following the implementation of the program.
Since a proposed solution in the previous chapter was to offer clear, more duty-specific
training to the WP employees when faced with new tasks, as well as offer more professional
development on procedural tasks, followed by creating a checklist of tasks with their specific job
description, at this level of evaluation, that checklist would be transposed to a similar format,
with an addition of space for the evaluator to indicate whether the procedures were being
followed (Clark and Estes, 2008). In addition to the checklist, evaluators are able to gauge
whether or not the program is having a consistent and effective impact on the employees by
informal observations, and making necessary adjustments when required.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 107
With the implementation of the program, the expectation is that communication levels
between employees and their leaders will increase, and a mutual sense of equity and trust will be
shared by all stakeholders, thereby increasing the level of employee participation in the decision-
making process, as well as the active engagement in ensuring higher employee satisfaction.
Through the creation of a checklist, employees will see the transparency and objectivity of their
performance evaluation.
Level 3: Transfer
Clark and Estes (2008) argue that although Level 1 and 2 indicators may be positive,
performance may actually decrease. For this reason, Level 3 evaluation serves to determine
whether or not those positive gains “persisted after the program’s completion” (pg. 135). At this
level, moreover, the evaluation looks at whether or not the new learning the individual received
is strong enough to overcome possible former negative habits that had been exhibited prior to the
program implementation. Since research has indicated that many of these negative habits begin
to surface after the initial rush of enthusiasm for a particular program, Clark and Estes (2008)
urge organizations to have an “ongoing monitoring of the transfer and persistence of change
programs” solidly in place in order to maintain “their long-term durability” (pg. 135).
Employees at WP will be asked to attend quarterly professional development, and to keep
all materials they received from the professional development, in order to reflect on how
effectively the new knowledge they gained has been transferred to the work area. Prior to the
quarterly professional development modules, employees will be asked to answer some questions
about how they have exercised their new knowledge, and to be prepared to share specific
examples of how the new knowledge is impacting their work. Questions will be in the form of
either electronic surveys via Survey Monkey or another online platform, or fill out a reflective
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 108
sheet that will be distributed at each of the professional development modules. The responses
would then be gathered by a cross-park work group, such as the leadership cadre mentioned in
the previous chapter. This group would be shouldered with the responsibility to ensure the
survey is created in a timely manner that will allow participants to input their responses at their
leisure, but ensuring that there is a high enough participation rate. This will allow a more
accurate depiction of the needs.
It is expected that the increase of new knowledge and skills, as well as the increased level
of employee “voices” around the decision-making table, as well as the need for quarterly
accountability in the form of the quarterly professional development modules will lead to
increased employee satisfaction in both the employee’s assigned areas and in the overall park
performance.
Level 4: Bottom Line Results
Clark and Estes (2008) argue that although employees’ newfound skills and knowledge
may be “wildly successful,…the impact on the greater business goal can be zero or negative,”
(pg. 136), which leads many organizations to focus on the final level of evaluation: the bottom
line results. At this level, the evaluation measures whether or not the overall goal was met.
Organizations want to know whether or not the program did what it set out to do: narrow, or
better yet, close the performance gap. Rueda (2011) adds to the argument that if the solutions
“fail to impact the overall goals, then they are the wrong solutions, or alternatively the right
solution to the wrong problem” (pg. 89). Evaluations at this final level assess, among other
components, whether the targeted barrier was one that has been entrenched over time, and if so,
the impact of the program may take more time to become visible than other targeted barriers that
may not be as long-standing.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 109
Quantitative data such as the EVS, truancy or absenteeism reports, employee evaluation
reports, and such will serve as baseline data from which WP may pull to measure whether the
performance gap is indeed narrowing. Qualitative data such as informal and formal observations
and interviews serve the same function, even though it takes on a different form.
The expectation at this level is that the most impactful gains will take place over time,
rather than immediately. Given the current style of leadership and varying visions of both
employee groups—employees and leadership, immediate changes may take the form of initial
enthusiasm, but without maintaining that enthusiasm, there is a fear that needed changes will
occur over a span of years, rather than months.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Gap analysis framework offered an opportunity for the researcher to personalize and
tailor the organization’s needs to the proposed solutions. The framework allowed the research to
follow a process that moves from the desired goal to the actual achieved goal, then an analysis of
root causes that can be found in either knowledge, motivation, or organizational barriers.
Solutions for these barriers are research-based, and are based on data that was collected both
qualitatively (observations and interviews) and quantitatively (EVS), which allowed the research
to triangulate and validate the perceived causes, and separate those perceived causes that may
have been experienced only by a few employees, versus the majority of the group.
Another strength of the gap analysis is the need the process creates for the research to
offer solutions by scaffolding the proposed program via tiered, cascading goals. This allows for
more manageable, more accurate targets to increase the likelihood of the organization achieving
its global goal. Yet another strength of the gap analysis is the ability the researcher has to
evaluate early if a proposed solution is effective or not, and if not, the process allows for other
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 110
discussion of what other barriers may be in place that is blocking the path to the goal. The
ability to identify early warning signs allows the organization to tailor the solution to their
specific needs
Effectively implementing the Gap analysis requires much time, and therein lies one of the
weaknesses of the process. The ability to analyze data and the human and financial resources
required to accurately pinpoint a need area has become scarcer over the years. With financial
and budgetary woes threatening organizations, time becomes a very expensive and precious
commodity. Organizations are pressing to find time to complete tasks, and may not have the
time nor the resources to gather research-based data, let al.one conduct the research, that
addresses the perceived barriers to the organization’s goals.
Another weakness of the Gap analysis is a fear of organizations jumping from the
discussion of the gap between the actual and desired goal to a discussion of the proposed
solutions. With the looming threat of budgetary constraints, organizations may feel forced to
“take shortcuts” by bypassing a component in the Gap analysis process, rather than following the
steps. As a result of implementing the process without fidelity, organizations stand the chance of
overlooking or even mis-target crucial data.
Limitations
This study is limited by the data and analytical tools used in the analysis: quality and
quantity of data collected and reported, and the limitations of instruments affect the strength of
the validity of the study. As mentioned earlier, the fact that participants in the interviews
represented a convenience sample makes generalizability to other populations not possible. Data
collected can sometimes be limited because data sources may be incomplete. The
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 111
instrumentations collected involve only self-reported data about perceived levels of employee
satisfaction and other variables.
One limitation of this case study was the results of the data are exclusively for this
particular park, rather than from all parks across NPS. Interviews that were conducted came
only by way of volunteers, whereas a more accurate depiction would have been taken from
random selection, then having 100% of those participants responding. The limitation when
selection is made from volunteers is the fear that the participant’s motives may not be as
objective as the research would want. Depending on the participant, if the individual holds a
grudge toward their leader or administrator, there may be a tendency to use the interview as a
session to personally attack verbally another individual. By the same token, if an employee is
very fond of their leader or administrator, there is a fear that there will be an over-exertion of
praise given on behalf of the leader.
Another limitation of this study was not all divisions were represented in the interviews,
although there was a balanced amount of participants during the facilitated and breakout
sessions. Seasonal employees make up the majority of the workforce at WP, yet the EVS was
administered during the month seasonal employees do not report to the park. Since the EVS
served as one of the data sources, seasonal employees knew very little about the survey and the
results before the facilitated group sessions.
Another limitation of this study was the sense of employees feeling they would be
reprimanded in some way if they were honest and truthful about their responses. In the
facilitated group and breakout sessions, employees spoke of the need to “be quiet,” because the
leader to which they were referring when answering the EVS questions was actually in the room.
Even during the interviews, employees were reluctant to speak openly to a researcher they had
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 112
only met for a few minutes during a 3-hour block of observation and breakout discussions. The
fear of reprisal was very apparent in both the verbal and nonverbal language exhibited by the
employees.
Although this case study focused primarily on employees, an important notation for this
park was the change in leadership prior to the study. WP had just undergone a change in
superintendents, and employees were quick to point out that there had already been positive
changes with the new superintendent. Many employees remarked how the superintendent was
actually working in their assigned area in order to make it possible for the employees to attend
the facilitated work sessions. Others commented that the new superintendent seemed a lot more
open about suggestions to make the workplace more welcoming to new employees. The
implication with these comments is that the previous superintendent had little interaction with
the employees.
The ability to gather data during a short amount of time, then analyze that data to present
viable, research-based solutions, was another limitation of this study. The research required
observations be conducted during a 3-hour session that began with a whole group discussion,
then leading in to smaller breakout sessions, concluding with the whole group coming together to
discuss possible action plans. The limited amount of time that was given to observe the
employees engage, discuss, and collaborate with each other on the issues they felt were the most
pressing allowed for little interaction with employees who may not have volunteered to
interview. Not being able to have more time with the employees to validate the results of the
EVS results proved to be a limitation, as this interaction was one of the only ways to find the
“whys” of the low rating.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 113
Future Research
In order to attain more accurate, reliable, and generalized result, future researchers should
consider the following: random sample across all NPS parks, rather than volunteers from one
park; avoidance of confusion by clearly defining the constructs of specific terms, i.e.,
leadership—immediate supervisor or administration at the upper levels of government; creating
an environment during the facilitated group and breakout sessions, as well as during the
interviews wherein the employee feels safe to speak openly and honestly, without fear of
reprisals. In addition to these suggestions, researchers should look at including other
stakeholders (administration, park guests and visitors) when conducting the research. This
allows the researcher to gain a greater, more expansive scope as to the perception that others
have regarding the overall satisfaction ratings. Including other stakeholders may also paint a
clearer image of the effectiveness of the program’s implementation. Since there are other
variables that play a role in employee satisfaction, it may be beneficial to analyze the data that
some of these variables play throughout the NPS. For example, a gap analysis study of the
managers in the park would be beneficial since managers play a crucial role in ensuring that the
park runs well. The knowledge and experience of what these managers do, what they know how
to do, and how they share their knowledge and expertise with their employees would provide
valuable data to help improve the benchmark scores toward the overall park goals.
Conclusion and Implication
In order to identify organizational strengths and weaknesses, NPS leadership has gathered
data from the EVS that is administered annually since 2002. The results of the past two EVS
showed a steady decline in the employee satisfaction ratings. To address the low ratings, NPS
leaders began conducting facilitated whole group sessions with employees across all regions,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 114
targeting specifically those parks that scored in the lowest quartile. The facilitated sessions
allowed opportunities for park employees to voice their opinions on why they felt the park
received the low ratings, as well as opportunities for researchers to identify perceived causes for
the low ratings, then provide research-based solutions to address the causes.
The aim of this study was to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organization
barriers that contributed and caused the low ratings at Wailele Park (WP). The Gap analysis
conceptual framework was the tool used for collecting and analyzing the park’s data, as well as
offered solutions for the causes. Once the data was collected, analyzed, and proposed solutions
shared, Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s (2008) Four-level Evaluation model was suggested to
evaluate the impact the solutions had on the organization’s goal to close the performance gap.
Although there was many perceived causes for the low ratings, the validated causes
included a breakdown of the communication loop between frontline employees and park
leadership. Employees indicated their dissatisfaction with the lack of communication that went
up to leadership, but which employees perceived did not loop back down to them. Suggested
solutions to open the communication loop included increasing both the frequency and clarity of
tasks and issues that impact the employee’s job. Another validated cause was the need to
involve more of the frontline employees in the decision-making process. Solutions include
creating a leadership cadre, comprised of employees from across all divisions in order to ensure
that equity is given to all voices, and that all voices have an opportunity to be heard with regard
to suggestions and ideas. Lastly, another validated cause surfaced from the triangulation: lack of
resources, both human and physical, prevented employees from getting their jobs done. The
suggested solution was to create an inventory sheet, as well as a needs assessment tool for
employees to fill out to give to the leadership cadre, who will meet regularly (weekly) with the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 115
administration to discuss the needs areas. Leadership cadre would use the suggested evaluation
levels by creating and administering surveys, tools for formal observation, as well as gather data
from informal observations, as well to gain a more accurate depiction of the park’s progress
toward its goals.
This study found that crucial ingredients to the formula of how to increase employee
satisfaction are 1) effective, clear, and thoughtful communication; 2) allowance of more frontline
employees to be involved in the decision-making processes that impact their daily work; and 3)
ensuring there is adequate and reliable resources so employees can get the job done, and done
right. Employee satisfaction is critical for the organization, because satisfaction impacts areas
such as truancy, absenteeism, customer satisfaction, retention, productivity, and the list
continues.
Although this was a case study of one park in the NPS, this research found that employee
satisfaction is a global issue, with organizations throughout the globe searching for answers to
address low employee satisfaction. As indicated earlier, for future research, it would be vital to
address the unanswered questions asked during this research, which would include system wide
implications at NPS.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 116
REFERENCES
2012 Agency Report National Park Service (2012). The Best Places to Work IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 2012 RANKINGS. Retrieved January 27, 2013 from
http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/IN10/pdf.
Ainspan, N. D., & Dell, D. (2000). Employee Communication During Mergers. Conference
Board.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Creikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E.,
Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittick, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon (Pearson Education Group).
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. (2001).Confirmation and Extension of the Sources of Feedback
Scale in Service-Based Organizations. Journal Of Business Communication, 38(2), 206-
226.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
Bandura, A. (2000)a. Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness.
Handbook of principles of organization behavior, 120-136.
Bandura, A., (2000)b. Exercise of human functioning through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science 9 (3), 75–78.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. 3d ed. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, Inc.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. Free Press.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 117
Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R.E (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Fourth Edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Briefing Statement (2012). National Park Service Office of Workforce Management: Release of
2012 Employee Viewpoint Survey data and Resources to support managers.
Briggs, H. & McBeath, B. (2009). Evidence-based management: Origins, challenges, and
implications for social work administration, Administration in Social Work. 33(3), 242-
261.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, Break All the Rules. New York: Simon&
Schuster.
Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. Achieving accountability in higher
education: Balancing public, academic and market demands, 1-24.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Raw.
Canrinus, E.T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J. & Hofman, W.H.A. (2012). Self-
efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment : exploring the relationship
between indicators of teachers' professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 27(1), 115-132.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy Beliefs as
Determinants of Teachers' Job Satisfaction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4),
821.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 118
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study
at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44,473–490.
Centers, R., & Bugental, D. E. (1966). Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among different
segments of the working population. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(3), 193.
Clampitt, P.G. & Downs, C.W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between
communication and productivity: A field study. The Journal of Business
Communication, 30(1), 5-28.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta GA: CEP Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cushman, D. P., & Craig, R. T. (1976). Communication systems: Interpersonal implications.
In
G. R. Miller (Ed.), Exploration in interpersonal communication (pp. 37-58). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S., & Upchurch, M. (2008). Partnership, high
performance work systems and quality of working life. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 23(3), 151-166.
Darvish, H. & Rezaei, F. (2011). The impact of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and
team commitment. Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 6,
421-436.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 119
DeSantis, V.S. and Durst, S.L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public and private
sector employees. American Review of Public Administration, 26(3), 327-343
De Waal, A. A. (2007). The characteristics of a high performance organization. Business
Strategy Series, 8(3), 179–185.
Durst, S.L., & DeSantis, V.S. (1997). The determinants of job satisfaction among federal, state,
and local government employees. State and Local Government Review, 29(1), 7-16.
Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitude: Different measures-
different results. Personnel Review, 34(5), 534-549.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two
dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(1), 15–26.
Ellickson, M. C. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees.
Public Personnel Management, 31, 343-359.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement, Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html
Federici, R. A. & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout, job
satisfaction, and motivation to quit. Social Psychology Education, 15, 295-320.
Fernandez, S. (2008). Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee perceptions of
performance and job satisfaction. Public Performance & Management Review, 32, 175-
205.
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2011). Empowering public sector employees to improve
performance: Does it work? The American Review of Public Administration, 41(1), 23-
47.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 120
Fleishman, E.A., & Harris, E.F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee
grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15(1), 43–56.
Fortune 500. (2012). Retrieved May 2, 2013, from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/snapshots/11207.html
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy within the
Organizational Context An Empirical Examination. Group & Organization
Management, 23(1), 48-70.
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., Graham, W.F. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-
Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 11, No.
3 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 255-274. American Educational Research Association.
Hain, C. W. D. T. (1981).Productivity and Communication. Communication Yearbook 5, 5,
435.
Hall, A. T., Zinko, R., Perryman, A. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and Reputation Mediators in the Relationships Between Accountability and Job
Performance and Satisfaction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4),
381-392.
Hargie, O., Tourish, D., & Wilson, N. (2002). Communication audits and the effects of
increased information: A follow-up study. Journal of Business Communication, 39(4),
414-436.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 121
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. 2006. How important are job attitudes?: Meta-
analytic comparisons for integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy
of Management Journal, 49: 305-326.
Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. UrbanEd, nv,
17-19.
Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-
related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 349.
Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on
stressor–strain relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(3), 401.
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(2),
277-280.
Johlke, M. C., & Duhan, D. F. (2000). Supervisor communication practices and service
employee job outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 154-165.
Johlke, M.C., Duhan, D.F., Howell, R.D., & Wilkes, R.W. (2000). An integrated model of sales
managers' communication practices. Academy of Marketing Science Journal,28(2), 263-
277.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 86(1),
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 122
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of
the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949-964.
Kark, R., & van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-
regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-
528.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231-241.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(1), 36.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction:
Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of educational Psychology,
102(3), 741.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers’ Collective Efficacy, Job
Satisfaction, and Job Stress in Cross-Cultural Context. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 78, 464-486.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business Press.
Kranz, G. (2012). A broken engagement? Workforce Management, 91 (9), 1-10.
Lam, C.S. & OHiggins, E.R.E. (2012). Enhancing employee outcomes: The interrelated
influences of managers emotional intelligence and leadership style. Leadership &
Organisation Development, 33 (2).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 123
Levin, H.M. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not, and how to tell the
difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lindell, M., & Rosenqvist, G. (1992). Is there a third management style? Finnish Journal of
Business Economics, 3, 171–198.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, 1319-1328.
Luthans, F., Zhu, W., & Avolio, B. J. (2005).The impact of efficacy on work attitudes across
cultures .Journal of World Business, 41, 121-132.
Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and
employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61-78.
Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of research on learning and
instruction. New York: Routledge
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Davis, L. M. (1982). Individual differences among
employees, management, communication style, and employee satisfaction: replication and
extension. Human Communication Research, 8, 170–188.
McKnight, D.H., Ahmad, S,, & Schroeder, R.G. (2001). When do feedback, incentive control,
and autonomy improve morale? The importance of employee-management relationship
closeness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(4), 466-482.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as a systemic variable in
predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(3), 277-292.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 124
Moskowitz, M. (2013). The 100 best companies to work for. Fortune, 167 (2), 85.
National Parks Service (2012). Retrieved November 2, 1012, from http://www.nps.gov/
National Park Service (2008). Learning and Development Report to the National Leadership
Council. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Retrieved March 25, 2013 from http://www.nps.gov/training/NPS_LDreportLR.pdf
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-
efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and
psychological well-being in healthcare professional: A cross-sectional questionnaire
survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1236-1244.
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Parker, L. (1994). The role of workplace support in facilitating self-sufficiency among single
mothers on welfare. Family Relations, 168-173.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods 3rd Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R., & Vaught, B. C. (1997).An examination of organizational
communication as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job
satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 81-98.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Pincus, J. D. (2006). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance.
Human Communication Research, 12(3), 395-419.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 125
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Boomer, W. (1996). A meta - analysis of the
relationships between Kerr and Jermier's substitutes for leadership and employee job
attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 380 -
399.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Porter, H., Wrench, J.S., & Hoskinson, C. (2007) The influence of supervisor temperament on
subordinate job satisfaction and perceptions of supervisor sociocommunicative
orientation and approachability. Communication Quarterly,55(1), 129–153.
Priya, S. (2011). A factor analysis of performance management system in a public sector
organization and its impact on job satisfaction among employees. Abhigydh, 29(3), 22-
31.
Rehman, M. S., & Waheed, A. (2011). An empirical study of impact of job satisfaction on job
performance in the public sector organization. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research Business, 2(9), 167-181.
Rein, L. (2012). Best and worst Places to work in federal government. The Washington Post,
Retrieved January 30, 2013, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/best-and-
worst-places-to-work-in-federal-government/2012/12/12/3cacb7d8-4472-11e2-8061-
253bccfc7532_story.html.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 126
Repanshek, K. (2011). National Park Service Falls in “Best Places to Work” Rankings.
NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, Retrieved January 27, 2013, from
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2011/11/national-park-service-falls-best-places-
work-rankings9091.
Repanshek, K. (2012). National Park Service Still Lags in “Best Places to Work” Survey of
Federal Agencies. NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, Retrieved January 27, 2013, from
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/12/national-park-service-still-lags-best-
places-work-survey-federal-agencies22574.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human
Resource Management, 43(4), 395-407.
Salacuse, J. W. (2007). Real leaders negotiate. University Business, 10, 2-3.
Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, J.L. (2009). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Schyns, B. (2001). The relationship between employees’ self-monitoring and occupational self-
efficacy and transformational leadership. Current research in social psychology.,7(3),
30-42.
Shaw, K. (2005). Getting leaders involved in communication strategy: Breaking down the
barriers to effective leadership communication. Strategic Communication Management,
9,14-17
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression.
Communication Education, 32, 323-329.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1981). Self-monitoring and relational competence. Paper
presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Anaheim, CA.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 127
Stecher, B. M., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
lessons for education from other sectors (Vol. 136). Rand Corp.
Stetz, T. A., Stetz, M. C., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). The importance of self-efficacy in the
moderating effects of social support on stressor–strain relationships. Work & Stress,
20(1), 49-59.
Stohl, C. (1984, May). Quality circles and the quality of communication. Paper presented at the
Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
Swiss, J.E. (2005). A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management. Public
Administration Review, 65 (5), 592-602.
Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). Contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the
mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 295-305.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 227-236.
Thoms, P., Dose, J. J., & Scott, K. S. (2002). Relationships between accountability, job
satisfaction, and trust. Human resource development quarterly, 13(3), 307-323.
Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in
developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. Journal of Business
Communication, 46(3), 287-310.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2012). Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
Wang, X., & Howell, J.M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational
leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134-1144.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 128
Westover, J.H. & Taylor, J. (2010). International differences in job satisfaction: The effects of
public service motivation, rewards and work relations. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 59(8), 811 – 828.
Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., & Howard, R. D. (1984). The relationships of
communication with supervisor and decision-‐participation to employee job satisfaction.
Communication Quarterly, 32(3), 222-232.
Winston, B.E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership.
InternationalJournal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6-66.
Wood Jr, J. A., & Winston, B. E. (2005). Toward a new understanding of leader
accountability: Defining a critical construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 11(3), 84-94.
Yang, K., & Kessekert, A. (2009). Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction:
Evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
20 (2), 413-436.
Yee, R.W., Yeung, A.C., & Cheng, T.C. (2008). The impact of employee satisfaction on quality
and profitability in high-contact service industries. Journal of Operations Management,
26(5), 651-668.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations.5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 9(1), 15-32.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 129
Zellars, K. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Miles, A. K., & Kiewitz, C. (2001).
Beyond self-efficacy: Interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(4), 483-499.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 130
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF EVS RESULTS FOR WAILELE PARK
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 131
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 132
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 133
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 134
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 135
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 136
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 137
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 138
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 139
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 140
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 141
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 142
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 143
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 144
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 145
APPENDIX B
2012 EVS SCORES FOR WP AND NPS
Table A
2012 EVS Scores for WP and NPS
EVS Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
Question Item K M O NPS WP
1 Employees are not given a real opportunity
to improve their skills in the organization.
X 59% 43%
2 Employees do not have enough
information to do their job well.
X 65% 58%
3 Employees do not feel encouraged to come
up with new and better ways of doing
things.
X 59% 48%
4 Employee’s work does not give them a
feeling of personal accomplishment.
X 75% 68%
5 Employees do not like the kind of they
work.
X 87% 80%
6 Employees do not know what is expected
of them on the job.
X 75% 73%
7 When needed, employees are not willing to
put in the extra effort to get a job done.
X 97% 98%
8 Employees are not constantly looking for
ways to do their job better.
X 92% 98%
9 Employees do not have sufficient resources
(for example, people, materials, budget) to
get their job done.
X 31% 13%
10 Employees’ workload is unreasonable. X 43% 27%
11 Employees’ talents are not used well in the
workplace.
X 57% 53%
12 Employees do not know how their work
relates to the agency’s goals and priorities.
X 83% 70%
13 The work employees do is not important. X 92% 90%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 146
EVS Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
Question Item K M O NPS WP
14 Physical conditions (e.g. noise level,
temperature, lighting cleanliness) do not
allow employees to perform their jobs
well.
X 66% 75%
15 Employees’ performance appraisal is not a
fair reflection of their performance.
X 66% 68%
16 Employees’ are not held accountable for
achieving results.
X 80% 80%
17 Employees fear reprisal if they disclose a
suspected violation of any law, rule or
regulation.
X 55% 46%
18 Employees’ training needs are not
assessed.
X 38% 23%
19 In employees’ most recent performance
appraisal, employees did not understood
what they had to do to be rated at different
performance levels.
X 66% 61%
20 Employees’ coworkers do not cooperate to
get the job done.
X 70% 72%
21 Employees’ work unit is not able to recruit
people with the right skills.
X 40% 44%
22 Promotions in the work unit are not based
on merit.
X 32% 29%
23 In the work unit, steps are not taken to deal
with poor performer who cannot or will
not improve.
X 28% 29%
24 In the work unit, differences in
performance are not recognized in a
meaningful way.
X 31% 30%
25 Awards in the work unit do not depend on
how well employees perform their jobs.
X 43% 34%
26 Employees in the work unit do not share
job knowledge with each other.
X 69% 73%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 147
EVS Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
Question Item K M O NPS WP
27 The skill level in the work unit has not
improved in the past year.
X 50% 49%
28 Employees feel that the overall quality of
work done by their work unit is poor?
X 50% 72%
29 The workforce does not have the job-
relevant knowledge and skills necessary to
accomplish organizational goals.
X 67% 65%
30 Employees do not have a feeling of
personal empowerment with respect to
work processes.
X 41% 27%
31 Employees are not recognized for
providing high quality products and
services
X 46% 46%
32 Creativity and innovation are not
rewarded.
X 36% 25%
33 Pay raises do not depend on how well
employees perform their jobs.
X 15% 5.2%
34 Policies and programs do not promote
diversity in the workplace (eg. Recruiting
minorities and women, training in
awareness of diversity issues, mentoring).
X 51% 30%
35 Employees are not protected from health
and safety hazards on the job.
X 75% 75%
36 The organization has not prepared
employees for potential security threats.
X 55% 32%
37 Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and
coercion for partisan political purposes are
tolerated.
X 50% 40%
38 Prohibited Personnel Practices (eg.
Illegally discriminating for or against any
employee/applicant, obstructing a person’s
right to compete for employment..), are
tolerated.
X 66% 70%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 148
EVS Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
Question Item K M O NPS WP
39 My agency is not successful at
accomplishing its mission.
X 70% 56%
40 I do not recommend my organization as a
good place to work.
X 67% 62%
41 I do not believe the results of this survey
will be used to make my agency a better
place to work.
X 37% 33%
42 Employee’s supervisor does not support
their need to balance work and other life
issues.
X 77% 77%
43 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does
not provide them with opportunities to
demonstrate their leadership skills.
X 67% 58%
44 Discussions with employee’s
supervisor/team leader about their
performance are not worthwhile.
X 59% 53%
45 Employees’ supervisor/team leader is not
committed to a workplace representative
of all segments of society.
X 64% 56%
46 Employees’ supervisor/team leader does
not provide them with constructive
suggestions to improve their job
performance.
X 56% 43%
47 Supervisors/team leaders in employee’s
work unit do not support employee
development.
X 61% 47%
48 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does
not listen to what they have to say.
X 74% 67%
49 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does
not treat them with respect.
X 77% 67%
50 In the last six months, employee’s
supervisor/team leader has not talked with
them about their performance.
X 77% 76%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 149
EVS Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
Question Item K M O NPS WP
51 Employees do not have trust and
confidence in their supervisor.
X 64% 55%
52 Overall, employees feel that their
immediate supervisor/team leader is not
doing a good job.
X 65% 60%
53 In the employee’s organization, leaders do
not generate high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workplace.
X 38% 26%
54 Employee’s organization’s leaders do not
maintain high standards of honesty and
integrity.
X 52% 39%
55 Managers/supervisors/team leaders do not
work well with employees of different
backgrounds.
X 58% 39%
56 Managers do not communicate the goals
and priorities of the organization.
X 53% 33%
57 Managers do not review and evaluate the
organization’s progress toward meeting its
goals and objectives.
X 50% 28%
58 Managers do not promote communication
among different work units (for example,
about projects, goals, needed resources.)
X 46% 29%
59 Managers do not support collaboration
across work units to accomplish work
objectives.
X 51% 41%
60 Employees do not feel that the manager
directly above their immediate
supervisor/team leader is doing a good job.
X 53% 36%
61 Employees do not have a high level of
respect for their organizations’ senior
leaders.
X 48% 32%
62 Senior leaders do not demonstrate support
for Work/Life programs.
X 48% 36%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 150
EVS Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
Question Item K M O NPS WP
63 Employees are not satisfied with their
involvement in decisions that affect their
work.
X 50% 47%
64 Employees are not satisfied with the
information they receive from
management on what’s going on in their
organization.
X 44% 36%
65 Employees are not satisfied with the
recognition they receive for doing a good
job.
X 46% 32%
66 Employees are not satisfied with the
policies and practices of their senior
leaders.
X 38% 28%
67 Employees are not satisfied with their
opportunity to get a better job in their
organization.
X 32% 30%
68 Employees are not satisfied with the
training they receive for their present job.
X 44% 33%
69 Considering everything, employees are not
satisfied with their job.
X 66% 54%
70 Considering everything, employees are not
satisfied with their pay.
X 58% 63%
71 Considering everything, employees are not
satisfied with their organization.
X 57% 42%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 151
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE ORGANIZED INTO FOUR ELEMENTS AFFECTING
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
Table A:
Efficacy Literature Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Buckingham &
Coffman (1999)
Measures the strength of workplace.
Attract, focus & keep most talented
employees.
Mayer &
Alexander (2011)
Want to learn; express in the amount of
effort applied to understanding.
Work environment including goals &
resources for achievement.
Canrinus, E. T.,
Helms-Lorenz,
M., Beijaard, D.,
Buitink, J., &
Hofman, A.
(2012).
Feelings toward colleagues, perceived
support from colleagues and leadership,
and perceived competency in dealing
with workplace demands affects job
satisfaction.
Caprara, G. V.,
Barbaranelli, C.,
Borgogni, L., &
Stea, P. (2003).
Teachers’ beliefs about their own ability
to perform their jobs, as well as teachers’
perceptions of colleagues’ and other
school employees’ ability to accomplish
school obligations, are the main
determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction.
Caprara, G. V.,
Barbaranelli, C.,
Steca, P., &
Malone, P. S.
(2006).
Teachers who believe they have the
capability to effectively teach, to handle
discipline problems, to earn the trust of
their colleagues, and be innovative create
conditions in the workplace that promote
work satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 152
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Federici, R. A.
& Skaalvik, E.
M. (2012).
Principals’ beliefs about what they are
capable of achieving in a given context
positively affect job satisfaction and
negatively affect employee burnout and
motivation to quit.
Gardner, D. G.,
& Pierce, J. L.
(1998).
Organizational-based self-esteem (OSE)
(Beliefs that employees form about
themselves based on their roles within the
organization) positively affects employee
job attitudes, behaviors, and motivation.
An employee’s generalized self-efficacy
(belief that they have the capability to
successfully achieve a future task or
result in any situation) positively
influences their attitudes and behavior
about their workplace, which ultimately
improves job performance and
satisfaction.
Employees who demonstrate good
performance and positive beliefs
regarding their capabilities to perform
their job are more satisfied employees.
Judge, T. A., &
Bono, J. E.
(2001).
An employee’s generalized self-efficacy
(belief in their ability to perform and be
successful), self-esteem (value they place
on themselves as a person), internal locus
of control (their belief that they can
control a variety of factors in their lives),
and emotional stability (confidence and
security) significantly predict job
performance and satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 153
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Klassen, R. M.,
& Chiu, M. M.
(2010).
An employee’s belief about their
capability to complete tasks at work
positively influences job satisfaction.
Teachers who experience high job stress
from poor working conditions;
inadequate preparation time; heavy
workloads; and overly demanding
parents, students, and colleagues) have
lower job satisfaction.
Experience and job-related stress affect
self-efficacy, which, in turn, affects job
satisfaction.
Klassen, R. M.,
Usher, E. L., &
Bong, M.
(2010).
A group’s shared belief that it is capable
of accomplishing a task (collective
efficacy) is positively related to job
satisfaction.
Job stress (excessive demands from
management and colleagues, work
overload, changing policies, and lack of
recognition) is negatively related to job
satisfaction.
Luthans, F., Zhu,
W., & Avolio, B.
J. (2005).
General self-efficacy (an employee’s
estimate of their ability to successfully
perform in various situations) is
significantly and positively related to job
satisfaction and organizational
commitment, but negatively related to
turnover.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 154
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Nielsen, K.,
Yarker, J.,
Randall, R., &
Munir, F.
(2009).
High team efficacy (individual’s
perception of the group’s collective
ability to accomplish a task) minimizes
effects of individual team members with
low self-efficacy (an employee’s belief
about their ability to accomplish a task on
their own).
That is, individual team members with
low self-efficacy can experience high job
satisfaction because they perceive their
colleagues to be competent, which gives
them assurance.
Zellars, K. L.,
Hochwarter, W.
A., Perrewe, P.
L., Miles, A. K.,
& Kiewitz, C.
(2001).
Self-efficacy (an individual’s belief that
they are capable of successfully
accomplishing a task) positively predicts
job satisfaction and negatively predicts
exhaustion.
Perceived collective efficacy (an
individual member’s belief in their
group’s ability to successfully
accomplish a task) directly and positively
predicts job satisfaction and negatively
predicts intent to turnover.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 155
Table B
Communication Literature Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Andrews and
Kacmar (2001)
Performance feedback from
supervisors/ leaders is critical.
Clampitt and
Downs (1993)
Performance feedback from
supervisors/ leaders is critical.
Hargie, Tourish
and Wilson
(2002)
Face-to-face
communication.
Increased information flow.
Building trust.
Jo and Shim
(2005)
Trust built by positive
interpersonal
communication: useful
instruction, helpful advice.
Johlke and
Dunham (2000)
Greater amounts of
communication.
Taking suggestions from
employees.
Feedback.
Kim (2002) Participative management:
allowing all employees in
information processing,
decision-making and
problem-solving.
Madlock (2008) Communicator competence:
listen, negotiate, and
communicate vision.
Pettit, Goris, and
Vaught (1997)
Supervisors need to provide
their employees with
appropriate and accurate info.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 156
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Porter, Wrench,
and Hoskinson
(2007)
Supervisors that are
introverted and highly
neurotic dissuade
employees to approach
them and ask for feedback
and guidance when
necessary; they may need
training to improve
interpersonal
communication skills.
Potential supervisors with
approachable and extraverted
temperaments should be
promoted to positions of
leadership.
Shaw (2005) Communicator
competence: share and
respond to information in a
timely manner, actively
listen to all points of view,
communicate clearly and
concisely across the
organization and utilize
various communication
channels.
Miles, Patrick,
and King (1996)
Positive relationship
communication:
supervisors seek
suggestions from
employees with important
decisions: supervisors show
interest in and casually
relate to employees.
Job-relevant
communication on
feedback, rules, policies,
job instructions,
assignments, schedules and
goals.
Upward openness: Allowing
employees to question and
disagree with a supervisor.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 157
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Pincus (2006) Supervisor communication
(supervisor openness to listen
to employee problems),
communication climate
(response to communication
environment), and personal
feedback (how performance is
judged).
Thomas, Zolin
and Hartman
(2009)
Quality of information
from supervisors: timely,
accurate and relevant
information increases trust.
Wheeless,
Wheeless, and
Howard (1984)
Supervisors need training
to be receptive to new ideas
and info from employees.
Increased employee
participation in decision-
making leads to increased job
satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 158
Table C
Leadership Literature Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Bolman and Deal
(2008, p. 137)
Leaders who utilize a ‘human resource
(HR)’ management approach maximize
both human capital and organizational
productivity. HR leaders show interest &
compassion in their employees’ well
being.
Darvish, H. &
Rezaei, F. (2011).
The more self-aware, unbiased,
confident, hopeful, optimistic, and
forward thinking a leader appears to be,
the more satisfied and committed the
employees/teams.
Fernandez, S.
(2008).
Leaders who show concern for their
subordinates (good listener, treat
subordinates as equals, solicit and
consider subordinates’ advice, and
appreciate their work) and encourage
good, encourage creativity, innovation,
relationship building, and adaptation to
the workplace environment, positively
affect employees’ perceptions of
performance and job satisfaction.
Jung, D. L. &
Avolio, B. J.
(2000).
Leaders who can clearly communicate a
vision and develop it into a shared vision
through aligning employees’ personal
values and interests with the groups’
interests while, at the same time, can
serve as a good role model through
perseverance and sacrifice to motivate
employees to accomplish the vision
positively affect employee trust and value
congruence which directly affects
employee quality and satisfaction
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 159
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Lam, C. S. &
O’Higgins, E. R.
E. (2011).
Managers who are able to demonstrate
that they understand and can manage
their employees’ and their own emotions
reflect a transformational leadership style
enhance their employees’ feelings of job
satisfaction.
Madlock, P. E.
(2008).
A supervisor with good. communication
skills (motivating, active listener, shares
and responds to information in a timely
manner, and communicates clearly at all
organizational levels ) positively affects
employees’ feelings toward their jobs and
satisfaction with the perceived quality of
communication.
Northouse (2010,
p. 200)
Leaders who are good role models,
facilitate positive change, and who can
create and articulate a clear vision,
empower others to meet high standards,
inspire trust, and give meaning to
organizational life.
Sy, T., Cote, S., &
Saavedra, R.
(2005).
Leaders’ mood (good or bad) transfers to
group members and impact the effort,
motivation, and coordination of groups.
Wang, X. &
Howell, J. M.
(2010).
Leaders who empower followers to
develop their full potential and improve
their skills, abilities, self-efficacy, and
self-esteem positively affect employee
performance and initiative.
Leaders who stress the importance of
group goals, of developing shared beliefs
and values, and of working as a team to
achieve group goals positively affects
team performance.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 160
Table D
Accountability Literature Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Breaux, Perrewe,
Hall, Frink, &
Hochwarter,
(2008);
Ellickson (2002);
Kim (2002);
McKnight, Ahmad,
& Schroeder
(2001)
Accountability coupled
with abusive leadership
behavior (verbal and non-
verbal hostility towards
employees by a direct
supervisor) is negatively
associated with employee
satisfaction, whereas
when coupled with a
close, participative
relationship between
supervisor and employee
leads to higher employee
satisfaction.
DeSantis & Durst
(1996)
The degree to which
employee talents are
utilized impacts
employee satisfaction
DeSantis & Durst
(1996)
Social relationship
with coworkers
impacts employee
satisfaction and
performance
Durst & DeSantis
(1997), Ellickson
(2002)
Employee perception of
adequate pay impacts
employee satisfaction
Durst & DeSantis
(1997), Ellickson
(2002)
Employee perception
of low pay impacts
low employee
satisfaction
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 161
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Ellickson (2002);
Fernandez &
Moldogaziev
(2011)
Access to job-
related knowledge
and skills are
associated with
employee
satisfaction and
performance
Ellickson (2002);
Swiss (2005).
Yang & Kessekert
(2009)
Degree to which
promotions and rewards
are merit-based, rather
than favoritism or politics
impacts employee
satisfaction and
performance.
Elmore (2002) Leader has not
established culture of
reciprocal accountability-
-leader does not hold
oneself accountable for
providing employees
with adequate training
and resources to perform
successfully
Fernandez &
Moldogaziev
(2011)
Clarity of goals and
expectations impact both
employee satisfaction
and performance
Fernandez &
Moldogaziev
(2011)
Attending to recognizing
employee performance
levels and achievements
contributes to employee
satisfaction and
performance
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 162
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Fernandez &
Moldogaziev
(2011);
McKnight, Ahmad
& Schroeder
(2001)
The degree of
timely and accurate
feedback about
performance
impacts employee
satisfaction and
performance
Fernandez &
Moldogaziev
(2011)
Degree of flexibility in
granting employees
discretion to change work
processes impacts
employee satisfaction
and performance
Harrison, Newman
& Roth (2006);
Westover & Taylor
(2010)
Employee does not
identify with the
mission of the
organization or does
not feel their work is
important or valued
(also known as
organizational
commitment,
organizational
citizenship behavior,
and public service
motivation)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 163
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Thoms, Dose, &
Scott (2002)
Lack of trust when
combined with
accountability
measures results in
lower employee
satisfaction,
whereas trust in
one’s supervisor
and perceived
supervisor
awareness and
accountability
resulted in higher
employee
satisfaction
Yang & Kessekert
(2009)
Leaders’ and Supervisor’
example impact
employee satisfaction
and performance
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 164
APPENDIX D
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Name of Observer:
Date:
Time:
Location:
Study Name:
Brief Summary of Observation:
Physical Space
Define the physical space (geographical, temporal, physical, political):
Utility: What is the purpose of the event/setting?
Participant reactions to physical setting:
Other:
People/Participants
Who are the participants being observed? How many participated?
Demographic information (racial, ethnic, gender, class):
What are the roles of those being observed? How do you know?
What was each of the specific participants doing (group interaction, individual actions, passive
participants, active participants)?
Purpose of Events/Observations
Why is the event taking place? Are there any political contexts to be discussed?
Who was invited to event? Who was not?
Was there any discussion of NPS policy? Why?
What are the positions of the various participants involved (power dynamics, roles)?
What is being discussed?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 165
Observer Role
What am I doing? What is my role throughout the observation?
Describe some of my interactions with other participants throughout the observation.
How did my interaction/presence affect the observation participants?
Sequence of Events
Beginning:
Middle:
End:
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 166
APPENDIX E
EMPLOYEE ACTION PLAN NOTES
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 167
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 168
APPENDIX F
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 the
park understand more about its EVS findings. It appears that the NPS as a whole
continues to score in the bottom quarter of approximately 250 federal organizations.
• I’m interested from your experience in this park, why you think that might be. I hope to
be able to use what I learn from today in helping the park refine its action plan.
• 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
Interview Questions
1. It looks like the group from today came up with these factors as possible causes for the
low satisfaction (LIST THEM). 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 for low satisfaction could be (INSERT
HERE). How does that apply if at all to your experience here?
3. 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?
4. Thinking about these action plans, some common reasons why groups don’t follow
through are related to motivation – meaning they don’t think its’ important. To what
extent is this a concern, in your opinion?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 169
5. 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?
6. 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?
7. Generally, what would you say are factors preventing your team from reaching 100%
employee satisfaction in this park?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
A study on possible causes for employee satisfaction, as well as possible solutions to address those causes in order to improve employee satisfaction. Using the Gap Analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), the study set out to understand possible causes of low employee satisfaction in one particular park. Once root causes of the low employee satisfaction were identified, the researcher sought to triangulate the data that was collected from the 2012 EVS, as well as qualitative data from interviews and observations of focus groups. Validated causes were then shared, as well as a possible action plan to implement for the purpose of increasing employee satisfaction.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Kailuana National Park
PDF
Gap analysis of employee satisfaction at a national park: Round Hill Park
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Picturesque Park
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Casa Linda National Park
PDF
An examination using the gap analysis framework of employees’ perceptions of promising practices supporting teamwork in a federal agency
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Camp Moxie site
PDF
An examination of barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of employees within a federal agency using the GAP analysis framework
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the national parks: Anuenue National Park
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 employee perceptions regarding teamwork in the workplace within a division of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using the gap analysis approach
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
Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis
PDF
Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study
PDF
Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework
PDF
Promoting equity in discipline practices for Latino students: a gap analysis
PDF
Increasing parent involvement at the high school level using the gap analysis framework
PDF
Developing the next generation of organization leaders: a gap analysis
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
Evaluating collective impact in a local government: A gap analysis
PDF
Case study in improving staff engagement and job satisfaction in a school of business
Asset Metadata
Creator
Meli, Michael Saia
(author)
Core Title
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Wailele
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
01/11/2016
Defense Date
02/28/2014
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
employee satisfaction,gap analysis,National parks,OAI-PMH Harvest
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
mmeli@usc.edu,uscmeli@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-203303
Unique identifier
UC11278876
Identifier
etd-MeliMichae-4067.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-203303 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MeliMichae-4067.pdf
Dmrecord
203303
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Meli, Michael Saia
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
Tags
employee satisfaction
gap analysis