University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 1

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION FOR THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: CAMP MOXIE SITE

by

Coreen K. Lee

______________________________________________________________________

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

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Coreen K. Lee

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My journey before I applied to USC was blessed with numerous people who influenced
and supported me along the way. To start, I would like to first thank my parents – to my mom
for your great appreciation for education, literacy and encouraging learning and to my dad for
being a steadfast example of hard work and determination.
Mahalo nui loa to the special friends and colleagues I have met throughout life’s
adventure. I believe many of you are apart of my life for a reason and together you have inspired
me to discover my moxie and let it shine. Because of you, I have been able to find my strength,
to investigate new ideas, to become a leader and an advocate, to explore the world and to have
the ability to pursue my goals.
Thank you to Dr. Melora Sundt, committee chairperson and members Dr. Kenneth Yates
and Dr. Kathy Hanson. Your support and guidance throughout this process has been invaluable.
It has been my honor to learn from each of you, to become a stronger writer, to be a critical
thinker and to persevere.
To “The Rangers” — we made it! I am honored to have collaborated with such an
incredible team and more importantly, blessed to count you as friends. Thank you for keeping
me calm and smiling as we made it through each step. We laughed and pouted (some of us even
cried) as we revolted over pancakes versus waffles and still survived. Together, strong!
And to the awesome Class of 2014 Hawaii Cohort — thank you! You have been a huge
part of this amazing experience and the accomplishment of this tremendous goal. You are
friends for life. Special shout out to Denalee, Dana, Josh and Keoni, thank you for continuing to
enthuse, even when things seemed overwhelming and chaotic.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

3
Finally, to those dear friends who left this world way too soon. Thank you for the smiles
and inspiration you have shared. You will forever be in my heart.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1 Introduction 8
Chapter 2 Literature Review 19
Chapter 3: Methodology 41
Chapter 4: Results 65
Chapter 5: Solutions 88
Chapter 6: Discussion 115
References 128
Appendices 144
Appendix A: Summary of EVS Results for Camp Moxie 144
Appendix B: 2012 EVS Scores for Camp Moxie And NPS 159
Appendix C: Summary of Literature Organized into Four Elements Affecting 165
Employee Satisfaction
Appendix D: Observation Protocol 176
Appendix E: Employee Action Plan Notes 178
Appendix F: Data Collection Method: Interview Protocol and Questions 184

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. NPS EVS Scores Compared to the Department of the Interior, 13
Highest to Lowest
Table 2. Four Elements as Related to Gap Analysis Framework 40
Table 3. EVS Category Scores (Lowest to Highest) for Camp Moxie, 47
NPS & DOI
Table 4. Camp Moxie EVS Questions That Scored Lower Than 60% 53
(Lowest to Highest)
Table 5. EVS Category Scores for Camp Moxie 2012 60
Table 6. Summary of Assumed Causes for KMO Issues 66
Table 7. Validated Assumed Causes at Camp Moxie 86
Table 8. Summary of Validated Causes, Solution and Implementation of Solutions 111
Table 9. Implementation Goals of Camp Moxie in 2014 112
Table 10. 2012 EVS Scores for Camp Moxie and NPS 159
Table 11. Communication Literature Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework 165
Table 12. Efficacy Literature Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework 168
Table 13. Leadership Literature Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework 171
Table 14. Accountability Literature Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework 173

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. GAP analysis process 43
Figure 2. EVS survey sorted into knowledge, motivation and organization (KMO) 52
Figure 3. Knowledge EVS scores for Camp Moxie 54
Figure 4. EVS percent positive scores in the area of motivation 55
Figure 5. EVS question in the area of organization above 60% positive score 56
Figure 6. EVS question in the area of organization below 60% positive score 57

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

7
ABSTRACT
This case study uses Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, examining areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational barriers. The purpose of this study was to focus on one particular
National Park Service site and explore the reasons for employees’ low job satisfaction by
identifying performance gaps in these three areas and then determine solutions for reaching
higher levels of employee satisfaction at the NPS. After the researcher analyzed site specific
2012 EVS data, root causes of performance gaps were identified, triangulated, and validated
using three data sources: observations at focus groups, employee action plans (document
analysis) and individual interviews with a sample of employees. Validated causes pertained to
employee needs: (a) for more information and improved communication; (b) for more
recognition for job performance; (c) to have opportunities to grow in career; and, (d) to have a
reasonable workload. The findings from this study add to the growing foundation of scholarly
expertise focused on employee satisfaction in the Federal Government. Findings may be useful
to increase understanding about how increased communication, accountability, and access to
effective training can be fundamental to positive organizational changes and in turn, impact
employee satisfaction. Ultimately, increasing job satisfaction will likely aid in improving
performance in the NPS and other government agencies.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

8
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Government is the largest employer in our nation. Recent census data
indicate that the United States Federal Government currently employs more than 2.8 million
civilians, a growth of over 4.7% in 10 years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Also in the same year,
the Federal Government employed more than 1.4 active duty million military personnel, with
additional numbers within the ranks of military reserve personnel of all branches (ICF
International, 2011). All levels of government are increasingly concerned with promoting job
satisfaction because the general perceptions is that most federal employees are displeased with
their jobs (Durst & DeSantis, 1997).
Job satisfaction, also known as employee satisfaction, appears essential to the success of
any type of business (Gregory, 2009). Businesses that have employees who are content with
their jobs contribute a sense of increased productivity and greater commitment to the
organization and ultimately less turnover (Ellickson, 2002). Ellickson (2002) offers this
explanation of employee satisfaction, “the more a person’s work environment fulfills his or her
needs, values or personal characteristics, the greater degree of job satisfaction” (p. 344).
Employee satisfaction is defined as, “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting
from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1304). A broad review of
literature by Rainey (2009) defines job satisfaction based on three components: personal
characteristics, job characteristics, and factors extrinsic to the work itself. Employee satisfaction
is linked to motivation explains Priya (2011), stating that when employees are satisfied with
what they are doing it can be directly reflected in their performance. Surprisingly there has been
little to no attention given to understanding variation in job satisfaction among public employees,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

9
although local government personnel represents one of the fastest growing employment sectors
in the United States (Ellickson, 2002).
Why Does Employee Satisfaction Matter?
Employee satisfaction is a concern for any employer because it is linked to lower
absenteeism and turnover, increased productivity and commitment to the organization and
ultimately improves the effectiveness of the organization (Ellickson, 2002). Koys (2001) argues
that empirical studies show turnover and organizational effectiveness are negatively correlated.
Employee absenteeism and turnover are costly for organizations as filling vacant positions means
going through the hiring process and training new employees (Koys, 2001). For example, in a
survey of 455 organizations across the United States, Carpenter and Wyman (2008) found that
employee absences have a significant impact, costing a company 36% of payroll. In terms of
turnover, it costs nearly 20% of an annual salary to replace an employee earning under $50,000
according to Lucas (2012).
Employee satisfaction also impacts employee performance and productivity (Gregory,
2009). Petty, McGee, and Cavender (1984) found a positive correlation between employee
satisfaction and employee performance. Happier employees tend to work harder and have
increased productivity (Ellickson, 2002). Stress, which has a negative impact on productivity
and longevity of employment, is one of the leading causes of employees’ dissatisfaction with
their jobs (Gregory, 2009). A study by Yee, Yeung, and Cheng (2008) found that employee
satisfaction is also connected with quality and customer satisfaction and is an important element
of operational performance.
With such an opportunity for influence, employee satisfaction should be a top priority for
most organizations (Gregory, 2009). Unfortunately, a recent federal survey indicates that
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

10
employees of the National Park Service (NPS), a bureau of the United States Department of the
Interior, are very dissatisfied with their jobs (Repanshek, 2012). Currently, the NPS ranked in
the bottom quartile of 292 federal agencies for employee satisfaction (Repanshek, 2012).
Therefore, this study will attempt to begin to understand possible causes of low employee
satisfaction at the NPS by specifically looking at one park, Camp Moxie (this is a fictitious name
that represents a real national park, but used in an effort to protect the location’s identity).
Background of the Problem
National Park Service
The NPS is one of nine bureaus within the Department of the Interior. Beginning in the
19th century, the idea of the National Park Service stems from a sense of protecting distinctive
places for visitor enjoyment. The philosophy of the NPS mission is to conserve scenic, natural
and historic bodies, including wildlife, while allowing the public to enjoy them, without
impairing for the future use. In 2000, the NPS updated its mission statement to reflect the focus
of the organization in the 21st century, and reads as follows:
The NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the
national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future
generations. The NPS cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and
cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the
world. (National Park Service [NPS], n.d.)
With 28,000 employees and over 2 million volunteers, the NPS oversees 27,000 historic
structures, 2,461 national historic landmarks, 582 national natural landmarks, 68,561
archeological sites and 84,000,000 acres of land plus 4,502,644 acres of oceans, lakes and
reservoirs (NPS, n.d.).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

11
Structurally, the NPS Director is a Presidential appointee who works in the Washington
office and is responsible for management, administration, policy and overall direction of the
bureau. Locally at NPS sites, the Superintendent is the highest-ranking position at the park and
the position reports to a Regional Manager. Below the Superintendent each park is organized
into divisions, such as enforcement, fire, wilderness recreation, etc., that are led by Division
Chiefs with employees that report to each.
Organizational goal.
As the NPS looks to its future, a commitment has been made to improve the workplace
and prepare employees to meet the challenges of the 21st century. In 2008, NPS leaders set a
target to become “one of the top 10 places to work in America” (NPS, 2008, p. 4). As part of
this goal, NPS leadership created a human resources development strategy that clearly links
organizational goals to succession planning and employee development. NPS leaders are
striving to create a climate within their organization that shows employees that they are valued
while giving them opportunities to grow and develop skills toward professional and personal
goals.
What we know about employee satisfaction within the NPS.
The Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) is administered in every federal agency and
measures employees’ perceptions of workplace environment, and to what extent conditions of
successful organizations are present in their agencies. Using a Likert scale, the EVS has 84
items divided into 14 main areas of focus with an additional 11 demographic questions. The
EVS was first administered in 2002 and is administered every spring, but during odd-numbered
years it is given to a random sample of employees and on even-numbered years it is administered
to every permanent employee. NPS data results tell us that overall, many National Parks suffer
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

12
from low employee satisfaction. As a whole, “the NPS ranks in the bottom of the Department of
the Interior bureaus as a good place to work and ranks 203 out of 222 government agencies in
employee perceptions of training and development” (NPS, 2008).
NPS demographic response to EVS.
The national EVS was last administered in 2012 and had a NPS response rate of 52% of
NPS-specific employees. Demographic data show representation from those who worked at the
NPS headquarters (44%) and in the field (56%). Amongst NPS survey respondents, 59% were
male and 41% female, while 85% identified their racial identities as white. Of the respondents,
80% had not served in active military duty.
Most NPS respondents, 78%, had been with the NPS for more than six years, and of
those, 32% had been with the NPS for more than twenty years. The majority of survey
respondents, 48%, were in non-supervisory roles and 60% were in the GS 7-12 category/grade,
which according to the Office of Personnel Management can offer a salary range from $33,979
to $78,355 annually. Regarding the percentage of NPS employees who responded to the survey,
68% are not planning to leave the organization in the next year and 18% may leave for another
job in the Federal Government. At the same time, 26% are planning to retire in the next five
years, or in other words, a quarter of the NPS workforce is planning to retire within the next five
years.
EVS results for the NPS.
When comparing the most recent EVS results to the Department of the Interior, the NPS
shows lower performance in each of the categories (see Table 1). EVS results for the NPS
indicate that one main reason for low scores is the perceptions of leadership at the supervisory
level and above. According to Learning & Development Report to the National Leadership
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

13
Council (NPS, 2008), data from the 2007-08 survey indicate that less than 30% of NPS
employees felt that NPS leaders generated high motivation and commitment; many felt their skill
level had not improved in the previous year and more employees had a negative versus positive
outlook on job opportunity (p. 4).

Table 1
NPS EVS Scores Compared to the Department of the Interior, Highest to Lowest
Category
Percent Positive
NPS DOI
Employee Skills/Mission Match 79% 79%
Family Friendly Culture 76% 79%
Effective Leadership-Supervisor 63% 65%
Best Places to Work 63% 65%
Teamwork 61% 64%
Pay and Benefits 58% 61%
Support for Diversity 58% 60%
Effective Leadership-Fairness 53% 56%
Strategic Management 52% 55%
Work/Life Balance 51% 57%
Training/Development 51% 58%
Effective Leadership-Leader 46% 47%
Effective Leadership-Empowerment 46% 49%
Performance-Based Rewards & Advancements 43% 46%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

14
More specifically, the results of NPS scores on the 2012 EVS indicate that employees
had the highest response (79%) to the category Employee Skills/Mission Match. According to
an internal NPS document developed to help employees understand the EVS results, this
category is defined as “the extent to which employees feel that their skills and talents are used
effectively, and, the level to which employees get satisfaction from their work and understand
how their jobs are relevant to the organizational mission” (K. Hanson, personal communication,
February 15, 2013). Within this category 90% felt the work they do is important and 87% liked
the kind of work they do. However, only 57% felt their talent is used well in the workplace
(U.S. Office of Personnel Management [USOPM], 2012b).
Another category where the NPS scored high is in Family-Friendly Culture at 76%,
which is defined by the same document as “the extent to which employees believe family-
friendly flexibilities are offered to them including telecommuting and alternative work
scheduling, along with personal support benefits like child care subsidies and wellness
programs” (K. Hanson, personal communication, February 15, 2013). Most notable within this
category is the 87%who responded positively to the satisfaction with alternative work schedules
(AWS) (note that only employees who participate were counted in scoring of this question)
(USOPM, 2012b).
The lowest scoring category for NPS was in the Performance-Based Rewards &
Advancement, at 43%. This category is defined in the internal document as, “the extent to which
employees feel they are rewarded and promoted in a fair and timely manner for their
performance and innovative contributions to their workplace.” Within this category the highest
response was to the question, “My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance”
at 66%, and the lowest score was 32% in response to two questions: “Promotions at my work
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

15
unit are based on merit,” and “How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in
your organization?” (USOPM, 2012b).
Statement of the Problem
The Learning & Development Report to the National Leadership Council (NPS, 2008)
recommends that the NPS “immediately and aggressively pursue and sustain leadership and
development opportunities for all employees at all levels” (p. 4). This appeal is not only in
response to poor survey EVS findings, but also to keep up with projected needs for staff at the
NPS. To do so agency leaders must study and improve employee satisfaction in hopes of
retaining employees, recruiting new workers, staying competitive in the workforce and creating a
positive work environment.
From a recruitment standpoint, the California Economic Development Department
predicts jobs for wildlife programs to stay in the top 50 fastest growing jobs in the next decade.
In addition, the Department of Labor projects wildlife-related jobs to increase by 22% in the next
decade, growth that would be 9-15 percent quicker than the average growth rate of every job in
the U.S (Humboldt State University, 2013). For the NPS, this means increased competition from
the private sector that could lead to critical gaps in the recruitment and retention of qualified
employees.
At the same time, more than a quarter of the bureau’s staff will be approaching retirement
eligibility in the next five years (USOPM, 2012a). Research by Moynihan and Pandey (2007) in
the public sector has found that “age has a positive and significant relationship with job
satisfaction, commitment and job involvement” (p. 820) noting that older employees are more
likely to be satisfied and involved in their work. Yet as the baby-boom workforce begins
retiring, the impact will be felt across the nation as employers will experience shortages in
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

16
manpower and skills that could overpoweringly impact American business (Sleezer & Dan,
2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to focus on one particular NPS site, Camp Moxie (this is a
fictitious name that represents a real national park, but used in an effort to protect the location’s
identity) and explore the reasons for employees’ low job satisfaction. Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis process was used to analyze the performance gap between the current levels of
employee satisfaction at Camp Moxie and the target levels established by NPS leaders, as
measured by EVS.
Clark and Estes (2008) indicate three critical factors that must be examined during gap
analysis including: knowledge and skills, motivation to achieve goals, and organizational
barriers. These three factors are necessary to determine the causes of the gap and in turn, the
steps toward performance improvement and successful achievement (p. 43). The gap analysis
process provides detailed information regarding defined goals and employees’ perceptions about
their performance, and then enables researchers to provide recommendations in addressing the
gaps. The NPS and Camp Moxie leadership could use information from the gap analysis to
identify causes of low employee satisfaction and design a course of action towards improvement.
Study Questions
This study will concentrate on the employees at Camp Moxie, a site that administratively
falls under the NPS. Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process, knowledge, motivation
and organizational barriers will be evaluated as possible causes of low employee satisfaction.
The questions guiding this gap analysis were:
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

17
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes that prevent 100%
employee satisfaction?
1

2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
More specifically, this study will focus on Camp Moxie employees’ knowledge, motivation and
organizational barriers as possible causes of low job satisfaction.
Significance of the Study
Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, researchers will identify possible causes for
low job satisfaction scores from employees at Camp Moxie, by clearly identifying work goals
and measuring ideal performance to current performance. The results of this study will clarify
and identify effective ways to close the gap between current job satisfaction levels and desired
levels, while also identifying specific solutions for the team at Camp Moxie. Ultimately,
increasing job satisfaction will likely aid in improving performance and longevity of the NPS
workforce.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 of this study serves as an introduction and provides background information
regarding the definition and importance of employee satisfaction and how it impacts the
workplace. This chapter also gives some background about the NPS and the bureau’s current
standing regarding employee satisfaction. The purpose of this study is to explore possible causes
of low employee satisfaction at one NPS site, Camp Moxie, and to propose solutions to address
these causes.

1
The pursuit of creating an environment with 100% employee satisfaction is one that an organization could
strive for as a goal, though it is rarely attained.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

18
Chapter 2 contains a synthesis of literature that is available regarding assumed causes of
employee satisfaction. This chapter also takes a closer look at the issue of employee satisfaction
within the context of the public sector. The significance of past studies as they relate to the
current study will be explored as well as a reference to unanswered questions and problems in
methodology of prior research.
Chapter 3 provides a description of the methodology of this study. This chapter includes
the design of the research, population, sampling procedure, development of instruments and the
data analysis process. Chapter 4 provides the results of data collected at Camp Moxie from three
data sources: the EVS survey, on-site focus groups and individual employee interviews. Chapter
5 provides proposed solutions based on the data available. Lastly, Chapter 6 provides a
conclusion that encompasses discussion of the study in its entirety, including identified strengths
and weakness, anticipated implications of recommendations and suggestions for future research.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

19
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Employee satisfaction is a concern for employers because a high level of employee
satisfaction is linked to lower absences and turnover, increased productivity and commitment to
the organization, and ultimately improves the effectiveness of the organization (Ellickson, 2002).
Job satisfaction is influenced by leadership style, communication, accountability, efficacy, and
promotion opportunities (Oshagbemi, 2003; Pincus, 1986; Rehman & Waheed, 2011; Saari &
Judge, 2004). In the current era of accountability in the workforce, all levels of government are
concerned with promoting job satisfaction because of the perception that most federal employees
are dissatisfied with their jobs (Durst & DeSantis, 1997). Because employee satisfaction has
diverse and meaningful organizational impact, ensuring employee satisfaction has become a
priority for organizations such as the NPS. Unfortunately the NPS currently ranks at the bottom
quartile of the Department of the Interior bureaus as a good place to work, according to recent
EVS findings (Repanshek, 2012). The overarching ambition for the NPS is to improve this
standing and become one of the top 10 places to work in America (NPS, 2008).
Understanding Employee Satisfaction
Though identified as essential, creating employee satisfaction, also known as job
satisfaction, is complicated and imprecise. To start, work environments are made up of two
components: job characteristics, meaning how tasks tie to psychological states, and also work
context, meaning the setting or infrastructure of the organization (Wright & Davis, 2003). Both
components are factors that the organization can mold to meet the needs of employees and
therefore influence job satisfaction. More specific to the public sector, Ting (1997) found that
organizational characteristics (organizational commitment, relationship with supervisors and co-
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

20
workers) were highly related to job characteristics (task clarity, skills utilized, contribution and
satisfaction with pay) and have the greatest effect on job satisfaction for federal government
employees. An organizational commitment that includes task clarity, utilizing skills of
employees, task contribution and relationship with supervisors and co-workers will also have a
strong effect on job satisfaction (Ting, 1997).
Pink (2010) breaks down the factors of job satisfaction into three simple components:
autonomy, mastery and purpose. Autonomy is the urge for humans to direct their own lives.
Employees like to feel as though they have control over their own paths (Pink, 2010). Mastery is
the desire to constantly improve in something. Humans naturally pursue interests simply to
deepen knowledge. Purpose is the human yearning to contribute to the service of a larger
purpose than just one’s self. Pink (2010) describes how autonomy and mastery play a part in the
success of employee satisfaction and the shared success of the company. Additionally, on an
individual level, Saari and Judge (2004) suggest that the most important factors influencing job
satisfaction, aside from the work itself, are the dispositional and cultural influences. The level of
job satisfaction can be traced in part to a person’s disposition or temperament (House, Shane &
Herold, 1996).
Pink (2010) points to a company in the U.S that dropped a schedule-based workplace and
in turn temporarily adopted a “results only work environment.” With the new initiative,
productivity increased and stress decreased which eventually led to the company making the
initiative permanent, based on this success. Bontis, Richards, and Serenko (2011) also found that
autonomy and challenging work contribute to employee satisfaction. Smerek and Peterson
(2007) and Grunig (1990) reported increased employee satisfaction with the possibility of
upward mobility.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

21
Meanwhile, organizations are putting more effort into assessing employees in order to tap
into potential and develop individual strengths (Priya, 2011), which may lead to improving
employee satisfaction. FORBES magazine, that prides itself on providing insightful information
about the business industry, creates an annual list of best companies to work for. The majority, if
not all companies on the list are from the private sector. The list comes from more than a half-
million survey responses that ask about “satisfaction with their company overall and key
workplace factors, such as career opportunities, compensation and benefits, work-life balance,
senior management, culture and values” (Smith, 2012). Ten companies have continually made
appearances on the list since it began in 2009 including Apple, Google, Chevron and
CareerBuilder.
In 2013, Google was named the sixth best company to work for (Smith, 2012). One
unique aspect of Google is that employees are encouraged to grow and innovate in order to
create new concepts. Google has company policies that support that premise, such as a dedicated
percentage of employees’ time that could be spent working on other ideas or products. As a
result, half of all new products from Google are conceived from that dedicated allotment of time
(Pink, 2010).
Examples discussed in the above section are primarily within the private sector, but are a
source of useful information to the public sector. Government personnel represent one of the
fastest growing job sectors in the United States, yet existing research related to administrative
leadership in public-sector bureaucratic settings is a mere fraction compared to that of the private
sector and is unfocused (Fernandez, 2008; van Wart, 2003). Regardless, the characteristics of a
job, which include challenge, autonomy, variety and scope, are some of the best predictors of job
satisfaction (Rehman & Waheed, 2011).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

22
Gap Analysis Framework
Employee satisfaction is important to the success of organizations like the NPS. The goal
is to improve levels of employee satisfaction to ensure personnel are motivated and being
productive, which in turn improves effectiveness of the organization. Currently, the NPS is not
where its leaders would like to be in terms of the level of employee satisfaction. Using Clark
and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model allows researcher to examine performance gaps in the
areas of knowledge, motivation and organizational barriers to determine solutions for reaching
higher levels of employee satisfaction at the NPS.
While an explanation of the gap analysis model will be provided in the following chapter,
the general description of the three factors are important to the literature research. According to
Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge relates to the “how” or “what” people need to know to
achieve goals; motivation describes the internal drive to get the job done effectively, and
organizational barriers are the resources and/or the policies and procedures that may prevent
improvement.
Elements Affecting Employee Satisfaction
The literature review indicated four elements 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.
Communication
Communication can impact all three factors, knowledge, motivation and organizational
barriers, of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model. Communication is defined as, “a
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

23
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).
Cushman and Craig (1976) note that communication involves basic behaviors in listening
and negotiating. Communication between supervisors and employees can impact employees’ job
satisfaction (Clampitt & Downs, 1993; Madlock, 2008). Dissatisfaction happens when managers
are isolated and do not know how to relate to employees on a personal and professional level
(Branham, 2005). Pincus (1986) found that a communication climate is the extent the employee
identifies with the organization and also the informational components such as the timeframe in
which information is received. Additionally, employees perceive communication factors
diversely which will in turn affect productivity differently (Clampitt & Downs, 1993). Thomas,
Zolin, and Hartman (2009) state 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. Miles, Patrick, and King (1996) also found that
communication from superiors’ correlates with employee satisfaction.
However, there are few studies that directly examine communication performance. “The
extent of literature on communication performance – specifically communication performance in
public sector – is scant” (Pandey & Garnett, 2006, p. 37). Performance predicament is
referenced as the ability to measure costs of communication versus effectiveness and/or benefits
(Pandey & Garnett, 2006). After a survey of a number of studies, Downs, Clampitt, and Pfeiffer
(1988) concluded that internal communication is strongly related to interpersonal aspects of a
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

24
relationship, including trust, openness and other aspect relating to the culture of the organization
(as cited by Pandey & Garnett, 2006).
As a multifaceted function, communication includes two major components:
informational and relational dimensions (Pincus, 1986). Organizational communication is
informational and relational in nature and was found to be a major contributor to job satisfaction
(Pincus, 1986). Additionally, Pincus (1986) indicates that employees’ perceptions of
organizational communication are related to job satisfaction but the relational component has a
stronger positive correlation with job satisfaction than job performance. Following is a
description of both informational and relational dimensions of communication.
Informational dimension.
The informational dimension refers to what information is conveyed and how it is
provided to employees, which in turn, can impact employee satisfaction. According to Gregory
(2009), employees want to know their achievements are being recognized by their employer and
want to feel appreciated as workers as well as individuals. Organizational communication
encompasses a wide range of factors such as: supervisors’ communication styles, listening to
employees, and offering feedback on performance (Pincus, 1986). With regular communication
and feedback from supervisors and leaders, employees reported more job involvement, less
stress, less uncertainty and overall higher job satisfaction (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001; Clampitt
& Downs, 1993). Additional research found that satisfaction is also linked to employees
perceiving they have input into the strategic planning of the organization, decision-making and
problem solving (Gregory, 2009; Kim, 2002; Miles et al., 1996).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

25
Relational dimension.
The relational dimension focuses on building trusting relationships as an essential
function to increasing communication that in turn, links to job satisfaction (Pincus, 1986).
Overall, a strong positive relationship was found between relational communication and trusting
relationships (Jo & Shim, 2005). Thoms, Dose, and Scott (2002) found a significant relationship
between job satisfaction and trust in an immediate supervisor, along with perceptions of
awareness in one’s work. Interactions between supervisors and employees require a specific
finesse of communicating goals while maintaining interpersonal and conversational norms
(Spitzberg & Cupach, 1981).
Leadership and communication.
Trust appears to have an impact on the interpersonal relationship between employees and
their supervisors. Managers can enhance interpersonal relationships through communication
practices, which can build relationships and trust. Trust in superiors is also a strong predictor of
job satisfaction, which from a communication standpoint includes providing employees with
appropriate and accurate information (Pettit, Goris, & Vaught, 1997). Employees perceived a
trusting relationship when interpersonal communication was experienced from superiors in the
form of useful instruction or helpful advice (Jo & Shim, 2005).
Effective supervisor communication includes maintaining presence and frequency.
Johlke and Duhan (2000) found that frequency of supervisor-employee communication was
positively associated with job satisfaction. Managers who regularly use interpersonal
communication with employees tend to have more trusting relationships (Jo & Shim, 2005).
However useful information is more likely to be communicated to employees directly from
supervisors, over methods such as publications, newsletters or video messages which are less
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

26
effective for building relationships (Jo & Shim, 2005). Thomas et al. (2009) discovered the
quality of information shared with subordinates is more significant than the amount or adequacy
of information.
Hargie, Tourish, and Wilson (2002) indicate a high level of importance of behaviors such
as face-to-face communication between superior and subordinate, and that employees’ preferred
source of information is face-to-face communication with direct supervisors. Johlke and Duhan
(2000) also discovered that two-way discussion between a subordinate and superior lead to a
clearer understanding of job duties. Jo and Shim (2005) agreed and found face-to-face
interactions were linked to more useful information shared with employees.
Without knowledge and communication competence, superiors will have difficulty in
developing trusting and interpersonal relationships with employees. Communicator competence
includes: knowledge, motivation, skill, behavior and effectiveness (Spitzberg, 1983).
Communicator’s competency, according to Stohl (1984), also includes language, gestures and
voice. Shaw (2005) states that for employees to perceive supervisors as competent
communicators, information must be shared and responded to in a timely manner; supervisors
must engage in active listening, communicate clearly and concisely with all levels in the
organization and make use of various communication channels. Salacuse (2008) agreed by
saying today’s workforce employs more educated employees with higher intelligences, requiring
superiors to lead by negotiation.
Supervisors that are perceived as receptive can cultivate a sense of empathy, demonstrate
consideration and concern, and have the essential tools to build relationships with employees that
lead to job satisfaction. Madlock (2008) found a strong relationship between supervisor
communicator competence and employee communication satisfaction. Wheeless, Wheeless, and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

27
Howard (1984) agree with the importance of supervisors’ communication skills and specifically
looked at the ability to be receptive to employees. Supervisors must be trained in how to
communicate in a way that disseminates information while building trusting relationships.
Supervisors’ communicator competence must be at a minimum level in order to begin a process
of competent communication with employees and ongoing cultivation of this skill should be
encouraged. If supervisors need training to build their capacity to be approachable, then
providing it could positively impact communication. 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 et al., 1984).
Communication in the workplace is not limited to communication between employees
and supervisors but also includes communication amongst employees. Horizontal
communication describes a more casual form of communication with peers and can include
“word-of-mouth” information (Pincus, 1986). One concern to consider about horizontal
communication is the accuracy of the information and how the information flows through the
organization. Effective communication can be made a part of the organizational culture by
making frequent face-to-face communication part of regular practice within the organization.
Communication is an essential variable when considering organizational effectiveness and is
linked to knowledge, motivation and organizational causes.
More specifically, leadership style and communication competence, of all the factors,
have the greatest influence on employee satisfaction (Clampitt & Downs, 1993; Madlock, 2008).
A study by Fernandez (2008) further supports the importance of communication and indicates
that a relations-oriented leadership style is positively correlated to job satisfaction. This style of
leadership, which is more concerned with behaviors such as encouraging, coaching and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

28
supporting subordinates, can increase work performance “by improving communication and
cooperation, making subordinates feel more committed to their work unit and organization and
allowing subordinates greater discretion in how they perform their work” (Fernandez, 2008,
p. 195).
Efficacy
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).
Gardner and Pierce (1998) argue that self-efficacy and self-esteem are related and have a
positive effect on employee performance and attitudes. Self-esteem is the perception of personal
worth or value (Coopersmith, 1967; Rosenberg, 1965). Self-efficacy is the belief a person has
regarding the ability to execute a task or action successfully, meaning those with a high level of
self-efficacy suppose they can do their job duties and responsibilities with usual success
(Gardner & Pierce, 1998).
Gardner and Pierce (1998) found that organization-based self-esteem had positive effects
on employee performance, and that satisfaction, job attitudes, behaviors, and self-esteem were
shaped by the individuals’ generalized feelings of efficacy. Pairing good performance and
positive affect for the high organization-based self-esteem employee suggests that employees
who are motivated to perform well and possess positive work-related attitudes are likely to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

29
perform well while feeling good about their work. Similarly, Judge and Bono (2001) found that
self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability were among the
best dispositional predictors of job satisfaction and job performance. In short, employees who
feel good about themselves and their abilities to do their jobs successfully are more satisfied and
thus perform better.
In addition to self-efficacy, the work environment, including policies, can affect job
satisfaction. Work environments are made up of two components: job characteristics, meaning
how tasks tie to psychological states, and work context, meaning the setting or infrastructure of
the organization (Wright & Davis, 2003). Both components are factors that an organization can
utilize to mold and meet the needs of employees and therefore influence job satisfaction.
According to Rehman and Waheed (2011) the characteristics of a job, which include challenge,
autonomy, variety and scope are the best predictors of job satisfaction.
Specific to mission-driven organizations.
In mission-driven organizations such as non-profits and government agencies like the
NPS, effectiveness and satisfaction may come from other motivations. In these types of
organizations, Brown and Yoshioka (2003) note three basic principles that influence employee
attitudes: awareness, agreement and alignment. Employees must first sense that the focus, that is
the organization’s mission, is prominent in their minds and is an integral part of the
organization’s culture. Next, employees must personally agree with the purpose and values of
the organization, as part of their commitment. Lastly, from the employees’ perspectives, the
daily work must be connected to the progress of fulfilling the mission of the organization. In this
case, if there is a lack of alignment of work activities, yet employees are committed to fulfilling
the mission, this combination could lead to dissatisfaction. An individual’s level of commitment
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

30
to these three principles affects the attachment to the organization. Thus, when it comes to the
relationship between the fit of public service motivation and job satisfaction, workers who have a
strong interest to serve the public interest are likely to be satisfied with their jobs if they believe
that their jobs have helped them to fulfill their public service motives (Westover & Taylor,
2010).
Employees enact the mission through the programs and service they provide. By
extension, employees and leaders are critical to representing an organization’s image, values and
culture. In a study by Brown and Yoshioka (2003), 991 employees of a nonprofit organization in
sixteen geographic locations were anonymously surveyed, with 304 total respondents. Results
indicate:
• Satisfaction and mission attachment are positively associated with each other and
with intentions to stay with the organization.
• Those employees surveyed who were happy overall with their work were more likely
to believe in the mission of the organization and that their work helped to meet that
mission.
• Overall, employees held the perception that they were underpaid.
• Mission attachment was a motivator for younger, part-time employees, despite low
satisfaction related to pay, while full-time employees had slightly less of a connection
to mission, as salaries were non-competitive with other organizations. Employees of
both types stay with an organization because both pay and the work are satisfying.
Individuals and teams.
A person’s personality traits could also be a factor influencing job satisfaction.
According to Goldberg (1990) a five-factor model, also known as the Big Five, can sort
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

31
personality traits into five primary categories: neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness and openness to experience (as cited by Judge, Hellerm, & Mount, 2002). A
meta-analysis of literature by Judge et al. (2002) considered literature in the PsychINFO database
between 1887-2000 to identify possible studies of these traits in relation to job satisfaction.
Results from the search included 163 independent samples and 334 correlations that met the
study’s criteria and were included in the analysis. Upon examining these results, Judge et al.,
(2002) found that of the five traits, neuroticism had the strongest and most consistent correlation
to job satisfaction, followed by conscientiousness and extraversion. Researchers correlated that a
person who has a generally happy personality, including emotional stability (low-neuroticism)
and extroversion, is also likely to also be happy in their jobs.
Employees’ belief about their expertise and their ability to complete assigned tasks
positively influences job satisfaction, while experience and job-related stress can impact self-
efficacy and thus job satisfaction (Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Luthans, Zhu, and Avolio (2006)
indicate general self-efficacy of employees, including their ability to successfully perform in
multiple situations, is significantly and positively related to job satisfaction and organizational
commitment; while negatively related to turnover. At the same time, understanding job
satisfaction at a group-level has limited data as compared to individual-level variables (Mason &
Griffin, 2002). Working in groups can provide employees opportunities for greater involvement
and synergy, and improve performance for companies. Recent research has begun to reveal
additional effects associated with group-level interaction and its impact on employee satisfaction
(Mason & Griffin, 2002). Nielsen, Yarker, Randall, and Munir (2009) considered the effects of
teams and self-efficacy, finding direct associations between working in a team and self-efficacy
and job satisfaction. Specifically, teams that displayed high levels of efficacy may in fact have
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

32
minimized the effects of individuals who were low in self-efficacy. As a team, those individuals
with low self-efficacy were protected by the teams’ high level of efficacy, which in turn allowed
them to experience high levels of job satisfaction (Nielsen et al., 2009). Working in groups or
teams provides opportunities for greater job satisfaction by allowing collaboration and
opportunities for synergy.Finally, Zellars, Hochwarter, Perrewe, Miles, and Kiewitz (2001)
researched the interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy. Their study
found that self-efficacy positively predicted job satisfaction but negatively predicted exhaustion.
An individual member’s belief in the group’s perceived abilities to accomplish a task directly
and positively predicted job satisfaction but negatively predicted intent to turnover. More
specifically, Klassen, Usher, and Bong (2010) note that a group’s shared beliefs about its
capabilities is positively related to job satisfaction, while stressors such as excessive demands,
changing policies and lack of recognition, are negatively related to job satisfaction.
Leadership
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).
Kotter (1990), along with many other scholars, argued that leadership and management
are clearly different concepts. The function of leadership is to provide constructive change and
movement whereas the function of management is to provide order, stability and consistency
(Northouse, 2010). Howell and Costley (2006) describe leadership as changing and developing a
more effective organization, while management is focused on administrative functions. One
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

33
proposal by Likert (1961) suggests that when leaders were engaged with subordinates in the
management of a business, employee effectiveness and satisfaction were maximized. Research
findings indicated that amongst the main functions of managers is to set goals, structure tasks
and make decisions much like the distinction between task-oriented and development-oriented
leadership (Fernandez, 2008).
There have been many attempts to study leadership focused on personal attributes and
qualities and their association with leadership effectiveness (Fernandez, 2008). Personality traits
that are considered to be the most relevant to successful leadership include: energy levels and
stress tolerance, self-confidence, internal control, emotional maturity and integrity (Yukl, 2002).
However early research found weak and inconsistent empirical evidence to support this theory,
and during the 1950s researchers changed their attention from personal traits to focus instead on
the behavior of leaders (Bass, 2008; Fernandez, 2008; Yukl, 2002). This move was due, in large
part, to empirical studies from researchers at the Ohio State University and the University of
Michigan, who identified the first two types of effective leadership behavior: task-oriented and
relations-oriented behavior. Since then, the study of leadership has developed further with
leadership behavior as a common theme (Fernandez, 2008).
Task-oriented and relations-oriented leadership.
During the 1950s Ohio State University researchers began focusing on the behavior of
leaders and identified two broad categories of leadership behavior: consideration and initiating
structure. Consideration behavior, or relations-oriented behavior, generally describes a leader’s
concern for the welfare of subordinates and a desire to foster good interpersonal relations among
members of the group (Fernandez, 2008). Lindell and Rosenqvist (1992) note that this behavior
is also called the person-oriented behavior, indicating that leaders of modern business
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

34
environments must also be willing to engage new ideas and question personal beliefs. The more
self-aware, unbiased, confident and forward-thinking a leader is perceived to be, the more
satisfied and committed employees tend to be (Darvish & Rezaei, 2004). A leader with good
communication skills positively affects employees’ feelings toward their jobs (Madlock, 2008).
Additionally, a leader’s mood or attitude can transfer to staff and impact their efforts and
motivation (Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005).
Initiations of structure behavior, or task-oriented behavior, is the second category of
leadership behavior identified by the Ohio State University research (Fernandez, 2008). These
are the types of behaviors focused on accomplishing the goals or tasks of the group. Description
of this dimension includes setting goals and standards, defining roles, coordinating the activities,
communication, setting accountability for deadlines, and monitoring compliance with procedures
and progress toward achievement of goals (Fernandez, 2008). The core elements of task-
oriented dimension are clear instructions and orders, careful planning and control (Lindell &
Rosenqvist, 1992). Leadership behaviors that positively affect job satisfaction and the
employees’ perceptions of performance include showing concern, encouraging creativity and
innovation and building a good relationship with subordinates (Fernandez, 2008). Additionally,
leaders who stress the importance of group goals, develop shared values and lead to achieve
overall goals, positively affect team performance (Wang & Howell, 2010).
In 1991, Scandinavian researchers Ekvall and Arvonen used the Ohio State University
leadership surveys to devise new instruments to measure leadership behavior, and their empirical
analyses identified change-or development-oriented behavior (Fernandez, 2008). This was a
third behavior associated with effective leadership. The Ekvall and Arvonen (1991) study
yielded three additional categories of leadership behavior: production-centered leadership,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

35
employee-centered leadership (which correspond closely to task-oriented and relations-oriented
behavior), and change-centered leadership.
Change-centered leadership describes a supervisor that “creates vision, accepts new
ideas, makes quick decisions, encourages cooperation, who is not overcautious and does not
stress that plans must be followed” (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991, p. 18). Ekvall and Arvonen (1991)
found that development-centered leadership positively correlated with a leader’s level of
effectiveness. But a more positive correlation between task-oriented and relations-oriented
dimensions is evident when the scale of measure is less dictatorial, disciplinary and production-
oriented for tasks (Lindell & Rosenqvist, 1992). The highest satisfaction and performance from
employees, comes from leaders and managers that have a combination of relations- and task-
oriented behaviors, but development-oriented behavior as well.
The modern leader is change-centered, meaning they are responsive and creative, able to
manage change processes, can also mobilize people to take action and pushes for growth (Ekvall
& Arvonen, 1991). Leaders that empower staff to develop their skills and abilities and who
encourage a path to full potential, positively affect employee performance (Wang & Howell,
2010). Furthermore, leaders that are able to demonstrate that they understand and can manage
employees’ and their own emotions, reflect a transformational leadership style that enhances
feelings of job satisfaction (Lam & O’Higgins, 2012). Along those same thoughts are the
charismatic leaders described by Waldman, Ramirez, House, and Puranam (2001) who inspire
and motivate others while advancing new vision. When leaders also serve as good role models
to employees, they add value by building trust and value congruence, affecting employee
satisfaction but also necessary if expecting to mobilize teams (Jung & Avolio, 2000).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

36
Leadership in the public sector.
Local government personnel represents one of the fastest growing job sectors in the
United States yet, surprisingly there has been little to no attention given to the topic of leadership
in general and to understanding the effect of leadership upon variation in job satisfaction among
public employees (Ellickson, 2002). For example, in a broad content search of leadership in the
Public Administration Review journal, there were just 110 articles produced in the last 61 years.
However, when narrowing the search to leadership as the explicit focus, there were just 25
articles, on average about four per decade (van Wart, 2003).The lack of research in this area is
concerning, given the amount of resources the Federal Government has dedicated to the
development of leaders while increasing emphasis on performance management and
improvement (Fernandez, 2008). The speculation regarding the lack of study is that outside
forces have a large impact on bureaucracies, which means leaders may have little control of their
organizations. Another is the simple diversion of attention and in particular that of
administrative discretion, where the focus is more on extreme arguments rather than assessment
and recommendations (van Wart, 2003). Fernandez (2008) states that research in public
management is a “difficult-trade off” of theory, ideal measures, and data, in that the study of
leadership has been primarily in for-profit settings because researchers, management scholars
and organization theorists downplay the distinctions between public and private organizations.
With that, the current syntheses of public-sector leadership models that acknowledge and
encompass variability of knowledge and settings, are simply nonexistent (van Wart, 2003).
Brewer and Selden (2000) measure leadership in the public sector based on employees’
perceptions of their supervisors’ behavior, finding it had a minimal direct effect on performance
of an organization.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

37
Accountability
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).
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
performance and employee satisfaction. This awareness is one of the most important aspects to
building trust and job satisfaction (Thoms et al., 2002).
Accountability can motivate employees as well, as the degree to which employees’
talents are utilized impacts employee satisfaction (Durst & DeSantis, 1997). However if
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

38
employees do not identify with the purpose or mission of the organization, or feel their work is
not valued, the result is decreased employee satisfaction (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006;
Westover & Taylor, 2010). Alignment with purpose is even more important to public service
employees than those in the private sector, as many public service organizations are intrinsically
mission driven (Westover & Taylor, 2010). In terms of compensation, employees’ perceptions
of pay can impact employee satisfaction either positively or negatively (Durst & DeSantis, 1997;
Ellickson, 2002). Lastly, social relationships with coworkers can impact employee satisfaction
and performance (Durst & DeSantis, 1997).
Organizationally, clarity of goal and expectations impacts employee satisfaction and
performance (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2010). Employees’ satisfaction is also impacted by the
examples that leaders and supervisors demonstrate (Yang & Kassekert, 2010). Therefore,
leaders need to establish a company culture that includes reciprocal accountability, meaning
leaders holding themselves accountable to employees and vice versa (Elmore, 2002).
Accountability that is coupled with a close, participative relationship between leaders,
supervisors and employees leads to higher employee satisfaction (Breaux et al., 2008; Ellickson,
2002; Kim, 2002; McKnight et al., 2001). Within an organization, the degree to which
promotions and rewards are merit-based, rather than perceived favoritism or politics, can impact
employee satisfaction (Ellickson, 2002; Yang & Kassekert, 2010), as well as recognizing
employee performance and achievements (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2010).
Particular to public-sector employees, research suggests that generally speaking,
employees want jobs that allow them to do what they do best, in nice atmospheres (Durst &
DeSantis, 1997). Finding the right position match for public service employees is found to have
a positive and significant impact on their job satisfaction (Westover & Taylor, 2010).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

39
Additionally, the degree of flexibility a leader or supervisor allows in granting employees
discretion to change work processes can impact employee satisfaction (Fernandez &
Moldogaziev, 2010). Public agencies, like the NPS, are under increasing pressure to change and
innovate (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Light, 1998) which indicates that more research is needed
to understand the role of leaders in affecting organizations through innovation, creativity and
adaptability to the environment (Fernandez, 2008).
High-performing organizations.
De Waal (2007) notes that no consistent definition exists of a high-performance
organization because each industry considers different achievements or attributes important,
however, their analysis was able to identify some characteristics. According to de Waal (2007),
high-performance organizations have the following characteristics: (1) organizational design
characteristics that are cross functional and encourage collaboration; (2) strategy that comes with
a strong vision with clear, measureable and achievable goals; (3) process that is supportive of the
function of the organization; (4) technology; and (5) leadership that is trustworthy.
Summary
The literature review in this chapter provided a closer look into the specific elements of
communication, efficacy, leadership and accountability that assist in identifying detailed causes
that impact employee satisfaction. Additionally, these four elements have been aligned with the
factors of knowledge, motivation and organizational barriers in the gap analysis framework
(Table 2). The literature suggests that communication and accountability are likely to have a
high association related to knowledge, motivation and organizational causes of low employee
satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

40
Table 2
Four Elements as Related to Gap Analysis Framework
Knowledge Motivation Organizational
Communication X X X
Efficacy X
Leadership X
Accountability X X

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.
This study focused on the low employee satisfaction levels at Camp Moxie using data
from the 2012 EVS survey results, site visit observations, document analysis and interviews. The
next chapter details the methodology used to identify the assumed causes indicated in part here
by the literature, validate those causes, and propose possible solutions and how those might be
evaluated for effectiveness.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

41
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Statement of the Problem
The Learning & Development Report to the National Leadership Council (NPS, 2008),
recommends that the NPS “immediately and aggressively pursue and sustain leadership and
development opportunities for all employees at all levels” (p. 4). This appeal is not only in
response to unfortunate EVS survey findings, but also to address the impending demand of the
workforce at the NPS with more than a quarter of the bureau’s staff approaching retirement
eligibility in the next five years.
In order to keep up with the development of current staff and the projected demand for
new staff at the NPS, it is important for the agency to study and improve employee satisfaction in
hopes of retaining employees, recruiting new workers, staying competitive in the workforce and
creating a positive work environment. The NPS mission is focused on preserving nature and
cultural resources, which to some degree includes wildlife as well. California’s Economic
Development Department predicts jobs for wildlife programs to stay in the top 50 fastest
growing jobs in the next decade. In addition, the Department of Labor projects wildlife-related
jobs to increase by 22% in the next decade, growth that would be 9-15 percent quicker than the
average growth rate of every job in the U.S (as cited by Humboldt State University, 2013). For
the NPS, this means increased competition from the private sector that could lead to critical gaps
in recruitment and retention of qualified employees.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to focus on one particular NPS site, Camp Moxie, and
explore the reasons for low employee job satisfaction levels. The study used Clark and Estes’
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

42
(2008) gap analysis process to explore and analyze the target levels of satisfaction and the
current low standing at Camp Moxie. Clark and Estes (2008) indicate three critical factors that
must be examined during analysis including: knowledge and skills, motivation to achieve goals
and organizational barriers, in order to determine performance gap, then develop steps toward
performance improvement and successful achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 43). This
process provided detailed information regarding defined goals and employees’ perceptions about
their performance, and enabled researchers to provide recommendations in addressing the gaps.
Study Questions
This study concentrated on the employees at Camp Moxie, a site that administratively
falls under the NPS. Using the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008), knowledge,
motivation and organizational barriers were evaluated as possible causes of low employee
satisfaction. The study questions guiding this gap analysis were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes that prevent 100%
employee satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Selection of the Site
The NPS leadership identified subjects from a group of parks whose aggregate responses
to the 2012 EVS ranked them in the bottom quartile of NPS sites. Parks are identified by aliases
rather than their official names in order to provide anonymity and confidentiality. Of the parks
identified in the bottom quartile, NPS leadership gave USC researchers permission to analyze
seven of the 24 lowest-scoring parks. Each park that was selected by the NPS leadership
represents one of seven regions. Specific to Camp Moxie, nine out of twenty-seven employees
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

43
participated in the 2012 EVS. However, additional demographic data regarding park’s
respondents were not made available.
Description of Framework: Gap Analysis
This study was based on the conceptual framework, the gap analysis presented by Clark
and Estes (2008), which indicates three factors that must be examined during analysis including
knowledge and skills, motivation to achieve goals, and organizational barriers, in order to
determine steps toward performance improvement and successful achievement (p. 43). The gap
analysis can be applied to help NPS leaders compare employees’ actual performance with the
ideal performance to then address the gap between these measures.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process is a systematic problem-solving approach
that helps organizations make an assessment of objectives and performance. The assessment
allows organizations and leaders to then address the gaps by increasing knowledge, motivation
and skills where they may be lacking (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Moreover, the gap
analysis, as a systematic process (see Figure 1), can be utilized to create measures of
performance and monitor effectiveness and recommend solutions for improvement (Rueda,
2011).

Figure 1. GAP analysis process

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

44
As identified previously, according to Clark and Estes (2008) there are three critical
factors that should be examined when considering performance gaps, including: knowledge and
skills of employees, motivation to achieve goals, and organizational barriers in the workplace,
such as inadequate equipment or missing or lacking processes. All three of these factors must be
present and functioning together for successful goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011). More specifically the gap analysis includes the following steps:
• Step 1: Identifying the organization’s goals
• Step 2: Measuring current performance
• Step 3: Identifying gaps between goals and performance
• Step 4: Assumed causes/analyze gaps
• Step 5: Validating assumed causes
• Step 6: Solutions and implementation
• Step 7: Evaluation
The Camp Moxie results for steps 1-5 will be discussed in Chapter 4 specifically focusing on
identifying gaps in performance, assumed causes and validating these causes. The remaining
steps for Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process will be discussed in Chapter 5 of this
dissertation including solutions and implementing solutions and in Chapter 6, evaluating results.
Step 1: Identify Goals
A critical step for organizations is to establish goals that connect between high-level
vision and specific team or individual goals. Measureable goals are set at three levels: long-term
“global” goals, intermediate “subsidiary” goals that connect to global goals, and lastly, day-to-
day “performance” goals (Rueda, 2011). These goals should be adaptable to shifting conditions
but still specific enough to provide day-to-day guidance (Clark & Estes, 2008). More
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

45
specifically, global goals focus on achievements in a 1 to 5 year or more timeframe, intermediate
goals span weeks to months, and performance goals are managed within hours to weeks (Rueda,
2011).
Without clear goals, employees will be less focused on contributing to the performance of
the organization and will instead concentrate on tasks that advance their careers (Clark & Estes,
2008). While all employees do not have to be involved in setting goals in order to be committed,
those who do formulate company goals should be perceived as trustworthy, have convincing
rationale for the goals, express confidence in the capabilities of employees and have a general
interest in closing gaps rather than finding fault (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Global goal.
The global goal for the NPS is to be one of the top 10 places to work in the Federal
Government (M. Bomar, as cited by NPS, 2008). In support of this goal, part of the NPS plan
for the second century is a focus on leveraging employee commitment and leadership, including
customized assessments with tailored strategies that address communication, recruitment,
recognition and career development for 50 parks or programs (NPS, 2011, p. 22). Currently the
most recent EVS score for the NPS was 61.3 of 100 percent positive and the agency is ranked
number 166 of 292 agencies (Partnership for Public Service, 2012).
The focus of this study was on one park site, Camp Moxie, that had overall positive EVS
score below the 60% threshold established by NPS leadership that is cause for concern. Camp
Moxie was one of 24 NPS sites chosen for review, based on EVS results, readiness for change
and other criteria developed by NPS leaders. This site scored below 60% in one out of fourteen
broad EVS categories, one of the lowest scoring in this region. More specifically, there were 16
EVS questions that had a response score below the 60% threshold.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

46
Steps 2 and 3: Measure Performance/Determine Gap
Once goals are set, the next step is to determine current performance levels. The
difference between the goals and current performance are the achievement gap (Rueda, 2011).
When considering the achievement gap, Clark and Estes (2008) suggest a 25-75 approach, where
25% of time is focused on analysis and 75% of time is aimed at taking action through design and
implementation. Within an organizational environment, employees can have a wide range of
opinions regarding problems and solutions. Clark and Estes (2008) caution evaluators to not
make assumptions, but instead to listen with an open mind to employees and stakeholders.
EVS results establishing the performance gap.
Employee satisfaction is important to organizations like the NPS. The goal is to create
better levels of employee satisfaction to ensure employees are motivated and are being
productive, which, in turn, improves effectiveness of the organization. Currently, the NPS is not
where the organization’s leaders would like to be in terms of the level of employee satisfaction,
aiming to be one of the top 10 places to work in the Federal Government (M. Bomar, as cited by
NPS, 2008). Table 3, below, presents EVS category scores for Camp Moxie compared to the
NPS and the Department of the Interior (DOI) EVS (USOPM, 2012b), organized from lowest
score to highest.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

47
Table 3
EVS Category Scores (Lowest to Highest) for Camp Moxie, NPS & DOI

Percent Positive EVS Score
Camp Moxie NPS DOI
Performance-Based Rewards & Advancements 48% 43% 46%
Work/Life Balance 62% 51% 57%
Effective Leadership-Leader 68% 46% 47%
Training/Development 71% 51% 58%
Strategic Management 73% 52% 55%
Effective Leadership-Supervisor 77% 63% 65%
Effective Leadership-Empowerment 87% 46% 49%
Effective Leadership-Fairness 88% 53% 56%
Pay and Benefits 88% 58% 61%
Teamwork 88% 61% 64%
Support for Diversity 89% 58% 60%
Best Places to Work Index 92% 64% 63%
Employee Skills/Mission Match 95% 79% 79%
Family Friendly Culture 100% 76% 79%

Examining the individual EVS questions, there were sixteen questions that had scores
below the NPS established threshold of 60% (see Table 4) for Camp Moxie and those were
concentrated in one category, Performance Based Rewards and Advancement Index at 48% (see
Table 3). This category is comprised of six questions that include: my performance appraisal is a
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

48
fair reflection of my performance (44%); promotions in my work unit are based on merit (44%);
employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services (50%); creativity and
innovation are rewarded (50%); how satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing
a good job (50%); and how satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your
organization (50%). These sixteen questions on the survey represent the gap to be addressed.
Step 4: Identify Assumed Causes For Gap
This study uses the results of the literature review and the aggregate responses of
employees to the 2012 EVS specific to Camp Moxie (Appendix A) as well as broader NPS
results to identify the assumed causes of the low employee satisfaction. When evaluating
assumed causes, Clark and Estes (2008) note that perceptions control performance, making all
employees’ viewpoints essential when considering barriers in closing a performance gap.
Learning, motivation and organization theories can provide useful information that can aid in
identifying performance gaps.
Knowledge.
Knowledge is a key factor in the success of any organization, yet difficult to assess.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that gaps in knowledge occur when employees do not know how
to achieve tasks and accomplish goals due to lack of skills or information. At the same time,
individuals may not be aware of their lack of skills or knowledge. Clark and Estes (2008) have
specified that if a person does not know how to reach their performance goal it “usually indicate
a need for information job aids or training…[or] continuing or advanced education” (p. 58). The
authors differentiate between training and education; training is where people get “how-to”
knowledge and have the opportunity practice with guidance, while education is defined as
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

49
“current research-based knowledge about why things happen and what causes things to happen”
(p. 59), regardless of the setting in which it is delivered.
The Knowledge Dimension by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) may be useful in
identifying the causes of low scores related to employee satisfaction related to a lack of
knowledge. According to the authors, there are four types of knowledge: factual, which is the
basic information individuals might need for solving problems and doing their jobs; conceptual,
which includes interrelationship amongst their individual roles, the team at their site and the
larger organizational structure; procedural, which are the specific skills and techniques an
individual needs to do a job; and metacognitive, an understanding of an individual’s ability,
awareness and capacity. Also part of this taxonomy are motivation beliefs and how they are
related to self-efficacy, goals and reasons for pursing tasks, and values and interests including
usefulness and importance (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Motivation.
Motivation is what energizes and fuels an organization and its employees, but it is an
individualized internal and psychological characteristic that is influenced by external variables
such as access to resources and relationship with manager (Clark & Estes, 2008). Mayer (2011)
explains that the motivation to learn can be expressed in the amount of effort that is applied to
understand material; engaging the cognitive steps of selecting, organizing and integrating new
information. As discussed earlier in Chapter 2, Pink (2010) identifies motivational factors of job
satisfaction as three simple components: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Clark and Estes
(2008) note that motivation occurs not because an organization exerts overarching control, but
rather as a result of the interacting between a work environment and its people. Motivation can
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

50
be negatively influenced by ambiguous goals, dishonesty, pointless rules that prohibit workflow,
excessive competition and overly critical or negative feedback.
According to Mayer (2011) there are five conceptions of how motivation to learn works,
which includes interest, belief that hard work will payoff, belief that success and failures are
related to effort, setting goals and viewing the instructor as a partner. Motivation will be
diminished by vague goals, inconsistent feedback, perceptions of dishonesty and unfairness, lack
of autonomy and unnecessary rules or barriers (Mayer, 2011). Additionally according to Mayer
(2011), the work environment, including goals and resources for achievement, influences our
motivation and level of effectiveness. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that there are various
approaches for increasing motivation which can be narrowed to four variables: (1) confidence (as
individuals and teams); (2) perceived barriers; (3) the workplace sentiment; and (4) overall value
of performance (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 90).
Organizational barriers.
Organizational barriers are the conditions of the company and the situations it is facing,
including providing effective resources and implementing work procedures and processes. In
considering the organizational culture and/or context of a performance, Clark & Estes (2008)
generalize three areas in which organizational barriers are likely to be found: (1) work process –
how individuals along with resources come together to get the job done, the organizational
culture; (2) material resources – tangible equipment and supplies; and (3) value chains/streams –
policies and procedures that guide interaction. Moreover, in terms of evaluation, Rueda (2011)
states that organizational culture is difficult to assess because it is not always visible; typically
the responses are automated and internalized and are based on a set of values that are reflective
of individuals’ contributions.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

51
Organizational barriers can be tracked to processes that are not in alignment with
structure. Clark and Estes (2008) have identified six types of support that are necessary for
organizational change which include: (1) clarity in vision and measurable progress, (2) alignment
of the organizational culture with goals, (3) ongoing and open communication about progress,
(4) leadership must stay involved and engaged, (5) organizational support – including
knowledge, skills and motivation, and (6) integrate changes mindfully. The list is generalized,
with the expectation that each organization, level of position and situation will need a various
levels of knowledge, and motivational support to be effective.
Assumed causes for Camp Moxie.
USC researchers organized each of the EVS questions according to Clark and Estes’
framework language of “KMO” (Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational) barrier (see Appendix
B). Overall this sorting revealed that 8% of the EVS questions addressed knowledge or skills
issues; 20% addressed motivation; 57% addressed organizational barriers; and 15% were not
categorized (See Figure 2). The questions that were not categorized were focused on job options
(i.e., telecommuting, wellness programs, etc.) that were not available at every park and therefore
not considered in our study.
More specifically, the results of the 2012 EVS for Camp Moxie indicated sixteen
questions that fell below the 60% threshold set by NPS (Table 4). These EVS questions were
edited, to represent assumed causes for the remainder of the study. The EVS questions that
scored between 30-40% reflected a very low score and therefore considered a priority area for
the organization. The majority (81%) of these low-scoring EVS questions are identified as
organization barriers according to the gap analysis framework.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

52
However, this study is focused on the employee’s perspective and a cross reference of the
low scoring EVS questions with the causes from Chapter 2 suggests that communication, which
in KMO terms is usually a knowledge cause, and accountability (see Table 2), which can be a
knowledge, motivation or organizational barrier cause, were the primary assumed causes. The
validation process, described later, helped clarify in which form the employees were
experiencing those potential causes.

Figure 2. EVS survey sorted into knowledge, motivation and organization (KMO)

Knowledge
8%
Motivation
20%
Organization
57%
No-category
15%
EVS Question Sorted to KMO
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

53
Table 4
Camp Moxie EVS Questions That Scored Lower Than 60% (Lowest to Highest)
EVS
Questio
n No. Assumed Cause
Camp Moxie
EVS Percent
Positive
Score K, M, O
33 Pay raises do not depend on how well employees perform
their jobs.
25% O
24 In the work unit, differences in performance are not
recognized in a meaningful way.
33.3% O
22 Promotions in the work unit are not based on merit. 44.4% O
27 The skill level in the work unit has not improved in the past
year.
44.4% O
10 Employee’s workload is reasonable. 44.4% O
15 Employee’s performance appraisal is not a fair reflection of
their performance.
44.4% O
23 In the work unit, steps are not taken to deal with poor
performers who cannot or will not improve.
44.4% O
31 Employees are not recognized for providing high quality
productions and services.
50% O
32 Creativity and innovation are not rewarded. 50% O
64 Employees are not satisfied with the information they receive
from management on what’s going on in their organization.
50% K
65 Employees are not satisfied with the recognition they receive
for doing a good job.
50% M
67 Employees are not satisfied with their opportunity to get a
better job in their organization.
50% M
9 Employees do not have sufficient resources to get their jobs
done.
55.6% O
18 Employees’ training needs are not assessed. 55.6% O
25 Awards in the work unit do not depend on how well
employees perform their job.
55.6% O
41 I do not believe the results of this survey will be used to make
my agency a better place to work.
57.1% O

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

54
Knowledge.
Looking specifically at individual EVS questions and gap analysis, the EVS questions
that are focused on knowledge represent just 8% of total EVS (Figure 2) that amount to seven
questions (Figure 3). One question in the knowledge section had a score below the 60%
threshold at Camp Moxie. The assumed cause is stated as, “Employees at Camp Moxie are not
satisfied with the information they receive from management on what’s going on in their
organization” (question number 64; score 50%).

Figure 3. Knowledge EVS scores for Camp Moxie

50
62.5
88.9
100 100 100 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Knowledge
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

55
Motivation.
EVS questions that focused on motivation cause included seventeen questions or 20% of
EVS (Figure 2). Using these questions identified as a motivation cause, Camp Moxie EVS
results indicated an average score of 85.9% positive which places this category above the
threshold of 60% positive that is considered cause for concern.
The seventeen EVS questions within the motivation cause and the respective results are
listed below (Figure 4) from lowest to highest score.

Figure 4. EVS percent positive scores in the area of motivation

50 50
75
77.8
83.3
85.7
87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5
88.9
100 100 100 100 100 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Motivation
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

56
The two lowest scoring motivation-related questions, 65 and 67 (Figure 4), are included
in the lowest performing EVS category for Camp Moxie, Performance-Based Rewards &
Advancement.
Organizational barriers.
EVS questions that focused on organizational causes included forty-seven questions or
57% of EVS (Figure 2). Using these questions identified as an organizational cause, Camp
Moxie EVS responses resulted in an average score of 73.1% positive, which is above the
threshold of 60% positive that is considered cause for concern. However, this is the lowest score
amongst the three areas of the gap analysis.
The forty-seven EVS questions within the organizational cause and the respective results
are listed below in two charts, one that includes scores above the threshold (Figure 5) and one
that includes those below (Figure 6).

Figure 5. EVS question in the area of organization above 60% positive score

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
44. Discussions are
45. Supervisor committed to
57. Monitor progress
59. Managers support
62. Sr. Leaders support
46. Supervisor provides
47. Supervisor supports
50. Guidance in last 6 mos.
11. Talents used well
14. Physical conditions
21. Able to recruit right skills
31. Personal empowerment
54. NPS leaders have
58. Mgrs promote
42. Supervisor support
48. Supervisor listens to me
56. Mgrs communicate goals
3. Encouraged to make
20. Our team cooperates
26. Employees share
16. Accountable for results
29. Have skills to
34. Policies promote
35. Protected from hazards
36. Prepared for security
37. Biases not tolerated
38. Prohibited behavior not
43. Allowed opportunity to
49. Treated with respect
55. Leader work well with
Organization
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

57

Figure 6. EVS question in the area of organization below 60% positive score

Of these lowest scoring organization related questions (Figure 6), numbers 15, 22 and 32
are a part of the lowest performing EVS category for Camp Moxie, Performance-Based Rewards
& Advancement.
Summary.
This section focuses on the assumed causes for low employee satisfaction at Camp
Moxie, including literature, theory and results from the 2012 EVS. Reviewing the EVS
questions that scored below the established threshold of 60% and the literature review (see Table
4), the researcher proceeded with a focus in the areas of communication and accountability.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Organization
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

58
Step 5: Validating Causes
Prior to data collection this research project was submitted to the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) for review. Once the project was approved, the information collected during this
study was used solely to help assist the NPS improve employee satisfaction at Camp Moxie. All
names of people and parks remained anonymous and any transcribed data were destroyed upon
completion of analysis.
Three strategies were used to validate the assumed causes: (a) observations of focus
groups conducted by NPS staff; (b) document analysis of action plans created by park employees
during the focus groups; and (c) interviews of park employees after the focus groups. This
triangulated data collection process is preferable when conducting qualitative research. Using
multiple sources of data collection will likely reduce the chance of jumping to incorrect
conclusions during data analysis.
Participants.
The study focuses on the employees of Cam Moxie, and more specifically the non-
management staff. Specific to Camp Moxie, nine out of twenty-seven employees participated in
the 2012 EVS. Additional demographic data regarding park’s respondents were not made
available. During the focus groups, there were three groups, one of managers and two groups of
staff organized for facilitated discussion. The management group of 6 employees met twice
during our site visit, once before the staff focus groups began and then for a follow-up debriefing
meeting. (Note that information from the management team focus groups was not included in
this study.)
There were two focus group meetings held for Camp Moxie staff in order to
accommodate the desired group and work schedules that ensured ongoing park coverage. In
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

59
total 29 staff participated over two days: 14 participants at focus group one and 15 participants at
focus group two. Employees represented six divisions though the majority (38%) of employees
were from the maintenance division. In terms of the length of employee service there was a
range from as short as one month of employment on through those who had worked for 26 years
at Camp Moxie. On average, employees had worked for the NPS for more than eight years, and
at Camp Moxie for more than five years. During focus groups, employees participated in action
planning process that has been included in document analysis. Additionally there were 9
volunteers for follow-up interviews, but only 3 interviews were completed. Efforts to reach
remaining volunteers included two follow-up emails but did not result in any other participants.
Each data source (focus groups, document analysis and interviews) is further described in the
following sections.
Observations of focus group.
Clark and Estes (2008) specify the importance of identifying people’s perceptions, in this
case Camp Moxie employees, about the barriers they face when attempting to close performance
gaps and achieve goals. The USC researcher traveled to Camp Moxie to observe an NPS
facilitated focus group that included a review of the site’s EVS scores and then a facilitated
discussion about the causes and potential solutions for low employee satisfaction. Researchers
were familiar with Camp Moxie’s EVS results and provided prompts for discussion to the NPS
facilitator prior to the focus group meeting.
An NPS Organization Development employee from the national office served as
facilitator during the focus groups and led the discussion. A request was made that all Camp
Moxie employees attend one of two focus group sessions. The NPS facilitator organized
discussion around the 14 categories of the EVS. The protocol for the focus groups was
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

60
organized around a regrouping of the park’s EVS questions, as a result of a factor analysis. The
factor analysis, conducted by U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Resources
Solutions created fourteen categories with average scores in each (Table 5). These fourteen
categories were basis for discussion in the facilitated meetings (described later).

Table 5
EVS Category Scores for Camp Moxie 2012
Score Index
48% Performance Based Rewards and Advancement Index
62% Work/Life Balance Index
68% Effective Leadership – Leader Index
71% Training/Development Index
73% Strategic Management Index
77% Effective Leadership – Supervisor Index
87% Effective Leadership – Empowerment Index
88% Teamwork Index
88% Pay and Benefits Index
88% Effective Leadership – Fairness Index
89% Support for Diversity Index
92% Best Places to Work Index
95% Employee Skills/Mission Match Index
100% Family Friendly Culture Index

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

61
For Camp Moxie the Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement, which pertains to
rewards and promotions in the workplace, is the lowest scoring category. Six of the sixteen
lowest scoring questions (Table 4) fall into this category. As mentioned in Chapter 1, this
category is defined by an internal NPS document as, “the extent to which employees feel they
are rewarded and promoted in a fair and timely manner for their performance and innovative
contributions to their workplace.”
Researchers observed the focus group using observational protocol (Appendix D), to
understand the employees’ perspectives on the causes for low EVS scores, and to notate their
suggestions for solutions. The protocol includes descriptive and reflective notes that include the
researcher’s personal perspective as well as demographic information (Creswell, 2009). The
goal was to understand how employees make a connection between EVS scores and suggested
solutions, and why they make these connections. Observing the focus group also gave
researchers the opportunity to better understand the interpersonal dynamics between leaders and
employees at Camp Moxie.
Action planning (document analysis).
After the group discussion, employees were asked to divide themselves into teams and
develop an action plan. The facilitator explained the format for the action plan which needed to
include a focus area, purpose or objective of the plan, possible action steps for implementation,
anticipated results of the action plan if implemented and what resources would be needed for this
plan. Later, the teams shared action plans with the larger group. By the end of both focus
groups, there were a total of six action plans created by employees (Appendix E).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

62
Interviews of employees.
Researchers also planned for individual voluntary interviews, providing an opportunity
for employees to present viewpoints they may have been reluctant to share during the group
discussion. At the conclusion of the staff focus groups, participants was asked to write their
name and contact information on an index card. As a second step, if employees were interested
in doing a follow-up interview with a member of the research team, they could indicate so on the
back of the cards. The strategy was that interviewees would remain anonymous to their peers.
Announcements were made that interviews were estimated to last 15-20 minutes, and no longer
than 30 minutes.
However, during one focus group the facilitator’s directions were unclear to participants
and in turn, no cards were returned. At the second focus group, a total of 9 participated indicated
they were interested in a follow-up interview. Follow-up emails were sent to the 9 participants
who indicated interest, to set meeting appointments. The goal was to have a sample of 5
interview participants, however, only a limited number or employees responded to the request
for interviews and only 3 actually kept their appointments. Two follow-up messages were sent
via email, in order to reschedule potential meeting times with candidates but none yielded
additional participants.
The information from these individual interviews helped to validate the large group’s
discussion of causes and possible solutions. There are three sections within the interview
protocol (see Appendix F for interview protocol and questions) including the individual’s
perspective about the focus group and its outcomes; the perception of the individual as to
whether or not the goals set by the focus group are achievable; and lastly the perceived causes of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

63
low employee satisfaction. Information collected informed the recommendations for Camp
Moxie.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using qualitative methods. According to McEwan and McEwan
(2003), qualitative research can be basically defined as a set of information gathering techniques
or methods such as interviewing, observing and document analysis. Qualitative research is
defined by three characteristics including naturalistic in that researchers are in the setting of the
subjects, descriptive in that researchers also collect detailed information and study seemingly
unimportant tidbits, and lastly focused on meaning and explanation through interpretation of
what is heard, learned and/or observed (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
However analyzing qualitative data can be challenging. Since qualitative research is
highly interpretive, researchers could inadvertently influence the quality and accuracy of the data
by misunderstanding observations or interview responses because of their own personal biases,
anxieties, political persuasions, or preconceived notions (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). To avoid
distortion, researchers should reveal any biases or preconceived notions they have about the
study and require that their data be analyzed by more than one researcher to aid in uncovering
the truth (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Qualitative research can also be challenging because
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 (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
Data collected from observations, document analysis and interviews was analyzed using
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis. More specifically, researchers started with assumed causes
identified from the literature review and the low EVS scores. Next, the researchers listened for
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

64
similar themes to appear during the focus group discussions, group activities (document analysis)
and interviews. The causes that were discussed in all three data points (i.e., focus group,
document analysis and interviews) were considered validated. This information was analyzed to
look for knowledge, motivation and organizational causes for the gap in employee satisfaction
levels at Camp Moxie and begin to provide suggestions for solutions that have a high probability
to close that gap.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

65
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This study concentrates on the employees at Camp Moxie, a site that administratively
falls under the NPS. Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process, knowledge, motivation
and organization barriers were evaluated as causes of low employee satisfaction. The study
questions guiding this gap analysis were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization causes that prevent 100%
employee satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
After identifying the assumed causes (see Table 6) through a review of the literature and of
Camp Moxie’s 2012 EVS scores, particularly those questions that scored below the established
threshold of 60%, researchers went on to collect data to validate assumed causes. There were
three sources of qualitative data collected specifically the onsite observations, the document
analysis of the employees’ action plans, and telephone interview data were collected to better
understand the knowledge, motivation and organization challenges Camp Moxie employees
encounter. The order of data collection was due to the availability of information and timing of
site visits coordinated by the NPS leaders. The results in this section are organized in categories
of knowledge, motivation and organization.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

66

Table 6
Summary of Assumed Causes for KMO Issues
Source/Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
Results of EVS
questions sorted into
KMO
1 of 16 low scoring
EVS questions
Employees want
information about
organization.
2 of 16 low scoring
EVS questions
Employees want
recognition and job
opportunities.
13 of 16 low scoring
EVS questions
Employees want: raises
related to performance;
recognition for
differences in
performance;
reasonable workload;
fair employee
appraisals; promotions
based on merit; process
for addressing low-
performance;
opportunities to
develop skills.
Literature Review to
KMO
Communication Communication;
Accountability
Communication;
Accountability
Theory Information
Processing Theory:
Employees want
information to make
choices/decisions
and/or improve
understanding of
goals by improving
communication and
the information that
is shared.
Social Cognitive
Theory: Employees
want to feel valued
and appreciated.
Sociocultural Theory:
Employees need
resources (training,
funds, etc.) to do job
properly

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

67
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Assumed Causes From EVS Survey Results
While the EVS survey for Camp Moxie indicated gaps related to knowledge, what we do
not know from the EVS results is any detail about the need for more information. The EVS
results simply identify “information” as a concern. In gap analysis terms, knowledge gaps
usually are a symptom of lack of information training or education. As discussed in Chapter 2,
concerns about communication can focus on content, style of delivery and timing. Thus the
observations, document analysis and interviews provide more detail from the employees’
perspectives on the definition of information they are seeking.
Findings from Observations
Employees want improved communication throughout Camp Moxie. Overarching
findings from observations include discussions concerning communication and the perceived
lack of training opportunities available to employees. The observational findings have been
organized using the Knowledge Dimension by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) related to a lack
of knowledge. According to the authors, there are four types of knowledge: factual, which is the
basic information individuals might need for solving problems and doing their jobs; conceptual,
which includes interrelationship amongst their individual roles, the team at their site and the
larger organizational structure; procedural, which is skill and technique specialties an individual
needs to do the job, and metacognitive, an understanding of an individual’s ability, awareness
and capacity. Also part of this taxonomy, are motivation beliefs and how they are related to self-
efficacy, goals and reasons for pursuing tasks and values and interests including usefulness and
importance (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) which will be discussed later in this chapter.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

68
Factual.
Employees want more face-to-face communication and feedback from managers about
their performance. A participant shared, “it seems that upper management does not have time
for employees or to address question and issues.” Having managers come out to the worksite
allows employees to show their work, get input or feedback and to perhaps feel better supported.
The issue of being “disconnected” from supervisors as well as from other divisions was
indicated. The employee perspective is that division chiefs do not have time to interact with
their employees to answer or clarify questions. In turn, employees feel that their expertise and
opinions are not utilized as valuable assets for decision making and/or planning long-term
strategy. As one employee stated, “We do what we are told to do, no questions allowed.”
Employees felt that managers relied too much on technology for communication. This
may contribute to the lack of shared knowledge and communication breakdown. Employees
explained that they are typically in the field during working hours, with little to no time spent at
a computer to check emails in their office. However, at the same time, employees perceived that
managers spend a lot more time at their desks, where email communication is readily accessible.
Additionally, some employees also indicated the lack of cellphones available to employees,
which meant they often opt to use their personal phones for work purposes. Adding to this
concern is the vast geographic coverage of the park and the location of division offices, including
the fire division that is housed 30 miles from the main office.
However, in terms of communication, the fire division had a noticeably different vibe,
based on comments from staff of that division as well as staff from others. Employees within the
fire division described their ongoing, informal, open door method of sharing information.
Employees from that division felt they had good communication and teamwork. The leadership
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

69
style of their division chief is described as “having a heavy-handed command approach as
needed,” but employees stated that it is necessary for their line of work.
Employees want more information about annual goals for the park. When asked about
goals for Camp Moxie, employees were not aware of any annual goal for their park. Camp
Moxie employees emphasized the need for better understanding amongst divisions about job
duties and ongoing projects as well as priority projects. This was especially true for operations in
the field, where staff felt they have valuable knowledge to share with regard to planning and/or
implementation.
Conceptual.
Employees want to feel connected to the mission of NPS. On a personal level, many
employees acknowledged the mission match between the NPS and their own values, including a
sense of community, which helped to sustain their interest in their jobs. A participant stated,
“There aren’t many jobs in this area, doing the kind of work that I like to do and this job lets me
work where I want to live.”
Procedural.
Employees want to grow in their expertise. Overall observations made by researchers
indicate that employees at Camp Moxie felt they had the right knowledge to do their current jobs
but were not growing in their expertise. For example, participants expressed their interest in
cross training amongst divisions. The premise is that work in one division often impacts another
and perhaps cross-training would help to develop a better understanding of each division’s tasks
and create a more efficient workflow. Additionally, cross training may aid in developing
teamwork which could be essential to work conditions impacted by weather, environment,
planning and other aspects of their respective jobs. Employees were also interested in other
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

70
professional development opportunities and discussed training programs that were available prior
to sequestration. Overall, both of these suggestions point to the need employees expressed for
expanding their knowledge.
Employees want better processes for information sharing between divisions and within
park. Employees indicate the existing timing of meetings to be inefficient and prohibitive when
considering information sharing. For example, manager meetings are on Tuesdays but most
divisions had staff meetings on Mondays. This means that nearly a week goes by from the time
of management meetings before employees are informed of current information at a division
meeting.
Employees also noted the inconsistent method of sharing information within divisions.
“Information goes up, but is not coming back down to us within the division, and communication
amongst divisions can be improved,” stated participant. A few employees knew that chiefs had a
template for note taking that could be used and modified for both types of audiences
(management and division) but not all divisions have access to notes.
Employees need access to training programs. Employees were aware that most training
and/or awards were no longer available due to sequestration. Many employees were able to
describe training programs that were in place prior to these cuts and reminisced about the
potential impact those programs could have for the current team members. “We had a great
training program two years ago, but now all that is gone even though our workload has grown,”
stated a participant.
Findings From Document Analysis
Information from the group activity, where Camp Moxie employees divided into groups
to brainstorm ideas and suggestions for improving performance, resulted in three out of six
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

71
groups focused on communication. These three groups were also all from the second focus
group. Information from these group employee discussions also reinforces data regarding
assumed knowledge causes discussed earlier in this section.
Overall through the group activity the employees want to (1) improve communication
throughout park including within divisions as well as across divisions, by using better processes
for sharing information, engaging with supervisor in-person and having team meetings;
(2) improve teamwork with entire staff by having group meetings, planning social activities and
having performance based rewards; and (3) public outreach to improve opinions about the
organization. Additional implementation suggestions from employees will be discussed in
Chapter 5.
Findings from Interviews
Follow-up interviews offered similar findings as topics discussed during the focus
groups. Interviewees stated that the discussion during focus group was straightforward and on
track for the staff. Interviewees speculated about how the EVS scores might be different with
the current staff at Camp Moxie, referencing the amount of turnover since the completion of
EVS, who was asked to complete the EVS and perhaps the impact that opinions from employees
from the fire division would have on scores.
Employees want more information regarding the goals of the park, priority projects
and project information to be shared between divisions. When asked if an interviewee knew
the goals of this park, he responded with a chuckle saying, “There aren’t very clear goals and
maybe that’s why there is confusion.” It seemed that each level and/or division of employees at
Camp Moxie had a different priority, making collaboration difficult without communication.
One employee noted that division chiefs seem to be better at communicating amongst themselves
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

72
and some within their division staff but their goals may conflict with the overall goals of the
park. To aid in communication efforts Interviewee 3 also stated that minutes from division chief
meetings should be shared with division staff, but that it typically depends on the individual’s
style.
Employees want to have training opportunities. A Camp Moxie employee noted,
“training is helpful and useful but less available,” and felt that while computer-based training is
available, it is boring. Employees felt that staff members are receptive to improving their skills
and likely to attend training if available. Camp Moxie employees noticed that there are lots of
added or changed policies and procedures, but not necessarily training to develop management
skills or other supportive tools to help managers. An employee stated that manager-specific
training was previously available, but it was unclear whether it is still available, and/or if current
leadership at Camp Moxie is aware of it.
While there are changes that have impacted training and other aspects of work for Camp
Moxie, one interviewee felt that any suggestions or changes made during the focus groups were a
“non-issue due to sequestration.” Yet another employee argued that every person is being asked
to do more with less and now with sequestration it is even worse. An employee noted that there
seems to be a constant pull between the park and the region.
Employees need the opportunity to contribute their expertise and be involved in
transition planning. An interviewee said, “Leaders at the federal level may use data and
numbers to determine their choices, but the cuts and changes they are imposing make the job
impossible and overwhelming.” There was an overall realization amongst employees that a bulk
of the priorities and decisions at Camp Moxie were driven by the Superintendent’s viewpoint,
but some employees believed that this viewpoint did not include input from employees who have
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

73
know-how to share. With so much turnover and many cuts to positions, employees stated that
the lack of knowledge and skills causes gaps in their ability to get the work done. Some thought
that transition planning would be helpful. This planning is essential when considering
organization structure, position descriptions/clearances and the tasks at hand (e.g., only certain
levels of employees are allowed to operate company truck).
Synthesis of Results And Findings for Knowledge Causes.
Employees want more information and improved communication. The issues at
Camp Moxie around knowledge causes for low employee satisfaction are largely connected to
two concerns: communication and lack of training. Validated causes from the data sources
(observations, action planning and interviews) indicate that employees want more information
than they are receiving through current communication processes, including quality of face-to-
face interaction with supervisors and information shared across divisions. Employees also want
more have more opportunities for training.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Assumed Causes From EVS Survey Results
While the EVS survey for Camp Moxie indicated gaps related to motivation, what we do
not know is any detail beyond the limitations of these question. The EVS data indicate that
assumed causes affecting motivation are: (1) employees at Camp Moxie are not satisfied with the
recognition they receive from management for doing good jobs (question number 65; score
50%); and (2) employees are not satisfied with their opportunities to get a better jobs in their
organization (question number 67; score 50%). In gap analysis terms, motivation gaps usually
are a symptom of lack of purpose or interest that is influenced by internal and external factors.
As discussed in Chapter 2, concerns about communication, efficacy, leadership and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

74
accountability will likely impact motivation. Thus the observations, document analysis and
interviews provide more detail from the employees’ perspectives on what they are seeking.
Findings from Observations
Overall themes in this section as also supported by EVS data suggest that employees
want more recognition for their work. Additionally, employees are looking to develop in their
careers at the NPS and are concerned about available opportunities. Employees at Camp Moxie
were impacted by sequestration on multiple levels. While the new restrictions on funding have
eliminated opportunities to gain knowledge as discussed in a previous section, there has also
been an influence on motivation.
Employees want more recognition for their work. Employees understood the
limitations of performance-based rewards due to sequestration, and in general accepted this as a
reason for fewer incentive or recognition programs of this nature. Employees clearly understood
that the NPS as an organization, and not necessarily the immediate supervisors or
Superintendent, imposed these limitations. However, employees noted the value of feedback
and appreciation from their supervisors. Employees felt that it was a supervisor’s role to offer
appreciation and noted that a little thankfulness goes a long way. “Having somebody come out
and see what we are doing and to simply say, ‘Good job’ would be great because I will know I’m
doing the task right,” noted one employee. Participants stated, “We do what we are told” which
also inferred that decisions typically do not include input or expertise from staff.
Other employees felt that while there are no formal recognition programs, it would be
good to have personal recognition (e.g., via email or documented record for file), a few hours off
as a reward or other form of thanks. Employees want to know their contributions and their work
are making a difference.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

75
On the other hand, employees shared that some supervisors strongly enforce the limits of
a work schedule, thus encouraging staff to stay within their allotted hours of work, which is
typically 40 hours per week and no taking work home. Employees shared a sense of
appreciation for this guideline and valued the apparent respect for their personal time. They also
affirmed thankfulness for being able to deal with family/personal issues if needed with time off.
Employees want opportunities to build teamwork at the park. Camp Moxie
employees had a moderate level of camaraderie and teamwork. Employees take pride in their
work and continue to work hard, noting that a bonus would be appreciated, but is not the primary
reason for their dedication. Employees emphasized the need for more opportunities for team
building and interaction led by the Division Chiefs. While employees seemed to find a way to
collaborate, it appears that was an informal way of functioning at Camp Moxie. Together
employees have made some choices to continue services that were otherwise supposed to be
eliminated. For example, programs and group visits were supposed to be scaled back but
employees chose to continue services to the children and schools in their community.
Employees want career advancement opportunities. Camp Moxie employees also
discussed the limited opportunity to grow within the organization, while staying rooted in the
local community. Most agreed that the opportunity to progress in their careers would require
relocation. While expressing frustration some employees explained that they opted to stay in
lesser positions, in order to stay at this location. One employee expressed, “If you don’t move,
you don’t advance. End of story.”
Employees noted that in order to progress in their careers, they would likely not stay at
this site or would have to take a position that was less than ideal (i.e., seasonal, less pay, etc.).
Some employees talked about their commitment to this particular park and the surrounding
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

76
community and therefore they were unwilling to relocate. Employees clearly understood that the
NPS as an organization imposed most of these limitations, and not necessarily the immediate
supervisors or Superintendent.
Employees need sustainable employment positions at the NPS. One strong discussion
amongst participants was regarding seasonal employees. From the employees’ perspective, it
seemed that more positions are now categorized as seasonal employment than in the past, which
means the positions do not qualify for all benefits from the NPS. At one focus group, nine of the
thirteen (69%) attendees were seasonal employees. Seasonal employees were concerned about
being rehired for the next season and what influence the Superintendent may or may not have on
that decision.
Findings from Document Analysis
Information from the group activity, where Camp Moxie employees divided into groups
to brainstorm ideas and suggestions for improving performance, resulted in two out of six groups
focused on building teamwork (Appendix E). Information from these group employee
discussions also reinforces data regarding assumed motivation causes discussed earlier in this
section.
Employees want to build teamwork between divisions. Employees had suggestions
for building teamwork within the park, which included multifunctional projects that required
collaboration amongst divisions, all-staff meetings, and informal and/or social events (e.g.,
potlucks). Employees felt activities such as these would help to increase teamwork amongst all
levels of park staff, while also getting to know staff members on a personal level.
Employees want to improve teamwork at Camp Moxie. Ideas for addressing
teamwork included: group meetings, ensuring there is sufficient time for meetings that include
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

77
dialogue and input from staff, increased education/training on tasks of other divisions (e.g., basic
awareness on fire certification) and staff gatherings (e.g., potlucks). Additionally:
Employees want opportunities to share input. There was a clear indication about
sharing knowledge and expertise when it came to planning projects, transition of
positions/workload and regarding having time for discussions at meetings, which also is
supported by data from previous knowledge section.
Findings from Interviews
Follow-up interviews allowed volunteer participants an opportunity to further discuss
topics that were raised during focus groups and/or share additional thoughts.
Employees need career advancement opportunities to stay motivated. Employees
felt there was little room for advancement and these opportunities were scarce. One employee
stated, “I had to take a lower paying job and took a pay cut of about $16,000 to stay with the
NPS. But I made this choice, rather than taking early retirement.” The interviewee went on to
say that they felt the NPS is “an outstanding organization” but felt the organization could still
improve.
Employees want opportunities to connect with team members. In the past there was
more of an effort to bring staff together but employees indicated that that does not happen
anymore, and felt there is no sense of team. One interviewee felt there was a limit to what the
NPS could offer in order to make an employee happy at work and stated, “Individual
personalities are going to be unhappy no matter what. They can’t handle the stress of changes.”
While sequestration is an issue that has impacted the park, one interviewee felt that other
employees needed to “be thankful for the job that they have and appreciate the aspects of the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

78
organization [i.e., federal position with good benefits] rather than complain about what is
missing.”
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
The issues at Camp Moxie around motivation causes for low employee satisfaction are
largely connected to two concerns the need for teamwork and opportunities for recognition, job
growth and sustainability with the NPS. These motivational causes were validated by the data
sources that included observations, action planning and interviews.
Camp Moxie employees want a shared sense of teamwork amongst their peers, however
there is an issue related to the communication and feedback gap between managers and
employees and also between divisions. Most felt that collaboration amongst divisions could be
improved in an effort to create cohesiveness at the park, which in turn could also impact efficacy.
At the same time, while most employees seem to accept the limitations due to sequestration,
employees still want feedback and input from managers in a way that is meaningful (which was
also discussed in the knowledge section).
The data collected also validates that the lack of recognition and opportunity for job
advancement was a motivation cause for low employee satisfaction at Camp Moxie. Employees
want more opportunities for career advancement within the park yet see few becoming available.
And in fact, the employees’ perception is that there has been a shift to maintain more seasonal
employees, rather than regular employees. This is seen as unfavorable because seasonal
employee status is less than desirable due to lack of benefits, stability and longevity.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

79
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Assumed Causes From EVS Survey Results
While the EVS survey for Camp Moxie indicated gaps related to organizational barriers,
what we do not know is any detail beyond the limitations of the survey questions. The EVS data
indicate that assumed organization causes affecting satisfaction are listed here started with the
lowest score for this group of questions: (1) pay raises do not depend on how well employees
perform their jobs (question number 33; score 25%); (2) in the work unit, differences in
performance are not recognized in a meaningful way (question number 24; score 33%);
(3) employees’ workloads are unreasonable (question number 10; score 44%); (4) employees’
performance appraisals are not fair reflections of their performance (question number 15; score
44%); (5) promotions in the work unit are not based on merit (question 22; score 44%; (6) in the
work unit, steps are not taken to deal with poor performers who cannot or will not improve
(question number 23; score 44%); and (7) the skill level in the work unit has not improved in the
past year (question number 27; score 44%). Four of these questions are a part of the lowest
performing EVS category, Performance-Based Rewards & Advancement. From the literature
review in Chapter 2, concerns around accountability will likely impact organizational causes of
low employee satisfaction. Data from observations, document analysis and interviews provide
more detail from the employees’ perspectives on the definition of information they are seeking.
Findings from Observations
Sequestration also has impacted the NPS and how it operates organizationally. As stated
in the prior section, employees seemed to accept the limited availability of performance-based
rewards due to sequestration. Promotions and advancement of careers at the NPS is another
concern voiced by employees at Camp Moxie and discussed in the motivation section.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

80
Employees noted the overarching theme of doing more with fewer resources. It was clear to
employees that there is an additional focus on data and reporting to regional levels and they
realized that having these reports may or may not impact the availability of positions and
resources at the park.
Employees want performance evaluations that are based on merit. Employees also
discussed the Employee Performance Appraisal Plans (EPAP) tool. The perception is that it
seems less burdensome for managers to score an employee as average because it entails less
justification on the performance document (e.g., less paperwork).
Employees want clarity on job descriptions and responsibilities, while also retaining
a reasonable workload. Employees discussed the tension that happens when positions are
eliminated or left vacant for an extended amount of time. To the employees who remain, their
perceptions are that the workload that is left by vacant positions becomes an added responsibility
to them. To employees, it seems that less staff means the park has less presence in the
community, less coverage when caring for the park or enforcing rules, and the remaining
workload seems overwhelming. Employees stated that even if the tasks are not particularly
assigned to them, many felt obligated to volunteer to do these duties on in order to keep the park
running smoothly.
Along the topic of hiring new employees, there was discussion during the focus group
about misuse of the Pathways program, which is intended to recruit new employees into the NPS
through partnerships with colleges and universities. However, the employees argue that
nationally, this program has evolved as an opportunity to utilize “cheap labor” until students
graduate. Employees noticed that they have not seen recent offers for NPS employment made to
these students.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

81
The cuts to the budget have also significantly changed the number of enforcement
officers at Camp Moxie and in turn have changed the role of the enforcement division to have
less of a presence throughout the park. There is a clear indication that safety is a concern to
these staff now that their division has been significantly downsized. Without the sufficient
manpower, there is not any backup during confrontations. Additionally, enforcement officers
felt that their role is now less about preventative measures and that without proper staffing, they
do not have the power to properly enforce the rules/laws of the park.
Also noted was the perpetual difference between the fire division and other Camp Moxie
divisions. Employees expressed a clear understanding that the fire unit, including the Division
Chief and team members had a clear, ongoing relationship that included clear communication
amongst divisions. More so, it was common knowledge that the fire division operated separately
under its own set of operating guidelines and budget. In turn, this team seemed less impacted by
difficulties that other Camp Moxie employees discussed, including lack of equipment and
personnel to do the job efficiently.
Employees need guidance from supervisors regarding how to address impact of
budget cuts. Camp Moxie employees were aware of sequestration and the subsequent budget
cuts that have impacted their work environment. With fewer positions available and longer
breaks between hiring new staff, current employees realize that the workload will be either left
undone or reassigned to another person who may or may not have the skill set to do the job.
Employees want a collaborative work environment supported by the organization.
Employees noted that “teamwork” across divisions is missing and not encouraged by
management. While this was previously discussed as a cause under knowledge, it is also an
organizational issue as well. Some employees indicated that this mindset was a result of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

82
previous division chiefs that were no longer at the park, but that the culture of silos persisted
under the current administration. Yet at the same time, most employees indicated that they
would like to know more about the activities of other divisions and were interested in building
teamwork approach to issues or projects at the park. Employees recognize that better teamwork
across divisions could lead to a better use of limited resources, improved scheduling of projects
and more cohesiveness in approaching projects and tasks at the park.
Employees want the public to have more knowledge about the NPS. From a broader
perspective, employees indicated a need for more public awareness about the mission of the NPS
and perhaps local marketing for Camp Moxie. The idea is for the public to better understand the
resources available through the bureau and to instill a sense of care for the land, animals and
other natural elements. At the same time, this effort may bring more users to the park for
educational and recreational purposes.
Findings from Document Analysis
Information from the group activity, where Camp Moxie employees divided into groups
to brainstorm ideas and suggestions for improving performance, resulted in one out of six groups
focused on performance based awards (Appendix E). Information from these group employee
discussions also reinforces data regarding assumed organization causes discussed earlier in this
section.
Employees want performance-based rewards and appreciation from NPS
leadership. Group presented ideas that included non-monetary rewards such as time off, food,
and/or an appreciation certificate or token (e.g., the magic wand, which gets passed on to next
person being recognized). On a bureau level, the suggestion is to reinstate the Star Awards
Program that had been discontinued presumably due to sequestration.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

83
Findings from Interviews
Interviews offered volunteers an opportunity to further discuss topics from focus groups
and/or share additional thoughts.
Employees would like more opportunities to have input in decisions for the park.
Camp Moxie employees realize that the Superintendent controlled the priorities at the park, but
felt that their input could be assets in decision-making and planning. For example, employees
were aware that the superintendent had the ability to direct funds to special projects of his choice
by utilizing dollars saved from vacant positions. Yet employees felt their input could assist in
planning and add additional perspectives from implementation aspects. More specifically, an
interviewee supposed that the current superintendent chose to redirect funds intended for an
enforcement position towards a position that was related to his priority project.
Employees expressed a need for more positions to balance workloads and operate
the park successfully. An interviewee felt there is a lack of personnel to do the job well. For
example, there are too few positions available for essential staffing such as law enforcement,
which means, “the park is being damaged, used for illegal activities and there seems to be no
safety at the facility.” With limited law enforcement staff available at Camp Moxie, employees
felt that this division cannot fulfill its mission without a greater risk of harm to themselves and in
turn, tend to be reactive rather than proactive when administering rules and laws. At the same
time, the number of seasonal positions grows. Employees noted that a person could make a
career of being a seasonal employee (linking several seasonal positions together over time). Yet,
seasonal workers do not get benefits (e.g., health insurance, retirement, maternity leave, etc.)
which seems unfair to employees.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

84
Employees want to share information with decision makers (at the park and the
region). Employees’ perception is that the organizational structure at the NPS includes levels of
management that are seemingly far removed from the reality of operating a park. “Do they
really know what it takes to run, maintain and upkeep a park?,” stated one employee. “Managers
are accountable for so many data reports but does that really help us with the day-to-day
operations.” “While the leaders at the federal level may use data and numbers to determine their
choices, the cuts and changes they are imposing make the job impossible and overwhelming.”
“The things that are important to their perspective are not a concern on the ground level.”
Additionally, employees would like to see more use of telecommuting options at Camp Moxie.
Currently, the Superintendent and management at this site are “not even open for discussion”
around this topic.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organization Causes
In the category of organization causes of low employee satisfaction at Camp Moxie, two
main concerns include maintaining a reasonable workload and issues around performance
appraisal. These organizational causes were validated by the data sources that included
observations, action planning and interviews.
The employees seemingly accept the restrictions imposed by federal sequestration that
may affect pay raises and/or recognition programs (also related to motivation causes), but
indicate that there are still steps that management could do to support staff and perhaps ensure
the workload is manageable. While there may be good reasons for decisions made by the
Superintendent and division chiefs, that information needs to be openly shared with employees
so that other (false) assumptions are not made.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

85
Summary
The research process for this study started with 2012 EVS results for Camp Moxie,
looking at questions that had scores below the 60% positive threshold set by NPS leadership, as a
cause for concern. At this site, there were sixteen questions that had a score below 60% and
served as the starting point for considering assumed causes of low employee satisfaction. Six of
these questions comprised the Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement category that was
the lowest performing category of fourteen. These questions were categorized into the factors of
the gap analysis model resulting in one question related to knowledge, two questions related to
motivation and the remaining thirteen related to organizational barriers. Data from observations
and action planning activity (document analysis) during employee focus groups as well as
information gathered during one-to-one employee interviews contributed to the validation of
assumed causes. Table 7 indicates the assumed causes that were validated by all three data
sources. In the area of knowledge communication is the issue. Employees want more
information than they are receiving through current communication processes. More specifically
employees want quality of face-to-face interaction with supervisors and to have the opportunity
to share information across divisions. In the area of motivation, employees want feedback, input
and/or recognition from managers in a way that is meaningful. Employees are committed to the
organization and would like more opportunities for career advancement within the park and the
NPS. Moreover, employees have a perception that there is a shift to utilized more seasonal
positions within the organization than in the past. In the area of organizational barriers
accountability is the issue. Employees want a reasonable workload despite the recent budget
cutbacks and other limitations. Additionally, employees felt that they have valuable input to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

86
share that could be beneficial in the decision-making regarding potential cuts in positions and
resources.

Table 7
Validated Assumed Causes at Camp Moxie
EVS Data Observations Interviews
Knowledge Employees want more
information and
improved
communication
Employees want more
information and improved
communication
Employees want
more information and
improved
communication
Motivation Employees want more
recognition for
performance
Employees want more
recognition for
performance
Employees want
more recognition for
performance
Employees need
opportunities to grow
in career
Employees need
opportunities to grow in
career
Employees need
opportunities to grow
in career
Organizational Employees need a
reasonable workload
Employees need a
reasonable workload
Employees need a
reasonable workload

Employees want suggested improvements to be a priority for Camp Moxie. Regarding
the recommendations discussed during the focus group, interviewees felt that in order for any
changes or improvements to happen, the superintendent would have to first make the idea of
implementing changes a priority for Camp Moxie. This would entail specifically assigning an
employee to oversee and ensure follow-through on changes. Ideas for implementation include
connecting assignments to employee appraisals and/or creating a committee or group to work on
plans. However, the perception is that the superintendent needs to be interested in implementing
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

87
changes or plans for improvement will not move forward, even if these changes are important to
the staff.
Solutions for the validated caused and an integrated action plan will be described in
Chapter 5.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

88
CHAPTER 5
SOLUTIONS
The purpose of this study was to understand the assumed causes for low employee
satisfaction at Camp Moxie. To start, the EVS questions were sorted into categories of gap
analysis that resulted in a breakout of: 8% in knowledge, 20% in motivation, 57% in
organization, and 15% were not categorized. The questions that were not categorized were
focused on job options (i.e., telecommuting, wellness programs, etc.) that are not available at
every park and therefore not considered in our study. Rueda (2011) warns that making
assumptions about causes of a problem without validation could lead to greater concerns or could
lead to a missed opportunity to find a true solution. Moreover, many organizations typically do
not make a strong connection between the larger overarching goal and the specific team goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Validated Causes of Low Employee Satisfaction
After review of Camp Moxie’s 2012 EVS scores, particularly those questions that scored
below the established threshold of 60%, researchers went on to collect data to validate assumed
causes (see Table 7). There were three sources of qualitative data collected specifically the
onsite observations, the document analysis of the employees’ action plans, and telephone
interview data were collected to better understand the knowledge, motivation and organization
challenges Camp Moxie employees encounter and used to triangulate and validate the assumed
causes. Meaning, issues that were identified by low EVS scores for Camp Moxie also surfaced
in conversations during focus group discussions, action planning activity (document analysis)
and follow-up phone interviews.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

89
This chapter follows the format of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, starting
with suggested solutions in the area of knowledge, followed by motivation and organization.
Solutions are also supported by research.
Recommended Solutions And Rationale
The commitment to improving employee satisfaction has been an ongoing focus of NPS
leadership. In 2008, the NPS Learning and Development Report to the National Leadership
Council (NPS, 2008) specified recommendations for improvements in professional development
efforts at the NPS. Recommendations included greater access to training and development
opportunities, a reformulation of curriculum that focuses on cultivating competencies of leaders
and managers, and lastly, an acknowledgement of the need for “renewed communication and
collaboration” amongst all levels of the NPS.
Later, a service-wide initiative entitled, A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second Century
of Stewardship and Engagement (NPS, 2011), which spans 2011 to 2016, called for enhancing
professional and organizational excellence. The focus is to not only adapt to the changing needs
of visitors but to also “encourage organizational innovation and give employees a chance to
reach their full potential” (p. 5). Goals include attention to the development of employees’ skills,
building organizational culture, recruiting and retaining a robust workforce, and modernizing
systems using technology to improve communication (p. 21). In 2012 an additional action was
added to this plan, to “engage our workforce by leveraging strong employee commitment,
exceptional leadership and improved management practices” (p. 22) by offering assistance to 50
parks to include individualized assessments that target communication, recruitment, recognition
and career development.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

90
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest a cost-benefit analysis may be necessary before
attempting to close performance gaps. In this chapter, most solutions will focus on the park level
and will consider fiscally viable options that both Camp Moxie leaders and employees can
realistically implement within their immediate environment.
Solutions for Knowledge Causes
Validated cause: Employees want more information and improved communication.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that gaps in knowledge occur when employees do not know how
to achieve tasks and accomplish goals due to lack of skills or information. Withholding
important information and poor communication, however, are very common sources of
knowledge problems in large organizations (Clark & Estes, 2008). At the same time, individuals
may not be aware of their lack of skills or knowledge. If a person does not know how to reach
their performance goal it “usually indicates a need for information job aids or training…[or]
continuing or advanced education” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 58). The authors define training as
where people get “how-to” knowledge and have the opportunity practice with guidance
regardless of the setting in which it is delivered.
As discussed in Chapter 4, the validated causes for knowledge performance gaps of
employees at Camp Moxie is that they need more information and improved communication
processes (item number 64 on the 2012 EVS). Communication has also been identified as
having an impact on performance as discussed in Chapter 2, in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational barriers.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

91
Conceptual and procedural.
Collected data indicated that:
Employees want more information about performance and improved communication
processes. The types of knowledge needed are both conceptual, which includes an
interrelationship amongst individual roles, the team and the organization, as well as procedural,
which are skill and procedure specialties an individual needs to do their job (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). More specifically, employees reported the need for clarity about annual
goals; wanting to have engaging face-to-face communication with their supervisor or manager;
and to have opportunities to share information between divisions. Camp Moxie employees
indicate that they also need more information from management regarding feedback and clarity
about their work and how it relates to goals of the organization and perhaps the mission as well.
The assumption is that a breakdown in communication plays a role in employee’s attitude at
Camp Moxie. Employees want to grow in their expertise and/or cross train amongst divisions.
Additionally, employees thought that training for managers could be beneficial for developing
skills and techniques in this role for current and/or future managers. Information from this
analysis may provide guidance in terms of identifying a priority in training topics for managers.
The recommended solution is for staff and particularly managers, to first understand the value of
organizational communication, and second, for all staff to develop communication skills through
training.
Regarding communication, the literature review emphasized the importance of
communication within an organization and the influence it has on employee satisfaction. Pincus
(1986) indicates that employees’ perceptions of organizational communication are related to job
satisfaction. At the basic level, Camp Moxie employees are uncertain about, and cannot clearly
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

92
articulate, goals of the park. Specifically, for efficacy of mission-driven organizations such as
the NPS, Brown & Yoshioka (2003) note three basic principles that influence employee
attitudes: awareness, agreement and alignment. Employees need a better sense of the purpose
and/or goal of their work as it relates to the mission and/or goals of the park.
Communication, particularly across divisions, is also a challenge at Camp Moxie that
employees would like to address. Thomas et al. (2009) state 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. Communication between
supervisors and employees can impact employees’ job satisfaction (Clampitt & Downs, 1993;
Madlock, 2008). Miles et al. (1996) also found that communication from superiors correlates
with employee satisfaction.
Sequestration has impacted employees’ abilities to gain additional training, and thus
limiting availability of increasing expertise. Luthans et al. (2006) indicate general self-efficacy
of employees, including their ability to successfully perform in multiple situations, is
significantly and positively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. More
specifically, leadership style and communication competence have the greatest influence on
employee satisfaction (Clampitt & Downs, 1993; Madlock, 2008). Yet, while Camp Moxie
employees expressed their willingness to grow in their expertise, currently there is not additional
training for managers to develop their skills as a leader.
Importance of communication from leadership.
A recent study by Pandey and Garnett (2006) focused on an exploratory model of public
sector communication performance using information from private and public sector information
and studies regarding organizational communication. This study is thought to be the first large-
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

93
scale empirical study that specifically examines communication performance in the public sector.
Findings indicate that improving communication performance is an on-going process that should
be rooted in well-planned and well-executed interventions such as mission or goal clarity
(Pandey & Garnett, 2006).
White, Vanc, and Stafford (2010) found that the most important source of communication
is directly from leadership at the top of the organization and the more employees had access to
leadership, the more trust they had in the organization and the more satisfied they were with the
amount of information they received. Yet on its own, the authority structure in a public
organization is not enough to ensure participation from employees (Eglene, Dawes, & Schneider,
2007). A critical factor is indeed leadership and the ability to cultivate trust amongst peers.
Leadership that focuses on treating employees fairly and respectfully through honest and open
communication helps to create a strong organization (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999). Moreover,
leaders can increase employee satisfaction by increasing clear, effective communication with
employees about the organization’s goals and mission (Jung, 2013).
From an organizational viewpoint, executive leaders and managers should be aware of
the importance of using participative management techniques including employees’ participation
in strategic planning process, and the role of effective avenues of communication with
supervisors (Kim, 2002). Thus, leadership training programs within the organization should
include the development of skills in using employee empowerment techniques (Kim, 2002).
Effective communication could also enhance productivity, and focused training on specific areas,
such as personal feedback, would have desired effects on productivity improvement (Clampitt &
Downs, 1993). Hargie et al. (2002) note the powerful effects obtained from improving face-to-
face communication, preferably from a direct supervisor.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

94
Managers’ communication abilities can have a huge impact on employees. A manager
who is perceived to have supportive communication builds relationships with employees
(Madlock, 2008). A supportive communication style also encourages job autonomy (Peccei &
Rosenthal, 2001). Managers who encourage employee participation and show willingness to
listen to employees, improve employee self-esteem, which leads to organizational commitment
(Gaertner, 2000; Silverthorne, 2004). Without a strong relationship, managers are reluctant to
provide candid feedback or have open discussions so as to maintain relationships with employees
and in turn, employees who do not trust their managers are reluctant to engage in open dialogue
with managers for fear of retaliation (Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011).
Additionally, the frequency of communication needs to be balanced, because too little
breeds speculation and distrust, while too much results in ignoring information (White et al.,
2010). The less contact employees had with leadership the more skeptical they were and the
more they believed that information was filtered and inaccurate. But frequency is not associated
with improved performance, so communication practices must be used to effectively
communicate with employees (Johlke & Duhan, 2000).
A study by Kim (2002) found that government agency employees are more likely to
report higher job satisfaction if their leadership allows them to participate in decisions
concerning their work environments and if their communication with leadership is effective.
Wright and Davis (2003) define work environment as two external factors that can be influenced
by the organization to affect employee satisfaction in the public sector. The first is job
characteristics that describe duties that could impact meaningfulness to employees or affect their
growth and development. Secondly, work context describes the organizational setting such as
goals, and reward systems that impact performance.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

95
How information, particularly policies and procedures affecting work, is communicated
to federal government employees, has a significant effect on job satisfaction (Ting, 1997).
Meanwhile, information systems and red tape associated with communication have a “significant
and negative effect on internal communication performance” (Pandey & Garnett, 2006, p. 45).
These constraints may be overcome with performance enhancing conditions within the
organization including, clarity of goals that allows for some adaptability, expertise and resources,
and an overall organizational culture that is in alignment with the mission of the organization and
its stakeholders. Increased communication that is clear and specific with employees about their
job responsibilities while at the same time, limiting overbearing procedural constraints or
providing rationale behind policies or procedures, could also improve satisfaction (Wright &
Davis, 2003).
Importance of improving goal clarity.
Employees at Camp Moxie were also unclear about the goals of the park, which may be
tied to a breakdown in communication. Generally, goal ambiguity is one of the more widely
assumed characteristics of public organizations. Goal ambiguity is characterized as a
multiplicity of, conflict among, and vagueness of organizational goals (Pandey, 2010; Rainey,
1993). Public organizations do not choose their missions, but rather they are formulated at the
congressional level. Competing interests in the political arena require compromises which in
turn, trickle down to the organization in the form of organizational goal ambiguity (Pandey,
2010). Also part of the four Knowledge Dimensions by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
discussed in the previous section, are motivation beliefs and how they are related to self-efficacy,
goals and reasons for pursuing tasks and values and interests including usefulness and
importance.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

96
More specifically, conflicts in goal clarity can create a general feeling of frustration as
employees can become confused about their roles within the organization and their job
responsibilities (Wright & Davis, 2003). Research by Chun and Rainey (2005) resulted in the
development of four measures relating to goal ambiguity including: mission comprehension
ambiguity, directive goal ambiguity, evaluative goal ambiguity and priority goal ambiguity.
There is an inverse relationship between goal ambiguity and job satisfaction, meaning as goal
ambiguity increases, employees’ job satisfaction decreases (Jung, 2013). Additionally, Jung
(2011) identified three dimensions of organizational ambiguity to include: target specification
goal ambiguity, time-specification goal ambiguity and number of goals/priority ambiguity.
Research by Jung (2013) investigates the direct relationship between organizational goal
ambiguity and job satisfaction. Results of his study imply that “organizational ambiguity and its
multiple aspects need to be considered important predictors of job satisfaction of employees in
government agencies” (Jung, 2013, p. 20). Organizations that are strong performers instill a
sense of commitment to their mission and organizational goals amongst employees as well as
results-oriented implementation (Grindle & Hilderbrand, 1995). Additionally Jung (2013)
distinguishes these measures, identifying that mission comprehension relies on an individual’s
perception, while target ambiguity, timeline ambiguity and priority ambiguity are not reliant on
one person’s view.
Literature affirms the importance of goal clarity is crucial to deciding key outcomes,
which also influence employees’ attitudes regarding work and, in turn, overall organizational
performance (Pandey & Garnett, 2006). With that in mind, it is important to make sure that
people know what the expectations are, and to keep them apprised of the results (Liff, 2007).
Previous research supports the positive effect that role or task clarity plays on job satisfaction for
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

97
workers (Ting, 1997; Wright & Davis, 2003). Pandey and Garnett (2006) indicate that goal
clarity, also known as mission-driven design, has been a leading prescription for improving the
effectiveness of public organizations.
Working with employees to increase communication and effectively communicate the
organization’s goals and mission while making a sincere effort to minimize procedural
constraints may minimize goal ambiguity while increasing job satisfaction (Wright & Davis,
2003). While organizations may choose to focus on more than one goal at a time, there should
be a clear understanding of priority and preference of these defined goals (Pandey & Garnett,
2006; Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011). Using clear wording and providing support from leaders to
ensure employees understand the organization’s mission and goals could also influence job
satisfaction of public employees (Jung, 2013). Managers would also need to set specific targets,
establish clear timelines for performance goals and possibly encourage employees to focus on
just a few important performance goals related to their position (Jung, 2013).
Importance regarding the availability of training.
According to LaLonde (1995), public sector investments in training are extremely modest
compared to the skill deficiencies throughout these organizations. Similarly, in the private sector
employers have shifted much of the career development costs to employees, however with the
anticipated shortage of workers as more of the baby-boom workforce retires, employers will
need to battle to hang on to skilled workers (Sleezer & Dan, 2008). Pynes (2004) found that
most organizations lack a strategy that will close the gap and focus on the ongoing development
of skills and expertise which will take commitment, planning, money, resources and time.
Training can be used to address immediate needs of an organization, while development
focuses on cultivating long-term objectives and the ability to cope with change (Pynes, 2004).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

98
Training and development should be integrated into the organization as a continuous process
while also complementary to the organization’s mission (Pynes, 2004). Furthermore, training
and development are opportunities to also impact recruitment, career planning and the
compatibility between agency goals and employee aspirations (Pynes, 2004).
Ting (1997) found that “federal employees at all levels strive to make good use of their
skills and abilities and it is the most important factor in determining their job satisfaction”
(p. 324). Employees in the public sector are enthused by a variety of factors that include
opportunities for skill development and attention to the possibility of a long-term careers from
the organization (Wright & Davis, 2003). Employment-relevant skills such as analytic
techniques, management development and problem-solving skills should be emphasized (Grindle
& Hilderbrand, 1995) as well as skill development, career development strategies and providing
constructive feedback to employees (Wright & Davis, 2003).
Manager behaviors are some of the most important drivers of performance and require
that managers be trained in communication and trust-building (Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011).
Managers need to continually develop and/or increase their management skills and completing
additional training should be linked to job performance (Grindle & Hilderbrand, 1995).
Organizations could substantially impact employee satisfaction by using training programs that
increase the frequency and quality of feedback that employees get on the job (Wright & Davis,
2003).
Additionally, research indicates that employees are sensitive to knowing their jobs are
significant and appropriate to their levels of education and training, which indicates that a need
for understanding effective utilization of human resources is also important to leaders (Grindle &
Hilderbrand, 1995). Training is an effective use of an organization’s human resources and part
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

99
of its on-going planning (Pynes, 2004). The utilization of employees in the “right” positions is
related to the ability to retain qualified personal, along with a combination of a sense of mission,
professional identity and involvement, job satisfaction, and recognition for good performance
(Grindle & Hilderbrand, 1995).
Lastly, specific consideration should be given to determining how and when training and
development opportunities are most appropriately offered (Grindle & Hilderbrand, 1995). For
example, when new employees join the organization, orientation training that is task-specific and
clearly linked to instilling a sense of organizational culture is a successful method of preparing
people for their responsibilities (Grindle & Hilderbrand, 1995).
Goals.
The proposed solution for addressing the conceptual and procedural knowledge gap
would be for employees and leaders of Camp Moxie to focus on sharing more information using
communication options discussed in this section and providing training.
Communication.
Employees and managers would need to understand that communication is an on-going
process that will take effort from all levels of staff, to cultivate a method that works effectively
for Camp Moxie. Communication should be regular to ensure the flow of information
appropriate and effective for employees. Furthermore communication must be engaging and
two-way and not from the top down where possible. In addition, communication should be in-
person and also in the field (when possible) so that employees have an opportunity to show
managers their work and get timely feedback. Suggestions from focus groups and interviews
included: changing meeting days for managers and within divisions, reformatting method of
sharing meeting notes (e.g., shared folder in P-Drive), and quarterly all-staff meetings.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

100
Additionally, regarding clarifying goals, employees suggested posting park goals, and having
regular progress reports related to goals that include milestones and priorities.
Training.
Camp Moxie managers need confirmation on whether or not NPS training opportunities
are available; and, if in fact training is accessible, then sharing that information with all staff.
While the availability of training opportunities may be limited within the NPS, employees at
Camp Moxie could still expand their knowledge. Camp Moxie leaders could provide in-service
training and/or division chiefs could cross-train park employees. Additionally, learning
opportunities led by community resources or neighboring colleges could be another alternative.
These suggestions present opportunities for employees (and managers) to grow in their
understanding of roles and responsibilities while also increasing knowledge and capabilities.
Implementation.
Employing a strategic planning session that included all levels of employees from Camp
Moxie could be beneficial on many points. The planning and implementation of a strategic plan
could serve as the framework for improving goal clarity and initiating regular communication as
well as addressing needs for training. To start, a planning session that included staff from
various levels and divisions, would allow members to have input and participate in setting goals
while giving employees an opportunity to share knowledge and expertise for implementation.
All of Camp Moxie employees in essence would be working towards the same goals.
Additionally, employees would know specific goals and benchmarks of achievement for the
park, while gaining a better understanding of park priorities. Together, employees and managers
could identify training topics in which employees are interested and a plan for meeting these
requirements. Then park leaders (or other designee) could coordinate resources (i.e., in-service,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

101
cross division, and/or neighboring community services) to offer training on a quarterly basis.
Managers could also use the strategic plan to engage staff in monitoring progress and
commending achievements.
Timing of implementation starts as early as May, 2014, with the clarifying information
regarding the availability of training offered within the NPS. Then initiating a strategic planning
session for Camp Moxie would kick off in July 2014, in alignment with the new fiscal year; the
plan for the park would span the next two years in anticipation of the next EVS being
administered in 2016. This activity may require the use of a facilitator who is skilled in strategic
planning and creating implementation plans.
Once the plan is in motion (estimated September, 2014), regular updates on benchmarks
and goals would be shared quarterly and annually; with adjustments to specific duties or goals
made as needed. Additionally, managers and employees should include some aspect of duties or
goals identified in the strategic plan to annual performance evaluation to fully integrate plan with
operations.
Solutions for Motivational Causes
Validated causes: Employees want more recognition and career advancement
opportunities. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that motivation occurs not because an
organization exerts overarching control, but rather as a result of the interacting between a work
environment and its people. Motivation can be negatively influenced by organizational factors
such as ambiguous goals, dishonesty, pointless rules that prohibit workflow, excessive
competition and overly critical or negative feedback (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Mayer
(2011), the work environment, including goals and resources for achievement, influences our
motivation and level of effectiveness.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

102
Data described in Chapter 4 indicate Camp Moxie employees want more recognition for
their job performance and (item number 65 on the 2012 EVS) and that they need opportunities
for job growth within the organization (item number 67 on the 2012 EVS). These needs both
relate to elements of communication, efficacy, leadership and accountability and in turn impact
all three areas of the gap model, knowledge, motivation and organizational barriers. However, in
the root of this study started with identifying EVS questions into factors of the gap analysis and
these questions were categorized as primarily a motivation issue.
More specifically, employees want more feedback and appreciation from managers and
would like acknowledgment for doing a good job individually and amongst peers. Employees
want to know they are effective and that someone is taking notice of their work. Additionally,
Camp Moxie employees would like to have more opportunities to advance in their careers. They
would like to see promotions of individuals based on merit, and have the opportunity to stay with
this park while still growing in their careers.
Performance recognition.
Employees want more recognition for their job performance. Leaders play a significant
role in providing recognition. Recognizing employees’ efforts is essential to satisfaction in the
workplace (Gregory, 2009). Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006) indicate
that leader reward and punishment behaviors have significant relationships with employee
attitudes, perceptions and behaviors. Employees feel motivated to improve their performance
when managers convey confidence and trust, set and communicate high expectations because
employees feel valued (Dasgupta, Suar, & Singh, 2012). In fact, a basic level of trust is essential
to the relationship between manager and employee. Without trust, it is doubtful that there will be
constructive communication and engagement between a manager and employee (Pulakos &
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

103
O’Leary, 2011). Instead, when there is a high level of trust between managers and employees,
they are more comfortable with each other and more willing and able to engage in an effective
manner (Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011).
Reward, performance and satisfaction are found to be correlated and if employees are not
fairly rewarded then no improvement on performance can be expected (Priya, 2011). The closer
the rewards and recognition system is aligned with the organization’s mission, goals, objectives,
and performance management system, the more effective it will be (Liff, 2007). Key features of
a performance management system include alignment with strategies of the organization,
leadership commitment, an overall culture of identifying strengths and seeking improvement,
stakeholder involvement, and a continuous monitoring and feedback sharing (Fryer, Antony, &
Ogden, 2009). Additionally, performance management systems have difficulty when managers
do not take an active approach (Fryer et al., 2009). In response to employee efforts, excellent
performance should be recognized and rewarded while at the same time, it also important to
address poor performance as well (Grindle & Hilderbrand, 1995). Leaders need to find a balance
in providing praise and commendations to employees versus reprimands and social disapproval
(Podaskoff et al., 2006). Better performing organizations have evidence of opportunities for
“being singled out for excellent performance, a sense of professional community, friendly
competitions to achieve performance goals, promotion for good performance and involvement in
teamwork” (Grindle & Hilderbrand, 1995, p. 458). In addition, leaders need to clearly
communicate to employees and be consistent about the types of behaviors or accomplishments,
that merit praise and approval (Podaskoff et al., 2006).
Providing recognition and constructive feedback creates employees who are committed to
the organization (Dasgupta et al., 2012). Liff (2007) indicates that recognition is the most
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

104
effective when it is given as soon as possible following the accomplishment. Additionally, the
benefits of employee recognition, in the form of reward or punishment behavior include: role
clarity, perceptions of fairness, job satisfaction, trust in leader or manager, perceived support
form organization and organizational commitment (Podsakoff, Podsakoff, & Kuskova, 2010).
The type of recognition given should be consistent with the contribution that was made (Liff,
2007; Podsakoff et al., 2010). Additionally, all contributing members of a team project or effort
should usually be recognized, although the level of recognition per team member can vary,
depending on each person’s overall contribution (Liff, 2007).
Job opportunities.
Employees want opportunities to grow in their careers. Lack of job opportunities within
the NPS is a validated cause affecting employee satisfaction at Camp Moxie. Research indicates
the opportunity for job promotion is an element that is positively related in determining job
satisfaction (DeSantis & Durst, 1996; Durst & DeSantis, 1997; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
Employees that place a high value on advancement opportunities in their organization are more
engaged (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). And in fact, research indicates that the perceived lack of
promotion opportunities was the strongest reason as to why employees leave government
service, while annual and sick-leave benefits were the strongest reasons for staying (U.S. Merit
Systems Protection Board, 1987, as cited by DeSantis & Durst, 1996, p. 330).
According to Ting (1997), the lack of opportunities for advancement has significant
effect on decreasing job satisfaction for federal employees at the higher levels (GS-7 and above)
but not so for lower ranking employees (GS-6 or lower). Meanwhile, the length of time an
employee has the same position has a negative relationship to their commitment and job
involvement, which indicates the importance of having job growth and promotion opportunities
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

105
(Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Employees at the lower end of an organizational hierarchy are
more motivated by relationships with team members, monetary incentives, job security, good
benefits and respectable treatment by management (Gabris & Simo, 1995).
Promotion patterns that are strongly based on seniority rather than performance are also a
concern for public sector organizations (Grindle & Hilderbrand, 1995). The lack of job
opportunities may be worse for women, since about one in four supervisors and one in ten
executives in federal organizations are women (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1991 as
cited by Naff, 1994). While level of qualifications may account for some of the disproportion
between men and women, other factors such as mentoring, opportunities for mobility and other
informal practices impede women’s advancement very early in their careers (Naff, 1994).
Stereotypes and assumptions regarding a woman’s commitment to her job including being less
willing to relocate, less availability of time on the job or to work late, are often barriers to
potential advancement. Additionally, Gabris and Simo (1995) conclude employees in public
sector jobs are not motivated by a distinctive value that is specific to only this segment of the job
market, but by concepts that apply to any industry. In turn, if jobs in the public sector are
“challenging, monetarily appealing, secure, loaded with responsibility, full of autonomy and
well-supervised” then employees would be dedicated to their tasks and the industry could
potentially draw good recruits for the future (Gabris & Simo, 1995, p. 49).
Meanwhile, Camp Moxie employees have the perception that the NPS is using seasonal
positions more so, than in the past. This may also lend to the perception of limited job growth
opportunities as well. Government policies and budgeting have been instrumental in the
increased use of temporary workers (Conley, 2002). Additionally, contracting out for services
has also been increasingly utilized at all levels of government (Yang & Kassekert, 2010). Yet,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

106
Worrall, Cooper, and Campbell-Jamison (2000) found that hiring temporary staff or contracted
staff to replaced experienced workers has severely undermined the skills base of the
organization. Additionally, contracting out for services has been found to have a negative impact
on job satisfaction, therefore leaders and managers need to be aware of the potential stress it can
bring to employees (Yang & Kassekert, 2010).
Additionally, hiring temporary or contracted employees lends itself to a heightened
perception of power and control that managers may have over a vulnerable segment of temporary
employees (Conley, 2002). Organizational change in the public sector such as downsizing and
outsourcing has “radically reduced a manager’s sense of loyalty, motivation, morale and job
security” while also impacting satisfaction with career opportunities, recognition for
performance and autonomy (Worrall et al., 2000, p. 629). Moreover, the indirect costs
associated with contracting services include increased dissatisfaction, absenteeism and turnover
of employees (Yang & Kassekert, 2010).
Goals.
There are proposed solutions for park leaders to consider in addressing this gap. To start,
Podsakoff et al. (2010) recommendations for improving recognition includes: administering
rewards or punishments in a manner that is consistent and timely, specifying reasons for rewards
or punishments, personalizing reward to the receiver, and ensuring the scope of reward or
punishment matches the extent of the action. These suggestions also align well with other
knowledge needs discussed in the previous section, such as communication and information
sharing. Given the limitations of budget and rewards that may not be available within NPS,
Camp Moxie staff could collaborate to create informal or formal methods of recognizing
performance of all park employees (managers and employees). While it is important for leaders
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

107
and managers to acknowledge employee performance, it may also contribute to the overall
outlook of staff, if employees also have the opportunity to acknowledge managers/leaders efforts
as well. Award ideas may include those that are nearly free such as an employee certificate
award, VIP parking, or a simple acknowledgement at a meeting; or those that have a minimal
cost such as $5 coffee gift card (or other food establishment), special NPS Camp Moxie item
(e.g., lapel pin or shirt), or an hour off work. Employees also mentioned food as an incentive
(provided by administration) or being included at meetings (e.g., potlucks) to add to setting.
Target for implementation is in alignment with first quarter of implementing new park strategic
plan, starting in September, 2014, to identify agreed-upon methods with first awards made in
December, 2014, and quarterly thereafter (or as deemed appropriate).
The proposed solutions for addressing availability of positions and opportunities for
advancement directly relates to the larger organizational structures of the NPS. At best, this
information can aid the higher ranks of the NPS to understand the growing desire of employees
who want to grow within the organization, the impact of losing positions and how both aspects
correlates to employee satisfaction.
Within the park, managers may serve as a supportive advocate to employees who are
interested in pursuing new roles by sharing job announcements and perhaps offering other
backing as appropriate (i.e., letter of recommendation). To incorporate a sense of teamwork,
Camp Moxie managers may also consider cross-training staff, so that employees are gaining
knowledge and perhaps will be more prepared if positions become available in the future. This
was also a suggestion that Camp Moxie employees made during focus groups.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

108
Solutions for Organization Causes
Validated cause: Employees need a reasonable workload. According to Rueda (2011),
organizational practices, policies, and structures can influence whether employees’ performance
goals are met. Bandura’s (1997) Social Cognitive Theory that focuses on learning related beliefs
and values that impact active choice, persistence, and effort could offer a solution to these
organization causes. For example, allowing employees to participate in decision-making around
projects and/or work distribution, particularly when positions are eliminated, could help to
improve perception of feeling valued.
In considering the organizational culture and/or context of performance, Clark and Estes
(2008) generalize three areas of focus: (1) work process – how individuals along with resources
come together to get the job done; (2) material resources – tangible equipment and supplies; and
(3) value chains/streams – policies and procedures that guide interaction. Moreover, in terms of
evaluation, Rueda (2011) states that organizational culture is difficult to assess because it is not
always visible; typically the responses are automated and internalized and are based on a set of
values that are reflective of individuals’ contributions.
Data described in Chapter 4 indicate the validated causes for organizational performance
gaps include that employees need a reasonable workload (item number 10 of the 2012 EVS).
This question correlates to elements of accountability, efficacy, leadership and communication
that affect all factors of the gap analysis model. Again, the anchor to this study was the EVS
questions and this validated cause is identified as an organizational barrier of the gap analysis.
Employees expressed concern about the responsibilities that were not being met due to positions
that were eliminated or vacant for an extended amount of time.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

109
Resources and workload.
Employees want a reasonable workload. When comparing three sectors of work
industries (public, private and non-profit), Gabris and Simo (1995) found that public sector
employees were “at best insufficient and at worst burned out with public sector careers” (p. 48).
Employees in the public sector may start their careers because of an intrinsic value, perhaps to
serve a specific mission, but that motivation quickly dissipates and a career track in the public
sector is less than ideal (Gabris & Simo, 1995). More recently, government cutbacks and
inability to afford supplies, equipment and vehicles essential to work has hurt employee
performance (Grindle & Hilderbrand, 1995). Cutting costs by eliminating positions and shifting
the workload to other employees is another source of stress that impacts employee satisfaction
(Gregory, 2009).
Wright and Davis (2003) recommend that public sector organizations evaluate the variety
of employee duties, noting that routine, mundane tasks and responsibilities effect employee
satisfaction. Organizations that perform well tend to have organizational cultures that stress
flexibility, problem solving, teamwork, participation, and a strong sense of mission (Grindle &
Hilderbrand, 1995). Allowing employees to explore new solutions to tasks will require an effort
from management to reduce excessive procedural constraints while not fearing failure (Wright &
Davis, 2003) . Employees who can share their capacity in imagination, resourcefulness and
creativity in solving organizational issues appreciate having an innovative culture in the public
sector (Yang & Kassekert, 2010). Additionally, an innovative culture allows for improving
government performance while also allowing individuals to realize their potential (Yang &
Kassekert, 2010).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

110
Goals.
The proposed solution for addressing the organizational performance gap at Camp Moxie
is to provide employees with regular communication regarding position changes, responsibilities
of vacant positions and timeframe for hiring of positions. Additionally, affording employees the
opportunity to share insight and expertise (discussed earlier) could be useful to managers when
planning the elimination of a role, fulfilling needs in the interim and preparing for future
positions. This will be an on-going effort, starting in July, 2014.
Lastly, Camp Moxie employees also indicated the importance of working with
community partners to cultivate working relationships. Continuation of this practice seems
essential to current operations. If changes are needed, they should be openly discussed with park
employees in order to preserve working relationships and community ties. According to
employees, Camp Moxie currently has working partnerships within the 17 neighboring counties
to assist in monitoring and/or patrolling the park in an effort to minimize damages. An employee
stated, “It appears that we have given up on enforcing any rules at the park and in turn, there
have been more instances of illegal activity.”
Implementation Plan
The recommended solutions aim to address the validated causes identified at Camp
Moxie in the knowledge, motivational and organizational performance gaps. However each
issue is interrelated, meaning improvements and changes in one area will likely affect the others.
While the overall goal is to raise the EVS scores by 10% for Camp Moxie as a measure that
aligns with the NPS goal, perhaps what is more important to employees are the steps toward
improving job satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

111
The plan assumes implementation will begin leading up to the next fiscal year, in May
2014 following a review of this report in the spring. Table 8 is a summary of the validated
causes of low employee satisfaction, the solutions and the implementation steps for Camp
Moxie.

Table 8
Summary of Validated Causes, Solution and Implementation of Solutions
Validated Cause Solution Implementation
Employees want more
information and improved
communication. (K)
First understand the value of
organizational communication
and second to develop
communication skills of all staff.
Staff works together to clarify goals
of park and create a plan to monitor
progress. Plan also serves as a
framework for regular feedback and
ongoing communication.
NPS provides more training regarding
communication methods and
management skills. Camp Moxie
leaders create in-service and/or cross
division training opportunities.
Employees want more
recognition for
performance (M)
Create appropriate method of
providing rewards and/or
recognition (informal/formal) to
employees.
Podsakoff et al. (2006)
implementation method. Allow staff
input on types of rewards/recognition
that would be appropriate or valued.
Employees need
opportunities to grow in
career (M)
Managers serve as an advocate in
support of employees’ career
aspirations.
Allow employees to cross-
training to learn new skills.
Management can share information
and resources as available regarding
training, opportunities for
advancement and/or informal cross
training within divisions.
Employees need a
reasonable workload (O)
Clear communication regarding a
plan during vacancies for
workload and other
responsibilities.
Managers collaborate with employees
to plan for shifts in responsibility
when positions are vacant; allow
employees to share expertise in
planning; encourage ongoing efforts
to partner with community
organizations.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

112
Table 9 is the implementation plan for Camp Moxie, which addresses each
implementation recommendation as a series of cascading goals.

Table 9
Implementation Goals of Camp Moxie in 2014
Goal: EVS Scores will improve by 10% in 2016 for Camp Moxie
NPS Leaders Employees
Stakeholder
Goal
NPS will provide park
employees access to training
opportunities that focus on
improving communication,
developing leadership skills
and expanding professional
development.
Camp Moxie leaders will
demonstrate improved skills
in communication,
leadership skills and
management, which will
positively affect knowledge,
motivation and
organizational performance.
Camp Moxie
employees will
participate in efforts to
improve function in the
areas of knowledge,
motivation and
organizational
performance.
Cascading
Goal 1
NPS will reinstate/expand
training opportunities for
employees that include
communication, recruitment,
leadership, technology and
management as previously
identified as priority for the
21
st
century.
Target: June, 2014
Camp Moxie leaders will
utilize training opportunities
that are made available, in
an effort to improve
communication methods and
other aspects of
management.
Target June, 2014
Employees will utilize
training opportunities
available to them, in an
effort to improve skills
and prepare for
potential career growth.
Cascading
Goal 2
Camp Moxie leaders will
engage employee interaction
and create a communication
strategy for their division
that includes regular
interaction, face-to-face
meetings and on-site/in the
field visits with staff.
Target: June, 2014 on-going
Employees will openly
share information,
ideas, and expertise
with leaders in an effort
to improve park
performance.
Target: On-going

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

113
Table 9, continued
Goal: EVS Scores will improve by 10% in 2016 for Camp Moxie
NPS Leaders Employees
Cascading
Goal 3
NPS will provide consultant
or other individual to
facilitate strategic planning;
as well as other resources
needed for planning and
implementation.
Camp Moxie leaders will
engage all levels of staff in a
strategic planning session to
develop park goals and set
achievement benchmarks for
next two years. This plan
will also serve as a tool to
develop a communication
strategy, recognition
methods, and meeting park
needs.
Target: July, 2014
Employees will actively
participate in strategic
planning sessions in an
effort to better
understand park goals
and responsibilities for
the next two years.
Target: July, 2014
Cascading
Goal 4
Camp Moxie leaders will
clarify information regarding
availability of training
offered by NPS and relay
information to staff.
Additionally, leaders will
organize in-service and cross
division training
opportunities on a quarterly
basis.
Target: May, 2014
Employees will identify
training topic they are
interested in.
Target: July 2014
Cascading
Goal 5
NPS will allot resources to
each site to support
employee recognition
efforts.
Camp Moxie staff will collaborate to identify method
of recognizing employee performance that is unique to
the park (informal/formal). Employee recognition will
be incorporated into regular staff
communication/updates.
Target: September 2014 (identify method); first award
by December, 2014.
Cascading
Goal 6
NPS will revisit
organizational structure, to
create more opportunities for
career advancement that are
based on merit.
Camp Moxie leaders will be
supportive of career
advancement opportunities
for employees who are
interested.
Employees will
continue to engage in
learning opportunities
(formal and informal).

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

114
Summary
Chapter 5 listed the validated assumed causes of low employee satisfaction and presented
possible solutions to assist Camp Moxie in closing the employee knowledge, motivation and
organizational performance gaps. Closing these performance gaps will ultimately improve
employee satisfaction at the park. Rationale for the identification of these validated causes were
presented using data from EVS results, on site observations, documents analysis and employee
interviews.
Proposed solutions took into account employee needs for improved communication,
performance recognition, job opportunities and reasonable workloads as well as suggestions
made throughout data gathering. Implementation of these possible solutions was organized into
an overall goal of improving the EVS scores at Camp Moxie in 2016, with three goals that
targeted the NPS as an organization, park leaders and park employees, and cascading goals that
support these goals.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

115
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
Chapter 6 focuses on the final step in the gap-analysis process, evaluating the outcomes
(impact) of the solutions. This chapter includes a synthesis of results for addressing performance
gaps of low employee satisfaction at Camp Moxie followed by a discussion of the strengths and
weakness, as well as limitations of the study and suggestions for future research.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to focus on Camp Moxie, a site of the NPS, to explore the
reasons for employees’ low job satisfaction and to consider solutions. The study used Clark and
Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model to explore the current levels of satisfaction and the assumed
causes at Camp Moxie. Clark and Estes (2008) indicate three factors that should be examined
during analysis including: knowledge and skills, motivation to achieve goals and organizational
barriers, in order to determine steps toward performance improvement and successful
achievement (p. 43). This process provides detailed information regarding defined goals and
employees’ perceptions about their performance, and then enables researchers to provide
recommendations in addressing the gaps. The study questions guiding this gap analysis were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization causes that prevent 100%
employee satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Synthesis of Results
The study used mixed methods to validate the assumed causes of Camp Moxie. There
were three data components: (1) observations during the onsite focus group, (2) document
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

116
analysis and (3) individual interviews. An overall sorting found that the EVS questions were
categorized in the three areas: 8% in knowledge, 20% in motivation, 57% in organization and
15% were not categorized. The questions that were not categorized focused on job options (i.e.,
telecommuting, wellness programs, etc.) that are not available at every park and therefore not
considered in our study.
Assumed causes of low employee satisfaction were first identified using EVS scores, in
order to prioritize top issues for Camp Moxie. Next, data were collected from observations at
onsite focus groups and action planning activity (document analysis) with staff and through
interviews from a selection of focus group participants. The data were used to triangulate and
validate assumed causes found in all three sources, allowing the researcher to create specific
concentrated solutions for this park. Validated causes for low employee satisfaction at Camp
Moxie can be found in Table 7 in Chapter 4.
Strengths & Weaknesses of Approach
Strengths
The strength of the gap analysis process is the procedural method for helping
organizations achieve goals. The process engages participants to identify and validate
knowledge, motivation, and organization causes preventing goal achievement, and in identifying
solutions that will result in goal accomplishment. Additionally, the gap analysis model is
adaptable, making it suitable to a variety of organizations and/or companies. The causes and
solutions identified by the gap analysis process are based on sound scientific research
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) and, according to Clark and Estes (2008) research-based
analysis significantly increases the probability of goal accomplishment.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

117
Moreover, the gap analysis also includes evaluation steps that can be used to regularly
assess the effectiveness of implemented solutions. Clark and Estes (2008) argue that without a
valid and reliable system of evaluating the effects of chosen solutions, organizations are at risk of
implementing incorrect solutions and failing to close performance gaps. Therefore, the gap
analysis model enables flexibility and adjustment while implementing solutions. Other strengths
of the gap analysis include the ability to accomplish goals by making people more effective, to
save time and resources improving performance goals by focusing solutions on validated causes
of performance gaps, and to obtain data that accurately identify solutions that work and do not
work to increase the probability of effectively closing performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The NPS leadership provided a facilitator for the focus groups at this site, which offered a
seemingly “neutral” voice when discussing EVS results and suggested solutions from the
employee perspective. Camp Moxie employees understood the facilitator to be from within the
bureau, but also a former park member as well. The facilitators’ ability to quickly cultivate a
working relationship with employees was essential to this role for both employees and the
management team.
Weaknesses
A weakness of the gap analysis model is the amount of time that organizations and
employees need to commit to the process. Researching the available literature targeting the
proposed causes, taking the time to identify plausible solutions, implementing solutions,
evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions, and re-attacking when solutions are ineffective can
be overwhelming to potential users (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, those who are leading
the improvements must be appropriately trained on using the evaluation tools and reporting
results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This is particularly true in light of limited funding and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

118
human resources present in today’s organizations. Another weakness is the temptation to save
time, money, and effort by skipping steps in the process and attempting to close a performance
gap by using pre-conceived causes and solutions that sound good, and eliminating the crucial
evaluation step that determines the success or failure of chosen solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Finally, some organizations might not even attempt to use the gap analysis process because of
the belief that the process is too complicated and time consuming for the average person to use
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Furthermore, the information and potential solutions may be specific to Camp Moxie and
therefore may not help to significantly raise employee satisfaction throughout the national
organization.
Recommended Evaluation
Continuing to evaluate progress is a critical step to any implementation plan. Evaluation
provides evidence that the solutions did or did not work to close the gap being studied (Rueda,
2011). However, Clark and Estes (2008) state that all evaluation must include both reliability,
meaning a standardized method can give you the same results each time you measure, and
validity, meaning the evaluation measures what it is intended to measure.
The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) framework offers four levels of evaluation
including reaction, learning, behavior and results. This framework will aid in monitoring the
impact of the solutions implemented and on closing employee satisfaction gap. Additionally,
Watkins, Leigh, Foshay, and Kaufman (1998) notes that this framework offers a basic model for
“identifying and targeting training specific evaluation efforts” (p. 90), but suggests additional
steps within the four levels, calling it the Kirkpatrick Plus Model. The Kirkpatrick Plus
framework offers a proactive advantage by integrating evaluation into all steps of the process,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

119
requiring measure criteria be developed before process, rather than the “back-end” of the
traditional model (Watkins et al., 1998). The additional steps of the Kirkpatrick Plus Model will
be described within each level described below.
Level 1: Reaction
At Level 1, the evaluation is focused on assessing how satisfied or how excited
employees are about implementing the suggested solutions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Typically, employees are asked to complete a survey of questions to determine how enthusiastic
they are about implementing a new program (Rueda, 2011), which, in this case, addresses
suggested solutions to close the employee satisfaction gap. Watkins et al. (1998) suggest in the
Kirkpatrick Plus model that survey questions include the following additions: (1) having access
to books, computers and other resources readily available and the quality required for training
experiences and (2) are training processes efficient and acceptable. These additional questions
will aid individuals that are tasked with leading improvement programs by providing valuable
information for constant improvement that can be reported to managers and/or decision makers
(Watkins et al., 1998). Overall the survey will use a Likert-type scale with ratings ranging from
“very enthusiastic” to “not enthusiastic. “ A positive Level 1 result typically indicates that
participants are motivate to continue and to invest effort into the program (Rueda, 2011). Based
on information gathered at Camp Moxie, expectations are high that employees will be interested
in implementing solutions to the barriers that they identified as preventing them from being
satisfied at work.
Level 2: Learning
At this level the evaluation is looking at the impact of programs while they are being
implemented and may serve as an early opportunity to make any adjustments to a program
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

120
(Rueda, 2011). With a greater focus on training effectiveness, Level 2 evaluation may be one of
the most important aspects of the Kirkpatrick model an entry point that allows for continuous
improvement of a program (Osborne & Cowen, 2002).
For knowledge, Level 2 evaluation examines the learning that is taking place, and for
areas of motivation and organization is examining the progress that is taking place (Rueda,
2011). Knowledge changes will be assessed using a questionnaire, but since motivational and
organizational changes at this level are best assessed using direct observation rather than self-
reporting (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006), perhaps an appraisal using observational protocol of
some kind. The measures used to assess motivational and organizational changes will include
direct observation of changes in employees’ performance or participation, and direct observation
of whether or not employees have the resources required to do their jobs. It is expected that
interventions targeting the knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of low employee
satisfaction proposed in Chapter 5 would increase the satisfaction of Camp Moxie employees.
Level 3: Behavior
This level focuses on assessing whether employees are continuing the behavior after the
intervention has been completed (Rueda, 2011). This level is concerned with looking at the
long-term impact, making it essential to “track impact of change programs after they are
implemented” to avoid negativity (Rueda, 2011, p. 135). For behavior to change four conditions
are critical, including: desire to change, what to do and how to do it, the right conditions and
rewards for changing (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). It is expected that increased
communication efforts, increased information and knowledge, increased employee empowerment
efforts, increased focus on including employees in the organization’s decision-making processes,
and increased emphasis on ensuring employees have the resources required to do their jobs will
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

121
translate into increased employee satisfaction ratings for their jobs and for other areas of their
work environment. Evaluation will be through interviews or other method that engages
interaction with supervisors and employees.
Level 4: Results
Evaluation is often referred to as “bottom line” results that indicate whether or not a
program made a difference (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Rueda, 2011). This level will help
assess whether or not the objectives of programs are being met. However some aspects of a
program may not afford tangible results using this level of evaluation when considering traits
such as leadership, communication, motivation, morale and so forth (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2006). While solution implementation is expected to immediately begin improving employee
satisfaction, closing the gap is expected to take time, particularly since the leadership style,
methods of communication, and levels of employee empowerment appear to be deeply
entrenched at Camp Moxie. Specifically, Level 4 will assess whether or not the gap between
Camp Moxie employees’ original satisfaction ratings and desired ratings are closing.
Limitations
There were some limitations to the research at Camp Moxie. EVS data was collected in
2012 and reported back to staff in 2013; however the results represented a small sample size in
which just nine out of twenty-seven Camp Moxie employees (30%) participated in the EVS.
Additionally, there has been significant turnover at Camp Moxie with only 12% still employed
since the last EVS was administered in 2012 and the time of this study. Moreover, during the
focus group when Camp Moxie employees were asked, most did not recall completing the EVS
or had moved/transferred to this park since the last EVS. In short, the EVS results may or may
not represent the opinions of current employees at this site.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

122
Another possible limitation is the number of Camp Moxie employees who attended the
focus group sessions and who volunteered to participate in the individual interviews. Camp
Moxie facilities were still open to the public during these activities, which meant employees
attended only if their schedules allowed. Also, on the day prior to our first focus group, the
Superintendent who leads the park’s administration at Camp Moxie informed the facilitator and
research group that he was not aware of the dates and times of the focus groups. Naturally, the
Superintendent had several questions as to the intent of the study and other logistics, which both
the NPS facilitator and the USC research team were able to clarify. At the same time, the
Superintendent initially appeared less than receptive to willingly participate but instead seemed
resigned to the fact that there was no alternative choice, knowing management above him
determined the scope of the study. In turn, his lack of enthusiasm may or may not have impacted
the remainder of the Camp Moxie management and staff.
Those employees who were able to attend the focus groups also had mixed expectations
in terms of length of the focus group and/or level of participation. Many employees commented
that they were expecting food at the focus group (perhaps due to timing in the day), though none
was provided. Additionally, the timeframe for the meeting was limited and may have prevented
the opportunity for an in-depth discussion with participating employees. Perhaps having more
than one meeting would have allowed employees more time to feel comfortable with sharing
their opinions and/or may have given employees time to further consider opinions to share.
Lastly, during the focus groups there is the possibility that accurate opinions were not fully
disclosed in discussions. Perhaps an overarching fear of some type of retaliation from
management and/or fellow employees prevented complete participation.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

123
Additionally, a low number of volunteer participants were available for follow-up
interviews. At the first focus group the facilitator did not follow established protocol for
recruiting volunteers to participate in follow-up interview with researcher. In turn, there were no
interview volunteers from the first focus group, which also limited data variety from interviews.
After the second focus group there were nine volunteers but only three participants met with
researchers (the goal was five participants). Two follow-up messages were sent via email, in
order to reschedule potential meeting times with candidates but none yielded additional
participants.
Finally, a limitation may be the abilities of the NPS facilitator to provide the audience
(i.e., management team, regional managers, etc.) with a clear, accurate and unbiased description
of Camp Moxie employees’ perceptions of employee satisfaction. Clarity regarding
interpretation of the questions by employees is left unanswered. For example, employees may
interpret “leadership” as their direct manager or at a higher regional level, which would affect
their responses to EVS question.
Future Research
Future research could aim its focus on how we improve job satisfaction, and what
elements make an impact. As mentioned earlier, there has been limited research specific to job
satisfaction in the public sector, yet there are some consistencies in the literature that can help to
explain what levers impact job satisfaction. Research by Ting (1997) indicated that job
characteristics, such as promotional opportunity, task clarity, pay satisfaction, and organizational
characteristics, such as a strong organizational commitment and a good working relationship
with managers and peers, are found to be highly related and have the strongest impact on job
satisfaction of federal government employees. This gives a foundational starting point when
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

124
considering job satisfaction in this sector of employment. However, what may be a more useful
is focusing on “the how” of improving employee satisfaction in the public sector.
Regarding the EVS, it may be helpful to clarify terminology used and/or redesign
questions to be more specific throughout the survey. For example, a question that refers to
“leadership” could be interpreted by a park employee as an immediate supervisor,
superintendent, regional leader and/or all of the above.
Future research specific to Camp Moxie could focus on acquiring a larger sample of
employee input on the EVS and through interviews, to ensure a more balanced perspective. In
this study, sample sizes were small in relation to staff size. Additionally, researchers may
consider two separate study groups: one of manager/leaders and a second of employees to
perhaps identify issues specific to each group. Results from this study focused only on employee
input during focus group observations and interviews. In either case, expanding the sample
would allow for critical viewpoints from Camp Moxie employees in different work contexts and
varied backgrounds.
Sequestration
The impact of sequestration and budget constraints continue to impact the NPS and parks
at the local level. The Federal Government has been making spending cuts that reduce overall
federal funding to state and local governments, which is a threat to thousands of jobs in public
and private sector, as well as reducing the creation of new jobs (Oliff, Mai, & Palacios, 2012).
In fiscal year 2013, the majority of states, 46 of 50, have reduced services in some way which in
turn impact residents as well as the overall economy (Oliff et al., 2012).
Employees at Camp Moxie were impacted by sequestration on multiple levels. Most
employees are aware of sequestration and the subsequent budget cuts that have impacted their
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

125
work environment. Employee noted in discussion that fewer positions were available which
impacts workload but also limits opportunities for job growth. Employees felt that there were
longer breaks between hiring new staff, meanwhile the workload was either left undone or
reassigned to another employee who may or may not have the skill set to do the job. Employees
were also aware that training and/or rewards were unavailable or limited due to sequestration.
Many employees were able to describe training programs that were in place prior to these cuts
and reminisced about the potential impact those programs could have for the current team
members. “We had a great training program 2 years ago, but now all that is gone even though
our workload has grown,” stated one participant.
Park Geography
Geography of a national park is a challenge for all locations in terms of variables such as
overall size of a park that typically includes multiple types of terrain as well as waterways, and
seasonal weather conditions. In order to effectively manage a large park, there are typically
multiple buildings sometimes separated by miles to house teams of employees. Additionally,
national parks have varying focuses such as wildlife preservation, maintaining historic
landmarks, education, tourism, outdoor recreation, protecting endangered species, or perhaps a
combination of all of the above. These focuses may impact priorities within departments or
divisions of a park. Overall, these characteristics of a park will impact the implementation of
solutions.
Conclusion
As NPS leaders looks to the future, a commitment has been made to improve the
workplace and prepare employees to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. This case
study focused on Camp Moxie (fictitious name) a site within the NPS that scored below the 60%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

126
threshold established by NPS on the 2012 EVS. Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
process, knowledge, motivation and organizational performance gaps were evaluated as possible
causes of low employee satisfaction. The study questions guiding this gap analysis were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes that prevent 100%
employee satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Root causes of Camp Moxie employee performance gaps were identified, triangulated, and
validated using three data sources: EVS data from 2012 specific to park, observations at focus
groups which included action plans created by employees and individual interviews with a
sample of employees. At Camp Moxie the validated causes pertained to employee needs for: (a)
more information and improved communication, (b) more recognition for job performance, (c) to
have opportunities to grow in career and, (d) to have a reasonable workload. Recommended
solutions to address the validated causes were presented for implementation and organizational,
cascading, and necessary performance goals were projected to start closing the employee
performance gaps and begin increasing employee satisfaction ratings by the 2014 and 2016 EVS.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level model of evaluation was also suggested to assess
the effectiveness of the recommended solutions.
The implication of this study adds to the growing foundation of scholarly expertise
focused on employee satisfaction in the Federal Government. These findings may be useful to
all federal agencies, by expanding our understanding of how increased communication,
accountability, and access to effective training can be fundamental to implementing positive
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

127
organizational changes. Ultimately, increasing job satisfaction will likely aid in improving
performance and longevity of the NPS workforce as well as other government agencies.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

128
REFERENCES
Ainspan, N. D., & Dell, D. (2000). Employee communication during mergers (Research Report
No. 1270-00-RR). New York, NY: Conference Board.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing.
New York, NY: Longman.
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, M. K. (2001). Confirmation and extension of the sources of
feedback scale in service-based organizations. The Journal of Business Communication,
38(2), 206-226.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Bass, B. M. (2008). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bontis, N., Richards, D., & Serenko, A. (2011). Improving service delivery: Investigating the
role of information sharing, job characteristics, and employee satisfaction. The Learning
Organization, 18(3), 239-250. doi:10.1108/09696471111123289
Branham, L. (2005). The 7 hidden reasons employees leave: How to recognize the subtle signs
and act before it’s too late. New York, NY: AMACOM.
Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2008). Politics as a
moderator of the accountability-job satisfaction relationship: Evidence across three
studies. Journal of Management, 35(2), 307-326. doi:10.1177/0149206308318621
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

129
Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting
organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 10(4), 685-712. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024287
Brown, W. A., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in
employee retention. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(1), 5-18.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2011). Self-
efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships
between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 27(1), 115-132. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2
Carpenter, G., & Wyman, O. (2008). The total financial impact of employee absences: Survey
highlights. New York, NY: Mercer (US) Inc.
Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in US
federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 529-557.
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between
communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business Communication,
30(1), 5-28. doi:10.1177/002194369303000101
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Breinigsville, PA: Information Age.
Conley, H. (2002). A state of insecurity: Temporary work in the public services. Work,
Employment & Society, 16(4), 725-737.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

130
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem (Vol. 23). San Francisco, CA: W.H.
Freeman.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Darvish, H., & Rezaei, F. (2004). The impact of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and team
commitment. Management & Marketing, 6(3), 421-436.
Dasgupta, S. A., Suar, D., & Singh, S. (2012). Impact of managerial communication styles on
employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Employee Relations, 35(2), 173-199.
DeSantis, V. S., & Durst, S. L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public- and private-
sector employees. The 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. doi:10.1108/17515630710684178
Downs, C. W., Clampitt, P. G., & Pfeiffer, A. L. (1988). Communication and organizational
outcomes. In G. Goldhaber & G. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
communication (pp. 171-211). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Durst, S. L., & DeSantis, V. S. (1997). The determinants of job satisfaction among federal, state,
and local government employees. State & Local Government Review, 29(1), 7-16.
Eglene, O., Dawes, S. S., & Schneider, C. A. (2007). Authority and leadership patterns in public
sector knowledge networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 91-
113.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

131
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two-
dimensional model. Scand J. Management, 7(1), 17-26.
Ellickson, M. C. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees.
Public Personnnel Management, 31(3), 343.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, D.C.:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Fernandez, S. (2008). Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee perceptions of
performance and job satisfaction. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(2),
175-205. doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576320201
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2010). Empowering public sector employees to improve
performance: Does it work? The American Review of Public Administration, 41(1), 23-
47. doi: 10.1177/0275074009355943
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168-176.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and
human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 1-51). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Fryer, K., Antony, J., & Ogden, S. (2009). Performance management in the public sector.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(6), 478-498.
Gabris, G. T., & Simo, G. (1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting
career decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24(1), 33-51.
Gaertner, S. (2000). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
turnover models. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 479-493.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

132
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.
doi:10.1177/1059601198231004
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The big-five factor structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
Gregory, K. (2009). The importance of employee satisfaction. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from
http://www.neumann.edu/academics/divisions/business/journal/Review2011/Gregory.pdf
Grindle, M. S., & Hilderbrand, M. E. (1995). Building sustainable capacity in the public sector:
What can be done? Public Administration and Development, 15(5), 441-463.
Grunig, L. A. (1990). An exploration of the causes of job satisfaction in public relations.
Management Communication Quarterly, 3(3), 355-375.
doi:10.1177/0893318990003003004
Hargie, O., Tourish, D., & Wilson, N. (2002). Communication audits and the effects of increased
information: A follow-up study. Journal of Business Communication, 39(October), 414-
436.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-
analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786077
House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional
research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 203-224.
Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

133
Humboldt State University. (2013). Wildlife. Retrieved from
http://www.humboldt.edu/wildlife/wildcareers.html
ICF International. (2011). Demographics 2010: Profile of the military community. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense.
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. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.02.012
Johlke, M. C., & Duhan, D. F. (2000). Supervisor communication practices and service
employee job outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 154-165.
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), 80-92.
doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.80
Judge, T. A., Hellerm, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541.
doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.530
Jung, C. S. (2011). Organizational goal ambiguity and performance: Conceptualization,
measurement, and relationships. International Public Management Journal, 14(2), 193-
217.
Jung, C. S. (2013). Organizational goal ambiguity and job satisfaction in the public sector.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1093/jopart/mut020
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

134
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(2000), 949-964.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231-241.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
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), 741-756. doi:10.1037/a0019237
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. (1990). Force for change: How leadership differs from management (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Free Press.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and
turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel
Psychology, 54(1), 101-114.
LaLonde, R. J. (1995). The promise of public sector-sponsored training programs. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 149-168.
Lam, C. S., & O’Higgins, E. R. E. (2012). Enhancing employee outcomes: The interrelated
influences of managers’ emotional intelligence and leadership style. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 149-174. doi: 10.1108/01437731211203465
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

135
Light, P. C. (1998). Sustaining innovation: Creating nonprofit and government organizations
that innovate naturally: San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Liff, S. (2007). Managing government employees: How to motivate your people, deal with
difficult issues, and achieve tangible results. New York, NY: AMACOM.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lindell, M., & Rosenqvist, G. (1992). Management behavior dimensions and development
orientation. Leadership Quarterly, 3(4), 355-377. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(92)90021-7
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL:
Rand McNally.
Lucas, S. (2012). How much does it cost companies to lose employees? Retrieved January 15,
2013, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-does-it-cost-companies-to-lose-
employees/
Luthans, F., Zhu, W., & Avolio, B. J. (2006). The impact of efficacy on work attitudes across
cultures. Journal of World Business, 41(2), 121-132. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.003
Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and
employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45(1), 61-78.
doi:10.1177/0021943607309351
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Applying the construct of job satisfaction to groups.
Small Group Research, 33(3), 271-312.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

136
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.
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, 277-292.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Finding workable levers over work motivation
comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment.
Administration & Society, 39(7), 803-832.
Naff, K. C. (1994). Through the glass ceiling: Prospects for the advancement of women in the
federal civil service. Public Administration Review, 54, 507-514.
National Park Service. (n.d.). Mission. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/mission.htm
National Park Service. (2008). Learning & development report to the National Leadership
Council. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/training/NPS_LDreportLR.pdf
National Park Service. (2011). A call to action: Preparing for a second century of stewardship
and engagement. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior.
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 professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire
survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(9), 1236-1244.
doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.03.001
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

137
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oliff, P., Mai, C., & Palacios, V. (2012, June 27). States continue to feel recession’s impact.
Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711
Osborne, R. L., & Cowen, S. S. (2002). High-performance companies: The distinguishing
profile. Management Decision, 40(3), 227-231.
Oshagbemi, T. (2003). Personal correlates of job satisfaction: Empirical evidence from UK
universities. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(12), 1210-1232.
doi:10.1108/03068290310500634
Pandey, S. K. (2010). Cutback management and the paradox of publicness. Public
Administration Review, 70(4), 564-571.
Pandey, S. K., & Garnett, J. L. (2006). Exploring public sector communication performance:
Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 37-51.
Partnership for Public Service. (2012). Best places to work in the Federal Government ® 2012
agency report. Retrieved from http://bestplacestowork.org
Peccei, R., & Rosenthal, P. (2001). Delivering customer-oriented behaviour through
empowerment: An empirical test of HRM assumptions. Journal of Management Studies,
38(6), 831-857.
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.
doi:10.1177/002194369703400105
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

138
Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationship
between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management
Review, 9(4), 712-721.
Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 12(3), 395-419.
Pink, D. H. (2010). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY:
Riverhead Books.
Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Relationships
between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions,
and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 113-142.
Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., & Kuskova, V. V. (2010). Dispelling misconceptions and
providing guidelines for leader reward and punishment behavior. Business Horizons,
53(3), 291-303.
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, October 1). A factor analysis of performance management system in a public
sector organization and its impact on job satisfaction among employees. Abhigyan,
XXIX(3).
Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 146-164.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

139
Pynes, J. E. (2004). The implementation of workforce and succession planning in the public
sector. Public Personnel Management, 33(4), 394-409.
Rainey, H. G. (1993). Toward a theory of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Research in
Public Administration, 2, 121-166.
Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations (4th ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of
effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 9(1), 1-32.
Rehman, M. S., & Waheed, A. (2011). An empirical study of impact of job satisfaction on job
performance in the public sector organizations. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 2(9), 167-182.
Repanshek, K. (2012, December 13). National Park Service still lags In “best places to work”
survey of federal agencies. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/12/national-park-service-still-lags-best-
places-work-survey-federal-agencies22574
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Davis, L. M. (1982). Individual differences among
employees, management, communication style, and employee satisfaction: Replication
and extension. Human Communication Research, 8(2), 170-188.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

140
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource
Management, 43(4), 395-407. doi:10.1002/hrm.20032
Salacuse, J. W. (2008, February 27). Real leaders negotiate [web log post]. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/2008/02/real-leaders-negotiate-1/
Shaw, K. (2005). Getting leaders involved in communication strategy: Breaking down the
barriers to effective leadership communication. Strategic Communication Management,
9, 14-17.
Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on
organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 25(7), 592-599.
Sleezer, C. M., & Dan, D. (2008). Strategies for developing a high-skilled workforce.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(1), 41-55. doi:10.1111/j.1937-
8327.2004.tb00301.x
Smerek, R. E., & Peterson, M. (2007). Examining Herzberg’s theory: Improving job satisfaction
among non-academic employees at a university. Research in Higher Education, 48(2),
229-250. doi:10.1007/s11162-006-9042-3
Smith, J. (2012, December 12). The best companies to work for in 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/12/12/the-best-companies-to-work-for-
in-2013/
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

141
Stohl, C. (1984). Quality circles and the quality of communication. Transactions, International
Association of Quality Circles, 6, 157-162.
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). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on
the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295-305. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295
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. doi:10.1177/0021943609333522
Thoms, P., Dose, J. J., & Scott, K. S. (2002). Relationships between accountability, job
satisfaction, and trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(3), 307-323.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.1033
Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees. Public
Personnel Management, 26(3), 313-334.
United States Census Bureau. (2012). Table 499. Federal civilian employment by branch and
agency: 1990 to 2010. The 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States. United States
Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0499.pdf
United States Office of Personnel Management. (2012a). 2012 federal employee viewpoint
survey: Employees influencing change. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2012/
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

142
United States Office of Personnel Management. (2012b). Summary results for National Park
Service overall. Washington, D.C.: Author.
van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration
Review, 63(2), 214-228.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter?
CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 134-143.
Wang, X.-H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational
leadership on followers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134-1144.
doi:10.1037/a0020754
Watkins, R., Leigh, D., Foshay, R., & Kaufman, R. (1998). Kirkpatrick plus: Evaluation and
continuous improvement with a community focus. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 46(4), 90-96.
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.
doi: 10.1108/17410401011089481
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. doi:10.1080/01463378409369555
White, C., Vanc, A., & Stafford, G. (2010). Internal communication, information satisfaction,
and sense of community: The effect of personal influence. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 22(1), 65-84.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

143
Worrall, L., Cooper, C. L., & Campbell-Jamison, F. (2000). The impact of organizational change
on the work experiences and perceptions of public sector managers. Personnel Review,
29(5), 613-636.
Wright, B. E., & Davis, B. S. (2003). Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work
environment. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 70-90.
doi:10.1177/0275074002250254
Yang, K., & Kassekert, A. (2010). 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. Y., Yeung, A. C. L., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2008). The impact of employee satisfaction
on quality and profitability in high-contact service industries. Journal of Operations
Management, 26(5), 651-668. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2008.01.001
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
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, XIII(4), 483-499.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

144
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF EVS RESULTS FOR CAMP MOXIE

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

145

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

146

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

147

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

148

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

149

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

150

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

151

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

152

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

153

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

154

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

155

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

156

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

157

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

158

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

159
APPENDIX B
2012 EVS SCORES FOR CAMP MOXIE AND NPS
Table 10
2012 EVS Scores for Camp Moxie and NPS
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS
Camp
Moxie
1 Employees are not given a real opportunity
to improve their skills in the organization.
X 59% 67%
2 Employees do not have enough
information to do their job well.
X 65% 100%
3 Employees do not feel encouraged to come
up with new and better ways of doing
things.
X 59% 89%
4 Employee’s work does not give them a
feeling of personal accomplishment.
X 75% 100%
5 Employees do not like the kind of they
work.
X 87% 100%
6 Employees do not know what is expected
of them on the job.
X 75% 89%
7 When needed, employees are not willing
to put in the extra effort to get a job done.
X 97% 89%
8 Employees are not constantly looking for
ways to do their job better.
X 92% 100%
9 Employees do not have sufficient
resources (for example, people, materials,
budget) to get their job done.
X 31% 56%
10 Employees’ workload is unreasonable. X 43% 44%
11 Employees’ talents are not used well in the
workplace.
X 57% 78%
12 Employees do not know how their work
relates to the agency’s goals and priorities.
X 83% 100%
13 The work employees do is not important. X 92% 100%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

160
Table 10, continued
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS
Camp
Moxie
14 Physical conditions (e.g. noise level,
temperature, lighting cleanliness) do not
allow employees to perform their jobs
well.
X 66% 78%
15 Employees’ performance appraisal is not a
fair reflection of their performance.
X 66% 44%
16 Employees’ are not held accountable for
achieving results.
X 80% 100%
17 Employees fear reprisal if they disclose a
suspected violation of any law, rule or
regulation.
X 55% 78%
18 Employees’ training needs are not
assessed.
X 38% 56%
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% 100%
20 Employees’ coworkers do not cooperate to
get the job done.
X 70% 89%
21 Employees’ work unit is not able to recruit
people with the right skills.
X 40% 78%
22 Promotions in the work unit are not based
on merit.
X 32% 44%
23 In the work unit, steps are not taken to deal
with poor performer who cannot or will
not improve.
X 28% 44%
24 In the work unit, differences in
performance are not recognized in a
meaningful way.
X 31% 33%
25 Awards in the work unit do not depend on
how well employees perform their jobs.
X 43% 56%
26 Employees in the work unit do not share
job knowledge with each other.
X 69% 89%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

161
Table 10, continued
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS
Camp
Moxie
27 The skill level in the work unit has not
improved in the past year.
X 50% 44%
28 Employees feel that the overall quality of
work done by their work unit is poor?
X 50% 100%
29 The workforce does not have the job-
relevant knowledge and skills necessary to
accomplish organizational goals.
X 67% 100%
30 Employees do not have a feeling of
personal empowerment with respect to
work processes.
X 41% 86%
31 Employees are not recognized for
providing high quality products and
services
X 46% 50%
32 Creativity and innovation are not
rewarded.
X 36% 50%
33 Pay raises do not depend on how well
employees perform their jobs.
X 15% 25%
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% 100%
35 Employees are not protected from health
and safety hazards on the job.
X 75% 100%
36 The organization has not prepared
employees for potential security threats.
X 55% 100%
37 Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and
coercion for partisan political purposes are
tolerated.
X 50% 100%
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% 100%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

162
Table 10, continued
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS
Camp
Moxie
39 My agency is not successful at
accomplishing its mission.
X 70% 100%
40 I do not recommend my organization as a
good place to work.
X 67% 88%
41 I do not believe the results of this survey
will be used to make my agency a better
place to work.
X 37% 57%
42 Employee’s supervisor does not support
their need to balance work and other life
issues.
X 77% 88%
43 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does
not provide them with opportunities to
demonstrate their leadership skills.
X 67% 100%
44 Discussions with employee’s
supervisor/team leader about their
performance are not worthwhile.
X 59% 71%
45 Employees’ supervisor/team leader is not
committed to a workplace representative
of all segments of society.
X 64% 71%
46 Employees’ supervisor/team leader does
not provide them with constructive
suggestions to improve their job
performance.
X 56% 75%
47 Supervisors/team leaders in employee’s
work unit do not support employee
development.
X 61% 75%
48 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does
not listen to what they have to say.
X 74% 88%
49 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does
not treat them with respect.
X 77% 100%
50 In the last six months, employee’s
supervisor/team leader has not talked with
them about their performance.
X 77% 75%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

163
Table 10, continued
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS
Camp
Moxie
51 Employees do not have trust and
confidence in their supervisor.
X 64% 63%
52 Overall, employees feel that their
immediate supervisor/team leader is not
doing a good job.
X 65% 63%
53 In the employee’s organization, leaders do
not generate high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workplace.
X 38% 63%
54 Employee’s organization’s leaders do not
maintain high standards of honesty and
integrity.
X 52% 86%
55 Managers/supervisors/team leaders do not
work well with employees of different
backgrounds.
X 58% 100%
56 Managers do not communicate the goals
and priorities of the organization.
X 53% 88%
57 Managers do not review and evaluate the
organization’s progress toward meeting its
goals and objectives.
X 50% 71%
58 Managers do not promote communication
among different work units (for example,
about projects, goals, needed resources.)
X 46% 86%
59 Managers do not support collaboration
across work units to accomplish work
objectives.
X 51% 71%
60 Employees do not feel that the manager
directly above their immediate
supervisor/team leader is doing a good job.
X 53% 83%
61 Employees do not have a high level of
respect for their organizations’ senior
leaders.
X 48% 75%
62 Senior leaders do not demonstrate support
for Work/Life programs.
X 48% 71%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

164
Table 10, continued
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS
Camp
Moxie
63 Employees are not satisfied with their
involvement in decisions that affect their
work.
X 50% 88%
64 Employees are not satisfied with the
information they receive from
management on what’s going on in their
organization.
X 44% 50%
65 Employees are not satisfied with the
recognition they receive for doing a good
job.
X 46% 50%
66 Employees are not satisfied with the
policies and practices of their senior
leaders.
X 38% 63%
67 Employees are not satisfied with their
opportunity to get a better job in their
organization.
X 32% 50%
68 Employees are not satisfied with the
training they receive for their present job.
X 44% 63%
69 Considering everything, employees are not
satisfied with their job.
X 66% 88%
70 Considering everything, employees are not
satisfied with their pay.
X 58% 88%
71 Considering everything, employees are not
satisfied with their organization.
X 57% 100%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

165
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE ORGANIZED INTO FOUR ELEMENTS AFFECTING
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
Table 11
Communication Literature Aligned to Gap Analysis 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

166
Table 11, continued
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

167
Table 11, continued
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

168
Table 12
Efficacy Literature Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Buckingham and
Coffman (1999)
Measures the strength of workplace.
Attract, focus, & keep most talented
employees.

Mayer (2011) Want to learn; express in the amount of
effort applied to understanding.
Work environment including goals &
resources for achievement.

Canrinus, Helms-
Lorenz, Beijaard,
Buitink, and Hofman
(2011)
Feelings toward colleagues, perceived
support from colleagues and
leadership, and perceived competency
in dealing with workplace demands
affects job satisfaction.

Gardner and Pierce
(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 the 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.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

169
Table 12, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Judge and Bono
(2001)
An employee’s generalized self-
efficacy (belief in 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.

Klassen and Chiu
(2010)
An employee’s belief about 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, Usher, and
Bong (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, Zhu, and
Avolio (2006)
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

170
Table 12, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Nielsen, Yarker,
Randall, and Munir
(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).
Even individual team members with
low self-efficacy can experience high
job satisfaction and assurance when
they perceive their colleagues to be
competent.

Zellars, Hochwarter,
Perrewe, Miles, and
Kiewitz (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

171
Table 13
Leadership Literature Aligned to Gap Analysis 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 and
Rezaei (2004)
The more self-aware, unbiased, confident,
hopeful, optimistic, and forward-thinking a
leader appears to be, the more satisfied and
committed the employees/teams are.

Fernandez
(2008)
Leaders who show concern for their
subordinates (e.g. actively listen, treat
subordinates as equals, solicit/ consider
subordinates’ advice, appreciate their work)
also encourage creativity, innovation,
relationship building, and adaptation to the
workplace environment. These leadership
behaviors positively affect employees’
perceptions of performance and job
satisfaction.

Jung and
Avolio (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 can
serve as a good role model through
perseverance and sacrifice. These leadership
behaviors motivate employees to accomplish
the vision positively and affect employee
trust and value congruence which directly
affects employee quality and satisfaction.

Lam and
O’Higgins
(2012)
Managers who are able to demonstrate that
they understand and can manage their
employees’ and their own emotions reflect a
transformational leadership style that
enhances their employees’ feelings of job
satisfaction.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

172
Table 13, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Madlock
(2008)
A supervisor with good communication
skills (motivating, active listening,
sharing/responding to information in a timely
manner, and communicating 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, create and articulate a clear
vision, empower others to meet high
standards, inspire trust, and give meaning to
organizational life.

Sy, Cote, and
Saavedra
(2005)
Leaders’ moods (good or bad) transfer to
group members and impact the effort,
motivation, and coordination of groups.

Wang and
Howell (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, develop shared beliefs and values, and
lead to achieve overall goals positively
affects team performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

173
Table 14
Accountability Literature Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Breaux, Munyon,
Hochwarter, and
Ferris (2008);
Ellickson (2002);
Kim (2002);
McKnight, Ahmad,
and 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 and Durst
(1996)
The degree to which employee
talents are utilized impacts
employee satisfaction.
Social relationship with
coworkers impacts employee
satisfaction and performance.
Durst and DeSantis
(1997); Ellickson
(2002)
Employee perception of low
pay impacts low employee
satisfaction.
Employee perception of
adequate pay impacts
employee satisfaction.
Ellickson (2002);
Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (2010).
Access to job-related
knowledge and skills
are associated with
employee satisfaction
and performance.

Ellickson (2002);
Swiss (2005); Yang
and Kessekert (2010)
Degree to which promotions
and rewards are merit-based,
rather than favoritism or
politics impacts employee
satisfaction and performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

174
Table 14, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Elmore (2002) Leaders who do not establish a
culture of reciprocal
accountability (e.g. leader does
not hold oneself accountable
for providing employees with
adequate training and resources
to perform successfully) have
employees with less job
satisfaction.
Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (2010)
Clarity of goals and
expectations impacts both
employee satisfaction and
performance.
Fernandez and
Moldagaziev (2010)
Attending to recognizing
employee performance levels
and achievements contributes
to employee satisfaction and
performance.
Fernandez and
Moldagaziev (2010);
McKnight, Ahmad
and Schroeder (2001)
The degree of timely
and accurate feedback
about performance
impacts employee
satisfaction and
performance.

Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (2010)
The degree of flexibility in
granting employees discretion
to change work processes
impacts employee satisfaction
and performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

175
Table 14, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Harrison, Newman
and Roth (2006);
Westover and Taylor
(2010)
Employees who do not identify
with the mission of the
organization or do not feel their
work is important or valued
(also known as organizational
commitment, organizational
citizenship behavior, and
public service motivation) have
less job satisfaction.
Thoms, Dose, and
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 and Kessekert
(2010)
Leaders’ and Supervisors’
examples impact employee
satisfaction and performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

176
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

177
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:
Pictures of Observation Room
Picture 1:
Picture 2:
Picture 3:
Picture 4:

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

178
APPENDIX E
EMPLOYEE ACTION PLAN NOTES

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

179

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

180

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

181

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

182

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

183

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

184
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?

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?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

185
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)

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement

PDF

Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study

PDF

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

PDF

Service provider compliance with regional center service agreement: a gap analysis

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

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

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

Asset Metadata

Creator Lee, Coreen K. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/16/2014

Defense Date 02/27/2014

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

Tag accountability,Communication,Development,efficacy,employee satisfaction,Federal,federal organization,gap analysis,Government,Knowledge,leadership,Motivation,National Park Service,OAI-PMH Harvest,organization,organizational change,Performance,public service,Training

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email coreenle@usc.edu,usc.coreen@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-420749

Unique identifier UC11285896

Identifier etd-LeeCoreenK-2552.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-420749 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeCoreenK-2552.pdf

Dmrecord 420749

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lee, Coreen K.

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