Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
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
(USC Thesis Other)
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
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 1
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
by
Kathleen Wilson
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 Kathleen Wilson
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 2
Acknowledgements
My husband, Wayne “Doc” Wilson, has supported me unconditionally both emotionally
and materially and, without him, I would not be who or where I am today. Thank you will never
be enough. You are the air I breathe and the future I see.
I would like to acknowledge the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California for their commitment to the Hawaii cohort of the Ed.D. Without the
opportunity or the access, it would not have been possible for me or so many others to have
completed this program. The faculty dedication is exemplary, and I am grateful for their
investment in us.
Mahalo Nui Loa to the 2013 USC Ed.D. Hawaii cohort. We became a true ohana. There
is no higher compliment I can pay. Fight On!
I am grateful also to my employer, Hawaii Pacific University, and, specifically, my
colleagues from the College of Extended and Interdisciplinary Education who have supported me
in this endeavor with understanding and encouragement every step of the way.
Finally, I want to dedicate this accomplishment to my family, especially my three
children, Karina Wilson, Jason Hopkins and Kennedy Wilson and my two brothers, Kevin and
Keith Sandbloom and all of their children. I will be the first person in my family to receive a
doctoral degree, and a large part of my motivation is to be an example to current and future
generations. I hope that breaking this barrier will be an encouragement for others to strive for
excellence.
Aloha,
Kasey Wilson
Ka’a’awa, Hawai’i
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Introduction 7
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 10
Importance of the Study 10
Study Questions 10
Project Design 11
Definitions 12
Organization of the Dissertation 13
Chapter Two: Literature Review 14
Historical Overview of Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction 14
Classical School 14
School of Human Relations 15
Motivation Theory 17
Theory of Expectations 17
Goal Setting 18
Equity Theory 19
Modern Research 19
Conclusion 21
Teamwork as a Driver of Job Satisfaction 22
Definition of Teamwork 22
Factors that Influence Teamwork 23
Teamwork from the Perspective of the Three Dimensions of the Gap Analysis
Framework 26
Knowledge 27
Motivation 29
Organization/Culture/Resources 31
Summary of Factors 32
Chapter Three: Methodology 37
Methodological Framework 37
Gap Analysis 37
Organizational Goal 38
Assumed Performance Causes 38
Results of the FEVS 38
Assumed Causes Based on the EVS, Gap Analysis Framework and the Literature
Review 39
Validation of the Performance Causes 42
Summary of Causes to be Validated 42
Participating Stakeholders 46
Instrumentation 46
Data Collection 47
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 4
Trustworthiness of Data 48
Data Analysis 49
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 50
Knowledge Results 53
Lack of Standard Operating Procedures 54
Difficulties With Communication 55
Motivation Results 57
Organizational Results 59
Insufficient Staffing and Perceived Budget Constraints 60
The Reward and Recognition System: Organizational Culture 61
Dealing With Poor Performers 62
Difficulties With the Hiring Process 63
Synthesis of Findings and Summary 64
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementation and Evaluation 65
Recommendations for Practice 65
Knowledge 66
Motivation 67
Organization 68
Implementation and Evaluation Plan 68
Limitations and Delimitations 72
Recommendation for Further Inquiry 73
Conclusion 73
References 75
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 82
Appendix B: Assumed Causes With Sources 85
Appendix C: Q12 Statements 90
Appendix D: Observation Protocol 91
Appendix E: FDA-CDER Coding Scheme 92
Appendix F: FDA-CDER IRR Master Code Sheet 93
Appendix G: Table 13 94
Appendix H: Table 14 96
Appendix I: Table 15 97
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Design of the Larger Project 11
Table 2: Reliability of Employee Engagement Correlation to Turnover and Other Business
Outcomes 20
Table 3: Factors influencing Employee Satisfaction 22
Table 4: Summary of Factors affecting Teamwork identified by KMO 33
Table 5: Summary of Factors That Influence Teamwork From the Gap Analysis Framework 34
Table 6: FEVS Items With Relevance to Knowledge Construct 40
Table 7: FEVS Items With Relevance to the Motivation Construct 41
Table 8: FEVS Item With Relevance to the Organizational Construct 41
Table 9: Summary of Causes to be Validated and Method 43
Table 10: Summary of Causes Validated and Method with Findings 51
Table 11: Implementation Plan and Timeline for Proposed Actions to Address Barriers to
Teamwork 70
Table 12: Assumed Causes with Sources 85
Table 13: Summary of Teamwork Components From Knowledge Domain 94
Table 14: Summary of Teamwork Components from Motivational Domain 96
Table 15: Summary of Teamwork Components from Organizational Causes Domain 97
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 6
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine employees’ perceptions regarding barriers to effective
teamwork in a Center of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and identify solutions the
federal government can adapt and apply in an effort to improve employee satisfaction. Using
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis process model as the theoretical framework, the findings
revealed that knowledge, motivational and organizational barriers to the development of
effective teamwork were present. The primary barriers identified were knowledge gaps in
standard operating procedures which had a negative impact on the development of teamwork
components including shared mental models; mutual performance monitoring and back-up
behaviors; motivational gaps in the area of shared trust directly linked to the knowledge and
organizational gaps; and organizational gaps in the areas of efficient and effective evaluation
systems directly linked to the fair acquisition of access to rewards and promotions. Moreover,
employees did not perceive that teamwork was actively being promoted by leadership.
Solutions are recommended and an implementation plan is presented to address these
gaps within a twelve-month period. It is suggested that each proposed solution be enacted by
only one office to test for efficacy before expanding to additional offices. Lastly, suggestions are
made for evaluating all aspects of the plan for effectiveness.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Retaining employees and preventing employee turnover are critical issues for employers.
Low levels of employee satisfaction contribute to voluntary turnover in organizations (Ellickson,
2002; Liu, Mitchell, Lee, Holtom, & Hinkin, 2012) and have an impact on productivity and
organizational effectiveness (Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2009). In fact, among all factors analyzed,
Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner (2000) found that job satisfaction has the highest correlation to
employee turnover.
Employee turnover is costly to organizations (Hsieh, 2010). According to Allen, Bryant,
and Vardaman (2010) and Allen (2008), twenty-five percent of all employees change jobs due to
preventable reasons (known as dysfunction) each year. The cost of replacing employees,
including the costs of recruiting, conducting selection processes and training replacement
employees, can be up to one-hundred percent of an employee’s salary, making employee
turnover a significant business expense (Allen et al. 2010). In addition to the direct financial
costs, there is a productivity cost due to the loss of knowledge pertaining to business practices
and organizational culture (Allen et al., 2010; Hsieh, 2010).
Employee satisfaction is particularly low in the United States Federal Government due to
a number of factors including pay satisfaction and promotional opportunities (Ting, 1996). In
2014, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) found the Federal Government received
low employee satisfaction rates as measured by the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
(FEVS). However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a division within the Health and
Human Services agency of the Federal Government, scores higher than average on the FEVS
(OPM, 2014). Since the FDA showed higher measured levels of satisfaction, this study focused
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 8
on understanding employees’ perceptions of the barriers that might still remain for an otherwise
highly satisfied workforce.
Multiple factors contribute to employee satisfaction. According to Ting (1997),
supervision and teamwork are two of the most important contributing factors. Teamwork is
defined as a group of individuals working toward a collective goal (Manzoor, Hussain, &
Ahmad, 2011). Because of the impact that teamwork can have on employee satisfaction, this
project will focus on non-supervisory employee perceptions of the barriers to effective teamwork
within this high-performing federal agency.
Background of the Problem
The federal government is the largest employer in the United States and has a fiduciary
responsibility to manage its resources efficiently, including ensuring the retention of human
capital (Ting, 1997). In 2012, 226,000, or nearly 33%, of all government employees surveyed
stated that they were not satisfied with their jobs (OPM, 2012). A method the U.S. Government
has adopted to assess employee satisfaction is the FEVS, which is conducted annually with a
sample of federal employees (Bertelli, Mason & Gastwirth, 2013). This project focused on the
employee satisfaction indicator of teamwork from the perspective of non-supervisory employees
in a center within the FDA. The results of the FEVS give indicators of areas of strength and
weakness regarding specific elements of employee satisfaction from which to examine
teamwork.
The FDA, the site for this project, is a division within the Department of Health and
Human Services that is responsible for protecting public health through the regulation and
supervision of the safety of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices,
food supply and cosmetics (FDA, 2015). The FDA has a budget in excess of $4.6 billion and
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 9
employs approximately 14,600 employees (FDA, 2015). This study focused on the Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) within the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco
(approximately 4,000 employees). CDER is tasked with ensuring that safe and effective drugs
are available within the United States (FDA, 2015). In addition to prescription drugs, CDER
regulates over-the-counter drugs and other products considered medicinal or therapeutic, such as
toothpaste, antiperspirants, and sunscreen. CDER’s mission is to “Promote public health by
helping to ensure the availability of safe and effective drugs, promoting the safe use of marketed
drugs and helping to ensure the quality and integrity of marketed drug products” (FDA, 2015).
Among all organizations surveyed in the federal government, the FDA and CDER consistently
score well above the mean on the FEVS (OPM, 2014).
Statement of the Problem
A key contributing factor to the productivity of an organization is the retention of human
capital (Shaw et al., 2005). Employee turnover costs organizations time and money. Estimates
are that the cost is between 12% and 40% of an organization’s pre-tax dollars (Allen et al.,
2010). Commitment to organizations is high when employees experience job satisfaction
(Manzoor, Ullah, et al. 2011) and employee teamwork contributes to employee satisfaction
levels (DeAngelis, Penney & Scully, 2014). Research conducted by Manzoor, Ullah, et al.
(2011) showed that “teamwork was found to be the most significant independent variable having
a strong relationship with the dependent variable of employee performance” (p.122). Knowing
more about what employees perceive as the barriers to effective teamwork within an otherwise
high-performing organization could help managers understand and improve employee
satisfaction and, therefore, increase retention (Salas & Burke, 2005).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 10
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine employees’ perceptions of barriers to effective
teamwork in a center of the FDA and identify solutions that other units within the federal
government can adapt and apply in an effort to improve employee satisfaction and retention.
Importance of the Study
This study is important because greater understanding of the importance of teamwork
with regard to employee satisfaction could lead to improved retention, increased productivity,
and reduced costs within an organization (Hsieh, 2010). Ultimately, improved teamwork enables
organizations to accomplish their goals more efficiently and at a lower cost. Such information
can also inform decisions about the allocation of resources for training and professional
development (Ting, 1997).
This topic should be of interest to the general public because high turnover in the
government service sector, generally, is expensive to taxpayers (Ting, 1997) and, specifically,
high turnover in the FDA could have a negative impact on public safety and health. The
population that might have the greatest interest in this study is that of senior administrators
within large companies, organizations or government groups with a profile similar to the unit
being studied.
Study Questions
The questions for this study were:
1. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers do employees at the FDA’S
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research perceive related to teamwork in their units?
2. For the assumed barriers, what might be solutions that this and other FDA units with
similar barriers could adopt?
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 11
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Project Design
This project was part of a larger collaborative study of employee and supervisor
perspectives about job satisfaction within the FDA. The larger project collected data from six
unit offices within CDER, using the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) in an attempt
to explore the perspectives of supervisors and employees regarding job satisfaction. Gap analysis
is a methodological framework designed to identify and validate assumed causes contributing to
high and low performance in the workplace. In this case, the analysis will attempt to reveal
factors having a positive or negative impact on employee satisfaction at CDER. Table 1
describes the six projects. Each project explored a specific stakeholder perspective (supervisors
or employees) and looked at barriers or facilitators related to key contributors to employee
satisfaction: supervision or teamwork.
Table 1
Design of the Larger Project
Employee Perspective Supervisor Perspective
Facilitators of Teamwork Project 1 Project 4
Barriers to effective teamwork Project 5 Project 4
Facilitators of effective supervision Project 6 Project 2
Barriers to effective supervision Project 3 Project 2
This paper describes Project 5, with a focus on barriers to effective teamwork from the
perspective of employees. Gap analysis is a systematic process of examining organizational
effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap analysis framework identifies and validates
potential contributing factors from three perspectives: knowledge factors, motivational factors,
and organizational factors (KMO). This analysis framework can be used to identify and validate
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 12
either positive (assets) or negative (gaps) factors that either contribute to or detract from
organizational effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The research team collected data by attending and observing CDER-facilitated focus
groups at the location of the subject division at the FDA campus in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Individual team members conducted follow-up interviews by phone with individuals from the
focus groups to validate the perceived causes of barriers as related to the specific topic of
teamwork.
The team analyzed the results within the context of the KMO framework (Clark & Estes,
2008) and other theoretical frameworks identified in the literature review while searching for
emerging themes not previously identified as assumed gaps.
Definitions
Gap Analysis: Gap analysis is a systematic process developed by Clark and Estes (2008)
that can be used to evaluate factors contributing or detracting to organizational effectiveness,
using a process of establishing goals and examining KMO factors that influence the achievement
of organizational and personal performance goals. This analysis can be used to identify and
validate either positive (assets) or negative (gaps) factors which either contribute to, or detract
from, organizational effectiveness.
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS): The FEVS is a tool that measures
employees’ perceptions of whether, and to what extent, conditions characterizing successful
organizations are or are not present in their agencies. Survey results provide valuable insight into
the challenges agency leaders face in ensuring the Federal Government has an effective and well-
responding civilian workforce (OPM, 2015).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 13
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters are used to organize this study. Chapter One provides the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the importance of the
study. The organization’s mission and goals and the participating stakeholders are introduced.
The methodological framework of gap analysis is discussed briefly and is fully explored in
Chapter Three.
Chapter Two provides a review of current literature regarding the scope of the study. The
topics of employee satisfaction and teamwork are addressed. Teamwork is analyzed through the
KMO framework.
Chapter Three details the assumed causes for this study as well as the methodology for
validating those causes, including participant selection, instrumentation and data collection and
analysis.
Chapter Four addresses the research results. The chapter addresses the first research
question and identifies which KMO barriers related to teamwork participating CDER employees
identified.
In Chapter Five, the second and third research questions are addressed by exploring what
solutions can be adopted for assumed causes that were verified and how solutions might be
implemented and, subsequently, evaluated for effectiveness. Limitations and delimitations of the
study are also discussed.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a review of the important literature related to both job satisfaction
and teamwork. The literature is traced since the introduction of the construct in the early 20th
century. The concept of teamwork is defined, and its component parts are described through the
organizing taxonomy as defined by Salas, Sims and Burke in the 2005 article, “Is there a Big
Five in Teamwork?” In the third section of the chapter, the research literature about teamwork is
analyzed through the gap analysis framework identifying KMO factors needed for effective
teamwork. The chapter ends with summary of factors that influence teamwork from the
perspective of the gap analysis framework.
Historical Overview of Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction
Classical School
The topic of employee satisfaction has been examined since the early 1900s. What is
referred to as the “classical school of management” was introduced by Taylor (1911). Taylor was
interested in analyzing work activities and breaking them down into parts to develop efficient
processes. This approach was designed to increase profits for owners, but Taylor was also
interested in the welfare of the workers. He theorized that the effective design of workplace
organization would benefit all parties and that owners and workers were in a symbiotic
relationship (Taylor, 1911). Taylor advocated for the development of each individual to be
employed in the highest state of work for which his natural abilities would enable him to achieve
his own maximum efficiency. Taylor sought to introduce workplace processes based on
scientific analysis to determine which actions would increase productivity. His policies reduced
fatigue but increased monotony and boredom because the task had been perfected and was
required to be repeated in precisely the same way each time.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 15
Frank and Lillian Gilbreath building on Taylor’s (1911) work by conducting time/motion
studies designed to increase job satisfaction and productivity and reduce workplace accidents
(Gilbreath, 1912). They sought to determine the personal coefficient of each applicant for certain
kinds of work so that individuals could be assisted in entering the vocation for which they were
best suited (Gilbreth, 1912). Both Taylor and the Gilbreaths established a link between employee
satisfaction and workplace productivity and a justification for owners and managers for being
concerned with employee satisfaction.
A further consideration described by Bolman and Deal (2013) is that the structure utilized
within a workplace environment can also have an impact on employee satisfaction. Employees
involved in work with clearly measured outcomes tend to thrive in an environment with well-
defined authority and expectations while employee involved in more creative work excel in less
centralized environments (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
School of Human Relations
The human relations era of management philosophy began with the results of the
“Hawthorne Studies” conducted the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company outside
of Chicago in the 1920s (Mayo, 1930). The results of the study introduced the idea that job
satisfaction is not a purely mechanistic issue created from mastering the most efficient way of
executing job functions. The study sought to further refine the conditions under which the most
productive work occurred by adjusting lighting and temperature. However, the study showed
that, regardless of the physical changes made in the environment, productivity improved in the
groups studied. The results led the researcher to conclude that worker performance improves as a
result of being observed. Workers respond to knowing that they are being observed which led the
researcher to conclude that employee feelings and attitudes (not just work processes) have an
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 16
impact on job satisfaction. Further experiments at that location showed employees’ attitudes can
be affected by inputs such as the actions of a sympathetic supervisor and the positive interactions
within the work group (Mayo, 1930).
In the 1950s psychologist Abraham Maslow developed a theory that human motivation is
based on people seeking fulfillment and change through personal growth (Maslow, 1954). Self-
actualized people are those who achieved all of which they were capable. For some people, self-
actualization can be achieved through creating works of art or literature; for others, it can occur
through sport, in the classroom, or within a corporate setting (Maslow, 1954). This theory
introduced the idea that job satisfaction and satisfaction in life are linked and brought a new
importance to relevance of job satisfaction. Sigmund Freud referred to this linkage with his
lieben und arbeiten theory which stated that satisfaction in life and identity development is
obtained by two factors: work and love (Robins, Fraley, & Krueger, 2007).
Donald Clifton was an educational psychologist also working in the 1950s who studied
success in work and learning environments to determine factors that contribute positively. He
theorized that people should maximize their strengths and spend time engaging in activities at
which they excel (Clifton, Hollingsworth, & Hall, 1952).
Clifton eventually acquired The Gallup Organization (now Gallup INC.) in 1988 and
developed the Clifton StrengthFinder assessment that is used to reveal participants’ natural
talents to assist them with identifying their ideal vocation. Under the leadership of Clifton and
his son Jim Clinton (Gallup CEO), the Gallup Organization engaged in research exploring the
impact of positive psychology on employee engagement (Rath & Clifton, 2004). Prior to Clifton
acquiring The Gallup Organization, the founder of the company, George Gallup, conducted the
first study focused on worldwide human needs and satisfactions. The study looked at
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 17
characteristics common among people who lived to be 95 years of age or older to identify factors
that influence quality of life. Once identified, these quality of life attributes can be applied to
work satisfaction (Gallup & Hill, 1960). Both Gallup and Clifton continued to research
workplace satisfaction and some of their findings are discussed more fully in a later section.
Motivation Theory
In the late 1950s and early 1960, Frederick Herzberg developed the two-factor theory
also known as the Motivator-Hygiene Theory (Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson & Campbell, 1957).
This theory was an application of Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” theory that linked an
individual’s psychological needs to a feeling of satisfaction that had application to the workplace
(Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959). Herzberg divided the factors impacting job
satisfaction into two categories: hygiene factors or motivating factors. He defined hygiene
factors as items such as working conditions and pay. These items, if they are at a stable or
positive level, will prevent workers from being dissatisfied. However, these factors at their
highest level will not generate motivation. According to Herzberg et al. (1959), motivation is the
true source of employee satisfaction and is generated only by factors such as enjoyment of the
work itself, recognition for one’s contribution to the organization, responsibility, and the
opportunity to do something important or significant.
Theory of Expectations
Victor Vroom (1973) introduced expectancy theory based on the idea that employees
choose consciously based on expected rewards or consequences. The theory is based on three
principles. Valence refers to the emotion that workers have related to potential rewards that will
result from effort. Expectancy refers to the amount of confidence employees feel about what they
are capable of achieving based on whether they have sufficient resources, skills and support to
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 18
complete the assigned task. Instrumentality is the level of confidence (trust) that an employee has
that the promised reward indicated by the valence of a task will actually be delivered by
management (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Edward Lawler (1973) expanded on Vroom’s basic philosophy by suggesting that high
levels of performance can result in high levels of satisfaction. He observed that employees
evaluate the level of reward given in response to the level of effort expended and evaluate the
equity of the compensation. If, in the employee’s estimation, the benefits received seem to be
fair, then the employee is satisfied. In Lawler’s view, the key to an effective organization is
understanding what rewards motivate employees and successfully delivering the appropriate
rewards in response to desired behavior and outcomes.
Goal Setting
Edwin Locke and Gary Latham connected Vroom’s work on expectancy theory with
Albert Bandura’s (1989) concept of self-efficacy, a social-cognitive theory that addresses the
degree to which a person has confidence that a task can be achieved based on their own abilities
given positive levels of valence, expectancy, and instrumentality (Locke & Latham, 1990). The
greater the positive emotional attitude, the more likely the person is to feel satisfied on the job.
Locke and Latham proposed an alternative understanding that emphasized employee perception
(or appraisal) of the work environment that created an emotional attitude toward job satisfaction.
In their view, work is comprised of two factors: elements and agents. Elements of the work
environment such as pay and resources are similar to Herzberg’s definition of hygiene factors.
According to Locke and Latham (2002) agents (workers) are the receivers of goals set by the
principles (management).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 19
Locke’s research (Locke & Latham, 2002) showed that a positive mental attitude and
strong self-efficacy were improved by clear goals with appropriate feedback. Working toward a
goal provides motivation and improves performance. However, Locke and Latham (2002) stated
that goals should not be vague or too easily accomplished. They theorized that the greatest
motivation and performance are achieved when goals are specific and challenging. If the goals
are overwhelming and are unachievable, then they begin to erode an individual’s positive sense
of self-efficacy (Locke & Latham, 2002).
Equity Theory
Equity theory suggests that employees’ assessments of fairness, or equity, have a strong
influence on employee satisfaction (Adams, 1965). Adams suggests that employees measure
their inputs (time, effort, talent, loyalty) against the outputs (pay, recognitions, security, benefits)
and assess whether the exchange is equitable. Employees also compare the rewards that they
receive for their inputs against the input/output combination of co-workers and make judgments
about fairness. According to Adams, negative or overly positive evaluations of this fairness
equation results in low levels of employee satisfaction. Employees are dissatisfied in situations
where they perceive that they are unfairly compensated beyond their contribution as well as
when they are undercompensated (Adams, 1965)
Modern Research
Researchers have continued to explore the relationship between retention/turnover and
employee satisfaction. Griffeth et al. (2000) published a meta-study that explored predictors for
employee turnover. This study revealed that the factor that had the highest predictive relationship
to employee turnover is employee satisfaction.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 20
Another significant contribution to the evolution of the understanding of the role of
employee satisfaction came from the publication of a study called, “Q12 Meta-Analysis: The
Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes” in 2009 by the
Gallup Organization (Harter, Schmidt, Killham, & Agrawal 2009). This meta-analysis of 166
studies, linked the work of Dr. George Gallup, who had done extensive polling in the area of
employee satisfaction, with the work of Dr. Donald Clifton who studied the underlying
components that contribute to employee satisfaction (Harter et al., 2009). The Q12 is a
workplace survey of 12 questions designed by the Gallup Organization to measure the
relationship of employee satisfaction/engagement in relationship to specific outcomes such as
turnover/retention (Appendix C).
The analysis showed that employee engagement metrics were strongly correlated with
employee loyalty metrics such as retention/turnover rate and absenteeism (Table 2).
Table 2
Reliability of Employee Engagement Correlation to Turnover and Other Business Outcomes
Customer Profitability Productivity Turnover Safety
Reliab. Freq. Reliab. Freq. Reliab. Freq. Reliab. Freq. Reliab. Freq.
0.89 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 0.63 1
0.87 1 0.99 2 0.99 2 0.62 1 0.82 1
0.84 1 0.93 1 0.92 2 0.6 1 0.66 1
0.75 1 0.91 1 0.9 1 0.39 1 0.84 1
0.58 1 0.9 1 0.62 1 0.27 1
0.52 1 0.89 2 0.57 1 0.24 1
0.46 1 0.79 1 0.25 1
0.33 1 0.57 1 0.63 1
0.51 1 0.56 1
0.53 1 0.94 1
Adapted from Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Agrawal, S. (2009). Q12 meta-analysis: The
relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Washington, DC, USA: The Gallup
Organization p. 43.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 21
Conclusion
A review of the literature throughout the 20th
century showed an evolution from an
orientation of management attempting to control employees to the current orientation of
investing in engaging employees. Early researchers sought to manipulate employees (Gilbreath,
1912; Taylor, 1914) to produce business goals. Later, theorists attempted to explain employee
behavior (Herzberg et al.1957; Maslow, 1954) and understand what components produce job
satisfaction (Adams, 1965; Clifton, 1952; Lawler; 1973, Locke, 1990; Vroom, 1973). More
recent studies and meta-studies looked at the conditions under which job satisfaction occurs
(Griffeth et al., 2000; Harter et al., 2009). A shift occurred after the publication of the Q12 meta-
analysis to a greater emphasis on employee engagement (Harter et al., 2009; Macleod, 2009).
Employee engagement is an approach which shows the evidential link between job satisfaction
and improved business outcomes. It also suggests there is a revenue-based justification for
ensuring employees are more than satisfied in that they are engaged in the business goals of the
company or organization (Harter et al., 2009; Macleod, 2009).
Teamwork is one of the most significant positive contributing factors to both job
satisfaction and employee engagement. (Griffin et al., 2000; Ting, 1997). According to Ting
(1997), as organizations become more complex and tasks become more specialized, it becomes
vital for organizations to create and maintain a teamwork environment. The next section explores
the research addressing effective the positive impacts of effective teamwork on job satisfaction
and employee engagement. A summary of factors appears in Table 3
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 22
Table 3
Factors influencing Employee Satisfaction
Team
Leadership
Chang, Chiu, & Chen (2010), Durham, Knight, & Locke (1997),
Griffin, Patterson, & West (2001), Guzzo and Shea (1990), Paris, Salas,
Cannon-Bowers (2000), Rabey (2003), Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005)
Mutual
Performance
Monitoring
Campion & Medsker (1993), Crowley, Payne, & Kennedy (2014),
Niemela & Kalliola, 2007, Paris, Salas, Cannon-Bowers (2000), Salas,
Sims, & Burke (2005)
Back-up
Behavior
Paris, Salas, Cannon-Bowers (2000), Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005)
Adaptability
Campion & Medsker (1993), Durham, Knight, & Locke (1997), Paris,
Salas, Cannon-Bowers (2000), Rabey (2003). Salas, Sims, & Burke
(2005)
Team
Orientation
Campion & Medsker (1993), Durham, Knight, & Locke (1997), Filho,
Tenenbaum, & Yang (2015), Guzzo and Shea (1990), Manzoor, Ullah,
et al. (2011), Mason, & Griffin (2002), Niemela & Kalliola, 2007, Paris,
Salas, Cannon-Bowers (2000), Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005)
Shared Mental
Models
Campion & Medsker (1993), Durham, Knight, & Locke (1997), Filho,
Tenenbaum, & Yang (2015), Paris, Salas, Cannon-Bowers (2000),
Rabey (2003), Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005)
Communication
Campion & Medsker (1993), DeAngelis, Penney, & Scully (2014),
Durham, Knight, & Locke (1997), Manzoor, Ullah, et al. (2011), Paris,
Salas, Cannon-Bowers (2000), Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005)
Mutual Trust
Filho, Tenenbaum, & Yang (2015), Guzzo and Shea (1990), Manzoor,
Ullah, et al. (2011), Niemela & Kalliola, 2007, Paris, Salas, Cannon-
Bowers (2000), Rabey (2003), Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005)
Durham, Knight, & Locke (1997), Filho, Tenenbaum, & Yang (2015),
Gallie, Zhou, Felstead, & Green (2012), Mason, & Griffin (2002)
Teamwork as a Driver of Job Satisfaction
Definition of Teamwork
In its simplest form, teamwork is defined as a group of individuals working towards a
collective goal (Manzoor, Hussain, & Ahmad, 2011). Harris and Harris (1996) define teamwork
as “a workgroup with a common purpose through which members develop mutual relationship
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 23
for the achievement of goals and for tasks” (p. 23). Salas, Sims and Burke (2005) define
teamwork as “a set of interrelated thoughts, actions, and feelings of each team member that are
needed to function as a team and that combine to facilitate coordinated, adaptive performance
and task objectives resulting in value-added outcomes” (p. 62). The organizing taxonomy used to
develop the analysis below is based on five components and three mechanisms as defined by
Salas et al.
Factors that Influence Teamwork
Salas et al. (2005), identified five primary components (team leadership, mutual
performance monitoring, back-up behavior, adaptability, and team orientation) and three
coordinating mechanisms (shared mental models, closed-loop communication, and mutual trust)
that impact team effectiveness.
Team leadership. Team leadership, identified by Salas et al. (2005) as a primary
component, can have a significant positive or negative impact on team effectiveness. According
to Salas et al., (2005), the team leader has a primary role in the creation of the team’s mental
model (as defined below in the section “Shared Mental Models”). An effective team leader
communicates to the team about the task and mission objectives and resource availability or
constraints. The leader also sets the tone regarding the essential components of adaptability and
team orientation and gives cues about when back-up behavior is needed. In addition, the team
leader establishes expectations for performance and acceptable communication patterns and
rhythms. S/he must engage in performance monitoring and create an environment where it is safe
to engage in back-up behavior (Salas et al., 2005).
Mutual performance monitoring. Salas et al. (2005) stated that effective teams require
their members to maintain an awareness not just of their own work and its contribution to the
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 24
goal, but also of the work of others on the team to be sure that progress is occurring as expected
and procedures are being followed (McIntyre & Salas, 1995). This monitoring requires a shared
knowledge of the goal, the steps to achieve the goal and which team member is responsible for
each step. The mechanism of mutual trust has an impact on this component because, without it,
team members may be reluctant to provide feedback or may react negatively to feedback offered
(McIntyre & Salas, 1995). The research suggests that feedback must be offered in a manner that
ensures all members understand that the intention of the communication is to successfully
accomplish the group goal and not to demean an individual (Salas et al., 2005).
Back-up behavior. Back-up behavior occurs when group members determine through
mutual performance monitoring or when the team leader perceives that certain tasks will not be
completed adequately (in terms of time of quality) for the goals to be achieved. Other members
of the group will adjust their actions to fill in for the member who is not able to deliver the
needed action. The circumstance of the underperformance of a team member is a test of the
team’s adaptability. Back-up behavior is particularly valuable when circumstance changes or
when the group is under stress. Understanding when to engage in back-up behavior requires the
leader and the member to have situational awareness of the internal and external impact on the
project in which the team is involved (Campion et al., 1993). Effective back-up behavior requires
both a strong sense of shared mental models and effective mutual performance monitoring (Salas
et al., 2005).
Adaptability. Adaptability contributes to team effectiveness by ensuring that teams will
adjust to challenges, changes and unexpected demands that occur during the process of pursing a
goal. More complex tasks require greater flexibility within the group (Salas et al., 2005).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 25
Adaptability requires the group members to be open to new information and create solutions as a
team.
Team orientation. Team orientation is a willingness by individuals to work together to
accomplish group goals instead of focusing on individual action and effort (Campion et al.,
1993). Team collaboration can result in a superior outcome (increased efficiency) because the
group benefits from multiple perspectives and talents invested in a goal (Lee, Johnson & Jin,
2014). Team orientation is essential to both mutual performance monitoring and back-up
behavior. Team orientation contributes to collective efficacy (Salas et al., 2005).
Shared mental models. The concept of shared mental models describes a shared
understanding of “describing, explaining and predicting the behavior of a system” (Jonker et al.,
2011, p. 133) created by the team including an understanding of what is required to achieve the
team goal (Salas et al., 2005).
Closed-loop communication. Closed-loop communication refers to a method of
communicating that involves placing the responsibility for complete communication on the
sender of a message. A message is sent and then received by the receiver who acknowledges
receipt of the message. The sender then follows up with the receiver to confirm that the message
was accurately received (McIntyre & Salas, 1995). This method of communication is particularly
useful in effective team communication because it limits opportunities for errors in information
transfer (Salas et al., 2005).
Mutual trust. Trust is integral to effective team behavior because team members must be
able to rely on one another to perform correctly, meet deadlines, relay needed information, and
work for the good of the group. Team members’ lack of trust in one another or in their leader
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 26
will impede the group’s ability to accomplish goals because team members will not acknowledge
vulnerabilities or articulate potential problems (Salas et al., 2005).
Figure 1 shows a diagram of the Big Five framework (P1-P10 represent the research
propositions from the original article.) The primary components are represented within the oval
shapes, and the coordinating mechanisms are contained within the rectangular figures. The figure
illustrates the interconnectivity of the primary components and direct connections between the
primary components and the coordinating mechanisms including the critical role played by
closed-loop communication (Salas et al., 2005).
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5),
555-599.
Figure 1. Graphical Representation of High-Level Relationship among the Big Five and the
Coordinating Mechanisms Including Research Propositions
Teamwork from the Perspective of the Three Dimensions of the Gap Analysis Framework
Gap analysis is a systematic process of organizational evaluation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Clark and Estes (2008) stipulated that, to categorize and address gaps in organizational
performance, it is important to understand the root causes behind the problems. Root causes or
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 27
contributing are identified factors using three lenses: knowledge, motivation, and organizational
causes (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge
Knowledge contributes to an employee’s ability to understand and function effectively in
a role (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). In other words, “do people know how (and the when,
what, why, where, and who) to achieve their performance goals?” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 44).
There are four types of knowledge evaluated in gap analysis: factual, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Each is
described below.
Factual. Factual knowledge consists of the basic elements that individuals must know to
be acquainted with a subject matter area or job task such as the terminology, specific details, and
key elements of a function.
Conceptual. Conceptual knowledge involves the interrelationships among the basic
elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together, such as knowledge of
classifications and categories, principles, and generalizations. It also includes knowledge of
theories, models, and structures.
Procedural. Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of how to do something, including
the method of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithm and techniques. It also involves
understanding the criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures.
Metacognitive. Metacognitive knowledge is the understanding of cognition in general as
well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition. It includes appropriate contextual and
conditional knowledge, self-knowledge, and strategic knowledge.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 28
Knowledge requirements for teamwork. In order for employees to function on a team,
they need to have the specific factual, procedural and metacognitive abilities to work effectively
on a team (Clark & Estes, 2008).
After reviewing the literature about teamwork through the lens of the KMO framework,
the areas of mutual performance monitoring, shared mental models, back-up behaviors, and
communication were identified as knowledge and skill requirements (“K” in the KMO schema)
required for effective teamwork.
Knowledge requirements for mutual performance monitoring. Mutual performance
monitoring requires factual knowledge to understand both the requirements of one’s own job and
the requirements of others on the team. Procedural knowledge is required to effectively monitor
whether procedures are being followed and to anticipate any possible disruptions. Effective
teams require their members to maintain an awareness, not just of their own work and its
contribution to the goal, but to also monitor the work of others on the team to be sure that
progress is occurring as expected and procedures are being followed (McIntyre & Salas, 1995).
This understanding requires a shared knowledge of the goal, including the steps to achieve the
goal and which team member is responsible for each step. Mutual performance monitoring
requires conceptual knowledge of how processes intersect and departments interact to contribute
to the total operation. It also requires team members to have situational awareness of the internal
and external impact on the project in which the team is involved (Campion et al., 1993).
Knowledge requirements for shared mental models. Factual, procedural, and conceptual
knowledge are required for a team to have shared mental models. These shared mental models
combine to create a shared understanding of “describing, explaining, and predicting the behavior
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 29
of a system” (Jonker et al., 2011, p. 133) including an understanding of what is required to
achieve the team’s goal (Salas et al., 2005).
Knowledge requirements for back-up behavior. Back-up behavior also requires factual,
conceptual, and procedural knowledge to be effective. It requires all of the knowledge needed to
engage in mutual performance monitoring and an understanding of when to engage in back-up
behavior. Effective back-up behavior requires both a strong sense of shared mental models and
mutual performance monitoring.
Knowledge requirements for communication. Effective communication in teams
requires factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge to be able to know what to say and when
and also to ensure that the receiver of the information understands what has been communicated.
It may also require metacognitive knowledge in order to evaluate what a sender is attempting to
communicate and to apply strategy to communication techniques and timing.
Motivation
Motivation is synonymous with drive (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Motivation
consists of active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Active choice. Active choice describes the process which occurs when an employee
consciously chooses to pursue a specific goal or activity. It requires action, in contrast to the
intention to do something without concrete action or behaviors such as procrastination, resisting,
or arguing.
Persistence. Persistence refers to the constancy or tenacity with which individuals pursue
goals. Individuals have a tendency to be distracted by less important or more attractive goals.
The preferred behavior is for individuals to apply the greatest amount of persistence to the most
important work goals (Clark & Estes, 2008, p.81).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 30
Mental effort. Individuals must invest a sufficient amount of mental effort in order to
achieve the stated work goal. This requires employees to work smarter to develop innovative
solutions.
Motivation requirements for teamwork. Factors that can be barriers to individuals and
team motivation (choosing to work, persisting in the work, and expending the necessary mental
effort to accomplish the work) are insufficient self- and team-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Clark &
Estes, 2008) organizational barriers, and a negative emotional environment (Clark & Estes,
2008). Eccles and Wigfield (1995) explain that the presence of the aforementioned factors has an
impact on the “value” that employees associate with their work. Assessing the literature about
teamwork through the lens of the KMO framework, the motivational factors are mutual trust,
adaptability and team orientation.
Motivation requirements for mutual trust. Trust is integral to effective team behavior
because team members must be able to rely on one another to perform correctly, meet deadlines,
relay needed information and work for the good of the group (Salas et al., 2005). A shared belief
that team members will perform their roles and protect the interests of their teammates will have
an impact on an employee’s willingness to make the active choice to persist in their work and
expend sufficient effort to accomplish the goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Salas et al., 2005). The
presence of trust contributes to group efficacy (Bandura, 1997). As trust and group efficacy
increase, utility value is positively affected and persistence increases (Bandura, 1997; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Locke & Latham, 1990).
Motivational requirements for adaptability. Employees must make the active choice to
be adaptable (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Salas et al. (2005) and McIntyre and Salas
(1995), adaptability contributes to team effectiveness by ensuring that teams will adjust to
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 31
challenges, changes, and unexpected demands that occur during the process of pursing a goal.
More complex tasks require a greater requirement for flexibility, which requires the ability to
persist.
Motivational requirements for team orientation. Team orientation is a willingness by
individuals to work together to accomplish group goals instead of focusing on individual action
and effort (Campion et al., 1993), which requires active choice and persistence. Team
collaboration can result in a superior outcome (increased efficiency) because the group benefits
from multiple perspectives and talents invested in a goal (Lee et al., 2014). Team orientation is
essential to both mutual performance monitoring and back-up behavior which requires mental
effort. Team orientation contributes to collective efficacy (Campion et al., 1993; Salas et al.,
2005) and skill value (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organization/Culture/Resources
Organizational elements influence an organization’s ability to reach goals (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011). Lack of efficient and effective organizational work processes and material
resources can prevent the accomplishment of work goals. Areas that can be barriers from an
organizational perspective are work process, material resources, value chains and value streams
and organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Work processes. Work processes are the way that human capital interacts with resources
(equipment and materials) to produce a result (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Material resources. Material resources are the equipment and resources needed to
achieve a result. This includes factors such as access to the internet (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Value streams. Value stream describes the process by which an organization’s
departments interact to achieve a result (Clark & Estes, 2008).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 32
Value chains. A value chain is more limited than a value stream. It describes the process
used to address a specific challenge or task (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizational culture. Work culture is described by Clark and Estes (2008) as the
“conscious and unconscious understanding of who we are, what we value, and how we do what
we do as an organization” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p.107).
Organizational requirements for teamwork. Organizational culture sets the parameters
for the success or failure of any organization and influences all attempts to improve
organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teams with superior knowledge and
motivation cannot succeed with inefficient work processes, insufficient work processes, or the
inability to develop value streams and value chains.
Leadership is responsible for providing adequate levels of resources and efficient
processes and for translating the value streams to the team. Team leadership is responsible for
developing value chains to respond appropriately to emergent demands or challenges (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Salas et al., 2005).
Summary of Factors
Table 4 summarizes the factors affecting teamwork identified through the KMO
framework and Table 5 summarizes the factors that affect teamwork from the perspective of the
gap analysis framework.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 33
Table 4
Summary of Factors affecting Teamwork identified by KMO
KMO Domain Factors List of articles that identify the theme.
Knowledge
Mutual
Performance
Monitoring,
Shared Mental
Models, Back-up
Behavior
Crowley, Payne, & Kennedy (2014), Niemela
& Kalliola, 2007, Paris, Salas, Cannon-Bowers
(2000), Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005), Wilson,
Salas, Priest, & Andrews (2007), Ross, Jones,
& Adams (2008), Campion & Medsker (1993),
Durham, Knight, & Locke (1997), Filho,
Tenenbaum, & Yang (2015), Guzzo and Shea
(1990), Paris, Salas, Cannon-Bowers (2000),
Rabey (2003), Bedwel, Wildman, Diaz
Granados, Salazar, Kramer, & Salas (2012)
Salas, Cooke, & Rosen (2008) Santos & Passos
(2013)
Motivation
Adaptability,
Team
Orientation,
Mutual Trust
Campion & Medsker (1993), Durham, Knight,
& Locke (1997), Paris, Salas, Cannon-Bowers
(2000), Rabey (2003), Salas, Sims, & Burke
(2005), Salas, Cooke, & Rosen (2008), Wilson,
Salas, Priest, & Andrews (2007), Campion &
Medsker (1993), Durham, Knight, & Locke
(1997), Filho, Tenenbaum, & Yang (2015),
Guzzo and Shea (1990),Manzoor, Ullah, et al.
(2011), Mason, & Griffin (2002), Niemela &
Kalliola, 2007, Paris, Salas, Cannon-Bowers
(2000), Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005), Wilson,
Salas, Priest, & Andrews (2007), Ross, Jones,
& Adams (2008), Bedwel, Wildman, Diaz
Granados, Salazar, Kramer, & Salas (2012)
Rabey (2003), Bedwel, Wildman, Diaz
Granados, Salazar, Kramer, & Salas (2012)
Organizational
Team
Leadership
Chang, Chiu, & Chen (2010), Durham, Knight,
& Locke (1997), Griffin, Patterson, & West
(2001), Guzzo and Shea (1990), Paris, Salas,
Cannon-Bowers (2000), Salas, Sims, & Burke
(2005), Rabey (2003)
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 34
Table 5
Summary of Factors That Influence Teamwork From the Gap Analysis Framework
Teamwork/employee Business literature
Educational Psychology
Literature
Knowledge
Mutual Performance
Monitoring
Team members do
not know each
other’s roles and
capabilities.
Team Members are
not sure how others
should be
performing
Crowley, Payne, & Kennedy (2014),
Niemela & Kalliola, 2007, Paris, Salas,
Cannon-Bowers (2000), Salas, Sims, &
Burke (2005), Wilson, Salas, Priest, &
Andrews (2007), Ross, Jones, & Adams
(2008)
Eccles, 2006
Back-up Behavior
Team members do
not take action to
assist one another
when needed to
accomplish goals.
Paris, Salas, Cannon-Bowers (2000),
Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005), Wilson,
Salas, Priest, & Andrews (2007)
Eccles, 2006
Shared Mental
Models
Team members have
common
understanding of the
goals and mission of
the organization
and/or the desired
outcome of a
specific project.
Campion & Medsker (1993), Durham,
Knight, & Locke (1997), Filho,
Tenenbaum, & Yang (2015), Guzzo and
Shea (1990), Paris, Salas, Cannon-
Bowers (2000), Rabey (2003), Bedwel,
Wildman, Diaz Granados, Salazar,
Kramer, & Salas (2012) Salas, Cooke,
& Rosen (2008) Salas, Sims, & Burke
(2005), Santos & Passos (2013).
Anderson et al., 2001
Bloom, 1956;
Wood & Bandura, 1989
Communication
Team members do
not share
information
Team members do
not feel that they
have enough
information to
achieve
organizational goals.
Team members do
not trust information
that they have.
Campion & Medsker (1993),
DeAngelis, Penney, & Scully (2014),
Durham, Knight, & Locke (1997),
Manzoor, Ullah, et al. (2011), Paris,
Salas, Cannon-Bowers (2000), Salas,
Sims, & Burke (2005), Wilson, Salas,
Priest, & Andrews (2007), Ross, Jones,
& Adams (2008)
Anderson et al., 2001
Bloom, 1956;
Wood & Bandura, 1989
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 35
Table 5, continued
Motivation
Mutual Trust
Team members do
not have confidence
in the group’s ability
to accomplish goals
Filho, Tenenbaum, & Yang (2015),
Guzzo and Shea (1990), Manzoor,
Ullah, et al. (2011), Niemela & Kalliola,
2007, Paris, Salas, Cannon-Bowers
(2000), Rabey (2003), Salas, Sims, &
Burke (2005), Wilson, Salas, Priest, &
Andrews (2007), Bedwel, Wildman,
Diaz Granados, Salazar, Kramer, &
Salas (2012)
Eccles, 2006
Bandura, 1991
Durham, Knight, & Locke (1997),
Filho, Tenenbaum, & Yang (2015),
Gallie, Zhou, Felstead, & Green (2012),
Mason, & Griffin (2002), Wilson, Salas,
Priest, & Andrews (2007), Niemela &
Kalliola, 2007 Bandura, 1991
Team Orientation
Team members do
not demonstrate a
willingness to
prioritize the team’s
goal over individual
member goals.
Campion & Medsker (1993), Durham,
Knight, & Locke (1997), Filho,
Tenenbaum, & Yang (2015), Guzzo and
Shea (1990), Manzoor, Ullah, et al.
(2011), Mason, & Griffin (2002),
Niemela & Kalliola, 2007, Paris, Salas,
Cannon-Bowers (2000), Salas, Sims, &
Burke (2005), Wilson, Salas, Priest, &
Andrews (2007), Ross, Jones, & Adams
(2008), Bedwel, Wildman, Diaz
Granados, Salazar, Kramer, & Salas
(2012).
Neuman, Edwards, &
Raju, 1989
Adaptability
Team members do
not demonstrate the
ability to alter a
course of action in
response to a change
in conditions.
Campion & Medsker (1993), Durham,
Knight, & Locke (1997), Paris, Salas,
Cannon-Bowers (2000), Rabey (2003),
Salas, Sims, & Burke (2005), Salas,
Cooke, & Rosen (2008), Wilson, Salas,
Priest, & Andrews (2007)
Denler et al., 2006
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 36
Table 5, continued
Organizational
Culture
Team Leadership
The organization
does not have an
effective system for
monitoring and
evaluating
performance
Evidence that team
leadership does not
successfully direct
and coordinate the
activities of team
members
Evidence that team
leadership does not
establish a positive
atmosphere
Chang, Chiu, & Chen (2010), Durham,
Knight, & Locke (1997), Griffin,
Patterson, & West (2001), Guzzo and
Shea (1990), Eccles, 2006
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the project was to examine the assumed causes affecting employee
satisfaction in a division of the FDA by conducting a gap analysis of employees’ perceptions
regarding barriers to effective teamwork. The analysis focused on identifying and validating
employees’ perceptions of causes for barriers to teamwork due to gaps in the areas of knowledge
and skill, motivation, and organizational issues. The questions that guided this project were the
following:
1. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers do employees at the FDA’S
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research perceive related to teamwork in their units?
2. For the assumed barriers, what might be solutions that this and other FDA units with
similar barriers could adopt?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Methodological Framework
Gap Analysis
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a systematic, analytical method that helps to
identify organizational goals and examine the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization. The gap analysis process begins with
defining measurable goals. Once goals have been identified, determining gaps in performance is
the next step in the process. Hypothesizing about possible causes for those gaps is the next step,
which is followed by validating and prioritizing root causes. After causes are validated and
prioritized, the final two steps in the gap analysis process are developing solutions and
evaluating outcomes (Clark & Estes, 2008).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 38
Organizational Goal
The FEVS is conducted by the OPM annually and provides indications of employees’
perceptions regarding whether conditions characterizing successful organization are present in
each agency. The survey is designed to provide information critical for enacting change across
key areas that drive employee satisfaction, commitment, engagement, and, ultimately, retention.
OPM designed the FEVS to produce statistically reliable estimates of federal employees’
perceptions about how effectively agencies are managing their workforces. The survey measures
employee perceptions in eight areas: personal work experiences, work unit, agency, supervisor,
leadership, job satisfaction, work/life, and demographics (OPM, 2014). The aspirational
organizational goal identified by CDER is to have 100% employee satisfaction as measured by
FEVS results. The specific results of the FEVS are examined below.
Assumed Performance Causes
Clark and Estes (2008) describe the gap analysis process as a systematic problem-solving
approach to improve performance and achieve organizational goals. Many organizations make
the mistake of trying to address issues without a full understanding of the causes or take action to
implement solutions before confirming the assumed causes. This approach does not improve the
outcome and may cause fatigue among employees who invest effort into the unsuccessful
improvement process (Clark & Estes, 2008). For this study, preliminary assumed causes were
identified by both the research literature and the FEVS results as described in the next section
Results of the FEVS
A comparison of the 71 items on the FEVS to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
model revealed that three questions measured knowledge factors, ten measured motivational
factors and 58 measured organizational factors. The FEVS results for the CDER offices being
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 39
studied showed that on 31 of the 71 items (43%), employees rated their satisfaction level at 75%
positive or higher. Five items were rated at less than 50% and 35 items were rated between 50
and 75%. The ten FEVS items with the lowest positive scores had to do with the level and
fairness of pay, opportunities for promotion, and the fairness of awards and recognition. All of
the items in with the lowest positive scores were classified as organizational. The FEVS has 12
questions related to teamwork. Of those, three measure motivational issues, and nine measure
organizational issues. There are no questions on the FEVS that directly address knowledge and
skills asset capabilities.
Assumed Causes Based on the EVS, Gap Analysis Framework and the Literature Review
Knowledge and skills. While there are no FEVS questions related to evaluating
knowledge, skills, and capabilities related to teamwork or work units, the FEVS results shown in
Table 6 were evaluated through the lens of the selected Big Five teamwork framework (Salas et
al., 2005) described in Chapter Two to determine whether the question could reveal any
information about the knowledge elements related to the constructs of mutual performance
monitoring, back-up behavior, shared mental models, and communication. Questions 26, 27, 28
and 58 were shown to have relevance to knowledge and skills.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 40
Table 6
FEVS Items With Relevance to Knowledge Construct
Item # Item
Positive
Rank
%
Positive
%
Negative
KMO
Factor
26
Employees in my work unit
share job knowledge with
each other.
17 81.8 6.7 K
27
The skill level in my work
unit has improved in the past
year.
51 61.9 9.8 K
28
How would you rate the
overall quality of work done
by your work unit?
5 90.3 1.3 K
58
Managers promote
communication among
different work units.
45 68 13 K
Motivation. As shown in Table 7, there are three questions on the FEVS that assess
motivational issues. Question #20 rates the agency’s ability to cooperate as the 12th highest asset
measured by the FEVS. The ability to share knowledge is ranked at 17th out of 71 items. The
presence of trust contributes to group efficacy (Bandura, 1997). As trust and group efficacy
increase, utility value is positively affected and persistence increases (Bandura, 1997; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Locke & Latham, 1990) which has a positive impact on motivation. However,
employees’ assessment of their work unit’s skill improvement over the last year ranked 51 out of
71 items with only 61.9 giving a positive assessment of that item. A shared belief that team
members will perform their roles and protect the interests of their teammates will have an impact
on an employee’s willingness to make the active choice to persist in their work and expend
sufficient effort to accomplish the goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Salas et al., 2005).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 41
Table 7
FEVS Items With Relevance to the Motivation Construct
Item # Item
Positive
Rank
%
Positive
%
Negative
KMO
Factor
20
The people I work with
cooperate to get the job done
12 85.2 5.5 M
26
Employees in my work unit
share job knowledge with
each other
17 81.8 6.7 M
27
The skill level in my work
unit has improved in the past
year
51 61.9 9.8 M
Organization. The remaining nine questions on the FEVS (Table 8) related to teamwork
all assess organization factors. Question #28 asks about the overall quality of the work produced
by an employee’s work unit and was one of the highest rated by employees, receiving an overall
ranking of five. This item was the only item of the 12 that ranked in the top ten of the survey.
Questions #25, 24 and 23 all ranked in the bottom 10 items coming in at 67, 69, and 70,
respectively. The three questions address recognition and accountability.
Table 8
FEVS Item With Relevance to the Organizational Construct
Item # Item
Positive
Rank
%
Positive
%
Negative
KMO
Factor
28
How would you rate the
overall quality of work done
by your work unit?
5 90.3 1.3 O
47
Supervisors in my work unit
support employee
development.
22 76.6 9 O
59
Managers support
collaboration across work
units to accomplish work
objectives.
33 73.7 8.8 O
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 42
Table 8, continued
58
Managers promote
communication among
different work units.
45 68 13 O
21
My work unit is able to recruit
people with the right skills.
52 61 17.1 O
22
Promotions in my work unit
are based on merit.
65 50 25.2 O
25
Awards in my work unit
depend on how well
employees perform their jobs.
67 49.1 23.9 O
24
In my work unit, differences
in performance are recognized
in a meaningful way.
69 42 29.5 O
23
In my work unit, steps are
taken to deal with a poor
performer who cannot or will
not improve.
70 40.6 27.9 O
Validation of the Performance Causes
The remaining sections of this chapter describe how the assumed causes were validated
in order to determine which items might require action to provide solutions.
Summary of Causes to be Validated
Validation of assumed causes was conducted through the use of both qualitative and
quantitative data in each of the KMO domains and dimensions of the gap analysis framework.
Table 9 shows a summary of the results of the FEVS, the learning, motivation, and
organization/culture theory literature described in Chapter Two, the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational assumed causes for the subject division at the FDA campus and the validating
methods that were used to verify assumed causes.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 43
Table 9
Summary of Causes to be Validated and Method
Barriers to
Teamwork from
the perspective of
the employee
FEVS item Validating Methods
Item #
Focus Groups &
Interviews
Document Analysis
Knowledge
Team members
do not know each
other’s role and
capabilities or
how others
should be
performing.
(Mutual
Performance
Monitoring/
Accountability)
27 (p), 28,
(m), 20
Examples of
employees not
having knowledge
of job roles and
responsibilities in
the group.
Confirmation that staff members
do not know each other’s role and
capabilities; they are not aware of
how other are performing.
Team Members
do not take
action to assist
one another when
needed to
accomplish goals
(Back-up
Behavior)
28
Confirmation that
staff are not aware
of the work
outcome
expectations.
Groups/Interviews Examples of
staff not being aware of the work
outcome expectations. Staff will be
asked how they evaluate and
monitor performance. Examples of
staff members not taking action to
assist others.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 44
Table 9, continued
Team members
do not have
common
understanding of
the goals and
mission of the
organization or
and
understanding of
the desired
outcomes of a
specific project
(Shared Mental
Models)
26 (f), 28, 58
Example of staff
who are not clear
on the mission and
goals.
Confirmation that there are staff
who are not clear on the mission
and goals or the outcomes of a
specific project.
Team Members
do not share
information.
Team members
do not feel that
they have enough
information to
achieve
organizational
goals. Team
members do not
trust the
information they
have.
(Communication)
26 (m), 58 (p)
Information about
how often and fully
information is
communicated.
Indications that
communication is
lacking.
Confirmation that employees do
not have or trust the information
they have.
Motivation
Team members
do not
demonstrate a
willingness to
prioritize the
team’s goal over
individual
member goals
(Team
Orientation)
26 (se), 59 (v)
Examples that team
members are
focused on
individual goals
rather than
team/organizational
goals.
Confirmation of examples of lack
of team orientation.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 45
Table 9, continued
Team members
do not have
confidence in the
group’s ability to
accomplish goals
(Mutual Trust)
21 (se), 26
(se)
Examples of
employees
perceiving that the
work unit to does
not have the
necessary
knowledge/ skills
to be effective.
Confirmation of sentiment that the
group does not have the necessary
knowledge and skills to
accomplish the goals.
Team Members
do not
demonstrate the
ability to alter a
course of action
in response to a
change in
conditions
(Adaptability/
Flexibility)
20
Examples of team
members not
demonstrating
flexibility
Confirmation that employees are
not demonstrating
adaptability/flexibility when
needed
Organizational
Culture
The Organization
does not have an
effective system
for monitoring
and evaluating
performance.
Team Leadership
does not
successfully
direct and
coordinate the
activities of team
members.
(Team
Leadership)
22, 24, 25,
47, 58, 59,
Comments about
unfairness of
rewards and
opportunities and
evaluation systems.
Comments that
team members
perceive that
leadership does not
successfully direct
and coordinate the
activities.
Confirmation of sentiment that
rewards are unfair. Confirmation
that team members perceive that
leadership does not successfully
direct and coordinate the activities
of team members.
The validation methods, described below, included observations of in-person workshops
conducted at the FDA campus in Silver Spring, Maryland, phone interviews, and document
analysis.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 46
Participating Stakeholders
The individuals in the study were the non-supervisory personnel from six offices within
the CDERa division of the FDA. The particular offices within CDER were selected because their
offices either scored within the highest or lowest sectors of the FEVS. The 156 six non-
supervisory participants who participated in the forums provided information about their length
of time employed in the Federal Government (average 10.11 years), the FDA (average 7.2
years), and in their individual sub-unit offices (average 4.5 years).
An open invitation to participate in the data collection activities was sent to all non-
supervisory personnel from the six offices by email. 156 staff members and 80 supervisors
(approximately 5% of CDER’s 4,000 employees) participated in the observed workshops. A total
of eight interviews were conducted with employees from the six offices.
Instrumentation
A focus group observation protocol (Appendix D) and interview protocol (Appendix A)
were developed by the research group. The observation protocol directed the researchers to
describe the participants and the physical conditions present at the time of the workshops. The
observation protocol also prompted the researchers to notate participant comments in terms of
the KMO categories.
The interview protocol listed nine questions designed to validate the causes identified by
during the workshops, explore any assumed causes from the research that did not surface in the
interview, and give the interviewees the opportunity to raise any causes not mentioned during the
workshops. The utilization of protocols for the focus groups observations and interviews ensured
data collection consistency across the research team.
The data collected to answer the study questions were:
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 47
1. The observations of and documents produced during FDA-facilitated focus groups
2. Follow-up interviews conducted by the study team.
Data Collection
Permission from University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board was
obtained in order to ensure the safety and protection of the participants of the study. The
investigation team consisted of three lead investigators and six co-investigators. Individuals from
the team made trips to CDER in Maryland to participate in focus group observations.
Subsequently, interviews and document analysis were performed.
Observations. Half-day workshops were conducted with six offices within CDER by
FDA employees at the CDER facility in Silver Spring, Maryland. The six members of the USC
doctoral research team each attended one of the workshops and conducted observations. During
these workshops, the top ten (most positive) results and the bottom ten (least positive) responses
to 2012 FEVS questions were reviewed with attendees for the purpose of understanding the
factors contributing to or negatively affecting employee satisfaction.
In order to secure cooperation with the process, senior managers were invited to attend a
session where they were briefed about the specific office results, and the design of the process
was described to them. This transparency and inclusion was designed to prevent interference,
encourage participation by supervisors and employees and ensure cooperation with follow-up.
A session was conducted with non-supervisory personnel to review the top ten results.
They were asked to discuss the results in small groups and reflect upon whether they agreed with
the results and what might be the root causes for the responses. Small groups were asked to
report their findings, and their responses were recorded on paper in front of the group for their
validation. This process was repeated to allow non-supervisory employees to review the bottom
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 48
ten items. Supervisory personnel participated in a similar process separate from the employees.
After both groups attended the workshops, the study team compiled the results of the sessions.
Senior managers, supervisors, and non-supervisory personnel met together, and the results of the
day’s findings were presented.
Interviews. Attendees to the above described workshops had the opportunity to volunteer
to participate in a follow-up phone interview. Eleven total follow-up interviews were conducted
by the six members of the research team. Interviews were conducted by phone and were between
30 minutes and 60 minutes in length.
Document analysis. The top ten and bottom ten FEVS question results for each office
were presented to each observation group via power point presentation. In addition, the groups
were presented with copies of the top and bottom ten results as calculated for each office.
Observation groups were asked to report out at the end of each session and notes from these
sessions were recorded by the CDER facilitators on power point slides. The resulting power
point slides were, then, included in the document analysis and coded using the same matrix used
for the observations and the interviews.
Trustworthiness of Data
It is important to address the credibility and trustworthiness of this study in order to
ensure confidence in the potential findings. Triangulation and critical self-reflection by the
researchers helps to strengthen findings. Triangulation is a method of substantiating the data
collected (Merriam, 2009). The FEVS is an anonymous survey based on an existing and reliable
instrument utilized by the federal government to measure employee viewpoints. Furthermore,
observations and interviews did not collect personal information about participants to safeguard
candid responses without the potential threat of consequences. Interviews were confidential and
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 49
conducted by phone. Finally, research team member checked in regularly to ensure consistent
data collection methods.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is a process for converting raw data into useable information. An in-depth
analysis examined the data to identify assumed causes. The qualitative data collected underwent
a process of analysis using coding. Coding is a process of categorizing data for analysis
(Merriam, 2009). Rich descriptive data were gathered from observations and confidential
interviews, and documents were reviewed and coded using coding scheme developed by the
research team (Appendix E). Interview results, observation notes and session close out
documents were transcribed using open, axial coding was used to identify comments and
observations that related to knowledge, motivation, and organization categories. A color-coded
sheet was compiled to categorize results into an inter-coder reliability process was conducted
(Appendix F) with one of the other researchers on the team and reliability was established at the
level of less than 10% variance. Results are discussed in Chapter Four.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 50
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine employees’ perceptions of barriers to effective
teamwork in a division of the FDA and identify solutions that units within the federal
government can adapt and apply in an effort to improve employee satisfaction and retention.
This chapter presents the findings for the first research question and identify the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers related to teamwork that were identified by the CDER
employees participating in the study.
Assumed causes were considered to be validated if the items were present in all three
data sources: observations, interviews and document analysis. Validation was present for all
KMO areas and teamwork subcomponents areas except for adaptability, which was mentioned
twice in the interviews but was not present in the observations or the document analysis.
However, the frequency of mention of the individual items varied greatly. The frequency with
which each item was mentioned is noted in Table 10 in order to further understand the meaning
of the findings.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 51
Table 10
Summary of Causes Validated and Method with Findings
Barriers to
Teamwork from
the perspective of
the employee as
defined the
Teamwork
Literature (Salas
et al., 2005)
FEVS
item
Validating Methods Findings
Item # Focus Groups &
Interviews
Document Analysis Frequency Validated
Y/N
Knowledge
Team Members
do not share
information.
Team members
do not feel that
they have enough
information to
achieve
organizational
goals. Team
members do not
trust the
information they
have.
(Communication)
26
(m),
58 (p)
Information about
how often and fully
information is
communicated.
Indications that
communication is
lacking.
Confirmation that
employees do not
have or trust the
information they
have.
30 Y
Team members
do not have
common
understanding of
the goals and
mission of the
organization or
and
understanding of
the desired
outcomes of a
specific project
(Shared Mental
Models)
26 (f),
28, 58
Example of staff
who are not clear
on the mission and
goals.
Confirmation that
there are staff who are
not clear on the
mission and goals or
the outcomes of a
specific project.
21 Y
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 52
Table 10, continued
Team members
do not know each
other’s role and
capabilities or
how others
should be
performing.
(Mutual
Performance
Monitoring/
Accountability)
27 (p),
28,
(m),
20
Examples of
employees not
having knowledge
of job roles and
responsibilities in
the group.
Confirmation that
staff members do not
know each other’s
role and capabilities;
they are not aware of
how other are
performing.
18 Y
Team Members
do not take action
to assist one
another when
needed to
accomplish goals
(Back-up
Behavior)
28 Confirmation that
staff are not aware
of the work
outcome
expectations.
Groups/Interviews
Examples of staff not
being aware of the
work outcome
expectations. Staff
will be asked how
they evaluate and
monitor performance.
Examples of staff
members not taking
action to assist others.
17 Y
Motivation
Team members
do not have
confidence in the
group’s ability to
accomplish goals
(Mutual Trust)
21
(se),
26 (se)
Examples of
employees
perceiving that the
work unit to does
not have the
necessary
knowledge/ skills
to be effective.
Confirmation of
sentiment that the
group does not have
the necessary
knowledge and skills
to accomplish the
goals.
42 Y
Team members
do not
demonstrate a
willingness to
prioritize the
team’s goal over
individual
member goals
(Team
Orientation)
26
(se),
59 (v)
Examples that team
members are
focused on
individual goals
rather than
team/organizational
goals.
Confirmation of
examples of lack of
team orientation.
20 Y
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 53
Table 10, continued
Team Members
do not
demonstrate the
ability to alter a
course of action
in response to a
change in
conditions
(Adaptability/
Flexibility)
20 Examples of team
members not
demonstrating
flexibility.
Confirmation that
employees are not
demonstrating
adaptability/flexibility
when needed.
2 N
Organizational
Culture
The Organization
does not have an
effective system
for monitoring
and evaluating
performance.
Team Leadership
does not
successfully
direct and
coordinate the
activities of team
members.
(Team
Leadership)
22, 24,
25, 47,
58, 59,
Comments about
unfairness of
rewards and
opportunities and
evaluation systems.
Comments that
team members
perceive that
leadership does not
successfully direct
and coordinate the
activities.
Confirmation of
sentiment that
rewards are unfair.
Confirmation that
team members
perceive that
leadership does not
successfully direct
and coordinate the
activities of team
members.
155 Y
Knowledge Results
Within the Big Five model of teamwork components and coordinating mechanisms, the
teamwork factors that are assessed by the knowledge domain of the gap analysis framework are
mutual performance monitoring, back-up behavior, shared mental models and communication
(Sales et al, 2005). Coding and analysis were conducted to identify the knowledge subcategories
as they affected the four teamwork components or mechanisms.
The number of times that a comment was coded as falling in the knowledge domain
(including all subcategories) was 86, which was greater than that of items coded as falling within
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 54
the motivational domain (64) but lower than that of items coded as associated with the
organizational domain (155), as is presented in Table 10.
The document analysis and the comments recorded by researchers during the
observations and focus groups centered on two main areas related to the knowledge domain: a
perceived lack of standard operating procedures and difficulties with communication.
Lack of Standard Operating Procedures
Employees perceived that there was a lack of operating procedures and training at the
time of initial hire, or onboarding, which showed up as gaps in the factual knowledge area and
K3 (procedural). Employees stated that procedures were not developed, documented or
communicated. Quotes about this area noted during the observations were, “When I came into
the position, there was no guidance. I had to develop procedures myself,” and “The culture in the
agency is to not have established procedures and SOP’s [standard operating procedures].”
A lack of common procedures or SOPs is a lack of procedural knowledge (K3) and has
an impact on the teamwork components of mutual performance monitoring and back-up
behaviors and the coordinating mechanism of shared mental models. Mutual performance
monitoring requires that members maintain an awareness not just of their own work and its
contribution to the goal but also of the work of others on the team to be sure that progress is
occurring as expected and procedures are being followed (McIntyre & Salas, 1995; Salas et al.,
2005). A lack of established and documented procedures that are communicated in a systematic
manner, such as during training for newly hired employees, means it is difficult for employees to
engage in mutual performance monitoring. The coordinating mechanism of shared mental
models requires employees have the ability to anticipate the behavior of a system through
intimate knowledge of the component parts’ functioning (Jonker et al., 2011). A comment from
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 55
the document analysis was, “A formal office onboarding process is extremely desired to bring
new employees up-to-speed on office procedures, setting clear expectations, and regular
interactions with other office staff.” Without common access to and knowledge of the procedures
needed to make the system function, it is not possible for employees to have shared mental
models with one another.
Back-up behavior is closely related to mutual performance monitoring and shared mental
models. If an employee can anticipate potential gaps in work processes (because of an
understanding of how the system works or of a shared mental model) by monitoring their own
work and the work of others (through the process of mutual performance monitoring), then he or
she can adjust their own behavior to provide the needed action (back-up behavior) in order to
accomplish the goal. Effective back-up behavior can only occur when mutual performance
monitoring and shared mental models are present (Campion et al., 1993; Salas et al., 2005).
One interviewee addressed the issue of standardized procedures by saying,
There are no standards or designed procedures in place, so when you do come on board
as a new employee, it’s hard to get them or for them to feel confident about what they’re
doing because there’s not a lot of direction right there.
Another interviewee said, “Most of the time it’s you’re jumping in head-first, and then you just
swim to try to catch up. If you don’t [referring to making up procedures], then you fall behind.”
Difficulties With Communication
The second knowledge area that was observable in the data during the observations was
difficulties with various types of communication. Communication is essential to teamwork.
Communication can have an impact on all four of the knowledge subcategories. Effective
communication in teams requires factual procedural and conceptual knowledge to be able to
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 56
know what to say and when and also to ensure that the receiver of the information understands
what has been communicated. It may also require metacognitive knowledge in order to evaluate
what the sender is attempting to communicate and to apply strategy to communication
techniques and timing.
During the observations, there were concerns expressed about communication, daily
operational items and a perceived lack of information about structural changes and strategic
direction. There were reports of a lack of timeliness of communication about deadlines, K1
(factual), noted in comments such as, “There is a lack of timely information, which creates
unnecessary short term deadlines. Information gets stuck in the middle levels somewhere.” There
were general comments such as, “Communication goes into a black hole,” and “There is a huge
lack of communication with management.” It is unclear whether the speakers were referring to
factual and procedural items (K1 and K3) or conceptual or metacognitive areas (K2 and K4) of
information. There were requests for more conceptual (K3) information in the form of
explanations about why changes were being made. For example,
[Information] about changes was not very transparent. We were treated as if we were
supposed to be happy about the changes, but [management] should be more conscientious
about people’s feelings and explain why the changes are being made and what is going to
be gotten out of it.
Some sample comments made by interviewees about general communication were
“Communication is bottle-necked” and
[Communication] is limited, frankly; not only does the communication down not happen
effectively or frequently enough, but there’s no effective way to communicate up. There
used to be no communication sideways either, so if we had a team meeting scheduled and
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 57
the team leader of the branch chief had nothing to say, we didn’t have the meeting. [It]
didn’t matter that we needed to share information to be speaking the same language.
A participant stated, “In my immediate group there’s very little communication, almost
nonexistent.”
As discussed in the observation section above, communication is one of the Big Five of
teamwork components identified by Salas et al. (2005). Effective communication is essential to
cooperation and effectiveness in teams (Cannon-Bowers et al. 1990; DeAngelis & Scully, 2014;
McIntyre & Salas, 1995; Griffeth et al., 2000; Harter et al., 2009; Manzoor et al., 2011; Salas et
al., 2013; Salas et al., 2015).
The close-out reports that were generated by the CDER team who facilitated the
observation meetings with employees were reviewed. All of the information noted that related to
the knowledge domain during the document analysis addressed the communication component
of teamwork and were either factual gaps (K1) or procedural gaps (K3).
One example illustrated the factual knowledge subcategory gap:
Many employees felt there was little to no communication on project developments once
their involvement had ended. Some tasks or job duties go into a black hole once they are
completed, never knowing the outcome for months at a time, if ever.
A second respondent stated, “Status or important updates to projects are more frequently
overheard during informal conversations with colleagues or overheard in the halls than from
supervisors.”
Motivation Results
While the knowledge domain gives us information about “what to do and how to do it”
(Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 80), motivation provides the willingness to expend and sustain effort
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 58
towards the completion of a task or goal. Within the Big Five model of teamwork components
and coordinating mechanisms, the teamwork factors that are assessed by the motivation domain
of the gap analysis framework are adaptability, team orientation and mutual trust (Table 9). The
breakdown of the subcategories under the motivation domain (mutual trust, team orientation and
adaptability) appears in Appendix H.
The number of times that a comment was coded as falling in the motivation domain
(including all subcategories) was 64, which was lower than that of items coded as falling within
the knowledge domain (88) and that of those within the organizational domain (155), as
illustrated in Table 10. Of the three gap analysis domains (KMO causes), the domain of
motivation causes appears have the least negative impact on teamwork.
Mutual trust was the area that showed the high number of repetitions in the coding of the
data with respect to motivational causes. There were two primary topics or sources of
deficiencies of trust. One area that received enough common mentions to be relevant from the
employee perspective was a distrust of management. The second area that emerged was a
mistrust of the organization’s ability to be effective as a result of knowledge and organizational
deficiencies. The gaps in motivation are the consequence of knowledge and organizational gaps.
For example, one area that emerged as detrimental to motivation was concern about the annual
evaluation (PMAP) system. Clark and Estes (2008) state that one impediment to motivation is
vague performance feedback. Those comments were coded within team orientation because the
dissatisfaction with the PMAP system (discussed in the Organizational Results section, page 63)
impacts the willingness by individuals to work together to accomplish group goals (Campion et
al., 1993).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 59
Most of the comments noted during the observations were coded as having a negative
impact on the area of mutual trust from the perspective of the motivation subcategory of
confidence (M5), as presented in Appendix B. Negative comments were questioning collective
efficacy or the belief that the group can accomplish the goal, such as, “There are a lot of
‘disconnects’ which won’t be important until someone dies,” “There is such an incredible
workload; it is not sustainable,” and “There are so many leaders in an ‘acting capacity’ that it
makes it hard for them to lead us to accomplish the mission.” These comments illustrate a lack of
confidence about group efficacy, which impacts individual motivation (Campion et al., 1993;
Salas et al., 2005).
Organizational Results
From the perspective of gap analysis, organizational causes influence an organization’s
ability to achieve goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Lack of efficient and effective
organizational work processes and material resources can prevent the accomplishment of stated
objectives. Areas that can be barriers from an organizational perspective are work process,
material resources, value chains and value streams and organizational culture (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Within the Big Five model of teamwork components and coordinating mechanisms, the
teamwork factor that was assessed by the organizational domain of the gap analysis framework
was team leadership (Table 10). Organizational culture sets the parameters for the success or
failure of any organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teams with superior knowledge and
motivation cannot succeed with inefficient or insufficient work processes, or the inability to
develop value streams and value chains. Leadership is responsible for providing adequate levels
of resources and efficient processes and for translating the value streams to the team. Team
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 60
leadership is responsible for developing value chains to respond appropriately to emergent
demands or challenges (Clark & Estes, 2008; Salas et al., 2005).
The number of times that a comment was coded as falling in the organizational domain
(including all subcategories) was 155, which was higher than that of items coded as falling
within the knowledge domain (86) or within the motivational domain (64, as presented in Table
9). Of the three domains assessed by the gap analysis framework, the organizational domain had
the most negative impact on teamwork at CDER. Of the 305 data items coded from the research
conducted, 51% (155) were coded to the organizational causes domain.
Insufficient Staffing and Perceived Budget Constraints
Organizations require sufficient resources, including equipment, supplies, and personnel
to achieve organizational goals. Of the 28 comments coded to resources, six referenced
perceived inadequate staffing levels. Examples of comments related to this issue were “There
isn’t enough staff for the amount of work we do,” “Everyone thinks their workload is over the
top,” and “Everyone feels like a saturated sponge that someone is pouring more water over.”
There were also six comments related to insufficient funds for training and professional
development, such as, “Many don’t have access to the ‘basic training’ required by CDER. There
are new employees working three years without it.” Another example was, “We don’t have the
money for everyone to go to conferences so we share conference passes.” There were also non-
specific comments such as references to “lack of funding” and “no budget.”
Interview comments reinforced the comments noted during the observations regarding
the perception of insufficient staffing levels: “there are not enough people to do the job.” Some
stated, “There is not enough staff for the work we do.” Another said, “There is a perception there
is more work than can be accomplished in a standard work day, which pushes employees to work
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 61
additional hours at night and during weekends to get the job done, impacting the quality of
work.” Another commented, “There is more work that I could do in a lifetime.”
Document analysis confirmed the sentiment that there are insufficient staffing levels. An
example of a comment from the document analysis is, “Employees feel there are not enough staff
for the work to be effectively accomplished without overloading existing staff.”
The Reward and Recognition System: Organizational Culture
Within the subcategory of organizational culture, the item most mentioned was
inconsistencies and inadequacies associated with the system for recognition and rewards,
particularly the process of attaining promotion. Clark and Estes (2008) notes that efforts to
improve performance are filtered through organizational cultures. Attempts to improve
organizational effectiveness without taking into consideration an organization’s unique culture
are unlikely to succeed (Dixon, 1994). Items were coded as culture when they addressed the way
that policies and processes are being carried rather than commenting on the policies, themselves.
Results for this subcategory show that this area was coded with more frequency (60) than was
any other item (Appendix G) and accounts for 20% of the total of all items mentioned (305).
Examples of comments that address this area are “Pay increases and internal promotions
do not seem to have any correlation to performance. High performers and low performers get the
same increases.” Another comment was, “There is a perception of favoritism with regard to
promotions.” One employee stated, “Promotions are based on relationship instead of
performance.” Another staff member said, “Management prefers to go outside for promotions.”
The main areas mentioned during the observations regarding organizational policies were
the Federal Government pay structures and the PMAP. Comments were that the PMAP system is
“murky,” “useless,” or “broken.”
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 62
Employees mentioned concerns about the evaluation system, “The PMAP process is very
frustrating because it’s what the supervisor decides to make it. If there’s a supervisor who just
wants to blow it off, they can and everybody suffers for it.”
Document analysis confirmed the existence of concern about equitable promotion and
evaluation systems. Specific statements were, “Many employees felt there are very few, if any,
resources available that outline clear and concise requirements for promotions, performance
expectations, and training requirements” and “The majority of employees described confusion
and frustration with the PMAP process and outcomes, including the applicability of generic goals
to individuals, and how management uses the PMAP.” A specific statement from the documents
is, “Some employees felt there are inconsistencies in how awards and promotions are presented,
with a perception of favoritism toward individuals and teams rather than performance.”
Dealing With Poor Performers
Another related topic that was coded to culture pertained to supervisors not taking
corrective action to address more performance. There were comments that supervisors do not
deal with poor performers and that low performing employees are often moved to another area to
avoid the problem. A specific quote related to this topic was “Core performance issues not
addressed because of where employees are in the system with regard to age or time served.”
Document analysis showed that there is perception that there is not a system for
developmentally addressing issues with low performers. The system that is in place appears to be
unwieldy: “the process to deal with underperformers is time-consuming.” Many employees
understand supervisors are not permitted to communicate information regarding steps being
taken with poor performers but felt that greater flexibility in how and what can be communicated
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 63
would help: “There is a perception that low performers get moved to another office or in some
cases get moved up to get rid of them.”
Difficulties With the Hiring Process
Employees stated that the hiring process for replacing employees is lengthy, which
results in long delays. This delay results in units that are operating without sufficient staffing for
extended periods. Work processes (O4) refer to the series of actions that connect knowledge,
skills, equipment and materials to specific outcomes and goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Comments
about the hiring process accounted for eight of the 22 comments in this area (Appendix G).
The primary concerns expressed during the observations were amount of time involved
with the process. For example, “The time that it takes to hire is ridiculous. It used to take longer,
but it still takes like three months.” This was mentioned as a contributing factor to the earlier
mentioned barrier of insufficient staffing.
The lengthy hiring process was mentioned during the interviews. “The HR process takes
like six months to recruit and hire.” One interviewee expressed concern that good candidates
often remove themselves from the process due to its lengthy nature.
Document analysis confirmed a concern about the length of the hiring process. One
specific statement from the documents reviewed is,
Many employees felt that while overall they are able to recruit people with the right
skills, the onboarding process through HR takes a significant amount of time (e.g., six
months or longer), in some instances resulting in the loss of perspective candidates as
they chose to move on to other opportunities of employment.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 64
Synthesis of Findings and Summary
At the beginning of Chapter Four, Table 9 summarized the assumed causes and findings.
Table 10 showed the levels of frequency levels. The organizational domain showed the highest
frequency validating that a sense of unfairness about rewards and opportunities is present in the
six offices at CDER involved with the study. A sense of unfairness about rewards and
opportunities negatively affects the teamwork component of team leadership; therefore, these
concerns could have a negative impacting on the development of teamwork in the six
participating offices of CDER.
Frequency levels present at a lower, but still significant, level was confirmed for the
knowledge domain teamwork components of communication, shared mental models, mutual
performance monitoring and back-up behavior. This confirms that the issues teamwork
components associated with the knowledge domain could have a negative impact on teamwork
in the six offices of CDER from which the subjects of this study were derived.
Validation was confirmed for the motivation domain teamwork component of mutual
trust. This confirms that issues with trust could have a negative impact on teamwork at the six
offices of CDER investigated in this study.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 65
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
Recommendations for Practice
The purpose of this study was to use the gap analysis framework to examine CDER
employees’ perceptions of barriers to effective teamwork and identify solutions that this and
other units within the Federal Government can adapt and apply in an effort to improve employee
satisfaction and retention. Data were analyzed and triangulated from three sources. Observations
of employee workshops (for the purpose of reviewing each office’s results from the 2012 FEVS)
were conducted with employees from six offices from the FDA’s CDER. Follow-up phone
interviews were conducted with individual employees after the observations. The third source of
data was the written materials used to summarize results from the six workshops.
It was determined that the greatest barrier to the development of effective teamwork is
the teamwork component of team leadership, which falls into the organizational domain of the
gap analysis. Appendix G shows the breakdown of the subcategories within the organizational
domain and the relative strengths of each. This table reveals that the two subcategories of culture
and work processes (organizational domain) are the factors most impeding the development of
teamwork. Other inhibiting factors were identified as issues with communication (knowledge
domain) and lack of trust (motivation domain). This chapter addresses the second and third
research questions by exploring solutions that could be adopted for the assumed causes that were
verified and suggesting how solutions might be implemented and, subsequently, evaluated for
effectiveness. Limitations and delimitations of the study are reviewed.
Research Question Two asked, “For the assumed barriers, what might be solutions that
other units could adopt?” Table 1 (p. 11) shows that, in order to improve teamwork within the
offices that participated in the study, efforts should be concentrated towards actions that will
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 66
strengthen team leadership, mutual trust and communication. Recommendations for practice will
focus on actions that could be taken to address perceptions of these areas among employees at
CDER. Gaps surfaced related to organizational barriers that could be addressed at a macro level,
such as improving culture and processes government-wide; however, this type of structural
change is beyond the scope of this study.
It addition to the knowledge, motivation and organizational gaps with regard to each of
the components that build good teamwork, it was noted that teamwork as a construct was not
mentioned by employees as a stated goal that is actively pursued or fostered by supervisors. As is
common in organizations (Salas et al., 2005), it is possible that the connection between
teamwork and employee satisfaction is not widely known or purposely cultivated by the senior
management team at CDER.
Knowledge
Timely communication and written standardized procedures. The data collected from
the research group indicated that employees are requesting better and more timely
communication and written standardized procedures. Clark and Estes (2008) state that
knowledge is essential for employees to contribute to organizational goals with certainty. The
development and dissemination of written standardized procedures would improve the
knowledge teamwork components of shared mental models, mutual performance modeling and
back-up behavior. A lack of documented and well-defined processes undermines the
achievement of organizational strategic goals (Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 67
Motivation
Lack of trust: group efficacy. The lack of trust within the organization stemmed from
two primary sources: doubts about group efficacy and distrust of management generated from
dissatisfaction regarding evaluation and promotion. Confidence in individual and group efficacy
could be improved by the development of SOP materials. Task- specific confidence promotes
work motivation (Bandura, 1997, Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation is increased when employees
have a way to get the information needed to perform job tasks and achieve organizational goals
(Locke & Latham, 1990, Bandura, 1997, Clark & Estes, 2008). Salas et al, (2005) state that
documented information about job processes and expectations will provide the basis for the
development of the teamwork components of shared mental models, mutual performance
monitoring and back-up behavior which improves group efficacy and mutual trust (p. 584).
Lack of Trust: Rewards and compensation. More focus on standardized and
transparent evaluation standards and promotion criteria could improve the sense of mutual trust
between management and non-supervisory employees. Employees compare the rewards that they
receive for their inputs against the input/output combination of co-workers and make judgments
about fairness (Adams, 1965). As Adams (1965) explained, employees’ assessments of fairness
or equity have a strong influence on employee satisfaction. Equity theory suggests that
employees measure their inputs (time, effort, talent, loyalty) against the outputs (pay,
recognitions, security, benefits) and make an assessment about whether the exchange is equitable
(Adams, 1965). A perception of unfairness has a negative impact on the utility value component
of motivation because it undermines an employee’s ability to calculate the value of the effort
expended towards a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Trust is undermined by the employee perception
of unfairness, which has a negative impact on motivation (Adams, 1965; Clark & Estes, 2008).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 68
Research by Lau and Scully (2015) showed that perceptions of unfairness had a negative impact
on employees’ trust in an organization and specific managers.
Organization
Promotion system. Employees indicated that they felt that the annual evaluation system
was ineffective. They also expressed that the promotion criteria were unclear and appeared to be
inconsistently applied. Employees are looking for routine and effective feedback about their
performance. CDER leadership could take steps to ensure that employees are informed about
promotion criteria and that processes are transparent and standardized, for example, by calling
managers together to calibrate a common understanding of the rating scale, and by monitoring
the frequency and quality of employee feedback going forward through document reviews and
informal check-ins with employees. Appraisal systems perceived as adequate by employees
improve trust of senior management (Mayer & Davis, 1999).
Perceptions regarding management competency. Another employee perception was
that managers do not have the skills to perform the management functions with which they were
entrusted. CDER management could conduct research to further illuminate what behaviors
employees are specifically requesting or what business need is not being met from the employee
perspective. Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, and Werner (1998) state that it is management’s
responsibility to develop trust and confidence in employees through their actions and behaviors.
Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Table 14 shows the proposed actions and suggested timeframes for each. The gap
analysis conducted revealed that while there are some issues that can be addressed immediately,
others require prioritization and discussion among the stakeholders. Therefore, it is suggested
that the first step be to create Employee Action Research Group. Action research is a method of
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 69
investigation that allows individuals within organizations to analyze and assess behavior and
culture within the workplace (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011). The process allows leaders without
specialized expertise to manage the investigation and develop change actions based on their
unique understanding of the organizational requirements (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011).
Employee action research groups include participation by non-supervisory employees which
leverages their unique perspective and engages employees into the process of developing
solutions. This approach would assist to address issues of mistrust between management and
non-supervisory employees by providing a mechanism for increased communication through
participation in the group (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011). An additional advantage to the
Employee Action Research Group model is that it could be undertaken on an accelerated
timeline. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) state that the initial design of change management
efforts set the stage for the ultimate success of the venture. Change management efforts that have
an extended implementation timeline have a decreased chance of success because of the high
probability of conflicting priorities and emergent business or mission tasks which divert attention
from those efforts (Kotter, 1996). This approach would address the possible impediment of
successful change management processes of diffused energy (Kotter, 1996).
Subsequent to the initial debrief meeting of the Employee Action Group, during which
priorities are established, it is suggested that a three-hour retreat be held with the group to create
an implementation timeline and establish buy-in for the leading indicators needed (Kirkpatrick,
2016) to monitor progress. The Employee Action Research Retreat should be organized and
conducted within the 60-day period specified in order to ensure adequate focus and prevent the
loss of momentum (Kotter, 1996).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 70
Table 11
Implementation Plan and Timeline for Proposed Actions to Address Barriers to Teamwork
Gap to be addressed Proposed Action
Suggested Implementation
Timeframe
Trust/Inadequate
Communication
Form an Employee Action Research Group
to review the study results and proposed
solutions. Group should be comprised of
managers, team leaders and employees from
each of the six offices
Within 30 Days
Schedule and conduct a retreat with the
Employee Action Research Group for the
purpose of evaluating the proposed solutions
and defining and launching plans for
improvement,
Within 60 Days
At the retreat, meet with the
supervisor/employee working team to
prioritize the topics about which clearer
communication is needed.
Within 60 Days
Lack of SOPS
At retreat, create a work groups
to oversee the tasks related to
the development of SOPS
Group will:
Determine which offices need
SOPS
1 month
Conduct Cognitive Task
Analysis to determine process
for developing needed
procedural manuals
3 months
Develop new SOP manuals 2 months
Test new SOP manuals to
ensure efficacy
Within 6 months
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 71
Table 11, continued
Perceived lack of basic required
supervisory skills
Conduct a session at the retreat
with supervisors only to discuss
the employee concerns about
supervision. Supervisors should
develop a plan for improvement
by determining whether the root
of the problems are K, M or O.
Solutions should be geared
appropriately.
Solutions should be planned for
6-12 months
Employees perceive that the
evaluation system and access to
promotions is unfair and
ineffective
Senior Leadership should meet
to discuss PMAP accountability
to ensure that promotion criteria
is clear and consistently applied
and that employees receive
routine and effective feedback
about their performance. should
determine what coaching,
modeling and enforcing of
expectations of supervisors
PMAPs occurs such that
promotion criteria and processes
are transparent and
standardized.
Within 6 months
The leadership team should
review PMAP feedback and
identify supervisors who may
be providing inadequate
feedback. Appropriate
intervention steps should be
developed and implemented.
Within 12 Months
To monitor the initial stages of the process, assessment should be conducted to track
efficacy. Prior to the retreat, participants should be sent an online survey with Likert scale and
open-ended questions to assess participants’ understanding of the results of the study and their
confidence in the proposed solutions. The results of the survey should be used to design the
activities of the retreat to increase understanding and improve confidence, if needed.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 72
At the completion of the retreat, a second survey could be conducted and the results
compared to determine the degree of change in knowledge and confidence achieved as a result of
the retreat process.
Each item in the proposed action section should have its own implementation and
evaluation plan in order to successfully design processes with the necessary level of detail and
specificity needed to sustain effective change (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2006; Kotter, 1996). Implementation champions need to be designated for each effort, and
leading indicators should be established, such as monitoring the results of specific FEVS
questions and conducting office specific surveys and focus groups to track progress. This
implementation package needs to be affirmed by the participating action team.
Leadership should review both the results of the surveys and the practical outcome of the
retreat to determine if implementation plans were developed for each solution and assess the
level of understanding and confidence in the process. Should the individual plans be successful
in each sample office where the individual projects were conducted, the decision could be made
to expand the solutions to all offices within CDER.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study is limited by the design of the FEVS and the wording of the questions on the
survey, which were not specifically written to measure teamwork as a construct. The wording of
the questions made it difficult to know what each question was attempting to assess. It is also
difficult to know what the respondent was rating.
The study team had a limited amount of time to interview the stakeholder groups and
conduct the follow-up interviews. There was a limited sample size, as the team did not interview
a representative sample size of every office in CDER.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 73
The workshops observed were facilitated by CDER employees and were for the purpose
of reviewing the FEVS results with each group. Researchers were not able to ask specific
questions related to teamwork.
The project is also delimited to examining offices of the FDA whose experiences may or
may not be representative of that of other government offices or other organizations.
Recommendation for Further Inquiry
One observation during the study was that employees did not perceive that teamwork was
actively promoted as a value within the organization. Further study in organizations that do have
a conscious and deliberate policy of actively promoting teamwork would contribute to the body
of research on the effectiveness of individual practices. This study reviewed the link between
teamwork and employee satisfaction; however, there is growing interest in the link between
employee engagement and employee retention and productivity rates (Griffith et al., 2000; Harter
et al., 2009). Additional research to explore the link between teamwork and employee
engagement could contribute to the understanding of importance of teamwork to organizational
productivity.
Further research is suggested. If the proposed solutions suggested herein were adopted, a
study of the results could be conducted to provide further understanding of the link between
teamwork and employee satisfaction and the effectiveness of the change management process
when action is taken to address KMO gaps related to the development of effective teamwork.
Conclusion
A gap analysis was conducted to determine the KMO barriers to effective teamwork from
the perspective of employees within six offices within the FDA. This study is important because
greater understanding of the importance of teamwork with regard to employee satisfaction could
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 74
improve retention, increase productivity, and reduce costs within the government (Hsieh, 2010)
and, specifically, within the FDA’s CDER. High turnover in the government service sector,
generally, is expensive to taxpayers (Ting, 1997) and, specifically, high turnover in the FDA
could have a negative impact on public safety and public health. Improved teamwork enables
organizations to accomplish their goals more efficiently and at a lower cost (Ting, 1997).
It was determined that KMO barriers to the development of effective teamwork were all
present. Specific barriers were identified, proposed actions to address the gaps were outlined and
evaluation plan was designed. The primary barriers that we identified were a knowledge gap in
SOP, which had a negative impact on the development of the teamwork components of shared
mental models, mutual performance monitoring and back-up behaviors; organizational gaps in
the areas of efficient and effective evaluation system, which was directly linked to the fair
acquisition of access to rewards and promotions; and a motivational gap in the area of shared
trust directly linked to the knowledge and organizational gaps. The knowledge gap regarding
lack of documented processes had a negative impact on collective efficacy. The perceived lack
of a transparent and effective evaluation system created a perception of unfairness which
contributed to a lack of trust. Additionally, employees did not perceive that teamwork was
actively promoted by leadership.
The implementation plan was designed to address these gaps within a twelve-month
period. The suggestion was made that each proposed solution be enacted by only one office to
test for efficacy before expanding to a wider audience and to allow each office to focus on one
item at a time. This timeline would aid in preventing offices from becoming distracted or
overwhelmed by trying to change too much too soon. Lastly, a recommendation was made to
evaluate all aspects of the plan for effectiveness.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 75
References
Adams, J.S (1965). “Inequity in social exchange”. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing
misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn &
Bacon.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive process through perceived self-efficacy.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New
York: David McKay, 19(56).
Bertelli, A. M., Mason, D. P., Connolly, J. M., & Gastwirth, D. A. (2013). Measuring agency
attributes with attitudes across time: A method and examples using large-scale federal
surveys. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, mut040.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work
groups. Personnel psychology, 46(4), 823-847.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 76
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1990). Cognitive psychology and team
training: Training shared mental models and complex systems. Human factors society
bulletin, 33(12), 1-4.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clifton, D. O., Hollingsworth, F. L., & Hall, W. E. (1952). A projective technique for measuring
positive and negative attitudes towards people in a real-life situation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 43(5), 273.
DeAngelis, L., Penney, S., & Scully, M. (2014). Leadership Lessons from Teamwork. Leader to
Leader, 2014(73), 19-25.
Dixon, J. R., Arnold, P., Heineke, J., Kim, J. S., & Mulligan, P. (1994). Business process
reengineering: Improving in new strategic directions. California Management Review,
36(4), 93-108. doi:10.2307/41165768
Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal
difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 72(2), 203-231.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents'
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215-225. doi:10.1177/0146167295213003
Ellickson, M. C. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government
employees. Public Personnel Management, 31(3), 343.
Gallup, G. H., & Hill, E. (1960). The secrets of long life. Geis Associates.
Gilbreth, F. B. (1912). Primer of scientific management. D. Van Nostrand Company.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 77
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and
correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for
the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Agrawal, S. (2009). Q12 meta-analysis: The
relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Washington, DC:
The Gallup Organization.
Herzberg, F., Mausner B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of
Research and Opinion. Pittsburg: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Hsieh, T. (2010). Delivering happiness: A path to profits, passion, and purpose. New York:
Business Plus.
Jonker, C. M., van Riemsdijk, M. B., & Vermeulen, B. (2011). Shared mental models. (pp. 132-
151). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Kirkpatrick, D.L., & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2007). Implementing the four levels: A practical guide
for effective evaluation of training programs. San Francisco, CA: Bennett-Koehler
Publishers.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press.
Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Co.
Lau, C. M., & Scully, G. (2015). The roles of organizational politics and fairness in the
relationship between performance management systems and trust. Behavioral Research
in Accounting, 27(1), 25-53.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 78
Lee, M., Johnson, T., & Jin, M. H. (2012). Toward understanding the dynamic relationship
between team and task shared mental models as determinants of team and individual
performances. International Journal of Information Technology and Business
Management, 8(1).
Liu, D., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Hinkin, T. R. (2012). When employees are
out of step with coworkers: How job satisfaction trajectory and dispersion influence
individual- and unit-level voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6),
1360.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the
tunnel. Psychological science, 1(4), 240-246.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American psychologist, 57(9), 705.
Johnson, T. E., & O’Connor, D.L. (2008). Measuring team shared understanding using the
analysis-constructed shared mental model methodology. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 21(3), 113-134.
Mayo, E. (1930). The Hawthorne Experiment. The Human Factor, 6.
MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: Enhancing performance through
employee engagement: A report to government. London, England: Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills.
Manzoor, S. R., Ullah, H., Hussain, M., & Ahmad, Z. M. (2011). Effect of teamwork on
employee performance. International Journal of Learning and Development, 1(1), Pages-
110.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 79
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of applied psychology, 84(1), 123.
McIntyre R M, Salas E. (1995). Measuring and Managing for Team Performance: Emerging
Principles from Complex Environments. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas et al. (Eds.), Team
Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (9-45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). All you need to know about action research. Sage
Publications.
Rath, T., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). How full is your bucket? Positive strategies for work and life.
Gallup Press.
Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., & Krueger, R. F., (2007). Handbook of research methods in
personality psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Rosemann, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2015). The six core elements of business process
management. In Handbook on Business Process Management 1 (pp. 105-122). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small group
research, 36(5), 555-599.
Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H. (2015).
Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical
guide. Human Resource Management, 54(4), 599-622.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 80
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S., Cohen, D., & Latham, G. (Eds.). (2013). Developing and enhancing
teamwork in organizations: Evidence-based best practices and guidelines (Vol. 33).
John Wiley & Sons.
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualizations of the relationship
between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. The Academy of
Management Journal, 48(1), 50-68
Taylor, F. W. (1914). The principles of scientific management.
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(4), 439-456.
Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees. Public
Personnel Management, 26(3), 313-334.
Tsai, Y., & Wu, S. W. (2010). The relationships between organisational citizenship behaviour,
job satisfaction and turnover intention. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(23‐ 24), 3564-
3574.
United States Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.) About the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/
OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/
United States Food and Drug Administration. (n.d). FDA posts current numbers employee
numbers on transparency. Retrieved from http://www.fdanews.com/articles/127623
United States Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). United States Food and Drug
Administration Website Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 81
United States Office of Personnel Management. (n.d.). Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey:
Employees Influencing Change. Retrieved from http://www.fedview.opm.gov/
United States Office of Personnel Management. (2012). 2012 federal employment viewpoint
survey. 2014 federal employment viewpoint survey.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators
of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy
behavior. Academy of management review, 23(3), 513-530.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 82
Appendix A
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 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 choose to skip any question and you may end this interview at any time.
• The total time should take no longer than 30 minutes.
• What questions do you have for me before we begin?”
Do you mind if I record our interview? I will destroy the recording once I’ve finished my report.
NO, DO NOT RECORD YES, OK TO RECORD
NOTE WHICH STAKEHOLDER GROUP THIS PERSON REPRESENTS:
SENIOR MGMT SUPERVISOR EMPLOYEE
Interview Questions
#1 It looks like the group from today came up some possible causes or issues related to
supervision that are contributing to employee satisfaction (LIST THEM) either
positively or negatively. How confident are you that the group has surfaced all the right
causes? Anything you would add or take off?
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 83
#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?
#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?
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 84
#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?
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 85
Appendix B
Assumed Causes With Sources
Table 12
Assumed Causes with Sources
Teamwork
from the
perspective of
the employee
Business
literature
Educational
Psychology
Literature
FEVS item
Item
#
Item %
positive
or
negative
Knowledge
Mutual
Performance
Monitoring/
Accountability
Crowley, Payne,
& Kennedy
(2014), Niemela
& Kalliola,
2007, Paris,
Salas, Cannon-
Bowers (2000),
Salas, Sims, &
Burke (2005),
Wilson, Salas,
Priest, &
Andrews (2007),
Ross, Jones, &
Adams (2008).
Eccles, 2006 27
(p)
28
(m)
61.9/9.8
90.3/ 5.3
Back-up
Behavior
Paris, Salas,
Cannon-Bowers
(2000), Salas,
Sims, & Burke
(2005), Wilson,
Salas, Priest, &
Andrews (2007)
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 86
Adaptability/
Flexibility
Campion &
Medsker (1993),
Durham, Knight,
& Locke (1997),
Paris, Salas,
Cannon-Bowers
(2000), Rabey
(2003), Salas,
Sims, & Burke
(2005), Salas,
Cooke, & Rosen
(2008), Wilson,
Salas, Priest, &
Andrews (2007
Denler et al.,
2006
Shared Mental
Models
Campion &
Medsker (1993),
Durham, Knight,
& Locke (1997),
Filho,
Tenenbaum, &
Yang (2015),
Guzzo and Shea
(1990), Paris,
Salas, Cannon-
Bowers (2000),
Rabey (2003),
Bedwel,
Wildman, Diaz
Granados,
Salazar, Kramer,
& Salas
(2012)Salas,
Cooke, & Rosen
(2008)Salas,
Sims, & Burke
(2005), Santos &
Passos (2013)
Gallimore &
Goldenberg,
2001
26
(f)
81.8/6.7
Communication Campion &
Medsker (1993),
DeAngelis,
Penney, &
Scully (2014),
Durham, Knight,
& Locke (1997),
Kirschner,
Kirschner &
Paas, 2006;
Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006
26
(m)
58
(p)
81.8/6.7
66/13
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 87
Manzoor, Ullah,
et al. (2011),
Paris, Salas,
Cannon-Bowers
(2000), Salas,
Sims, & Burke
(2005), Wilson,
Salas, Priest, &
Andrews (2007),
Ross, Jones, &
Adams (2008)
Motivation
Team
Orientation
Campion &
Medsker (1993),
Durham, Knight,
& Locke (1997),
Filho,
Tenenbaum, &
Yang (2015),
Guzzo and Shea
(1990),
Manzoor, Ullah,
et al. (2011),
Mason, &
Griffin (2002),
Niemela &
Kalliola, 2007,
Paris, Salas,
Cannon-Bowers
(2000), Salas,
Sims, & Burke
(2005), Wilson,
Salas, Priest, &
Andrews (2007),
Ross, Jones, &
Adams (2008),
Bedwel,
Wildman, Diaz
Granados,
Salazar, Kramer,
& Salas (2012)
Eccles, 2006;
Denler et al.,
2006
26
(se)
59
(v)
81.8/6.7
73.7/ 8.8
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 88
Mutual Trust Filho,
Tenenbaum, &
Yang (2015),
Guzzo and Shea
(1990),
Manzoor, Ullah,
et al. (2011),
Niemela &
Kalliola, 2007,
Paris, Salas,
Cannon-Bowers
(2000), Rabey
(2003), Salas,
Sims, & Burke
(2005), Wilson,
Salas, Priest, &
Andrews (2007),
Bedwel,
Wildman, Diaz
Granados,
Salazar, Kramer,
& Salas (2012)
Bandura,1989;
Denler et al.,
2006
21
(se)
26
(se)
61.7/17.1
81.8/6.7
Durham, Knight,
& Locke (1997),
Filho,
Tenenbaum, &
Yang (2015),
Gallie, Zhou,
Felstead, &
Green (2012),
Mason, &
Griffin (2002),
Wilson, Salas,
Priest, &
Andrews (2007),
Niemela &
Kalliola (2007)
Bandura,
1989;
Pintrich, 2003
21
(v)
24
(v)
27
(se)
28
(se)
61.7/17.1
69/29.5
61.9/9.8
90.3/ 5.3
Organization
Team
Leadership
Chang, Chiu, &
Chen
(2010), Durham,
Locke &
Latham, 1990
22
24
50/25.2
69/29.5
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 89
Knight, & Locke
(1997), Griffin,
Patterson, &
West (2001),
Guzzo and Shea
(1990), Paris,
Salas, Cannon-
Bowers (2000),
Salas, Sims, &
Burke (2005),
Rabey (2003)
25
47
58
59
49.1/23.9
76.6/ 9
66/13
73.7/ 8.8
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 90
Appendix C
Q12 Statements
The Q12 statements are as follows:
Q00. (Overall Satisfaction) On a five-point scale, where “5” is extremely satisfied and “1” is
extremely dissatisfied, how satisfied are you with (your company) as a place to work?
Q01. I know what is expected of me at work.
Q02. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
Q03. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
Q04. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.
Q05. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
Q06. There is someone at work who encourages my development
Q07. At work, my opinions seem to count.
Q08. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.
Q09. My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work.
Q10. I have a best friend at work.
Q11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress.
Q12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.
Q12 meta-analysis: The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes
published in 2009 by the Gallup Organization (Harter, Schmidt, Killham, & Agrawal 2009).
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 91
Appendix D
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:
Interior observations:
Room conditions:_______________________
Lighting:______________________________
Temperature:___________________________
Food/ drink:____________________________
Notes:_________________________________
Comments about assumed causes: (EXPAND AS NEEDED)
KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS:
MOTIVATION:
ORGANIZATIONAL BARRIERS:
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 92
Appendix E
FDA-CDER Coding Scheme
Name Code Description
Knowledge
Factual K1 Terminology; specific details and elements
Conceptual K2 Classifications; principles; generalizations; relationships among
elements
Procedural K3 Skills; techniques; methods; when to use procedures
Metacognitive K4 Strategic; self-awareness of strategies; self-knowledge
Motivation
Active Choice M1 Not starting something new; intending but not acting
Mental Effort M2 Not working smart enough; using familiar strategies when new ideas are
required; not taking responsibility for lack of achievement
Persistence M3 Avoiding, arguing, doing something less important, waiting for deadline
Value M4 Is it importance? (Avoids starting or persisting)
Confidence -/+ M5 Can I do it? (Avoids persisting and/or working smart)
Emotion M6 Do I want to do it? (Avoids starting, persisting and working smart)
Organization
Resources O1 Financial; personnel; time;
Culture O2 Conflicts among groups and individuals about knowledge (what should
be done); value (what is worth doing) procedures (how to do it) rewards,
priorities and beliefs
Policies O3 A course or principle of action set by others
Processes O4 Practices; systems; structures
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 93
Appendix F
FDA-CDER IRR Master Code Sheet
IRR Code Sheet for ________________________
_____________________ _______________________
Main Coder Secondary Coder
Name Code Agree Disagree Tally Total % Agreement (IRR)
Knowledge
Factual K1
Conceptual K2
Procedural K3
Metacognitive K4
Motivation
Active Choice M1
Mental Effort M2
Persistence M3
Value M4
Confidence -/+ M5
Emotion M6
Organization
Resources O1
Culture O2
Policies O3
Processes O4
Totals
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 94
Appendix G
Table 13
Table 13
Summary of Teamwork Components From Knowledge Domain
Frequency Table: Knowledge Domain
Mutual Performance Monitoring
Interviews Observations
Document
Analysis
K1 Factual 3 1 1
K2 Conceptual 0 0 0
K3 Procedural 10 1 1
K4 Metacognitive 1 0 0
Totals 14 2 2
Total for Mutual
Performance
Monitoring 18
Back-up Behavior
Interviews Observations
Document
Analysis
4 0 2
K1 Factual 1 0
K2 Conceptual 7 1 2
K3 Procedural 0 0 0
K4 Metacognitive 12 1 4
Totals
Total for Back-Up
Behavior 17
Adaptability/Flexibility
Interviews Observations
Document
Analysis
1 0 0
K1 Factual 1 0 0
K2 Conceptual 0 0 0
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 95
K3 Procedural 0 0 0
K4 Metacognitive 2 0 0
Totals
Total for
Adaptability/Flexibility 2
Shared Mental Models
Interviews Observations
Document
Analysis
1 0 0
K1 Factual 0 0 0
K2 Conceptual 0 0 0
K3 Procedural 13 3 4
K4 Metacognitive 14 3 4
Totals
Total for Shared
Mental Models 21
Communication
Interviews Observations
Document
Analysis
4 4 4
K1 Factual 0 0 0
K2 Conceptual 9 4
K3 Procedural 0 1 4
K4 Metacognitive 13 9 0
Total for
Communication 30
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 96
Appendix H
Table 14
Table 14
Summary of Teamwork Components from Motivational Domain
Frequency Table Motivation Domain
Team Orientation
Interviews Observations
Document
Analysis
M1 2 0 0
M2 1 0 0
M3 2 0 0
M4 3 0 1
M5 0 0 0
M6 8 0 3
Totals 16 0 4
Total for
Team
Orientation 20
Mutual Trust
Interviews Observations
Document
Analysis
M1 0 0 0
M2 0 0 0
M3 1 0 0
M4 2 1 0
M5 12 11 5
M6 8 1 1
Totals 23 13 6
Total for
Mutual
Trust 42
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING TEAMWORK: FDA 97
Appendix I
Table 15
Table 15
Summary of Teamwork Components from Organizational Causes Domain
Frequency Table Organizational Causes Domain
Team Leadership
Interviews Observations
Document
Analysis
Subcategory
Totals
O1 5 23 0 28
O2 30 20 10 60
O3 3 12 5 20
O4 16 22 9 47
Totals 54 77 24 155
Total for
Team
Leadership
155
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An examination using the gap analysis framework of employees’ perceptions of promising practices supporting teamwork in a federal agency
PDF
An examination of supervisors’ perspectives of teamwork in a federal agency: promising practices and challenges using a gap analysis framework
PDF
An examination of barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of employees within a federal agency using the GAP analysis framework
PDF
An examination of the facilitators of and barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of supervisors in a federal agency using the gap analysis framework
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Wailele
PDF
Gap analysis of employee satisfaction at a national park: Round Hill Park
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Kailuana National Park
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the national parks: Anuenue National Park
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Casa Linda National Park
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Camp Moxie site
PDF
Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework
PDF
Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Picturesque Park
PDF
Examining the adoption of electronic health records system in patient care and students’ education using the GAP analysis approach
PDF
Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study
PDF
Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework
PDF
Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting recruiting practices addressing the gender gap in the technology industry: an evaluation study
PDF
Developing the next generation of organization leaders: a gap analysis
Asset Metadata
Creator
Wilson, Kathleen
(author)
Core Title
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
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
07/22/2016
Defense Date
12/20/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
employee satisfaction,FDA,gap analysis,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,teamwork
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Sundt, Melora (
committee chair
), Hanson, Kathy (
committee member
), Yates, Kenneth (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kathlesw@usc.edu,ksywlsn@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-273907
Unique identifier
UC11281356
Identifier
etd-WilsonKath-4586.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-273907 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WilsonKath-4586.pdf
Dmrecord
273907
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Wilson, Kathleen
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
employee satisfaction
FDA
gap analysis