University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 1

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE: KAILUANA NATIONAL PARK

by

David Koltermann

__________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2014

Copyright 2014 David Koltermann

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A majority of the credit for the completion of this dissertation goes to my parents, Ed and
JoAnn Koltermann, who have consistently over the years believed in me and gave me the love,
support, and confidence to pursue my goals and follow my dreams. Thank you Mom and Dad
for all of your guidance and support. I dedicate this dissertation to my son Logan, and my
daughter Annaliese. During the process of writing this dissertation, I was constantly reminded of
your dedication to education throughout your lives. You’re always learning and constantly
trying new things and new experiences. You inspire me to be just like you.
I wish to thank my committee chair, Dr. Melora Sundt, who inspired us as a class and as
a dissertation group to keep pressing forward, no matter how hard the challenge. Dr. Sundt kept
us motivated and enthused throughout the program and her constructive feedback proved
invaluable. I also wish to thank the other two members of my committee chair, Drs. Kenneth
Yates and Kathy Hanson. Dr. Yates fine-tuned the research and design during the gap analysis
process and consistently kept us on track and on the right path. Dr. Hanson’s enthusiasm,
dedication, and her in-depth knowledge of the National Park Service guided us along the way.
My mentor, Dr. Han Nee Chong, proved instrumental in providing me her thoughts and insights
during the entire program. I could have never completed the course without her help and
guidance.
This dissertation is also dedicated to Cary Grana. Her loving spirit and never-ending
dedication to her husband, children, community, students, and fellow Hawaii cohorts inspired me
to continually strive for excellence. Carey left us all too soon. Her smiles, encouragement, and
her strength permeate the following pages and whenever I think of USC, I think of Carey.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

3
Finally, the person who was most influential during my Ed.D. experience, and who was a
constant positive motivator is Ms. Margie Johns. Thank you for your love and your genuine and
authentic support. You inspire me to be a better person and you kept me going during those
times when I was not very enthusiastic. Thank you for continually being at my side during this
journey.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review 17
Chapter 3: Methodology 48
Chapter 4: Results and Findings 79
Chapter 5: Solutions and Implementation 104
Chapter 6: Evaluation and Discussion 132
References 141
Appendices 167
Appendix A: 2012 KNP EVS Results 167
Appendix B: Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework 172
Appendix C: Observation Protocol 182
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 185
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Results of EVS and Private Industry Comparisons 55
Table 2. 2012 EVS Scores for Kailuana National Park and all of NPS Per Category 59
Table 3. Four Elements as Related to Gap Analysis Framework 60
Table 4. EVS Questions and Percent Positive Scores for Knowledge 65
Table 5. EVS Questions and Percent Positive Scores for Motivation 67
Table 6. EVS Questions and Percent Positive Scores for Organization 69
Table 7. Summary of Assumed Causes 72
Table 8. Validated Assumed Causes for Low Employee Satisfaction at KNP 103
Table 9. Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Implementation for Knowledge/Skills, 127
Motivation, and Organization Factors
Table 10. Summary of Organization’s Main Goal, Short-Term Goals, Cascading Goals, 129
and Performance Goals
Table 11. Summary of Stakeholder Performance Goals, Timeline, and Measurement 130
of Performance Goals
Table 12. Communication Behaviors Aligned To Structural Framework 172
Table 13. Efficacy Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework 175
Table 14. Accountability Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework 177
Table 15. Leadership Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework 180
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Gap analysis process 52
Figure 2. EVI organizational chart 126
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

7
ABSTRACT
This case study uses Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model to examine knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers which may be contributing to gaps in employee
performance. Low employee satisfaction ratings were identified after analyzing the results of the
2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS). The purpose of this case study is to identify
and validate causes of and recommend solutions for low employee satisfaction at Kailuana
National Park (KNP), a pseudonym for an actual park in the US National Park Service (NPS).
Using the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008), root causes of employee performance gaps
were identified and validated by triangulating quantitative data collected via observations,
document analysis, and interviews during a site visit to KNP. Validated findings indicated that
employees need: (a) timely and accurate communication venues, (b) communication of missions
and goals, (c) more empowerment, and, (d) more involvement in the decision making process.
This case study recommends empirically-based solutions to assist the NPS increase KNP
employee satisfaction at KNP. An implementation and evaluation plan is also included within
this study. This study adds to the body of knowledge on employee satisfaction within
government organizations. Private and government entities may find this study helpful if
attempting to improve employee satisfaction and overall organizational performance. Our
National Parks and the employees that protect our parks deserve a positive and fulfilling working
environment – it will take vision and hard work to inspire positive change.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

8
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
What images are conjured up in our mind when we think about the National Park Service
(NPS)? Some pleasant images may include envisioning people gazing upon some of our most
majestic national treasures such as Old Faithful Geyser in Yellowstone National Park or the
Mount Rushmore National Memorial. The concept of preserving and protecting natural treasures
and historic sites for the benefit and enjoyment of the public is credited to George Caitlin who
first proposed the idea to establish federal legislation to protect our most valuable natural lands.
On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Organic Act that created the NPS
under the Department of the Interior (DOI). This Act states that the NPS will promote and
regulate the use of Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife and to provide for the
enjoyment of these treasures and will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.
Our national parks symbolize our country’s rich natural and cultural heritage and those
tasked with protecting and preserving our wilderness preserves, wild rivers, seashores,
archaeological ruins, and historic sites are the employees of the NPS. These stewards of our
national heritage serve a vital function by keeping our parks safe and pristine as possible for
future generations. Unfortunately, a recent federal survey indicates that employees of the NPS
are very dissatisfied with their jobs and rate the NPS as one of the worst federal agencies for
which to work (Repanshek, 2012). The NPS is currently dealing with a major organizational
issue of low employee satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

9
What is employee satisfaction and can organizations thrive without it? Does employee
satisfaction have an impact on mission accomplishment? And if it does, how does employee
satisfaction affect organizational goals, and why does that matter? This study explores the
causes of low employee satisfaction at one specific park within the NPS and will offer
recommendations to help this park increase its level of employee satisfaction.
Background of the Problem
In the spring of 2012, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offered 1.6
million federal employees a chance to share their viewpoints about their jobs in the Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) (U.S Office of Personnel Management [USOPM], 2012).
Over 687,000 employees responded. According to Rein (2012), almost 40% of employees
among 12 of the largest federal departments were unsatisfied with their jobs. One such
organization was the NPS, a bureau within the Department of the Interior (DOI). In a similar
vein, the results of the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government Survey in 2010 indicate
that the NPS scored 139
th
out of 292 federal agencies for which to work with results from
subsequent years indicating a steady decline in that ranking. According to the latest EVS survey
taken in 2013, the NPS continues to decline in the ratings by scoring 200 out of 300

(USOPM,
2013).
Results of the 2012 EVS indicate that NPS employees enjoy their work and are excited
about the agency’s mission, but are not as enthusiastic about the availability of processes,
activities, or tools to accomplish their jobs (USOPM, 2012). Specifically, among the lowest
scores from the 2012 EVS were the employees’ low ratings of their leadership’s generation of
motivation, commitment, and communication. Many NPS employees felt their leaders are
resistant to change, that they ignored or punished different points of view, rewarded loyalty
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

10
rather than competence or merit, were not held accountable for their actions, and lacked proper
leadership training.
In terms of employee satisfaction, Locke (1976) defines employee satisfaction as “a
pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job
experiences” (p. 1304). Oshagbemi (2003) argues that the satisfaction of employees is viewed as
a vital aspect of organizations due to the financial impact and long-term growth that employees
have on a company. For example, Buckingham and Coffman (1999) reported that when unhappy
employees leave their jobs, they take their value, education, and all of the time their employer
invested in them to some other company. More importantly, the quality of service mostly
depends on the employees. Johlke and Duhan (2000) contend that organizations looking to
separate themselves from competitors are focusing on increasing the quality of service they
provide to their customers. Employees are no longer seen as just workers in a company.
Employee satisfaction matters to an organization’s bottom line.
According to Ellickson (2002), increased productivity and organizational commitment,
lower absenteeism and turnover, and ultimately, increased organizational effectiveness, leads to
higher job satisfaction. However, Priya (2011) notes that industrial and organizational
psychologists have been studying the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance
for at least 50 years and efforts to confirm a causal relationship or reliable correlation often have
mixed results.
The ecology and conservation field continues to be a growing industry (Ansson, 1998).
California’s Economic Development Department predicts jobs for wildlife programs will remain
in the top 50 fastest-growing jobs in the next decade. Additionally, the Department of Labor
projects wildlife-related jobs to increase by 22% in the next decade, which is 9 to 15% quicker
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

11
than the average growth of jobs in the U.S. (Humboldt State University Department of Wildlife,
2013). In order to keep up with projected demand, organizations like the NPS that hire in
wildlife-related jobs need to retain good employees, and insure current employees are satisfied
with their work environment or they risk losing competent staff to emerging employers.
Therefore, it is important to evaluate job satisfaction among NPS employees with the goal of
retaining high performing employees by creating a positive work environment.
As a result of low employee job satisfaction indicated within the survey, NPS leadership
is highly motivated to improve employee satisfaction to minimize current or future impact on the
organization’s mission (National Park Service Office of Learning and Development [NPSOLD],
2012b). National Park Service leaders believe low employee satisfaction may be a leadership
issue and plans to respond by strengthening employee commitment, facilitating exceptional
leadership, and improving management practices through a structured process that includes
customized assessments tailored to address effective strategies for communication, recruitment,
recognition, and career development (NPSOLD, 2012d). The NPS has identified 11 workplace
characteristics to improve: employee skills/mission match; strategic management; teamwork;
work/life balance; support for diversity; pay; training and development; performance-based
awards and advancement; family-friendly culture and benefits; and effective leadership.
The NPS prompted assistance from the Organization Development Branch of the
Learning and Development Office (OD) in order to increase employee satisfaction. “Lead the
Way” is one part of a strategic organizational excellence initiative being implemented within the
NPS, and is currently the program (via workshops) through which park and program leaders and
employees can address the problem of low employee satisfaction within the NPS. The purpose
of these workshops is to understand why employee satisfaction is low in 24 identified parks and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

12
to identify actionable items to address this issue (NPSOLD, 2012c). The workshops being
conducted within national parks in response to the EVS surveys provide valuable venues to
investigate the causes of low employee satisfaction within the NPS.
Statement of the Problem
Repanshek (2012) asserts that employee satisfaction within the NPS is declining over
time rather than improving. Information gathered and reported in the Learning & Development
Report to the National Leadership Council (Department of the Interior, 2008) recommends that
the NPS “immediately and aggressively pursue and sustain leadership and development
opportunities for all employees at all levels” (p. 4). This appeal is not only in response to survey
findings that the NPS ranks near the bottom of the DOI bureaus as a good place to work, but also
to meet the impending need of more than three-quarters of the NPS workforce approaching
retirement in the next five years (Thompson, 2008; Zeller, 2004).
Results from the NPS EVS indicate that most parks and organizations within the NPS
suffer from low employee satisfaction. The EVS also indicates that one of the main reasons for
low employee satisfaction is due to a lack of leadership at the supervisory and above levels. As
NPS employees become less satisfied with their jobs, the private industry may attract more of
them away from public service. A potential exodus of NPS employees from the public to the
private sector may lead to critical gaps in recruitment and retention of qualified and competent
employees in the NPS. Less qualified NPS personnel in public trust positions may put public
safety at risk and may lead to increased civil liability resulting in increased taxpayer costs.
Additionally, there may be loss of organizational intelligence if the employee decides to leave
due to low employee satisfaction. Ultimately, low employee satisfaction will leave parks less
protected and will erode the park “experience” for visitors.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

13
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to identify causes of low employee satisfaction at one
particular national park, using data collected from the NPS EVS, observations of EVS
workshops, employee action plans generated from the workshops, and personal interviews
conducted after the workshops using a qualitative approach. This study will use 2012 EVS data
for one particular park, hereby referred to as Kailuana National Park (KNP), which is a
pseudonym for an actual park, and Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model as the main
conceptual framework to diagnose and validate assumed causes of low employee satisfaction at
KNP. Specifically, the study will examine why employees at KNP exhibit low employee
satisfaction through knowledge/skills, motivation and organizational factors. Clark and Estes
(2008) posit that in order to close performance gaps and achieve performance goals, the causes
of the gap between current levels of behavior and desired levels need to be identified. Using the
Clark and Estes’ (2008) model, the NPS and the leadership within KNP will focus on
knowledge/skills, motivational, and/or organizational barriers as possible causes of the gap
between current low levels of employee satisfaction and desired levels. Although 100%
employee satisfaction is desirable, it is an ideal, and is most likely not possible in real-world
situations. However, people within organizations may find it valuable to continue to find ways
to improve employee satisfaction.
Study Questions
The research questions guiding this investigation are:
1. What are the knowledge/skills, motivational, and organizational causes of low
employee satisfaction in KNP that prevent 100% employee satisfaction?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

14
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Significance of the Study
Ultimately, the primary goal of this case study is to help the NPS improve employee job
satisfaction and, in turn, maximize the potential of the organization to continue to accomplish the
goals and mission set forth by the NPS and the DOI. Recommendations from this study will be
offered to senior NPS leadership that identify validated causes and possible solutions at KNP.
These results may contribute to the larger effort to assist other NPS parks and organizations that
also have low employee satisfaction. When employees feel committed they are more engaged,
and when they are more engaged they perform their best, which equates to better park protection
and a better visitor experience (NPSOLD, 2012c).
The results of this study will help NPS leaders identify causes of low employee
satisfaction based on EVS results, observations and interviews, and ultimately offer
recommendations. The focus of this study is a single, mandatory, service-wide professional
development program specifically designed for NPS leaders and employees. The study evaluates
the effectiveness of the facilitated workshops, considers a variety of contextual variables that
lead to the findings, and recommends improvements to increase employee satisfaction at low
performing parks and organizations. The findings of this study will also add to the research base
on improving employee satisfaction in the federal government by identifying variables that
contribute to high employee satisfaction (Ting, 1996, 1997).
Organization of the Dissertation
This investigation is a collaborative effort by seven students engaged in an educational
doctoral program at the University of Southern California. Each student was assigned one park
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

15
in one geographic region within the NPS as a case study to examine low employee satisfaction
within the NPS. The introduction, literature review, and methodology design are a group effort
in order to investigate the underlying causes of low employee satisfaction within the NPS.
This study is organized into six chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction and
background of the problem. Most of the employees of the NPS are highly dissatisfied with their
jobs and recent evidence in a federal survey indicates that a lack of leadership is the primary
cause for their dissatisfaction. Although most employees of our national parks feel that
leadership is a problem, there are some parks that have high employee satisfaction and rank
leadership as being highly effective. The aim of this study will be to investigate why one
particular park within the NPS has low employee satisfaction by identifying the variables and
behaviors that contribute to this lack of satisfaction. Chapter 1 also includes the statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions to be answered, a brief description of
the methodology and theoretical approach, and the significance of the study.
Chapter 2 provides a literature review of the problem. The literature review will also
examine the known variables driving the research question of what factors contribute to low
employee satisfaction at KNP. The first section of this chapter will define employee satisfaction.
The second section will discuss how the four evidenced-based variables of: (a) communication,
(b) efficacy, (c) accountability, and (d) leadership, impact employee satisfaction. This section
will also examine how specific behaviors in each of the four variables are related to employee
satisfaction. The second section will follow the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) in
relationship to knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers to employee satisfaction in
the private and public sector.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

16
Chapter 3 presents the methodology proposed for the study, includes the research design,
population and sampling procedure, and the selection and/or development of the EVS workshop
observation and personal interview protocols. The chapter includes a description of Clark and
Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model of knowledge/skills, motivational, and organizational factors,
which is the main conceptual framework used in this case study to diagnose low employee
satisfaction at KNP. Additionally, information about validity and reliability, the procedure for
data collection, and the plan for data analysis will be discussed.
Chapter 4 presents the causes that were validated by KNP EVS results, observations of
four facilitator-led EVS workshops, action plans generated by employees during the workshops,
and seven personal interviews conducted after the workshops.
Chapter 5 will present empirically-based recommendations for solutions to the validated
assumed causes delineated in Chapter 4. Solutions will be categorized according to knowledge,
motivation, and organizational causes. The chapter will also incorporate an implementation
plan, which will include sections on solution integration and stakeholder cascading and
performance goals.
Chapter 6 will present a reflection upon the study as a whole and provide a synthesis,
personal insights, and an evaluation of the study’s results. Additionally, strengths and
weaknesses of the methodological approach and what additional or alternative methods and data
could be collected if the study were to be replicated will be presented. Finally, a plan to evaluate
the effectiveness of the recommended implementation plan of the solutions to close the
knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps that prevent KNP from achieving high employee
satisfaction will be discussed.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

17
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to fully understand the construct of employee satisfaction within the NPS, the
literature review first defines employee satisfaction. The chapter then provides an in-depth
review of the research literature addressing several variables that impact employee satisfaction.
According to the literature, specific variables influence employee satisfaction in many public and
private organizations and may be influencing employee satisfaction at the NPS. The review of
the variables is divided into four sections that explain the importance these variables have in
influencing employee satisfaction: (1) communication, (2) efficacy (3) accountability, and (4)
leadership. This section will also look at how specific behaviors in each of the four variables are
related to employee satisfaction. In this chapter, the work of scholars who have researched these
variables and how these variables and behaviors specifically impact employee satisfaction will
be discussed. By understanding the complex relationships between these variables, we gain a
better understanding of, and appreciation for, how these factors influence employee satisfaction
in order to enhance performance, productivity, and improve employee work environments.
Definition of Employee Satisfaction
Employee satisfaction is a multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, and complex construct and
there are several definitions from many behavioral scientists of what constitutes employee
satisfaction. Locke (1976) defined employee satisfaction as “… a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience” (p. 1300).
Muchinsky (1987) posited that “… job satisfaction is the extent to which a person derives
pleasure from a job” (p. 396). Ivancevich and Donnelly (1968) added that employee satisfaction
is the favorable viewpoint of the employee toward the work role he or she occupies.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

18
According to the literature, job satisfaction and happiness have been closely linked
together (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Brief (1998) and Spector (1997) reported that, in
general, happy workers showed higher levels of job-related performance behaviors than unhappy
employees. Much organizational research has used job satisfaction in an attempt to measure the
happiness factor of the ‘happy and productive’ worker hypothesis (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000).
There are two assumptions that link a happy worker with a satisfied worker (Wright &
Cropanzano, 2000). First, employee satisfaction is specific to person’s job, so it does not include
aspects of a person’s life outside of work. Second, according to Weiss, Cropanzano, Staw and
Cummings (1996), job satisfaction is usually considered to be an individual attitude or
perception. Thus, job satisfaction is based on what a person feels and thinks. In sum, job
satisfaction is “an internal state that is expressed by affectively and/or cognitively evaluating an
experienced job with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Brief, 1998, p. 86). Wright and
Cropanzano (2000) concluded that people are happy when they believe themselves to be happy.
The literature review will now address assumed causes of low employee satisfaction that
emerged in four areas from the literature review: communication, self-efficacy, accountability,
and leadership. According to the 2012 EVS results, KNP employees value the importance of
these variables with respect to employee satisfaction. The lack of observable behaviors within
each of these variables may lead to performance gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational efficiency (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Employee / Supervisor Communication Behaviors
The literature on weak communication as a cause of low employee satisfaction is divided
into two dimensions: the informational dimension and the relational dimension. This section will
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

19
also review communication at the supervisory level, communicator competence, receptivity, and
communication among employees.
According to McCroskey, Richmond, and Davis (1982), “communication is a vehicle for
dissemination of information, instruction, and affect” (p. 173). In terms of organizational
functioning, the importance of effective communication has been well recognized and
documented (Barnard, 1968; Bavelas & Barrett, 1951; Rogers & Agarwala-Rogers, 1976).
Additionally, there is a fair amount of research that connects communication practices and
employee satisfaction (Pettit, Goris, & Vaught, 1997). King, Lahiff, and Hatfield (1988)
reported clear and positive patterns of relationships between an employee’s perceptions of
communications and job satisfaction. Moreover, Wheeless, Wheeless, and Howard (1984)
reported that communication-related variables are significantly related to increased job
satisfaction. Favorable communication with employees increases job satisfaction and employee
performance (Ainspan & Dell, 2000). Communication can be considered an art, and the art of
communication can be described in two major dimensions: informational and relational.
Although Pincus (2006) discusses the importance of both dimensions, he found that the relational
dimension has a stronger positive correlation with job satisfaction.
Informational and Relational Dimensions
According to Pincus (2006), the informational dimension is focused on the content and
flow of information in the overall organization. Lack of communication strategies, such as not
promoting organizational feedback and placing people with unsociable personality traits in
leadership positions, can act as obstacles to organizational effectiveness and employee
satisfaction. Andrews and Kacmar (2001) state that communication plays a central role in
organizational effectiveness. Spitzberg (1983) contends that in order to convince employees to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

20
follow the leader’s vision, distributing information through effective communication is
important. Effective communication behaviors include soliciting and listening to suggestions
and allowing employees to actively participate in decision-making and problem-solving
(Anderson & Martin, 1995; Johlke & Duhan, 2000; Kim, 2002).
Organizational culture is also relevant with respect to communication. Effective
communication can be made a part of the organizational culture by making frequent face-to-face
communication part of the routine, continually reminding employees of the missions and goals of
the organization, and defining corporate policies in clear and concise language. The quality and
type of media used is also pertinent to the organizational culture (Pincus, 2006). Media quality
encompasses communications to subordinates using outlets such as newsletters, posters, and
emails (Pincus, 2006).
However, weak alignment between employee and organizational values can lead to lower
satisfaction and commitment (Brown & Yoshioka, 2003). Attachment, commitment, and values
are important constructs within the informational dimension. Employee attachment to an
organization’s mission occurs when employees completely understand their organization’s
mission, and are in agreement with the fundamental principles and values underlying their
mission (Brown & Yoshioka, 2003). Organizational commitment is related to the organization’s
mission as the extent to which an employee wishes to remain working within the organization
(Falkenburg & Schyns, 2007). Pincus (2006) states that an organization’s communication
climate encompasses the extent the employee identifies with the organization.
The relational dimension of communication is also an important factor that affects
employee satisfaction. This dimension focuses on communication satisfaction with line
employees, supervisors, managers, and senior leaders of the organization and the types and value
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

21
of relationships that ensue due to effective communication. According to Pincus (2006),
relationship building is vital to increasing communication, and increasing communication has
positive links to job satisfaction. Communication from upper management to employees within
organizations was significantly linked to job satisfaction (Pincus, 2006). Top management
communication refers to the two-way communication between top executives and the rest of the
members of the organization (Pincus, 2006). Kim (2002) posits that if employees perceive they
have input into the strategic planning of the organization, then they have a higher potential for
satisfaction. Moreover, employees are more likely to have higher satisfaction if employees
perceive that top management is trying to communicate with their employees (Pincus, 2006).
Supervisory Level Communication
Supervisor communication has a very strong link to job satisfaction (Pincus, 2006). To
be effective, Pincus (2006) asserts that supervisor communication must be built upon physical
presence and frequency. Miles, Patrick and King (2011) also found communication from
superiors has a high correlation with employee satisfaction. Jo and Shim (2005), and Hargie,
Tourish, and Wilson (2002), state that the importance of face-to-face communication between a
superior and subordinate affects employee satisfaction. Jo and Shim (2005) found useful
information is more likely to be communicated to employees directly from supervisors, rather
than from other methods such as publications, newsletters, or video messages. In other words,
important information that is communicated via face-to-face opportunities affects employee
satisfaction in a positive manner. Moreover, Hargie et al. (2002) argues that an employee’s
preferred source of obtaining information is face-to-face communication with supervisors.
Johlke and Duhan (2000) discovered two-way discussions lead to clear understandings of job
duties. Jo and Shim (2005) agreed and found face-to-face interactions were linked to more
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

22
useful information shared with employees. Johlke and Duhan (2000) add that the frequency of
supervisor-employee communication was positively associated with job satisfaction.
Additionally, Thomas, Zolin, and Hartman (2009) discovered the quality of information shared
with subordinates is more salient than the quantity of information.
Other important aspects of workplace communication between employees and
supervisors are feedback, temperament, and open exchanges of information. Feedback is a
critical part of the work environment and leads to higher productivity and performance (Kim,
1975). Communication climate, personal feedback, and supervisory communication have all
been cited as strongly correlated with job satisfaction (Downs, 1977; Downs, Clampitt, &
Pfeiffer, 1988). Through the use of performance feedback, Clampitt and Downs (1993) reported
that supervisors had the highest impact on employees’ productivity and job satisfaction. Not
surprisingly, employees who do not receive performance feedback generally have less job
satisfaction. By using feedback, supervisors can create a positive work environment because
employees will know what is expected of them and can freely to ask for support and assistance
(Andrews & Kacmar, 2001).
In terms of feedback, Schneider and Bowen (1992) argued that employees who do not
receive adequate, useful, and consistent feedback about their job performance could negatively
affect customer interactions and customer satisfaction. Furthermore, lack of organizational
feedback can increase feelings of stress, uncertainty, and role ambiguity in employees (Greller &
Parsons, 1992; Andrews & Kacmar, 2001). When supervisors gave employees consistent and
useful feedback, employees reported more job involvement, less stress, less uncertainty and
overall higher job satisfaction (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001). Moreover, it is important for
constructive feedback to be aligned with the organization’s values.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

23
Supervisor temperament is another aspect of workplace communication. Porter, Wrench,
and Hoskinson (2007) contend that individual traits in a supervisor can have both positive and/or
negative influences in an organization. Smith and McCanger (2004) asserted that supervisors
that showed high levels of extraversion, emotional stability, and approachability were perceived
as better communicators by employees. Porter et al. (2007) also found that placing highly
extroverted people in supervisory positions can be valuable for organizational communication.
Bruins and DeGilder (1999) discovered that subordinates preferred supervisors who showed
concern about their well-being. Porter et al. (2007) observed that less extroverted supervisors
had greater difficulty getting their employees to perceive them as credible. Employees are more
likely to be drawn to, and communicate with, supervisors who are extroverted, genuine, and
approachable (Porter et al., 2007).
Employees must also trust their superiors. Pettit et al. (1997) found that trust is a strong
predictor of job satisfaction. Jo and Shim (2005) found a positive relationship between trusting
relationships and relational communication. Managers who use interpersonal communication
with employees tend to have more trusting relationships (Jo & Shim, 2005). Employees perceive
a trusting relationship when interpersonal communication, in the form of useful instruction or
helpful advice, was experienced from superiors (Jo & Shim, 2005). Trust occurs when
management makes an effort to enhance interpersonal relationships by communicating positive
outcomes. When superiors engage in effective communication, employees perceive a trusting
relationship (Jo & Shim, 2005). In order to forge positive relationships among employees and
supervisors, facilitating dialogue proved to be a worthwhile endeavor (Jo & Shim, 2005). In
sum, a strong positive relationship was found between relational communication, trusting
relationships, and employee satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

24
Communicator Competence
Another important factor in the realm of communication is communicator competence.
Madlock (2008) found strong relationships between supervisor communicator competence and
employee satisfaction. Communicator competence factors include knowledge, motivation, skill,
behavior, and effectiveness (Spitzberg, 1983). In order for communication to be most effective,
interactions between supervisors and employees require specific communicating goals while
maintaining interpersonal and conversational norms (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1981). Cushman and
Craig (1976) add that in order for communication to be successful, it must involve competencies
in both listening and negotiating. Supervisors’ communicator competence should at least be at a
minimum level in order to begin the process of competent communication with employees.
Furthermore, Salacuse (2007) contends that today’s workforce employs more educated
employees with higher intelligences, requiring superiors to lead by negotiation. Stohl (1984)
described language, gestures and voice to be an important a part of a communicator’s
competency. Shaw (2005) posits that for employees to perceive supervisors as competent
communicators, information must be shared and responded to in a timely manner, supervisors
must practice active listening to other points of view, must communicate clearly and concisely
throughout all levels in the organization, and finally, must make use of various communication
channels.
Receptivity
Wheeless et al. (1984) place special significance on the ability of supervisors to be
receptive to employees. Supervisor receptivity involves tolerance, flexibility, and openness to
input regarding innovations, suggestions, opinions, and ideas offered by their employees
(Wheeless et al., 1984). Supervisor receptivity provides an empathetic sense of caring and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

25
concern, which are important factors in the human-relations approach to understanding job
satisfaction. Higgins (1999) added that subordinates preferred supervisors who were willing to
accept their ideas and opinions. Overall, employees need to have the ability to initiate
communication about personal goals and needs with receptive supervisors (Cummings, Lewis, &
Long, 1980).
Employee-to-Employee Communication
Communication in the workplace is not limited to communication only between
employees and supervisors, but also includes communication among employees. Horizontal
communication describes a more casual communication with peers and can include information
heard through the “grapevine” (Pincus, 2006). Stated another way, horizontal communication is
a less formal way that information flows through the organization. Thomas et al. (2009) posit
that organizational openness, which is how willing employees are to exchange ideas, is
positively associated with trust and involvement between peers, supervisors and top
management. Next, the literature will review how efficacy effects employee satisfaction.
Employee / Supervisor Efficacy Behaviors
This section on efficacy will focus on employee satisfaction and its relationship to five
aspects of efficacy: (1) self-efficacy from an educational perspective; (2) cultural contexts, (3)
organizational context; (4) teamwork; and (5) turnover.
Self-Efficacy from an Educational Perspective
Most of the research conducted on the impact of efficacy on employee satisfaction found
significant relationships between the two. Ample evidence on the link between efficacy and job
satisfaction can be found in the teaching profession and research findings can be applicable to
any profession. For example, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca and Malone (2006) studied the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

26
relationship between the beliefs teachers have about their own capacity to fulfill their job
requirements and how those beliefs impact their job satisfaction. The results of their study
indicated that a main determinant of teachers’ job satisfaction was their self-efficacy beliefs and
their sense of self-efficacy impacted their job satisfaction as well as significantly contributing to
their students’ academic achievement. Moreover, teachers with high self-efficacy were more
likely to create learning environments conducive to student achievement (Caprara et al., 2006).
These researchers surmised that in order to improve an organizations’ employee satisfaction,
interventions should be focused at both the leadership and employee levels.
Klassen and Chiu (2010) researched the effects of teacher gender, years of experience,
and jobs stress on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction and found that teachers’ self-
efficacy for instructional strategies and classroom management positively influenced job
satisfaction. Accordingly, overall job stress lowered job satisfaction. Results from their research
also indicated that years of experience and job-related stress were related to teachers’ self-
efficacy, which in-turn influenced job satisfaction. Stated another way, teachers exhibiting high
stress had lower job satisfaction.
With respect to senior leadership, Federici and Skaalvik (2012) conducted research
targeting school principals and their study primarily focused on observing how self-efficacy is
related to job satisfaction, burnout, and motivation to quit. The researchers found that a
principal’s self-efficacy was positively related to job satisfaction and motivation to quit, and
negatively related to burnout. The study highlights the important fact that a senior leader’s self-
efficacy effects their job satisfaction as well as burnout and motivation to quit. Issues of self-
efficacy and its relationship to employee satisfaction affect all employees at all levels.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

27
Self-Efficacy and Culture
Building on the work of Klassen and Chiu (2010), Klassen, Usher, and Bong (2010)
conducted a study of the relationship of efficacy and job satisfaction across cultural settings,
which included Canada, South Korea, and the U.S. Their findings indicated that teacher efficacy
was positively related to job satisfaction across cultural settings, and more specifically with
respect to collectivism. Collectivist orientations stress the importance of cohesion within social
groups and stress the priority of group goals over individual goals (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk,
& Gelfand, 1995). Klassen et al. (2010) found that teachers’ collective beliefs were more
strongly associated with job satisfaction for Korean teachers (who possess stronger collectivist
values and enjoy greater job satisfaction than do workers lower in collectivist values). However,
unlike Klassen and Chiu (2010), Klassen et al. (2010) found that job stress was not significantly
associated with job satisfaction across different cultural settings.
In an earlier study, Luthans, Zhu, and Avolio (2005) also looked at the impact of efficacy
on work attitudes across cultures. Their research concluded that efficacy is significantly and
positively related to job satisfaction in the U.S., but not significantly related in their Southeast
Asia sample, which included Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. They also surmised that self-
efficacy was positively related to organizational commitment and negatively related to turnover
intentions. However, Luthans et al. (2005) determined that self-efficacy had no relationship with
any of the demographic or contextual variables in the Southeast Asia sample. The researchers
argued that employees with high levels of self-efficacy have more positive work-related
attitudes, greater organizational commitment, and lower turnover. It is important to note that in
their Asian sample, self-efficacy was positively related, but not significantly related, to job
satisfaction. Their research concluded that general self- efficacy leads to job satisfaction and that
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

28
job satisfaction leads to commitment to the organization for employees in the U.S. (Luthans et
al., 2005).
In yet another cultural/employee satisfaction study, Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard,
Buitink, and Hofman (2012) found that it is critical to analyze the relationship between
employees’ job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and occupational commitment at all employee levels,
from junior employees through senior leadership. They argued that the support employees
receive and their confidence in competent leadership influences their ratings of job satisfaction
and occupational commitment. The relationships found between an employees’ level of job
satisfaction, self-efficacy, and occupational commitment were similar for new, experienced, and
senior employees (Canrinus et al., 2012). Thus, employee satisfaction is important at all levels
of an organization, not just at the lower levels. It is also essential for lower echelon employees to
feel competent in their senior leaders’ ability to lead.
Organizational Context
How does employee satisfaction and efficacy relate to an organization as a whole?
Gardner and Pierce (1998) examined the interrelationship between self-esteem and self-efficacy
within the organizational context. They found that organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) had
positive effects on employee job attitudes, behaviors, and self-esteem and was shaped by the
individuals generalized feelings of efficacy. OBSE is “the degree to which organizational
members believe that they can satisfy their needs by participation in roles within the context of
an organization” (Gardner & Pierce, 1998, p. 265). It also reflects an employee’s evaluation of
personal adequacy and worthiness as an organizational member (Gardner & Pierce, 1998) as well
as the perceived value they have of themselves within the organization. The study also found
that OBSE has a positive effect on employee performance and satisfaction. Pairing good
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

29
performance and positive effects for the high OBSE employee suggests that high OBSE
employees are motivated to perform well and possess positive work-related attitudes. These high
performers are likely to reinforce OBSE and promote the realization that good performance is
associated with feeling good. More recently, Judge and Bono (2001), while conducting a meta-
analysis of 536 published articles within the last 40 years on the relationships between the core
traits of self-esteem, self-efficacy, internal locus of control, and emotional stability and job
satisfaction, found that these core traits were among the best dispositional predictors of employee
satisfaction and job performance.
Efficacy and Teamwork
In addition to examining the impact efficacy has on individual employees and whole
organizations within the construct of employee satisfaction, it is important to understand the
concepts behind the mediating effects of teamwork and self-efficacy. Nielsen, Yarker, Randall,
and Munir’s (2009) research on efficacy and teams concluded that there are direct associations
between self-efficacy and job satisfaction. They found that teams that displayed high levels of
efficacy might have minimized the effects of individuals who were low in self-efficacy.
Specifically, employees that displayed high level of efficacy may have protected employees that
displayed low levels of self-efficacy. This protection from the team allowed the low self-
efficacy individuals to experience high levels of job satisfaction because they perceived their
colleagues to be competent, thereby feeling assured and confident (Nielsen et al., 2009).
Not surprisingly, feedback is linked to efficacy. Feedback from supervisor to employee
can also affect job satisfaction. Personal feedback is described as how the employee is provided
with information about how performance will be judged and if individual employee efforts are
recognized (Pincus, 2006). Andrews and Kacmar (2001) studied the effects of receiving
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

30
substantial feedback and they found that a robust amount of feedback is highly useful if it is very
consistent. Clampitt and Downs (1993) found that an overwhelming number of employees in
their study indicated that feedback made them feel better about their work and themselves.
Feedback, either negative or positive, can influence employees’ self-efficacy. Self-efficacy
refers to the level of one’s confidence at mastery of a specific task (Bandura, 1977). In the work
environment, supervisors who give their employees feedback can raise their employees’ self-
efficacy, which leads to increased productivity and greater job satisfaction (Andrews & Kacmar,
2001). Supervisors who refrain from giving their subordinates feedback can expect lowered
productivity and decreased employee satisfaction (Clampitt & Downs, 1993).
Turnover
Finally, the relationship between efficacy, employee dissatisfaction, and turnover will be
discussed. Using data collected from a sample of nurses, Judge (1993) found that the more
positive the disposition (happy) of the individual, the stronger the relationship between job
dissatisfaction and turnover. He argues that employees who are individually satisfied with
everyday life events and who display high levels of self-efficacy are more apt to quit their jobs if
they are dissatisfied with their jobs. Accordingly, Judge (1993) also found that job satisfaction
and voluntary turnover were more highly related for employees with positive dispositions than
for employees with negative dispositions. Thus, employees with low self-efficacy and lower job
satisfaction than their high self-efficacy counterparts may have lower turnover rates. Next, the
literature will review how accountability effects employee satisfaction.
Accountability Behaviors
This section on accountability will focus on employee satisfaction and its relationship to
four relevant types of accountability: (1) bureaucratic; (2) professional; (3) reciprocal; and (4)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

31
collaborative. Employee accountability is defined as the employees’ perceptions about the
degree to which they will be required to justify their actions at their organization to one or more
individuals who hold reward or punishment power (Tetlock, 1985; Wood & Winston, 2005, as
cited by Breaux, Perrewe, Hall, Frink, & Hochwarter, 2008). Additionally, the role that public
organizations play in accountability will also be discussed.
Bureaucratic and Professional Accountability
Burke (2004) describes six main models of accountability. Of the six, bureaucratic and
professional accountability are applicable to employee satisfaction. Hentschke and Wohlstetter
(2004) state that bureaucratic accountability is a contractual relationship between the providers
of a good or service, and the director who can reward, punish, or replace the providers.
Specifically, bureaucratic accountability has to do with the way in which superiors hold
employees responsible for meeting performance expectations.
Professional accountability has to do with employees holding one another responsible for
professional conduct (Burke, 2004). According to this model of professional conduct, instead of
an employer or supervisor leading from a “top-down” approach while directing the employees to
perform appropriately, professional accountability typically calls for the development of a
professional code of conduct, the creation of a professional board, and a professional learning
community that meets regularly to encourage employees to share best practices with one another.
Several researchers (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003; O’Day, 2002; Stecher & Kirby, 2004)
suggest that a complex integration of the strengths from bureaucratic and professional
accountability be implemented together. For example, with regards to bureaucratic and
professional accountability within education, the focus upon performance outcomes has had
positive short-term effects on student achievement (Linn, 2005).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

32
Although some authors have espoused the benefits of instituting bureaucratic and
professional accountability, some institutions have had mixed results. The bureaucratic approach
to accountability tends to create externally motivated action and has lowered motivation in some
low-performing, low-capacity schools (O’Day, 2002). However, strength of professional
accountability is that employees are internally motivated to develop their skills by learning and
sharing best practices with others. On the other hand, a weakness of professional accountability
is that employees may not see it as part of their jobs to address and correct unethical or
unprofessional behaviors on the part of their peers. O’Day (2002) posits that a better approach is
to combine both bureaucratic and professional approaches to accountability and borrow the
strengths from each.
Reciprocal Accountability
Elmore (2002) describes the benefits of a third type of accountability, which is reciprocal
accountability. He states that for every increment of performance that is demanded from an
employee, an employer must have an equal responsibility to provide the employee with the
capacity to meet that expectation (Elmore, 2002). Moreover, for every investment the employer
makes in increasing employee skill and knowledge, the employee has a reciprocal responsibility
to demonstrate some new increment in performance. Furthermore, Elmore (2002) posits that,
“This is the principle of reciprocity of accountability for capacity - it is the glue that, in the final
analysis, will hold accountability systems together” (p. 5).
Collaborative Accountability
Yang and Kessekert (2009) and other researchers are discovering that there are both
positive and negative effects on employee satisfaction depending on leadership types,
communication styles, types of employee/supervisor relationships, and the type of appraisal
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

33
systems within the organization. Moreover, combining a management-for-results (MFR) type
accountability system with a collaborative leadership style is effective with issues pertaining to
trust, open communication and feedback, closeness with supervisor and co-workers, and clear
goals and expectations. Finally, Yang and Kessekert (2009) further state that this combination of
accountability and leadership style significantly improves employee satisfaction and increases
productivity.
So what happens when we combine an accountability system with an authoritarian style
of leadership? According to Breaux et al. (2008), and Kranz (2012), when combining a MFR-
like accountability system with an authoritarian or abusive leadership style that is characterized
with lack of trust, lack of communication and feedback, distance from supervisor and co-
workers, and unclear goals and expectations, then employee satisfaction and productivity tends
to be lower.
Zeglinski (2011) defines the collaborative, innovative, and communicative style of
accountability as positive accountability. Zeglinski correlated the level of workforce engagement
(the degree to which workers are engaged in participative management) with goal alignment
(when goals clearly and aligned to the organization’s mission). He labeled organizations with
low workforce engagement and low goal alignment as having a “casual culture.” Those
organizations with high workforce engagement but low goal alignment were considered to have
a “chaotic culture.” Those with low workforce engagement but high goal alignment were
considered to have a “compliant culture.” Finally, those organizations with both high workforce
engagement and high goal alignment were considered to have a “committed culture.” It is this
positive accountability and committed culture that helps create an environment conducive to high
employee satisfaction and high productivity.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

34
The Role of Accountability in Public Organizations
Due to increasingly tighter budgets and a growing public awareness about whether tax
dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively, public organizations are being held
accountable under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and MFR programs
and policies (Bolton, 2003; Yang & Kessekert, 2009). The MFR program demands innovative
strategic planning and quality improvement from public institutions. This program also
emphasizes customer service as well as the application of performance measurement systems.
Several models that are similar to MFR which being instituted in public organizations
include Evidence Based Management (Briggs & McBeath, 2009), High Performance Work
Systems (Danford, Richardson, Stewart, Tailby, & Upchurch, 2008), High Performance
Organization (De Waal, 2007), National Performance Review (Fernandez & Moldogaziev,
2011), and Results Based Management (also known as strategic management), performance-
based management, outcome management, and New Public Management (Swiss, 2005). These
accountability programs are just a few examples of the increasing trend of performance
accountability within our public organizations.
Up until 2008, MFR-type programs were found to have mixed and inconclusive results
with respect to employee satisfaction (Danford et al., 2008; Swiss, 2005). However, more
recently, researchers are discovering a more complex relationship between accountability,
employee satisfaction, and performance. Research is identifying mediating variables, to include
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and reputation (Hall, Zinko, Perryman, & Ferris,
2009), and trust in leadership and perception of performance appraisal (Yang & Kessekert,
2009). These variables help determine whether there are positive or inverse relationships
between accountability and employee satisfaction and performance.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

35
OCB is defined as “discretionary individual behavior that promotes the effective
operation of an organization but is not formally recognized by an organization’s reward systems”
(Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006, as cited by Hall et al., 2009, p. 75). The concept of
reputation is also delineated within OCB. Hall et al. (2009) infers that reputation is a social
construct and it has to do with how others view an employee. Individuals who are viewed by
their colleagues as having a positive reputation are generally treated as being more legitimate,
competent, and trustworthy. Results by Hall et al. (2009) indicated that instituting accountability
reforms led to greater participation in citizen behavior, which contributed to increased task
performance and higher employee satisfaction through reputation. Therefore, employees who
contributed to the good of their organization and enjoyed high reputations amongst their
colleagues also enjoyed higher employee satisfaction.
A study by Yang and Kessekert (2009) found that there is a significant correlation
between high trust, high performance, and high employee satisfaction within public institutions.
Although their study is based solely on employee self-reports and perceptions, the authors found
a significant correlation between perceived effective performance appraisals (that have clear
expectations up front and are conducted fairly), higher performance, and higher employee
satisfaction. These findings are consistent with Lencioni (2002), who in addition to describing
five foundational problems of dysfunctional, underperforming organizations, provides solutions
for overcoming these dysfunctions. The five dysfunctions of a team are lack of trust, fear of
conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results.
While accountability research in public and private organizations appears promising in
understanding the relationships amongst the variables of accountability and employee
satisfaction, more research may need to be conducted to confirm the degree to which
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

36
accountability effects employee satisfaction. Specifically, studies could include actual results of
worker productivity and performance in connection with employee satisfaction and
accountability leadership styles. Next, the literature review will explore how leadership
behaviors effect employee satisfaction.
Leadership Behaviors
This section on leadership will primarily focus on employee satisfaction and its
relationship to several aspects of leadership: (1) transformational leadership, (2) task-oriented
and relations-oriented leadership behavior, (3) development-oriented leadership behavior, (4) the
effects of leadership behavior on performance and employee satisfaction, and (5) the link
between psychological well-being and employee satisfaction. More importantly, employees’
performance and behavior reflect their level of job satisfaction that will, in turn, directly impact
an organization’s mission accomplishment (Darvish & Rezaei, 2011). One aspect of employee
satisfaction involves the role of leaders and the style of leadership used to effectively run an
organization.
Research indicates there is a link between leadership and employee job satisfaction (Sy,
Cote, & Saavedra, 2005; Fernandez, 2008; Madlock, 2008). Fernandez (2008) summarized that
a leader’s behavior is important to employees’ satisfaction at work. Similarly, Madlock (2008)
contends that there is a strong relationship between a supervisor’s communicator competence
and task/relational leadership styles, and employee job satisfaction. Sy et al. (2005) posit that
leaders can transfer their moods to employees and impact a group’s mood, effort, and
coordination. Therefore, effective leadership and high employee job satisfaction should be of
paramount importance to organizations aspiring to achieve environments conducive to mission
accomplishment.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

37
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is a leadership approach that creates valuable and positive
change in the followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Stated another way, transformational leaders are
those who transform their followers into becoming leaders themselves. Burns (1978) is credited
for first introducing the concept of transformational leadership in his descriptive research on
political leaders (Bass & Riggio, 2006). According to Burns (1978), transformational leadership
is a process in which leaders and followers help each other to advance to a higher level of morale
and motivation. Burns (1978) further states that the transformational leadership approach creates
significant change in the life of people and organizations. Transformational leaders redesign
perceptions and values, and they change expectations and aspirations of their employees.
Transformational leadership involves a leader’s personality traits and the ability to make
changes through their example, their ability to articulate an energizing vision, and to create
challenging goals (Bass, 1998). Bass also argued that transformational leaders motivate their
followers by raising their level of awareness about the importance and value of designated
outcomes and by transforming followers’ personal values to support the collective goals/vision
for their organization (Jung & Avolio, 2000). According to Bass and Riggio (2006), a
transformational leader focuses on transforming others to help each other, to look out for each
other, to be encouraging and harmonious, and to look out for the organization as a whole.
Accordingly, this style of leadership enhances the motivation, morale, and performance of his
followers:
Transformational leaders are those who stimulate and inspire followers to achieve
extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership capacity.
Transformational leaders help followers grow and develop into leaders by responding to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

38
individual followers’ needs by empowering them and by aligning the objectives and goals
of the individual followers, the leader, the group, and the larger organization. (Bass &
Riggio, 2006, p. 3).
Much research has been accomplished over the past 30 years in the area of
transformational leadership and employee satisfaction and a number of meta-analyses have
shown that transformational leadership positively predicts a wide variety of performance
outcomes including individual, group and organizational level variables (Bass & Bass, 2008).
Furthermore, empirical research accomplished by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996),
demonstrated that transformational leadership can move followers to exceed expected
performance, as well as lead to high levels of employee satisfaction and commitment to the
group and organization.
There are four components of transformational leadership: idealized influence (also
known as charismatic leadership), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration.
Bass (1998) asserts that transformational leaders act in ways that make them role models
and followers are respected, admired and trusted. Followers’ trust in the leader has been
considered one of the most important variables that can mediate the effectiveness of
transformational leadership (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Yukl, 1999).
Followers identify with these types of leaders and they believe that their leaders display
extraordinary capabilities and that they are persistent and determined. These leaders are also
willing to take risks, they instill pride, they can consistently be relied upon to do the right thing,
and they also consistently exercise high moral and ethical standards (Bass, 1998).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

39
Kotter’s (1996) research on transformational leadership suggests that followers must trust
their leaders, however, initially; this usually involves a transformation of existing conditions,
which can create a high level of uncertainty, anxiety, frustration and fear. A high level of trust
among followers is what enables a transformational leader and employees to persist and to
overcome obstacles (Jung & Avolio, 2000). Transformational leaders increase followers’ trust
levels by showing concern for their needs, honoring agreements, demonstrating persistence to
achieve the vision, and by being willing to sacrifice for the good of their team (Kirkpatrick &
Locke, 1996).
Leaders that embody inspirational motivation create a sense of “team spirit” (Bass, 1998).
These leaders display enthusiasm and optimism and provide both meaning and challenge to
everyday work goals. They also create an atmosphere of commitment to goals and a shared
vision. These visionary aspects of leadership are supported by communication skills that make
the vision understandable, precise, powerful and engaging (Bass & Bass, 2008). Kirkpatrick and
Locke (1996) conducted an experiment demonstrating that leaders who articulated visions with
more of an emphasis on quality increased followers’ beliefs and values communicated in the
vision. In turn, followers with a vision are willing to invest more effort in their tasks, they are
encouraged and optimistic about the future, and they firmly believe in their abilities. Jung and
Avolio (2000) argue that inspiring employees by developing and communicating a shared vision
is one of the most integral components of the transformational leadership process
Leaders with inspirational motivation are able to challenge followers with high standards
and are able to communicate a sense of optimism about future goals. According to Bass and
Bass (2008), followers need to have a strong sense of purpose if they are to be motivated to act.
It is this purpose and meaning that provide the energy that drives an organization and a group
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

40
forward. Such leaders work to raise their followers’ confidence and expand their needs in line
with what they have identified with in terms of their organization’ mission (Avolio & Bass,
1995). Identification along with the cause articulated by the leader is expected to increase their
motivation to perform at higher levels of achievement (Jung & Avolio, 2000).
Transformational leaders encourage creativity and innovation and they foster an
atmosphere in which their employees feel compelled to think about old problems in a new way
(Bass, 1998). These types of leaders also avoid public criticism and prefer to criticize in private.
These leaders challenge assumptions, take risks, and solicit ideas from their followers (Bass &
Bass, 2008). Leaders with this style stimulate and encourage creativity in their followers. They
nurture and develop people who think independently. These types of leaders believe that
learning is a value to be respected and unexpected situations are seen as opportunities to learn
(Bass & Bass, 2008). The underlying assumption with leaders that intellectually stimulate their
employees is that the followers are encouraged to ask questions, think critically, and figure out
better ways to execute their tasks.
Individualized consideration is a component of transformational leadership that
incorporates the role that leaders play as mentors and coaches (Bass & Bass, 2008).
Additionally, individual desires and needs are respected, differences are accepted, and two-way
communication is common. Leaders displaying individualized consideration actively listen to
their employees and they frequently give them personalized attention. Followers of these leaders
are encouraged to develop of higher levels of potential (Bass, 1998). The leader gives empathy
and support and places challenges before the followers. This leadership element encompasses
the need for respect and celebrates the individual contribution that each employee can make to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

41
the team. The followers have aspirations for self-development and have intrinsic motivation for
their tasks (Bass & Bass, 2008).
Task-Oriented and Relations-Oriented Leadership Behavior
According to Fernandez (2008), the earliest attempts to study managerial leadership
focused on the search for personal attributes and traits associated with leadership effectiveness.
Due to the lack of progress in identifying a universal set of traits associated with effective
leadership, researchers at Ohio State University during the 1950s changed the focus of their
research from traits to the behavior of leaders (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2002). Ohio State University
researchers administered questionnaires to thousands of employees in private and public
organizations to identify styles of behavior associated with effective leadership (Fernandez,
2008).
The results of this study identified two broad categories of leadership behavior:
consideration and initiating structure. Consideration behavior reflects a leader’s concern for the
welfare of subordinates and a desire to foster good interpersonal relations among members of the
group (Fernandez, 2008). Consideration behaviors included treating subordinates as equals,
displaying good listening skills, consulting with them and taking their advice, supporting them
emotionally, expressing concern for them, appreciating and recognizing their work, and stressing
the importance of employee satisfaction. Initiations of structure behaviors are the kinds of
behavior that express concern for accomplishing the goals of the group. Initiating structure
behaviors include setting goals and standards, defining roles for subordinates, coordinating the
activities of subordinates, maintaining clear channels of communication, stressing the need to
meet deadlines, monitoring compliance with procedures and progress toward the achievement of
goals, and identifying and solving problems (Fernandez, 2008). The study concluded that these
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

42
two categories of leadership behavior were found to be independent of each other. For example,
a particular leader’s behavior could score high on consideration and low on initiating structure,
yet many of the leaders who were observed exhibited both types of behavior (Fernandez, 2008).
Although these two categories of leadership behavior have independent effects, a review
of the literature indicates that different types of behavior interact to affect outcomes such as
performance, ratings of a leader, and employee satisfaction (Fernandez, 2008). Furthermore,
Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid theory posits that the most effective leaders exhibit
high levels of both concern for the task, and concern for the relationship that they share with
subordinates.
Development-Oriented Leadership Behavior
According to Fernandez (2008), recent research on leadership behavior has identified a
third category of behavior: change or development-oriented behavior. This type of behavior
encourages experimentation, innovation, and organizational change (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991;
Lindell & Rosenqvist, 1992). A team of Scandinavian researchers analyzed the Ohio State
University leadership studies and found a series of survey items about leadership behavior
revolving around development. Ekvall and Arvonen (1991) developed a questionnaire with
items that measured task-oriented, relations-oriented, and development-oriented behavior. The
questionnaire, which was administered to over 600 managers in Sweden, Finland, and the U.S.,
included survey items relating to organizational change and development.
The results of their study yielded three categories of leadership behavior: production-
centered leadership, employee-centered leadership, (which correspond closely to task-oriented
and relations-oriented behavior), and change-centered leadership. This third category of
leadership behavior encourages creativity, experimentation, risk taking, forecasting, and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

43
adoption and implementation of innovations (Fernandez, 2008). Ekvall and Arvonen (1991)
found that development-centered leadership positively correlated with a leader’s level of
effectiveness. However, if task, relations, or development-orientated leadership behavior is
related to a leader’s level of effectiveness, does it correlate to increased employee performance
or satisfaction?
The Effects of Leadership Behavior on Performance and Job Satisfaction
Most of the leadership behavior studies following the Ohio State University study tested
the hypothesis that task-oriented behavior has a positive effect on group and subordinate
performance (Fernandez, 2008). Bass (1990) concludes that:
Successful task-oriented leaders are instrumental in contributing to their groups’
effectiveness by setting goals, allocating labor, and enforcing sanctions. They initiate
structure for their followers, define the roles of others, explain what to do and why,
establish well-defined patterns of organization and channels of communication, and
determine the ways to accomplish assignments. (p. 472)
However, Bass notes that subordinates may view task-oriented leaders as detached, autocratic,
and punitive, resulting in lower levels of employee satisfaction.
Relations-oriented behavior is supposed to foster a harmonious and emotionally
supportive work environment that contributes to higher levels of employee job satisfaction and
motivation (Fernandez, 2008). Leaders that display supportive behaviors such as trust,
confidence, and appreciation for subordinates, providing recognition and feedback, consulting
and involving subordinates in decision making, and allowing subordinates discretion are
expected to have a positive effect on employee satisfaction (Fleishman & Harris, 1962).
Furthermore, relations-oriented leadership positively affects performance and employee
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

44
satisfaction by creating open channels of communication, increasing personal responsibility
among subordinates, and contributing to subordinate commitment to the leader and the
organization (Fernandez, 2008). Moreover, subordinates who judge their leaders as helpful and
emotionally supportive are also more likely to rate their leaders as effective, thus increasing
employee satisfaction (Bass, 1990).
The literature suggests that development-oriented behavior affects organizational
outcomes through several causal paths (Fernandez, 2008). Leaders who engage in development-
oriented behavior can increase organizational performance by being more adaptive and
responsive to the external environmental (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991). Development-oriented
leaders may also be more effective at identifying the most promising strategic initiatives for their
organizations. Finally, leaders leveraging development-oriented behavior may encourage
innovation and creativity among their employees (Fernandez, 2008).
Bass (1990), who is considered an expert on the effects leadership behavior has on
organizational outcomes, concluded that the most consistent finding was that relations-oriented
behavior is positively related to employee satisfaction. However, Bass (1990) indicates that
evidence of the relationship between task-oriented behavior and employee satisfaction has been
mixed. With regards to task-oriented behavior and performance, Bass (1990) posits, “While this
type of leadership behavior has been found to be positively correlated with group productivity,
goal achievement, and subordinate performance, there have been exceptions…” (p. 480).
Finally, studies of development-oriented leadership behavior indicate that this type of behavior is
positively correlated with effective leaders and high employee satisfaction (Ekvall & Arvonen,
1991; Lindell & Rosenqvist, 1992).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

45
Psychological Well-Being and Employee Satisfaction
A major topic of human interest is the pursuit of well-being or “happiness” (Russell,
1930). When researchers use the term happiness, they are usually referring to an individual’s
psychological or subjective well-being (Diener, 1984; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999).
According to Diener (1984), these terms are used interchangeably, but scholars prefer the term
well-being to avoid the imprecision associated with the more vague term of happiness.
Psychological well-being has three characteristics. First, well-being is a phenomenological event
(Diener, 1994; Parducci, 1995). Stated another way, people are happy when they believe
themselves to be so (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Second, well-being involves some emotional
conditions (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Third, well-being refers to one’s life as a whole
(Diener, 1994; Myers, 1992; Veenhoven, 1988).
Generally speaking, happy workers demonstrate higher levels of job-related performance
behaviors than do unhappy employees (Brief, 1998; Spector, 1997). According to Wright and
Doherty (1998), this hypothesis has been operationalized by correlating employee self-ratings of
job satisfaction with supervisory ratings of performance. Accordingly, for many applied
researchers, job satisfaction and happiness have become closely linked together (Wright &
Cropanzano, 2000).
The most common means of operationalizing the happiness factor of the happy and
productive worker hypothesis in organizational research has been through the measurement of
job satisfaction (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Kornhauser and Sharp (1932) speculate that the
link between job satisfaction predicting performance dates back to the beginning of
industrial/organizational psychology. Although there may be nothing inherently wrong with
equating a happy worker with a satisfied worker, in so doing, one is required to make two
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

46
assumptions (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). First, because employee satisfaction is specific to
one’s job, it does not include aspects of one’s life outside of work. According to Diener (1984),
this narrow scope stands in contrast to research on psychological well-being in which the
happiness quotient is normally considered as a broader construct than employee satisfaction, one
that refers to aspects of an individual’s life as a whole (Diener, 1984).
Secondly, another important assumption involves the manner in which job satisfaction
has been measured in organizational research (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Weiss et al. (1996)
contend that although job satisfaction has been operationalized in many different ways, it usually
is considered to be an attitude. More specifically, Weiss et al. (1996) suggest that job
satisfaction is based partially on what one feels and partially on what one thinks. Therefore, job
satisfaction can best be defined as “an internal state that is expressed by affectively and/or
cognitively evaluating an experienced job with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Brief, 1998, p.
86). Additionally, happiness is primarily an affective or emotional experience (Wright &
Cropanzano, 2000). Warr (1987) redefines it another way by stating that happy individuals feel
good in the sense that they experience a good deal of positive emotion and, thus, less negative
emotion.
Summary
In this chapter, definitions of employee satisfaction from several behavioral scientists
were provided in order to serve as a foundation of what this complex construct entails. Next, an
in-depth review of the research literature of how communication, efficacy, accountability, and
leadership behaviors impact employee satisfaction is discussed. It is important to consider these
behaviors and variables in order to obtain a clearer and more nuanced understanding of what
constitutes employee satisfaction and how we can make it better. The research suggests that
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

47
organizations that have high employee satisfaction have workers that demonstrate higher
productivity, higher performance, less absenteeism, and fewer turnovers than institutions with
low employee satisfaction.
An overview of the literature review (Appendix C) has been organized into separate
tables, first by the four elements of communication, efficacy, leadership and accountability.
Each table has a column identifying the factors of knowledge, motivation and organizational
barriers of the gap analysis framework. This case study will now describe the methodology used
to evaluate the causes of low employee satisfaction at KNP.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

48
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Statement of the Problem
Each year, employees of the NPS are given the opportunity to complete the Employee
Viewpoint Survey (EVS) to provide information about conditions in their work environment. At
KNP, results of the 2012 EVS indicated lower than desired employee satisfaction ratings
(USOPM, 2012). Concerned about the possible impact these ratings could have on current and
future mission successes, the NPS implemented EVS workshops for KNP employees that include
assessments specifically developed to address effective career development strategies (NPSOLD,
2012a). In addition to facilitating the workshops, NPS leadership is interested in probing deeper
into possible causes and solutions for the low ratings of employee satisfaction.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to identify causes of, and to suggest solutions for, improving
low employee satisfaction at KNP by using data collected from the NPS EVS, observations, and
personal interviews conducted after the EVS workshops using a qualitative approach.
Specifically, the study will examine why employees at KNP exhibit low employee satisfaction
utilizing the conceptual framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, which
considers knowledge/skills, motivation and organizational factors. Recommendations from this
study will be offered to NPS leadership to influence and improve employee satisfaction at KNP.
The use of qualitative research methods as opposed to quantitative methods in this study
is dictated by the nature of the research questions. Qualitative research has a long tradition in the
behavioral and social sciences for addressing questions involving stakeholder perceptions
(Galvan, 2009) and according to Creswell (2009), qualitative research uses methods which
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

49
immerse researchers in the everyday life of research settings. Based on the perceptions and
values of participants, meaning is generated from analyzed data collected in the field.
Furthermore, insightful meaning helps explain complex situations, experiences, and
relationships. Patton (2002) reported that the advantage of qualitative methods lay in the ability
of researchers to generate a theory based on their interviews and observations with stakeholders
in the real world, rather than in a controlled, sterile setting. Finally, further advantages of
qualitative methods are: (a) it is holistic and interpretive; (b) it involves the use of a theoretical
lens; (c) it is based on participants’ meanings; (d) it is inductive; (e) it uses multiple techniques
of data collection; (f) it relies on the researcher as the main instrument for collecting data; and
(g) the research takes place in the natural setting (Creswell, 2009).
Qualitative methods, in the form of observations and individual interviews of KNP
employees, may be more advantageous than quantitative methods in order to identify, validate,
and discuss perceived and assumed causes of low employee satisfaction for this study.
Study Questions
In order to clearly identify the reasons for low employee satisfaction at KNP, three study
questions will guide the investigation of low employee satisfaction at KNP.
The research questions guiding this investigation are:
1. What are the knowledge/skills, motivational, and organizational causes of low
employee satisfaction in KNP that prevent 100% employee satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

50
Participants
NPS leadership identified parks whose aggregate responses to the 2012 EVS ranked them
in the bottom quartile of all NPS sites. Of those parks in the bottom quartile, the Organizational
Development (OD) branch of the NPS allowed USC researchers permission to analyze seven of
24 low-scoring parks. Although other parks were identified as having low employee satisfaction,
the current study focuses solely on KNP. This park was chosen for this study because it was
identified by NPS leadership as a park ready to accept assistance with improving its lower than
desired employee satisfaction levels. Due to the partnership, cooperation, and support of the
Workplace Enrichment and Learning and Development (L&D) Office of the NPS, access to KNP
employees to conduct individual interviews was granted for this study.
The study sample consisted of those employees that attended the EVS workshops and
seven volunteers who attended any one of the sessions during the two-day workshop that were
hosted by representatives of the NPS OD branch. The KNP employees that participated in the
EVS survey comprised 32% of the total workforce at KNP, which included mostly front-line
employees and supervisors. The participants in the EVS workshops were comprised of front-line
employees and supervisors as well and those that volunteered to be interviewed were only front-
line employees. The only criteria used for selection is that potential interviewees be a KNP
employee, a participant in the two-day workshop, and a volunteer to be interviewed after the
two-day course. Since the sample will be one of convenience and participants were not
randomly assigned, generalization of the results of the study is not practical. However, Merriam
(1998) defines the “generalization” of these types of studies as the value and importance readers
of the study perceive for their own organizations.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

51
KNP encompasses over 70,000 acres and is located in a heavily wooded and rugged area
of the United States. KNP employs a variety of professional, administrative, technical, clerical,
and trade employees. These 95 permanent and 35 seasonal employees consist of historians,
protection rangers, scientists, and education specialists. The current Superintendent is fairly new
to this position and has only been the leader of KNP for a few months. KNP had approximately
1,071,088 visitors in 2011 (National Park Service, 2012).
Study Framework and Instrumentation
The Gap Analysis Model
The instrumentation for this study was derived from Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
model, which is used as the conceptual framework for this case study. Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis model (see Figure 1) is a systematic, problem solving diagnostic tool that examines
the human causes responsible for performance gaps. This model measures quantifiable goals and
indicators, assesses gaps, and investigates and resolves knowledge/skills, motivational, and
organizational issues. When effectively used, the gap analysis model may improve performance
and achieve organizational goals. This study will use the gap analysis model to identify assumed
causes of performance gaps in the areas of knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational/structural issues that may be affecting low employee satisfaction at KNP.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis applies advances in cognitive research and other
learning disciplines to create performance solutions for organizations. Their framework
encompasses seven steps: (1) identifying key organizational goals; (2) measuring current
performance; (3) identifying gaps between goals and performance; (4) analyzing performance
gaps to determine their assumed causes; (5) validating assumed causes; (6) identifying and
implementing solutions; and (7) evaluating results. This chapter will address the first five steps.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

52
The solutions and implementation step will be addressed in Chapter 5, and the evaluation step
will be addressed in Chapter 6. Clark and Estes (2008) further suggest that performance gaps can
be diagnosed based on three factors: (a) the knowledge and skills that are applied to achieve
individual performance goals; (b) the motivation to achieve individual performance goals; and
(c) the organizational culture, resources, equipment, and work processes that influence the
achievement of performance goals. Clark and Estes (2008) state that it is important to determine
knowledge, motivation and organizational problems before determining solutions. Next, the first
five steps in the gap analysis process will be discussed.

Figure 1. Gap analysis process

Step 1: Identify Goals
An important aspect for organizations is to establish goals that are in alignment between
high-level strategic vision and team or individual goals. Goals provide direction and help
determine when to change the current course of action. Measureable goals are set at three levels:
long-term or global goals, intermediate goals, and day-to-day performance goals (Rueda, 2011).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

53
These goals should be adaptable to changing conditions but still specific enough to provide day-
to-day guidance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Global goals focus on achievements in a 1 to 5 year or
more timeframe, intermediate goals span weeks to months, and performance goals are managed
within hours to weeks (Rueda, 2011). Although the goal of most organizations is 100% job
satisfaction on the part of employees, it is an ideal, and not realistically achievable. However,
the efforts that an organization makes to achieve this goal are important and critical to an
organization’s success.
In the case of KNP, the global goal is to close employee performance gaps and
incrementally increase employee satisfaction ratings by the 2014 and 2016 EVS. In support of
this goal, part of the NPS plan for the second century is a focus on leveraging employee
commitment and leadership, including customized assessments with tailored strategies that
address communication, recruitment, recognition and career development for 50 parks or
programs (NPSOLD, 2012e).
The focus of this study was on KNP EVS scores that fell below 60% positive. NPS
leadership determined that areas that fell below this threshold were “cause for concern and
needed improvement.”
Steps 2 and 3: Measuring Current Performance and Identifying Gaps
Once long-term, intermediate, and day-to-day goals are set, the next step is to measure
current performance against those goals and determine gaps between current and desired level of
performance. According to Rueda (2011), the difference between the goals and current
performance are the achievement gaps. Clark and Estes (2008) recommended using a respective
industry leader’s achievements as benchmarks or standards for comparison. For KNP,
performance was measured via the 2012 EVS. A discussion on the mechanics of the EVS will
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

54
be followed by an evaluation of KNP’s EVS. This discussion will highlight performance gaps
related to low employee satisfaction in order to identify assumed causes for the gap.
The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) started in 1998 under the direction of
Vice President Al Gore, the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) (Kamenski, 1998a). The purpose of the survey was to: (a) create
a baseline for the measurement of selected initiatives for government reinvention; (b) benchmark
and assess organizational change on several key items; (c) build on the foundation of the OPM’s
existing Performance American database; and (d) support the collection of balanced measures for
government agencies. In 1998, survey experts from the OPM, MSPB, and FAA collaborated to
create a 33-item survey that was mailed to a stratified, random sample of 34,401 employees in 48
different federal agencies. The original survey received a 40% response rate with a sample of
13,657 respondents (Kamensky, 1998b). Results were grouped into three major categories: (a)
areas of strengths; (b) areas where improvement is needed; and (c) private industry comparisons
(refer to Table 1 below).
The 2012 EVS has evolved into a tool to provide a snapshot of federal employees’
perceptions of working conditions that exist in their agencies. In ensuring the Federal
Government has an effective civilian workforce, EVS results provide critical information for the
challenges leaders face in their agencies. The EVS provides general indicators for how well the
Federal Government manages its employees. The OPM and federal managers utilize these
indicators to develop planning actions and policies to improve performance in their respective
agencies and for evaluation of individual agencies’ progress towards the achievement of long-
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

55
term goals, thus making our government more effective and responsive to the needs of the
American people (USOPM, 2012).

Table 1
Results of EVS and Private Industry Comparisons
Federal Employee
Responses
Private Industry
Comparisons
Agencies with customer service goals. 75% (Strength) Comparison not done.
Supervisors supported employee
family/personal life.
65% (Strength) Comparison not done.
Employee differences are respected. 62% (Strength) Comparison not done.
Teamwork and cooperation. 60% (Strength) Comparison not done.
Reinvention initiatives are priorities. 35% (Needs improvement) Comparison not done.
Innovation/creativity is rewarded. 30% (Needs improvement) Comparison not done.
Corrective actions are taken when
performance lags.
28% (Needs improvement) Comparison not done.
Employee unions & management
cooperated.
25% (Needs improvement) Comparison not done.
Overall job satisfaction. 62% 62%
Job recognition. 42% 45%
Excellent manager. 52% 67%
Quality of work by your team. 72% 83%
Adapted from Kamensky (1998a, pp. 1-2).

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

56
The 2012 EVS had 98 items that include 14 demographic questions and 84 questions
measuring federal employees’ perceptions on the effectiveness of federal managers in their
agencies. The 98 items are divided into eight topic areas: (a) personal work experiences, (b)
work unit, (c) agency, (d) supervisor/team leader, (e) leadership, (f) satisfaction, (g) work/life,
and (h) demographics.
A total of 82 federal agencies participated in the 2012 EVS, consisting of 37 large
agencies and 45 small/independent agencies. Respondents included full-time, permanent, part
time, and non-seasonal employees. The 2012 EVS was sent to a total of 1,622,375 federal
employees comprising of 97% of the executive branch workforce. Out of that total, 687,687
federal employees completed the survey for government-wide rate of 46.1%. Employee opinions
were given by entry-level to senior executives, military veterans, those with disabilities, and
those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.
The survey was administered from April to June, 2012. Specific agency deployment
dates were staggered throughout the timeframe. The survey was a self-administered web survey.
To produce survey estimates that accurately represented the survey population, data collected
from the 2012 survey were weighted, meaning some questions counted more than others. The
concern was that un-weighted data might produce biased estimates of population statistics. The
weights developed for the survey take into account the variable probabilities of selection across
the known demographic characteristics, non-responses, and sample domains of the survey
population. Weighted within plus or minus one percentage point, the final data set reflected
demographic makeup and individual agency composition.
The 2012 EVS included six indices: (a) the global satisfaction index, (b) employee
engagement index, and (c) the four Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

57
(HCAAF) indices. The OPM created the global satisfaction index in order to provide a more
comprehensive indication of the overall work satisfaction of federal employees. The global
satisfaction index is a combination of employees’ willingness to recommend their agency as
good places to work, plus their satisfaction with their job, pay, and organization.
The EVS employee engagement index attempts to discover the conditions likely to link to
employee engagement. Conditions include: the opportunity for employees to learn and grow on
the job, work which provides meaning to employees, effective leadership. The employment
engagement index combined theoretical and statistical analysis. The index-overarching model
comprised of three sub-factors: (a) intrinsic work experiences; (b) supervisors; and
(c) leadership. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2012) reported that, “An initial
exploratory factor analysis revealed factors consisting of 16 items (Leadership, Supervision, and
Intrinsic Work Experiences) with a single, underlying factor (Conditions to Employee
Engagement)” (p. 34). A confirmatory factor analysis was repeated with an independent dataset,
which supported the three-factor model. One item was removed for theoretical and statistical
reasons, resulting in the 15-item, three-factor model.
The four indices of the HCAAF consist of: (a) leadership and knowledge management,
(b) results-oriented performance culture, (c) talent management, and (d) job satisfaction. The
HCAAF indices were developed to assist federal agencies meet the requirements of OPM’s
mandate under the 2002 Chief Human Capital Officers Act. This Act was meant to develop
metrics, set standards, and design systems for federal managers to assess their employees. Using
the average of the percent positive responses on the items within the four indices, the HCAAF
scores were measured and calculated.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

58
In terms of the overall data analysis, the OPM team performed several statistical analyses
for the 2012 EVS, including using a number of grouping procedures to simplify presentations.
Most of the 98 items used a six response Likert-type scale (e.g. strongly agree, agree, neither
agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree, and no basis to judge/do not know). In some
instances, some responses were grouped into one neutral category (neither agree nor disagree),
one negative category (strongly disagree and agree), and one positive category (strongly agree
and agree). The OPM team used statistical analyses on all survey items for all demographic
categories in the 2012 EVS with an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) rating of at least .65
or better. According to Salkind (2011), the internal consistency of an instrument is shown to be
valid as it approaches a Cronbach’s alpha rating of one. In the case of the 2012 EVS, with a
Cronbach’s alpha rating of .65 or better, all survey items on the 2012 EVS were shown to be
valid.
For this study, 2012 NPS EVS results were used as a baseline to compare KNP EVS
results with NPS results as a whole from lowest to highest (see Table 2 and Appendix A).
Deficiencies in KNP ratings may be considered performance gaps to overall NPS goals to
improve employee satisfaction agency-wide by the year 2016 (NPSOLD, 2012e). According to
2012 EVS results, KNP reported low employee satisfaction ratings across multiple categories.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

59

Table 2
2012 EVS Scores for Kailuana National Park and all of NPS Per Category
Category KNP Score All NPS Score
Effective Leadership: Leader 17% 46%
Effective Leadership: Empowerment 40% 46%
Effective Leadership: Fairness 22% 53%
Performance-based Rewards & Advancement 39% 43%
Family Friendly Culture 68% 76%
Strategic Management 42% 52%
Best Places to Work 45% 63%
Training Development 47% 51%
Support for Diversity 54% 58%
Pay and Benefits 61% 58%
Work / Life Balance 62% 51%
Teamwork 63% 61%
Effective Leadership: Supervisor 64% 63%
Skills Mission Match 67% 79%
Source: 2012 EVS results per region and park.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

60
Step 4: Identification of the Assumed Causes
According to the literature, observable workplace behaviors pertaining to the four main
areas of communication, self-efficacy, accountability, and leadership may positively affect
employee satisfaction. At the same time, a lack of observable workplace behaviors pertaining to
those same four areas may also lower employee satisfaction. The use of the gap analysis model
in this study may provide insight as to why KNP employees and leadership do not engage in
sound communication, self-efficacy, accountability, and leadership behaviors. Ultimately,
important gaps in the areas of knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational/structural issues
may be responsible for the causes of low employee satisfaction in KNP. Rueda (2011) observed,
“As specific causes are assessed and ruled out, a clearer picture can be obtained for what is likely
causing the performance gap(s), and solutions can be targeted specifically at those areas” (p. 76).
It is important to identify assumed causes and validating them before proposing solutions.
Moreover, these four elements have been aligned with the factors of knowledge, motivation and
organizational barriers in the gap analysis framework (see Table 3).

Table 3
Four Elements as Related to Gap Analysis Framework
Knowledge Motivation Organizational
Communication X X X
Efficacy X
Leadership X
Accountability X X

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

61
According to Clark and Estes (2008), the main three causes of performance gaps are
employees’ knowledge and skills, employees’ motivation to achieve a goal, and organizational
barriers that may impede and obstruct the work environment.
Knowledge. According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge problems exist when
people do not know how to accomplish goals and when employers anticipate future challenges
will call for problem solving. Sometimes people can simply lack the knowledge or skills
necessary to achieve goals. Individuals may not be aware that they lack the knowledge and skills
necessary to accomplish a task or goals. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that if a person does not
know how to reach their performance goal it usually indicates a need for job aids, training, or
continuing or advanced education.
According to Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001), knowledge taxonomy, knowledge is
categorized into four major categories: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive.
Factual knowledge is basic knowledge of facts specific to domains, contexts, or disciplines.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) state that recalling, recognizing, and remembering are cognitive
functions associated with factual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is knowledge of structures,
models, theories, generalizations, principles, classifications, or categories. Having conceptual
knowledge involves the understanding of how things work in complex and organized systems.
Moreover, knowing how things work cognitively supports a learner’s ability to organize,
categorize small bits of factual information. Learners with procedural knowledge know how to
do things and are able to apply that knowledge and those learners with metacognitive knowledge
possess awareness of their own cognition and cognitive processes. Metacognitive knowledge
allows learners to know when and why to do certain things. According to Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001), having metacognitive knowledge allows learners to consider contextual and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

62
conditional aspects of given activities and problems and is an important aspect of strategic
behavior in solving problems. In addition to learning behaviors of this framework, motivation
beliefs and their relation to self-efficacy, goals, and reasons for pursuing tasks are important
aspects in identifying assumed causes for gaps in performance.
Motivation. Mayer (2011) defines motivation as an internal state that initiates and
maintains goal-directed behavior. Clark and Estes (2008) state that motivation is the drive that
gets employees moving and specifies how much effort is needed for tasks. Motivation is divided
into three indexes: (1) active choice, (2) persistence, and (3) mental effort. According to Schunk,
Pintrich, and Meece (2009), there are three types of motivational processes, called indexes,
which come into play in a work environment. These indexes are active choice (intention to
pursue a goal is replaced by action), persistence (action is continued in the face of distractions),
and mental effort (the ability to focus one’s mental capacity to achieve a goal). The motivational
framework used in this analysis draws specifically from the processes of active choice,
persistence, and mental effort.
Clark and Estes (2008) define active choice as the process whereby people choose (or fail
to choose) to actively pursue a work goal. Mental effort is determined mainly by one’s
confidence, and those who lack confidence tend not to invest much mental effort in a task. The
motivational variables involved in this analysis include value, goals, and self-efficacy.
According to Rueda (2011), value refers to the importance one attaches to a specific task.
Furthermore, according to Wigfield and Eccles’ (2000) expectancy-value theory, values also
influence choice, persistence, and performance. Finally, organizational barriers may contribute to
gaps in performance.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

63
Organizational Barriers. According to Clark and Estes (2008), when there is a lack of
an efficient and effective work processes and resources, an organizational problem exists. They
further state that an organizational problem such as a policy, procedure or lack of facilities can
hinder the achievement of a goal. Sometimes policies can work against people trying to achieve
a global goal, thus creating a conflict of interest. Additionally, organizational culture plays an
important role to improve performance. A matrix, (described in Chapter 1 and included in
Appendix B), depicts the four known workplace behaviors and variables found in the literature in
the context of Clark and Estes’ (2008), knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational factors
that affect employee satisfaction. Again, by mapping these two frameworks, we can expect
problems related to employee satisfaction to fall somewhere in this matrix. Next, KNP’s EVS
results will be discussed in relation to knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors in order
to identify assumed causes for gaps in performance related to employee satisfaction.
2012 EVS Results for KNP. The documentary materials used in this case study are the
results from the 2012 EVS survey (refer to Appendix A and Tables 3-6). The EVS is a tool to
provide a snapshot of federal employees’ perceptions of working conditions at their agencies and
provides general indicators for how well the federal government manages its employees. The
EVS has 98 items that are divided into eight topic areas: (a) personal work experiences, (b) work
unit, (c) agency, (d) supervisor/team leader, (e) leadership, (f) satisfaction, (g) work/life, and
(h) demographics. The EVS also contains 14 sub categories (refer to Table 3 and Appendix D).
The EVS was completed by 687,687 federal employees and had a 46.1% response rate.
Document collection and analysis were the chosen data collection methods because internal
agency documents may yield valuable information that might be difficult or impossible to obtain
another way (Merriam, 1998). Eighty-four EVS questions were categorized as having
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

64
knowledge, motivation, or organizational factors embedded within the question. Of the 84
questions, 71 were used for the purposes of this case study. The 13 EVS questions that were not
used in this study focused on job options such as telecommuting, alternative work schedules,
health and wellness programs, and employee assistance programs that are not available at every
park and therefore were not considered. EVS questions that had scores lower than a 60%
positive rate were targeted for further examination to discover if the four assumed causes applied
to low employee satisfaction, or to discover if there were any new assumed causes. This
categorization revealed that 8% of the EVS questions were focused on knowledge, 20% on
motivation, and 57% on organization (15% were not categorized). In sum, the aggregate
responses of KNP employees to the 2012 EVS were used to develop the possible root causes of
the assumed knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance gaps exhibited by
KNP employees.
However, this study is focused on the employee’s perspective and a cross reference of the
low scoring EVS questions with the causes from Chapter 2 suggest that communication, which
in KMO terms is usually a knowledge cause, and accountability, which can be a knowledge,
motivation or organizational barrier cause, dominated the assumed causes. Of the 88 permanent
and 140 seasonal employees at KNP, 46 (52%) participated in the EVS. Senior level
management (superintendents and division chiefs) and supervisors did not participate in the
survey. Additionally, maintenance workers did not take the EVS due to a lack of available
computers at their workspace and seasonal employees were not invited to participate. Of note,
the specific demographic data of the KNP EVS participants is unknown due to the confidentiality
of the survey data that was released to the public.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

65
Knowledge. The average knowledge score was 56% positive. Of the seven EVS
questions focused on knowledge, four questions fell below the 60% positive rate (refer to Table 4
and the highlighted responses in ascending order). The EVS wording indicates that employees
want more information from management (for the purposes of this study, management are either
senior leadership, meaning division chiefs and above and supervisors). Gap analysis
methodology would reframe that wording to reflect the knowledge cause without attribution:
Respondents want more information about the park and want more training opportunities. The
EVS results do not help us understand what kind of information employees think they need,
which is an issue that was pursued in the observations.

Table 4
EVS Questions and Percent Positive Scores for Knowledge
EVS
Question No. Question
Percent
Positive
64 How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management
on what’s going on in your organization?
15%
68 How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job? 45%
2 I have enough information to do my job well. 56%
39 My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission. 58%
19 In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood what I had to do to
be rated at different performance levels.
73%
6 I know what is expected of me on the job. 74%
12 I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities 76%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

66
Motivation. Of the 17 questions on the EVS that dealt with motivation issues, 11
questions fell below the 60% threshold for those items needing attention (refer to Table 5 and the
highlighted responses in ascending order). Overall, the average motivation score was 55%
positive. The employee motivation issues embedded within the questions that fell below the
60% mark, and which will be targeted for further evaluation, include issues of low respect for
their leadership, fear of reprisals for communicating violations, lack of job advancement
opportunities, poor leadership job performance, a lack of overall satisfaction with KNP, lack of
empowerment, a lack of satisfaction in the ability to be involved with decisions that affect them,
a lack of overall job satisfaction, a lack of personal accomplishment, and a lack of recognition
for doing a good job. Gap analysis methodology would reframe that wording to reflect the
motivation cause without attribution: Respondents want more empowerment, want to be more
involved in decision making, and want more recognition.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

67
Table 5
EVS Questions and Percent Positive Scores for Motivation
EVS
Question No.
Question
Percent
Positive
61 I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders. 18%
17 I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without
fear of reprisal.
24%
67 How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your
organization?
27%
60 Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by the manager directly
above your immediate supervisor/team leader?
33%
71 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization? 33%
30 Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work
processes.
38%
63 How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect you
work?
42%
40 I recommend my organization as a good place to work. 52%
69 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job? 52%
4 My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment. 56%
65 How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good
job?
58%
70 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay? 61%
13 The work I do is important 77%
5 I like the kind of work I do. 82%
28 How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit? 88%
7 When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get the job done. 97%
8 I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better. 97%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

68
Organizational Barriers: Of the 47 questions on the EVS that dealt with organizational
issues, 29 fell below the 60% mark for KNP employees (refer to Table 6 and the highlighted
responses in ascending order). Overall, the average organizational score is 46% positive, again,
under the 60% threshold, which is cause for concern. The organizational issues embedded
within the questions that fell below the 60% mark, and which will be targeted for further
evaluation, include issues related to pay raises tied to performance, policies and practices,
evaluation of senior leadership performance, communication among divisions, communicating
goals, promotions based on merit, collaboration, personal empowerment, recruiting, lack of
resources, and a lack of training opportunities, Gap analysis methodology would reframe that
wording to reflect the organizational barriers without attribution: Respondents want better
policies and practices, want better communication among divisions, need organizational goals
communicated to them, want more training opportunities, need more empowerment, and lack
proper resources.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

69
Table 6
EVS Questions and Percent Positive Scores for Organization
EVS
Question # Question
Percent
Positive
33 Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs. 7%
66 How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders? 12%
53 In my organizations, leaders generate high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workforce.
15%
54 My organization’s leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity. 21%
37 Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan political
purposes are not tolerated.
21%
58 Managers promote communication among different work units. 22%
56 Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization. 22%
22 Promotions in my work unit are based on merit. 23%
41 I believe the results of this survey will be used to make my agency a better
place to work.
23%
24 In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful
way.
24%
62 Senior leaders demonstrate support for Work/Life programs. 24%
59 Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work
objectives.
25%
31 Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to the work
process.
25%
57 Managers review and evaluate the organization’s progress toward meeting its
goals and objectives.
26%
21 My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. 27%
23 In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or
will not improve.
28%
32 Creativity and innovation are rewarded. 28%
18 My training needs are assessed. 32%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

70
Table 6, continued
EVS
Question # Question
Percent
Positive
38 Prohibited Personnel Practices are not tolerated. 36%
55 Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different
backgrounds.
40%
27 The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year. 47%
9 I have sufficient resources to get my job done. 47%
25 Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs. 47%
11 My talents are used well in the workplace. 47%
34 Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace. 49%
10 My workload is reasonable. 53%
1 I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization 56%
3 I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things. 56%
44 Discussions with my supervisor/team leader about my performance are
worthwhile.
58%
51 I have trust and confidence in my supervisor. 61%
46 My supervisor/team leader provides me with constructive suggestions to
improve my job performance.
61%
14 Physical conditions allow employees to perform their jobs well. 62%
47 Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development. 64%
52 Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate
supervisor/team leader?
67%
36 My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats. 67%
15 My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. 70%
48 My supervisor/team leader listens to what I have to say. 70%
29 The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to
accomplish organizational goals.
70%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

71
Table 6, continued
EVS
Question # Question
Percent
Positive
43 My supervisor/team leader provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my
leadership skills.
70%
45 My supervisor/team leader is committed to a workforce representative of all
segments of society.
73%
49 My supervisor/team leader treats me with respect. 73%
26 Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other. 79%
16 I am held accountable for achieving results. 79%
35 Employees are protected from health and safety hazards on the job. 79%
50 In the last six months, my supervisor/team leader has talked with me about my
performance.
85%
20 The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. 85%
42 My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues. 88%

Summary. Assumed causes for low employee satisfaction at KNP are based on the
lowest scores on the EVS which specifically pertain to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors and, in turn, are issues related to communication and accountability. It
appears the root causes of employee performance gaps at KNP may be connected to the
evidence-based variables mentioned in Chapter 2 (refer to Appendix A). Therefore, in this case
study, potential assumed causes to be validated will be based on KNP employees’ needs for
observable communication and accountability. Table 7 summarizes aspects of the literature
review, EVS results, and learning and motivational theory, which will aid in validating the
assumed causes for low employee satisfaction at KNP.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

72
Table 7
Summary of Assumed Causes
Source/Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
Results of
EVS
questions
sorted into
KMO
Employees want: more
information about what
is happening in the
organization; more
training opportunities
Employees want:
empowerment; more
involvement in decision
making; more
recognition
Employees want: better
policies and practices;
better communication
among divisions; goals;
more training;
empowerment; resources
Literature
Review to
KMO
Communication:
Effective
Communication;
Favorable
Communication;
Informational/
Relational Dimension;
Org Culture; Value
Alignment; Positive
Feedback; Trust;
Receptivity
Communication:
Effective
Communication;
Favorable
Communication;
Informational/Relational
Dimension; Org Culture;
Value Alignment;
Positive Feedback;
Trust; Receptivity;
Accountability:
Reciprocal
Accountability;
Collaboration;
Contractual
Relationships;
Performance
Expectations; Goal
Alignment; Professional
Conduct; Performance
Measurement
Communication:
Effective
Communication;
Favorable
Communication;
Informational/Relational
Dimension; Org Culture;
Value Alignment;
Positive Feedback;
Trust; Receptivity;
Accountability:
Reciprocal
Accountability;
Collaboration;
Contractual
Relationships;
Performance
Expectations; Goal
Alignment; Professional
Conduct; Performance
Measurement
Learning and
Motivational
Theory
Information Processing
Theory: Employees
want information to
make choices/decisions
and/or improve
understanding of goals
by improving
communication and the
information that is
shared.
Social Cognitive Theory:
Employees want to feel
valued and appreciated.
Sociocultural Theory:
Employees need
resources (training and
funds) to do their jobs
properly

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

73
Step 5: Validating the Assumed Causes
The fifth step in the gap analysis process is to validate the assumed causes, which were
identified from the literature review and the 2012 EVS results. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), all presumed causes of performance gaps should be validated. The three strategies that
were used to validate the assumed causes were observations of EVS workshops conducted by
NPS staff, document analysis of action plans created by park employees during the workshops,
and interviews of park employees after the workshops. This triangulated data collection process
is preferable when conducting qualitative research. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that focus
groups, interviews, and surveys are the best ways to identify employees’ beliefs and perceptions
in the diagnosis of performance gaps. Ultimately, using multiple sources of data collection will
likely reduce the chance of jumping to incorrect conclusions during data analysis. Maxwell
(2013) posits that triangulation was one method used to address threats to validity. Furthermore,
triangulation reduces systematic biases and chance associations due to a specific method and
“allows a better assessment of the generality of the explanations that one develops” (Maxwell,
1998, p. 128).
EVS workshop observations. According to Creswell (2009), qualitative observations
are observations in which researchers take field notes on the activities and behaviors of people at
the research site. Utilizing some prior questions that researches want to know, researchers record
events and activities at the research site using unstructured or semi-structured field notes.
Creswell (2009) reported that qualitative observers might engage as complete participants or
non-participants. The events and activities observed were the EVS employee workshops at
KNP. The workshops, hosted by two NPS Organization Development (OD) facilitators, took
place over two non-consecutive days and consisted of six group events. Qualitative data was
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

74
collected via descriptive and reflective hand-written notes and photocopying of action items,
written on large sheets of paper, generated by the groups during the EVS workshops.
Observations of the EVS workshops provided insights as to what KNP employees think are the
causes of low employee satisfaction as well as the solutions they think are appropriate to address
those causes. Observations were discreet so as not to interfere in the process of the workshops
and were conducted in accordance with the observation protocols (see Appendix B). The
protocol aided in understanding employee perspectives on the causes for the low EVS scores as
well as providing a framework to annotate their suggestions for solutions.
The first group event on day one consisted of an initial “kick-off” meeting with the OD
facilitators and the senior leadership team and lasted one hour. The KNP superintendent was not
available due to a family emergency, but the deputy superintendent and five division chiefs
(Chief of Interpretation, Ranger for Law Enforcement, Scientist, Maintenance, and Resource
Management & Planning) participated in the discussion. The OD facilitators assured the team
that they would be presented, at the end of the two days of workshops, with actionable proposals
generated from employee discussions during the workshops. The last group event on day two
consisted of the same senior leadership participants plus another division chief (Administration)
and was a final debrief that lasted 1.5 hours and outlined the action plans and major employee
and supervisor-generated themes captured during the EVS workshops.
The other four group events, which were the focus of data collection, consisted of the
actual EVS workshops at KNP. The first workshop consisted of the KNP Mission Possible
Team (MPT) on day one and lasted two hours. Their purpose statement was to “develop a clear
strategy that encourages supervisors and employees to improve the workplace and prioritize
employees through unified communication, training, and recognition.” (Internal KNP document,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

75
2013). The MPT consisted of 27 members and 19 participated in this workshop. Team members
were from all levels of staff at KNP that include division chiefs, supervisors, and employees.
The bulk of the participants were employees, followed by supervisors, and division chiefs. The
purpose of this workshop was to discuss the EVS results and to gain overall perspectives on
employee satisfaction from their comments. After employee introductions, the results of the
KNP scores on the 2012 EVS were presented to all employees in the room. A short discussion
based on the 14 categories on the 2012 FEVS (Best Places to Work, Employee Skills/Mission
Match, Teamwork, Pay and Benefits, Work/Life Balance, Training/Development, Support for
Diversity, Strategic Management, Effective Leadership-Leader, Effective Leadership-Supervisor,
Effective Leadership-Empowerment, Effective Leadership-Fairness, Performance-Based
Rewards & Advancement, and Family Friendly Culture) followed. The MPT already met twice
in the past year to discuss the EVS results and identified four areas for improvement from an
informal survey of employees. These four areas are: (1) focus on the mission, (2) listen to field
staff, (3) address fear of retaliation, and (4) improve communication. No action plans were
generated from the MPT.
The second workshop was conducted on day one, lasted three hours, and consisted of 33
rank-and-file employees with no supervisors in attendance. Six groups of approximately five
members provided actionable proposals. The third workshop was conducted on day two, lasted
three hours, and consisted of 22 rank-and-file employees with no supervisors in attendance. Four
groups of approximately five members provided actionable proposals. The fourth workshop was
conducted on day two, lasted 1.5 hours, and consisted of eight supervisors with no rank-and-file
employees in attendance. Two groups of four members provided actionable proposals.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

76
Document analysis – action plans. After the group discussion, employees were asked
to divide themselves into teams and develop an action plan. The OD facilitator explained the
format for the action plan needed to include a focus area, purpose or objective of the plan,
possible action steps for implementation, anticipated results of the action plan if implemented
and what resources would be needed for this plan. The teams separated into groups of four to
five people and wrote their responses on large pedestal-type paper. Later, the teams reconvened
and shared their action plans with the larger group. By the end of the three workshops that
generated action plans, there were a total of 12 action plans created by employees. At the
conclusion of each workshop, the responses from each individual group that presented action
plans were photographed and the information was later transferred to an electronic document.
Individual interviews. Qualitative interviews are interviews with participants conducted
face-to-face, by telephone, or in focus groups (Creswell, 2009). These types of interviews are
generally unstructured and use a few open-ended questions in order to elicit opinions and views
from the participants. Patton (2002) suggests that an interview guide be used in the interview
process. An interview guide is a list of issues and questions that are to be asked during the
interview. This guide is prepared in advance to ensure the same information is gathered by
covering the same material, but from different participants. The interview guide for the
individual interviews developed for this case study was based on the four variables pertaining to
employee satisfaction found in the literature review. The four variables are communication,
efficacy, leadership, and accountability. The interview guide for this study consisted of seven
standardized open-ended questions that are designed to encourage employees and supervisors to
share their thoughts and perceptions on employee satisfaction issues being addressed in the EVS
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

77
workshops and on the perceived causes of low employee satisfaction at their park. The Interview
Guide is located in Appendix C.
At the end of each EVS workshop, the OD facilitators distributed index cards to everyone
that attended the workshop and asked for volunteers to participate in a short, non-compulsory
interview. Interview volunteers wrote down their contact information on the cards. The
facilitators stated that the purpose of the interview would be to help the USC researchers gather
employees’ perspectives on the EVS workshop process and to voice anything to the researcher
that they may find helpful in addressing low employee satisfaction within KNP. Immediately
after the workshop, index cards were collected by the researcher or the facilitators. Hand-written
notes of employee responses to the questions were taken during the interviews which lasted
approximately 30 to 45 minutes each. The primary reason for the interviews was to observe and
interpret what was said to validate assumed causes for low employee satisfaction.
Next, Chapter 5 will present empirically-based recommendations for solutions to the
validated assumed causes delineated in this chapter. Solutions will be categorized according to
knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes. The chapter will also incorporate an
implementation plan, which will include sections on solution integration and stakeholder
cascading and performance goals. Following Chapter 5, Chapter 6 will present a reflection upon
the study as a whole and provide a synthesis, personal insights, and an evaluation of the study’s
results. Furthermore, a plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommended implementation
plan of the solutions to close the knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps that prevent KNP
from achieving high employee satisfaction will be discussed.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

78
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to investigate why KNP employees exhibit low
employee satisfaction by identifying assumed causes discovered in the literature review and EVS
results, workshop observations, document analysis from the action plans generated from the EVS
workshops, and individual interviews subsequent to the workshops. Information obtained via the
gap analysis process was analyzed to identify if knowledge, motivation, or organizational
barriers were causes for the gap in performance. A list of assumed causes was generated and
validated. Assumed causes that were validated consisted of causes that were consistent and
appeared in all three data sources: (1) observations; (2) document analysis (action plans); and
(3) individual interviews. The results of the findings are contained in the next chapter.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

79
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of Chapter 4 is to present the data collected from the KNP EVS workshop
observations, the document analysis of the action plans, and the individual interviews following
the workshop in an effort to describe the validated causes presented in Chapter 3 that prevent
KNP of achieving the performance goal of high employee satisfaction. The assumed causes of
low employee satisfaction within KNP include performance gaps in communication,
accountability, and leadership. Qualitative data were used to validate these assumed causes
using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors contributing to performance gaps in employee satisfaction. Additionally, Anderson and
Krathwohl’s’ (2001) four knowledge types of factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
categories are discussed to further expand on knowledge gaps within KNP.
This chapter will attempt to explain how: (1) the data captured in this case study either
validate or do not validate the assumed causes for low employee satisfaction, (2) which causes
are “more validated” than others, and (3) which data sets should receive the highest priority for
recommending solutions (further delineated in Chapter 5).
As previously mentioned in Chapter 3, the overriding research questions guiding this case
study are:
1. What are the knowledge/skills, motivational, and organizational causes of low
employee satisfaction in KNP that prevent 100% employee satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

80
This chapter will primarily address research question one. Each knowledge, motivation,
and organization section will include the results and findings of the triangulation of data
collection of observations of the EVS workshops, document analysis of the action plans, and
individual interviews commensurate with knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors,
which may contribute to low employee satisfaction within KNP. Therefore, the results of the
data collection will be organized by the main categories of validated causes due to knowledge,
motivation, and organizational causes. Additionally, factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive factors contributing to the assumed causes for low employee satisfaction are
addressed solely within the knowledge section.
Furthermore, within each knowledge, motivation, and organization category, the research
results are presented in the order in which they were calculated or observed. First, the data
collected during the KNP EVS workshops, next, the data collected from the action items, and
lastly, the data collected from individual interviews post KNP EVS workshops is presented. The
reason for this specific order of data presentation is due to the timing of the data collection.
First, each USC cohort member was invited to observe an EVS workshop at a particular park
within the NPS, action plans were generated and analyzed after the workshops, and finally,
individual phone interviews were conducted with a NPS employee that participated in the
workshop one to three weeks after the workshops.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
This section will address knowledge causes in conjunction with Anderson and
Krathwohl’s (2001) four categories of knowledge. These four categories of knowledge are: (1)
factual, (2) conceptual, (3) procedural, and (4) metacognitive. As referenced in Chapter 3,
factual knowledge (the what) is basic knowledge of facts specific to domains, contexts or
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

81
disciplines. Conceptual knowledge (the why) is knowledge of structures, models, theories,
generalizations, principles, classifications, or categories. Procedural knowledge (the how) is
knowledge of knowing how to do things and being able to apply such knowledge. Finally,
metacognitive knowledge (the when and why) is knowledge that allows learners to know when to
do certain things. The four categories of knowledge are used as a framework to analyze
knowledge causes in the data derived from KNP EVS observations, document analysis of the
action plans, and individual interviews.
Assumed Knowledge Causes
While the KNP EVS survey indicated gaps related to knowledge, specifically information
and training, what we do not know from the EVS results is any detail about what type of
information or training is needed. The EVS results simply identify “information” and “training”
as a concern. In gap analysis terms, knowledge gaps usually are a symptom of lack of
information training or education. As discussed in Chapter 2, concerns about communication
can focus on content, style of delivery and timing. Thus the observations, document analysis
(action plans) and interviews provide greater detail from the employees’ perspectives on the
definition of information and types of training they are seeking.
Findings from Observations
Factual: Employees want more information about issues affecting their workplace.
Factual knowledge is the basic information people need to know in order to solve problems and
the lack of this knowledge appeared to be a cause of low employee satisfaction. For example,
several employees stated, “No one tells us anything,” and “We’re lucky if we get rumors and half
the time those are wrong.” Other employees felt that they were being “kept in the dark” about
what was happening in the park and what the other divisions were doing. Another stated that
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

82
morale would probably improve if leadership would just “open up every once in a while and just
talk to us.”
Conceptual: Employees want to know more about the mission and goals of KNP.
Employees and supervisors observed during the EVS workshops repeatedly stated that there was
a lack of information regarding the KNP’s missions and goals. They described a lack of cross
flow information between other divisions within KNP and employees within one division did not
know what other divisions were doing to accomplish KNP’s mission. Employees stated that
leadership was failing to articulate to the employees what the actual goals and missions were for
the park. This lack of conceptual knowledge from the employees and leadership created a
vacuum for them because each employee did not fully understand what the mission was or what
the ultimate vision was for KNP. The number one deficiency and focus area for improvement
identified by the MPT and three employee groups was “Focus on the park mission.” The MPT
also addressed the fact that they did not know what the mission of KNP entailed. Other
statements included “We need more education of mission and roles,” and “Give employees a
plan and a goal – we need something to be proud of, “We need the ‘big picture’ in order to
succeed,” and “We should have more clarity on roles and responsibilities.” They also expressed
that leadership was not articulating that, “Stewardship and conservation should be the goal.”
Employees and supervisors consistently stated that they wanted leadership to give them some
kind of direction and goals to follow.
Conceptual: Employees want their ideas considered in park decision making. There
was a perception voiced by employees and supervisors that leadership did not accept inputs from
supervisors and rank-and-file employees. Participants described the leadership as operating in a
vacuum without inputs from employees who worked in the field (outdoors away from the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

83
administrative headquarters). One employee stated, “One of the first steps that leadership should
take when confronting a problem is to ask a field worker what the actual problem is and what he
or she thinks should be the solution.” On what participants described as the rare occasion when
leadership would ask an employee for inputs, one employee stated, “Our inputs were ignored or
discounted and leadership would do what they wanted to do anyway.”
Conceptual: Employees want to understand the rationale behind park decisions.
Participants noted that when leaders acknowledged a problem and tried to do something about it,
their decisions seemed irrational to the employees. They described that leaders would “hand
down” a decision without telling employees or supervisors why they decided to go in a particular
direction. One example within KNP involved the decision by leadership to consolidate three
maintenance divisions into one division. One of the comments from the first employee
workshop was, “The three maintenance districts were healthy because it fostered ownership and
competitiveness.” However, the end result for the maintenance employees was that instead of
having a shorter commute to their workspace, they had to drive to one location to sign in and
then had to commute to their specific district, thereby, in their words, “wasting time,” and
spending more money on gas to get to their final location to work. Participants believe that
leadership did not explain to the maintenance workers why they made this decision and the
maintenance workers were livid because it was costing them more time and money to commute
to work.
Findings from Document Analysis (Action Plans)
It is important to analyze the employee actions plans because the plans reveal what
matters most to the employees. Twelve action plans were generated from employees and
supervisors from three EVS workshops conducted at KNP. Action plans were developed from
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

84
these groups after a lengthy discussion of KNP EVS results. The groups brainstormed ideas and
formulated suggestions for increasing performance in order to improve overall employee
satisfaction at KNP. Of the 12 action plans, two groups determined that communication was
their major focus area and one group determined that training and development was their main
focus area. Employees and supervisors who listed communication as a major focus area felt that
there should be more sharing of park activities, more information should be communicated
among the different divisions within the park, there needed to be more understanding of the
various disciplines within the park, there should be more focus on the park mission, and there
should be an increase in better two-way communications. Of the one group that determined that
training and development was their major focus area, employees felt that there needed to be an
increase in training and career development opportunities park-wide and that employees should
be better aligned to utilize their specialized training so they can move beyond their current
positions.
Findings from Interviews
The primary knowledge gap in employee satisfaction within KNP identified during the
seven interviews was the lack of effective communication between leadership and supervisors
and employees. All seven interviewees articulated that a lack of effective leadership was the
number one factor accounting for low employee satisfaction and the number one cause for the
lack of effective leadership was the lack of communication from their leaders. All seven
interviewees did state that most, if not all, employees that they work with have the requisite
knowledge and skills to do their jobs, yet the lack of communication from top leadership is
degrading morale.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

85
Factual: Employees want more information about issues affecting their workplace.
All seven interviewees indicated that knowledge and skills are “strong” within the employees
and supervisors of KNP. Employee number five stated, “Most employees know what to do –
easy as knowing what to do with a nail that is sticking up” and, “Skills among the employees are
generally not a factor.” However, all seven interviewees believe that KNP leaders do not know
how to communicate and that their leaders are poor communicators. A concern about a lack of
training available to all employees, supervisors, and leaders was apparent as well. Employee six
indicated, “Leaders need continual communication training because their interpersonal skills are
lacking,” and, “Leaders should be willing to learn new skills and knowledge, but they don’t.”
One employee emphasized, “There is no enrichment training and no support.” Employee five
asserted, “Leaders should take into account employee skills and their inputs, but they don’t.”
Employee six stated, “Leadership must listen more and we really need positive reinforcement
every once in a while.”
Conceptual: Employees want to know more about the mission and goals of KNP.
Five out of seven interviewees stated that their senior leaders at KNP were not communicating
the goals and missions of KNP. Comments from several interviewees included, “We need goals
from leadership,” “We have zero help with goals,” and “Really, how hard would it be for our
leadership to speak to us as a group and simply communicate their vision and the mission for the
park?” Most participants during the interviews also complained of receiving “bits and pieces” of
information from their leaders and it was up to the employees to “fill in the blanks” themselves.
When the employees would directly confront their supervisors to obtain more information on
what was going on in the park, supervisors would rarely transmit their queries to leadership and
most often “nothing would ever get back to us, so we were still in limbo.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

86
Conceptual: Employees want their ideas considered in park decision making. Four
out of the seven interviewees felt that leadership was operating in a vacuum and did not consult
the front-line employees before making important decisions regarding the park. Another concern
was identified when employee number one inferred that leadership was not making an effort to
bring the employees together for mass meetings. She stated, “It takes an act of Congress to get
the same days off and not everyone is in the same building. What makes it even more difficult is
that we are spread out across the vast area of the park.” Due to the geography of KNP, the vast
majority of employees work along the narrow band of a river boarded by woodlands, which
makes it difficult to assemble everyone together at once. This interviewee acknowledged this
barrier to communications, yet stated, “Management doesn’t acknowledged this issue and does
not even try to come up with new and unique ways of tackling this important lack of
communication issue.”
Conceptual: Employees want to understand the rationale behind park decisions.
The majority of responses relating to metacognitive knowledge causes centered on the
maintenance division. One example from interviewee one, (which he described as a “classic”
example), involved the inability of the maintenance team to fix a flat tire. The issue was that a
truck with a flat tire could not get inflated because going to the gas station to get free air was not
approved due to the suspension of overtime (the park air pump was inoperative). The
interviewee stated, “I was at a loss as to reasoning behind this decision, and no one could tell me
why, because it made absolutely no sense at all!” Another example came from interviewee
number four who complained, “Leadership emphasis tends to sway in the direction of the
community rather than inside the park, in other words, leadership sides with the community and
not us.” He was referencing a project with a nationally recognized youth program that was using
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

87
KNP grounds for their yearly event. He related that there was strong emphasis from the
Superintendent for support of this project at the expense of the KNP visitor experience.
Employees across all divisions were dumbfounded that the Superintendent “not only did not
explain the reasoning behind this emphasis, but ultimately failed to at least thank anyone after it
was done.”
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Analysis of the responses from observations of the KNP workshops, the action plans
generated from those workshops, and the interviews indicate that there is a lack of
communication between leadership and their supervisors and employees. The data also indicate
that employees are not satisfied with the training opportunities available to them in order to
increase their knowledge and skills. A lack of factual knowledge was demonstrated by the
negative responses from employees dealing with training opportunities, which may indicate that
management may not know what training opportunities are even available to their employees.
Employees are also concerned that leaders ignore what they have to say. Respondents
communicated that leaders also do not state the reasoning behind their decisions, which creates
frustration, confusion, and downright anger from the employees. Therefore, a lack of
communication and a lack of training and development was validated during the analysis of the
observations, employee action plans, and interviews as causes for low employee satisfaction
within KNP.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
This section of the gap analysis will address motivation causes for low employee
satisfaction within KNP. According to Clark and Estes (2008), the second of the three main
causes of performance gaps involves a lack of employee motivation to achieve goals.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

88
Motivation keeps us moving and tells us how much effort to spend on work tasks (Clark & Estes,
2008). According to Vrooms’ (1964) expectancy theory, the most important motivators for
adults are internal ones to include quality of life, satisfaction, and self-esteem. In other words,
adults value most what has personal value to them. Expectancy theory posits that an individual’s
motivation is the sum of three factors: (1) valence – the value a person places on the outcome;
(2) instrumentality – the probability that the valued outcomes will be received given that certain
outcomes have occurred; and (3) expectancy – the belief a person has that certain effort will lead
to outcomes that get rewarded (Vroom, 1964). Consequently, experienced and intelligent
workers who are unmotivated lack the direction, persistence, and energy to accomplish goals.
The validation of motivation causes will generally follow the same methods used for determining
knowledge causes as in the previous section. However, motivation results and findings are
categorized and presented according to psychological and environmental factors that were found
during the observations of the workshops, the document analysis of the employee generated
action plans, and personal interviews.
Assumed Motivation Causes
The EVS data related to motivational assumed causes for low employee satisfaction at
KNP indicate that employees have low respect for their leadership, there is a fear of reprisals for
communicating violations, there is a lack of job advancement opportunities, a lack of
empowerment, a lack of satisfaction in the ability to be involved with decisions that affect them,
and a lack of recognition for doing a good job. In gap analysis terminology, motivation gaps are
usually a symptom of a lack of purpose or interest that is influenced by both internal and external
factors. In sum, respondents generally want more empowerment, want to be more involved in
decision making, and want more recognition.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

89
Findings from Observations
Employees want to be empowered to accomplish their jobs more effectively and
efficiently, want to trust their leaders, feel the need for more accountability and want to be
included in decision-making processes. Herzberg’s (1966) ground breaking research on
motivation revealed that there is a strong correlation between overall satisfaction and positive
motivators such as achievement, recognition, fulfilling work, responsibility, advancement, and
growth. Four KNP EVS workshops were observed over a two-day period. An analysis of the
results from observing the workshops and the action plans generated from the workshops
revealed that these assumed causes are related to motivational factors that were validated for the
performance gap in employee satisfaction. The lack of motivation within the KNP employee
workforce appears to be contributing to the current low levels of employee satisfaction.
Out of the four facilitator-led discussions, three groups produced 12 action plans at the
end of their workshop. Of the 12 action plans which these groups determined as needing
attention with respect to motivational issues, two action plans focused on leadership, two action
plans focused on communication, and five action plans focused on fairness and accountability.
Comments from the group discussions that centered on problems related to motivation
and leadership included, “Employees want empowerment and they want their voices heard,”
which surfaced during discussions from the MPT. This group also stated, “Leadership should
give us more empowerment,” and “Leaders need to instill a spirit of unity to provide us with the
motivation to do better.” Several members from the first employee workshop voiced, “There is
definitely a lack of empowerment here at KNP,” and “Leadership has a ‘my way or the highway’
mentality.” The second employee group stated, “Leadership should empower employees in the
decision making process and work processes.” The second employee workshop concluded that
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

90
they are “most disappointed with the lack of effective leadership and their inability to properly
motivate us.”
With respect to communication issues related to motivation, members from the MPT
stated that leaders “lack the ability to translate communication into action and this is a
demotivator for us.” They also commented, “There is a lack of a system to establish open lines of
communication.” The second employee group also concluded:
There is a serious lack of communication from our leaders and it’s affecting our
motivation to do our jobs – we need more information on the missions and goals of the
park and its imperative that we need to know what everyone else is doing.
Issues related to accountability and fairness were observed from several groups during
the workshops. Comments from the MPT included, “Our leaders should increase standards of
accountability,” and “We need more accountability.” The inability to communicate to leadership
about issues related to accountability was also observed. The first employee group voiced their
concern, “Workers worry about reporting fraud, waste and abuse because management just
doesn’t want to hear it.” The MPT’s third major concern was the need to address fear of
retaliation. The two supervisor groups developed all of their action plans related to fairness and
accountability. They asserted, “We cannot disclose problems to leadership due to fear of
reprisal.” Several employees stated that they were labeled as “troublemakers” because they
voiced their concerns about the deteriorating conditions of the park to leadership. They also
wanted to “change the perception of unfairness.” All four of the groups observed emphasized
that there was a significant amount of unfairness within KNP due to favoritism displayed by the
previous Superintendent. For example, participants pointed to several promotions of employees
who were perceived to have been “friends” of the previous Superintendent and who were
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

91
promoted without, according to several employees, any consideration of their actual
performance, or lack thereof. A comment from the second employee group when discussing
fairness was, “different rules for different folks.”
Findings from Document Analysis (Action Plans)
Analysis of the 12 action plans generated by employees and supervisors during the
workshops revealed that five groups targeted accountability and fairness as their number one
focus area that needed immediate improvement in order to increase employee satisfaction. One
group listed morale as their main focus area. Within the construct of morale, the employees
asserted the need for more empowerment, the need to improve teamwork building, and the need
to improve relationships between divisions by fostering trust between not only divisions, but
leadership as well.
Findings from Interviews
Employees want to be empowered to make decisions, they want their voices heard,
and they want fairness and more accountability. Psychologists call the root motive which
seems to drive all or most human motivated activity as a measure of “effectiveness” (Ford, 1992;
Klein & Meyers, 1999). This root motive that directly influences all human behavior is a desire
to be effective in our daily lives and work environment. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that
motivation for work is therefore controlled by whether employees believe the environment
provides them with work goals and resources that can result in a reasonable amount of
effectiveness.
Question number four of the interview protocol directly addressed the degree to which
motivational factors were contributing to low employee satisfaction at KNP (refer to
Appendix C). The question asked if the inability to follow through on their action plans could be
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

92
attributed to a lack of motivation. Of the seven employees interviewed, all seven expressed
concern that motivation was a major factor of why employees are dissatisfied with their work
environment. Therefore, a lack of motivation was validated as a cause contributing to low
employee satisfaction at KNP.
Most of the interviewees expressed an awareness that positive change would not happen
right away, but also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of motivation provided by KNP
leaders to keep their employees engaged. Interviewee one stated, “Management is a concern for
the lack of motivation and most employees are afraid of being beat down.” He also stated that
there was a lack of empowerment by revealing, “five years ago we had input into how KNP was
run, but not now.” When asked about motivation, interviewee three was quoted, “There is
motivation at this park – there are dedicated and knowledgeable people here, but they are
frustrated by leadership because they took all of our motivation away.” Interviewee four also
stated, “Leadership took all the motivation away, even though people want to be motivated.”
Interviewee five had the most comments concerning motivation during the interviews.
His number one cause for his low satisfaction was due to “lots of favoritism.” He also stated,
“The maintenance division is terrified and afraid of not following orders even though they know
the orders are sometimes wrong.” Four out the seven interviewed, including interviewee five,
expressed that in order for them to increase their motivation, “We need to see action from
management first because they make the promises,” and “Employees will not be motivated until
the leadership is motivated to change.” The last two interviewees cited their lack of motivation
was because the employees of KNP “are not being supported or heard.” They also expressed
that they felt like they were “fighting an uphill battle” because there is no motivation to do a
better job.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

93
Synthesis of Findings for Motivation Causes
The analysis of the observations, action plans, and interviews revealed that one of the
causes for low employee satisfaction at KNP is due to a lack of motivation. In this case,
according to Mayer (2011), motivation is defined as an internal state that initiates and maintains
goal directed behavior. The four components of this definition state that motivation is personal,
it instigates behavior, fosters persistence and intensity, and is aimed at accomplishing goals. At
KNP, employees and supervisors are very dissatisfied with how their leadership is managing
motivation at the park. All three collection methods indicate that employees believe that leaders
are not communicating enough to their employees, do not uphold accountability standards, do
not practice fairness, and are not empowering the employees of KNP. The employees also do
not trust their leadership.
Additionally, all seven interviewees expressed that there was a significant lack of
motivation due to leaders being unaccountable and exhibiting unfair practices. In Chapter 5,
motivational causes targeted for recommending solutions to KNP to increase employee
satisfaction include elements of leadership, communication, and accountability and fairness.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
After identifying knowledge and motivational barriers to performance, the third and final
cause of performance gaps may be due to the lack of efficient and effective organizational work
processes and material resources (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section of the gap analysis process
will address organizational causes for low employee satisfaction at KNP. The validation of
organizational causes will generally follow the same methods used in the previous two sections.
Organizational results and findings are categorized and presented according to the organization,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

94
context, culture, and resource factors that are included in the, observations of the workshops,
data analysis of the employee generated action plans, and personal interview protocols.
Assumed Organizational Causes
The KNP EVS results causing performance gaps related to organizational barriers include
issues related to pay raises tied to performance, policies and practices, communicating goals,
promotions based on merit, collaboration, personal empowerment, recruiting, lack of resources,
and a lack of training opportunities. In sum, employees want better policies and practices, want
better communication among divisions, need organizational goals communicated to them, want
more training opportunities, need more empowerment, and they lack proper resources.
Findings from Observations
Employees want to have adequate resources to do their jobs, want better policies
and practices, need more communication, and want more accountability and fairness. An
analysis of the results from observing the four workshops and the action plans generated from
the workshops revealed these assumed causes that were validated for organizational performance
gaps in employee satisfaction. Organizational factors within KNP appear to be contributing to
the current low levels of employee satisfaction.
As was expressed in the EVS results for question 9: “I have sufficient resources to get my
job done,” KNP scored a 47% positive rating. Observations conducted during the four
workshops validated that employees feel like they do not have enough people, materials, and
funds to do their jobs. Although the lack of resources was not highlighted as a major focus area
for immediate improvement in any of the 12 action plans, the lack of resources surfaced during
three of the facilitator-led workshop discussions. The first employee group asserted, “There
were three major field-work operations, yet we had a 50% reduction in maintenance funds in the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

95
last three years.” They also expressed, “Our small budgets have a negative impact on our
operations,” and “Management is playing ‘fast and loose’ with our budget,” implying that
employees have a lack of trust with the way leadership is managing their budgets. Many voiced
their concerns in the first employee group and the MPT that the reduced number of employees
means they often have to do the job of more than one person and that due to the lack of
resources, “visitors now notice the lack of attention to the grounds.” One project in particular
(mentioned in the knowledge section) seemed to cause the most stress with the employees
because leadership decided to use the Facilities and Maintenance divisions on the project instead
of just Maintenance, thereby “gouging” Facilities’ budget for their operations. The first
employee group also asserted that specific project cost projections were significantly under-
budgeted. Moreover, several participants noted that a lack of computers available to
Maintenance workers prevented most of them from taking the EVS, implying that scores related
to knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors may be lower than the published EVS
results for KNP.
In terms of employee dissatisfaction with policies and practices of senior leaders, many
employees lamented their poor evaluation system, which represents an accountability and
fairness issue as well as a policy and practice issue. The MPT highlighted in their overall
comments that senior leaders tolerate the poor standard of evaluations at KNP. The first
employee group stated, “The new Employee Performance Appraisal Plan (EPAP) evaluations are
not well structured or executed.” All three groups that formed action plans expressed their desire
to have employee input prior to supervisor evaluations. Additionally, the supervisor group
wanted a layered, or matrixed, evaluation system; in other words, they expressed their desire to
ensure “multiple eyes are evaluating employees so that different perspectives can be given.” An
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

96
action plan from the first employee group highlighted that the consequences for a low rating
should be the same for all levels of employees.
Another senior leader policy and practice issue, which is also an accountability and
fairness issue, is the lack of an awards and recognition policy. The first employee group
complained that leadership did not give any “atta boys” after the completion of a very successful
and particularly large program for an internationally recognized youth organization. An action
plan generated from one group, whose focus area was morale, expressed, “above and beyond job
duties should get recognized.” This same group also stated in their action plan, “Don’t reward
non-engaged employees with equal employment opportunities, bottom line: do not rehire poor
performers.” The second employee group stated on several occasions that there was unfair
treatment with respect to awards and rewards and there was a lack of recognition or appreciation
for a job well done.
As discussed in the previous section on motivational gaps, the issue of the lack of
empowerment at KNP could be described as a policy and practice issue as well. Question 31 on
the EVS addresses whether employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to
the work process. KNP scored 25% positive for this question. It is important to highlight that
senior leaders are responsible for formulating and adhering to the policies and practices of their
organization as well as providing the necessary motivational drive to their employees in order for
them to accomplish organizational goals and missions. Employees and supervisors from all four
workshops voiced their concern that leadership was micromanaging them. The construct of
empowerment is one particular example where there may be direct links to policies and
programs, which are developed by senior leaders, to an employee’s level of motivation. In the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

97
case of KNP, the lack of policies that give employees more empowerment does not only
contribute to the motivational gap, but an organizational gap as well.
Finally, the last assumed cause observed that may be contributing to low levels of
employee satisfaction, within the context of the organizational realm, is the perceived need for
more information, expressed as a lack of communication at KNP. The number one area for
improvement that the MPT highlighted was informed by their sense that senior leaders were not
doing a good enough job communicating to their employees to focus on the mission of KNP, and
their fourth focus area was to improve communication. They commented, “Leadership needs to
stress the importance of the mission and to foster a greater appreciation for working for the
NPS.” The second employee group, when asked what they were most disappointed about was,
“lower level employees are not aware of the goals and missions of senior leadership.” They also
stated in one of their action plans, “Employees would gain a greater understanding of unit
objectives if leadership would only tell them what were the actual objectives of the park,” An
action plan objective from a group within the first employee workshop felt, “Park policies and
management objectives should stay consistent internally and externally and they should be
clearly communicated to all employees.” The need for a vision for the park and the need to
communicate the overarching goals for KNP was clearly expressed from the employees and
supervisors in all four workshops.
An overwhelming theme expressed by all employees and supervisors that attended the
workshops, with respect to communication, was that senior leaders did not go out into the “field”
enough and the employees felt that their leadership had no concept of what their employees
actually accomplish in the field. The second employee group complained that leadership was not
listening to supervisors and supervisors were not providing enough information to senior leaders,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

98
thereby creating a “disconnect.” Finally, an action plan from one of the supervisor groups
believed that it was imperative for their leaders to go out into the field because it would help
motivate their employees.
Findings from Document Analysis
Of the 12 employee generated action plans, three groups listed communication among
divisions as their main area of focus, one group listed training and development as their main
focus area, two listed goal setting as their main area of focus, and one group listed overall
policies and practices as their main focus area. Within policies and practices at KNP, the
employee group felt that the most important policy to improve, which may provide immediate
positive results, would be to formally recognize outstanding employee performance. From the
document analysis of the action plans, these organizational barriers may be preventing KNP
employees to perform their jobs effectively.
Findings from Interviews
Employees want less bureaucracy, want to have adequate resources to do their jobs,
and want better communication with their leaders. Question number six of the interview
protocol directly addressed whether organizational factors were contributing to low employee
satisfaction at KNP (refer to Appendix C). The question asked if the inability to follow through
on their action plans could be attributed to organizational barriers such as “red tape” or
bureaucracy. Of the seven employees interviewed, six expressed concern that organizational
factors were contributing to the low levels of employee satisfaction. Therefore, employees stated
that several factors to include red tape and bureaucracy, a lack of resources, a lack of leadership,
and poor communication among leadership were contributing to the performance gap of low
employee satisfaction at KNP.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

99
All but one of the interviewees expressed concern with the abundance of bureaucracy
within their organization. Interviewee one mentioned the example of the flat tire on a truck
(previously mentioned in the knowledge section), and was able to get free air, but could not due
to the overtime involved. He also stated, “There are too many rules and people are allowed to
have too many days off and vacations so nothing gets done.” Interviewee two complained,
“Most employees are overloaded with red tape and do not have enough people to do the job, and
then when you’re halfway done, you have to move on to the next deadline.” He commented,
“There is lots of room for efficiency.” The third interviewee stated, “There is lots of red tape
throughout the NPS in general,” and “I have a heavy paper trail which takes me away from what
I’m really supposed to be doing.” Other comments from interviews included, “organizational
barriers are a concern,” “I’m buried in red tape these days,” and “the bureaucracy just keeps
getting worse.”
A lack of resources was expressed as a major organizational factor for one interviewee in
particular. She cited budget issues that were preventing training opportunities for skilled staff.
She complained, “The staff is heavily overworked because there are just not enough people to do
everything around here,” “We lost staff and we are taking on more,” and “We are always tired
and there is not enough time to do our work – the park deserves better.” She also had issues with
the deteriorating infrastructure within the park. She stated:
It costs more to fix things once we wait too long to fix them instead of caretaking the
infrastructure – which is what we should be doing more of like cutting the grass, fixing
roof leaks and maintaining the visitor bathrooms – we have no staff to fix these things.
She also said they were using a lot of “duct tape” and spending way too much time “putting out
fires.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

100
Issues with leadership also surfaced as an organizational cause for low employee
satisfaction. Interviewee two argued, “Strong leaders can help the cause – we don’t have that
here now,” and “The role of leaders is important for assignments.” He commented that
leadership was not communicating the goals for the park and that there is a lack of investment
from employees because leadership is not expressing a clear vision for the park. Interviewee
three voiced his extreme dissatisfaction with the previous Superintendent. He said, “The last
Superintendent was arrogant – ‘either follow my rules or I will make it my career to end yours.’”
He acknowledged that the selection of leadership is vital to the success of the organization. He
was also critical of the previous Superintendent by stating, “The Superintendent did not know
much about the educational programs available to employees and did not know much about the
mission of park visitor centers, did not acknowledge employee efforts, and just made jokes and
ignored most employees.” Interviewee four cited poor leadership from the previous
Superintendent was the number two cause for low employee satisfaction, that the honesty of the
previous Superintendent was questionable, and “leadership does not follow through with
decisions.” In gap analysis terms, these concerns reflect a need for the employees to feel that the
park Superintendent have a comprehensive understanding of the roles and responsibilities of
their employees and that employees need to trust their leadership.
All seven interviewees expressed concern about the lack of communication from their
senior leaders and the lack of communication between divisions. As previously mentioned,
several interviewees declared that senior leaders were not effectively articulating a vision or
goals for the park. Interviewee two stated, “We need goals from leadership, we need a vision.”
Four of seven interviewees expressed there should be more communication between the
divisions and “people just are not talking to one another and no one knows what’s going on.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

101
Also, four of the seven interviewees responded affirmatively to question one of the interview
protocol, which asked if communication was a factor to low employee satisfaction. Six of the
seven agreed that poor communication was preventing them from achieving 100% employee
satisfaction at KNP.
Synthesis of Findings for Organization Causes
After triangulating the observations, document analysis of the action plans, and
interviews, it is evident that organizational factors are contributing to performance gaps in
employee satisfaction at KNP. Leadership, communication, and accountability and fairness
issues continue to surface as causes.
Common themes throughout the triangulation analysis of organizational gaps included
dissatisfaction with leadership policies and practices, goal and vision communication, leadership
field involvement, communication among divisions, promotions based on merit, awards and
recognition, accountability and fairness, collaboration, personal empowerment, bureaucracy, and
resources. Although employees are generally satisfied with immediate supervisor performance,
employees across all divisions are generally dissatisfied with senior leader performance. Leaders
are also perceived as being untrustworthy, unfair, untruthful, and lacking integrity.
While leadership concerns dominated low EVS results, discussions observed during the
four workshops and seven interviews, other assumed causes such as poor communication and
lack of accountability surfaced. Although organizational issues surrounding KNP, (e.g.,
resources, bureaucracy, pay, promotions, etc.), are contributing to organizational gaps, most
employees feel that more leadership involvement may improve employee satisfaction. What
follows is an overall summary of validated knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes
that will be further explored in Chapter 5.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

102
Summary
In terms of the most critical to least critical gaps in performance, organizational causes
contributing to performance gaps were highlighted as being the most critical in terms of
dissatisfaction, while motivational gaps fell in the middle, and knowledge gaps were deemed the
least critical. See Table 8 for a summary of validated assumed causes derived from the 2012
EVS data, observations, action plans, and individual interviews mapped to knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors for low employee satisfaction at KNP. Although
knowledge gaps exist at KNP, specifically gaps related to continuing education and skills
training, an overwhelming majority of participants in this study felt that line employees had the
requisite knowledge and skills to do their jobs. In fact, most employees believed that their fellow
workers performed their jobs exceptionally well and that they worked with many skilled
craftsmen. However, most employees felt that supervisors and senior leaders lacked the
knowledge and skills to lead, communicate, and hold themselves and others accountable.
In sum, after an in-depth analysis of the EVS workshop observations, employee
generated action plans, and personal interviews in conjunction with Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis model and Andersen and Krathwohl’s (2001) four categories of knowledge, the
validated causes for low employee satisfaction at KNP are (1) leadership, (2) communication,
and (3) accountability/fairness. Of note, the assumed cause of self-efficacy, which was
researched using empirical evidence in Chapter 2, was not validated in this study. Observations
and interviews revealed that employee self-efficacy at KNP is correlated with similar comments
related to line employee skills and knowledge. In other words, self-efficacy is high among KNP
employees due to their high levels of job skills and job knowledge.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

103
Table 8
Validated Assumed Causes for Low Employee Satisfaction at KNP
Measure Validated Principle Cause
Knowledge EVS Data
Observation
Action Plans
Interview
Yes Information
Processing
Theory
Goal Theory
Need for information
about issues affecting
workplace (Factual
Knowledge)
Need for information
about organization’s
mission/goals
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Motivation EVS Data
Observation
Action Plans
Interview
Yes Social Cognitive
Theory
Social Exchange
Theory
Need for more
empowerment
Need to be more involved
in the decision making
process
Need for more fairness
Organization EVS Data
Observation
Action Plans
Interview
Yes Expectancy
Theory
Award Theory
Need for more
accountability
Need recognition for a job
well done

Next, Chapter 5 will present empirically based recommendations for solutions to the
three main causes for low employee satisfaction at KNP in order for them to close the gap in
performance.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

104
CHAPTER 5
SOLUTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
The purpose of Chapter 5 is to present empirically based recommendations to address
validated knowledge, motivation, and organization causes which are preventing KNP from
achieving 100% employee satisfaction. This chapter attempts to answer research question two:
What are the recommended solutions to address knowledge/skills, motivational, and
organizational causes of low employee satisfaction in KNP? The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap
Analysis Model was used as the overarching framework to validate assumed causes for low
employee satisfaction at KNP. Using this model, data collected from the EVS surveys,
observations of EVS workshops, and individual interviews conducted after the guided discussion
sessions were triangulated and categorized into knowledge, motivation, and organization
challenges to validate assumed causes which are contributing to the gap in performance at KNP.
Therefore, solutions will be organized into knowledge, motivation, and organization categories.
This chapter also recommends a plan to implement proposed solutions to optimize their
effectiveness. Finally, the chapter concludes with a section on stakeholder cascading and
performance goals.
Before solutions are presented, note that all of the validated causes were not selected for
solutions due to the scope of this case study. For a full gap analysis, solutions for all the
validated causes would be recommended. Next, a brief discussion on the selection of, and
rationale for, the solutions to validated causes will be presented.
Validated Causes Selection and Rational
While the purpose of Chapter 4 was to analyze and triangulate data collected from several
inquiry methods to determine which knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors were
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

105
contributing to low employee satisfaction at KNP, this chapter prioritizes the validated causes
that are then selected for solutions. The validated causes selected for solutions were prioritized
by causes relating to leadership, communication, and accountability/fairness, and empowerment
concerns (see Table 8). These causes were considered “most validated” because they appeared
in all three triangulated data collection methods, which include data collected from the EVS
surveys, EVS workshops, and personal interviews. KNP employees consistently voiced their
concern via these three methods that they need more information about issues affecting their
jobs, want to know more about the park’s missions and goals; and want to more effectively
communicate with their leadership. Additionally, KNP employees felt the need to interact better
with leadership by having leaders visit them at their workplaces, want more empowerment so
they can accomplish their jobs more effectively, want to be included in the decision-making
process, want more accountability, and want to be rewarded and recognized for superior
performance. Next, the solutions offered in response to validated causes for low employee
satisfaction at KNP will also be organized into knowledge, motivation, and organizational
themes.
Solutions for Knowledge Causes
The data expressed in Chapter 4 validated the causes for the gap in knowledge and skills
that are affecting employee satisfaction at KNP. The proposed solutions to gaps in knowledge
and skills, in conjunction with two of Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) four categories of
knowledge, are discussed in the next section. The two categories of knowledge that are
applicable to KNP to form knowledge solutions are factual and conceptual knowledge.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) describe factual knowledge as the basic elements that people
must know and conceptual knowledge as the interrelationships among basic elements.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

106
Moreover, Clark and Estes (2008) recommend choosing solutions based on the type of
knowledge required in order to close performance gaps. Thus, solutions based on factual and
conceptual knowledge will be discussed in this section.
Factual: Employees want more information about issues concerning their
organization. The first validated knowledge cause for the gap in employee satisfaction at KNP
is the perceived lack of information pertaining to issues surrounding their park. As previously
discussed, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) describe factual knowledge as knowledge of specific
information and details. Employees do not feel that they are receiving enough information and
details about issues and concerns affecting their organization. A possible solution to this lack of
factual knowledge may be to increase venues for effective communication at KNP. According to
the literature on communication styles, Shaw (2005) studied the relationships between a leader’s
communication style with respect to employee communication, and job satisfaction. Shaw
(2005) surmised that a leader’s ability to effectively communicate with employees is a strong
predictor of employee job satisfaction. Shaw (2005) also elaborated that leaders interested in
attaining high employee satisfaction ratings should focus on providing clear and timely
communication with employees at all levels, use multiple channels of communication, listen to
others’ points of view, and promptly respond to employees’ issues and concerns.
In a similar vein, Madlock (2008) studied the influence of a leader’s content leadership
style, relational leadership style, and communication competence on employee satisfaction and
found that a leader’s communication competence was a greater predictor of employee job
satisfaction than leadership style. Since leaders with effective communication skills are most
likely to have employees who express high levels of job satisfaction, Madlock (2008) suggested
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

107
that organizations interested in improving employee satisfaction might consider leadership-
training programs that include instruction on improving communicative behaviors.
According to the research, employee satisfaction could improve at KNP if employees
began receiving more information regarding issues affecting their organization. Receiving
timely information from leadership through multiple channels of communication, such as e-
mails, newsletters, weekly and monthly “all hands” (every employee that is able to attend)
meetings or personal visits to employee workspaces may prove effective at increasing
communication throughout the organization. One possible venue to “kick off” an effective
communication strategy would be to conduct an initial “town hall” meeting with all of the
employees in attendance to review the findings of this research, outline park vision and goals,
and establish initial park objectives.
One of the action plans from the first employee group, whose number one focus was
effective leadership and its relationship to communication, listed as a possible action would be to
witness an increase in upper level management field involvement. By leaders joining their
employees in the field, many groups within the workshops felt that their leaders would develop a
better understanding of the many disciplines at the park. Although leaders have a finite amount
of time, making it a priority to personally provide timely information and visit park employees at
their duty locations, to get to know them and their roles in the park, and to listen to their issues
and concerns may ultimately improve employee satisfaction.
Conceptual: Employees want information regarding the mission and goals of KNP.
According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), conceptual knowledge represents the knowledge
an individual has about how organizations are structured, how information within the
organization is interconnected and interrelated, and how all of these parts link together. A
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

108
possible solution to increase awareness of KNP’s missions and goals is to communicate via
several venues what exactly the goals and missions are for the park. Knowing the goals and
missions of the organization has a positive impact on employee satisfaction (Schraw, 1998).
With respect to goal setting, Schraw (1998) asserts that goal setting is part of metacognition
knowledge, which is being able to assess what is needed to make a plan to reach the desired goal.
One of the ways to increase metacognition is to set goals and monitor progress through effective
communication (Schraw, 1998). A recent study by Jung (2013) explored the relationship
between clear communication of organizational goals and employee satisfaction for government
employees in a large organization. The study concluded that employees reporting low employee
satisfaction felt that the organization’s mission was not clear. The study also suggested that a
solution to low satisfaction ratings among government employees would be for the organization
to increase clear and effective styles of communication about the organization’s mission and
remove any barriers that might be preventing employees from attaining their goals. Moreover,
Nadler, Hackman, and Lawler (1979) and Yukl (2002) also assert that an important facet of
employee satisfaction involves an organization’s ability to clearly establish goals and to garner
support for obtaining organizational goals.
Furthermore, a study conducted by Sy (2005) using surveys, interviews, and workshops
with 294 top-level leaders from seven major multinational corporations in six industries
identified the five most contemporary challenges facing organizations today. The number one
issue discovered was that organizations consistently fail to align goals to their organization’s
mission. Their findings indicated that 67% of top-level leaders cite misaligned goals as the most
common dilemma (Sy, 2005). Senior leaders that were interviewed said the secret to success is
to constantly communicate their company’s vision and goals to their employees. They further
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

109
elaborated that constant communication of mission goals helps to minimize discord and clarifies
lingering ambiguity because the constant communication serves as a beacon in aligning goals
and objectives (Davis, Lawrence, Kolodny, & Beer, 1977; Sy, 2005). This study revealed four
best practices adopted by successful organizations to align missions and goals: (1) define
expectations, (2) provide training, (3) work across functions, and (4) build relationships. Finally,
Sy (2005) asserts that the results of this study indicate that organizations should emphasize
training and tools designed to deal with issues related to goal alignment.
Based on the validated conceptual causes and empirical research, openly communicating
to employees the organization’s missions and goals may prove effective in improving employee
satisfaction at KNP. Similar to solutions for improving factual knowledge among KNP
employees, venues to communicate missions and goals may include conducting the initial “all
hands” meeting, crafting newsletters, listing goals and objectives on SharePoint, hanging posters
outlining missions and goals that are visible throughout the workspaces, facilitating leadership
face-to-face workspace visits, and distributing brief and concise emails consistently reminding
everyone what the priorities are and the overarching missions are within the organization. Next,
solutions for issues related to motivational causes will be addressed.
Solutions for Motivation Causes
Clark and Estes (2008) describe motivation as a factor that influences an individual’s
active choice, persistence, and mental effort. “Motivation gets us going, keeps us moving, and
tells us how much effort to spend on work tasks” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p.80). Unfortunately,
within organizations, many groups base their motivational systems on outdated, wrong, or
incomplete strategies (Spitzer, 1995). Many of the gaps between current performance and the
levels required to achieve organizational goals are caused by a lack of motivation, not a lack of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

110
knowledge and skills. Based on the validated causes for the motivation gap, the proposed
solutions are discussed in the next section.
Employees feel they need more empowerment. A possible solution to address
employee’s feeling of a lack of empowerment is for leaders to offer practical support to their
employees, offer moral support, and offer more opportunities for mentoring. According to
Rappaport (1981, 1984) empowerment is a construct that links individual strengths and
competencies, natural helping systems, and proactive behaviors to organizational policy and
organizational change and has become a vital construct for understanding the development of
organizations. In theory, the construct attempts to connect mental health to mutual help and the
evolving struggle to create a responsive organization (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995). Moreover,
empowerment suggests that participation with others to achieve goals, efforts to gain access to
resources, and critical understandings of the sociopolitical environment are basic components of
the construct (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995). Thus, empowerment includes organizational
processes and structures that may enhance member participation and improve goal achievement
for an organization.
Behavioral scientists assert that empowerment-oriented interventions enhance wellness
by ameliorating problems, providing opportunities for employees to develop knowledge and
skills, and engaging professionals as collaborators instead of authoritative experts (Rappaport,
1984; Zimmerman, Israel, Schulz, & Checkoway, 1992). There are several definitions of
empowerment. Whitmore (1988) defines empowerment as an interactive process through which
people experience personal and social change, enabling them to take appropriate actions to
achieve influence over organizations and institutions, which affect their lives. According to
Wallerstein (1992), empowerment is a social-action process that promotes participation of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

111
people, organizations, and communities towards the goals of increased individual control,
improved quality of community life, and social justice. Theories of empowerment include
processes and outcomes. Swift and Levin (1987) profess that actions, activities, or structures
may be empowering and that the outcome of such processes result in people feeling more
empowered. At the organizational level, empowering processes may include collective decision-
making and shared leadership (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995). Outcome processes may include
development of organizational networks, organizational growth, and policy leverage.
An ethnographic research study using quantitative methodologies conducted by Maton
and Salem (1995) analyzed the role of empowerment within a religious fellowship, a mutual help
organization for the mentally ill, and an education program for urban African-Americans. The
researchers identified four key empowering enhancing characteristics: (1) a belief system that
inspires growth, is strengths-based, and is focused beyond the self; (2) an opportunity role
structure that is pervasive, highly accessible, and multifunctional; (3) a support system that is
encompassing, peer-based, and provides a sense of community; and (4) leadership that is
inspiring, talented, shared, and committed to both setting and members.
In another study, Spreitzer (1995) found that leaders in a Fortune 500 company whose
departments were characterized by an employee-centered culture, access to sociopolitical
support, a robust mentoring program, and access to strategic information experienced more
empowerment than leaders in departments lacking these characteristics. Accordingly, these
characteristics appeared to encourage autonomy, innovation, commitment, and revealed a sense
of environmental control. Several other studies suggest organizational features are important
aspects for empowerment. Larson, Foster-Fishman, and Keys (1994) identified the importance
of a participatory style of leadership which encouraged empowerment within a human services
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

112
agency. Keiffer’s (1984) empirical study examining personal empowerment as a developmental
process identified organizational mentor support as a vital characteristic of empowering
organizations.
Finally, in a study of 41 men and women who had experienced extensive powerlessness
in their work, Lord and Hutchison (1993) concluded that practical and moral support and
mentoring enhanced their feelings of empowerment. Participants in the study indicated that
practical support involved proving information that enhanced the person’s ability to make formal
decisions. Moral support, primarily involving others the ability to be able to listen, was the
quality most often identified increasing empowerment. Building on the work of Keiffer (1984),
the authors assert that mentoring may be a significant aspect of the empowerment process and
positive mentorship means believing in the person, providing important information at the right
time, demonstrating initiative to envision new possibilities, and challenging the person to change
and participate (Lord & Hutchison, 1993). Thus, establishing a mentoring program at KNP may
prove effective in increasing the level of empowerment that KNP employees feel that they need.
Employees want to be involved with decisions that affect them. A possible solution to
include employees in the decision making process is for leadership to engage in a more
participative style of leadership by allowing employees access to the process. According to
Koopman and Wierdsma (1998), participative leadership is defined joint decision making or
shared influence in decision making by a superior and their employees. The research literature
suggests that this style of leadership is likely to increase the quality of decisions, contributes to
the quality of employees’ work lives, and increases employee motivation and satisfaction
(Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Locke & Latham, 1990; Scully, Kirkpatrick, & Locke,
1995; Smylie, Lazarus, & Brownlee-Conyers, 1996; Somech, 2002). With respect to different
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

113
styles of leadership, the available literature reflects the widely held view that participative
leadership and enhanced collaboration have an overwhelming advantage over the contrasting
style of directive leadership in organizational and team effectiveness (Somech, 2005).
Moreover, there is extensive consensus that enabling more collaborative strategies becomes
crucial for managing organizations more effectively (Blase & Blase, 1996; Conley & Bacharach,
1990; Klecker & Loadman, 1998; Reitzug, 1994; Wall & Rinehart, 1998).
According to the path-goal theory, first proposed by House and Mitchell (1974),
employees led under participative leadership are more likely to strive to express opinions and
propose solutions because they assume that the leader and their team members expect them to
contribute to tasks, thereby meeting or exceeding expectations (Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997;
Peterson, 1997). West (2002) supports the positive aspects of open communication processes
that help lower barriers between individuals, which in turn, may create an atmosphere where
innovative ideas and goals are proposed, critiqued, and refined with a minimum of social risk.
According to Stasser and Titus (1987), participation in decision making stimulates the exchange
and integration of information, reduces resistance to change, and increases employees’
commitment to team decisions. When employees participate in the decision making process,
they tend to improve understanding and perceptions among colleagues and superiors, and
enhance their value within the organization (Latham, Winters, & Locke, 1994).
Krause, Gebert, and Kearney (2007) conducted an analysis of the role of participative and
consultative leadership and its effect on employee process innovation by surveying 388
managers from German organizations of different sizes and sectors. Krause et al. (2007) define
consultative leadership as the degree to which the leader influences the follower by providing
advice, professional guidance, and background information about the process innovation. Their
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

114
results indicated that participative leadership facets were significantly positively related to
success regarding the implementation of process innovations. The study also concluded that the
quality of the implementation of process innovations and the effectiveness and efficiency of the
respective work team are highest when leaders exhibit both participative and consultative
leadership behavior simultaneously. The use of both sets of leadership behavior may increase
innovation speed, foster innovation quality, decrease innovation costs, promote team
innovations, and may enhance organizational change. In a study of the role of participative
leadership conducted by Somech (2002), 140 teams were randomly selected from 140 different
elementary schools in northern Israel. Her findings indicated that strong emphasis on the
participative leadership approach rather on the directive approach was found to encourage
teachers (employees) to engage more in innovative practices in curriculum decision making. She
also noted that increased participation in decision making is critical for a team’s ability to turn
new ideas and individually held knowledge into innovative prodedures, services, and products
(Somech, 2002). The study also found “participative leadership was associated with school-staff
team innovation directly, but also indirectly through teachers’ empowerment, which served as a
motivational mechanism that mediated the participative approach-innovation relationship”
(Somech, 2002, p. 792). The results of this study indicate that to improve an employee’s or a
team’s ability to innovate, employees need to be recognized as experts in their fields, have a
sense of authority about what they do and how they do it, need to be involved in decision
making, feel like they are engaged in meaningful work, and are respected by others.
In order for employees to become more involved in the decision making process, KNP
leaders may want to consider having a rank-and-file employee participate in upper level
leadership boards where important decisions effecting the organization are made. The selection
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

115
of this individual could be made by polling each employee at KNP and have them vote for their
representative to sit on the board. Although the final decision on any particular important subject
facing the park will be made by the Superintendent, this employee position will have an equal
voice as the other members of the board to include the Deputy Superintendent and Division
Chiefs. The employee representative will be given advance notice of topics of interests or major
decisions that will be made prior to the board meeting in order to gauge other employee’s
feelings on what would be the best or most acceptable decision.
Employees want an atmosphere of more fairness at KNP. One possible solution to
address a lack of fairness standards at KNP would be to increase the perception of fairness
throughout the organization. The study of fairness, or otherwise known as organizational justice,
has received much attention from researchers and has become frequently researched topics in the
field of industrial-organizational psychology, human resource management, and organization
behavior (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007).
Cropanzano et al. (2007) defines organizational justice as the degree to which individuals believe
the outcomes they receive and the ways they are treated within organizations are equitable, fair,
and aligned with expected moral and ethical standards. Perceptions of organizational justice
constitute an important role in organizational decision-making, as research relates it to job
satisfaction, turnover, leadership, organizational citizenship, organizational commitment, trust,
and job performance (Cohen-Charash, & Spector, 2001). Kim (2009) asserts that employees
who perceived that they were treated fairly by their company were likely to hold more
commitment, trust, and high levels of job satisfaction than those employees who perceived that
they were treated unfairly.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

116
Additionally, leaders may elect to enact policies and procedures in a supportive and
respectful manner. Hollensbe, Khazanchi, and Masterson (2008) suggest that one way leaders
can incorporate positive practices is through the use of socialization tactics allowing for the
sharing of experiences related to employee fairness. The organizational justice construct can be
divided into three major types: (1) distributive justice, (2) procedural justice, and (3)
interactional justice, which contain interpersonal justice and informational justice.
Adams (1965) stated, via his groundbreaking work in social exchange theory, that within
distributed justice, employees determine whether they have been treated fairly at work by
comparing their own payoff ratio of outcomes, (pay or status), to inputs, (effort or time), to the
ratio of their co-workers. Moreover, he asserts that people are not necessarily concerned about
the ratio of outcomes, but whether those outcomes were fair. Folger and Konovsky (1989)
concluded that distributive justice presents employees’ perceptions about the fairness of
managerial decisions relative to the distribution of outcomes such as pay and promotions.
Bakhshi, Kumar, and Rani (2009) found that distributive justice was positively correlated with
job satisfaction.
Procedural justice, as defined by Folger and Konovsky (1989), focuses on the fairness in
the manner in which the decision-making process is conducted. Stated another way, the focus of
the decision making shifts from what was decided to how the decision was made. Procedural
justice theory is concerned with the judgments about the process or means by which allocation
decisions are made (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Leventhal’s (1980) theory of
procedural justice focuses on six criteria that a procedure should meet if it perceived to be fair.
Procedures should: (a) be applied consistently across people and time, (b) be free from bias,
(c) ensure that accurate information is collected and used in making decisions, (d) have some
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

117
mechanism to correct flawed or inaccurate decisions, (e) conform to personal or prevailing
standards of ethics or morality, and (f) ensure that the opinions of various groups affected by the
decision has been taken into account. Bakhshi et al. (2009) also discovered that procedural
justice was positively correlated with job satisfaction. Judge and Colquitt (2004) noted,
“procedural justice is valued because it makes long-term outcomes more controllable and
predictable” (p. 396), and an absence of procedural justice should cause insecurity about the
availability of important resources and may signify a lack of resources. Researchers such as
Barclay, Skarlicki, and Pugh (2005), and Folger (1993), surmised that procedural justice
violations promote several forms of emotional distress, including resentment, ill will, anger, and
aggravation.
Interactional justice contains interpersonal and informational justice. Interpersonal
justice is concerned with the quality of interpersonal treatment during the implementation of the
formal decision making process (Bies & Moag, 1986). This type of justice also reflects the
degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, sensitivity, consideration, and respect
by leadership. Colquitt (2001) asserted that unfair or degrading interactions, which are
inconsistent with the key features of interpersonal justice, may impose high demands and
diminish a person’s sense of dignity and self-worth. Key sources of strain that contribute to
interpersonal justice include inadequate leader support and supervisory mistreatment.
Informational justice gauges the adequacy, truthfulness, timeliness, and honesty of the
information individuals receive from organizational authorities (Colquitt, 2001). The construct
of fairness within organizations also implies that it is reasonable to expect that an individual’s
self-evaluations and self-worth would benefit if organizations engage in open, trustworthy, and
honest communication (Colquitt, 2001). Therefore, a lack of informational justice may diminish
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

118
a person’s trust in management and thus lower their self-esteem and may invoke perceptions of
ambiguity because they lack sufficient information about how resources are being allocated
(Cropanzano et al., 2007).
In a longitudinal study of the perceptions of organizational justice as a predictor of job
satisfaction, Bakhshi et al. (2009) found that “those who perceive justice in their organization are
more likely to feel satisfied with their job and feel less likely to leave and feel more committed to
their job” (p. 150). A study done by Greenburg (2011) reported that organizational justice,
which refers to people’s perceptions of the fairness of treatment received from organizations, is a
basic requirement for the effective functioning of organizations. Furthermore, Lind and Tyler
(1998) assert that fair procedures in decision making provides evidence of a genuine caring and
concern on the part of the organization for the well being of employees.
A study by Cole, Bernerth, Walter, and Holt (2010) indicated that perceptions of
unfairness may take an emotional toll on individuals, thereby causing stress and disrupting
organizational attitudes and behaviors. These researchers opine that organizations can minimize
potential stressors by promoting positive social environments and establishing strong procedures
for fairness, and those managers should make very attempt to ensure that outcomes are allocated
appropriately and equitably reflect individual contributions. A possible solution to address
fairness at KNP may be to implement a fairness strategy campaign led by two to three employees
from each division that will form a fairness team. This team will meet regularly to discuss
fairness issues within KNP and offer solutions to increase the perception of fairness within the
park.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

119
Solutions for Organization Causes
In order to close gaps in performance, Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized the importance
of effective and efficient organizational work processes and material resources. The work
process links people, materials, and equipment that produce desired outcomes. Clark and Estes
(2008) also emphasize that misalignments of work processes lead to failure. Thus, performance
gaps within organizations must be addressed by examining relationships between employees,
materials, and equipment. Proposed solutions to organizational gaps within KNP that were
validated causes are addressed in the next section.
Employees want a greater sense of accountability across all employment levels.
Possible solution to address the lack of accountability perceived by KNP employees is to
establish a culture of reciprocal accountability and to improve their appraisal systems.
Organizations have repeatedly attempted to reform their formal accountability systems through
appraisal forms and rating systems without paying greater attention to the informal
accountability issues that really matter (Lawler, Benson, & McDermott, 2012). Instead, a more
effective solution may be to work towards developing a culture of reciprocal accountability
incrementally where leaders hold themselves accountable first by equipping employees with
prerequisite knowledge and skills in order to be successful and then hold their employees
accountable for performance expectations through better appraisal systems (Elmore, 2002).
As stated in Chapter 2, reciprocal accountability’s focus is on performance and is based
upon the strength of mutual ties, relies upon wide situational relationships, and derives its
strength through social networks whose governing norms may bring public honor or shame into
accountability processes (Dixon, Ritchie, & Siwale, 2006). Therefore, these processes address
standards of accountability that are implicit, loosely defined, and negotiated between different
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

120
stakeholders (Biggs & Neame, 1996; Kearns, 1994). In this approach, accountability is a
relationship and a process through which expectations of performance are planned, defined, and
negotiated at the outset; performance is evaluated; and adjustments are made as necessary
(Artley, 2001). In this process, the person or organization being held accountable is actively
involved in each of these phases. Additionally, the foundation is set such that those being held
accountable stay focused on improving performance and not explaining a lack of it.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), before real organizational change can occur, the
proper organizational culture must first exist. Moreover, research indicates that if the
accountability culture of an organization is reciprocal and fair, employees will tend to be more
trusting of their leaders, more satisfied, more committed, perform better individually and
collaboratively, and have less turnover (Lee & Jimenez, 2012; Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff,
& MacKenzie, 2006). An effective accountability culture involves strategic planning, which
focuses on incremental improvement rather than trying to “do everything all at once” (Stecher &
Kirby, 2004) and consistent monitoring and evaluation for improvement (London, Mone, &
Scott, 2004; Schay & Fisher, 2013; Stecher, 2010; Swiss, 2005).
Stecher (2010) describes steps to systemically formulate the planning and evaluation of
accountability cultures. One way to improve the accountability culture in an organization is
improved performance appraisals. The information performance appraisals provide are more
useful when the informal accountability systems of relationships, communication, trust, fairness,
and consistency are emphasized and become part of the everyday culture of the organization.
Research also suggests that supervisors who conduct performance appraisals with a
growth mindset create a more collaborative accountability environment. A growth mindset
implies that people can change and develop their behavior over time, particularly when they
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

121
devote a concerted effort to learn and apply more effective strategies for task performance
(Dweck, 2006). A longitudinal study of supervisors in a nuclear power plant conducted by
Heslin and VandeWalle (2008) concluded that a growth-mindset intervention can lead managers
to alter their fixed mindset of believing that people do not change, and subsequently provide
more accurate performance appraisals and helpful employee coaching. They also confirmed that
managers with a growth mindset are more likely to educate rather than punish during
performance appraisals and that employee skills tend to be developed over time with practice and
helpful feedback.
A seminal study on the correlation between employee reactions and appraisal systems on
474 employees within a research and development organization conducted by Dipboye and de
Pontbriand (1981) found that employees are more receptive to feedback they perceive to be
negative if they perceive that (1) they are allowed to participate in the feedback session; (2) plans
and objectives are discussed; and (3) they are evaluated on factors relevant to their work. The
researchers further assert that although negative feelings may not be eliminated entirely, actions
on the part of the supervisor to enhance positive perceptions of the appraisal process may
increase employee acceptance of the feedback and the appraisal system. Thus, in order to
enhance accountability standards within KNP, leaders may want to consider establishing a
culture of reciprocal accountability as well as modifying their performance appraisal systems to
reflect a growth mindset.
Employees want better policies and practices. One possible solution to implement a
satisfactory policy and practice is to institute an awards and recognition program at KNP and
offer employees symbolic awards for exceptional performance. Some examples of awards in
corporate America include “Employee of the Month,” the “Bravo Award” at IBM, the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

122
“Spotlight” employee recognition program at Intuit, or the “Bravo Zulu” recognition given to
members of the U.S. Navy for demonstrating exceptional performance in the line of duty. Most
of these awards share significant common features such as being visible (employees in the group
know that the award exists and that recipients are typically honored in a public ceremony), and
they yield a number of material and non-material awards (Kosfeld & Neckermann, 2010). The
non-material awards come in the form of social recognition from the award-giving organization
from peers and colleagues or from an external audience outside the organization. Another aspect
of the recognition may be an increase of self-esteem of the winner (Kosfeld & Neckermann,
2010).
Crossman and Pfeil (2013) assert that employee recognition involves changing the
corporate culture in order to meet goals and initiatives and most importantly to connect
employees to the company’s core values and beliefs. Strategic employee recognition may be the
most important program to improve employee retention and motivation (Crossman & Pfeil,
2013). Moreover, the difference between the traditional approach of gifts and strategic
recognition is the ability to serve as an influencer that may advance a company’s strategic
objectives in a measurable way. Furthermore, Luthans (2000) asserts that effective leadership
depends on reinforcing, motivating, and rewarding value-enhancing behaviors in order to spur
superior performance. Herzberg (1966) noted that consistently and frequently applied formal
and informal recognition programs provide management with powerful tools to influence
employees to strive to uphold an organization’s values and implement its focused mission.
Stated another way, he recognized the importance of reinforcing behaviors that contribute to
organizational success. Thus, by reinforcing expected behaviors, leaders signal to employees
that their efforts are noticed and appreciated.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

123
Whetten and Cameron (1991) posit that a primary activity of leaders involves motivating
and encouraging their employees to achieve superior performance. Motivation is a product of
the individual’s expectations that a certain degree of effort will lead to the intended performance,
that the performance is to achieve a certain result, and the desirability of this result for the
individual is known as valence (Condrey, 2005). Theories of motivation encourage leaders to tie
important outcomes to desired behaviors. Thus, to sustain motivation, leaders must demonstrate
to employees a close link between performance and rewards (Campbell, Campbell, & Chia,
1998). Expectancy theory proposes that an individual will decide to behave or act in a certain
way because of a motivation to select a specific behavior over other behaviors due to what is
expected due to the result of that selected behavior will be (Vroom, 1964). The basis of the
theory is the cognitive process of how an individual processes the different motivational
elements. Expectancy theory is about the mental processes regarding choice, or choosing, and it
explains the processes that an individual undergoes to make choices. In sum, the theory
emphasizes the needs for organizations to relate rewards directly to performance and to ensure
that the rewards are deserved and wanted by the recipients (Montana & Charnov, 1993).
In a study conducted by Kosfeld and Neckermann (2010), 150 students participated in a
field experiment designed to study the impact of status and social recognition on employee
performance using symbolic rewards. The researchers collaborated with a Swiss office of a non-
governmental organization headquartered in New York whereby the students worked on a
database program for a fixed wage. The students were randomly assigned to either the award
treatment group or the control treatment group. Students in the award treatment received a
signed congratulatory card from the organization’s president and managing director honoring the
best performance and students in the control treatment were not offered an award. The award
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

124
was symbolic in order to ensure that any behavioral effect was driven by non-material benefits.
Their results indicated that students in the award treatment outperformed students in the control
treatment by 12% on average. Accordingly, the authors assert that their results provide strong
evidence for the motivating power of status and social recognition among employees. Finally,
Kube, Maréchal, and Puppe (2012) assert that symbolic awards may be sometimes better than
monetary incentives for signaling kind intentions and for motivating employees to work hard.
In yet another empirical analysis of employee awards and recognition programs, Luthans
(2000) explored the background on the nature and importance of employee recognition as an
effective leadership tool and he reports the results of a survey examining the value of recognition
to all levels of employees in a large, nonprofit institution. The study queried 254 respondents
(management, maintenance, support staff, and front-line employees) with a short questionnaire
survey on reactions to a proposed recognition program. The analysis revealed that employees
value highly personalized recognition for a job well done as a critical dimension of their reward
system. Nelson (1995) elaborates on four characteristics of effective employee recognition
programs: Recognition should be immediate, delivered personally, valuable, and should
reinforce desired behavior. Luthans’ (2000) findings provide further evidence that leaders would
be well-advised to implement employee recognition programs as they attempt to meet
productivity and employee satisfaction challenges facing today’s organizations. Park leaders
may want to consider implementing an awards and recognition program at KNP at zero monetary
cost to the organization. An awards and recognition board would be formed which would take
inputs from all employee groups, and this board would elect “winners” who would then be
recognized by the Superintendent in a ceremony attended by all employees.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

125
Solution Implementation
The solutions for each of the validated causes for KNP’s low employee satisfaction
ratings are interrelated. For example, solutions offered to close knowledge gaps will also
contribute to closing motivational and organizational gaps. When KNP begins implementing the
proposed solutions, employees will notice an emerging trend towards more open communication,
which will increase their knowledge of issues surrounding their park in addition to having a
vision for KNP through learning about their missions and goals. This new knowledge gained
plus becoming more empowered through more involvement in the decision making process
coupled with a burgeoning perception of fairness throughout the organization will lead to higher
levels of motivation. Implementation of organizational solutions to increase accountability
standards and the formation of a robust awards and recognition program will further increase
motivation among KNP employees.
One way to assist in the process of implementing these solutions would be to form a
cross-park employee satisfaction working group whose charter will be to lead, organize, and
assist in the formulation, implementation, and execution of numerous solutions designed to
increase employee satisfaction at KNP. They will also be responsible for continually monitoring
ESI progress and adjust strategy as necessary in achieving performance goals. The overarching
theme of this effort, or the official name of the KNP “program” designed to address low
employee satisfaction, will be called the Employee Satisfaction Initiative (ESI). The
Superintendent will announce the findings of this Gap Analysis in Practice, the ESI
implementation plan, and overall strategic objectives for increasing employee satisfaction to all
employees at an “all hands” meeting by 1 May 2014. The cross-park employee satisfaction
working group will be staffed by approximately seven personnel (one from each park division
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

126
and led by a designated Director) who will report directly to the Deputy Superintendent. Other
small groups designed to increase employee satisfaction and who will report to the cross-park
employee satisfaction working group will include the: (1) accountability task force,
(2) mentoring board, (3) fairness team, and (4) the awards and recognition board (refer to
organizational chart 5.0). Employees who volunteer to work on these boards will assume their
assignments as an additional duty and will have the full support (time, resources, information
technology) of their division chiefs. Each board will meet bi-weekly or monthly depending on
the workload and tasks to be completed.
The cross-park employee satisfaction working group will meet once a month to discuss
the progress of the various teams in order to keep the information flow, momentum, and energy
moving towards execution and completion of specific tasks and performance goals. After the
monthly meeting, the working group will compile the results of their progress and meet once per
month with the Deputy Superintendent to discuss outcomes and receive strategic direction in a
collaborative manner. The Deputy Superintendent will meet monthly with the Superintendent
and/or senior leader division chiefs to discuss the progress of their EVI. See Figure 2 for an
organizational chart depicting the proposed structure of the EVI.

Figure 2. EVI organizational chart

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

127
As a starting point, to begin conversations to address low employee satisfaction at KNP, a
summative chart that outlines factors derived through the gap analysis process may be helpful.
Table 9 summarizes the causes, solutions, and implementation efforts for knowledge, motivation,
and organizational factors that will aid KNP in improving employee satisfaction.

Table 9
Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Implementation for Knowledge/Skills, Motivation, and
Organization Factors
Knowledge & Skills Motivation Organization
Causes - Employees want more
information about issues
concerning their organization
- Employees want more
information regarding the
missions and goals of KNP
- Employees want more
empowerment
- Employees want to be
included in the decision
making process
- Employees want more
fairness within KNP
- Employees want more
accountability across all
levels of organization
- Employees want
better policies and
practices
Solutions Factual
- Leadership provides clear and
timely communication to
employees at all levels, use
multiple channels of
communication, listen to other’s
points of view, promptly respond
to issues and concerns
- Provide communication
through emails, newsletters,
monthly “all hands” meetings,
personal visits to employee
workspaces
Conceptual
- Define and communicate park
organizational vision, goals, and
missions
- Empower employees
by offering practical and
moral support
- Establish mentoring
program
- Establish participative
leadership style so
employees can be a part
of the decision making
process
- Increase perception of
fairness by being
equitable, fair, and
aligned with moral and
ethical standards
- Increase
accountability standards
by establishing an
accountability task
force team to increase
the accountability
culture through fair
performance appraisals,
open communication,
trust, fairness, and
consistency
- Establish awards and
recognition program

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

128
Table 9, continued
Knowledge & Skills Motivation Organization
Implementation - Increase information to
employees through emails,
newsletters, weekly and
monthly meetings to
discuss issues affecting the
workplace and employees’
jobs
- Monthly leadership visits
to employee job locations
- Establish monthly town-
hall meeting venues to
discuss organizational
missions and goals
- Create mentoring board
to assign employees to
volunteer mentors and
meet monthly
- Vote and assign rank-
and-file employee to
senior-level decision board
- Create park-wide fairness
team to offer solutions to
increase the perception of
fairness within the park
- Accountability task
force team changes
performance appraisals
to reflect better
accountability standards
- Openly communicate
accountability
expectations at meetings
and through written and
verbal media
- Form awards and
recognition board and
establish procedures for
nominating individuals
for exceptional
performance
- Schedule mandatory
monthly awards
presentations where all
employees will attend

Stakeholder Cascading and Performance Goals
The final component of this chapter on solutions and implementation is the stakeholder
cascading and performance goals. This section and the accompanying tables will describe how
the implementation of the solutions previously presented will be translated into performance
goals for the leaders and employees of KNP for their ESI. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
effective performance goals cascade from organizational goals. Table 10 is a summary of KNP’s
main goal, short-term goals, cascading goals, and performance goals. Table 11 is a summary of
performance goals and a timeline and measurement of the performance goals.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

129
Table 10
Summary of Organization’s Main Goal, Short-Term Goals, Cascading Goals, and Performance
Goals
Organization Goal: KNP will increase its positive rating scores on the EVS by 5% on the
next EVS survey scheduled for 2014 and increase positive scores by 15% after the 2016 EVS
Goal 1: Employees
and leaders develop a
plan to increase
communication
venues by 1 May 14
Goal 2: Employees
and leaders form an
empowerment task-
force team to increase
venues for
empowerment by 1
May 14
Goal 3: Employees and leaders form
accountability task-force team to address
accountability issues by 1 May 14
Cascading Goal 1:
Establish mission and
goal statements for
KNP by 1 May 14
Cascading Goal 2:
Institute a mentoring
program by 1 May 14
Cascading Goal 3:
Establish a new
appraisal system by 1
May 14
Cascading Goal 4:
Establish awards and
recognition program
by 1 May 14
Performance Goal:
By 1 Aug 14, 50% of
employees will be
able to recognize the
KNP mission
statement and most of
the park goals
Measure:
Observations
Performance Goal:
By 1 Aug 14 50%
employees will have
a dedicated mentor
assigned to them
Measure: Mentor
database
Performance Goal:
By 1 Aug 14 50% of
the employees will be
evaluated on the new
appraisal system
Measure: Appraisal
database
Performance Goal:
By 1 Aug 14 10% of
employees will have
received an award for
superior performance
Measure: Awards and
Recognition database
Performance Goal:
By 1 Jan 15, all
employees will be
able to cite from
memory the KNP
mission and all of the
park goals
Measure:
Observations
Performance Goal:
By 1 Jan 15 all
employees will have
a dedicated mentor
assigned to them and
have had at least two
mentoring sessions
(one per month)
Measure: Mentor
database
Performance Goal:
By 1 Jan 15 all
employees will be
rated on the new
appraisal system
Measure: Appraisal
database
Performance Goal:
By 1 Jan 15 20% of
employees will have
received an award for
superior performance
Measure: Awards and
Recognition database

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

130
Table 11
Summary of Stakeholder Performance Goals, Timeline, and Measurement of Performance Goals
Stakeholder Performance Goal Goal Measure
50% of employees will be able to recognize the KNP mission
statement and most of the park goals
Implement by: 1 May 14
Evaluate Progress by: 1 Aug 14
Employees will be
randomly asked to
recognize the KNP mission
statement and park goals
All employees will be able to cite from memory the KNP
mission and all of the park goals
Implement by: 1 May 14
Evaluate Progress by: 1 Aug 14
Employees will be
randomly asked to
recognize the KNP mission
statement and park goals
50% of employees will have a dedicated mentor assigned to
them
Implement by: 1 Aug 14
Evaluate Progress by: 1 Oct 14
Mentor database
All employees will have a dedicated mentor assigned to them
and have had at least two mentoring sessions (one per month)
Implement by: 1 Aug 14
Evaluate Progress by: 1 Dec 14
Mentor database
50% of the employees will be evaluated on the new appraisal
system
Implement by: 1 May 14
Evaluate Progress by: 1 Aug 14
Appraisal database
All employees will be rated on the new appraisal system
Implement by: 1 May 14
Evaluate Progress by: 1 Dec 14
Appraisal database
10% of employees will have received an award for superior
performance
Implement by: 1 May 14
Evaluate Progress by: 1 Aug 14
Awards and recognition
database
20% of employees will have received an award for superior
performance
Implement by: 1 May 14
Evaluate Progress by: 1 Dec14
Awards and recognition
database

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

131
Summary
Empirical research literature recommended for addressing validated knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational causes for low employee satisfaction at KNP reported in
Chapter 4 were the basis for the solutions and implementation plan proposed in this chapter.
Causes selected for recommending solutions were prioritized based on the frequency the causes
surfaced in the data collection. Causes that surfaced in all three data sources derived from the
2012 EVS results, group EVS workshop observations, and individual telephone interviews were
selected for recommending solutions. Causes of low employee satisfaction recommended for
solutions and implementation include issues related to communication, missions and goals,
empowerment, decision making, fairness, accountability, and awards and recognition. Solutions
to address these causes to ultimately increase employee satisfaction at KNP were proposed and
global, cascading, and performance goals were established to begin closing the performance gap
between the current satisfaction ratings and desired ratings of KNP employees. In order to
monitor the progress and effectiveness of the proposed solutions and implementation plan for the
EVI, a system of evaluation is presented in the Discussion section in the next chapter.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

132
CHAPTER 6
EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to identify causes of and to suggest solutions for improving
low employee satisfaction at KNP using data collected from the NPS EVS, observations from
EVS employee workshops, and personal interviews conducted after the EVS workshops using a
qualitative approach. Specifically, the study examined why employees at KNP exhibit low
employee satisfaction utilizing the conceptual framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
model which considers knowledge/skills, motivation and organizational factors. Empirically
based solutions were offered in the previous chapter to help close the identified gaps in
performance. As a final step in the gap analysis process, Clark and Estes (2008) emphasize the
importance of evaluating the outcomes of those solutions using a well-researched framework.
This chapter presents that evaluation plan and discussion, using Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s
(2006) four levels of evaluation framework to guide KNP in determining whether or not the
suggested solutions are successful in increasing employee satisfaction. Recommendations from
this study for improving employee satisfaction at KNP will be offered to NPS leadership.
The research questions guiding this investigation are:
1. What are the knowledge/skills, motivational, and organizational causes of low
employee satisfaction in KNP that prevent 100% employee satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
This chapter primarily addresses research question three. Without an evaluation
framework that feeds data about ongoing organizational performance back to the EVI groups,
there is a risk that the efforts required by individuals within organizations that conduct gap
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

133
analysis studies to diagnose and solve performance problems may not ultimately close these
gaps.
Recommendations for Evaluation
This section of Chapter 6 will assess the impact of solutions generated in Chapter 5 using
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level evaluation model to evaluate the impact of
proposed solutions to increase employee satisfaction at KNP. Level one is the reactions of the
employees to the initial proposed solutions and asks the question, “Did they like the plan for
solution implementation or find the plan valuable?” Level two deals with learning or
performance and asks the question, “What did they learn or are they performing differently
during the intervention?” The third level consists of transfer or behavior changes and asks the
question “Are they applying what they learned?” Finally, level four assesses the impact of the
intervention and asks, “Is the gap closed and goals attained due to the intervention?” One of the
primary tasks of the cross-park employee satisfaction working group will be to systematically
evaluate the progress of the EVI by making assessments throughout all four levels using written
surveys, observations, and interviews and reporting the results to the Deputy Superintendent.
Level 1: Reactions
This first level evaluates the reactions the employees have after implementation of the
proposed solutions (the intervention) to increase employee satisfaction presented in Chapter 5.
Front-line employees and leaders at the supervisory level will be asked by members of the cross-
park employee satisfaction working group to complete a brief, written survey with questions
regarding the value and anticipated effectiveness of the proposed solutions initially presented by
the Superintendent during the first EVI “all hands” meeting. The survey will attempt to measure
motivation, values, mood, and persistence and will attempt to gauge the level of employee
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

134
satisfaction after the rollout of the EVI plan given by the Superintendent. Questions will ask
“Do you anticipate the EVI will increase your motivation to become more engaged in your daily
work life?” and “Do you feel that your leadership is genuinely dedicated to improving employee
satisfaction through this initiative?” Questions on the survey will measure if the employees are
confident the intervention is a move in the right direction, and if the intervention is a genuine
attempt to improve overall employee satisfaction. The results of the survey will be forwarded to
the cross-park employee satisfaction working group dedicated to improving employee
satisfaction at KNP. Positive feedback from the survey will indicate that the proposed
implementation of the solutions is initially having a positive impact on the employees.
Level 2: Performance
The second level measures the impact of the intervention while the solutions are in the
implementation phase. Level two determines whether or not there is an increase in performance.
Employees at KNP will, through brief surveys, direct observations and personal one-on-one
interviews conducted by the cross-park employee satisfaction working group, be asked if they
recognize an increase in their level of performance since implementation of the interventions
through. Suggested questions may ask “What would you do differently with regard to the
interventions?” and “What do you value most about the interventions?” The survey questions,
observations, and interviews will be designed to assess if tasks are being completed on time, if
communication between employees, supervisors, and leaders is leading to increases in
performance, and if being involved in the decision-making process is commensurate with
increases in job effectiveness. If the solutions offered are being effective, the level two survey
results will indicate that employee performance is improving by observing increased
communication, being able to define the overarching missions and goals of the park, and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

135
employees expressing an overall feeling of fairness which allows them to perform more
effectively. These solutions can be effectively measured by observations and interviews
specifically designed to ask if the employees are noticing an increase in the level of
communication (more informed) at KNP, being able to correctly express missions and goals of
KNP, and if performance appraisals are more accurate than previously observed.
Level 3: Transfer
This level evaluates whether an improvement in employee satisfaction made during the
implementation phase is present once policies and programs have had a chance to become
imbedded within the organization’s culture. Employees will be interviewed on a bi-monthly
basis by members of the cross-park employee satisfaction working group to report what their
level of employee satisfaction is (via questions similar to the EVS survey) in order to form a
baseline measure to determine if their levels of satisfaction are increasing, if they are more
effective at their jobs, if they are operating more efficiently, if they genuinely enjoy coming to
work, if they are being treated fairly, and if they are being recognized or awarded in front of their
peers for exceptional performance. If the solutions offered are being effective, it would be
verified by employees’ comments from individual interviews.
Level 4: Impact
Level four determines whether the organization has made substantial progress towards
their organizational goal of increasing employee satisfaction. This step in the evaluation process
investigates if the solutions offered helped to close the performance gap. While levels one and
two are evaluated when modifications to organizational policies and procedures are made, level
four is only reached if positive results were found in levels two and three. If the solutions offered
were effective, an increase in positive scores on the next EVS scheduled for 2016 would indicate
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

136
an improvement in employee satisfaction. Indicators such as lower rates of absenteeism,
turnover, and grievances would also confirm the effectiveness of the solutions. Additionally, if
levels one through three were successful, gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors would have narrowed.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Methodological strengths of the approach included various forms of triangulation used to
collect data. For example, quantitative data contained in the EVS survey results served as an
excellent foundation to look for specific reactions from the EVS workshops. Building on the
responses from the workshops enabled to craft targeted questions during the individual
interviews to validate or not validate original assumed causes for the low levels of employee
satisfaction at KNP. The qualitative data derived from the workshops and interviews added
depth and clarity to the EVS findings.
The gap analysis model proved to be a valuable tool for diagnosing and providing
recommendations for solving performance problems. Organizing gaps in performance into
knowledge, motivational, and organizational causes was very helpful. This framework takes into
consideration the uniqueness of each organization and the problems that organizations face are
just as unique. By providing clear goals and measurable outcomes, organizations are able to
more effectively quantify gaps in performance. Two drawbacks of the gap analysis process are
that it requires time and commitment. Once gaps are identified, closing those gaps takes time
and effort and results are not immediate. Additionally, Clark and Estes (2008) state that
solutions to close gaps can cause other gaps to occur. The gap analysis process needs to be
repeated until correct solutions close gaps in order to meet organizational goals.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

137
Limitations
Qualitative research methods can explore the reasons for the results obtained through
quantitative studies because they are typically less structured and more focused on obtaining the
depth from the data being collected, and qualitative methods are also more focused on words
(rather than numbers) generated through personal interviewing and observations than
quantitative methods (Levin, 2003). The most thorough research approach, however, ideally
combines both quantitative and qualitative methods. Since the EVS gave the NPS the
quantitative information needed to discover their low employee satisfaction levels, the current
study used a qualitative approach to explore possible causes for low employee satisfaction.
According to Marshall and Rossman (1999), perfectly designed and executed studies
simply do not exist and every research study has limitations. This study on low employee
satisfaction within the NPS has several limitations. Specifically, the small number of
participants who voluntarily agreed to be interviewed limited the scope of data for this project.
Due to time constraints, shift changes, days off, and scheduling issues, a substantial number of
KNP employees were not available or did not volunteer for individual interviews. Also, every
NPS park is unique in terms of geographic location, size, number of employees, and budget.
Individual parks may have different contextual issues unique to that park. Therefore, findings in
one park or region may not be applicable or generalizable in other parks or regions. Finally, the
dependability and credibility of information in this study will be limited to the researcher’s
ability to provide audiences with reliable descriptions of KNP employees’ perceptions of
employee satisfaction.
Another limitation of this case study may be researcher bias. Due to the high regard that
the author has for the NPS and the employees that work in the NPS, (the author also works in a
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

138
non-profit, government organization designed to serve and protect), the author may interpret data
to confirm or refute his own beliefs in the cause of the performance gap. Typically, researchers
can influence data by their own judgments and opinions. It is possible that the author was not
objective and confirmation bias may play a role in the reliability of the results. However,
triangulation of the quantitative and qualitative data helped mitigate the potential for
confirmation bias.
Future Research
The overwhelming majority of empirical studies conducted on employee satisfaction
involve for-profit organizations. Few studies on employee engagement or satisfaction analyze
government organizations. The focus of this case study centered on employee satisfaction within
one of our National Parks, which adds to the body of literature on satisfaction on government
organizations. With the large amount of data on for-profit institutions, future research on
employee satisfaction within government institutions may have merit. The culture, context, and
even mood of government organizations are distinctly different from private companies and
adding this unique perspective of employee satisfaction within government organizations to the
literature may ultimately benefit government workers.
The National Park analyzed in this study suffered from low employee satisfaction and, as
a whole, low employee satisfaction is endemic within the NPS. However, according to the EVS
survey, there were several parks within the NPS that have high employee satisfaction. Future
studies may include analyzing those parks whose employees feel positive about their
organization. Researchers could learn why these parks exhibit high satisfaction and transfer the
results to those parks that may need to improve their levels of satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

139
With respect to the link between leadership and employee satisfaction, a more direct link
between empowerment practices and leadership may have merit for future study in order to
address the needs of managers, supervisors, and organizational leaders. The purpose of this
study was not to indict a particular group, however, the literature on employee satisfaction
clearly focuses on the important role of leadership on influencing empowerment. Empowerment
may prove to be an important form of influence for leaders attempting to induce and manage
organizational change. Conducting a gap analysis on leadership performance and what
knowledge/skills, motivational issues, and organizational barriers exist preventing them from
achieving excellence could be another effective venue for identifying causes of low employee
satisfaction. Field research directed at this aim could potentially contribute to the further
understanding of effective leadership.
Conclusion
The purpose of this case study is to identify causes of, and recommended solutions for,
low employee satisfaction at a particular park, referred to as Kailua National Park (KNP), within
the National Park Service (NPS). Senior leaders at the NPS recognized that low employee
satisfaction within their ranks was degrading the mission of the NPS and had the potential to
seriously undermine the effectiveness of one of America’s most revered organizations. The
methodology used to analyze variables which may contribute to low employee satisfaction was
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, which considers knowledge/skills, motivation and
organizational factors. Data used from the results from the triangulation of federal employee
viewpoint surveys (EVS), observations conducted at facilitator-led EVS workshops at KNP, and
personal interviews with KNP employees conducted after the workshops, revealed validated
leadership, accountability, and communication causes related to knowledge, motivation and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

140
organizational issues for low employee satisfaction at KNP. Empirically-based solutions to
increase low employee satisfaction at KNP included providing more timely and accurate
communication venues, communicating missions and goals, increasing worker empowerment,
involving employees in the decision making process, increasing the perception of awareness,
increasing accountability standards, and establishing robust award and recognition programs. An
implementation and evaluation plan is also included within this study.
This study adds to the body of knowledge on employee satisfaction within government
organizations. Private and government entities may find this study helpful if attempting to
improve employee satisfaction and overall organizational performance. Solutions proposed
within this study may not work for all national parks with low employee satisfaction and
solutions may have to be adjusted to fit the unique needs of a particular park or organization.
Our National Parks and the employees that protect our parks deserve a positive and fulfilling
working environment – it will take vision and hard work to inspire positive change.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

141
REFERENCES
Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Ainspan, N. D., & Dell, D. (2000). Employee communication during mergers (Research report
no. 1270-00-RR). New York, NY: Conference Board.
Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). Why employees speak to coworkers and bosses:
Motives, gender, and organizational satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication,
32(3), 249-265.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. (2001). Confirmation and extension of the sources of feedback
scale in service-based organizations. Journal of Business Communication, 38(2), 206-
226.
Ansson Jr., R. J. (1998). Our national parks — overcrowded, underfunded, and besieged with a
myriad of vexing problems: How can we best fund our imperiled National Park system?
Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law, 14, 1.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703.
Artley, W. (2001). The performance-based management handbook: Establishing accountability
for performance (Vol. 3). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of
analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199-218.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

142
Bakhshi, A., Kumar, K., & Rani, E. (2009). Organizational justice perceptions as predictor of job
satisfaction and organization commitment. International Journal of Business and
Management, 4(9), 145-154.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice
perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 629-643.
Barnard, C. I. (1968). The functions of the executive (13th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bavelas, A., & Barrett, D. (1951). An experimental approach to organizational communication.
Personnel, 27, 366-371.
Bies, J., & Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J.
Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in
organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

143
Biggs, S., & Neame, A. (1996). Negotiating room for maneuver: Reflections concerning NGO
autonomy and accountability within the new policy agenda. In M. Edwards & D. Hulme
(Eds.), Non-governmental organizations — performance and accountability, beyond the
magic bullet (pp. 31-40). London, UK: Earthscan.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1996). Facilitative school leadership and teacher empowerment: Teacher’s
perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 117-145.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Wiley Desktop Editions.
Bolton, M. (2003). Public sector performance measurement: Delivering greater accountability.
Work Study, 52(1), 20-24.
Breaux, D. M., Perrewe, P. L., Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Time to
try a little tenderness? The detrimental effects of accountability when coupled with
abusive supervision. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 111-122.
Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Briggs, H. E., & McBeath, B. (2009). Evidence-based management: Origins, challenges, and
implications for social service administration. Administration in Social Work, 33, 242-
261.
Brown, W. A., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in
employee retention. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(1), 5-18.
Bruins, J., & DeGilder, D. (1999). Power use and credibility as determinants of evaluative and
behavioral perceptions. Journal of Psychology, 29, 84-101.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

144
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1-24).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Campbell, D. J., Campbell, K. M., & Chia, H. B. (1998). Merit pay, performance appraisal, and
individual motivation: An analysis and alternative. Human Resource Management, 37(2),
131-146.
Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self
efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment: Exploring the relationships
between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology
and Education, 27, 115-132.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as
determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study
at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473-490.
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between
communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business Communication,
30(1), 5-28.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta: CEP Press.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

145
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes, 86, 278-321.
Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Walter, F., & Holt, D. T. (2010). Organizational justice and
individuals’ withdrawal: Unlocking the influence of emotional exhaustion. Journal of
Management Studies, 47(3), 367-390.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of
a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
Condrey, S. E. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of human resources management in government. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conley, S. C., & Bacharach, S. B. (1990). From school-site management to participatory school-
site management. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 539-544.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D., & Gilliland, S. (2007). The management of organizational justice.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34-38.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through
the maze. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 317-372). New York, NY: Wiley.
Crossman, S., & Pfeil, M. (2013). Empowering employment for practice nurses. Education for
Primary Care, 24(1), 7-10.
Cummings, H. W., Lewis, M. L., & Long, L. W. (1980). Communication roles as a predictor of
job satisfaction. Paper presented at the Eastern Communication Association Convention,
Ocean City, MD.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

146
Cushman, D. P., & Craig, R. T. (1976). Communication systems: Interpersonal implications. In
G. R. Miller (Ed.), Exploration in interpersonal communication (pp. 37-58). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S., & Upchurch, M. (2008). Partnership, high
performance work systems and quality of working life. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 23(3), 151-166.
Darvish, H., & Rezaei, F. (2011). The impact of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and team
commitment. Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 6, 421-
436.
Davis, S. M., Lawrence, P. R., Kolodny, H., & Beer, M. (1977). Matrix (Vol. 1115). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Department of the Interior. (2008). Learning & Development Report to the National Leadership
Council. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from http://www.nps.gov/training/nrs/academy/
academy_docs/NPS_LDreportLR.pdf
DeSantis, V. S., & Durst, S. L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public- and private-
sector employees. The American Review of Public Administration, 26(3), 327-343.
De Waal, A. A. (2007). The characteristics of a high performance organization. Business
Strategy Series, 8(3), 179-185.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators
Research, 31, 103-157.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three
decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

147
Dipboye, R. L., & de Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance
appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 248-251.
Dixon, R., Ritchie, J., & Siwale, J. (2006). Microfinance: Accountability from the grassroots.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), 405-427.
Downs, C. W. (1977). The relationship between communication and job satisfaction. In R. C.
Huseman, C. M. Logue, & S. L. Freshley (Eds.), Readings in interpersonal and
organizational communication (pp. 363-376). Boston, MA: Holbrook Press.
Downs, C. W., Clampitt, P., & Pfeiffer, A. (1988). Communication and organizational outcomes.
In G. Goldhaber & G. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp.
171-211). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Durst, S. L., & DeSantis, V. S. (1997). The determinants of job satisfaction among federal, state,
and local government employees. State & Local Government Review, 29(1), 7-16.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two
dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(1), 15-26.
Ellickson, M. C. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees.
Public Personnel Mangement, 31(3), 343.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, D.C.:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html
Falkenburg, K., & Schyns, B. (2007). Work satisfaction, organizational commitment and
withdrawal behaviours. Management Research News, 30(10), 708-723.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

148
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout, job
satisfaction, and motivation to quit. Social Psychology Education, 15, 295-320.
Fernandez, S. (2008). Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee perceptions of
performance and job satisfaction. Public Performance & Management Review, 32, 175-
205.
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2011). Empowering public sector employees to improve
performance: Does it work? The American Review of Public Administration, 41(1), 23-
47.
Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee
grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15(1), 43-56.
Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology
in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161-183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reaction
to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Galvan, J. (2009). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral
sciences. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational
context: An empirical examination. Group & Organization Management, 23(1), 48-70.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

149
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Greenberg, J. (2011). Organizational justice: The dynamics of fairness in the workplace. In S.
Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 3,
Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 271-327). Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Greller, M. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1992). Feedback and feedback inconsistency as sources of
strain and self-evaluation. Human Relations, 45, 601-620.
Hall, A. T., Zinko, R., Perryman, A. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Organizational citizenship
behavior and reputation mediators in the relationships between accountability and job
performance and satisfaction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4),
381-392.
Hargie, O., Tourish, D., & Wilson, N. (2002). Communication audits and the effects of increased
information: A follow-up study. Journal of Business Communication, 39(4), 414-436.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-
analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USC Urban Ed.
Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education.
Herzberg, F. I. (1966). Working and the nature of man. New York, NY: Crowell.
Heslin, P. A., & VandeWalle, D. (2008). Managers’ implicit assumptions about personnel.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 219-223.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

150
Higgins, J. (1999). What motivates employees: Workers and supervisors. Business Horizons, 30,
58-65.
Hollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2008). How do I assess if my supervisor
and organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice
perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1099-1116.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business,
3, 81-89.
Humbolt State University Department of Wildlife. (2013). What can I do with a degree in
Wildlife? Retrieved January 14, 2013, from
http://www.humboldt.edu/wildlife/wildcareers.html
Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. (1968). Job satisfaction research: A manageable guide for
practitioners. Personnel Journal, 47(3), 172-177.
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(2),
277-280.
Johlke, M. C., & Duhan, D. F. (2000). Supervisor communication practices and service
employee job outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 154-165.
Judge, T. A. (1993). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job
satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 395-401.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits — self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability — with job satisfaction
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

151
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of
work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395-404.
Jung, C. S. (2013). Organizational goal ambiguity and job satisfaction in the public sector.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1093/jopart/mut020
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964.
Kahai, S., Sosik, J., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style and problem structure on
work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment.
Personnel Psychology, 50, 121-146.
Kamensky, J. (1998a). Federal employees speak out: Summary of employee survey results.
Washington, D.C.: National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Retrieved March
23, 2013, from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/misc/survey.html
Kamensky, J. (1998b). Employee survey results. Washington, D.C.: National Partnership for
Reinventing Government. Retrieved March 23, 2013, from
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/misc/survey-full.html
Kearns, K. P. (1994). The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An
analytical framework. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 185-192.
Keiffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prevention in
Human Services, 3(2-3), 9-36.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

152
Kim, H. (2009). Integrating organizational justice into the relationship management theory.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,
Sheraton New York, New York City, NY. Retrieved from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p13826_index.html
Kim, J. S. (1975). Effect of feedback on performance and job satisfaction in an organizational
setting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231-241.
King, W., Lahiff, J., & Hatfield, J. (1988). A discrepancy theory of the relationship between
communication and job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 5, 36-43.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(1), 36.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction:
Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(3), 741.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction,
and job stress in cross-cultural context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 464-
486.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

153
Klecker, B. M., & Loadman, W. E. (1998). Another look at the dimensionality of the school
participant empowerment scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 944-
954.
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating
interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-93.
Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative management. In P. J. D. Drenth, H.
Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Personnel psychology. Handbook of work and
organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 297-324). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Kornhauser, A. W., & Sharp, A. A. (1932). Employee attitudes. Personnel Journal, 10, 393-404.
Kosfeld, M., & Neckermann, S. (2010, June). Getting more work for nothing? Symbolic awards
and worker performance (Discussion Paper No. 5040). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the
Study of Labor.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kranz, G. (2012). A broken engagement? Workforce Management, 91(9), 1-10.
Krause, D. E., Gebert, D., & Kearney, E. (2007). Implementing process innovations: The
benefits of combining delegative-participative with consultative-advisory leadership.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 16-25.
Kube, S., Maréchal, M. A., & Puppe, C. (2012). The currency of reciprocity: gift-exchange in the
workplace. American Economic Review, 102(4), 1644-1662.
Lam, C. S., & O’Higgins, E. R. (2012). Enhancing employee outcomes: The interrelated
influences of managers’ emotional intelligence and leadership style. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 149-174.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

154
Larson, J. R., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). Discussion of shared and unshared
information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67(3), 446-461.
Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of
participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 49-63.
Lawler, E. E., Benson, G. S., & McDermott, M. (2012). What makes performance appraisals
effective? Compensation & Benefits Review, 44(4), 191-200.
Lee, G., & Jimenez, B. S. (2012). Does performance management affect job turnover intention in
the federal government? The American Review of Public Administration, 42(2), 168-184.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Leventhal, G. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenburg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.),
Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum.
Levin, H. M. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not, and how to tell the
difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY:
Plenum.
Lindell, M., & Rosenqvist, G. (1992). Is there a third management style? Finnish Journal of
Business Economics, 3, 171-198.
Linn, R. L. (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles, CA: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

155
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1319-1328).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, P. G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
London, M., Mone, E. M., & Scott, J. C. (2004). Performance management and assessment:
Methods for improved rater accuracy and employee goal setting. Human Resource
Management, 43(4), 319-336.
Lord, J., & Hutchison, P. (1993). The process of empowerment: Implications for theory and
practice. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health (Revue canadienne de santé
mentale communautaire), 12(1), 5-22.
Luthans, F., Zhu, W., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). The impact of efficacy on work attitudes across
cultures. Journal of World Business, 41, 121-132.
Luthans, K. (2000). Recognition: A powerful, but often overlooked, leadership tool to improve
employee performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 7(1), 31-39.
Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and
employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61-78.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community
settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology,
23(5), 631-656.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

156
Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.),
Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 69-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Davis, L. M. (1982). Individual differences among
employees, management, communication style, and employee satisfaction: Replication
and extension. Human Communication Research, 8, 170-188.
McKnight, D. H., Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2001). When do feedback, incentive control,
and autonomy improve morale? The importance of employee-management relationship
closeness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(4), 466-482.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (2011). Job level as a systemic variable in predicting
the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(3), 277-292.
Montana, P. J., & Charnov, B. H. (1993). Management. Hauppauge, NY: Barrons Business
Review Series.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1987). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and
organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
Myers, D. G. (1992). The pursuit of happiness. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Nadler, D., Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1979). Managing organizational behavior. New
York, NY: Little, Brown.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

157
National Park Service. (2012). NPS Stats Report Viewer. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%
20Visitation%20(All%20Years)?Park=NR
National Park Service Office of Learning and Development. (2012a). Understanding the EVS.
Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.
National Park Service Office of Learning and Development. (2012b). EVS users guide for NPS.
Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.
National Park Service Office of Learning and Development. (2012c). Lead the way memo.
Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.
National Park Service Office of Learning and Development. (2012d). Lead the way mission
statement. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.
National Park Service Office of Learning and Development. (2012e). A call to action: Preparing
for a second century of stewardship and engagement. Washington, D.C.: National Park
Service.
Nelson, B. (1995). Motivating employees with informal awards. Management Accounting, 77(5),
30-35.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-
efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and
psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire
survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1236-1244.
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational
Review, 72, 293-329.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

158
Organ, W. D., Podsakoff, M. P., & MacKenzie, B. S. (2006). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oshagbemi, T. (2003). Personal correlates of job satisfaction: Empirical evidence from UK
universities. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(12), 1210-1232.
Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: The contextual theory and its
applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 569-579.
Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue
and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 1107-1121.
Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R., & Vaught, B. C. (1997). An examination of organizational
communication as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job
satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 81-98.
Pincus, J. D. (2006). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 12(3), 395-419.
Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Relationships
between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions,
and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 113-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader
behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

159
commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management,
22(2), 259-298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 259-298.
Porter, H., Wrench, J. S., & Hoskinson, C. (2007). The influence of supervisor temperament on
subordinate job satisfaction and perceptions of supervisor sociocommunicative
orientation and approachability. Communication Quarterly, 55(1), 129-153.
doi:10.1080/01463370600998517.
Priya, S. (2011). A factor analysis of performance management system in a public sector
organization and its impact on job satisfaction among employees. Abhigyan, 29(3), 22-
31.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-24.
Rappaport, J. (1984). Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issue. Prevention in Human
Services, 3(2-3), 1-7.
Rein, L. (2012, December 12). Best and worst places to work in federal government. The
Washington Post. Retrieved February 14, 2013, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/best-and-worst-places-to-work-in-federal-
government/2012/12/12/3cacb7d8-4472-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html
Reitzug, U. C. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American Educational
Research Journal, 31, 283-307.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

160
Repanshek, K. (2012, December 13). National Park Service still lags in “best places to work”
survey of federal agencies. National Parks Traveller. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/12/national-park-service-still-lags-best-
places-work-survey-federal-agencies22574
Rogers, E. M., & Agarwala-Rogers, R. (1976). Communication in organizations. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Russell, B. (1930). The conquest of happiness. New York, NY: Liveright.
Salacuse, J. W. (2007). Real leaders negotiate. University Business, 10, 2-3.
Salkind, N. J. (2011). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Excel 2010 edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schay, B. W., & Fisher, S. F. (2013). The challenge of making performance-based pay systems
work in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 42(3), 359-384.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1992). Personnel/human resources management in the service
sector. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 1-30.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2),
113-125.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2009). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Scully, J. A., Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1995). Locus of knowledge as a determinant of
the effect of participation on performance, affect, and perceptions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 276-288.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

161
Shaw, K. (2005). Getting leaders involved in communication strategy: Breaking down the
barriers to effective leadership communication. Strategic Communication Management,
9, 14-17
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and
vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement
refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240-275.
Smith, M. A., & McCanger, J. S. (2004). Effects of supervisor “Big Five” personality on
subordinate attitude. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 17-34.
Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instrumental outcomes of school-
based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18,
181-191.
Somech, A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participative management: An investigation of
multiple dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 341-371.
Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to
managing school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 777-800.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol.
3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression.
Communication Education, 32, 323-329.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1981). Self-monitoring and relational competence. Paper
presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Anaheim, CA.
Spitzer, D. (1995). SuperMotivation. New York, NY: Amacom.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

162
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared
information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 81-93.
Stecher, B. (2010). Performance assessment in an era of standards-based educational
accountability. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Retrieved from https://scale.stanford.edu/system/files/performance-assessment-era-
standards-based-educational-accountability.pdf
Stecher, B. M., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons
for education from other sectors (Vol. 136). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
Stohl, C. (1984, May). Quality circles and the quality of communication. Paper presented at the
Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
Swift, C., & Levin, G. (1987). Empowerment: An emerging mental health technology. Journal of
Primary Prevention, 8(1-2), 71-94.
Swiss, J. E. (2005). A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management. Public
Administration Review, 65(5), 592-602.
Sy, T. (2005). Challenges and strategies of matrix organizations. Human Resource Planning,
28(1), 39-48.
Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). Contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the
mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 295-305.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

163
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227-236.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in
developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. Journal of Business
Communication, 46(3), 287-310.
Thompson, F. W. (2008). Looking ahead — a human resource strategy. Public Manager, 36(4),
14-17.
Thoms, P., Dose, J. J., & Scott, K. S. (2002). Relationships between accountability, job
satisfaction, and trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(3), 307-323.
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.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2012). Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2013). Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
Veenhoven, R. (1988). The utility of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 20, 333-354.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

164
Wall, R., & Rinehart, J. S. (1998). School-based decision making and the empowerment of
secondary school teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 49-64.
Wallerstein, N. (1992). Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: Implications for health
promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6(3), 197-205.
Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational
leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134-1144.
Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, H. M., Cropanzano, R., Staw, B. M., & Cummings, L. L. (1996). Research in
organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity
and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, An International
Review, 51, 355-424.
Westover, J. H., & Taylor, J. (2010). International differences in job satisfaction: The effects of
public service motivation, rewards and work relations. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 59(8), 811-828.
Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., & Howard, R. D. (1984). The relationships of communication
with supervisor and decision participation to employee job satisfaction. Communication
Quarterly, 32(3), 222-232.
Whetton, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1991). Developing management skills. New York, NY:
Harper-Collins.
Whitmore, E. (1988). Empowerment and the process of inquiry. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, Windsor, Ontario.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

165
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy value theory of motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Wood Jr., J. A., & Winston, B. E. (2005). Toward a new understanding of leader accountability:
Defining a critical construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(3), 84-
94.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as
predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84-94
Wright, T. A., & Doherty, E. M. (1998). Organizational behavior “rediscovers” the role of
emotional well being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 481-489.
Yang, K., & Kessekert, A. (2009). Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction:
Evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
20(2), 413-436.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zeglinski, W. (2011). Positive accountability. Leadership Excellence, 28(9), 3.
Zellars, K. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Miles, A. K., & Kiewitz, C. (2001). Beyond
self-efficacy: Interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 13(4), 483-499.
Zeller, S. (2004, February). The state of the Civil Service [Electronic version]. Government
Executive, 36(3), 25-32.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

166
Zimmerman, M. A., Israel, B. A., Schulz, A., & Checkoway, B. (1992). Further explorations in
empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological empowerment. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 20(6), 707-727.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

167
APPENDIX A
2012 KNP EVS RESULTS

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

168

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

169

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

170

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

171

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

172
APPENDIX B
BEHAVIORS ALIGNED TO STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK
Table 12
Communication Behaviors Aligned To Structural Framework
Author Knowledge/Skills Motivation Organization
Andrews and Kacmar
(2001)
Performance feedback
from supervisors/ leaders
is critical.
Clampitt and Downs
(1993)
Performance feedback
from supervisors/ leaders
is critical.
Hargie, Tourish, and
Wilson (2002)
Face-to-face
communication.
Increased information
flow.
Building trust.

Jo and Shim (2005) Trust built by positive
interpersonal
communication: useful
instruction, helpful
advice.

Johlke and Duhan (2000) Greater amounts of
communication.
Taking suggestions from
employees.
Feedback.
Kim (2002) Participative
management: allowing all
employees in information-
processing, decision-
making and problem-
solving.
Madlock (2008) Communicator
competence: listen,
negotiate, and
communicate vision.

Pettit, Goris, and Vaught
(1997)
Supervisors need to
provide their employees
with appropriate and
accurate info.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

173
Table 12, continued
Author Knowledge/Skills Motivation Organization
Porter, Wrench, and
Hoskinson (2007)
Supervisors that are
introverted and highly
neurotic may need
training to improve
interpersonal
communication skills.
Supervisors that are
introverted and highly
neurotic dissuade
employees to approach
them and ask for feedback
and guidance when
necessary.
Potential supervisors with
approachable and
extraverted temperaments
should be promoted to
positions of leadership.
Shaw (2005) Communicator
competence: share and
respond to information in
a timely manner, actively
listen to all points of
view, communicate
clearly and concisely
across the organization
and utilize various
communication channels.

Miles, Patrick, and King
(2011)
Positive relationship
communication:
supervisors seek
suggestions from
employees with important
decisions, supervisors
show interest in and
casually relating to
employees.
Job-relevant
communication on
feedback, rules, policies,
job instructions,
assignments, schedules
and goals.
Upward Openness:
Allowing employees to
question and disagree
with a supervisor.
Pettit, Goris, and Vaught
(1997)
Supervisors need to
provide their employees
with appropriate and
accurate info.
Porter, Wrench, and
Hoskinson (2007)
Supervisors that are
introverted and highly
neurotic may need
training to improve
interpersonal
communication skills.
Supervisors that are
introverted and highly
neurotic dissuade
employees to approach
them and ask for feedback
and guidance when
necessary.
Potential supervisors with
approachable and
extraverted temperaments
should be promoted to
positions of leadership.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

174
Table 12, continued
Author Knowledge/Skills Motivation Organization
Shaw (2005) Communicator
competence: share and
respond to information in a
timely manner, actively
listen to all points of view,
communicate clearly and
concisely across the
organization and utilize
various communication
channels.

Miles, Patrick, and King
(2011)
Positive relationship
communication:
supervisors seek
suggestions from
employees with important
decisions, supervisors
show interest in and
casually relating to
employees.
Job-relevant
communication on
feedback, rules, policies,
job instructions,
assignments, schedules and
goals.
Upward Openness:
Allowing employees to
question and disagree
with a supervisor.
Pincus (2006) Supervisor
communication
(supervisor openness to
listen to employee
problems),
communication climate
(response to
communication
environment), and
personal feedback (how
performance is judged).
Thomas, Zolin, and
Hartman (2009)
Quality of information
from supervisors: timely,
accurate and relevant
information increases trust.

Wheeless, Wheeless, and
Howard (1984)
Supervisors need training
to be receptive to new
ideas and info from
employees.
Increased employee
participation in decision-
making leads to increased
job satisfaction.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

175
Table 13
Efficacy Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework
Author
Knowledge/
Skills Motivation Organization
Buckingham and
Coffman (1999)
Measures the strength of workplace. Attract, focus, & keep
most talented employees.

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

Canrinus, Helms-
Lorenz, Beijaard,
Buitink, and
Hofman (2012)
Feelings toward colleagues, perceived support from
colleagues and leadership, and perceived competency in
dealing with workplace demands affects job satisfaction.

Caprara,
Barbaranelli,
Borgogni, and
Steca (2003)
Teachers’ beliefs about their own ability to perform their
jobs, as well as teachers’ perceptions of colleagues’ and
other school employees’ ability to accomplish school
obligations, are the main determinants of teachers’ job
satisfaction.

Caprara,
Barbaranelli, Steca,
and Malone (2006)
Teachers who believe they have the capability to effectively
teach, handle discipline problems, earn the trust of their
colleagues, and be innovative create conditions in the
workplace that promote work satisfaction.

Federici and
Skaalvik (2012)
Principals’ beliefs about what they are capable of achieving
in a given context positively affect job satisfaction and
negatively affect employee burnout and motivation to quit.

Gardner and Pierce
(1998)
Organizational-based self-esteem (OSE) (Beliefs that
employees form about themselves based on their roles
within the organization) positively affects employee job
attitudes, behaviors, and motivation.
An employee’s generalized self-efficacy (belief that they
have the capability to successfully achieve a future task or
result in any situation) positively influences their attitudes
and behavior about their workplace, which ultimately
improves job performance and satisfaction.
Employees who demonstrate good performance and positive
beliefs regarding their capabilities to perform their job are
more satisfied employees.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

176
Table 13, continued
Author
Knowledge/
Skills Motivation Organization
Judge and Bono
(2001)
An employee’s generalized self-efficacy (belief in their ability
to perform and be successful), self-esteem (value they place
on themselves as a person), internal locus of control (their
belief that they can control a variety of factors in their lives),
and emotional stability (confidence and security) significantly
predict job performance and satisfaction.

Klassen and Chiu
(2010)
An employee’s belief about their capability to complete tasks
at work positively influences job satisfaction.
Teachers who experience high job stress from poor working
conditions; inadequate preparation time; heavy workloads;
and overly demanding parents, students, and colleagues) have
lower job satisfaction.
Experience and job-related stress affect self-efficacy, which,
in turn, affects job satisfaction.

Klassen, Usher,
and Bong (2010)
A group’s shared belief that it is capable of accomplishing a
task (collective efficacy) is positively related to job
satisfaction.
Job stress (excessive demands from management and
colleagues, work overload, changing policies, and lack of
recognition) is negatively related to job satisfaction.

Luthans, Zhu, and
Avolio (2005)
General self-efficacy (an employee’s estimate of their ability
to successfully perform in various situations) is significantly
and positively related to job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, but negatively related to turnover.

Nielsen, Yarker,
Randall, and
Munir (2009)
High team efficacy (individual’s perception of the group’s
collective ability to accomplish a task) minimizes effects of
individual team members with low self-efficacy (an
employee’s belief about their ability to accomplish a task on
their own).
Even individual team members with low self-efficacy can
experience high job satisfaction and assurance when they
perceive their colleagues to be competent.

Zellars,
Hochwarter,
Perrewe, Miles,
and Kiewitz
(2001)
Self-efficacy (an individual’s belief that they are capable of
successfully accomplishing a task) positively predicts job
satisfaction and negatively predicts exhaustion.
Perceived collective efficacy (an individual member’s belief
in their group’s ability to successfully accomplish a task)
directly and positively predicts job satisfaction and negatively
predicts intent to turnover.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

177
Table 14
Accountability Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge/ Skills Motivation Organization
Breaux, Perrewe, Hall,
Frink, and Hochwarter
(2008); Ellickson (2002);
Kim (2002); McKnight,
Ahmad, and Schroeder
(2001)
Accountability coupled
with abusive leadership
behavior (verbal and non-
verbal hostility towards
employees by a direct
supervisor) is negatively
associated with employee
satisfaction, whereas
when coupled with a
close, participative
relationship between
supervisor and employee
leads to higher employee
satisfaction.
DeSantis and Durst
(1996)
The degree to which
employee talents are
utilized impacts employee
satisfaction.

DeSantis and Durst
(1996)
Social relationship with
coworkers impacts
employee satisfaction and
performance.

Durst and DeSantis
(1997); Ellickson (2002)
Employee perception of
adequate pay impacts
employee satisfaction.
Durst and DeSantis
(1997); Ellickson (2002)
Employee perception of
low pay impacts low
employee satisfaction.

Ellickson (2002);
Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (2011)
Access to job-related
knowledge and skills are
associated with employee
satisfaction and
performance.

Ellickson (2002); Swiss
(2005); Yang and
Kessekert (2009)
Degree to which
promotions and rewards
are merit-based, rather
than favoritism or politics
impacts employee
satisfaction and
performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

178
Table 14, continued
Author Knowledge/ Skills Motivation Organization
Elmore (2002) Leaders who do not
establish a culture of
reciprocal accountability
(e.g. leader does not hold
oneself accountable for
providing employees with
adequate training and
resources to perform
successfully) have
employees with less job
satisfaction.
Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (2011)
Clarity of goals and
expectations impact both
employee satisfaction and
performance.
Fernandez and
Moldagaziev (2011)
Attending to recognizing
employee performance
levels and achievements
contributes to employee
satisfaction and
performance.
Fernandez and
Moldagaziev (2011);
McKnight, Ahmad, and
Schroeder (2001)
The degree of timely and
accurate feedback about
performance impacts
employee satisfaction and
performance.

Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (2011)
Degree of flexibility in
granting employees
discretion to change work
processes impacts
employee satisfaction and
performance.
Harrison, Newman, and
Roth (2006); Westover
and Taylor (2010)
Employees who do not
identify with the mission
of the organization or do
not feel their work is
important or valued (also
known as organizational
commitment,
organizational citizenship
behavior, and public
service motivation) have
less job satisfaction.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

179
Table 14, continued
Author Knowledge/ Skills Motivation Organization
Thoms, Dose, and Scott
(2002)
Lack of trust when
combined with
accountability measures
results in lower employee
satisfaction, whereas trust
in one’s supervisor and
perceived supervisor
awareness and
accountability resulted in
higher employee
satisfaction.

Yang and Kessekert
(2009)
Leaders’ and Supervisor’
example impact employee
satisfaction and
performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

180
Table 15
Leadership Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework
Author
Knowledge/
Skills Motivation Organization
Bolman and Deal (2008,
p. 137)
Leaders who utilize a ‘human resource (HR)’
management approach maximize both human
capital and organizational productivity. HR leaders
show interest & compassion in their employees’
well being.

Darvish and Rezaei
(2011)
The more self-aware, unbiased, confident, hopeful,
optimistic, and forward-thinking a leader appears
to be, the more satisfied and committed the
employees/teams are.

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

Jung and Avolio (2000) Leaders who can clearly communicate a vision and
develop it into a shared vision through aligning
employees’ personal values and interests with the
groups’ interests can serve as a good role model
through perseverance and sacrifice. These
leadership behaviors motivate employees to
accomplish the vision positively and affect
employee trust and value congruence which
directly affects employee quality and satisfaction

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

Madlock (2008) A supervisor with good communication skills
(motivating, active listening, sharing/ responding to
information in a timely manner, and
communicating clearly at all organizational levels)
positively affects employees’ feelings toward their
jobs and satisfaction with the perceived quality of
communication.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

181
Table 15, continued
Author
Knowledge/
Skills Motivation Organization
Northouse (2010, p. 200) Leaders who are good role models facilitate
positive change, create and articulate a clear vision,
empower others to meet high standards, inspire
trust, and give meaning to organizational life.

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

Wang and Howell (2010) Leaders who empower followers to develop their
full potential and improve their skills, abilities,
self-efficacy, and self-esteem positively affect
employee performance and initiative.
Leaders who stress the importance of group goals,
develop shared beliefs and values, and lead to
achieve overall goals positively affects team
performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

182
APPENDIX C
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Kailuana National Park EVS Employee Workshop—Employee Satisfaction
Date:__________________
Location:______________________________
Time start: _____________
Time end:______________
Researcher:_____________

General Information
Number of total participants:______________
Number invited:________________________
Number of no-shows:____________________
Number of non CLNP:___________________
Number of senior leaders:_________________
Number of supervisors/ middle managers:____
Number of direct managers:_______________
Number of journeymen (G/S11):___________
Number of entry level:___________________
Number of law enforcement: _____________
Number of non-law enforcement:__________
Number of seasonals:___________________

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

183
Diagram of room:

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

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

184

Time:
Speaker:
Title:
Group:
Cause:

Why:

Knowledge/ Skills:
Motivational:
Organizational:
Other:
Communication:
Efficacy:
Accountability:
Leadership:
Other:
Alignment with EVS:
Missing/ avoiding/ ignoring?:
Time:
Speaker:
Title:
Group:
Solution (Action plan):

Why:

Knowledge/ Skills:
Motivational:
Organizational:
Other:
Communication:
Efficacy:
Accountability:
Leadership:
Other:
Alignment with EVS:
Missing/ avoiding/ ignoring?:
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

185
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Kailuana National Park EVS Employee Workshop—Employee Satisfaction
Potential Interview Questions

Process re: Employee Satisfaction

Introduction: “Thank you for meeting with me. I’m a doctoral student at USC and I’m here to
help the park understand more about its EVS findings. It appears that the NPS as a whole
continues to score in the bottom quarter of approximately 250 federal organizations. I’m
interested from your experience in this park, why you think that might be. I hope to be able to
use what I learn from today in helping the park refine its action plan. Anything you tell me will
remain anonymous. I will not attribute anything you say to you either by name or job category.
You may chose to skip any question and you may end this interview at any time. The total time
should take no longer than 30 minutes. What questions do you have for me before we begin?”

Do you mind if I record our interview? I will destroy the recording once I’ve finished my report.

#1 It looks like the group from today came up with these factors as possible causes for the
low satisfaction (LIST THEM). How confident are you that the group has surfaced all
the right causes? Anything you would add or take off?
#2 IF NOT ALL THE RESEARCH-BASED CAUSES HAVE SURFACED, ASK THIS:
Some research suggests that an additional reason for low satisfaction could be (INSERT
HERE). How does that apply if at all to your experience here?
#3 Your group also came up with some action items in response to the scores. How
confident are you that if you completed these plans, employee satisfaction would
improve? How confident are you that the group will successfully complete the plans?
#4 Thinking about these action plans, some common reasons why groups donʻt follow
through are related to motivation – meaning they donʻt think itʻs important. To what
extent is this a concern, in your opinion
#5 Sometimes groups don’t follow through because of skill – they donʻt know what to do.
To what extent is this a concern, in your opinion?
#6 Sometimes groups don’t follow through because organizational barriers get in the way –
red tape. To what extent is this a concern, in your opinion?
#7 Generally, what would you say are factors preventing your team from reaching 100%
employee satisfaction in this park?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This case study uses Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model to examine knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers which may be contributing to gaps in employee performance. Low employee satisfaction ratings were identified after analyzing the results of the 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS). The purpose of this case study is to identify and validate causes of and recommend solutions for low employee satisfaction at Kailuana National Park (KNP), a pseudonym for an actual park in the US National Park Service (NPS). Using the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008), root causes of employee performance gaps were identified and validated by triangulating quantitative data collected via observations, document analysis, and interviews during a site visit to KNP. Validated findings indicated that employees need: (a) timely and accurate communication venues, (b) communication of missions and goals, (c) more empowerment, and, (d) more involvement in the decision making process. This case study recommends empirically‐based solutions to assist the NPS increase KNP employee satisfaction at KNP. An implementation and evaluation plan is also included within this study. This study adds to the body of knowledge on employee satisfaction within government organizations. Private and government entities may find this study helpful if attempting to improve employee satisfaction and overall organizational performance. Our National Parks and the employees that protect our parks deserve a positive and fulfilling working environment—it will take vision and hard work to inspire positive change.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Evaluating collective impact in a local government: A gap analysis

PDF

Case study in improving staff engagement and job satisfaction in a school of business

PDF

Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Koltermann, David (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/03/2014

Defense Date 03/01/2014

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

Tag employee satisfaction,gap analysis,National Park Service,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email davekoltermann@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-430843

Unique identifier UC11287101

Identifier etd-Koltermann-2615.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-430843 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Koltermann-2615.pdf

Dmrecord 430843

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Koltermann, David

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