University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION: FDA 1
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

by

Moanikeʻala Ruth Crowell

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 2016

Copyright 2016 Moanikeʻala Ruth Crowell
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 2
Epigraph
“Government is itself an art, one of the subtlest of arts.”
– Felix Frankfurter, Associate Justice (1939-1962)
The United States Supreme Court

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 3
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my son, Cole. Let this dissertation serve as an example that
persistence and resilience are necessary ingredients to success no matter what you choose to do
in life. Please find something that you love, something that wakes you up in the morning excited
to live life to the fullest. When you find something that you love, never stop learning about it
and always strive to be the very best in whatever it is. I want you to know that your life has
motivated me to be the very best in everything that I do.
I dedicate this dissertation to my mother and best friend, Beverly Mahialani Hoʻokano,
for holding my hand and never leaving my side. “Thank you” will never be enough. I love you.
I dedicate this dissertation to my grandmother, Ruth Hoʻokano, a brilliant civil engineer
and the matriarch of our colorful and lively Native Hawaiian family.
I dedicate this dissertation to my paternal grandfather, Dr. David Harrison Crowell, who
taught me the importance of family, education, and hard work. I also dedicate this dissertation to
my paternal grandmother, Doris Crowell, my father, Michael, and the three most stunningly
beautiful aunts a girl could ever wish for: Sandra, Shannon, and Megan.
I dedicate this dissertation to RAT. You are the brightest star by which I am guided in all
that I do. You made me grow in ways that I would not have grown on my own. Your hard
work, drive, and determination will forever be etched in my mind as a model of inspiration.
Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to SKB and KKG. Your friendship and presence in
my life is a true blessing for which I am forever grateful.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 4
Acknowledgments
I express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to all who have invested portions of
their lives towards my success as a young attorney and my success as a doctoral student at the
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. Dr. Melora Sundt, Dr. Kenneth
Yates, and Dr. Kathy Hanson: I am a better attorney, educator, and person because of each of
you. I acknowledge the immeasurable amounts of time that each of you spent teaching,
mentoring, and supporting my growth.
To John Palimoʻo. Thank you for your stability, patience, and love, during these last
three years. Thank you for being a wonderful father to our son, Cole. None of this would be
possible without you – I am forever thankful for your presence in my life.
To KMK. Thank you for your love, support, and encouragement. Thank you for all of
the opportunities you have given me and for teaching me how to practice law.
To KPK. I would not be where I am without you and I am forever grateful for your
presence in my life. I love you unconditionally and for always.
To KKG. Thank you for your friendship and love. You continue to give me a fresh
perspective on the work that we do. You also keep things lively and so much fun. I love you.
To SKB. For all you have taught and continue to teach me about life and the law. You
are a true blessing in my life and I am incredibly proud to call you my dear friend.
To KSS. I am eternally grateful for your friendship and guidance in my life. Your
brilliance, in and outside of the law, leaves me awestruck. I am incredibly proud of the work you
do and I am honored to call you my friend.
To PSK. Thank you for your friendship. You are such a bright, positive light in my life
– I could not imagine this journey without you.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 5
To RKM. Thank you for your encouragement, laughter, and continual love, over the
years. None makes me smile and laugh the way you do.
To WKN. You are an incredibly bright, insightful, and intelligent young man. I am
extremely proud of the father and person that you have become.
To DDD. You taught me the true meaning of compassion and kindness. Some of the
most magnificent conversations I’ve ever had on the topic of education occurred between you
and I. “Talking story” with you makes my entire day and I have never laughed more. Thank
you, always, from the bottom of my heart.
To the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Domestic Violence Felony
Division. For your generous help and belief in the work that we do, I cannot thank you all
enough.
Lastly, to Dr. Ange-Marie Hancock, Associate Professor of Political Science and Gender
Studies at USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. Thank you for your unwavering
support, guidance, and love. My life was forever changed the day you introduced me to Dr.
Catharine MacKinnon’s pioneering work on feminism and the law. I dedicate this dissertation
and all the work that I do with women and children in my community to you.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 6
Table of Contents
Epigraph 2
Dedication 3
List of Tables 9
List of Figures 10
Abstract 11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 12
Statement of the Problem 13
Project Questions 13
Project Design 14
Significance of the Project 15
Organization of the Proposal 16
Acronyms 16
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 18
Historical Factors Influencing Employee Satisfaction 18
The Classical School of Management 18
The School of Human Relations 19
Motivation Theory 20
Theory of Expectations and Goal-Setting Theory 21
Action-Planning Research 22
Literary Synthesis: Employee Satisfaction 24
Effective Supervision: An Interdisciplinary, Pedagogical Approach 24
Facilitators of Effective Supervision 25
Supervision Versus Teaching, Counseling, and Consultation 26
Facilitators of Effective Supervision in Social Science Literature 28
Factor I: Role-Modeling 30
Factor II: Direct Instruction 31
Factor III: Supervisor Feedback 32
Factor IV: Critical Reflection 33
Barriers to Effective Supervision in Social Science Literature 34
Factor I: Communication Competence 35
Factor II: Supervisor Feedback 36
Factor III: Relationship Conflict and Deep-Level Dissimilarity 37
Facilitators of and Barriers to Effective Supervision From the Perspective of the Supervisor 38
Understanding the Facilitators and Barriers to Effective Supervision from a Gap Analysis
Perspective 39
Knowledge and Skills 40
Motivation 41
Organizational Factors 42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 44
Methodological Framework 44
Assumed Performance Issues and Assets 45
The EVS 46
Results of the EVS 47
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 7
Summary of Assumed Causes and Assets for the EVS, Social Science Literature, and the Gap
Analysis Literature 52
Validation Procedure of Performance Assets and Issues: Knowledge 52
Factual Knowledge Assets and Issues Validation 53
Procedural Knowledge Assets and Issues Validation 53
Metacognitive Knowledge Assets and Issues Validation 54
Validation of Performance Assets and Issues: Motivation 55
Values, Attributions, and Interests Validation 55
Validation of Performance Assets and Issues: Organizational Culture and Context 56
Summary of Assumed Assets and Issues for the EVS, Social Science Literature, and Gap
Analysis Literature to be Validated 58
Participating Stakeholders 58
Participation in Focus Groups and Observations 58
Data Collection 59
Instruments 60
Observations 61
Interviews 62
Document Analysis 62
Trustworthiness of Data 63
Data Analysis 63
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 65
Knowledge Results 66
Focus Group/Observation Results 66
Interview Results 67
Document Analysis Results 70
Motivation Results 71
Focus Group/Observation Results 71
Interview Results 71
Document Analysis Results 74
Organizational Results 75
Focus Group/Observation Results 75
Interview Results 76
Document Analysis Results 78
Validated Themes 79
Supervisor Role-modeling 79
Supervisor Communication 80
Failure to Address Poor Performers 80
Performance Assessments and Evaluative Feedback 80
Employee Recognition 81
Synthesis of Findings 81
Summary 82
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS, AND EVALUATIONS 83
Recommendations for Practice 84
Knowledge Enhancement 84
Motivation Enhancement 85
Organization Enhancement 86
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 8
Implementation Plan 87
Set Goals, Distribute Information, and Job Aids About Job Roles, Responsibilities, and
Objectives 88
Present Adaptability Strategies and Provided Guided Role-Playing Practice at All CDER
Supervisory Meetings 89
Redesign CDER’s PMAP Program: Include an Objective and Subjective Component 89
Aligning CDER’s Organizational Culture with CDER’s Organizational Policies and
Procedures as Applicable to Poorly Performing Employees 90
On-Going Actions: Employee Awards, Praise, and Recognition 91
Evaluation Plan 91
Reactions and Motivation 92
Learning and Performance 92
Results and Impact 93
Limitations 94
Delimitations 94
Recommendations for Further Inquiry 95
Conclusion 96
References 97
Appendix A Table A1 106
Appendix B Table B1 109
Appendix C Observation Protocol 110
Appendix D Interview Protocol 112
Appendix E Focus Group Worksheet 114
Appendix F Table F1 115

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 9
List of Tables
Table 1: Design of the Larger Project 15
Table 2: Identified Facilitators of Effective Supervision in Social Science Literature 34
Table 3: Identified Barriers to Effective Supervision in Social Science Literature 38
Table 4: Summary of Supervisor Knowledge Behaviors Impacting Supervision by
Knowledge Sub-Areas 41
Table 5: Summary of Supervisor Motivation Behaviors Impacting Supervision by
Motivation Sub-Areas 42
Table 6: Summary of Supervisor Organizational Culture Behaviors Impacting Supervision 43
Table 7: Summary of Supervisor Knowledge Behaviors and Corresponding EVS Items by
Sub-Areas 49
Table 8: Summary of Supervisor Motivation Behaviors and Corresponding EVS Items by
Sub-Areas 50
Table 9: Summary of Supervisor Organizational Culture Behaviors and Corresponding
EVS Items by Sub-Areas 51
Table 10: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Assets and Issues Validation 55
Table 11: Summary of Assumed Motivation Assets and Issues and Validation 56
Table 12: Summary of Assumed Organizational/Culture/Context Assets and Issues and
Validation 57
Table A1: Factors Contributing to Employee Satisfaction 106
Table B1 Supervision versus Teaching, Counseling, and Consultation 109
Table F1: Summary of Supervisor Behaviors Facilitating Supervision from a Knowledge,
Motivation, and Organizational Culture (KMO) Framework 115

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 10
List of Figures
Figure 1: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in the Work Environment 20
Figure 2: Locke & Lantham’s (1990; 2006) Goal-Setting within the Work Environment 22
Figure 3: The Supervisory Relationship (Goodyear, 2014) 30
Figure 4: Gap Analysis Process 45

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 11
Abstract
Utilizing the gap analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this comprehensive
project examined both promising practices and barriers to effective supervision within the Center
for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
primary purpose of the project was to identify the influences in knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational factors that explain the promising practices as well as the performance gaps
between supervisor’s current practices and those required to achieve greater employee
satisfaction. To accomplish this, data from the 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
provided a quantitative lens for the assumed influences that was then supplemented by
educational psychology theory and evidence from the literature. These assumed influences were
then validated through qualitative data collected from various focus groups, individual
interviews, and document analysis. Results revealed that the supervisors within this federal
agency were dedicated, driven, and empowered by the mission of CDER and the FDA.
Supervisors communicated a strong pride in their roles as public servants and were committed to
improving public health through their work. Supervisors identified organizational shortcomings
in the areas of giving employee recognition and feedback, noting that an increase in recognition
for employees would be a useful tool to support employee motivation in the workplace.
Furthermore, the results revealed that supervisors believed that the performance appraisal
utilized by this federal agency constituted a substantial barrier to effective supervision. Findings
from this study have significant implications for leaders within public service organizations
hoping to benefit from the implications of supervisory knowledge, motivation, and
organizational practices which improve job satisfaction through the implementation of effective
supervision.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
On December 11, 2014, bolded headlines in The Washington Post read “How to
Strengthen Federal Workers’ Job Satisfaction” (Fox, 2014). According to Fox (2014), there is
declining employee satisfaction in the majority of agencies within the Federal Government.
According to the “Best Places to Work” 2014 data, approximately 43% of federal agencies
thwarted the government-wide trend by engaging their employees, kept morale high, and
satisfied their employees. One prime example is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
under the direction of the Health and Human Services Bureau. The FDA ranked 69 out of 315
federal agencies on a list of the best places to work within the Federal Government (Partnership
for Public Service [PPS], 2014). From 2003 to 2013, the FDA enjoyed similar rankings,
demonstrating employee happiness and overall job satisfaction (PPS, 2014).
The Federal Government employs millions of people and, thus, is deeply vested in
employee satisfaction (Sa, Burns, & Sullivan, 2014). The Federal Government vis-à-vis the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
(EVS) to all federal employees, including employees within the FDA. The EVS is administered
to employees to measure both employee and job satisfaction. There are four distinct areas
measured by the EVS: (1) employee engagement; (2) global satisfaction; (3) inclusion; and (4)
human capital assessment and accountability. Moreover, the EVS reports overall job satisfaction
for federal agencies, sub-agencies, and offices.
The most widely referenced definition of job satisfaction is by Locke (1976) who defined
it as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job
experiences” (p. 1304). The importance of an individual’s feelings, thinking, and cognition are
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 13
central to Locke’s definition of job satisfaction. Also implicit within Locke’s definition is the
relationship of cognition and affect. In other words, we think about how we feel.
A multitude of factors contribute to employment satisfaction. One critical factor is
effective supervision (Griffin, Patterson, & West, 2001; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Manz & Sims,
1987; Rousseau, Aubé, & Tremblay, 2013; Taggar & Seijts, 2003). Effective supervision is a
cornerstone of a thriving and successful organization. Supervision is essentially a relationship
shared between a senior member and a junior member of a profession (Bernard & Goodyear,
2014). The close connection between effective supervision and job satisfaction speaks to the
need for a deeper understanding of the barriers to, as well as the promising practices of, effective
supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014).
Statement of the Problem
To better understand how to strengthen supervision and, thus, increase employee
satisfaction, this project examined both promising practices and barriers to effective supervision
from the viewpoint of supervisors within the FDA. The Federal Government biannually
administers the EVS to all government employees to measure employee satisfaction.
Specifically, using the EVS, this project examined and focused on offices within the FDA to
ascertain both promising practices and performance gaps to effective supervision.
Project Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine supervisors’ promising practices and
performance gaps that contribute to or detract from effective supervision. It is well established
that effective supervisors encourage and support job satisfaction within the work place (Bateman
& Organ, 1983). Conversely, it is also well established that abusive supervision creates a hostile
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 14
job environment, thereby negatively impacting job satisfaction (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007;
Landry & Vanderberghe, 2009). The questions guiding this project are:
1. What knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational factors do supervisors
perceive as contributing to or detracting from effective supervision in the federal agency?
2. For those factors perceived to be facilitating effective supervision, what promising
practices could be adapted to and utilized by other units in the same agency? For those
factors perceived as inhibitors, what solutions may be helpful for improving supervision
within the organization?
3. How might those interventions, whether promising practices or solutions, be evaluated
for effectiveness?
Project Design
This study was part of a larger collaborative project of employee and supervisor
perspectives about job satisfaction. Specifically, a research team composed of six University of
Southern California (USC) doctoral students examined the perspectives of supervisors and
employees as part of the larger project design. The larger project collected data from six unit
offices within the FDA using the gap analysis framework in an attempt to explore the
perspectives of supervisors and employees on job satisfaction. The gap analysis process is a
methodological framework designed to identify and validate assumed causes contributing to high
and low employee satisfaction (Clark & Estes, 2008). Table 1 describes the six projects, each
taking a specific stakeholder perspective (supervisors or employees), particular barriers or
facilitators, and focusing on practices related to either supervision or teamwork.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 15
Table 1
Design of the Larger Project
Teamwork Supervision
Perspective Facilitators Barriers Facilitators Barriers
Supervisor Study 4 Study 2
Employee Study 1 Study 5 Study 6 Study 3

This paper describes Study 2, with a specific focus on the facilitators of and barriers to
effective supervision from the perspective of supervisors.
Data collection of supervisory perspectives and practices included observations of six
facilitated focus groups, follow-up interviews with a sample of participating supervisors utilizing
an interview protocol, and document analysis. A priori categories of knowledge, motivational,
and organizational factors guided the data collection and analysis for this specific project.
Additionally, open coding provided unexpected as well as emergent themes from the data
collected (Merriam, 2009).
Significance of the Project
This project is important because satisfied employees tend to be more productive, have
better dispositions, and have a greater likelihood of being retained. Furthermore, satisfied
employees are more likely to meaningfully engage as team members. This project has important
theoretical and ethical implications as well as practical outcomes.
Employees in other federal agencies may derive the greatest benefit from this study by
applying the promising practices that positively influence job satisfaction. Conversely, these
same federal agencies may also be interested in learning from the factors inhibiting effective
supervision, as to avoid those practices in the future. Ultimately, public service organizations
will benefit from learning the impact of knowledge, motivational, and organizational practices
that positively and negatively impact job satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 16
Organization of the Proposal
This study consists of five distinct chapters. This chapter outlines various key concepts,
terminology defining employee satisfaction, and supervision. Additionally, this chapter also
includes an introduction to the organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholder of focus. Lastly,
this chapter also includes an introduction to the gap analysis framework. Chapter Two reviews
the current literature regarding the larger topic of supervision and the effect of various
supervisory practices on job satisfaction. Chapter Three outlines the methodology employed in
this study. Chapter Three also discusses the sampling, the data collection, and the analysis
process employed. Chapter Four reports the findings and analysis of the collected data. Chapter
Five provides research-based recommendations for improving job satisfaction through promising
practices of effective supervision, addressing both the effective practices in place as well as
addressing the inhibiting factors to effective supervision.
Acronyms
CDER Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
DLOD Division of Learning and Organizational Development
EVS or FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
FDA Food and Drug Administration
GAP Gap Analysis Process
GDUFA Generic Drug User Fee Act
GST Goal-setting Theory
KMO Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational Factors
OEP Office of Executive Programs
OPM Office of Personal Management
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 17
PPS Partnership for Public Service
USC University of Southern California

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Employee satisfaction has been extensively studied over the last 80 years. By the turn of
the twentieth century and at the height of the Progressive Era in the United States, Taylor (1911,
1914) introduced the classical school of management. Taylor took a scientific view of
management, believing that the measurement of specific behaviors of factory workers was the
most powerful means of increasing workforce production.
Historical Factors Influencing Employee Satisfaction
According to Taylor (1911, 1914), the principles of scientific management could be
applied to specific tasks such as shoveling coal, selection of specific workers, training factory
workers, and the division of labor. Interestingly, in 1910 United States Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis coined the term scientific management in the course of his arguments made
before the Interstate Commerce Commission (Taylor, 1914). It was, arguably, Justice Brandeis’
repeated use of the term scientific management that brought forth Taylor’s theories of the
classical school of management and public sector efficiency.
The Classical School of Management
Taylor favored public sector work, acknowledging it as “on the whole good” (1916, p. 7)
but preferred a work-science approach to improving the working environment. The classical
school of management focuses on analyzing work-related activities and piecing apart activities to
develop the most efficient process. Taylor (1911, 1914, 1916) argued for the most efficient
process while attempting to maximize profits for business owners. Additionally, while the
business owner’s welfare was acknowledged in the classical school of management, Taylor
(1911, 1914, 1916) ultimately advocated for the welfare of working class individuals. Taylor
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 19
(1916) argued that top administrative officials needed to place merit over other worker
characteristics and work towards “a great mental revolution in large numbers of men” (p. 9).
While the classical school of management was being developed, Gilbreath (1912)
examined time and motion studies designed to increase job satisfaction and productivity among
workers. Gilbreath (1912) attempted to examine personal traits of individual workers and place
certain jobs that coincided with strong personal traits of individual workers. In essence,
Gilbreath illustrated the importance of aligning individual workers with employment positions
that best matched the traits of those employees. Gilbreath’s (1912) influential work ultimately
demonstrated the importance of linking employee satisfaction with workplace productivity.
The School of Human Relations
The Hawthorne Studies (1924-1932) conducted by the Hawthorne plant of the Western
Electric Company near Chicago, Illinois was seminal research that laid the groundwork for the
future of scientific management (Muldoon, 2012). The Hawthorne Studies examined various
lighting and temperature conditions surrounding individual workers. These studies concluded
that, regardless of the environmental changes surrounding the individual employees, their
productivity increased solely as a result of being observed. Thus, these studies introduced the
concept that job satisfaction was not solely a mechanical and motorized function performed by
individuals. This newly discovered phenomenon demonstrated that employees’ individual
feelings and attitudes ultimately affected job satisfaction (Mayo, 1930).
Approximately two decades after the Hawthorne Studies were conducted; Maslow (1954)
developed the theory of human motivation based upon individuals seeking fulfillment and
change through their personal growth. Self-actualization is attained vis-à-vis art, literature,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 20
sports, classroom learning, or in an employment setting (Maslow, 1954). Maslow’s theory
provided further corroboration that employee satisfaction is related to overall satisfaction in life.

Figure 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in the Work Environment
Note. Adapted from Maslow (1954).

Several years after Maslow developed and published the theory on human motivation,
which continues to be widely cited as a seminal project in the disciple of scientific management,
The Gallup Organization was founded and credited with conducting the original project on
world-wide human needs and satisfaction (Rath & Clifton, 2004). The Gallup Organization
continued to explore the impact of human needs, including employee engagement. In fact, many
of the attributes it identified on common characteristics that influence the quality of life are
directly applicable to employee satisfaction.
Motivation Theory
During the 1950s and 1960s, Herzberg (1959) proposed a two-factor theory consisting of
motivators and hygiene factors. Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory utilized Maslow’s (1954)
Self-Actualization Needs: morality,
creativity, innovation
Esteem Needs:
respect, position, rank
Community Needs:teams, co-
workers
Safety & Security:income security,
safe working environment
Physicological:wages
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 21
hierarchy of needs and applied these needs to an individual’s psychological needs within the
workplace (Herzberg, 1954). Herzberg (1954) bifurcated the factors impacting workplace
satisfaction into hygiene factors and motivating factors. Hence, the term two-factor theory was
born to describe Herzberg’s theory based upon the two distinct categories of factors. Hygiene
factors include payment or wages and the working conditions of the place of employment
(Herzberg, 1954). Herzberg posited that wages and working conditions, if they remained in a
positive light (as perceived by the employee), would prevent the employee from becoming
dissatisfied. Herzberg further hypothesized that motivation was, in fact, the source of employee
satisfaction and created by the individual employee’s work itself, responsibility, and an
individual’s overall perceived contribution to the organization.
Theory of Expectations and Goal-Setting Theory
The theory of expectations or expectancy theory was born from the idea that an individual
employee makes employment-related choices based upon the expected rewards or consequences
(Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Vroom and Yetton (1973) articulated that the expectancy theory was
created by three core principles: (1) valence which relates to the emotional feeling an employee
has when a potential reward is linked to a specific effort, (2) expectancy which relates to the
feeling of confidence an individual has related to a specific work-related task they are capable of
completing, and (3) instrumentality which relates to the level of confidence or trust that an
employee has associated with receiving the reward from an employer for a completed job or task.
Expanding on the decades of completed research and seminal studies published in the
discipline of scientific management and industrial/organizational psychology, Locke and Latham
(1990) developed the goal-setting theory based upon some 400 laboratory and field studies. The
goal-setting theory is premised upon the concept that “specific, high (hard) goals lead to a higher
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 22
level of task performance than do easy goals or vague, abstract goals such as the exhortation to
‘do one’s best’” (Locke & Latham, 2006, p. 265). Furthermore, Locke and Latham note that
Goals are related to affect in that goals set the primary standard for self-satisfaction with
performance. High, or hard, goals are motivating because they require one to attain more
in order to be satisfied than do low, or easy, goals. (p. 265)

Figure 2. Locke & Lantham’s (1990; 2006) Goal-Setting within the Work Environment

Action-Planning Research
In the early 20th century, Gallup explored human satisfaction in relation to employment
and workplace satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt, Killham, & Asplund, 2012; Gallup & Hill, 1960;
Gallup, 1976; Gallup International Research Institutes & Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 1977).
The Gallup Organization utilized employee satisfaction surveys to create 12 questions to
measure contributing factors to employee satisfaction (Harter et al., 2012). The survey provided
Passion
Tenancity
Communicated
Vision
Specific, Hard
Goals
Employee/Employer
Growth
Self-Efficacy
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 23
critical insight into the minds of employees (Harter et al., 2012). Moreover, it provided
managers and supervisors guidance and insight into employee satisfaction (Harter et al., 2012).
When examining the various studies and meta-analyses of employee satisfaction, there
are ten major categories of factors (Appendix A) consistently studied that directly contribute to
employee satisfaction (Harter et al., 2012). Harter et al.’s (2012) seminal work on job
satisfaction aligns with Locke’s (1969) theories of job satisfaction, noting that a single
contributing factor of employee satisfaction is unlikely to result in employee attrition. “Overall
job satisfaction is the sum of the evaluations of the discriminable elements of which the job is
composed” (Harter et al., 2012, p. 330). Harter et al. enumerated ten specific factors
contributing to employee satisfaction, specifying each factor according to frequency. The factors
are:
1. Organizational Culture
2. Supervision
3. Work Itself
4. Communication
5. Work Environment
6. Economic Benefits (both direct and indirect)
7. Teamwork
8. Autonomy
9. Work Relationships
10. Demographics
Appendix A further illuminates the ten factors listed above and the relevant
characteristics associated with each job satisfaction factor. Supervision remains one area of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 24
interest in modern research and continues to be closely examined when exploring employee
satisfaction (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Goodyear, 2014; Locke, 1976). Clearly, there is a
demand for a richer, fuller, and more complete understanding of the supervision process as it
relates to employee and job satisfaction in the work place.
Literary Synthesis: Employee Satisfaction
A literary review of job satisfaction in the 20th century examined similar factors that
contribute to overall job satisfaction among employees. However, the publication of the Q12
Meta-Analysis by the Gallup Foundation (Harter et al., 2012) permanently altered the literary
landscape of employee satisfaction. As a result, the discussion surrounding employee
satisfaction closely examines what are the root causes employees to take specific actions when
dissatisfaction occurs in the work place. As enumerated above, the second most frequent factor
contributing to employee satisfaction in the workplace is supervision (Harter et al., 2012). Given
the importance of supervision, as it relates to employee satisfaction, the remaining subsections of
Chapter Two examine the topic of effective supervision in the work place.
Effective Supervision: An Interdisciplinary, Pedagogical Approach
Almost all professions have a distinctive and unique pedagogical background, including
characteristics unique to teaching and learning within that profession. In law, students are
expected to come to class and be called upon by the professor, under what is commonly known
as the Socratic method of teaching. In medicine, medical students work in tandem with treating
physicians to diagnose, discuss, and treat patients. The two examples discussed are unique and
distinctive forms of teaching and learning in each profession. Shulman (2005) describes the
distinctive and unique forms of professional preparation (including teaching and learning) as
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 25
signature pedagogies. Shulman (2005) argues that such pedagogical signatures illuminate the
personalities, culture, and framework of any given profession.
The ensuing literary discussion on facilitators to and barriers of effective supervision
draws from various academic disciplines, including education, clinical psychology, and
sociology. An interdisciplinary approach in the subsequent literature discussion on supervision
provides a more comprehensive view of the topic and contributes to a growing body of literature
on effective supervision in professional organizations. As discussed in Chapter One, supervisors
in CDER have varying professional backgrounds, including medicine, law, psychology, and
pharmacology. Given the varying professional backgrounds of the supervisors in CDER, an
interdisciplinary examination of effective supervision below is both applicable and highly
germane to this study. Ultimately, it is the premise of this study that the principles of effective
supervision can be applied in a variety of organizations and contexts, including government
offices, private corporations, and educational institutions.
Facilitators of Effective Supervision
Supervision’s crucial role in preparing professionals has been recognized for thousands
of years. In fact, the first few lines of the Hippocratic Oath, a sacred oath taken by all medical
professionals, pays homage to the importance of supervision:
I swear by Apollo the physician...that I will keep this Oath and this stipulation – to
reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my
substance with him and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring
in the same footing as my own brothers. [emphasis added] (Hippocrates, ca. 400 BC,
from Edelstein, 1943).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 26
In this oath, the respect and reverence to supervision is unmistakable and unambiguous.
From the creation of the Hippocratic oath until today, the role of a supervisor continues to
command respect, power, and an appreciation that is unparalleled. When parsing the term
“supervision,” a reasonable inference can be based that practitioners in a supervisory position, of
any profession, are exercising super vision [emphasis added] (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014).
While varying definitions exist as to what constitutes supervision in the work place, the most
comprehensive definition of supervision is derived from the seminal research of Bernard and
Goodyear (2014). The definition put forth by Bernard and Goodyear (2014) is broad enough to
address the multiple roles of a supervisor, the various disciplines and professions where
supervision is found, and professional settings associated with supervision. Bernard and
Goodyear (2014) proffer the following definition:
Supervision is an intervention provided by a more senior member of a profession to a
more junior colleague or colleagues who typically (but not always) are members of that
same profession. This relationship: is evaluative and hierarchical, extends over time, and
has the simultaneous purposes of enhancing the professional functioning of the more
junior person(s); monitoring the quality of professional services offered to the clients that
she, he, or they see; and serving as a gatekeeper for the particular profession the
supervisee seeks to enter. (p. 9)
The significance of a supervisory relationship remains one of the most pivotal
relationships an employee can have in any profession and in any organization or workplace.
Supervision Versus Teaching, Counseling, and Consultation
Bernard and Goodyear (2014) define supervision as an intervention and similar to the
professions of teaching, consulting, and psychotherapy. In fact, teaching is a central component
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 27
of being an effective supervisor (Goodyear, 2014; Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2011).
Supervision has been a critical feature in the profession of teaching since the inception of
education in the United States (Marzano et al., 2011). Supervision is similar to teaching in that
both functions have gatekeeping as a central functionality (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014).
However, supervision and teaching differ dramatically in that teaching relies heavily on a
curriculum and specific goals that apply uniformly to all individuals involved (Bernard &
Goodyear, 2009).
Supervision shares one major similarity with counseling/therapy in that both functions
aim to address an individual’s behaviors, thoughts, and feelings (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). In
so doing, supervision and counseling both attempt to explore the reasoning behind an
individual’s behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. However, the functionality of counseling
diverges dramatically from supervision in as much as clients generally have options on which
therapist to see, work with, and receive services from. This choice is not available to most
supervisees in the functionality of workplace supervision. In other words, supervision in the
work place is not a voluntary experience for most individuals. Moreover, most supervisees have
no role in determining who will act as their immediate supervisor (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009).
Lastly, Bernard and Goodyear (2009) posit that the functionalities of supervision and
consultation share similarities, particularly when more senior supervisors consult with
professional colleagues to address a particular idea or how to handle a difficult or novel issue
that has arisen in the workplace. The functionalities of consultation and supervision differ in that
consultation is often a one-time event (e.g., a tax attorney meeting with an accountant about
calculations reported in specific documents filed or an elementary school teacher meeting with a
social worker about the performance of a child in school). Additionally, “two other consultation-
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 28
supervision distinctions echo distinctions already made between therapy and supervision. One is
that supervision is more likely imposed, whereas consultation typically is freely sought. More
significantly, whereas evaluation is one of the defining attributes of supervision” (Bernard &
Goodyear, 2009, p. 11) consultation between two professionals is non-hierarchical with the
consultant having no authority or power over the individual being consulted. Additional
similarities and distinctions between the functionalities of supervision, teaching,
counseling/therapy, and consultation are included in Table B1 in the appendices.
Facilitators of Effective Supervision in Social Science Literature
Professional development requires more than knowledge and skill acquisition (Epstein &
Hundert, 2002). Dall’Alba (2009) states,
Learning to become a professional involves not only what we know and can do, but also
who we are. It involves the integration of knowing, acting, and being in the form of
professional ways of being that unfold over time. (p. 34)
Burns’ (1978) seminal research on political leaders of large organizations experiencing
radical change garnered considerable attention for his characterization of leadership as either
being transacting or transforming. Burns noted that transformational leadership is preferred over
transacting leadership as the former is much more effective. Bass (1985) further explored this
characterization of transformational leadership and posited that transformational leadership is a
compilation of the following: (1) idealized influence, (2) intellectual stimulation, (3)
individualized attention, and (4) inspirational motivation. These four factors “have become
known as the four I’s of transformational leadership” (Brown & May, 2010, p. 521).
Bass (1998) argued that, through the use of numerous intervention mechanisms,
transformational leadership can be taught to managers, supervisors, and leaders to improve
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 29
organizational effectiveness. Despite the various studies on transformational leadership, the
transfer of ideas or management concepts into the day-to-day behaviors of supervisors continues
to be one of the most persistent and perplexing problems in many organizations. Bass (1990)
pointed to the original studies of transformation leadership, which explained that approximately
60% of the transformational leadership was attributed to idealized influence (or charisma).
Unlike the remaining three characteristics of transformational leadership (intellectual
stimulation, individualized consideration, and inspirational motivation), idealized influence is
often viewed as a personal attribution of a leader (Bass, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Given the
widespread acceptance of transformational leadership as a pivotal theory in organizational
management, transformational leadership behaviors are strongly correlated with improved
organizational outcomes, increased employee performance (Brown & May, 2010), greater job
satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment (Jin, Seo, & Shapiro, 2015).
When examining the array of social science literature addressing leadership,
management, and supervision theory, the seminal research published by Goodyear warrants
further discussion. Goodyear (2014) examined the concept of supervision as pedagogy, with
four specific, key learning mechanisms that comprise effective supervision. The four key
learning mechanisms are (1) role-modeling, (2) feedback, (3) direct instruction, and (4) self-
directed learning (Figure 3). All four key learning mechanisms are overt actions that a
supervisor must take to facilitate supervisee learning and become an effective supervisor
(Goodyear, 2014).
Prevailing research on supervision and supervisory practices note that there is no analogy
between a supervisory relationship and supervision outcomes, in part because of the various
ways in which supervision outcomes could be conceived (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Goodyear,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 30
2014; Goodyear, Lichtenberg, Bang, & Gragg, 2014). Moreover, it is important to consider the
setting in which supervision is exercised. In other words, organizational culture and
departmental procedures and policies often play a critical role in the nature of supervision
applied.

Figure 3. The Supervisory Relationship (Goodyear, 2014)

Factor I: Role-Modeling
“Emulating others is a near-universal way of learning” (Goodyear, 2014, p. 85) and
identifying with a successful supervisor has the ability to raise an individual’s self-efficacy about
being able to accomplish a particular task (Goodyear, 2014; Bandura, 1982). Stated differently,
“vicarious learning can affect a person’s self-efficacy” (Bandura, 1982). Goodyear (2014) posits
that “learners often internalize attitudes and perspectives of the person with whom they are
identifying. The effects can be quite enduring” (p. 86).
SUPERVISORY
LEARNING
MECHANISMS:
Role-Modeling
Direct Instruction
Feedback
Critical Reflection
SUPERVISOR KEY
FACTORS:
Culture
Gender
Race/Ethnicity
Supervisory Alliance
Supervisor's Model
Supervisor Style
Supervision Modality
Supervisor Ethical Behavior
Level of Supervisee
Development
Supervior and Supervisee
Personalities
Supervisor Credibility
Supervisee
Learning
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 31
Identifying with a supervisor is an important aspect of the supervisory relationship and
can heavily influence a supervisees’ professional identity (Goodyear, 2014). At least a
percentage of what supervisors model in the presence of a supervisee is unintentional (Goodyear,
2014). Whether a supervisor is aware of his or her conduct (or not), supervisors are always
teaching supervisees through conduct displayed and verbal communication (Goodyear, 2014).
The process of identifying with important individuals, including supervisors by
supervisees in a supervisory relationship, has been described in the seminal work of Bandura and
Huston (1961) as incidental learning. According to Bandura and Huston (1961), learning that
occurs in the absence of an intent to learn specific behaviors or skills is described as incidental
learning. Such modeling, even if the behavior exhibited is unintentional, has the ability to shape
beliefs about what it means to be a professional in a variety of disciplines (e.g., teacher, attorney,
medical doctor, social worker).
Factor II: Direct Instruction
“Direct instruction involves telling or showing (including, sometimes, modeling) the
supervisee how to perform some skill or skill set, and then providing corrective feedback as he or
she practices” (Goodyear, 2014, p. 90). Goodyear (2014) notes that direct instruction is not
solely utilized by supervisors with beginning supervisees in a supervisory relationship. Rather,
direct supervision is an important instructional tool in the supervisory relationship in an effort to
teach new skills in any discipline (Goodyear, 2014).
Certainly, one component of providing direct instruction as a supervisor involves
communicating (showing or telling) the skill, task, or job that needs to be accomplished by the
supervisee. Supervisory communication is pivotal to overall employee satisfaction (Pincus,
1986). Additionally, frequent supervisory communication among all employees within an
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 32
organization is positively correlated with employee satisfaction (Johlke & Duhan, 2000). The
importance of communication, including supervisory communication skills, has been well
documented (Barnard, 1968; Bavelas & Barrett, 1951; Rogers & Agarwala-Rogers, 1976;
Pincus, 1986).
Possessing strong communication skills as a supervisor increases organizational
effectiveness and serves as the foundation for supervisory trust (Pincus, 1986). Rajesh and
Suganthi (2013) posit that effective communication between a supervisor and a supervisee
includes transparent discussions regarding role expectations and the overall goals of the
organization. Moreover, effective supervisory communication is linked to improvement in self-
esteem and fosters personal control and autonomy thereby leading to improved employee
satisfaction (Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013).
Factor III: Supervisor Feedback
Friedlander, Siegel, and Brenock (1989) define feedback as “a statement with an explicit
or implicit evaluation component that refers to attitudes, ideas, emotions, or behaviors of the
trainee or to aspects of the trainee-client relationship or the trainee-supervisor relationship” (p.
151). According to Yalom (1995) supervisory feedback often begins with objective and
observable behaviors followed by a more direct and interpersonal critique of the supervisee.
According to Bernard and Goodyear (2014), evaluation is the formal process for
assessing the competence of supervisees and is measured through an encapsulated, formal, and
summative means. Feedback is a critical component of the overall evaluation process utilized by
supervisors.
“Supervisors are a frequent source of performance feedback for subordinates,” (Kacmar,
Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003, p. 764) and play an integral role in overall employee satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 33
Performance feedback is even more important for employees that are in high-quality or close
relationships with their supervisors (Kacmar et al., 2003). Constructive feedback is an important
factor that contributes to effective supervision and employee satisfaction (Andrews & Kacmar,
2001). Supervisors can contribute to a positive work environment by providing constructive
feedback and informing employees of specific job expectations (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001; Witt,
Kacmar, & Andrews, 2001).
Factor IV: Critical Reflection
Critical reflection, also termed reflective practice, is the fourth factor in effective
supervision and “is the primary means by which professionals enact self-regulated learning”
(Goodyear, 2014, p. 92). In 2001, Bandura articulated that
[I]n this metacognitive activity, people judge the correctness of their predictive and
operative thinking against the outcomes of their actions, the effects that other people’s
actions produce, what others believe, deductions from established knowledge and what
necessarily follows from it. (p. 10)
Goodyear (2014) notes that the preceding three supervisory factors (role modeling, direct
instruction, and feedback) depend directly on the supervisor’s conduct and actions while, in the
fourth factor (critical reflection), it is the supervisee who is the primary agent. However, critical
reflection is a necessary facilitator to effective supervision in that the supervisee’s ability “to do
this [meaning critical reflection] effectively will be affected by provision of knowledge about
necessary content and processes…Supervisees learn this through ongoing dialogues with their
supervisors and from the feedback they receive” (Goodyear, 2014, p. 92).

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 34
Table 2
Identified Facilitators of Effective Supervision in Social Science Literature
Identified Facilitators of
Effective Supervision
Selected Citations
Role-Modeling (Goodyear, 2014; Bandura, 1982; Bandura & Huston,
1961)

Direct Instruction (Goodyear, 2014; Barnard, 1968; Bavelas & Barrett,
1951; Rogers & Agarwala-Rogers, 1976; Pincus, 1986;
Rajesh and Suganthi, 2013)

Supervisor Feedback (Goodyear, 2014; Friedlander, Siegel, and Brenock,
1989; Yalom, 1995; Bernard & Goodyear, 2004;
Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003; Andrews &
Kacmar, 2001; Witt, Kacmar, & Andrews, 2001)

Critical Reflection
(Goodyear, 2014; Bandura, 2001)

Barriers to Effective Supervision in Social Science Literature
Any discussion of effective supervision requires consideration of the various barriers to
effective supervision as well, which may result from a number of professional or personal
factors. Approximately 13% of working people in the United States become targets of abusive
supervision or nonphysical hostility perpetuated by an immediate supervisor (Schat, Frone, &
Kelloway, 2006). Additional research has demonstrated that a variety of negative organizational
outcomes occur when poor supervision is present in an organization (Ganster & Schaubroeck,
1991; Schaubroeck & Merrit, 1997). Increased stress and decreased job involvement are two
prevalent factors among employees when poor supervision is present in a workplace (Ganster &
Schaubroeck, 1991; Schaubroeck & Merrit, 1997). As such, three central variables that result in
weak supervision within an organization include (1) communication competence, (2) supervisory
feedback, and (3) relationship conflict and deep-level dissimilarity.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 35
Factor I: Communication Competence
McCroskey, Richmond, and Davis (1982) define communication as “a vehicle for
dissemination of information, instruction, and affect” (p. 173). In fact, there is “consistently a
clear and positive pattern of relationships between an employee’s perceptions of communication
and his or her job satisfaction” (King, Lahiff, & Hatfield, 1988, p. 36). This is evident in the
research by Berman and Hellweg (1989) which discovered a positive correlation between
supervisors’ communication competence and employees’ satisfaction with their supervisors.
Supervisory communication competence has been defined in a myriad of ways, but two of
the most prominent definitions highlight the differing views shared by many scholars. Cooley
and Roach (1984) define communication competence as “the knowledge of appropriate
communication patterns in a given situation and the ability to use the knowledge” (p. 25).
Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) articulate that it is the adaptation by an individual to his or her
surroundings effectively over time.
The two definitions offered above are vastly different. However, both infer that it is a
skill that leaders do not develop naturally but is, in fact, learned over time. Certainly,
“...[c]ommunication is a learned social skill and therefore a person’s competence as a
communication could either be developed or remain underdeveloped throughout their life”
(Steele & Plenty, 2015, p. 297).
Dysfunctional communication is one of the most critical supervisory practices as it relates
to low employee satisfaction (Pettit, Goris, & Vaught, 1997; Andrews & Kacmar, 2001).
Moreover, dysfunctional communication contributes to an ineffective work environment,
physical and psychological health issues and job burnout (Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013). In previous
studies, poor supervisory communication was correlated with reduced employee commitment,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 36
greater absenteeism, higher employee turnover, and reduced productivity (Hargie, Tourish, &
Wilson, 2002).
According to Clark and Estes (2008), poor communication in the work place is a
common problem and is attributable to having a lack of knowledge on the subject matter.
Moreover, the withholding of important information and poor communication are common
sources of knowledge problems in the work environment (Clark & Estes, 2008). Ainspan and
Dell (2010) posit that increasing this knowledge, as it relates to communications skills in the
workplace, increases organizational effectiveness, employee performance, and ultimately,
employee satisfaction for all stakeholders involved. Clearly, communication plays a critical role
in effective supervision and employee satisfaction in the work place.
Factor II: Supervisor Feedback
Supervisor feedback is a critical component to overall employee satisfaction and is
correlated to both higher productivity and higher employee performance in the workplace (Kim,
1975; Latham & Wexley, 1981). In the seminal works of Locke and Latham (1990), supervisor
feedback must provide clear goals and be constructive in order to be effective. However, there is
also a substantial volume of literature addressing the effects of supervisory feedback of
subordinates who are perceived favorably or unfavorably by a supervisor.
Supervisors evaluate subordinates who are perceived to be similar to themselves more
highly than they do dissimilar counterparts (Liden et al., 1993; Pulakos & Wexley, 1983; Turban
& Jones, 1988). According to Byrne (1971), supervisors render favorable evaluations of
subordinates who have similar attitudes and validate the supervisor’s beliefs. Additionally,
supervisors evaluate similarly perceived subordinates higher, as “similar subordinates are likely
to be perceived as more deserving of fair outcomes and rewards” (Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 37
p. 282). Comparatively, dissimilar subordinates trigger competitive, discriminatory feelings, and
perceptions of low workplace performance (Tepper et al., 2011). Dissimilar subordinates who
are perceived as low performers in the workplace are often the targets of supervisor hostility.
Factor III: Relationship Conflict and Deep-Level Dissimilarity
Relationship discord between supervisors and employees continues to garner attention as
researchers and organizations aim to gain a better understanding of the predictors of such
conflicts within the workplace. Rahim (2002) defines conflict as “interactive processes
manifested by incompatibilities, disagreements, or dissonance in or between social entities”
(cited in Landry & Vanderberghe, 2009, p. 6). Landry and Vanderberghe (2009) differentiate
between two types of relationship conflict: (1) relationship conflict (e.g., negative emotional
state) and (2) substantive conflicts (e.g., performance and/or tasks related). Landry and
Vanderberghe (2009) argue that poorly managed interpersonal conflicts, particularly relationship
conflicts with supervisors impede employee satisfaction and job performance.
A deep-level dissimilarity shared between supervisors and employees of an organization
directly affects the functionality of work groups and employee satisfaction (Harrison, Price, &
Bell, 1992; Tepper et al., 2011). Harrison et al. (1992) recognize two types of dissimilarities that
impact social integration within the workplace. They are (1) surface-level dissimilarity (e.g.,
demographic differences including race, gender, and age) and (2) deep-level dissimilarity (e.g.,
attitudinal positions, beliefs, opinions, and values). Employees with deep-level dissimilarities
find it more difficult and less pleasant to work together, ultimately creating deep-level
dissimilarity between them (Harrison et al., 1992) and negatively impacting employee
satisfaction in the work place.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 38
Table 3
Identified Barriers to Effective Supervision in Social Science Literature
Identified Barriers to
Effective Supervision
Selected Citations
Communication Competence (McCroskey, Richmond, & Davis, 1982; Pettit, Goris, &
Vaught, 1997; King, Lahiff, & Hatfield, 1988; Berman &
Hellweg, 1989; Cooley & Roach, 1984; Spitzberg &
Coach, 1984; Steele & Plenty, 2015; Andrews &
Kacmar, 2001; Rajesh & Suganthi, 2013; Hargie,
Tourish, & Wilson, 2002; Clark & Estes, 2008; Ainspan
& Dell, 2010)

Supervisory Feedback (Kim, 1975; Locke & Latham, 1990; Clark & Estes,
2008)

Relationship Conflict and Deep-
Level Dissimilarity
(Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Rahim, 2002; Landry &
Vanderberghe, 2009)

Facilitators of and Barriers to Effective Supervision From the Perspective of the
Supervisor
It is well established that the relationship between a supervisor and a supervisee is one of
the most critical components of the supervision process (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001; Bernard &
Goodyear, 2004; Falender & Shafranske, 2010; Goodyear, 2014). In fact, Falender &
Shafranske (2010) posit that the relationship between a supervisor and supervisee is foundational
to all commonly accepted models of supervision. As such, a large volume of research has been
dedicated to the importance of supervisory relationships in varying professions (Bernard &
Goodyear, 2014; Ellis, 1991; Falender & Shafranske, 2010; Goodyear, 2014).
It is vital to note that this study solely focuses on the data collected from the stakeholder
perspective of the supervisor. It is very possible, even likely, that supervisees have different
interpretations based on their perception and experiences in the supervisory relationship. The
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 39
differences in perception and experience in the supervisory relationship could also be based on
the varying levels of training, education, and tenure within a specific organization.
The focus of supervision from the perspective of CDER supervisors provides unique
insight into the experiences and unique challenges faced within this federal agency.
Additionally, examining the data collected through the perspective of supervisors allows this
study to contribute to the growing body of research regarding effective supervision as it relates to
employee satisfaction. Ultimately, most of the factors that facilitate effective supervision are
also integral to employee satisfaction in the workplace (Bateman & Organ, 1983).
Understanding the Facilitators and Barriers to Effective Supervision from a Gap Analysis
Perspective
Effective supervision is a social construct that can be better understood utilizing the gap
analysis framework developed by Clark and Estes (2008) and subsequently adapted for
educational contexts by Rueda (2011). Promising practices and performance gaps to effective
supervision uncovered utilizing the gap analysis framework aid in improving both organizational
practice and organization performance. The gap analysis framework employs both qualitative
and quantitative data in an effort to provide clarity to the causes behind the promising practices
and performance gaps to effective supervision (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The gap analysis framework identifies three critical dimensions that must be addressed
when problem solving: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) elaborate and expand on Bloom’s Taxonomy
(Bloom, 1956) to identify and analyze performance gaps and promising practices related to
knowledge and skills. Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) describe the three motivational
indices that guide the analysis of motivational issues and factors under the gap analysis
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 40
framework. Lastly, sociocultural theory is utilized in examining and analyzing organizational
settings under the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This study used qualitative data to demonstrate how people felt, knew, perceived, and
thought in various settings and situations (Patton, 2002). Additionally, the gap analysis
framework used qualitative data to validate, create depth and breadth, and understand the gaps in
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture identified through quantitative data.
Various stakeholders in an organization have different roles and employment
responsibilities that determine the knowledge and skills to execute their positions effectively.
This project focuses specifically on supervisors as the stakeholder group to examine the role
supervisors have in facilitating or perpetuating effective supervision which ultimately contributes
to employee satisfaction.
Knowledge and Skills
The category of knowledge and skills is the first area of examination when exploring
potential performance gaps or promising practices as these relate to effective supervision.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) delineate four types of knowledge: (1) factual knowledge, (2)
conceptual knowledge, (3) procedural knowledge, and (4) metacognitive knowledge.
Factual knowledge often refers to essential facts, terminology, details, and elements an
individual must know in order to understand a specific discipline or solve a problem (Anderson
et al., 2001; Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge often refers to knowledge of
classifications, principles, and theories within a particular discipline like education, law, and
medicine (Anderson et al., 2001; Krathwohl, 2002). The term procedural knowledge is
knowledge that aids an individual to do something specific within a discipline or area of study
(Anderson et al., 2001; Krathwohl, 2002). Lastly, metacognitive knowledge is defined as
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 41
“knowledge about cognition in general as well as awareness of and knowledge about one’s own
cognition” (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 214). Metacognitive knowledge consists of knowing and
understanding general strategies that might be used for different tasks, knowing and
understanding the conditions under which various strategies may be used, and knowledge of
one’s self (Krathwohl, 2002; Pintrich, 2002).
Table 4
Summary of Supervisor Knowledge Behaviors Impacting Supervision by Knowledge Sub-Areas
Knowledge
Sub-Areas
Supervisor Knowledge Behaviors
Factual
Supervisors know the goals and mission of the organization
Supervisors oversee and train supervisees

Procedural
Supervisors know how to apply the organization’s policy and procedures
Supervisors know how to provide constructive feedback
Supervisors encourage and facilitate communication

Conceptual
Supervisors understand the concept of work-life balance

Metacognitive
Supervisors understand the principles and values of leadership and
supervision theory

Supervisors have learned and are able to think like supervisors

Motivation
“Human beings are made up of two very distinct yet cooperating psychological systems –
knowledge and motivation...Motivation gets us going, keeps us moving, and tells us how much
effort to spend on work tasks” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 80). There is widespread consensus
among motivation researchers that there are three motivational indexes or types of motivational
processes (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The three motivational indexes are active choice,
persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 81).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 42
Active choice is the first motivational index and is described as a deliberate, intentional
pursuit of a goal and the action that subsequently follows that intention. In other words, it occurs
when an individual takes action in pursuing a specific goal and actively works towards that goal
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Persistence is the second motivational index and is described as an
individual working towards a specific goal and continuing forward towards that goal even in the
face of distractions. Clark and Estes (2008) note, “it is desirable to have the greatest amount of
persistence invested in the most important work goals” (p. 81). The last motivational index is
mental effort, which Clark and Estes (2008) depict as, “choosing and persisting must be
accompanied by adequate mental effort invested in key work goals…Mental effort is determined,
in large measure, by our confidence” (p. 81).
Table 5
Summary of Supervisor Motivation Behaviors Impacting Supervision by Motivation Sub-Areas
Motivation
Sub-Areas
Supervisor Motivation Behaviors
Active Choice
Supervisors set goals that are realistic and achievable
Supervisors provide direct instruction and communicate clear expectations

Persistence

Supervisors empower and encourage supervisees through positive role-modeling

Mental Effort
Supervisors encourage self-reinforcement, self-observation, and self-evaluation
Supervisors encourage problem-solving and personal growth

Organizational Factors
The cultural framework of an organization is established over time vis-à-vis “core values,
goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes learned” by employees, supervisors, and leaders of that
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 108). Organizational leaders, including supervisors, set the
tone for the organization through the mission and goal setting (Clark & Estes, 2008). Values,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 43
cultural norms, and procedures (e.g., methods of communication and accountability) all play a
vital role in the development of an organization’s cultural model.
Griffin et al. (2001) aptly note that supervisory behavior is often representative of the
organization, its processes, and its culture. Supervisors, acting within their official capacity,
clearly play a vital role in molding the culture and work environment in an organization (Griffin
et al., 2001).
Table 6
Summary of Supervisor Organizational Culture Behaviors Impacting Supervision
Supervisor Organizational Culture Behaviors
Supervisors role-model professional behavior
Supervisors provide direct instructions for poorly performing subordinates
Supervisors provide evaluative feedback on supervisee/subordinate performances

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 44
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this project was to examine both the promising practices and performance
gaps to effective supervision from the perspective of CDER supervisors. Specifically, this
project examined both promising practices and performance gaps to effective supervision from
the perspective of CDER supervisors utilizing the gap analysis framework. Under this
framework, this project identified the assumed causes in knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational factors that explained the promising practices as well as the performance gaps
between supervisor’s current practices and those required to achieve greater employee
satisfaction. This project examined the following questions:
1. What knowledge, skills, motivational and organizational factors do supervisors perceive
as contributing to or detracting from effective supervision in the federal agency?
2. For those factors perceived to be facilitating effective supervision, what promising
practices could be adapted to and utilized by other units in the same agency? For those
factors perceived as inhibitors, what solutions may be helpful for improving supervision
within the organization?
3. How might those interventions, whether promising practices or solutions, be evaluated
for effectiveness?
Methodological Framework
This study utilized the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) as the primary
framework in examining the facilitators of and barriers to effective supervision from the
perspective of CDER supervisors. The gap analysis framework identifies and validates assumed
causes of performance gaps and subsequently addresses potential solutions (Clark & Estes,
2008). In addition to identifying gaps in knowledge and skills, the methodology employed by
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 45
this project examined gaps in motivation, organization, and culture to improve performance
(Rueda, 2011). For this project, the promising practices that facilitated effective supervision
represented an asset, rather than a performance gap to be improved. Moreover, the identified
barriers to effective supervision represented a performance gap to be improved. Figure 4 is a
schematic diagram signifying the sequential steps in the gap analysis framework.

Figure 4. Gap Analysis Process. Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Assumed Performance Issues and Assets
The gap analysis framework is a methodological approach used to appropriately align
organizational problems with matching solutions. The overarching objective of the gap analysis
framework is to close gaps. Utilizing the gap analysis framework, the primary goal of CDER is
to achieve a 100% job satisfaction rating from employees on the 2016 EVS. CDER’s 2014 EVS
data reveals a 72% employee satisfaction rate. Comparatively speaking, the Department of
Health and Human Services and the Federal Government, overall, have 64% and 59% employee
satisfaction rates. Clearly, CDER enjoys a higher percentage of employees who are satisfied
with their jobs as compared to other offices within the Federal Government. Therefore, this
Goal
Assumed
Factors
Current
Achievement

Assets
Validated
Causes
Recommendations Implement
Motivation
Evaluate
The Gap Analysis Framework
Knowledge Organization
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 46
study examined both promising practices and barriers to effective supervision from the
perspective of supervisors within CDER.
Clark and Estes (2008) note that organizations often jump to solutions before properly
diagnosing the organizational problem. Rueda (2011) further notes that, when organizations rush
to implementing solutions, organizations often mismatch problems and solutions. Improperly
diagnosing an organizational problem and applying unfounded solutions are more detrimental
then helpful (Clark & Estes, 2008). Rueda notes that fragmentation, misalignment, and
haphazardly assigning solutions as an organizational fix are the three most common reasons that
prevent the success of performance solutions under the gap analysis framework.
The tendency to misalign and mismatch problems with the best solutions occurs in
organizations when assumed causes are not validated, thereby circumventing the gap analysis
framework (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Thus, to prevent fragmentation, misalignment,
and haphazardly assigning solutions as an organizational fix, this study examined and utilized the
EVS results as assumed performance assets and gaps for identifying potential facilitators of and
barriers to effective supervision.
The EVS
Since its inception in 2002, the U.S. Federal Government utilized the Federal Human
Capital Survey, now called the EVS to increase its understanding of human capital and employee
satisfaction (Fernandez, Resh, Moldogaziev, & Oberfield, 2015). The EVS is designed to
provide data that address “areas which drive employee satisfaction, commitment, engagement,
and ultimately retention in the workforce” (United States Office of Personnel Management
Planning and Policy Analysis, 2014, p. 1).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 47
The EVS has 98 questions, covering a total of eight topic areas, including: (1) personal
work experiences, (2) work unit, (3) agency, (4) supervision, (5) leadership, (6) satisfaction, (7)
work/life, and (8) demographics (United States Office of Personnel Management Planning and
Policy Analysis, 2014). A Likert scale is used to classify the percentage of positive, neutral,
negative, and no basis to judge responses (United States Office of Personnel Management
Planning and Policy Analysis, 2014).
Results of the EVS
Although 98 items are present on the 2014 EVS, the data collected and used by this study
focused specifically on 71 items. The research team categorized the 71 items into one of three
domains, (1) knowledge, (2) motivation, or (3) organizational culture (KMO), based upon which
domain would be best suited to addressing the performance gap for the item. Of the above 71
items, three were related to knowledge, nine emphasized the influence of motivation, and the
remaining 59 items related to the impact of organization elements. Immediate analyses of the 71
EVS items after application of the KMO framework strongly infer that an organization plays a
critical role in supervisory perceptions about work experience.
CDER’S mean score across the items for the entire organization was 70% (in agreement)
and the median score was 72.9%. The top ten items with the highest positive scores fell into
motivation and organizational areas. The ten lowest scoring items were categorized as
organizational issues. Concerns focusing on pay, promotion and recognition, and performance
accountability were the focus among the ten lowest scoring items.
Given this study’s unique perspective of examining the facilitators of and barriers to
effective supervision from the role of a supervisor, this researcher reviewed and reevaluated the
71 items on the EVS related directly to supervision and supervisor behaviors. Of the 71 items on
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 48
the EVS, a total of 30 question items related to supervision from a supervisory perspective.
Superimposing the KMO framework to the 30 question items related to supervision, three items
applied to knowledge and skills capabilities, seven question items related to motivation, and 20
fell under the category of organizational factors as it applies to supervision. The identified
supervision EVS items are the focal point of this section and are addressed in detail below.
Knowledge and skills. There are three items that address evaluating knowledge and
skills capabilities as they relate to supervision. While knowledge certainly contributes to
effective supervision, the instrument’s questions overwhelmingly focused on motivation and
organizational factors.
Question items 6, 12, and 19 address evaluating knowledge and skills capabilities under
the KMO rubric as it applies to supervision. Question item 6, “I know what is expected of me on
the job,” received a positive ranking of 15th out of the 71 total EVS items. Additionally,
question item 12, “I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities,” was
positively ranked 4th out of the 71 total EVS items. Certainly, these two high positive responses
on the EVS knowledge items suggest that supervisors understand expectations and the impact of
the work supervisors do as it relates to the agency’s goals and priorities.
Conversely, question item 19, “[i]n my most recent performance appraisal, I understood
what I had to do to be rated at different performance levels,” ranked 40th out of the 71 total EVS
items. Question item 19 warrants further examination as a possible performance gap and as a
potential barrier to effective supervision within CDER. Table 7 provides a list of EVS items
relative to knowledge and supervision.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 49
Table 7
Summary of Supervisor Knowledge Behaviors and Corresponding EVS Items by Sub-Areas
Supervisor Behaviors in Knowledge Sub-Areas
EVS Item
Item # Rank
Factual
Supervisors know the goals and mission of the organization 12 4th
Supervisors oversee and train supervisees 6 15th

Procedural
Supervisors know how to apply the organization’s policy and
procedures
Supervisors know how to provide constructive feedback
Supervisors encourage and facilitate communication
12
19
6
4th
40th
15th

Conceptual
Supervisors understand principles and values of supervisory theory 6 15th

Metacognitive
Supervisors have learned and are able to think like supervisors

6

15th

Motivation. The EVS results demonstrate that CDER is a motivated agency. Self-
efficacy, value, and the personal importance of the work accomplished all appear to be
significant factors contributing to employee satisfaction. As mentioned previously, there are a
total of seven question items that address issues of motivation as it relates to supervision.
However, a closer examination of the seven question items as they relate to issues of motivation
and supervision are warranted.
EVS question items 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 44, and 71 address the topic of motivation and
supervision. Question items 7, 8, and 13 enjoyed the highest positive rankings out of the entire
71 question items on the EVS, ranking 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, respectively.
Contrary to question items 7, 8, and 13, question item 44, “discussions with my
supervisor about my performance are worthwhile,” was ranked 41

out of the 71 total question
items. As such, question item 44 infers a potential performance gap in the area of supervision as
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 50
it relates to motivation. Table 8 provides a list of EVS items relative to motivation and
supervision.
Table 8
Summary of Supervisor Motivation Behaviors and Corresponding EVS Items by Sub-Areas
Supervisor Behaviors in Motivation Sub-Areas
EVS Item
Item # Rank
Active Choice
Supervisors set goals that are realistic and achievable
Supervisors provide direct instruction and communicate clear
expectations
7 1st
44 41st

Persistence
Supervisors empower and encourage supervisees through positive
role-modeling
7 1st
8 2nd
13 3rd

Mental Effort
Supervisors encourage self-reinforcement, self-evaluation, and critical
reflection opportunities
Supervisors stimulate problem-solving and personal growth

4
5
4
71
20th
9th
20th
31st

Organization. Organization factors were assumed to be both the cause of performance
gaps and assets during the course of this study. Thus, it was imperative to closely evaluate the
role that the organizational culture plays in facilitating or hindering effective supervision. There
were a total of 20 question items on the EVS that apply to issues of organizational culture and
supervision.
When analyzing CDER’s 2014 EVS results, the data reveals an organizational culture
that supports and upholds the agency’s mission and goals. Upon closer examination, however,
potential performance gaps exist in the areas of supervisors dealing with poor performers who
refuse to improve, lack of meaningful recognition by supervisors for jobs well done by
supervisees, performance-based pay raises, and the lack of constructive and critical feedback
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 51
from supervisors. These potential performance gaps identified from the EVS are all categorized
under organizational culture behaviors. Table 9 provides a list of all 20 EVS question items
relative to organizational culture and supervision. Table 9 also provides the respective rank of
each EVS item listed.
Table 9
Summary of Supervisor Organizational Culture Behaviors and Corresponding EVS Items by
Sub-Areas
Supervisor Behaviors
EVS Item
Item # Rank
Supervisors role-model professional behavior

Supervisors provide direct instructions for poorly performing
subordinates.

Supervisors provide evaluative feedback on supervisee/subordinate
performances

2
39
40
42
49

16
23
50

9
15
16
24
25
33
43
45
46
47
48
55
65

18th
7th
16th
8th
10th

6th
70th
11th

59th
37th
6th
6th
67th
71st
35th
28th
42nd
22nd
13th
25th
61th

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 52
Summary of Assumed Causes and Assets for the EVS, Social Science Literature, and the
Gap Analysis Literature
The correlation of supervisor behaviors with EVS items under the KMO rubric is based
on a synthesis of the social science literature previously discussed and all applicable literature
relating to the gap analysis framework. The subsequent sections of Chapter Three describe how
the assumed causes were validated to determine applicable solutions. Similarly, areas that are
assumed assets were validated in order to determine what may be recommended or replicated for
implementation in similar units. Three types of data were collected in this study: (1) focus group
observations, (b) individual follow-up interviews, and (c) document analysis.
To validate a specific supervisor behavior, additional evidence from other data sources
were examined to examine the extent to which the original, supervisory behavior was
corroborated or supported by other evidence (e.g., at least two interview subjects or two focus
groups mentioned the supervisor behavior). Supervisor behaviors were considered validated and
categorized as either an asset or an issue, if the behavior emerged across all three types of data.
Additionally, if a supervisor behavior was present in two sources of data, then it was labeled as
“suggested” but not validated. In instances where the behavior was not addressed or the data
was, in fact, silent, the assumed performance issues and/or assets were considered not validated.
Validation Procedure of Performance Assets and Issues: Knowledge
Knowledge is one of the three potential causes of performance gaps within the gap
analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) note that “[k]nowledge and
skill enhancement are required for job performance under only two conditions” (p. 58). First,
knowledge and skill enhancement is necessary when individuals do not know how to accomplish
performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Second, knowledge and skill enhancement is
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 53
necessary when future challenges are anticipated in the work place that mandate novel problem
solving (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Utilizing the research put forth by Anderson et al. (2001) in the revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy, the four dimensions of knowledge are (1) factual knowledge, (2) conceptual
knowledge, (3) procedural knowledge, and (4) metacognitive knowledge. Anderson et al.’s
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy was utilized to examine the knowledge component of the gap
analysis framework within this study.
Factual Knowledge Assets and Issues Validation
The validation of factual knowledge was analyzed through focus group observations,
individual interviews with supervisors, and document analysis. In order to assess factual
knowledge assets and performance gaps, supervisors were asked to provide examples about
communicating information in the workplace as well as the various supervisor roles and
responsibilities. In so doing, this study sought to collect and examine the evidence which
expressed the value that supervisors placed on specific practices that could be categorized as
factual knowledge.
Conceptual Knowledge Assets and Issues Validation
The validation of conceptual knowledge was gathered from supervisors’ reflective
comments in focus group observations and individual interviews with supervisors. Within the
focus of this specific study, conceptual knowledge indicated the value that supervisors placed on
specific practices they performed to support and strengthen their supervising capabilities.
Moreover, during the focus groups and follow-up interviews, supervisors were asked to articulate
what work expectations mean for CDER as an organization.
Procedural Knowledge Assets and Issues Validation
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 54
Validation of procedural knowledge assets and issues was assessed through various focus
group observations, individual interviews with supervisors, and document analysis. In each
instance, data were examined and analyzed to better understand how supervisors apply
organizational policies and procedures in their daily supervisory roles. To get a better
understanding of how supervisors exercised procedural knowledge at CDER, supervisors were
specifically asked, during interviews, to describe the way that they disseminated policies,
procedures, and information.
Metacognitive Knowledge Assets and Issues Validation
An assumed asset for metacognitive knowledge was that supervisors were knowledgeable
about how to communicate specific information under the appropriate context. Additionally, as
an assumed asset for metacognitive knowledge, this study assumed that supervisors were self-
aware and cognizant of their supervisory strengths and weaknesses. For example, a supervisor
may know that he or she is generally stronger in communicating with other employees or a
supervisor may know that his or her strength is providing feedback in a punctual and timely
manner to supervisees within the organization.
Validation of metacognitive knowledge assets and issues was assessed primarily through
the various focus groups conducted and through individual interviews with supervisors. In each
instance, collected data were examined and analyzed to better understand how supervisors
remained self-aware and cognizant of their supervisory strengths and weaknesses.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 55
Table 10
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Assets and Issues Validation
Assumed Knowledge
Assets and Issues
How Was It Validated?
(Assets/Issues)
Procedural
In the last six
months, feedback
has been provided
as part of my
supervisory job
duties

Supervisors
communicate clear
expectations

Observations: Examples of how the supervisors are providing
performance feedback to supervisees; How frequently? To what end?

Interviews: Interview Protocol Questions: 3, 4, 7, & 9; Providing
performance feedback mentioned and supervisory obligations

Observations: Discussions surrounding supervisor communication.
Interview Protocol Questions 3-6

Conceptual
Supervisors allow
supervisees to
work from home
and fluctuate
designated work
hours to
accommodate
family/personal
obligations
Observations: Comments made about work/life balance and allowing
individuals the option to work from home, vary designated work
hours, and understanding the importance of balance

Interviews: Interview Protocol Questions: 3, 4, 7, & 9; Supervisors
discuss the importance of understanding work/life balance and
allowing supervisees the opportunity to fluctuate designated work
hours to accommodate family/personal obligations

Validation of Performance Assets and Issues: Motivation
The value component of supervisory motivation was validated through focus group
observations, individual interviews, and document analysis.
Values, Attributions, and Interests Validation
Statements and reflections of supervisors’ experiences in motivating supervisees to
persist in various tasks demonstrate the importance of motivating supervisees from the
perspective of a supervisor. Likewise, statements and reflections of supervisors’ experiences in
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 56
allowing supervisees the flexibility to work from home demonstrate the importance of supporting
a work/life balance from the perspective of a supervisor.
To further explore supervisors’ perceptions relative to motivation based on values, this
researcher examined the data for the following:
1. Examples of critical feedback coupled with direct reflection between a supervisor and
supervisee (values and interests validation).
2. Examples of recognition awards (attainment value).
Table 11
Summary of Assumed Motivation Assets and Issues and Validation
Motivational
Asset or Issue
Type of
Indicator
Possible Underlying
Cause
How Will It Be Validated?

Supervisors exhibit
positive role
modeling
Persistence Supervisors recognize
that their actions and
behaviors are being
emulated by others
Observations: Discussions
addressing supervisory role
modeling.
Interviews: Protocol
Questions 3-6

Supervisors
encourage self-
reinforcement,
self-observation,
and self-evaluation
Mental Effort

Supervisors appreciate
the value of direct
reflection and self-
evaluation
Observations: Discussions
on the importance of direct
reflection.
Interviews: Protocol
Questions 3-6

Validation of Performance Assets and Issues: Organizational Culture and Context
The assumed organizational assets or promising practices by supervisors at CDER
included effective communication methods, a culture of collaboration, and ample professional
development opportunities. Additionally, this study assumed that performance gaps also existed
among supervisors when examining the organizational culture and context. Specifically, this
study assumed that supervisors failed to take proper steps in dealing with poor performers who
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 57
cannot or will not improve. Moreover, this study further assumed that supervisors failed to
properly recognize supervisees in a meaningful manner and in accordance with how well
supervisees performed their job duties.
To validate the assumed organizational assets and performance gaps, supervisors
participated in focus groups and follow-up interviews. Additionally, this study also utilized
document analysis to aid in evaluating which organizational factors were assets or promising
practices and which were performance gaps. Table 12 provides a summation of the assumed
assets, assumed performance gaps, and the methods of validation.
Table 12
Summary of Assumed Organizational/Culture/Context Assets and Issues and Validation
Organizational
Asset or
Performance Gap
Possible Organizational Cause(s) How Will it be Validated?
Supervisors provide
direct instructions for
poorly performing
subordinates
Supervisors are unable to
communicate (L)
A deep-level dissimilarity exists (L)
A relationship conflict exists between
the supervisor and supervisee (L)
Lack of policies or procedures in
place to deal with poor performers
(E)
Observations: Comments
articulating the lack of
policies or procedural
guidelines in place to deal
with poor performance.
Interviews: Interview Protocol
Questions: 3, 4, 8, & 9
Supervisors are
unable to provide
critical feedback and
give proper
recognition in a
meaningful way to
supervisees
Lack of established communication
systems (L)
Lack of transparency from
administration (T)
Lack of understanding of relationship
between job and agency’s goals and
priorities (E)
Supervisors do not meaningfully
recognize supervisees for jobs well
done (E)
Supervisors lack the communication
skills to properly and effectively
complete the performance appraisals
of supervisees (E)
Observations: Comments
from supervisors on the lack
of information that flows
through them from the senior
management; comments that
indicate that they do not pass
on to employees all of the
information they receive from
senior managers.
Interviews: Interview Protocol
Questions: 3, 4, 8, & 9
* EVS (E) or Related Literature (L) or Theories related to culture/context (T)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 58
Summary of Assumed Assets and Issues for the EVS, Social Science Literature, and Gap
Analysis Literature to be Validated
The assumed knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture and context
factors required validation to better understand which factors were assets and which factors were
performance gaps at CDER. Additionally, the specific dimensions of the KMO domains were
validated and discussed utilizing the same approach.
Participating Stakeholders
This study’s subject population derived from CDER, a 4th level sub-agency of the United
States Government in Silver Spring, Maryland. During the 2014 calendar year, there were a total
of 3,312 employees at CDER (OPM, 2014). In 2014, a total of 1,739 CDER employees
completed the EVS, representing approximately 52.50% of the entire CDER employee
population (OPM, 2014). In 2014, the EVS government-wide completion rate was
approximately 48.20%. In fact, during calendar years 2013 and 2014, CDER’s EVS response
rates were higher than were the government-wide average response rates.
The 2014 EVS survey included the participation of both stakeholder groups, as did the
focus group sessions, and the follow-up interviews. The subjects’ job descriptions varied from
office clerks to senior scientists, toxicologists, and pharmacists. The average number of years at
this organization varied, but the overall average was approximately 7.2 years.
Participation in Focus Groups and Observations
Three types of stakeholders participated in this study: senior management, supervisors,
and employees. Senior management played a minimal role in this study. Approximately 155
staff members and 80 supervisors attended the various focus group sessions at the FDA facilities.
Thus, approximately 5% of CDER’s 4,000 employees attended the focus groups. Each of the six
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 59
offices participating had varied involvement rates in the focus group sessions. The offices
represented in the focus groups provided an assortment of EVS scores with some offices
consistently representing higher positive results. Consequently, the participation of the offices
that enjoyed higher positive results was helpful in capturing the most successful facilitators of
effective supervision.
Participation in Interviews
During the focus groups, the participants were asked to participate in a follow up one-on-
one interview. This voluntary call to all attendees for follow-up interviews resulted in eight
employees and three supervisors electing to participate in confidential, follow-up interviews. It
is important to note that two of the three supervisors were team leads. Team leads act as liaisons
between employees and upper management, but do not have authoritative power. The two team
leads who participated in follow-up interviews were categorized as supervisors for the purpose of
the findings analysis.
Data Collection
The following section describes the data collection, the various instruments utilized, and
the procedures employed to collect data for this project. Permission was granted from USC’s
Institutional Review Board, which ensured the safety and protection of the participants in this
study. Three lead investigators and six co-investigators collected data over the course of
multiple visits to CDER’s facility in Maryland to validate knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational assumed causes and assets. Each visit included a focus group session led by
partner consultants Suntiva (an auxiliary of the Department of Learning and Organizational
Development at CDER) and various offices within CDER received invitations to participate in
the focus group sessions.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 60
Instruments
The use of protocols for the focus groups conducted, the follow-up interviews, and
document analysis provided data collection consistency across the research team. The protocols
were developed by the research team prior to visiting CDER’s facility in Maryland. The
following paragraphs describe the instruments utilized in addition to the examples attached in the
appendices.
The research team used a protocol during observations of the stakeholders (Appendix D).
The focus group protocol was used to record general demographic information, a room diagram,
and interior observations. In addition, recorded notes were taken and information was
categorized according to the KMO rubric. Ultimately, this tool allowed for a consistent format
for collection of data among the researchers.
An interview protocol was used for all one-on-one interviews conducted (Appendix E).
All interviews were semi-structured and consisted of nine standard questions designed to validate
the causes identified during the workshops and to further explore assumed causes which surfaced
during the workshops. The standardized questions explored both teamwork and supervision on
employee satisfaction in addition to exploring the implications of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors. Interviewees were given the opportunity to expound on their viewpoints
about employee satisfaction as it relates to both teamwork and supervision.
Lastly, two worksheets were provided to employees during the focus group sessions,
which ultimately were used as primary source documents for analysis. The worksheets included
two questions that addressed either the top or bottom ten results on the EVS for the respective
offices (Appendix F):
1. What about these items are important, and why?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 61
2. What do you think causes or contributes to these results?
The document analysis tool proved useful to guide participants in the discussions that followed
about employee satisfaction as it relates to both teamwork and supervision.
Observations
A series of workshops with six different offices in the FDA were facilitated by FDA
employees, partner consultants Suntiva, and six members of the USC doctoral research team.
The various workshops served as a vehicle to discuss the top ten (most positive) results and the
bottom ten (least positive) results of the EVS as applicable to the FDA. All of the workshops
were conducted in Silver Spring, Maryland at the FDA’s White Oak Campus. Approximately
155 staff members and 80 supervisors attended the focus group sessions at the FDA’s White Oak
Campus.
Senior managers were invited to attend a briefing session where specific results of the
EVS were discussed and the overall workshop process was described. A session was also
completed with non-supervisory personnel where both the top ten and bottom ten results were
reviewed. All non-supervisory personnel were asked to discuss the results in small groups and
provide reflections on whether they agreed with the results and what may be reasons for the
positive and negative responses. Each small group was then asked to report to the larger body of
employees about their findings and responses. This process was then repeated for the bottom ten
results.
Similarly, all participating supervisory employees engaged in the same process. After
both groups attended the respective workshops, the research team compiled the results of each
session. At the closing of the workshop, senior managers, supervisors, and non-supervisory
personnel then convened and the results of the workshop’s findings were presented.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 62
Interviews
All attendees in the above mentioned workshops were given the opportunity to participate
in follow-up telephone interviews. As such, a total of three supervisors participated in follow-up
interviews and eight employees agreed to be interviewed. Two of the three supervisors have
official titles as team leads. Team leads are project coordinators who serve as liaisons between
employees and upper management, but lack supervisory power.
Additionally, the follow-up interviews provided the opportunity to raise additional assets
or causes not mentioned during the workshops. One specific method used by this researcher was
asking the following questions:
1. How do you communicate with supervisees, fellow supervisors, and senior management
at CDER?
2. How do you monitor and evaluate supervisee performance?
3. How do you provide feedback to those you supervise?
4. What are some of your strengths and weaknesses as a supervisor?
Document Analysis
In addition to observations, focus groups, and interviews, this researcher also engaged in
document collection and analysis. While conducting the focus groups, this project captured
pertinent notes and concepts shared on large flip chart paper as well as PowerPoint presentations
surrounding the larger project. All of the information recorded has been included as document
analysis. In addition to note taking, as part of a larger group, detailed handwritten notes and
typed note taking also occurred.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 63
Trustworthiness of Data
To ensure the trustworthiness of the data gathered, this project utilized the qualitative
method of triangulation. Triangulation involves the use of different methods, particularly
observation, focus groups, and individual interviews, which form the major data collection as the
basis of qualitative research (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). According to Merriam (2009),
employing various qualitative methods in concert minimizes their respective limitations and
enhances the overall data collection. Moreover, supporting data, including document analysis, is
an additional tool utilized to enhance the overall trustworthiness of the project (Creswell, 2009;
Merriam, 2009).
The 2014 EVS was an anonymous survey based on an existing, reliable instrument
utilized by the Federal Government to measure employee viewpoints. Additionally, observations
and interviews did not collect personal information to help ensure candid responses and
confidentiality. Lastly, all members of the research team collaborated throughout the duration of
this project to ensure consistent data collection methods.
Data Analysis
All qualitative data analyzed in this study underwent a process of analytic coding.
According to Merriam (2009), coding is a process of categorizing data for analysis. The data
analysis system utilized in this study was a cyclical process that employed pre-determined
categorizes: the knowledge, motivation, and organization dimensions. Subsequently, themes
emerged from the data and were grouped together in an analytical process called axial coding
(Merriam, 2009). Lastly, unexpected themes known as a priori and open coding were identified
if they continued to emerge from the data.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 64
Data analysis required multiple readings of the observation notes and all interview
transcripts to recognize reoccurrences and formulate findings. All data sources were read a
minimum of three to four times when coding. This researcher also participated in color-coding
data to help identify frequency and further reflect on emergent themes that appeared from the
data.
Ultimately, validation of findings was based on the amount of evidence that surfaced
throughout the coding process. The number of sources was used to determine the strength of the
findings. Findings were labeled as validated if evidence was confirmed in three different
sources. If evidence was located in two different sources, evidence was then labeled as
suggested. The findings of this study are subsequently presented in Chapter Four.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 65
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this project was to examine both the promising practices and performance
gaps to effective supervision from the perspective of CDER supervisors. Specifically, this
project examined both promising practices and performance gaps to effective supervision from
the perspective of CDER supervisors utilizing the gap analysis framework. Under this
framework, this project identified the assumed causes in knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational factors that explained the promising practices as well as the performance gaps
between supervisors’ current practices and that required to achieve greater employee satisfaction.
This study sought to address the following questions:
1. What knowledge, skills, motivational and organizational factors do supervisors perceive
as contributing to or detracting from effective supervision in the federal agency?
2. For those factors perceived to be facilitating effective supervision, what promising
practices could be adapted to and utilized by other units in the same agency? For those
factors perceived as inhibitors, what solutions may be helpful for improving supervision
within the organization?
3. How might those interventions, whether promising practices or solutions, be evaluated
for effectiveness?
This chapter presents the findings from the data collected to address the first of the three
questions, “What knowledge, skills, motivational and organizational factors do supervisors
perceive as contributing or detracting from effective supervision in the federal agency?” The
remaining two questions of this study are addressed in Chapter Five. The supervisor behaviors
listed below under the respective KMO sub-areas are indicative of facilitating effective
supervision within the federal agency.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 66
Qualitative data gathered from observations, interviews, and document analysis
expressed the employee viewpoints at CDER. The validation continuum considered the strength
of the evidence, based upon the frequency within the data.
Knowledge Results
The use of Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda’s (2011) four knowledge types allowed this
study to categorize the findings. The four knowledge categories are (1) factual, (2) conceptual,
(3) procedural, and (4) metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). The knowledge
categories and validated themes that emerged from the data are discussed in relation to each
other below.
Focus Group/Observation Results
Factual knowledge. According to Rueda (2011), factual knowledge refers to basic
concepts of “specific disciplines, contexts, or domains. It includes things like terminology,
details or elements that one must know or be familiar with in order to understand and function
effectively or solve a problem in a given area” (p. 28).
Supervisors know the goals and mission of the organization. During the focus group
discussions, one supervisor noted the importance of knowing the mission of the organization and
that knowledge served as the foundational element in all of the work completed at CDER. This
sentiment was echoed and supported by all of the other members within this particular focus
group.
Procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge is demonstrated through the
comprehension of skills, methods, and processes utilized. Procedural knowledge also pertains in
“knowing to do something…It can also refer to methods of inquiry, very specific or finite skills,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 67
algorithms, techniques, and particular methodologies that are required to accomplish specific
activities” (Rueda, 2011, p. 28).
Supervisors know how to communicate. During a focus group session, one supervisor
touted the importance of knowing how to communicate. This CDER supervisor stated, “None of
us could do anything alone. We are subject matter experts but none of us work alone.” During
the focus group discussion, this same supervisor stated, “We are a wheel, and the project
manager is the hub. We all operate in an interdependent manner.” Sharing a similar sentiment
as the supervisor above, another supervisor articulated, “You must communicate and work
together to get the job done.” Knowing how to effectively communicate as a supervisor became
a reoccurring topic in the focus group discussions. The various ways that CDER supervisor’s
communicated included (1) emailing, (2) informal conversations, (3) and team meetings. The
examples of procedural cognition revealed that CDER’s supervisors possessed the requisite
procedural knowledge on how to communicate information in the workplace.
Conceptual and metacognitive knowledge. Conceptual and metacognitive knowledge
examples of supervisor behaviors were not observable or noted in the focus groups and
observations conducted. However, the data analysis did reveal the presence of conceptual and
metacognitive knowledge in the follow-up interviews and document analysis conducted.
Interview Results
The interviews conducted with one CDER supervisor and two team leads provided great
insight into the existence of supervisory behaviors that facilitated effective supervision within
this organization. A variety of knowledge types emerged in the CDER follow-up interviews that
were conducted as part of this study. The following subsections present the viewpoints
articulated by CDER supervisors, categorized by the different types of knowledge.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 68
Conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is simply knowledge of “categories,
classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures pertaining to a
particular area” (Rueda, 2011, p. 28). When examining the data collected and focusing solely on
the conceptual knowledge under the KMO rubric, it became clear that supervisors and team
leaders understand the value of supervisory role modeling, basic principles and values of
supervisory theory, and the process of supervisee development.
Supervisors understand the principles and values of supervision. One team lead
expressed the importance of supervising as it relates to employee satisfaction in the work place
noting “that informal learning or...more mentoring and more shadowing” are principles of
supervision that ultimately correlate to employee satisfaction in the work place. One supervisor
spoke at length about her thoughts on effective supervision including the fact that “we [all
supervisors] have to take certain courses per year for management and supervisors,” inferring
that she understood the concepts of supervision and took her position as a supervisor seriously.
Additionally, this supervisor expressed a high comfort level in her supervisory position, knowing
her strengths and weaknesses as a supervisor, and enjoys her career and positively contributing
to the field of medicine and public health.
Procedural knowledge. One supervisor succinctly articulated the importance of
communication, stating,
It’s the open communication. I do meet with my team. Because there are two of us,
myself and the other [pharmacology/toxicology] supervisor, so we do meet as a
[pharmacology/toxicology] team once a month and we do talk. The way I organize it is
that I go through each individual and ask them, give me a highlight...[F]ive minutes of
telling to the group what was an interesting or unusual or unique application that they
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 69
may have had that month or a toxicity of a class of drugs or whatever, so everybody
knows what’s going on with the other reviewer.
This same supervisor elaborated on the importance of communication as an essential
component to effective supervision by noting that, in addition to meeting with her supervisees,
this supervisor also met with her counterpart, the other supervisor in her office to share
information and discuss matters of professional importance. In addition to consulting with her
counterpart, she also insists on additional meetings with just her supervisees. She articulated her
reasoning for additional meetings, stating,
I meet with my own five people separately and just go over certain issues that they may have that
is just related to my team. There is a lot of communication that goes on. I try to make it open
policy type of thing. If they have any issue, they need to talk to me about it so there is a lot of
communication. Again, I have to emphasize, I know not every supervisor [does this]. I do go out
of my way if somebody comes in, “Oh can I talk to you?” I don’t say “I am busy, come back in
five minutes,” and I am busy, but I say “Okay, come on in.”
Metacognitive knowledge. The fourth and final type of knowledge under the KMO
rubric is metacognitive knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). Pintrich (2002) notes that regardless
of the theoretical perspective, researchers agree that increasing awareness of one’s own thinking
as well as becoming more knowledgeable about cognition in general aids development. The
awareness of one’s own thinking and cognition is often described as metacognitive knowledge
(Pintrich, 2002). Metacognitive knowledge examples of supervisor behaviors were not gleaned
or noted in the supervisor interviews conducted.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 70
Document Analysis Results
Documents provided a third data source to confirm findings that emerged in the focus
groups and observation results as well as the follow-up interviews conducted. The documents
analyzed provided numerous examples of factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge from the perspective of CDER supervisors. The following subsections discuss the
evidence that addresses both facilitators of and barriers to effective supervision.
Factual knowledge. Factual knowledge emerged as it applied to CDER supervisor’s
demonstrating their understanding of the organization’s mission. Supervisors knew the mission
of the organization. Furthermore, notes memorialized on a flip chart articulated that CDER
supervisors “understand the importance of what you do and how it relates to the mission.”
Conceptual and metacognitive knowledge. Supervisors understood principles and
values of supervisory theory. Conceptual and metacognitive knowledge emerged and applied to
CDER supervisors understanding the principles and values that contribute to effective
supervision. A recorded phrase, on table notes collected, stated “No one’s role is more important
that another.” Another set of notes discussing supervision noted that CDER supervisors “set
expectations and provide[d] guidance.” These examples found in the document analysis infer
that CDER supervisors understand principles and positive attributes associated with effective
supervision. The quotes referenced above also demonstrate an understanding of CDER
supervisor’s demonstrating metacognitive knowledge.
Procedural knowledge. A closer examination of the documents analyzed demonstrated
a deep-level frustration by CDER supervisors surrounding bureaucratic policies and procedures.
Specifically, table notes from one group of supervisors mentioned “no information about how to
get promoted. No developed plan. No [plan] for dealing with poor performers.” Another set of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 71
table notes articulated “bureaucracy makes it so you can’t be transparent” and one CDER
supervisor noted that there “is no direct link between pay and performance.”
Motivation Results
Focus Group/Observation Results
Persistence. Persistence is the second of three motivational indexes under the KMO
rubric and is described as continuing towards a goal, even in the face of distractions (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Often in a work environment, individuals have many goals and are tempted not to
persist at a specific goal, thereby allowing distractions to disrupt achievement of that first,
specific goal (Clark and Estes, 2008). “In general, it is desirable to have the greatest amount of
persistence invested in the most important work goals” (Clark and Estes, 2008).
Positive role-modeling by belief in the mission. During a focus group discussion
centered around the mission of the FDA, one team leader stated, “We are a mission-oriented
organization and our impact on the daily lives is what makes people want to come here in the
first place. The broad impact and reach is important. That is what sustains me.”
Interview Results
Active choice. The first type of motivational process that comes into play in a work
environment is what Clark and Estes (2008) describe as active choice. Clark and Estes (2008)
describe active choice as the first of three motivational indexes and entails “when people choose
(or fail to choose) to actively pursue a work goal” (p. 80). This was one of the areas under the
KMO rubric where both promising practices and a performance gap were exposed.
Supervisors communicate clear expectations. One supervisor clearly demonstrated the
importance of communicating with supervisees in team meetings and with each supervisee
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 72
individually in a one-on-one setting. In fact, this supervisor recalled having to admonish a
supervisee about working after hours. She describes the interaction:
I have called him in to my office. He’s just a workaholic, and I called him to my office,
and I said listen. I said, “First of all, I know you’re not trying to impress me before your
evaluation. I don’t get impressed with this. You need to have a life with your family. You
have a family, you have children, you have your wife...” “I said, this is not acceptable to
me.”
Persistence. Supervisors discussed empowering and encouraging supervisees through
positive role-modeling and persisting towards the goal of striking a healthy work-life balance.
From a supervisor’s perspective, she articulated:
I actually refused to have a Blackberry. So many times, they wanted me to have a
Blackberry because, as a manager you’re allowed to have a Blackberry. I refused to have
a Blackberry because that means they’re going to reach me at any time of the day, and
it’s with me…I don’t think it’s a good idea. I know the American society is very much
into working all the time. I don’t think we expect people to do that and to be honest, I
think, as a Federal Government and the FDA, I think people can finish their job easily in
nine hours…but, to work and be more like fourteen hours a day, that’s absurd, and that’s
not healthy, and I don’t think it’s productive.
When further probed on the importance of maintaining a work-life balance, this same
supervisor stated, “I think there’s more to life than just work...You need to have a life with your
family. I know this because my people, we do talk about their social life and family life.”
Continuing on the topic of maintaining a healthy work-life balance, this supervisor
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 73
unequivocally stated, “I don’t get impressed with this [working late]” and has even admonished
past supervisees for failing to maintain a work-life balance.
Mental effort. Supervisors candidly discussed the topic of encourage problem-solving
and personal growth from the official capacity as a CDER supervisor. Supervisors and team
leads encourage supervisees to participate in decisions of importance, including the hiring
process. One team lead described her perception of having supervisees participate in the hiring
process, noting,
We rely on them to conduct half of the interview. Half of it’s with team leaders, half with
staff, and staff take the candidates out. We want them to get to know the person. So, I
think that really helps with our hiring, too. We have at least seven different people
interacting with this person and can get their opinion, so, then, you feel more confident
hiring...It’s just one piece of the puzzle, so I think that’s been really helpful, too, because
you have something else to rely on. You have a lot of different thoughts and opinions
coming in on whether or not to hire.
Certainly, the explanation provided by this team lead demonstrates the importance of
including supervisees in important workplace decisions, such as the hiring process. This
explanation provided demonstrates the confidence that CDER supervisors have in the employees
of the organization.
Supervisors encourage self-reinforcement, self-observation, and self-evaluation.
During a discussion about fostering motivation and supervisory practices to encourage mental
effort, one supervisor emphatically described her supervisees as “very reliable, responsible,
dedicated people.” This statement, although short, speaks volumes about the importance of
using positive language to encourage and empower those who are supervised.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 74
This supervisor, through her positive speech, was attempting to “adopt a more positive
motivational climate...to increase individual and team confidence, interpersonal and
organizational trust, collaborative spirit, optimism, positive emotions, and values about work”
(Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 100). While discussed in more detail in Chapter Five, Clark and Estes
(2008) note that “[t]he benefit of achieving a more motivated organization is in increased
persistence at work tasks and a higher quality of mental effort invested in work goals” (p. 100).
Document Analysis Results
Active choice. Supervisors provide direct instruction and communicate clear
expectations. An analysis of the documents gathered during the course of this study revealed a
consensus among CDER supervisors that establishing clear goals, such as striving to achieve a
healthy work-life balance, was important to effective supervision. In fact, during the concluding
remarks of a focus group session, there appeared to be a widespread consensus that CDER
supervisors support intentional goals such as: flexibility, work-life balance, and encouraging a
healthy lifestyle.
Additionally, supervisors clearly understood their positions as conduits for information
between senior management and employees in specific CDER offices. Supervisors also
understood the importance of effective communication between themselves and the employees
they supervise on a daily basis. The majority of supervisors regularly communicated with their
supervisee’s vis-à-vis team meetings, office-wide meetings, and intra-office meetings.
Noteworthy of mention is the fact that only one supervisor expressed the importance of having
an open door policy with those employees who were supervised. The lone supervisor who
discussed having an open door policy expressed the importance of being available, accessible,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 75
and approachable to supervisees. Ultimately, the majority of supervisors regularly
communicated with supervisees during structured, scheduled team meetings.
Mental effort. Supervisors encourage problem-solving and personal growth. CDER
supervisors were described as having confidence in and trusting their employees and fellow
supervisor colleagues. The documents collected and analyzed revealed that CDER supervisors
articulate their confidence and trust in the organization’s employees and supervisors. One
statement articulated a perception that CDER supervisors “want us to develop our skills and
increase the complexity of [our] tasks.” There were numerous discussions, throughout the
various documents collected and analyzed, that CDER supervisors encouraged both problem-
solving skills as well as personal growth.
Organizational Results
Supervisors shared feelings of disappointment, dissatisfaction, and frustration by the
federal human resource policies and procedures when dealing with poor performers. The
organizational results also revealed negative feelings on the topic of providing evaluative
feedback vis-à-vis the annual performance evaluations utilized at CDER.
Focus Group/Observation Results
During the focus groups and observations conducted, CDER supervisors expressed great
frustration in past attempts at handling poorly performing employees.
Supervisors provide direct instructions for poorly performing subordinates. During
a focus group discussion, one supervisor expressed frustration, noting,
HR makes it hard to deal with poor performers. Even when you are trying to do
something, you can’t tell the rest of the staff what you are doing because of
confidentiality. Hope poor performers get another job or accept a deal elsewhere.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 76
In fact, one supervisor shared that it was easier to promote or transfer a poor performer than
actually confronting the poor performance issues.
Interview Results
The dissatisfaction and deep frustration expressed by CDER supervisors was abundantly
clear in the interview results analyzed when the topic of evaluative feedback and confronting
poorly performing subordinates was addressed.
Supervisors provide evaluative feedback on supervisee/subordinate performances.
A performance gap was discovered pertaining to supervisors providing recognition and feedback
to supervisees. When this researcher inquired specifically about employee recognition, one
supervisor noted, “Yes, I think we need to do more of that. I think we need to recognize people
for what they do…higher ups need to work on that a little bit more.” This supervisor explained
that her division does recognize people, even with small monetary gifts or even just giving
people the recognition for a job well done. However, she conceded that there could be more
acknowledgment for employee’s efforts on the job.
Interestingly, however, this same supervisor recalled a previous incident, prior to her
promotion as a supervisor approximately 15 or more years ago. She stated,
I was never told “Thank you. You did a good job.” I never thought about it until, one
time actually, my supervisor did say, “Oh, the review was written very well, and you did
a good job.” When he said that to me, then I realized, “Oh my gosh. That’s a first time in
10 years or so I’ve ever heard him saying thank you about something I’ve done.” Then,
it made me think, “Well, that’s terrible…” I think we need to recognize people for what
they do.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 77
This supervisor’s response to the importance of providing supervisee recognition was
pivotal in her career and clearly shaped her views of the significance of recognizing supervisees,
providing recognition when a job is properly completed, and how supervisor recognition
contributes to overall employee satisfaction.
During a follow-up interview, one supervisor expressed that it was part of her supervisory
duties to provide evaluative feedback to her supervisees. When further probed about the topic of
a supervisor’s role in providing feedback, this same supervisor emphatically stated, “I am their
supervisor, I do their evaluation, and then my division director will only do my evaluation.”
On the subject of supervision and providing supervisees evaluative feedback, one
supervisor stated, “I meet with them [supervisees] way more than twice a year. I have an
open door policy. They come whenever they want to talk about something as long as I
know about it.” This same supervisor also stated that she meets with her supervisees in a
large group meeting once a month and asks each supervisee to provide a general highlight
about anything interesting, unique, or unusual that the supervisee is currently working on.
Supervisors role-model professional behavior. Robust evidence surfaced in three
sources demonstrating the importance of supervisor role-modeling as a vital component of the
organizational culture. Supervisor role-modeling could be viewed a conceptual knowledge issue
under the KMO rubric. However, supervisor role-modeling is also highly representative of the
organization’s expectations when modeled by a supervisor. One supervisor discussed role
modeling and described it as “you [simply] set the tone for the division.”
Although none of the supervisors or team leaders interviewed mentioned it by name, one
team leader touched upon the importance and values of role-modeling, stating,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 78
It’s part of our job to make sure everybody is okay and they feel cared about. I think
when you do make that trip into the office that makes it a little, it makes it easier to do
that because you feel like you’re going to get something out of being there in person.
Supervisors provide direct instructions for poorly performing subordinates. One
CDER team lead expressed frustration at the prospect of dealing with poorly performing
employees during a follow-up interview. This CDER team lead stated that poor performers can
be an issue in the organization. When discussing poor performance, this team lead mentioned,
Again, all I see is the constant behavior itself and the expectation of behavior change and,
quite frankly, lack of consequences for not changing behavior. That’s the most
frustrating is kind of going through the same thing over and over and over and not seeing
any behavior change. Getting a sense that people feel like they don’t need to change
because there’s no consequence.
The issue surrounding supervisor’s responding to poor performance in the workplace was
found to be present in multiple data sources, including follow-up interviews, focus group
discussions, and in various documents analyzed as part of this study. Actionable suggestions to
consider and implement are provided in Chapter Five under the heading “Recommendations for
Practice.”
Document Analysis Results
Supervisors provide direct instructions for poorly performing subordinates. Failure
to address and provide instructions or corrective actions for poorly performing subordinates or
supervisees surfaced numerous times throughout the document analysis, confirming the presence
of the assumed performance gap in three sources or triangulation.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 79
Supervisors provide evaluative feedback on supervisee/subordinate performances.
The presence of data surrounding the topic of performance feedback via the annual performance
evaluations surfaced numerous times while analyzing the various documents collected. An
examination of the table groups’ notes resulted in a high frequency of the topic surrounding the
annual performance evaluations utilized by CDER supervisors within this federal agency.
Validated Themes
After reviewing the findings, several prominent themes emerged spanning across
knowledge, motivation, and organizational domains. The most prominent themes included
supervisory communication, role-modeling, performance assessments and evaluative feedback,
proper employee recognition, and addressing poor performers. Each of these themes was
referenced in multiple interviews, focus groups, and the data collected to validate the behavior.
The two largest promising practices or assets that immediately emerged from the data
were (1) supervisory role modeling and (2) supervisory communication. The three remaining
themes that emerged from the data were (1) performance assessments and evaluative feedback
(2) proper employee recognition, and (3) failing to address poor performers.
Supervisor Role-modeling
Numerous supervisors identified the importance of role-modeling and clearly understood
that supervisees would emulate the behavior that was demonstrated by supervisors within the
organization. Supervisors also demonstrated a strong commitment to a healthy work-life
balance. Supervisors shared expectations that a normal work day should not necessitate
overtime, personal sacrifice, or forfeiting familial obligations.
The theme of supervisor role-modeling was also present when discussing the agency’s
mission and the FDA’s commitment to public health and safety. Interestingly, supervisors
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 80
acknowledged the need to occasionally work extra hours and on the weekends. On that same
point, however, CDER supervisors were quick to note that regularly sacrificing personal time
leads to employee burnout, turnover, and is counter-productive to the mission of the agency. As
such, the theme of supervisor role modeling was validated and represents a promising practice
and facilitator of effective supervision at CDER.
Supervisor Communication
Supervisors articulated the importance of communicating with fellow supervisors as well
as with senior leadership in this federal agency. One supervisor noted that effective and efficient
communication begins with senior leadership and is passed down to division directors,
supervisors, and team leaders. Supervisors and team leaders frequently referenced the steps taken
to maintain communication with supervisees and members of their respective divisions at CDER.
As such, the theme of supervisor communication was validated and represents a promising
practice and facilitator of effective supervision at CDER.
Failure to Address Poor Performers
Across the various offices in CDER, supervisors admitted to not taking corrective action
when employees perform poorly. One team lead even described a poorly performing employee’s
behavior as “constant” and the “lack of consequences” for this employee failing to perform. This
sentiment was shared by numerous supervisors, team leads, and across the data collected,
demonstrating the magnitude of this issue as a clear performance gap within the organization.
Performance Assessments and Evaluative Feedback
In examining the data collected, one of the primary responsibilities among supervisors
included the completion of employee performance assessments (commonly referred to as the
PMAP). The PMAP or employee evaluation is completed on an annual basis by supervisors and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 81
serves as a vehicle to provide employees formative feedback on how to improve. The data also
revealed that supervisor comments on feedback centered on the completion of these annual
employee assessments and did not include any references to more frequent, informal, and routine
feedback for employees. As such, it appeared that supervisors assumed that the PMAP was
sufficient and satisfactory in providing formative feedback for employees who were supervised.
The numerous references throughout the data revealed a deep frustration and dissatisfaction with
the PMAP process as the primary vehicle for obtaining evaluative feedback in this organization.
Thus, the topic of performance evaluations and supervisor feedback has been identified as a
performance gap.
Employee Recognition
Lastly, supervisors affirmed the need to reward and recognize employees who excel on
the job, noting that the agency falls woefully short in this respect. Many supervisors were forced
to find creative solutions to reward employees who excel on the job and exceed expectations.
Supervisors expressed buying movie tickets and providing small monetary rewards for
employees who are deserving of recognition and excel on the job. Supervisors also discussed
alternative strategies, including the creation of more supervisory positions; thereby increasing
promotion opportunities and utilizing flex time policies to provide more job autonomy for
employees who excel. Employee recognition appeared in multiple data locations coupled with
feelings of frustration and disappointment by CDER supervisors. As such, issues concerning
employee recognition have been identified and will be addressed as a performance gap.
Synthesis of Findings
The data collected related to supervision, from the perspective of CDER supervisors,
came from multiple interviews, focus group discussions, and various documents collected,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 82
including the 2014 EVS, the close-out documents from each focus group, observation notes
taken by the researchers, and power point presentations created to address each specific focus
group. Specifically, three interviews (out of 11 total interviews) were with supervisors. Two
individuals interviewed held the official title of team lead and had supervisory duties and
responsibilities. One individual had the official title of supervisor and oversaw six to seven
supervisees on a daily basis. A total of six focus groups were conducted, with each focus group
yielding multiple points relating to supervision from a supervisory perspective. The close-out
documents from each focus group and the other documents analyzed as part of this study yielded
rich data that aided in validating reoccurring themes about supervision.
The results contained herein are not generalizable. Rather, the viewpoints captured in the
focus groups and individual interviews, along with the data analysis, provided information on the
facilitators of and barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of supervisors within this
federal agency.
Summary
The findings from this study provided great insight as to what knowledge, motivation,
and organizational factors influence supervision from the perspective of supervisors within this
federal agency. Moreover, when examined closely, the data revealed two promising practices
and three performance gaps. The two promising practices or organizational assets identified in
the data were (1) supervisory role modeling and (2) supervisory communication. The three
performance gaps identified were (1) performance assessments and evaluative feedback, (2) the
lack of employee recognition and awards, and (3) the lack of accountability for poorly
performing employees. An evaluative analysis and recommendations based on this study’s
findings are presented in the subsequent chapter.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 83
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS, AND EVALUATIONS
The purpose of this study was to examine the facilitators of and barriers to effective
supervision from the perspective of supervisors in a federal agency. In so doing, this study was
guided by the following research questions:
1. What knowledge, skills, motivational and organizational factors do supervisors perceive
as contributing to or detracting from effective supervision in the federal agency?
2. For those factors perceived to be facilitating effective supervision, what promising
practices could be adapted to and utilized by other units in the same agency? For those
factors perceived as inhibitors, what solutions may be helpful for improving supervision
within the organization?
3. How might those interventions, whether promising practices or solutions, be evaluated
for effectiveness?
The findings discussed in Chapter Four focused on the first research question to explore
and extrapolate the causes of both promising practices (facilitators of effective supervision) and
performance gaps (barriers to effective supervision) in the areas of knowledge and skill,
motivation, and organizational culture as it relates to effective supervision. Chapter Five
addresses the second and third research questions through recommendations for practice,
providing an implementation plan for the recommendations given, and a plan to evaluate the
implemented recommendations. The information gathered from the analysis of observations and
focus groups, follow-up confidential interviews, and document analysis coupled with supporting
literature led to the proposed recommendations discussed in Chapter Five. Chapter Five
concludes with an assessment of the study’s limitations, delimitations, and prospective areas for
further inquiry into the topic of effective supervision.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 84
Recommendations for Practice
Utilizing applicable theories of learning from social science literature coupled with
professional literature, strategies for replicating the promising practices identified in Chapter
Four are subsequently presented. Utilizing the same learning theories and professional literature,
the recommendations for practice are made to address and solve the performance gaps identified
by this study.
The proposed knowledge, motivation, and organizational enhancements are connected to
the relevant research literature and are premised in theoretical learning principles. The
recommendations below provide suggestions to augment the established facilitators of effective
supervision at CDER. Likewise, the recommendations below also address the validated barriers,
or performance gaps, to effective supervision by CDER supervisors.
Knowledge Enhancement
Enhancement: provide simulations and supervisor role-playing opportunities on
how to confront, communicate, and address poor performers. It is recommended that
CDER conduct on-site training specifically for CDER supervisors on how to confront and
communicate with poorly performing employees. Additionally, CDER supervisors should be
provided with demonstrations on the exact procedures recommended by CDER’s human
resources office. Moreover, CDER supervisors should be given multiple opportunities to
practice both during and after this closed doors training, with feedback to correct any
performance mistakes. This training recommendation tells CDER supervisors what to do, what
not to do, and exactly how to do it.
Enhancement: Increase supervisor accessibility and visibility. It is recommended that
CDER supervisors leave their offices to circulate through the hallways to become more visible,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 85
accessible, and approachable to the unit’s employees. This recommendation will also allow
CDER supervisors to directly observe the unit’s environment at any given moment throughout
the working day. The data addressing supervisory communication at CDER clearly corroborates
the conclusion that “employees’ perceptions of organizational communication are directly related
to both their job satisfaction and job performance” (Pincus, 1986, p. 412).
The data from this study revealed, and ultimately supported, the importance of
communicating effectively as a supervisor. CDER supervisors clearly validated their role as
effective conduits for communication between employees, division directors, and senior
leadership. Formal means of communicating, including structured team meetings, and intra-
office meetings were various ways CDER supervisors maintained open lines of communication.
Interestingly, however, much of the data addressing supervisor communication behaviors applied
to more formal means of communication.
Motivation Enhancement
Motivation is a key aspect of performance in the workplace (Rueda, 2011). “The concept
of motivation refers to internal factors that impel action and to external factors that can act as
inducements to action” (Locke & Latham, 2004, p. 388). These motivational behaviors are best
addressed and explained by the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1961; Bandura, 1977; Bandura,
1986; Bandura, 1997; Bandura, 1997; Bandura, 2001; Bandura & Locke, 2003).
Social cognitive theory is premised upon the notion that people function as purposive,
self-evaluating regulators of their motivation and actions (Bandura, 2001). Among the many
mechanisms of human agency, none is more pervasive and all-encompassing than beliefs of self-
efficacy (Bandura, 2001).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 86
Enhancement: provide CDER supervisors with confidence building workshops
focused on increasing self-efficacy in the organization. It is recommended that CDER
supervisors be provided with examples and non-examples on how to provide positive feedback
to employees who excel in the workplace. It would be beneficial for CDER since general self-
confidence is not as critical for work place motivation as is task-specific confidence (Bandura,
1997; Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) note that as confidence and self-efficacy
increases, so does a commitment to performance goals.
Enhancement: circulate and promote CDER’s mission to foster both individual and
collective efficacy. A deep belief in the organizational mission is a positive attribute shared by
most, if not all, CDER supervisors. In an effort to promote and continue this positive behavior,
CDER may create signage displayed throughout the Silver Spring Campus and in common areas
such as the main campus entrance, security gates, the cafeteria, and various reception areas to
reinforce the mission. Common areas such as the cafeteria and main campus entrance are areas
that serve hundreds of employees daily and experience heavy foot traffic. Circulation and
promotion of the organization’s mission statement through electronic correspondence would also
aid in reinforcing the mission in the daily routines of all CDER employees.
Organization Enhancement
Enhancement: provide clear team task performance goals to increase productivity
and include poor performers. Supervisors are encouraged to set goals that address a joint
focus on learning and team performance, as this might prove most adaptive in work settings
(Porter, Franklin, Swider, & Chien-Feng Yu, 2015). To specifically address poor performers at
CDER, it is recommended that group goals be established to impress the importance of
adequately performing in the workplace. Additionally, commitments that carry responsibility to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 87
others create social pressure to follow through (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1986) aptly notes that
peers (including CDER supervisors) affect performance by acting as role-models.
Enhancement: provide job roles, responsibilities, and promotion criteria to increase
awareness and supervisor accountability. Given the profound performance gap revealed in
the data, it is recommended that supervisors be given opportunities to work closely with CDER’s
human resources division. Many supervisors acknowledged the federal human resource policies
and procedures as the root cause of their trepidation. As such, it is imperative that CDER
supervisors are supported by the human resource office. Ultimately, supervisors must be given
opportunities to work closely with human resource staff members to understand the value and
importance of holding people accountable and following federal human resource policies and
procedures.
Additionally, given the widespread consensus that the annual performance appraisals
were ineffective, unclear, inconsistently applied, and lacked transparency, it is recommended that
CDER inform all employees, including supervisors and management, about the promotion
criteria. Additionally, the promotion process must be transparent and standardized to ensure the
greatest amount of equity throughout the process. This could be accomplished by posting
signage on various bulletin boards in common areas or outside of the human resources office that
is accessible to all employees, including supervisors and senior management.
Implementation Plan
The implementation plan integrates knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions to
thwart any potential fragmentation that may occur. The implementation proposals below note
the importance of aligning CDER’s structures and the processes of the organization with its
goals. Additionally, it is imperative that top management, including senior leadership and CDER
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 88
supervisors be continually involved and genuinely invested in the improvement process.
Ultimately, “[u]pper management vision and commitment...coupled with visible management
involvement in the process, is a critical success factor” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 118).
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006, p. 3) provide a practical template for an
implementation plan, including tem specific steps. They are (1) Determining Needs, (2) Setting
Objectives, (3) Determining Subject Content, (4) Selecting Participants, (5) Determining the Best
Schedule, (6) Selecting the Appropriate Facilities, (7) Selecting Appropriate Instructors, (8)
Selecting and Preparing Audio-Visual Aids, (9) Coordinating the Program, and (10) Evaluating
the Program. The Division of Learning and Organizational Development (DLOD) within
CDER’s Office of Executive Programs (OEP) will determine the details of steps five through
nine.
Set Goals, Distribute Information, and Job Aids About Job Roles, Responsibilities, and
Objectives
Senior leadership is encouraged to revisit, review, and reset organizational goals.
Establishing clear organizational goals and posting the goals on a community board in common
areas throughout CDER’s campus will ensure widespread dissemination among CDER’s entire
workforce. An essential element of successful organizational change is establishing “the
connection between a compelling vision, a sound business process to reach that goal, clear work
goals accompanied by effective work procedures, motivational support for everyone, and
assessment of the results” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 117) as applied to the organizations overall
goals.
The setting of proposed organizational goals is rooted in Locke and Latham’s (1990;
2004; 2006) seminal research on goal-setting theory (GST). The conceptual framework for GST
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 89
is that “the best task performance results when goals are both specific (usually quantitative) and
difficult. Mediating mechanisms are attention (to the relevant task and outcome), effort (as
required to reach the goal), persistence, and task knowledge or skill” (Locke & Latham, 2004, p.
37). Simply put, goals provide the standard for satisfaction, and successful achievement of a
goals (or goals) leads to greater satisfaction and increased self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001; Locke &
Latham, 2004).
Present Adaptability Strategies and Provided Guided Role-Playing Practice at All CDER
Supervisory Meetings
Numerous supervisors shared examples of how they recognize employees who excel in
their jobs but struggled with holding poor performers accountable. Whether a supervisor
chooses to hold poor performers accountable, or not, is directly attributed to the organization.
Similarly, whether a supervisor decides to recognize and reward an employee who excels on the
job is also directly attributed to the organizational culture. Providing adaptability strategies and
guided role-playing opportunities for all CDER supervisors to address the identified performance
gaps is recommended.
Redesign CDER’s PMAP Program: Include an Objective and Subjective Component
Arguably, the most significant finding of this study revealed a strong discord and
dissatisfaction around issues of constructive and evaluative feedback, which constituted a
substantial barrier to effective supervision. This finding was further validated by the belief that
the supervisory feedback provided vis-à-vis the PMAP did not provide clear goals, outline
employee expectations, and provide constructive feedback.
Supervisors play a crucial role in the success or failure of any appraisal system (Pooyan
& Eberhardt, 1989). The effectiveness of the appraisal process depends on two factors: (1) the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 90
technical component of the appraisal system and (2) the broader organizational and managerial
context. Latham, Wexley, and Pursell (1975) propose training supervisors to minimize rating
errors and objectively evaluate subordinates by providing training workshops. It is
recommended that CDER supervisors participate in a training workshop with a highly structured
format on reducing rating errors commonly made and how to minimize the giving of
unproductive and negative feedback (Latham et al., 1975).
Aligning CDER’s Organizational Culture with CDER’s Organizational Policies and
Procedures as Applicable to Poorly Performing Employees
To begin the process, it is recommend that CDER’s senior leadership, upper level
management, and supervisors collaborate to develop clear, non-negotiable goals regarding poorly
performing employees. The focus group observations and document analysis data validated that
CDER supervisors are uncertain, unsure, and apprehensive on how to correctly address the issue
surrounding poor performers. A lack of communication in this regard creates ambiguity about
the organization’s expectations, goals, and ultimately leaves room for speculation and distrust
with respect to the organization’s policies and procedures.
As such, it is recommended that communication infrastructure be created to ensure
consistent and continual two-way communication between CDER’s leadership, upper level
management, and supervisors. Conceivably, leadership teams could be created to create a venue
for two-way communication between CDER’s leadership, upper level management, and CDER
supervisors. The data revealed that CDER’s supervisors are effective conduits of information
among employees and in their project teams. Thus, CDER supervisors would be responsible for
informing employees about CDER leadership’s expectations, visions for improvement, and goals
as applied collectively to the entire organization.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 91
On-Going Actions: Employee Awards, Praise, and Recognition
Acknowledging and reinforcing positive behaviors encourages employee self-regulation,
autonomy, and encourages goal setting in the work place. Furthermore, positive emotions, such
as happiness, enjoyment, and satisfaction all support work commitment. It is important that
CDER supervisors recognize and praise employees (including fellow supervisors) who
demonstrate and model cultural practices representative of CDER’s values, philosophies, and
standards. CDER will stand to benefit greatly from the creation of a positive emotional
environment for all employees as happier employees are more likely to exhibit increased work
commitment. As Bandura (2001) aptly notes, “a high sense of efficacy promotes a prosocial
orientation characterized by cooperativeness, helpfulness, and sharing, with a vested interest” (p.
15) in the organization as a whole.
Evaluation Plan
The process of evaluation provides information about the initial state of any organization
hoping to change, the progress of change being implemented, and the bottom line impact of the
change (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 139). Clark and Estes (2008) emphatically state that the
evaluative process “[i]s an absolutely necessary component of all successful improvement
efforts” (p. 139). For this study, the performance evaluation model created by Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2006) is utilized. The evaluation model has four stages:
1. Reaction
2. Learning
3. Behavior
4. Results
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 92
Clark and Estes (2008) recommend the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) model as it
supports the evaluation of all performance support systems. In fact, the Kirkpatrick basic four-
level model is almost universally used when evaluating organizational performance settings and
solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) present a slight variation to the four-
level model, to support the evaluation of performance support systems.
Reactions and Motivation
The first stage of the four-level model involves inquiry into whether the participants are
motivated by the program (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). In other words, do the
participants value the implementations made? The creation of a focus group as the primary
mechanism through which DLOD can gauge participant reactions and motivation is
recommended. Note, however, a positive reaction by participants does not indicate a gain in
useful information. Additionally, reaction information does not provide insight into whether a
successful program will support organizational goals. Rather, the most useful information
gained during this level of evaluation addresses the motivational impact on the participants
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Learning and Performance
The second stage of the evaluation model addresses the impact of all programs during
implementation. For example, “[i]f a knowledge gap is being closed with a training program,
this level examines the learning that takes place during the training course” (Clark & Estes,
2008, p. 131). Additionally, if improvements in the areas of motivational or organizational
change are implemented, stage two of the four-level model will measure the progress made.
Moreover, the second stage of the evaluation model will also serve as an early warning indicator
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 93
if a performance improvement program gets off track and corrections are needed.
Transfer of Behavior
The third stage of the evaluation model checks performance improvement transfer and
durability after the program. In other words, “[l]evel 3 evaluation checks to see whether gains
made during a program persisted after the program’s completion” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 135).
Clark and Estes (2008) note that the longer term impact of organizational programs is often
negative. Thus it is imperative to track the impact of change programs after implementation.
Additionally, the third stage of the evaluation model examines the transfer of training
programs, including off-site, on-the-job, and web-based programs for participants. Nearly all
training programs suffer from a lack of transfer due to discouragement from using the newly
acquired skills (Clark & Estes, 2008). DLOD would benefit from interviewing a sample of the
participants who completed any recommended training programs. Moreover, it is recommended
to interview participants and ask for on-the-job examples of how newly acquired knowledge and
skills learned in training are used to accomplish a problem or work-related task.
Results and Impact
Stage four measures the bottom line as it applies to the impact of changes on the
organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 137). Essentially, the “[b]ottom line evaluation
answers the question of whether the program made any different to the business or other
organizational goal achievement” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 137). Certainly, the 2016 EVS would
offer insight on the results and impact that this study and its companions within the larger project
had on employee satisfaction at CDER. Examining employee turnover, as an evaluative
measure, would provide valuable insight as to whether employee satisfaction increased or
decreased within CDER. Lastly, it is recommended that DLOD create and invite supervisors to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 94
participate in a follow-up focus group, to gather additional data focusing on assessment and
change from the perspective of CDER supervisors.
Limitations
This project was constrained by several limitations. The EVS data were derived from an
instrument that was created or constructed by the researcher. Additionally, the instrument itself
was not created to analyze the impact of effective supervision on employment satisfaction, which
is the focal point of this project. Moreover, the EVS asked the subject stakeholder group, CDER
supervisors, to complete the instrument from the perspective of being an employee, not as a
supervisor.
One weakness of the instrument as a data collection tool may be the lack of question
variety, since only three question items on the entire survey address knowledge issues.
Additional limitations to this study included limited access of the research team to the
supervisors. The sample size for this study was extremely small as a result. However, the size
of the sample alone does not serve as a limitation if the findings and recommendations resonate
with the reader and parallels may be drawn to other scenarios or organizations (Merriam, 2009).
Delimitations
The presence of delimitations constrains the generalizability of the project. First, the
project is built upon the gap analysis framework. This project utilized the framework to analyze
both performance gaps and assets or promising practices. It is important to note that the model
itself was not adapted when used to analyze potential assets identified during data collection.
Additionally, three sources of data collection were observations, interviews, and
document analysis. The dependability of the data relied upon the honesty of the participants and
their willingness to answer the researcher’s questions. Precautions were used throughout the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 95
project and, since the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection, it is important to
acknowledge potential dilemmas (Merriam, 2009).
Recommendations for Further Inquiry
CDER is a unique organization that has an exceptionally educated workforce. As such,
one recommendation for further inquiry is the examination of job satisfaction in an organization
comprised of employees with minimal or no exposure to higher education. Future studies
examining the relationship between job satisfaction and levels of employee education are
recommended. Additionally, further studies examining the relationship between job satisfaction
and employee educational attainment would contribute to the growing body of research
pertaining to job satisfaction and educational attainment.
The study of supervision is buttressed and is made exponentially stronger when viewed
from an interdisciplinary context. Almost every profession has signature pedagogy unique to its
discipline in training future generations of young professionals. The practice of supervising and
preparing professionals is central to dozens of important occupations, including education, law,
medicine, and science. As such, the study of supervision and organizational management is
crucial to the health and welfare of countless professions and is needed.
Finally, further inquiry into the professional practices of supervision and the law is
recommended. Many supervisory practices, including supervisor qualifications, the conditions
under which supervision occurs, and who can become a supervisor are codified in both state and
federal laws. Many professions, including medicine and law, are controlled by regulatory
boards, credentialing groups, and accrediting bodies. Thus, further research on the intersections
of law and the practice of supervision would provide valuable insight on various professions and
the communities they serve.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 96
Conclusion
This study examined the facilitators of and barriers to effective supervision from the
perspective of CDER supervisors. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, which
analyzes performance issues through the domains of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
culture, was used to validate supervisor behaviors that were previously identified in professional
and social science literature. Focus group observations, confidential follow-up interviews with
individual employees, and document analysis were all utilized to collect data and gather
evidence. The data were then analyzed under the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
culture rubric in an attempt to validate supervisor behaviors.
A total of 18 supervisor behaviors were identified, with nine supervisor behaviors
validated and nine behaviors suggested. The most profound finding of this study revealed a
shared belief among supervisors that the performance appraisal process utilized in this federal
agency constituted a substantial barrier to effective supervision. Supervisors also identified
organizational shortcomings in the areas of employee recognition and feedback.
The findings generated from this study have significant and widespread implications for
all public service organizations hoping to learn the implications of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational practices that improve job satisfaction through the implementation of effective
and efficient supervision. This study demonstrates that effective supervision does not take place
in isolation and works best when the senior leaders of the organization recognize the connection
between organizational goals, job satisfaction, and effective supervision, and then prioritize
effective supervision. Effective supervision and job satisfaction are inextricably bound together
and ultimately developing and sustaining effective supervision is one of the most vital tasks of
any professional human organization.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 97
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., Raths, J., & Wittock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY:
Pearson.
Bandura, A., & Huston, A. C. (1961). Identification as a process of incidental learning. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 311-318. doi:10.1037/h0040351
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of
applied psychology, 88, 87-99. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-
595. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand dyadic
processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,4, 855-870. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2010.00303.x
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (3
rd
ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 98
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing
organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, W., & May, D. (2012). Organizational change and development: The efficacy of
Transformational leadership training. Journal of Management Development, 31, 520 536.
doi:10.1108/02621711211230830
Carifio, M. S., & Hess, A. K. (1987). Who is the ideal supervisor? Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 18(3), 244. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.18.3.244
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Clifton, D. O., Hollingsworth, F. L., & Hall, W. E. (1952). A projective technique for measuring
positive and negative attitudes towards people in a real-life situation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 43, 273-283. doi:10.1037/h0055812
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dall’Alba, G. (2009). Learning professional ways of being: Ambiguities of
becoming. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41, 34-45. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rept20/current
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 99
Downey, H. K., Sheridan, J. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). Analysis of Relationships among
Leader Behavior, Subordinate Job Performance and Satisfaction: A Path-Goal
Approach. The Academy of Management Journal, 18, 253–262. doi:10.2307/255528
Edelstein, L. (1943). The Hippocratic oath: Text, translation and interpretation. Baltimore,
Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Epstein, R. M., & Hundert, E. M. (2002). Defining and assessing professional
competence. JAMA, 287, 226-235. doi:10.1001/jama.287.2.226
Fernandez, S., Resh, W. G., Moldogaziev, T., & Oberfield, Z. W. (2015). Assessing the Past and
Promise of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for Public Management Research: A
Research Synthesis. Public Administration Review, 75, 382-394. Retrieved from
https://priceschool.usc.edu/assessing-the-past-and-promise-of-the-federal-employee-
viewpoint-survey-for-public-management-research-a-research-synthesis/
Fox, T. (2014, December 11). How to strengthen federal workers’ job satisfaction. The
Washington Post. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/12/11/how-to-strengthen-
federal-workers-job-satisfaction/
Fulk, J., Brief, A. P., & Barr, S. H. (1985). Trust-in-supervisor and perceived fairness and
accuracy of performance evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 13, 301-313.
Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-business-research/
Gallup, G. H., & Hill, E. (1960). The secrets of long life. Geis Associates.
Gilbreth, F. B. (1912). Primer of scientific management. New York, NY: D. Van Nostrand
Company.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 100
Goodyear, R. K., Brewer, D. J., Gallagher, K. S., Tracey, T. J., Claiborn, C. D., Lichtenberg,
J.W., & Wampold, B. E. (2009). The intellectual foundations of education core journals
and their impacts on scholarship and practice. Educational Researcher, 38, 700-706.
doi:10.3102/0013189X09354778
Goodyear, R., Lichtenberg, J. W., Bang, K., & Gragg, J. B. (2014). Ten changes
psychotherapists typically make as they mature into the role of supervisor. Journal of
clinical psychology, 70, 1042-1050. doi:10.1002/jclp.22125
Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Supervision as pedagogy: Attending to its essential instructional and
learning processes. The Clinical Supervisor, 33, 82-99.
doi:10.1080/07325223.2014.918914
Goodyear, R. K. (2015). Using accountability mechanisms more intentionally: A framework and
its implications for training professional psychologists. American Psychologist, 70, 736-
743. doi:10.1037/a0039828
Griffin, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West, M. A. (2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role
of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 537-550.
doi:10.1002/job.101
Hackman, J. R., & Porter, L. W. (1968). Expectancy theory predictions of work
effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 417-426.
doi:10.1016/0030-5073(68)90018-4
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of
research and opinion. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh.
Hertzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY:
Transaction Publishers.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 101
Hoffman, M. A., Hill, C. E., Holmes, S. E., & Freitas, G. F. (2005). Supervisor perspective on
the process and outcome of giving easy, difficult, or no feedback to supervisees. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 52, 3-13. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/cou/
Johnson, W. B. (2007). Transformational supervision: When supervisors mentor. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice,38, 259-267. doi:10.1037/0735 7028.38.3.259
Johlke, M. C., & Duhan, D. F. (2000). Supervisory communication practices and service
employee job outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 3, 154-165.
doi:10.1177/109467050032004
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of
empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance.
Small Group Research, 33, 313-336. doi:10.1177/10496402033003002
Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003). The interactive effect of leader
member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 764-772. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.764
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).
Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: John
Wiley.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41, 212-218. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20#.Vu63YEeF93M

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 102
Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N., & Pursell, E. D. (1975). Training managers to minimize rating
errors in the observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5), 550.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 486-516.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105
Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNall.
Locke, E. A., & Lantham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six
recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29(3),
388-403. Retrieved from http://aom.org/Publications/AMR/Academy-of-Management-
Review.aspx
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current directions
in psychological science, 15, 265-268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External
Leadership of Self- Managing Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-
129. doi: 10.2307/2392745
Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art
and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1980). Maslow on management. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 103
Mayo, E. (1930). The Hawthorne Experiment. The Human Factor.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the
moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1159-1168. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159
Muldoon, J. (2012). The Hawthorne legacy: A reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne
studies on management scholarship, 1930-1958. Journal of Management History, 18,
105-119. doi:10.1108/17511341211188682
Partnership for Public Service. (2014). Agency report: Food and Drug Administration (HHS).
BestPlacesToWork.org. Retrieved from
http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/HE36
Patton, M. Q. (1982). Practical evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 12, 395-419. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and
assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41, 219-225. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
Pooyan, A., & Eberhardt, B. J. (1989). Correlates of performance appraisal satisfaction among
supervisory and nonsupervisory employees. Journal of Business Research, 19, 215 226.
doi:10.1016/0148-2963(89)90020-9
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 104
Rath, T., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). How full is your bucket? Positive strategies for work and life.
New York, NY: Gallup Press.
Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Tremblay, S. (2013). Team coaching and innovation in work
teams. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34, 344-364.
doi:10.1108/LODJ-08-2011-0073
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sa, Y., Burns, C., & Sullivan, C. (2014). An inquiry into the relationship between employee
development and organization satisfaction in the federal sector. Asian Social Science, 10,
119-129. doi:10.5539/ass.v10n12p119
Schat, A. C., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of Workplace Aggression in
the US Workforce: Findings From a National Study. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J.
Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2003). Leader and Staff Role-Efficacy as Antecedents of Collective
Efficacy and Team Performance. Human Performance, 16, 131-156. doi:
10.1207/S15327043HUP1602_2
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper Brothers.
Taylor, F. W. (1914). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper Brothers.
Taylor, F. W. (1916). Government efficiency. Bulletin of the Taylor Society, 2(5), 7-13.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 105
Ting, Y. (1996). Analysis of job satisfaction of the federal white-collar work force: Findings
from the survey of federal employees. The American Review of Public Administration,
26, 439-456. doi: 10.1177/027507409602600404
Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees. Public
Personnel Management, 26, 313-334. doi: 10.1177/009102609702600302
Witt, L. A., Kacmar, K. M., & Andrews, M. C. (2001). The interactive effects of procedural
justice and exchange ideology on supervisor-rated commitment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22, 505-515. doi:10.1002/job.99
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 106
Appendix A
Table A1
Table A1
Factors Contributing to Employee Satisfaction
Factor Selected Citations
Organizational Culture
Stress/emotional exhaustion (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)
Development encouraged (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Harter et al.,
2012)
Promotional Opportunity/Opportunity for
Advancement
(Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Herzberg,
1959; Herzberg et al., 1957; Locke, 1976)
Mission/Purpose makes my job important (Harter et al., 2012; Mayo, 1933; Uhrbrock,
1934)
Opportunity to do my best daily (Gilbreth, 1912; Harter et al., 2012; Locke,
1976)
Commitment (Locke, 1976; Yuan, 1997)
Values (Locke, 1969)
Family friendly policies (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)
Corporate Culture (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)
Organization as a whole (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)
Supervision
Supervision/Supervisor (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Gilbreth,
1912; Herzberg, 1959; Herzberg et al.,
1957; Hoppock & National Occupational
Conference, 1935; Locke, 1976)
Leadership/Management (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Mayo, 1933)
Received Feedback/Progress Report in last
6 mos
(Gilbreth, 1912; Harter et al., 2012; Locke,
1976)
Skill Identity (Locke, 1976)
Work Itself
Work itself (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Herzberg,
1959; Herzberg et al., 1957; Locke, 1969)
Fatigue/physicality of the work (Gilbreth, 1912; Hoppock & National
Occupational Conference, 1935; Locke,
1976; Taylor & Tucker, 1911)
Workload (Gilbreth, 1912; Locke, 1976)
Meaningful work (Herzberg, 1959; Locke, 1976)
Mental Challenge (Locke, 1976)
Skill Variety/Job enlargement (Gilbreth, 1912; Hoppock & National
Occupational Conference, 1935; Locke,
1976)

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 107
Communication
Communication (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Herzberg et
al., 1957; Locke, 1969; Mayo, 1933; Yuan,
1997)
Opinions count (Harter et al., 2012)
Recognition/praise for my good work (Harter et al., 2012; Hoppock & National
Occupational Conference, 1935; Locke,
1976)
Role conflict (Locke, 1976)
Expectations understood vs. Role ambiguity (Gilbreth, 1912; Harter et al., 2012; Locke,
1969, 1976; Uhrbrock, 1934; Yuan, 1997)
Work Environment
Working conditions (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Herzberg,
1959; Herzberg et al., 1957; Hoppock &
National Occupational Conference, 1935;
Locke, 1969, 1976; Taylor & Tucker,
1911; Uhrbrock, 1934)
Possess Proper Materials & Equipment (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Gilbreth,
1912; Harter et al., 2012; Locke, 1969,
1976)
Economic Benefits (Direct & Indirect)
Pay/wages/salary (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Gilbreth,
1912; Herzberg, 1959; Herzberg et al.,
1957; Locke, 1976; Taylor & Tucker,
1911; Uhrbrock, 1934; Yuan, 1997)
Benefits (Vacation, Retirement, medical,
etc.)
(Herzberg et al., 1957)
Job security (Herzberg et al., 1957)
Teamwork
Teamwork/cooperation (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Herzberg et
al., 1957; Mayo, 1933)
Collaboration (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013)
Associates committed to quality (Gilbreth, 1912; Harter et al., 2012;
Herzberg et al., 1957)
Co-worker relations (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Gilbreth,
1912; Herzberg et al., 1957; Locke, 1969,
1976; Mayo, 1933; Uhrbrock, 1934)
Autonomy
Autonomy/Empowerment (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Locke, 1976)
Creativity (Locke, 1976)
Opportunities at work to learn and grow (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Gilbreth,
1912; Harter et al., 2012; Locke, 1976)
Self-esteem (Gilbreth, 1912; Locke, 1976)
Work Relationships
Social Relationships (Herzberg et al., 1957; Locke, 1976; Yuan,
1997)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 108
I have a best friend at work (Harter et al., 2012)
Cared about as a person by supervisor/co-
worker
(Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Harter et al.,
2012; Herzberg et al., 1957)
Demographics/Age (Blonski & Jefmanski, 2013; Yuan, 1997)

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 109
Appendix B
Table B1
Table B1
Supervision versus Teaching, Counseling, and Consultation
SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES
Teaching
• Both have the purpose of
imparting new skills and
knowledge
• Both have evaluative and
gatekeeping functions
• Whereas teaching is driven
by a set of curriculum or
protocol, supervision is
driven by the needs of the
particular supervisee and his
or her clients
Counseling or
Therapy

• Both can address recipients’
problematic behaviors,
thoughts, and feelings
• Any therapeutic work with a
supervisee must be only to
increase effectiveness in
working with clients
• Supervision is evaluative,
whereas counseling is not.
• Counseling clients often
have a larger choice of
therapists than supervisees
have of supervisors
Consultation
• Both are concerned with
helping the recipient work
more effectively
professionally. For more
advanced trainees, the two
functions may become
indistinguishable
• Consultation is a
relationship between equals,
whereas supervision is
hierarchical.
• Consultation can be a one-
time event, whereas
supervision occurs across
time
• Consultation is more usually
freely sought by recipients
than is supervision
• Supervision is evaluative,
whereas consultation is not

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 110
Appendix C
Observation Protocol
EVS Employee Workshop—Employee Satisfaction
Date:__________________
Location:______________________________
Time start: _____________
Time end:______________
Researcher:_____________
Male/female Years at
FDA/CDER
Unit Employee/supervisor
or senior mgr

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

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 111
Interior observations:
Room conditions:_______________________
Lighting:______________________________
Temperature:___________________________
Food/ drink:____________________________
Notes:_________________________________

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

MOTIVATION:

ORGANIZATIONAL BARRIERS:

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 112
Appendix D
Interview Protocol

Data Collection Method: Interview Protocol and Questions

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

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

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

#1 It looks like the group from today came up some possible causes or issues related to
supervision that are contributing to employee satisfaction (LIST THEM) either
positively or negatively. How confident are you that the group has surfaced all the right
causes? Anything you would add or take off?
#2 IF NOT ALL THE RESEARCH-BASED CAUSES HAVE SURFACED, ASK THIS:
Some research suggests that an additional reason, related to supervision and job
satisfaction, could be (INSERT HERE). How does that apply if at all to your
experience here?
#3 Your group came up with some possible causes related to teamwork that might be
contributing to employee satisfaction (LIST THEM) either positively or negatively.
How confident are you that the group has surfaced all the right causes? Anything you
would add or take off?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 113
#4 IF NOT ALL THE RESEARCH-BASED CAUSES HAVE SURFACED, ASK THIS:
Some research suggests that an additional reason, related to teamwork and job
satisfaction, could be (INSERT HERE). How does that apply if at all to your
experience here?
#5 Your group also came up with some action items in response to the scores. How
confident are you that if you completed these plans, employee satisfaction would
improve? How confident are you that the group will successfully complete the plans?
#6 Thinking about these action plans, some common reasons why groups don’t follow
through are related to motivation – meaning they don’t think it’s important. To what
extent is this a concern, in your opinion?
#7 Sometimes groups don’t follow through because of skill – they don’t know what to do.
To what extent is this a concern, in your opinion?
#8 Sometimes groups don’t follow through because organizational barriers get in the way
– red tape. To what extent is this a concern, in your opinion?
#9 Generally, what would you say are the most important factors influencing employee
satisfaction, either positively or negatively, at CDER?

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 114
Appendix E
Focus Group Worksheet

Bottom 10 OND Results for 2014

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

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

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

A GAP ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION FDA 115
Appendix F
Table F1
Table F1
Summary of Supervisor Behaviors Facilitating Supervision from a Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Culture (KMO) Framework
KMO by Sub-
Areas
Supervisor Behaviors
Knowledge
Factual
Supervisors know the goal/mission of the organization

Supervisors oversee training supervisees

Procedural
Supervisors know how to apply the organization’s policy and procedures
Supervisors know how to provide constructive feedback

Supervisors know how to provide appropriate policy and procedure
information to supervisees

Supervisors understand how to promote job autonomy (i.e. skill flexibility,
team member responsibility, and work variety) to supervisees

Supervisors know how to set goals that motivate (as opposed to
demotivate)

Conceptual
Supervisors understand the value of balancing work/life

Metacognitive
Supervisors understand the principles and values of supervisory theory
Supervisors understand the process of supervisee development

Supervisors have learned and are able to think like supervisors

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Evaluating collective impact in a local government: A gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Factors impacting the quality of first-line supervisor behavior in the Federal Government: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study

Asset Metadata

Creator Crowell, Moanikeʻala Ruth (author)

Core Title 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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/05/2016

Defense Date 07/01/2016

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

Tag gap analysis framework,human organization,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,Supervision,supervisors

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email crowell.moani@gmail.com,moanikec@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-260727

Unique identifier UC11281256

Identifier etd-CrowellMoa-4501.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-260727 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CrowellMoa-4501.pdf

Dmrecord 260727

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Crowell, Moanikeʻala Ruth

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